>>5

Using an analogy to refute is

It’s like saying you can’t refute it with the original subject matter.

>>83

If you use food or Gundam as analogies, it creates a flow that leads the conversation towards the topic of the analogy…

I have played an instrument, so I have the right to talk about music.

Alright.

I feel that seeing through is more fitting than refuting.

>>8

Isn’t seeing through it different…?

>>37

It’s a breakthrough, right?

It is not a rebuttal.

>>10

I don’t think there are many people who have technical theories or can evaluate them anyway.

>>25

So in the end, the argument that people who have never done something should not speak about it is flawed.

Are you creating it because you want to be evaluated, or are you creating it to have others evaluate it?

So, does that mean that those who talk about a work based on other people’s impressions without actually seeing it are also out?

>>14

Please explain where the interest in that response lies.

Someone said that if a celebrity calls something boring, they should be able to do something more interesting than that.

>>16

Beep beep beep～popi～

If it is structured in a way that is only evaluated within peers in the same industry, it will become closed off and shrivel up; we must also allow outsiders to enter.

>>21

The theme of this time is this kind of story.

Bald people talk about music even though they’ve never done music, and they talk about pro wrestling even though they’ve never done pro wrestling.

Talking and judging are two different matters, aren’t they?

I have the impression that incorporating the difficulty of doing it as a criterion for evaluation would lead to a less pure assessment.

If you’re selling to people who draw pictures, that’s one thing, but most of the customers don’t even draw.

It’s not about whether it’s good or bad without having laid eggs.

I think it’s not a valid denial unless we talk about humans who have never laid eggs compared to those who have.

It turned out to be a “shallow” manga, huh?

In the end, the ones who determine the evaluation are the viewers, and most of those viewers are people without experience or detailed knowledge, so discussing whether they are appropriate evaluators is pointless.

In the first place, there are no humans who can lay eggs…

If someone starts saying that only those who have served can talk about the military, then no one will be able to discuss military matters.

>>35

Well, there are things that you wouldn’t understand unless you have experience, so it’s not strange at all.

If you say you understand without having experienced it, you should be able to say that you can anticipate all of that.

>>42

“This is a thread asking whether one has the right to speak or not, so why is this loser trying to change the topic?”

>>47

Ah, if we’re talking about qualifications, then it’s certainly not needed.

If you just want to say whether it’s tasty or not, feel free to say what you like.

If we’re talking about whether it’s shallow or deep, that’s a different story.

>>47

What are you angry about?

That’s so uncool.

For example, if there is someone who can create really amazing paintings,

“This proves that this person understands painting that well, since they can create such good works.”

The fundamental problem is that those who haven’t created it have no means of proof.

Don’t talk about politics if you’ve never been a politician.

There’s no way someone who has never been reincarnated in another world can write a story about being reincarnated in another world.

It’s possible to criticize politics even if you’re not a politician.

In reality, if there were painters who evaluate paintings and art critics who evaluate paintings, I think the evaluations of the former would be more credible.

In the first place, there’s no requirement for a qualification, and anyone can critique it, no matter who they are.

Ultimately, the critique itself demonstrates that person’s insight and ability, regardless of any title they may hold.

This guy’s criticism is terrible; if everyone thinks he doesn’t understand anything, then he’s just worthless as a critic.

What’s going on with the bald spot on the back of the head in the lower right panel?

Did hair grow?

>>45

It’s not a bald spot on the back of the head.

>>45

It’s Arisu, right?

>>51

I see… there was another person.

If you can convince the other party through your critique, that’s ideal, isn’t it?

In modern times, who gave the critique is more important than the content of the critique itself.

Only murderers can speak about murder cases.

>>49

Well, unless you’re the person who caused the incident, what is said is just speculation.

Are you saying that you’re talking about ramen as amateurs without any supervision?

But doesn’t a bald person, who has never even owned a shop, act all high and mighty?

>>54

It’s fine to talk about the work, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from interfering with management and strategy, something like that?

>>54

From the perspective of someone who has experienced it, it’s probably annoying to hear someone who hasn’t experienced it speak as if they know.

Opinions on reason and emotion differ.

>>54

You would say that among close circles.

But I won’t say it openly.

I remembered the saying that those who create beauty can’t speak of aesthetics.

It’s not that kind of story.

This is not a story about the discerning eye to distinguish good things.

Even a person without a special aesthetic sense can tell when something is poorly made.

The ability to create works and having an aesthetic eye are not necessarily the same.

>>62

There are surprisingly many examples of creators who say they were inspired by works that critics rated poorly.

What I want to say is not that critics are unreliable just because of this.

>>62

No, it’s not even on that level of discussion.

Is it wrong for someone who has never made it to talk about whether it’s good or bad? That’s just the answer to that question.

Is it that awards evaluated solely by authors are crap?

There are no absolute standards for beauty itself, so we establish criteria that allow for a fair evaluation, even if it’s just a little.

It’s natural for this to feel like sophistry because it’s intentionally distorting the subject.

The possibility of playing musical instruments is suddenly being expanded to music.

Even if eggs are lined up all at once, I can’t tell which one is the freshest or how much any of them are damaged.

>>69

No one is saying you should decide before breaking it.

>>76

Isn’t it easy to break?

>>78

I thought there was a fairly well-known way to distinguish fresh eggs, aside from the ones that are rotten.

Are you inexperienced with egg-laying?

The troublesome thing is that Churchill is a top-notch politician and also fairly well-regarded as a painter… it’s somewhat inappropriate as an example of what the bald man wants to say.

Well, I think Churchill has the qualifications to speak about painting since he was a person who enjoyed oil painting as a hobby.

>>73

Who is better, you or Hitler?

>>97

Churchill

>>97

Churchill

I only paint landscapes, but the colors are bright and comforting to look at.

I feel like if Hitler had been drawing during the time when Disney animators or moe art were popular, there might have been a chance.

>>114

I should have just let my breasts be bouncy!

Can I talk about rotten eggs today?

It’s okay if you haven’t drawn before, but you really should have at least learned something about art.

In other words, how ridiculous it is to seek qualifications for the act of criticism.

Isn’t that what Churchill is saying? The bald guy quoting him as well.

>>77

Qualifications aside

I think it’s absurd to pour all resources into deceiving someone who lacks knowledge in order to have them evaluate something.

>>34

In this case, you’re probably watching.

Rather, I’m just watching.

Only politicians are allowed to criticize politicians.

Only murderers have the right to criticize murderers.

Hmm, the smell of hell.

I think Churchill could distinguish a rotten egg, but he wouldn’t be able to differentiate between a painting by a person with a rotting mind and an abstract painting painstakingly created by a professional in that field.

I want to show avant-garde art to a lot of ordinary people and establish the evaluation that it’s just trash.

I can understand the feelings of creators who say that people criticize without knowing the hardships they endure, but that is a completely different matter from whether one has the right to criticize.

I want it to be something that anyone, not just a few people who studied art, can look at and think, “Wow, that’s amazing!”

>>87

There aren’t many people who have societal success, but there are quite a few artists who are highly regarded by other artists.

>>126

Even in the later years of Van Gogh, it seems he was talked about in a similar way, as if people were saying, “He is about to come into prominence.”

I died just before I was about to arrive.

However, it is also true that there are self-styled critics who proclaim unspoiled eggs as spoiled and don’t even understand the difference between fermentation and decay.

>>88

Isn’t that simply because that person is not being valued?

Prohibit decadent art.

Food is the same.

The question of whether an egg is rotten or not is different from the quality of a painting.

Aren’t there those who evaluate rotten eggs?

Amateurs shouldn’t be the ones judging! It’s just that those who don’t understand modern art are the fools! That’s how it should be done.

It should be fine to evaluate a work however you like, but there are people who criticize the author’s character and others who react sensitively to that.

Art that is only evaluated by experts is just popular among experts and does not equal popularity among the masses.

I think you’re mixing in points that shouldn’t be mixed.

A wine sommelier, perhaps?

If the public will support me until I die, that’s a different story…

I’ve never given birth to a child.

It is possible to tell if someone is a rotten, nameless person.

First of all, the experience of learning to draw and the experience of actually drawing are in different categories.

It’s like how movie review sites separate critic scores and audience scores.

It’s just a matter of differentiating because the evaluation criteria are different for each.

Mark Zuckerberg is quite good at playing the guitar, but…

Well, I think it’s questionable whether the guitarist’s criticism can be trusted.

“If you say it’s bad, then why don’t you try making it?”

It’s an obvious thing to say that it’s not right to say that.

It’s not a difficult matter of whether the criticism is correct; it’s just a shallow discussion.

The discussion about appraising artworks and art pieces has been ongoing, and Churchill’s argument has also been criticized…

However, the biggest issue is whether it can be equated with comparing the flavors of ramen…

>>110

Well, isn’t it fine that there are ramen shops that pretend to be craftsmen or artists?

Churchill probably wanted to say, “If you’re a professional judge of paintings, you should definitely have the ability to distinguish between them,” but there are often people who don’t.

Especially when it comes to evaluating new trends in art, it tends to be cloudy.

>>111

Have you ever been an art judge?

>>115

The judges of the later generation will judge the judges of the past!

Are you saying that someone who has never drawn a manga has no right to say this manga is interesting or that manga is boring?

There are people who may not be able to create, but can analyze and evaluate.

Evaluations can change 180 degrees depending on the era.

In the future, this page may become “the delusions of a bald man running a vulgar and terrible ramen shop.”

That’s… it’s nothing special just because a hobby I started for fun won an award or because Picasso said, “I don’t like him as a politician, but his art is legit.”

Since eating is unavoidable, everyone has the opportunity to critique, but because painting and making music can be avoided, there are people who don’t do those things.

I think someone who has never eaten ramen in their life has no right to say anything about it.

I think Hitler’s paintings are not that great, but saying that someone is a bad artist because they lack humanity is a bit exaggerated.

The reason he couldn’t become a painter is because of his nature, which made him submit landscape paintings for a figure drawing assignment.

I want to make Churchill lay eggs…

>>122

So that’s the way to do it.

Having laid eggs, I guess that makes me above Churchill…

>>123

You probably have more talent than Churchill as a chick evaluator.

>>123

It will be like that…

>>123

Did you really give birth?

Is it not just about putting it in and taking it out during sexual play?

If it’s just a shallow topic, I can say it, right?

It’s understandable if someone is not experienced as a soldier, but it’s quite a gruesome sight for someone like Zhao Kuo to be criticizing Zhao Kuo.

– Even someone who has never done it is allowed to talk about it.

Whether what has been spoken is correct or not is determined by the content of what has been spoken.

This thread concludes with the utterly obvious conclusion.

>>127

It’s such an unnecessary topic to bring up Churchill like in the thread image…

>>139

It means that in order to persuade those who will not be convinced by such obvious things, authority is necessary.

>>139

I think people quote the sayings of great figures because it’s difficult to convince others of such obvious things.

>>153

In the first place, there are many people here who feel like they’re lost and wondering where the storyline or conclusion is.

I think it got complicated because of the weird analogy.

It’s not about having an aesthetic sense; it’s just about freely speaking of good and bad.

A page where someone who has never made ramen stands on the side of making ramen and raises complaints for some reason.

There is also the term “zikokomei.”

While it’s technically correct to say that regarding the actual thread images, I can also understand the feelings of those who are fed up with modern mock criticism.

>>133

Well, the thread image features a guy with an exceptional amount of knowledge even among critics, along with a ramen critic YouTuber who has vouched for him.

It’s fine to tell amateurs to shut up when they try to dictate how things should be made, but it’s perfectly normal to have opinions about the final product itself.

Basically, a person who has no knowledge at all, doesn’t eat ramen, and doesn’t make it either.

A person who is knowledgeable and has eaten a lot of ramen, but has never made ramen.

Doesn’t it change?

But that guy can paint Churchill…

>>140

But you can’t lay eggs, right?

>>141

In that regard, the unnamed one is superior.

>>141

It is possible that they intentionally mentioned the thread image to hide the fact that they have actually laid eggs.

But I gave birth to Churchill.

>>144

Someone like you shouldn’t be here!

I wonder if Churchill ever had the experience of trying to eat a rotten egg…

This anonymous person is rotten.

Critics attract each other by fate.

And criticism can only be defeated by criticism.

There are eggs in our refrigerator that expired a week ago in a pack.

>>152

I’m Churchill, but that’s not rotten at all.

Don’t eat it raw.

If that person from the ramen shop has a belief that they will never critique food they have never made themselves, that’s fine, but…

Even God, in response to criticism, would annoyingly retort, “I created the world, but what were you doing?”

Don’t become Churchill in your heart.

>>157

If it’s Churchill, that would be a pretty good thing, right!

>>159

Is that so?

>>161

That category is filled with people who shouldn’t be there!

>>159

In modern times, imperialists are a bit…

>>164

However, you see, my friend… A single nation is the long-cherished wish of humanity…

I have never produced milk, but as a consumer, I can tell if the milk is spoiled or not.

This is fine even though it is a week past the expiration date!

>>158

A week, huh… Is it possible…?
No, but… I’m thinking.

Well, if a man like you is saying that…

If a nameless person’s heart becomes Churchill, that would be quite an evolution.

In modern times, due to the influence of the internet, there are countless opportunities to encounter terrible self-proclaimed criticisms even if you don’t want to.

I understand the feelings of those who have allergies.

Experience is not essential for speaking, but knowledge is likely essential.

Of course, with the premise of having correct knowledge.

>>165

That’s not denying the thread image either.

Rather, it’s emphasizing.

Recently, I haven’t heard much about harsh critics.

>>172

It’s just an opinion, so no matter how you say it, it’s fine! That kind of thinking is no different from saying you’re someone who can’t choose their words to avoid upsetting the situation.

I think people who can’t think clearly shouldn’t critique.

>>167

What makes me want to go see it is the overwhelmingly positive reviews.

No matter how it turns out, there’s no doubt that it’s more commercially demanded.

>>175

Even if you tell me this is no good, I just end up thinking, then what is good? Please tell me…

>>182

That’s not good.

Just tell me which works I don’t need to watch, and that’s enough.

As expected, it’s sweet.

The content of criticism is evaluated overall by the surroundings, not by the creator.

That’s just a fact, but the person who created it might not be satisfied with it…

What is it!

>>174

What about you!

What is your problem!

Churchill was filled with crazy episodes, such as being fixated on old tactics and refusing to acknowledge retreats because of his emphasis on honor.

Because you won, you’re treated like a great person, but if you lost, I think you’d be regarded as useless as Mutaguchi…

>>177

Well, I think it’s fine to say that it’s safe since we won!

It’s more important than right or wrong, the most important thing.

Anyone is qualified to critique.

The validity of that criticism depends on the person.

Therefore, it is acceptable for there to be off-target criticism, and it is also fine to laugh at it disdainfully.

>>178

Pffft

Is this a refutation?

Isn’t it seeing through?

>>179

To win an argument is to refute.

To see through is to perceive.

Key!

In short, what’s needed for judging a painting is not the skill to draw but the skill to evaluate a painting.

Knowledge is certainly necessary.

But isn’t it that extreme opinions are more popular on social media and videos than moderate ones…?

>>188

Popularity and quality are not related…

Laughing at someone’s opinion is a violation of manners.

So what if Churchill said that?

Authoritarianism is nothing but a meaningless and futile claim.

I’ll stomp on it!

I’ve never made kusaya, but I don’t think I would know if it’s rotten or not.