= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Stabilizer comments on Open thread, January 25- February 1 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (316)
I'm in art school and I have a big problem with precision and lack of "sloppiness" in my work. I'm sort of hesitant to try to improve in this area, however, because I suspect it reflects some sort of biological limit - maybe the size of some area in the cerebellum or something, I don't know. Am I right in thinking this?
Just to be clear: you're worried that you aren't sloppy enough?
If so, for us non-artists, can you explain how 'sloppiness' can be a good thing?
Sorry, I communicated poorly. I meant [introducting] lack of sloppiness into my work. That's not what I meant. I'm too sloppy.
You should edit the original question. People seem to be answering the wrong question below.
I think it's a metaphor thing. Like, in writing, if you say "The shadow of a lamppost lay on the ground like a spear. He walked and it pierced him like a spear." What more description of the scene do you need than that? In fact, talking about the color of the path or what kind of trousers our character was wearing would be counterproductive to the quality of the writing.
One could view sloppiness in art in the same way - use of metaphor that captures the scene without the need for detail.
And no, of course it's not a biological limit.