|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, High-importance)|
|This article was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.|
ARIEL WEBB The page Talk:Perspective contains a huge piece of babble (cut out from an old Perspective article) that can possibly be carefully and cautiously incorporated here. Mikkalai 20:46, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Idea on perspective (The hypothetical topic)
Hello. I am a current user of wikipedia and an artist in a sense such as doing pencil drawings and cartoons. I'm here with the idea on the drawing subject which extends to a bit of a more general subject I'd like to call "perspective". Perspective, if you have the topic dictionary answer for it, would be how one views something or someone from one point of view. Artist use perspective in order to use it as a way of how someone can visually see what they see in their eyes through a painting or how one can be able to know how the person feels with how their perspective perceives it in feeling, study, or use of imagination.
Let's say there was another person that came up with their own idea on what they perceive something. Now there are 2 options on how you can approach that kind of artist. 1.) you can be open minded and try their perspective in your next picture with permission, or 2.) you can argue about it and try to force your point that this is how you perceive something and this is the right perspective. Everyone is entitled to their own perspective correct? That also leads to the question if what if everyone has their own perspective in life and everyones perspective is so different it makes it difficult to know who's perspective is right and who's perspective is wrong at the time when all perspectives are brought together.
One thing is for sure, each perspective one has can always have some element of familiarity in it that one can use as a puzzle piece to put together how everyone sees the same thing in a different light and in a different angle. Let's say the two of you are looking at the same building and are drawing it out on paper. One chooses to draw it on paper in a sort of realistic pattern and another uses canvas to paint it in suggestive pattern. Now the two objective perspectives can have a few differences here and there that make it look like they're completely different in nature but what you have are 2 people who see the same object in a different way. But in essence it is the SAME object that they are drawing.
It may be difficult to grasp or it may not. I just want to say everyone has a perspective about something that you are perceiving and you have a perspective about something you are perceiving. If both perspectives differ somehow from one another BUT still have the same idea and point in mind then why argue about who's perspective is right and who's perspective is wrong? They're both of the same thing entirely and it would be pointless to argue about who's right and who's wrong about it when, in essence, they are BOTH correct somehow. It's rather ridiculous if you ask me. Anyway, if anyone were to have a say about this then please do speak your opinion, or your 'perspective' of the subject, and let me know. This chat is also so broad it might be on other topics of perspective. Mialover730 05:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
language of section 'Point of view'
the language of the section 'Point of view' resembles of a how-to instruction. First, second and third pronomes are used and that makes the language very personal and subjective, like that of a letter. very unencyclopedic. Any objections if I erase it so that it can be rewritten? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
== Anthropomorphism may merit a mention as a pervasive source of interpretation error caused by the point of view of an observer/analist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)