Yes, like a flow chart on how to be spontaneous. If you ask about art, that is one thing and the answer will be worthless if you want a right and wrong answer. You ask about the mechanics of selective color and the technique and you provide a detailed description and perhaps society's fall out, then thats another viewpoint that is more objective. Answering artistic questions is like asking what't the prettiest flower, most beautiful woman, tastiest food or what is beauty, peace, happiness or satisfaction.
What do you tell a kid in art class that does a portrait in crayon....F because you didn't use a standard art tool, you used a childs play thing? You can teach art history and the lives of artists and the different styles and era's, but you can't run an assembly line in what is art and what is not. If you do its like a flow chart on how to be spontaneous.
Your argument is just all over the place. I NEVER said art is about right and wrong. It is about learning the FOUNDATIONS, which are GUIDES. Yes you do need to apply the context of the artists intent. On this forum the context is overwhelmingly people who buy cameras, with no experience in the many aspects of the world of art, who have decided to make a business out of portraiture. When giving crtitque, people here are, in general, sensitive to that fact. If the OP was doing a series of images, and the contextual statement was to bring attention to something we rarely appreciate, and titled the series "Thank A Chair", and then had 12 images of people sitting in selectively colored chairs...then the posted image works. It has an intent, context, and a message. It does exactly what selective coloring is effective at. That's bringing attention to the subject. I don't know how you can argue that it doesn't. You even said so in your "critique".
Your next paragraph is just out of the ballpark. Nobody is arguing about the medium used. A crayon is a standard tool. You are viewing it as a childs play thing, and passing judgement yourself. You also just applied a stereotype. That's not what we are talking about here.
We are talking about the foundations of visual organization and composition. These concepts have been around, AND USED for eons, and their existance has not stiffled creativity
ONE BIT. We have the entire history of art to back that up.
We are also not talking about children here. We are talking about adults, who often are trying to become good at a craft. Good enough to sell their work and become successful, and compete against their more knowledgable peers. They come here to get better at what they do. They come here because they KNOW they are not measuring up to successful photographers. How do you help them? You teach them the
FOUNDATIONS. You give them a guide to use to expand upon. The truely talented who gain a complete understanding, can then go on to challenge what is acceptable. Beginners cannot. They simply do not know what they are doing. They do not have an understanding of the visual language to back up what they have done.
Your response "as long as you like it" is not helpful, and I will say it as many times as I need, DOES NOT TEACH THEM ANYTHING. It does NOTHING to help the artist improve.
All it does is allow them to continue walking around in the dark, trying things willy nilly, with absolutely no understanding of what they are doing. Teaching fundamentals does NOT hamper creativity. It does the opposite. It allows the artist to further push the boundries without REINVENTING THE WHEEL.
It's like baking bread. You can take years of figuring out the science behind the ingredients, and lots of trial and error. Or you can start with a recipe, and start tweaking it from there. The recipe does not hamper your creativity! It gives you a successful starting place to push the boundaries, and create magnificient artisan breads. As you tweak that recipe, you start to understand how things work successfully, without having to first invent bread.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31749-6cf0f99d6bdedf47f7387c5b943fb717.jpg?1734160468)
