i think the problem is not improper use, but overlapping definitions. i wont guarantee that ive used everything corretly, we all make mistakes, but doesnt it seem a bit concieted to assume that you know all the uses for a term, and that anything else must be wrong?
I certainly have not 'invented' the idea of teaching symbols (icons), its a practice taught as a part of rudementary art education and the term is common, though it is not the one you are used to using (you call it an icon, or use the broader term abstraction, which in this case is the same thing as a symbol, but in other cases as you said, not). My whole point is that there are multiple uses for the same term. The term symbol can be used to describe an icon, OR it can be used to describe anything concrete that symbolizes the abstract (same definition as used in leterature), and there may be more working uses that im not thinking of at the moment. A smiley-face symbol does not necessarily symbolize anything (though it certainly can), yet it is what is refered to as a symbol (icon).
i will call them icons from now on, to avoid further confusion, but i would like to say there is no quicker way to end a discussion than to tell somebody they are wrong. simply because something has a concrete definition does not mean it is the only one used. is not a stone both an object and a measurement? is not a stilus both a spear and a pen? when people have learned a great deal, ive noticed they can fall victim to believeing they have learned everything, and that inhibits further learning. if you dont believe me, talk to a professor of any subject and try to tell them about something new
As far as methodologies are concerned, i believe the abstract and fantastic comes only from that which is can be percieved, and the strongest foundation for perception comes from life.
@ Helm, im not sure what you mean by more than realistic; naturalism is realism in the extreme, but you cannot be more 'realistic' than what is real, or else you are imposing your mental perceptions onto the subject to actually make something that becomes an very detailed abstraction. perhaps your realistic is really representative, and your more than realistic simply realism?