Originally Posted by bengal-stripe
The fact that you would argue
with a colleague. demonstrates that you do not respect Delos' (or anyone else's) choices. You would not discuss it, you would not question him, you would argue
. An argument is not a conversation, is not a discourse. It is a combat, where each side aims to win the argument by convincing the other party that their position, opinion or way of doing something is the only correct one, hence the other party must be wrong. Any argument aims to have a winner unless it's inconclusive and both parties are so exhausted that they "agree to disagree".
Oh BS, BS. It's just semantics. I have had a number of recent students from Europe...who have extolled the ability of Europeans to argue late into the night without any rancor. Perhaps "discuss" would be a better word but not the one my friends might use. And as far as that goes, your definition of "argue" might be properly descriptive of your own discourse but I don't accept it. Anytime one has an opinion that is contrary to another person's and expresses it, they are taking a position, arguing for
a perspective, not against anyone else. The fact that you
see it as combat or as a confrontation is your problem, not mine. And one that comes through clearly.
For that matter, all discussion, unless it is one big ego stroke...is about pros and cons. About differing perspectives. Some of which are simply closer to the mark. If we all agreed about everything we would have anything to discuss.
Doesn't patronage give insights? It might be a different insight than the actual producer's, nevertheless, do you claim 'Lorenzo the Magnificent' had no insights as far as art and artists was concerned. (No, I'm not comparing myself to Lorenzo, that position belongs to Jun Kuwana.) After all, every grocer (and every artisan) praises his stuff, how can you distinguish where the insight ends and sales pitch begins? There are not many artisans who question premises. The majority is quite happy to do that same thing in the same way, year-in-year-out, because they "have always done it like that."
I presume if I agree with your opinions, that would be questioning premises, but if I disagree with you then I'm not questioning premises.
I'm a pragmatist (yes, my shoes have iron nails in the heel), I leave the dogmatism to others.
All you have to do is articulate a reason for accepting iron nails in your shoes. If it's laziness or denial...make the case. No problem. If there is a good sound, mechanical, even scientific, reason why it doesn't matter (aside from expediency or denial)...make the case. But if you can't make the case you shouldn't expect that people take you seriously. In fact, I suspect a case might be made that you're spreading misinformation.
And someone will surely...someone ought
to...take you to task for it.
As for the rest, this "discussion" degenerates into speciousness rapidly. Easy to say, no one really believes it. I'm sure Lorenzo knew a lot more about art than most people of his time...more than most of this time. But did he know more than the fellow who worked with canvas and paints? Did he know what the artist had in mind? I doubt it. He might have been able to parrot what the artist told him but beyond that...nothing.
Easy to say but no one really believes it--that's why we require new doctors to spend several years as a resident before allowing them full credentials. They need to see and experience the real world as opposed to the theoretical.
Or what's written in Thornton.