>>12218115In fact, discussing about tastes just starts flamewars, argues, dramas and other shit.
'Good' points of discussions could be problem solutions, entertainment, teachings. Aesthetic is something personal, like nature. Everyone have their own and you can't do anything about it, nor it is anything bad. Telling someone that their taste is worse isn't true (because there're no good and bad tastes), hurt their feelings andstarts argument. Just telling that you like something without comparing it is meaningless. It doesn't help, doesn't fuck up people. It's just plain statement that has no effect. It doesn't solve anything, doesn't entertain anyone (maybe just gives speaker a little ego, because he has delusion that someone gives a fuck), doesn't teach anything useful.
That's the reason why most of 'art science' is bullshit. There's no such thing like better or worse art. The only 'art teachings' that have any sense is art history and when you use art as a tool for, for example, propaganda, but then you cannot call it art for just art.
I've noticed that one common thing is that people tend to like more realistic/more accurate drawings. By accurate I mean drawings that better represent what they are meant to represent. For example hilarious, but unrealistic faces known as face humor. Pretty new, yet very entertaining thing.
