Invalid opinions?

[Zoomcity]

Why are all the words one writes invalidated if the writer does not show pictures of objects? I have seen this on many artist forums. Do all artists rate themselves and others by their objects? Is this a way for the less intellectual artist to dissmiss what they don't know or what challenges them? So really, the only opinions and comments that matter are from other object makers? The weight of ones comments is based on the art they produce? Rubbish! Sure doesn't promote growth if you ask me!

[underfoot]

it's just natural curiosity, Zoom, nothing more,

If you introduce yourself as a musician, I want to hear you play,
if you're an author , I'm curious about your style of writing

{ "you're a sculptor?, hey, so am I!, what's your medium?,,,,, yeah cool!
can I see your work?, so, you getting some sales?,, nah, me neither, etc, etc}

So Zoom, you're an art critic?
we're getting an idea of what you don't like,
what do you like?

[evaldart]

Oscar, you're just tryin to start more trouble. Sorry, no comment.

[Andrew Werby]

Originally Posted by Zoomcity

Why are all the words one writes invalidated if the writer does not show pictures of objects? I have seen this on many artist forums. Do all artists rate themselves and others by their objects? Is this a way for the less intellectual artist to dissmiss what they don't know or what challenges them? So really, the only opinions and comments that matter are from other object makers? The weight of ones comments is based on the art they produce? Rubbish! Sure doesn't promote growth if you ask me!

[It doesn't matter to me how good (or not) your art is. But if you want respect for your words, you have to back them up somehow. Merely asserting something in a forceful manner is unsufficient; you have to validate it by giving others some cogent reason to believe as you do.

For example, in the previous thread, you dismissed out of hand the idea of artists being allowed to deduct full market value for their work, when they donate it to a non-profit organization, even though the tax authorities are quite willing to value it that way on the artist's death, which generally forces their heirs to dump their work on the market to pay estate taxes, leaving the museums that otherwise would want it out of the loop. But the arguments you put forward were quite weak, relying more on invective than on logic.

Setting up scenarios where the government is somehow defrauded of tax revenues by collusion between non-profits and politicians, disputing the need for appraisals because art valued at over $5000 is only made by "rich" artists, making ridiculous claims about it promoting "graft" and "kickbacks", which would be illegal by current law, and bringing up the totally unsubstantiated assertion that allowing fair-market-value deductions would somehow depress the market for art in general does very little to sway opinion in your favor.

Bringing forward some well-reasoned and amply supported arguments would do a lot more than sheer vehemence towards convincing people that you had something of substance to contribute. When those were missing, perhaps they still clung to the hope that despite the unpromising nature of your diatribes, they were still worthy of some measure of respect due to your abilities as an artist. But it seems that hope was misplaced; and that lacking both forensic and artistic skills, you merely enjoy asserting yourself in art forums with opinions designed to affront the other participants. I hope that this response helps promote the "growth" you claim to seek...]

Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com