So Robert is going at it againt the Mauler fans all day long. I know Robert does the thing "heh, it only to exercise a bit to make fun of idiots
" where he is so above everything, but really, he didn't put the phone down for a minute, he hasn't stopped twitting all day long.
Twitter may not be real world as Robert says, but for him it is very much a real prison.
Said that, when talking Mauler shit the Objective/subjective debate comes up, and it is one I have 0 interest inn, say whatever, but this one take got the cake:
This doesn't make a lick of sense. If there isn't a correct way to paint, then what does it matter if there is a correct way to hold the brush, or mix paint, and what the fuck does this "network with other students" does even mean in context, since we are talking about if there is a objective way to judge artistic merit.
Also, Robert doesn't understand what art schools does. I get the retard thinks that "holding a brush" mean teaching technique, but it is more than just "technique" it is understanding, understanding of how anatomy hows, how light works, how shadows are cast, how different materials have different values in said cast lights, none of those are "correct" they just are, the way the pectoral connects to a deltoid muscle isn't "correct", it just is.
Same with learning art history, there is no need for this "Objective/subjective" debate, because you are just stating facts, no more, no less
Robert is confusing being "correct" with information, people go to school to be informed.
But he didn't adress what the question "if there is no standart for a objective artistic endeavor, why do we need schools to teach information that we usually "require" to see displayed in art?"
Personally, I don't have an anwser for that, and I don't really want to. If someone tells me they think all art is art, then fine go for it, I don't even see the point in talking then, it isn't like people are open minded in these sort of topics.
Mind you, I don't like this pedantic nitpicking shit Mauler does either, I saw a bit of his Black-widow movie where he was bitching about how some set-piece action didn't make sense if they could just had the building blow up or some shit, and the answer is easy "if they did, otherwise there would be no action scene".
Fiction is contrived, these are events that someone sit down and wrote, there is no point to expect them to be always seemingly plausible with "reality". Yes, the illusion of good fiction is to "fool" the audience that these events are "real" for the duration of the story, but there is also the point that the audience always know this is nothting but make believe and do sustain a suspension of disbelief for the enjoyment, to which degrees varies depending on said stories, I can believe in dragons and faries in a fantasy story, I don't buy that a man can fly on a gritty police drama. So unless it really off, people can go with some contrivances in the story to move the plot along.
So I tend to agree with Robert when he points out that the degree of scrutiny Mauler and the likes put these Marvel movies is ridiculous and kinda stupid, who give a genuine fuck if these crappy movies have contrivances, what, you gonna bitch Stormtroopers never managed to hit their target next?
But Robert goes on this shit in the worst way possble, and instead of just sayin' "this nitpicking doesn't really help to see the films flaws or merits", nah, the dumbass has to let his butthurt do the talking and now his last two days has been doing this twitter spergery shit non-stop.
Never change fatass, never change.
