CalvinStrider In reply to worldruler086 [2012-08-10 01:43:12 +0000 UTC]

Glad to lend a hand.
And yep, all he cares about is public appearance, he doesn't give a shoot for integrity of character so long as he looks good to 13-year-olds.
He actually told me when I called him out on his hypocrisy that other people were doing the same thing to him, so it was okay for him to do this as well.
what the heck is this what you call morality preston?
screw you.
Anything that concerns himself is a good decision to him, you can see that from "Internet Prefaces."

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Ragnaul In reply to CalvinStrider [2012-08-10 05:02:46 +0000 UTC]

What annoys me most about Preston is that he can't accept criticism.

How can he post strong satirical political opinions and not expect people to object or question? He acts surprised at all the hate he's getting, and thinks he can fix it by catering to his fans with happy, cartoony fanart that's clearly pandering.

But what's worst is that he claims he'll change, he claims he'll stop being offended, and yet he still snaps back at the slightest suggestion or criticism. His replies are harsh and yet he still acts offended, as if he's the victim. He says he'll change, but he's only getting worse. If he really won't let himself be bothered by people, why does he still write heated responses to everyone and block all his critics?

I've just learned of this hypocrisy and am waiting to say my two cents to him. I even watched him just so I would be informed enough to have my say.

I'm glad you're active on it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

worldruler086 In reply to Ragnaul [2012-08-12 23:57:19 +0000 UTC]

Ah, you may not know what we're speaking of. About 3 days ago, I was linked to someone's post on Preston's profile. It seemed basic enough, someone made a long diatribe of emotional distress and telling Preston to get off his ass and improve. Dobson ignored it, going straight to picking and choosing portions and tearing it apart. I saw one segment of his post and decided to talk. Here's the posts in question: [link]

I wanted to talk about the idea of what an artist is, and what an artist should know. Long story short, Dobson disagreed, and said he was done with my post. This was a lie of course. The following day, I was linked to his tumblr page. When reading the print he was attacking, I realized he was responding to what I wrote. The post was very small compared to what I actually wrote, and he left my name out of it. Everyone hated the post, and were calling for my head. This is one of the tumblr post: [link]

When I found this out, I posted on his profile demanding to know why he had the tenacity to not only take what I said out of context, but lie when he said he was done with my post. He ignored my plight, focusing more on my argument, and how I apparently offended him for giving him a definition of artists that most professionals use. While writing a long post to defend my argument, Calvin here happened upon the post, and was disgusted at what he found. For someone who is a stranger, it was nice to have someone be on my side and not be associated with me. This is the post on his profile, with replies: [link]
I highly disagree with his definition of art, and I find it to be more harmful to have the definition of art being too broad, rather than too narrow.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Ragnaul In reply to worldruler086 [2012-08-14 06:22:49 +0000 UTC]

No, I saw your argument over what an artist is. It was very well thought-out. And yeah, Preston is an ass. Not that his opinions are not necessarily thoughtful and correct, but how he chooses to attack and tear apart his critics is unacceptable in an artist.

But as for art, I must say I agree with Preston a bit more. Art is essentially expression of one's self; deviation from day-to-day activity and life instincts in order to spill your thoughts. Art is a deliberate attempt to spill your thoughts. While this isn't as broad as Preston's definition, it can expand to many aspects of life.

Just my thoughts. I don't plan on getting into a long, heated discussion on what art is, but if you wish to, it would be fine by me. :-P

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

worldruler086 In reply to Ragnaul [2012-08-14 13:38:05 +0000 UTC]

I don't plan on getting in an argument, but I respectively disagree. The thing about art is it has many different definitions based on schools of thought. I would define your definition more as being creative and imaginative. Art, to me, is something more for others than the artist. The artist makes the work, while those who read it interpret it. There is another term for this, known as "high art", and this is what tends to be put into museums. Although your definition is certainly on the right track, I wouldn't consider it on the same level as high art. That's not to say someone who spills their thoughts onto a canvas isn't an artist, but art isn't really about the creator, in the sense we shouldn't care who painted/drew/wrote it. Art should speak for itself, not the artist.

Another issue, one that is more applicable to Preston's definition rather than your's, is that if art is defined too broadly, the very definition of art is meaningless. If art is merely emotions on a page/canvas, than which is more "art", a 6-year-old's drawing of his parents, or one of Picasso's works? A teenager's lovenote, or Hamlet? I don't want to start a long heated argument, but if I had to say anything about your specific definition, I'd say you're half right. Art IS emotion on a page. But that's the first half. The second half is one with technical skill, learning how to fool the mind of the observer into thinking that they are seeing something that isn't merely paint on a canvas. Learning about perspective and anatomy, color theory and placement theory, and several other things will make people focus more on the art's message. If I had to give a definition of art, your definition would suffice, but I would have to add a footnote. You need enough technical skill to fool the observer.

You know how you have stories you really like? and when something happens to a character in that story, you feel like it happened to a close friend? Well, this author fooled you into thinking mere words on a page and concepts in the mind were an actual person. This is mainly how the human mind works. We care more about people when we have personal relations to them, such as knowing their habits/personality. As for drawing, we care more about people when we see the emotion in their face, showing that they are also human. IF there are no people in the drawing, than showing a landscape will only look adequate if it looks natural. Everything in drawing/painting must look natural (assuming this is a drawing of real-life, otherwise it's surrealism or something else) because the observer knows how lighting and physics works. When we see something that doesn't apply in a drawing, it pulls us "out of the world" that art creates for us. When we leave this realm, art is merely paint on a canvas. The trick is how to trick even the most wary of people into this realm. Only a master artist can do such.

Feel free to refute, but I don't plan on going in a long diatribe. Any questions, feel free to ask.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

worldruler086 In reply to CalvinStrider [2012-08-10 01:48:45 +0000 UTC]

Saw that. Actually posted on his post where he asked where I was. I was writing my rebuttal. I have a feeling it will be wasted. Either way, people will know about this. He will not get away with quote mining me.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Miragician In reply to CalvinStrider [2012-01-05 05:26:28 +0000 UTC]

Hidden by Owner

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Ragnaul In reply to Miragician [2012-01-05 06:37:41 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

CalvinStrider In reply to Miragician [2012-01-05 05:26:59 +0000 UTC]

fsssssssck you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0