as touched on here, the criticism is valid but the critic is historically smug and dickish. people don't respond well to that.
if there's a larger lesson here it's that the difference between a critic and a troll is tone.
The whole thing reminds me of what Roger Ebert said of Armond White, who is a notoriously provocative film critic (who hated Toy Story 3 but loved Jack and Jill, for example.)
I am forced to conclude that White is, as charged, a troll. A smart and knowing one, but a troll.
Aside from the first paragraph, the entire article is a defense of Armond White. Seeing as that's the quote you clip...you clearly didn't read the piece.
Hi Eli, great video. I really enjoy your content. Keep up the great work.
the first paragraph is a retraction of the entire article.
I suppose I could have been more clear. It was precisely this whole scenario that I am reminded of, particularly when White was clearly knowledgable but so obviously counter-culture (or arguably "trollish") that many didn't even bother to read him. I'm pretty sure Pauline Kael received similar reactions, but in retrospect became one of the most beloved film reviewers of all time.
Ah, cool! Seems Jim here is being willfully ignorant. Oddly enough, trolling is verboten (even though everyone and their brother does it.)
people stay in their feelings. I feel like you can understand good design without actually making it. I love and criticizes all kinds of forms of design that I don't dabble in. like fashion and architecture, however, I don't work on either. With product I feel like that logic runs on the line of saying users are dumb and they don't get products because they don't understand "good" design. And that they shouldn't have opinions.... idk
Great stuff after design twitter this week. Much needed and good thoughts.
Thanks for making those!