This is a nice quote..

"People who pride themselves on their "complexity" and deride others for being "simplistic" should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth."

The only issue I have with that..is it gives you the impression simplicity equals plainness...what simplicity actually does is allow things to be complex...but also continue to maintain..the complex something comes though...the more difficult it becomes to manage

Last edited by Bop (2015-10-19 02:59:27)

Well even Lao-Tzu had to write a book on his philosophy which is deemed to be the most simple and direct of all schools of thought..so I dont think that takes anything away from what I wrote..

In fact what I wrote was a journey towards a simple premise..

' yes or no?'

There is no theory further than that because options and variations are limitless...how can you contain that in a theory?

What is more simple than that? If you dont explain the journey towards it you might not appricate the weight of the question..

I can't argue with what you like Formby..my opinion however is that you have poor taste..does that matter to you, probably not. We differ in taste.

Im not saying im an all knowing arbiter of taste, Injust think that there is a sensitivity to things which can be improved by honesty and worsened by intellectual delusion.

I think the biggest infliction you and others on here suffer is the determination in not being wrong..even if you are..which leads to nonsense..however art appears to be subjective and taste driven..and I can't no matter how much Id like to deny you that

Last edited by Bop (2015-10-19 05:36:06)

/\ that's crazy, Doggy!  I know you're making sure the tusks aren't too sharp and pointy so that they don't gouge and snag and make runs in your clothing .....

I dont know why you are referencing back to something that I now say isnt the case Formby..in fact its actually an example that bolsters what Im.saying now? I've explained what my final outcome was of all that study, and that is there are no rules other than an invidual's ability to judge, when you use theory you are no longer seeing what is actually there. The quality of judgement is dependent on sensitivity of the invidual, as to whether that is soley subjective or contains objective decisions, Im not too sure, ultimately it doesn't matter if the out come is pleasing.

Maybe if I can draw similarities to something we can all understand. The taste of food. I tend to agree with your signature...but to take it literally without sensitivity means that you might make a plain cheese sandwhich and put toothpaste in it to give a jarring contrast..where as pickle actually gives a strong sharp contrast whilst actually complimenting the flavour...so where youve used an intellectual premise to why something should work, (like I had done previously) what youve actually done is avoided the plain truth of the matter, which is.. it actually tastes awful.

Styles that are eccentric or styles that are conservative are not good or bad just by the nature of their style.. the quality of their outcome is dependent on the abilties and sensitivities of the practioner who has arranged them so.. how then you describe that as a limiting, totalitarian approach..Im not sure? Again I repeat, from the examples youve given, I dont think you or Mr Sexton are particularly sensitive to the nature of colour and tone, to intellectualise something like this is to put up a delusion. IMO.. Im not judging by any standard of intellectual theory Im just looking and describing what I see and find a resistance to.

Last edited by Bop (2015-10-19 22:54:08)