| |
In lugnet.general, Mike Rayhawk writes:
> My personal feeling is that there are some unwritten rules that strongly
> *discourage* talking about a LEGO model that someone posts. I certainly
> have the impression that no matter how well-intentioned, if there is a
> single sentence in a comment that isn't perceived as the most sugary-sweet
> encouragement then there are more than a couple LUGNET mainstays who will
> stomp the poster's throat for it.
>
> There are plenty of models that I was fascinated by and would have liked to
> post about, but it always seems to be a choice between holding myself to
> that kind of Disney superficiality, or having any of the points I was trying
> to raise get lost in the static of all the
> "friendliest-place-on-the-internet"-nazis yelling at me afterwards. As a
> result, I don't make public posts about models, period. Whether the LUGNET
> community is worse off for missing my opinions is debatable of course.
I don't give people the full art-school style firm, no-nonsense critique -
which I'm perfectly capable of doing, having come up through the Long Beach
State illustration program and have had as many as 10 artists working for me
on software projects. I think people might misunderstand that, but if there
is an awkward area on their model that needs attention, I have been able to
point it out without undue ruffling of feathers. I do try to point out what
I like about the model in addition to what I might feel can be improved.
Some might feel that sugarcoating, and I admit I'm trying to be softer than
I would be professionally, but a good critique highlights what does work in
addition to what doesn't. I take it, though, that your experience is different.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
