>>2655335Oh, so you are aware of what isi was referring to in that sentence? Because in either context; it doesn't work.
>you don't critique a work by calling it "boring."Why not? Why can art not be described as boring? Art can be exciting, can it not? surely it follows it can be the opposite of exciting. What you are doing here is denial, denial of criticism using fabricated reasons. If that's how you want to continue evaluating your work, carry on.
And following on from that, why would you imply that negative comments surrounding the aesthetic of a photo couldn't be construed as critique? I would love to see how you came to that conclusion.
>any artist would snap at youWhy is it only Isi's threads consistently turn to shit? There's heaps of negative comments on the rest of the board and no-one else kicks up such a fuss. Isi is isolated in her reactions, the fact she's using a white knight to explain herself is just indicative of how much she doesn't believe the shit she types and knows full well if it came straight from her, she would be mocked directly. Congratulations on taking the brunt young man, in future, just get a real girlfriend.
> critique needs to be challenged to seperate what information is valuable from what is not.I wholeheartedly agree with you, if someone said "I don't like x photo because I don't like what the girl is wearing", it's not actually pertinent to the photo. If they say "I don't like x photo because it's flat/oversaturated/crushed/blown/unbalanced/unappealing colour palette/etc it is valuable, as it's pertinent to how the photograph was taken and processed.
Unlike Isi's interpretation, which is "negative feedback is wrong, because I'm right".
>She seems to be incredibly bright.That would imply she had life skills, and she doesn't, she's a neet dropout, still living with her parents at 25. Does that sound "incredibly bright" to anyone?
