This is the reason for closing questions as "not constructive":
We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.
I disagree in the context of GD.SE, let me explain why:
We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise: In SO this all boiled down to "show us where the code gives an error" and "ask for the fix"; but here on GD, what does it mean? Where's the "facts" in art as a whole? References are understandable (i.e., a link or image relative to something that shows graphically what you mean), but "specific expertise" is simply inconsistent with the concept of "beginners welcome".
this question will likely solicit opinion,That's the point of a question here IMO.
debate: Of course, I may not agree with art as much as I do agree about code documentation.
arguments: Yes please, the more arguments the more constructive it is for me.
polling: I agree polls are not a good format here, from a user's point of view.
extended discussion: So what, the servers should handle it, right?
I believe the term "not-constructive" does not fit verbatim here. For example, Writers now welcomes even critique questions.