You may have noticed that there are some prominent style and color systems I never discuss, and some that I only speak about in a negative way.
As far as the first point goes–I only want to spend my time on systems that I consider valid and useful. If a system is well known and I never write about it–it’s one that I don’t see much value in. I will cover historical style systems even if I don’t find the system itself particularly useful, but that is out of an academic interest. I will not use my blog space to promote contemporary materials/businesses if I do not think that they provide much benefit to the consumer.
And then there are the ones I talk about, but only in the context of why I don’t recommend them or why their ideas are incorrect. These are generally systems that are either offshoots or imitations of another. If I seem to take it all a little too seriously, I genuinely feel that the systems I say negative things about have a negative impact on not only their clients, but anyone who is exposed to what they teach. Even my early blog posts, which I have been meaning to edit for a long time, show the influence of these bad ideas. Some of them were absolutely pervasive a few years back, before David Kibbe became more accessible on social media and was able to clear up misconceptions about his system himself. I feel that many of these systems are limiting, and do the exact opposite of what people like David Kibbe and David Zyla try to do, which is accept and harness the power of your own beauty. Instead, you’re placed in a narrow style box, or given a palette that makes you look seasick, or told that you look like an alien.
So if I seem like I take things a little too seriously, or if you’re wondering why I haven’t ever talked about a certain system–these are some of the reasons why.