Motivation slump... so let's just talk about arthistory (fun). I'm curious on your take.
Though this critical response is actually John Ruskin's impression on the notable artist JMW Turner, I'm also open to how writers respond to this. I think it equally applies.
The idea (along with many other passages) suggests that we (or at least Turner) are "better" with shapes and impressions similar to environments exposed though our childhood. (one of many Quotes below)
"Consequently, he attaches himself with the faithfullest child-love to everything that bears an image of the place he was born in. No matter how ugly it is,—has it anything about it like Maiden Lane, or like Thames' shore? If so, it shall be painted for their sake. Hence, to the very close of life, Turner could endure ugliness which no one else, of the same sensibility, would have borne with for an instant. Dead brick walls, blank square windows, old clothes, market-womanly types of humanity—anything fishy and muddy, like Billingsgate or Hungerford Market, had great attraction for him; black barges, patched sails, and every possible condition of fog."
For starters from my own experience, I grew up in a city where a culturally exciting downtown can be seen from a distance, but I didn't frequent downtown until much later in life. My art tends to include silhouette backgrounds impressing rich skylines. Ironically very few if any structures are clearly defined, except where there are industrial structures.
What about how it influences your work? What kinds of exposure? What kinds of depictions do you steer to in your art?