FA+
Shop
Drop What You're Doing And Read This Now.
15 years ago
just posted a journal. It is of the most vital importance that everyone read this. No sarcasm. Dead serious.http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1251123/
I don't know what we can do about this, but we've got to fucking do something. At the very least, we need to stand our ground.
BTW, take 45 minutes and watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cun7kRhNd0
I don't think there's any better metaphor for what's going on here.
see?
Besides, he's wrong. Slippery slope arguments are only bad if they lead to a consequence that does not logically make sense. Saying legalization of gay marriage will lead to marrying animals is a bad argument. Saying it will lead to legalization of polygamy is plausible. And here, saying the ban on loli/shota may lead to a ban on cub is completely plausible.
It may not be, but the could is what is driving this whole argument. It isn't about what is being banned. It's about the fact that as soon as one thing gets banned, soon more will follow.
I refuse to stand by anymore without standing up and saying No.
The idea is that loli/shota is being banned, right? Well...if that gets banned, then logically cub will soon follow out of fear. As will other things. That's what I'm driving at.
Good god.
Avatars must be work safe. In addition, avatars may not contain rapidly flashing colors or images (e.g. "seizure inducing"). Staff will remove avatars and thumbnails that use the work of another artist without their permission (at the artist's request)." http://forums.furaffinity.net/showt.....ad.php?t=64333
Well, I can kind of understand it, but really...someone with epilepsy really shouldn't be using a computer in the first place (a screen is rapidly flashing pixels, remember), so that point is largely wrong itself.
Still, thanks for informing me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9tWYaujtD4
...look at what our government is doing right now to try and limit our lives. I'm kind of not surprised that the admins cowed to this kind of bullying.
I understand them, but do not condone them.
And cub art isn't disallowed YET. Plenty of people want it gone and it's very plausible they'll try to use this as an excuse. Once any kind of drawings get banned, nothing is safe.
Sorry, dude. You can believe what you wish, but it doesn't jibe with what I've seen of this site's history.
There's a wonder, for me, just how far it would go. Is ALL Loli/Shota banned, or just Loli/Shota with penetration? Or just Loli/Shota with full nudity? Where does it end? Why does it begin? It's stupid, because to the outside world there IS no difference between cub porn, nekomimi loli/shota porn, and straight up human child porn. If "The Powers That Be" decided to go after FurAffinity's artists for Child Porn, they could go after the furry depictions.
It's strange that everybody is saying "If they do this than ALL CUB ART will be gone soon!" and maybe it would, but why not now? What's holding them back? Why are they doing this in the first place? Why now?
People keep saying that FurAffinity belongs to the admins and they can do whatever they want. Does it belong to them? I mean, I don't know. Do they own the servers that FurAffinity runs on, or do they rent them? Do they pay the fees entirely themselves? Are those advertisments hosted for free? Do they fund FA: United out of pocket?
I really don't think the FA Admins are doing all of this out of pocket. Are they running a non-profit, or a business, or what? Does FurAffinity turn a profit, or are they paying out constantly to keep it online? Are they taking donations? Have you made a donation?
According to this: http://www.furaffinity.net/staff/
FurAffinity is run by thirteen admins, one tech guy, and two ops guys, whatever an ops guy is. It lists Dragoneer as the Site Owner. The sole, exclusive owner. Is that because his name is on the contracts, or does he pay everything out of pocket?
Now I've gotten really curious, so I'm pouring over some of the FA information I can find. I just looked at the previous TOS. Obviously not written by an actual lawyer...
Well, let's see what the 2010 FA Policy Updates actually says; the long version rather than the short. Let's see...
"We want to embrace the openness that has made the site what it is, but we can not do so without some limitation. Otherwise, within a year, we're going to be looking at some severe limitations on resources and bandwidth, and the site will not be able to move forward. "
So the reason they're getting rid of the Loli/Shota porn is because they can't afford to host it. In other words, we're running out of room for more art. This is just stupid. Furry Art is constantly being created! Removing certain subgenres won't change the fact that the amount of each subgenre is going to be constantly increasing. You will INEVETABLY RUN OUT OF SPACE. So FA is pulling a TransFur. Shit. This is just so frustrating.
You know why I'm rolling along this train of thought, right? If you don't like it, go make your own art community! ^.^
Maybe I will. I certainly could. It's a matter of feasability and sensibility, really, and time. Always time.
Okay going back to the new AUP, let's see what else is going on.
"Prohibited (Content) - The following are prohibited: images meant to showcase personal collections or solely focus highlight on purchased/attained commercial items (e.g. toys, games, movies, plush animals, posters)."
Oh you do that, Alex, so some of your gallery is gonna be in trouble! ^.^
"Prohibited (Mature Content) - The following are prohibited: photos containing human nudity (exposed genitalia, breast or buttock) or focusing on the genitals of animals, models who are not properly clothed (underwear/diapers are not clothing), explicit or implied sexual or fetishistic acts (incl. bondage, fetish gear), bodily fluids/waste, adult toys (see Sculptures for policy on user-created toys), sexually modified fursuits or plush/inflatable/toy animals, gore or death, images containing or alluding to illegal activity (drugs, vandalism, etc.)."
No photographic pornography, even including fursuit poronography. They're really barely allowing photography at all.
Mmm... To look at it, there are a lot of other limits besides loli/shota that aren't allowed without any good reason for them to be disallowed. Art is art, right?
Avatars must be work safe. HOW DELIGHTFULLY VAGUE!!!!!! Whose work? What if you work at a porn studio? What if you work at a church? Whose limits are we imposing? If we accept that it could be any workplace, then we must combine the limits of all the most extreme workplaces. In other words, AVATARS ARE BANNED.
Obviously that's not what they really mean, so WHY DON'T THEY SAY WHAT THEY MEAN so that it'll be clear to all of us? "Worksafe is common sense!" you might say? COMMON SENSE IS A MYTH. Haven't you ever said to a person, "Don't you have any common sense?" obviously they wouldn't assume what you think is right, in this situation.
Blah. The whole thing is stupid.
Back to how FA is run.
Advertising Rates
* Micro(180x75) - $20.00/mo, $100.00/6 half year
Micro banners rotate out of three advertising slots located on the sidebar.
Maximize file size: 100K.
* Leaderboards (600x98). $25.00/mo, $125/half year
Leaderboards are located on the bottom of every page on Fur Affinity (and via the forums in the near future).
Maximum file size: 250K.
All advertisements include weekly statistics delivered via e-mail.
Okay well, that says how much it costs to get your advertisements out there, it doesn't say how many advertisement slots there are. I mean, if enough advertisers show up, their own advertisements get cycled less and less often. Well, maybe that IS how it works. Anyways it's clear that FA is making some good advertising revenue each month, since I'm sure I've seen several different ads. Go to the front page and I see $85.00/mo worth of ads right off the bat, maybe less if they're paying the bulk rate. Hit refresh and all the ads are for different companies. How much do the FA servers cost to run?
That information isn't anywhere. Maybe I'll ask Dragoneer...
>It's strange that everybody is saying "If they do this than ALL CUB ART will be gone soon!" and maybe it would, but why not now? What's holding them back?
Because to take a firm stance in either direction would require a spine. It's so much better to whip out a half-assed compromise that pleases nobody.
I think the bottom line is that this site doesn't belong to us, it's provided free for use FOR us, and if we don't like the terms we can go elsewhere. The guy behind Cristal champange said he didn't understand why rappers were flaunting around his product, Jay-Z didn't like that, and he's taking his business elsewhere. The FA admins say "we don't want this sort of content", and if you don't like that you, can take your business elsewhere. FA isn't a god-given right you know.
I dunno, seems overblown and crazy to be upset about to me. My fetish is transformation, and if it got tossed out I'd go find it somewhere else, I wouldn't claim I was being singled out or persecuted. I dunno, call me crazy.
>and if we don't like the terms we can go elsewhere.
Well see, I've invested a whole lot of time and energy into posting my art here. I have several hundred submissions, so moving all of them to a new site would be a bit of an inconvenience for me, to say the least.
Also, how's this scenario: There's a restaurant you really enjoy. They change their policy to something so stupid, you have no choice but to take your business elsewhere. Are you going to be happy about that? Aren't you going to miss the reasons why you liked this restaurant in the first place? Wouldn't it be better if you could try and stop them before they make the stupid decision that forces you to leave?
Oh, except for the one I made about what a massive undertaking it would be to upload every submission I have here to another site.
>there's plenty of real causes to care about.
There's no reason I can't care about multiple things at once.
As for the massive undertaking re-locating all of your submissions would be, that would be a labor of *choice*. Nothing you've posted is affected by the ToS upgrade, it's just that your feelings are bruised.
Now that I've parried your questions, answer mine please. What exactly is the big deal about eliminating young human girls from what would be considered acceptable content? Please be sure to include why you drawn human art belongs on Fur Affininty at all.
Because they are DRAWINGS. And when people think that fictional portrayals of evil acts are as immoral as the acts themselves, it is a crime against reason. It doesn't have to affect me personally. It's enough to know that artists are leaving here, or having to censor their work, because some lawmakers are either dumb enough to think that banning certain art will make the world a better place, or cold-hearted enough to know better but do it anyway because it will get them votes.
>Please be sure to include why you drawn human art belongs on Fur Affininty at all.
Because if we keep out certain art, it's immature of us. We COULD keep out human art, sure. But I had always been proud that we didn't. I liked that we weren't stuck-up and exclusive. FA is more than an art site; it is a community site. I liked knowing we weren't excluding anyone from the community. I liked that we were better than other porn sites that keep out "furfags".
[a] human/furry interactions are a fascinating topic to explore, and I thought it was sad that yerf cut themselves off from that, and...
[b] wouldn't such a rule technically be violated by picture #1 in a TF series, where the human character hasn't started to change yet? In fact, how about picture #2, where he's still mostly human? What would the cutoff be? Halfway? Up to whichever drawing the nose finally becomes a muzzle in? All but the last drawing, where all traces of humanity have finally been expunged?
Which leads me to [c], it would all be subjective anyway.
That is an incredibly mature way to put it, and I can absolutely respect that.
Standing up DOES NOT solve everything, nor is it even APPLICABLE in every situation. It's retarded to think so. The ONLY thing that would help would be to have an admin with a LOT of say so who is on our side. That's the ONLY thing.
But even if we can't make the admins do what we want, maybe if enough of us raise our voices it may make some difference. I'd rather stand up than bend over and take it.
I got other shit in my life to do rather than deal with a pointless fight, so if you want to call it bending over and taking it, fine. I honestly don't give a fuck. I have no pride and I'm too busy to give a shit.
For my own sake, for my personal honor, I like to know that, when told to accept a lie, I insisted on telling the truth regardless of consequence.
Remember a while back when FA went down because the servers fried? Remember what happened? The Fa community of artists and watchers stood up, donated money, offered commissions of which the proceeds were donated, and within a few months of time, several thousand dollars were raised, which gave the FA staff the ability to buy brand new, state of the art servers and extra machines for storage.
What does this say? In all my naive ignorance, pardon me, but I somehow feel that this can be construed as the site being of all of us for a part, because the brand new machines on which the entire site is stored, have been paid by us.
Also, I am in complete agreement with you and many others of the stupidity of this ban; I have also made a long journal about it^^
But... I unfortunately fear we will need all the luck we can get, and then some, because I don't foresee things like these kinds of censorship, blatantly stupid as they may be, will let up anytime soon. Sadly enough it's not only human nature to get outraged over such things, it's also human nature to leave it at that and only be angry, but not take any further action, in the cases of most humans.
The "slippery slope" logical fallacy is a tricky one, because it's not like most other fallacies, which simply aren't true because of a flaw in logic. The problem with a slippery slope fallacy is that you don't have enough data to tell if one thing will lead to another. It might. It might not. But you don't have enough data to say with reasonable certainty that something is going to happen. At best, it's a guess.
I think people tend to forget that when they invoke the "slippery slope," either in practice or as a decrying of someone's argument.
1: The loli/shota/neko ban must be dropped- There is no sound reasoning offered, considering laws regarding creative works have been struck down in the US, where FA makes its home;
1a: Laws and bans OUTSIDE the US have no legal effect on FA;
1b: Said laws OUTSIDE the US also ban much more than loli/shota/neko, which if 1a, above, weren't true, would GREATLY affect FA, especially concerning, GAY, BONDAGE, RAPE, VIOLENCE, GORE and VORE/CANNIBALISM.
1c: There are statures in many regions across the US that also ban depictions mentioned in 1b, yet have been struck down when applied on an interstate (national) level.
2: If Dragoneer thinks this ban alone will protect himself from legal harassment, think again. Item 1c, above, poses an equal, if not greater threat, as well any legal actions (particularly "Cease & Desist" letters, if not outright subpoenas) concerning ANY and ALL artwork involving trademarked characters (incorrectly referred to as "copyrighted characters") from animation studios, comics publishers, and game makers.
It's either "DAMN THE TORPEDOES, FULL SPEED AHEAD!" or "FA go down the hooooole!"
So..... Perhaps a petition or email/PM campaign is in order, and perhaps a proposal for how either should be conducted and worded.
Since you, Alex, are one of the Big Voices in this, I humbly throw this idea your way-- Interested?
The cub/loli/shota/neko fans and artists should stand together, or fall apart.
FA is not just made up of the admins- It's made by and for the community at large, and we, the community, must stand up, or get exactly what we deserve for not standing up for our rights.
d.m.f.
With your permission, I'd like to send a paraphrased version of your second and third paragraphs directly to Neer.
He needs to see just HOW MUCH hot water there really is, and this ban just doesn't cover his rump-- If FA hasn't had any actual legal problems-- NOT JUST A MAYBE CHANCE- he should do exactly NOTHING, and let this mighty steamship steam along.
d.m.f.
d.m.f.
"Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who cloak themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
I heard the original title was "It Can't Happen Here..." and while blunt, it really sums it up.
Of course, if these people are Evangelists, all you have to do is wait a few weeks for them to be caught sleeping with gay prostitutes.
<rimshot>
Actually, one could say that your fursona DOES have a mustache; it just blends in with the rest of the fur. ;)
The FA Admins dont realy care about loli and shota there baning it to protect themselves. they shouldent have to do this and it pisses me off, just like it pisses you off. But everybody is blameing the admins.
there like what...a handfull of people? All they do is run this site it is not there job to chapinion freedom and liberty.
You want to change this shit? well so Do I? but we need to actualy DO something about it not just bitch at the Admins and so far all im hereing is allot of grand standing and rable rouseing with no real inteligence being herd.
We need to think up things we can do then act on them, to make sure that win or lose on FA we can begin to make serten our freedom of speach is protected here in the USA.
The law this is all about has been declared unconstitutional so many times it can't possibly stay on the books much longer.
Little story back in 2005 I think it was maybe t was 06 or so they DID rule in the SUPREAM COURT that the law was unconstatutional.
they took it down, reworded it and put it right the fuck back up again. it has since been found unconstatutional a few times. Nothings gets done about it.
if we wanna start with Fa then lets do it, i'll protest. but a mindless hodpodge of jurnals wont even grap there ATTENTION let alone DO anything. Posting on the forums will only invite more trolling but it's at least a viable option but we would ALL need to post in DROVES probobly in the same thread.
lets face it this wouldent realy be an issue if they removed it becouse they were human and had little relavence to the fandom, it's an issue becouse we are all angry there caveing in. the admins and even this web site, should not be the focus of our anger this is a place for furry art ANYWAYS. I would love to see loli and shot stay but on what ground can we argue? NO it's not right for them to save in and ban it but it was never realy all that RELEVENT to the websites Intended content anyways?
it's like saying We want Toco bell to keep it's most UN mexican dish becouse it would be rude of them to remove it.
lets face this, it's never been about loli/shota it's about liberty. Sad thing is the FA admins cant do balls about liberty. Im willing to suport the fight ageinst cencership in any form but we have to have some reasonable grounds to argue on or we just look like whineing little fan boys.
>Please be sure to include why you drawn human art belongs on Fur Affininty at all.
Because if we keep out certain art, it's immature of us. We COULD keep out human art, sure. But I had always been proud that we didn't. I liked that we weren't stuck-up and exclusive. FA is more than an art site; it is a community site. I liked knowing we weren't excluding anyone from the community. I liked that we were better than other porn sites that keep out "furfags".
this is a private server, run by Dragoneer. he doesn't owe us any favors nor does he have to kowtow and cater to every specific preference simply because "it's the most popular anthromorph site on the web." he's simply doing what he feels is best for him and many of the users here.
~Amusa
Though on a smaller point, he may run the servers, but WE paid for them. Our donations bought the servers. And yes, I've donated myself. So it's not like he's just letting us crash in his livingroom. We're paying rent. I think that entitles us to a little more than, "I'm putting this rule change up 'for review', even though my decision's already been made so nothing you say about it actually matters".
Dragoneer's attitude COULD have been, "This is how the law is, so the site has to change. It's stupid and unfair and I apologize to everyone this affects. Loli/Shota is the only kind of art that will be banned, so don't worry. It's terrible that we are forced to ban any art at all, I acknowledge that. Please be understanding."
Also, your avatar is fucking the shit outta that fish. I cannot stop staring at it.
given Dragoneer's track record with simply revising without explanation, i'm of the same sentiment. i myself abhor loli/shota/illustrated child pornography but i think FA users deserve more than just a "LOL CHANGED COMPLY NOW" without a decent explanation.
yes, we paid for the service but Dragoneer has the final say. take an example from democracy: we pay taxes, fees and tithes to the government. what do we get in return? city and road maintenance, security, social programs, etc. maybe we don't get what we specifically petitioned for *like free tofu ice cream on thursday* but nevertheless, we continue paying our dues to keep the system running smoothly, thereby insuring society as a whole does not collapse or turn rogue.
and again: we may pay our dues but it's Dragoneer's arse and perhaps FA's neck on the chopping block if he doesn't comply with the new law.
Dragoneer's attitude COULD have been, "This is how the law is, so the site has to change. It's stupid and unfair and I apologize to everyone this affects. Loli/Shota is the only kind of art that will be banned, so don't worry. It's terrible that we are forced to ban any art at all, I acknowledge that. Please be understanding."
agreed, Dragoneer should have explained indepth why revisions were being made but I have to disagree on the wording. Dragoneer must remain impartial, neither showing favoritism or outright dislike.
so many folk here keep quibbing "ZOMG if they ban drawn child porn they'll ban Macro/Feet/Gay ETC!!!11 it's such a joke, nobody is going to censor artwork depicting consenting adults. it's a tad bit extreme to insinuate shota/loli and feet fetishes are doomed to a similar fate.
again, i personally find loli/shota/illustrated child pornography reprehensible...those who find it appealing deserve a thorough explanation of the rule changes.
>it's a tad bit extreme to insinuate shota/loli and feet fetishes are doomed to a similar fate.
Though it's at least within the realms of plausibility that cub porn could be targeted next, given how many people here want it gone. A reassurance that that won't happen would be nice from 'Neer.
No art contains an intrinsical morality (even.. or should I say especially.. Chick tracts.)
The morality of art, IMO, comes from contextuality and thought.
As is observed in Art+Fear[1], art is a kind of thought; art reveals the artist to themselves. As there are certainly such things as destructive thought patterns, it follows that one aspect of the
morality of an artwork is the partial patterns of thought it encodes. If they are mostly or wholly destructive, such as:
* art that is mainly intended to promote an xenophobic or anti-choice attitude.,
* art that reinforces an artist's belief 'I am a bad person'/
'unable to help myself, unable to help others'/
'doomed'/'good for nothing' [3].
* art that aims to bewilder the beholder, with no purpose beyond said bewilderment.
Any work that demonstrates anti-human belief or intent, implicitly
or explicitly, is immoral, at least when viewed in context of the
culture it was made in, and probably even outside it.
The second aspect of the morality of art, IMO, is in the context.
Sexting is a handy example. Teens who are having sex with each other (or contemplating it), sending naked photos of themselves to their sexual partner. Maybe you don't really know whether your fuckbunny [2] sincerely cares about you, but unless they are abusing you, sexting them is at worst morally questionable, not actually immoral. (people need to learn the difference between those two!).
Consequently the images take on that moral context. If someone hijacks them and posts them on some online wankery site for people to gawp at, they acquire a vastly different moral context.
So two instances of the same piece of art -- if you accept photography as art -- have different extrinsic moralities. An anti-Jewish artwork has a far different (and worse) moral context when shown to a person who is already anti-Jewish, versus shown to a strong-minded Jew, IMO.
In this vein, no aesthetic theme -- which is what loli/shota is -- can be considered immoral or moral. Just the intrinsic or extrinsic ideas arranged around it. For instance, set the picture out as a glorification of rape and I will instantly judge it immoral. Set it out as self- or mutual exploration, that's pretty much as moral as it gets, IMO. Exploitation -> immoral, exaltation -> generally moral, exploration -> generally moral.
.. _[1] AWESOME BOOK. I've learnt quite a bit about life, not only art from it. It's profound and fascinating.
[2] neologized from fuckbuddy and snugglebunny, in representation of the weird relationship space teen relationships occupy.
[3] I acknowledge that these artworks may actually help artists discard these patterns of thought by concretizing them so they can get an overall view. I am not convinced that these works can be good for anyone else, however, as they can get them *into* those patterns instead of out. [4]
[4] "All English begins from vagueness, and ends with vagueness. This is the truth! This is my belief! ... At least for now." -- auugh!
Actually, I've had discussions before about my belief that, while things like D.W. Griffith's The Birth Of A Nation or Leni Reifenstahl's propaganda movies may display *skill*, because of their subject matter they do not deserve any artistic recognition. I likened it to how, a commercial can be well made and funny and even gorgeous, but we don't usually consider it 'art' (Rightfully so, I think) because it's built on a lie. The artist is not creating it for themselves, or to say anything about truth or beauty, but because they were paid by a corporation to seduce consumers. Similarly, propaganda films are about agenda, not art, and I don't think people like Griffiths or Reifenstahl deserve to be called filmmakers.
Also, if possible I'll check out Art+Fear. Sounds neat-o.
assumptions; If I'm preaching to the choir (you) and someone else
learns something from it, that's still of the good :) Maybe I should
put it up as a journal.
I was expecting the comment about the footnotes.. footnotes are
still really good IMO. They mimic that conversational thing where
you indicate you'll explain that later, and then they ask you later. If
I wrote them all inline in parentheses, it would seem a incoherent mess (I used to
write and speak a lot of incoherentness, haha).
"while things like D.W. Griffith's The Birth Of A Nation or Leni
Reifenstahl's propaganda movies may display *skill*, because of
their subject matter they do not deserve any artistic recognition."
That's a pretty subtle sentence :) I think we're on the same
wavelength, though: Its artisticness is dubious because art
normally contains a lot of self, but propaganda contains very
little (in fact, this is exactly why religious nuts creep me out..
they mostly don't seem to BE THERE as a person, more like a shell wrapped
around this AGENDA.)
k, the Art & Fear is the one by David Bayles and Ted Orland. There's some other one by Joseph somebodyorother, which I have no idea
about the content of. I reformatted the entire thing to nice plain text / html, if you are so inclined (I myself found it rather impractical
that there wasn't a proper ebook version, which is why I remedied it.)
Not a bad idea!
>If I wrote them all inline in parentheses, it would seem a incoherent mess (I used to write and speak a lot of incoherentness, haha).
I still prefer parentheses, but I've gotten fairly good at condensing my thoughts as much as possible. I'll embrace run-on sentences in the main body, but try to be as brief as possible in the parentheses.
>That's a pretty subtle sentence :)
I've thought about this long enough to finally nail down exactly what felt wrong to me about calling such works 'art'. Mostly it was how people would laud Griffiths or Reifenstahl as great filmmakers, and that really rubbed me the wrong way. It took a while to realize that you can appreciate skill seperately from talent/taste/intentions, etc. Like, while I can admit to Michael Bay showing occasional flashes of talent when directing an action scene, overall he's the worst director alive.
>I think we're on the same wavelength, though: Its artisticness is dubious because art normally contains a lot of self, but propaganda contains very little (in fact, this is exactly why religious nuts creep me out.. they mostly don't seem to BE THERE as a person, more like a shell wrapped around this AGENDA.)
That's an excellent insight, and I will absolutely incorporate that into future discussions on this topic. You're spot on: the lack of 'self' in the work was the missing piece for me. That's what separates propaganda and commercials from real art.
>k, the Art & Fear is the one by David Bayles and Ted Orland. There's some other one by Joseph somebodyorother, which I have no idea about the content of. I reformatted the entire thing to nice plain text / html, if you are so inclined (I myself found it rather impractical that there wasn't a proper ebook version, which is why I remedied it.)
Oo, really? That'd be handy. Do you think you could send it to me in an email? If yes, I'll send you my address in a PM.
> it was how people would laud Griffiths or Reifenstahl as great filmmakers
> the lack of 'self' in the work was the missing piece for me.
It's interesting that that comes up about 'self' actually, cause I was also reading Harold Speed's "Practice and Science of Drawing" book[1] recently, and he's very explicit about the need for an artist to sharply distinguish between studies (in which scientific accuracy must dominate, and he describes as 'dead'/ lifeless) and artwork (in which artistic accuracy must dominate; whose intent is to communicate rather than measure. The use of studies is strictly to educate your hand,eye, and mind so you can communicate more clearly.). He goes on to say, if your first few strokes are not strong (ie. convey your intent with this drawing, forcefully.), then start again. Has been really helpful to make my drawings more powerful.
In effect, people who make things 'skillfully' that do not touch you.. well, there's the possibility that their experience is beyond your understanding. But it's far more common that their work is effectively an arrangement of well polished studies. As Speed observes, among the formally artistically trained, there's quite a scary proportion who produce dead work (regarding this not only as good, but aspiring to greater deadness -> scientific accuracy).
Re: Art+Fear: Sure, no problem. I'll await your PM.
[1] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14264/14264-h.zip (html formatted book)
Ah but I do tend to speak in run-on sentences, so it makes sense I'd duplicate that in my writing.
>He goes on to say, if your first few strokes are not strong (ie. convey your intent with this drawing, forcefully.), then start again.
Whenever I draw, I almost always start with the eyes. If the eyes don't convey the emotion i want, I start over.
>As Speed observes, among the formally artistically trained, there's quite a scary proportion who produce dead work (regarding this not only as good, but aspiring to greater deadness -> scientific accuracy).
He has a damn good point there. If you ever go to some art show where they're selling paintings like ground beef, you'll see tons of this. I remember going to one at a college and seeing acres of art with great technical skill, but maybe three paintings that actually said anything to me. I feel the same way about certain popular artists here on FA. Hence, why a significant number of my favorite artists would be considered 'bad' because they don't have much technical skill, but their *ideas* are fascinating and exciting and creative.
>Re: Art+Fear: Sure, no problem. I'll await your PM.
Sent.