Anti-Thoughts & Non-Arguments

[containercore]

Anti-thoughts are a type of non-argument which not only fail to provide a substantive point, but actually seek to shut down any meaningful discussion. They aren't exactly fallacies (which are simply bad arguments) but something more pernicious. Most often they take the form of platitudes and truisms.

An example of what I mean: I post in a few different art communities. Occasionally the question of what constitutes good art comes up, as one might expect. As people present and weigh their different criteria it's all but inevitable that someone drops this perennial bit of wisdom: "Well art is subjective... So what may be good according to you might be bad according to someone else..."

Sure, this may be true, it's probably an inarguable a priori truth, but then so what? It doesn't offer any insight whatsoever into the subject at hand. It doesn't answer the question, nor does it even attempt to. It does the precise opposite in fact. It dismisses any answer to the question as arbitrary and declares the question itself a complete waste of time. Entertaining it stops all further thought on the subject in its tracks. It's pure anti-thought.

The notion that there can be any distinction between good or bad art is impossible because criteria cannot exist, only qualia. Any statement on the purpose, nature, or qualities of art can be handwaved away with a simple "it's all subjective, bro", no reasoning necessary.

Has anyone else observed this particular species of non-argument? And if you have what are some other examples?

 

[MindControlBoxer]

The thing is that as your example says art is to broad of a criteria, do you mean what constitutes a good movie and if so a good detective movie or a good chick flick? what about good music? Is [insert grind core band] good music? Because if they're good grind core therefore they are good music because grindcore goes under music even thought its just screaming.

Be specific in what you are trying to discuss, you are asking for a broad subject and getting mad when people answer in broad stokes, its not anti thought is just that the thought presented is intrisically shallow, and when dealing with those kind of people you are better off arguing within true or false, yes or no because then you will spend hours going though every definition of art possible and end up at the question "What is art?" and then another can of worms is opened.

When people shut you down like this it means that they do not wish to go into an argument into something that is LITERALLY subjective due to the amount of subjects possible.

 

[containercore]

The thing is that as your example says art is to broad of a criteria,

What I mean by criteria would be each of the participants in the discussion's proposed standards for determining the qualities of good art, ie "art should be truthful" or "art should relate human experience" or "art should be beautiful", things to that effect. For instance Aristotle wrote that a play should have a beginning, middle and end and take place over the course of a day. These were the proposed aesthetic standards he was advancing, which a reader can readily agree or disagree with. Who's "right" about what the criteria for good art are is actually immaterial, since the point of a discussion is advancing a position by way of reasoning. The issue lies in the dismissal of these criteria as devoid of any intrinsic value by thoughtlessly invoking a specious truism (in this particular example).

Be specific in what you are trying to discuss, you are asking for a broad subject and getting mad when people answer in broad stokes, its not anti thought is just that the thought presented is intrisically shallow,

This is just one example. I picked a broad one for the OP but it can present itself in a very specific discussion as well.

"How do you go about selecting a balanced color palette?"
"Well taste is something individual, so a color combination that appeals to you might look ugly to someone else."

"What's the correct way to hold a pencil?"
"There's no right or wrong, because everyone's different, what's comfortable for you might be painful for someone else"

It's just a very midwitted parroting of something everyone on some level is forced to agree with but which contributes nothing, really, less than nothing, to the topic at hand.

Is [insert grind core band] good music? Because if they're good grind core therefore they are good music because grindcore goes under music even thought its just screaming.

As for questions like this, the answer would naturally depend on the criteria one is advancing for what constitutes good music. "Music is supposed to be visceral" = grindcore is good music, "music should be harmonious" = grindcore is bad music. "I don't agree with the idea that music needs to be harmonious because X, Y, and Z", that would be discussion. It's not about discovering the objectively correct answer, or the consensus correct answer, but rather having a thoughtful exchange of ideas. Like I said in the OP, that art is subjective is basically an inarguable a priori truth, but does anyone become any wiser by being told that?

 

[MindControlBoxer]

What I mean by criteria would be each of the participants in the discussion's proposed standards for determining the qualities of good art, ie "art should be truthful" or "art should relate human experience" or "art should be beautiful", things to that effect. For instance Aristotle wrote that a play should have a beginning, middle and end and take place over the course of a day. These were the proposed aesthetic standards he was advancing, which a reader can readily agree or disagree with. Who's "right" about what the criteria for good art are is actually immaterial, since the point of a discussion is advancing a position by way of reasoning.

The strongest way to exert your will and solidify your position is to make things unarguable and unopposable for your opponent.

A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge you're right.

"How do you go about selecting a balanced color palette?"
"Well taste is something individual, so a color combination that appeals to you might look ugly to someone else."

Balanced based on what? 1950s futurism? 1980s neon? 1990s grunge? what are you trying to colour? a lamborghini, or a utility truck? This is still very broad.

"What's the correct way to hold a pencil?"
"There's no right or wrong, because everyone's different, what's comfortable for you might be painful for someone else"

Ok then enlighten me, you and 3 people are discussing this, pic below is in your friend group. GO!

It's just a very midwitted parroting of something everyone on some level is forced to agree with but which contributes nothing, really, less than nothing, to the topic at hand.

>wake up 5 am
>2 hours on the crowded bus
>hard manual labour for 8 hours
>2 hours back on the crowded bus
>Neighbor stops you in front of your door
>wants to talk about art
>you know this is gonna go for hours
>"its all subjective man"
>Neighbor call you a mid wit retard
>Go home and fuck your wife

As for questions like this, the answer would naturally depend on the criteria one is advancing for what constitutes good music. "Music is supposed to be visceral" = grindcore is good music, "music should be harmonious" = grindcore is bad music.

Go to your local college/uni, ask the wisest teacher in your eyes whether this is good or bad music, Make him listen to the whole song. As a thought exercise take the opposite stance of his and try to argue with him. Then count how long its gonna take until he gives you a midwitted I wanna get out this convo response. Come back and report for me so we can all be little bit wiser.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_v1mwK5vl0

"I don't agree with the idea that music needs to be harmonious because X, Y, and Z", that would be discussion. It's not about discovering the objectively correct answer, or the consensus correct answer, but rather having a thoughtful exchange of ideas.

Like I said in the OP, that art is subjective is basically an inarguable a priori truth, but does anyone become any wiser by being told that?

People don't really care for arguing for hours with randoms, unless you are in a symposium where everybody is there to do the thing, most people are just gonna politely exit the convo it doesn't mean they are mid witted, it just means they aren't your friends.

 

[nakadashi]

Sure, this may be true, it's probably an inarguable a priori truth, but then so what? It doesn't offer any insight whatsoever into the subject at hand. It doesn't answer the question, nor does it even attempt to. It does the precise opposite in fact. It dismisses any answer to the question as arbitrary and declares the question itself a complete waste of time. Entertaining it stops all further thought on the subject in its tracks. It's pure anti-thought.

It's not an anti thought in the sense that it invalidates the question by implying that good or bad attributes are not within the scope of art criticism. There is no good or bad art, there is art with proper technique, but does that mean that art which lack proper technique (Basquiat, for example) is bad. If so what does Basquiat lack that Botticelli doesn't; if no, what do they have in common? And so on.

I think that it is only an anti thought given that the original statement was fallacious to begin with.

 

[nakadashi]

Be specific in what you are trying to discuss, you are asking for a broad subject and getting mad when people answer in broad stokes, its not anti thought is just that the thought presented is intrisically shallow, and when dealing with those kind of people you are better off arguing within true or false, yes or no because then you will spend hours going though every definition of art possible and end up at the question "What is art?" and then another can of worms is opened.

I think you nailed it, it is not an anti thought, quite the contrary, it is thought provoking as it makes you question one's own argument, but instead of doing so, one prefers to stop thinking on order to not do so.
Therefore it is not a question or whether there are anti thoughts but whether there are anti thinkers.

 

[nakadashi]

criteria would be each of the participants in the discussion's proposed standards for determining the qualities of good art

That's the issue, applying criteria to art is not like separating true scientific papers and false scientific papers, it is more like a child dividing their pog collection into good pogs and bad pogs, sure, it makes sense when they explain it to you, but ask any other kids to do the same and the result will be completely different.

 

[Mеченый Яков]

Any statement on the purpose, nature, or qualities of art can be handwaved away with a simple "it's all subjective, bro", no reasoning necessary

Often, our minds tend to overinflate the depth of a topic, making it seem more profound than it truly is. The key factor lies in the communicator rather than the audience. If a conversation fails to engage interest, the issue may lie in the communicator's inability to convey ideas effectively or in an engaging manner. This is especially evident when discussing a topic that only resonates with you. For instance, lamenting the lack of discussions on objectivity in art may stem from the subjective nature of defining art itself. The absence of a concrete set of criteria for what qualifies as art leads to ever-changing interpretations influenced by context, time, and cultural epochs.

Whether you appreciate baroque art or any other style is entirely your prerogative. However, it's crucial not to elevate personal preferences to the status of the ultimate definition of art. Throughout centuries, the artistic landscape has continually evolved, showcasing diverse interpretations and expressions.

Even in those moments, labeling someone as less intelligent just because they choose not to engage in a conversation may not reflect their true intellect. Instead, it tends to cast a shadow of pretentiousness upon oneself. In the realm of graphic design, we understand that the essence of good design lies in effective communication of an idea, where elements play a secondary role. A design becomes commendable if it successfully conveys an idea, and in the realm of art, attempting to impose a scientific methodology is akin to thinking like an engineer rather than embracing the mindset of an artist.

People are not a homogeneous entity; unanimity of opinion, especially in the subjective realm of determining good or bad art, is a rarity. Coercing agreement on such matters, particularly when others may have more pressing concerns, comes across as discourteous. It's crucial to recognize that everyone carries a unique perspective. Therefore, it's advisable not to dwell too deeply on topics that lack inherent depth, and to afford people the grace to navigate through their daily challenges. In a world already inundated with myriad issues, a bit of understanding goes a long way. Cheers to that.

 

[№56]

"Everything is subjective" is the king of non-arguments, but for me a close runner-up is when people respond to an argument with "read [author]" or "read [book title]" without elaborating any further. If you've actually read a book and understood its argument you should be able to summarize it and work it into a real response. Failing to do that means that you either didn't read what you're talking about, or that you don't actually want to debate and are telling the other person to fuck off in an indirect and passive-aggressive way, which is just as obnoxious.

That said, I can't really blame people for wanting to terminate an internet argument with a non-response because internet arguments can often be a complete waste of time and tend to get worse the longer they go on. Sometimes a fruitful exchange of ideas just isn't possible. Saying nothing at all would be ideal in that case, but for the observers (who stand to gain the most from the debate) it's often better for the party who can't say anything useful to say something lame and give up instead of digging their heels in and starting a contest to see who can be more asinine. The absolute worst non-arguments I've seen on the internet have all started several posts into a debate, when one party (or both) refuses to back down and starts saying disingenuous or deliberately provocative things in an attempt to get the last word. Empty insults, quoting parts of a post out of context, bizarre hypothetical scenarios, non-sequiturs, saying "not an argument" (ironic), soyjaks, etc. If you want specific examples just look at this thread so far.
I think a lot of people on the internet don't understand the difference between a debate (pitting two opposing views against each other in order to advance some greater truth and enlighten the audience) and a fight (beating your opponent into submission by any means necessary.) They make the mistake of preemptively shutting down debate with non-arguments like "everything is subjective" because they know how embarassing and pointless internet fights are for everyone involved and are afraid that they might start one by giving a more substantial response. They're attempting to fight non-argument with non-argument. A better alternative is learning to recognize the difference between internet users with something to say and the virtual equivalents of subway crackheads (i.e. someone who comes out of nowhere, says something bizarre, tries to fight you if you answer) and then responding accordingly.

 

[MindControlBoxer]

when one party (or both) refuses to back down and starts saying disingenuous or deliberately provocative things in an attempt to get the last word. Empty insults, quoting parts of a post out of context, bizarre hypothetical scenarios, non-sequiturs, saying "not an argument" (ironic), soyjaks, etc.

This is literally every single one of my posts

 

[Captain]

This is literally every single one of my posts

View attachment 81823

 

[containercore]

Upon going to bed I suddenly recalled that there is actually an extant term for this, or at least something very similar, a "thought terminating cliché".

Came up with another example also, "Why do you care so much? It's not like it affects you". This one is easier to dismiss though, so it may just be a bog standard non-argument and not an anti-thought. I feel that if internalized an anti-thought hampers one's ability to actually think about the subject, hence the "anti" part.

Because people are getting hung up on the particulars within the example, as opposed to the example itself, I should have clarified a few things better in the OP example. By the term "art community" I meant a space in which artists congregate, usually to post their work and try to improve it. In such a space the subject of art criteria would actually be a pertinent one, and not just a philosophical abstraction, since one of the primary functions of an art community is to be a place to receive for critique, and the subject would have practical ramifications. By community I mean it's populated with users who for the most part have some degree of familiarity and rapport with one another, ie they aren't just randos. By discussion I don't necessarily mean argument or debate, although it may contain elements of these, there wouldn't be an expectation of a "winner".

The context is what determines if something is an anti-thought/thought terminating cliché, because these tend to take the form of truisms and platitudes which are, on their own grounds, in isolation, difficult or impossible to disprove due to their vagueness and generality. Once again the goal isn't to "win" a discussion by "proving" that criteria are objective, but rather make an argument for practical, useful criteria which might inform art creation/appreciation for the relevant parties in the discussion.

Balanced based on what? 1950s futurism? 1980s neon? 1990s grunge? what are you trying to colour? a lamborghini, or a utility truck? This is still very broad.

Color theory allows for the creation of formulae which extend far beyond particular genres and use cases. It contains fundamental first principles which can be reasoned. The mechanics of developing successful color schemes are of immense practical concern for artists and designers because they may be tasked with having to develop color schemes for a wide variety of genres and use cases. It isn't too broad of a question at all to receive a meaningful, thoughtful answer, because at the big picture level there is fundamentally no difference between any of these things. They are all "problems of design".

Ok then enlighten me, you and 3 people are discussing this, pic below is in your friend group. GO!

View attachment 81808

This sounds like a logical fallacy to me. It's akin to person A stating that human beings are sexually dimorphous and person B "disproving" them by pointing out that 0.5% of humans are hermaphroditic. Checkmate, sex-dimorphosists. Just because a disabled person is physically unable to grip a pencil "correctly", doesn't mean a "correct" answer is impossible. Criteria for what would constitute a correct grip could include 'does it facilitate or hamper accurate mark making?', 'does it allow for a smooth continuous line?', 'is it possible to hold comfortably for extended periods of time?', 'is it likely to give the user repetitive strain injuries?' etc. I don't know that the existence quadriplegics renders these questions irrelevant. There may be individual answers to these questions, but that's perfectly fine and reasonable.

 

[Some_porcupine]

ah yes, the classic "nothing is real, we made up world we see, money or society are as real as you want them to be, your dick ends where others allow you only for it to be..."

also, this:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ns-jSWJ8WM

 

[RisingThumb]

The oldest anti-thought and non-argument in the book.

OP is a Faggot

 

[Brapuccino]

Often, our minds tend to overinflate the depth of a topic, making it seem more profound than it truly is. The key factor lies in the communicator rather than the audience. If a conversation fails to engage interest, the issue may lie in the communicator's inability to convey ideas effectively or in an engaging manner. This is especially evident when discussing a topic that only resonates with you. For instance, lamenting the lack of discussions on objectivity in art may stem from the subjective nature of defining art itself. The absence of a concrete set of criteria for what qualifies as art leads to ever-changing interpretations influenced by context, time, and cultural epochs.

Whether you appreciate baroque art or any other style is entirely your prerogative. However, it's crucial not to elevate personal preferences to the status of the ultimate definition of art. Throughout centuries, the artistic landscape has continually evolved, showcasing diverse interpretations and expressions.

View attachment 81815
Even in those moments, labeling someone as less intelligent just because they choose not to engage in a conversation may not reflect their true intellect. Instead, it tends to cast a shadow of pretentiousness upon oneself. In the realm of graphic design, we understand that the essence of good design lies in effective communication of an idea, where elements play a secondary role. A design becomes commendable if it successfully conveys an idea, and in the realm of art, attempting to impose a scientific methodology is akin to thinking like an engineer rather than embracing the mindset of an artist.

People are not a homogeneous entity; unanimity of opinion, especially in the subjective realm of determining good or bad art, is a rarity. Coercing agreement on such matters, particularly when others may have more pressing concerns, comes across as discourteous. It's crucial to recognize that everyone carries a unique perspective. Therefore, it's advisable not to dwell too deeply on topics that lack inherent depth, and to afford people the grace to navigate through their daily challenges. In a world already inundated with myriad issues, a bit of understanding goes a long way. Cheers to that.

this is the most eloquent and grammatically perfect post you've ever made wtf

 

[shinobu]

Upon going to bed I suddenly recalled that there is actually an extant term for this, or at least something very similar, a "thought terminating cliché".

Came up with another example also, "Why do you care so much? It's not like it affects you". This one is easier to dismiss though, so it may just be a bog standard non-argument and not an anti-thought. I feel that if internalized an anti-thought hampers one's ability to actually think about the subject, hence the "anti" part.

Because people are getting hung up on the particulars within the example, as opposed to the example itself, I should have clarified a few things better in the OP example. By the term "art community" I meant a space in which artists congregate, usually to post their work and try to improve it. In such a space the subject of art criteria would actually be a pertinent one, and not just a philosophical abstraction, since one of the primary functions of an art community is to be a place to receive for critique, and the subject would have practical ramifications. By community I mean it's populated with users who for the most part have some degree of familiarity and rapport with one another, ie they aren't just randos. By discussion I don't necessarily mean argument or debate, although it may contain elements of these, there wouldn't be an expectation of a "winner".

The context is what determines if something is an anti-thought/thought terminating cliché, because these tend to take the form of truisms and platitudes which are, on their own grounds, in isolation, difficult or impossible to disprove due to their vagueness and generality. Once again the goal isn't to "win" a discussion by "proving" that criteria are objective, but rather make an argument for practical, useful criteria which might inform art creation/appreciation for the relevant parties in the discussion.


Color theory allows for the creation of formulae which extend far beyond particular genres and use cases. It contains fundamental first principles which can be reasoned. The mechanics of developing successful color schemes are of immense practical concern for artists and designers because they may be tasked with having to develop color schemes for a wide variety of genres and use cases. It isn't too broad of a question at all to receive a meaningful, thoughtful answer, because at the big picture level there is fundamentally no difference between any of these things. They are all "problems of design".


This sounds like a logical fallacy to me. It's akin to person A stating that human beings are sexually dimorphous and person B "disproving" them by pointing out that 0.5% of humans are hermaphroditic. Checkmate, sex-dimorphosists. Just because a disabled person is physically unable to grip a pencil "correctly", doesn't mean a "correct" answer is impossible. Criteria for what would constitute a correct grip could include 'does it facilitate or hamper accurate mark making?', 'does it allow for a smooth continuous line?', 'is it possible to hold comfortably for extended periods of time?', 'is it likely to give the user repetitive strain injuries?' etc. I don't know that the existence quadriplegics renders these questions irrelevant. There may be individual answers to these questions, but that's perfectly fine and reasonable.

It feels like your attitude towards art is a little too intellectual. To make art, there's a big aspect of intuition e.g. color theory is a great example. You can read books upon books of color theory, but it's all useless on its own, whereas you can paint good colors without a theoretical foundation. An even better example is composition. If you approach composition from a theoretical level you'll find the rule of thirds and other concepts, which are supremely useless. A beginner's time would be wasted on it. Of course, technique exists for a reason, but good art can't be categorized. You can't ascribe traits to it. It's as simple as that. But there is good art and bad art, so what gives? In the end, the arts are fields where pragmatic epistemology rules, so your approach of rationalism is incompatible. You can't have a debate with them on even ground.

You're on an art community, right? They care more about making art than about correctness, so it's only natural that they'd shut down the argument. It's not useful, since what an individual artist needs is feedback, not debates.
And it's not useful for the community as a whole, since moving from making bad art to making good art is a path that is orthogonal to technique, and it requires a lot of experience.

 

[Mеченый Яков]

this is the most eloquent and grammatically perfect post you've ever made wtf

It was a personal topic, so i got serious for once.


I simply choose not to because it doesn't goes with my vibe. In any case, don't get used to it sweetheart.

 

[MindControlBoxer]

Came up with another example also, "Why do you care so much? It's not like it affects you". This one is easier to dismiss though, so it may just be a bog standard non-argument and not an anti-thought. I feel that if internalized an anti-thought hampers one's ability to actually think about the subject, hence the "anti" part.

This is a polite way of saying "mind your own business". It not anti-thought its anti-(YOU).

Because people are getting hung up on the particulars within the example, as opposed to the example itself, I should have clarified a few things better in the OP example. By the term "art community" I meant a space in which artists congregate, usually to post their work and try to improve it.

This does not exist, there isn't such a thing as "art community" there are nigh infinite urban tribes that most of the time are outright hostile to each other because of the smallest subjective differences.

The context is what determines if something is an anti-thought/thought terminating cliché, because these tend to take the form of truisms and platitudes which are, on their own grounds, in isolation, difficult or impossible to disprove due to their vagueness and generality. Once again the goal isn't to "win" a discussion by "proving" that criteria are objective, but rather make an argument for practical, useful criteria which might inform art creation/appreciation for the relevant parties in the discussion.

Why not? What if I want to win? Then what? I do not wish to make you wiser, its a waste of my time. If you wanna think about things with other people you should take a field like space time studies or quantum physics which are mostly theoretical. You are getting mad over people telling you the truth, its about as thoughtful as getting mad at a tree for obscuring your vision. You are getting mad at reality.

Color theory allows for the creation of formulae which extend far beyond particular genres and use cases. It contains fundamental first principles which can be reasoned. The mechanics of developing successful color schemes are of immense practical concern for artists and designers because they may be tasked with having to develop color schemes for a wide variety of genres and use cases. It isn't too broad of a question at all to receive a meaningful, thoughtful answer, because at the big picture level there is fundamentally no difference between any of these things. They are all "problems of design".

This is a chat gpt anwser(?).It sounds like one.

But no is not, ask anybody who actually made commercial art in different genres(like me) and they will tell you that there are different colors for different genre and what is considered balanced in a scifi movie its not in a nature doc.


You wouldn't use "broken" to try to sell a super spicy curry.
View attachment 81864

This sounds like a logical fallacy to me. It's akin to person A stating that human beings are sexually dimorphous and person B "disproving" them by pointing out that 0.5% of humans are hermaphroditic. Checkmate, sex-dimorphosists. Just because a disabled person is physically unable to grip a pencil "correctly", doesn't mean a "correct" answer is impossible.

It's not about discovering the objectively correct answer, or the consensus correct answer, but rather having a thoughtful exchange of ideas.

You don't know what you want, this is why people shut you down with "its all subjective man".

 

[Amadis]

Debate/discussion is too heavy for most people in all honesty. Hammering someone with "what abouts" and deconstructing reasoning is really fun if the other person bothers but most know that any in depth discussion can be broken apart with "but youre a faggot". Political debates and just about any discourse of note gets broken down when one side decides you're fucking gay and im not gonna bother arguing with a faggot.
The whole "why do you care" people hit you with implies that youre an over-caring sort of pencil neck who just wants to be right (when in actuality these people might actually have opinions but don't care to elaborate).
Maybe find a forum of like minded people to discuss things with before trivialities split them apart and create a clout seeking community. Get into a hivemind before the queen bee shows up and dictates the correct opinion from the wrong one.

 

[containercore]

This is a chat gpt anwser(?).It sounds like one.

But no is not, ask anybody who actually made commercial art in different genres(like me) and they will tell you that there are different colors for different genre and what is considered balanced in a scifi movie its not in a nature doc.

Let me explain what I mean by "big picture" and "formula". Think primary color, secondary color and accent color (the word "color" here is interchangeable with hue and color/hue range). By area, the primary color takes up the largest proportion of the picture, the secondary most of the remainder, and for the smallest part the accent color. An agreeable distribution might be 75% primary, 20% secondary and 5% accent. Regardless of subject, the formula will provide a deliberate distribution of color. At an even bigger picture level it follows the design formula of "big-medium-small", a principle which has an infinite number of applications within art/design. This might be what could be called a "first principle", it informs the decisions that will be made wrt color selection. The percentages themselves aren't really as important and can be tweaked according to taste, they're hypothetical.

Keeping with "big-medium-small" as our formula, we can apply it to other aspects of the color scheme, such as the distribution of saturation or distribution of value. Perhaps the larger proportion of the image is highly saturated and the desaturated tones are reserved for the accent. An infinite number of combinations are possible within the bounds of this simple formula.

But remember, this only represents "a" formula not "the" formula, I'm not proposing any sort of rule about anything. A scifi movie and a nature movie containing different colors in their palettes is a very surface level statement, ie small picture. It doesn't really tell me a single thing about what makes a successful color scheme in the abstract. But successful color palettes often have commonalities in the big picture view.

Also what does commercial art have anything to do with it? A lot of professional artists couldn't color their way out of a paper bag. Just because someone got paid to do something doesn't mean they know a single thing about it...