Isn't there already a two tier system? It's called 'scraps' and most people aren't aware of it, apparently. I always post something I wouldn't consider actual art in scraps, and usually delete it later (or upgrade it to a regular gallery post if enough people seem to think it belongs there).

I just wish there'd be a little more constructive criticism, and less flaming. I try to point out why I like a picture, and I even try to point out things I think detract, on occasion. I wish others did, in a mature fashion.

I know, but almost nobody uses it. Even then, you'll still see a huge pile of well, just scribbles. Here... gonna load main page and just go bam!
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/559295/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/559294/

I quite agree, but unfortunately, junk to one person is art to another. Fine Art is definitely in the eye of the beholder. That, of course, means that everybody feels their "art" is more fantastic than everyone else's, which entitles them to pose 80 things in a day, which in turn, drops down the exposure for everyone else.

It could all be solved with some discretion and maturity (I completely agree with Josef on that point), but it might be a bit too much to ask for with the vast majority of the fandom. :(

Yah, I know that line is fuzzy and that slope is slippery but sometimes it gets out of hand. Heh, I still remember the disgust I felt when this guy, in his early 30's no less, was harping on about his pictures of Batman figurines had as much "artistic merit" as my Fire and Ice series of pictures. Um, gag me with a spoon!

Gag you with a spoon your ass, do you remember that same day someone posted to Dragoneer that they were happy that they were enacting a photobucket rule was going in because they didn't have to see YOUR photos, which didn't belong here? it was partially because people here on this site couldn't decide whether YOUR work belonged that the photobucket rule was ditched!

Wha? I only started posting pictures when I saw Josefcub posting photography. I've also always (well almost) kept it on the theme of nature, natural surroundings etc. I've never posted urban landscapes, plain-old snap-shots of my dogs, or pictures of the latest toys I've bought. Again, I'm not talking about stuff that's iffy, we're talking the far end of the spectrum here. Batman figurines?

That he modified and custom tailored. He rebuilds toys. That's his hobby, everything from sculpting new heads, sewing new outfits, and repairing broken classic toys, to making completely new ones from old parts. He does such a good job that only collectors can look at them and say "wait a second . . . ." As such he's completely within the site rules to post those (and it was also pointed out to you the last time we had this conversation).

People were pointing at your pictures because they didn't see them as artistic , or there were too many of them, or they weren't furry, or anything they THEY didn't agree with; just as many liked it. That you choose natural sourroundings had NOTHING to do with people's impressions or whether they thought it belonged here. The two you picked as "not belonging"? Furry. Art. Drawn. 100% the person's own work. One was a WIP, one was posted with the best effort the person had, a cell phone cam. But people could still say they were lacking; regardless, they will never be told they can't post it. Hell, people tell me my pics suck all the time if they are better at anatomy or prefer something more realistic, and I HAVE been told I should step aside for "real artists". I've seen people tell folks like Wookiee they should get the hell out of here and let the amateurs get the attention for just once.

Point is, you, nor I, nor anyone else, can draw the line as to what is art, or what is "art enough" for here. If you try, no one will agree on it.

Well I still think hand-stitching a cape is a far cry from trudging through knee-deep snow and waiting for an hour for the sun to set to capture a picture. As for the pics, I didn't pick them as "not belonging", just well, needing so much practice and work that well, might just wanna wait a bit. Also, how can someone say I'm doing too many posts when mine disappear off the page in five minutes (like everyone elses)? As for someone dumping on you or Wookie, sour grapes! That's dumb-ass knee-jerk crapola on a personal level. Much the same thing as I got last time I posted something to the Fursuit community.

Just as many people would say trudging through snow doesn't make art. Nor does waiting, or moving your finger at the right second.

It all comes down to OPINIONS. In YOUR opinion, custom toys don't count. In someone else's opinion, your photography doesn't count. Some say people shouldn't post WIP's, some say no digital work, some say no scraps, some say no people, some say no fursuits, some say no one that isn't professional. It's ALL crapola. This is the one site where people aren't judged as "not being creative or tallented enough". There's PLENTY of other fur galleries where people have to be told they are allowed to post there. Um . . . your work wouldn't be allowed on any of them, sorry to say. But if you'd like to check them out, they're around!

It ain't the trudging through the snow that makes it art, but that click at the right second? Mmmm, metaphor... the perfect pause before a Miles Davis squonk. Precisely the right squonk at the right time. Photographers aren't the composers, we're the singers and the players.

Oh I know that. I just find it somewhat bizarre when I see someone saying that a beautiful picture of a horse in full flight doesn't fit into the "anthropomorphic genre" or it "ain't furry".

"Photographers aren't the composers, we're the singers and the players." That's a good way of putting it. Much the same argument has been used stating that photography should not be allowed here, as the rule is "made by you or for you". And unless you made what was in the photo yourself, technically, photography would not count. You didn't make the horse, or the sunset . . . you get what they're saying.

And I know what you're saying about animals but yes, all the other fur galleries out there (that I am aware of, at least) do have a rule that specifically says "no photographs of real animals". "Furry" means "anthro" to most people, and that's it; no anthro, no furry.

Oh the drama of the art world! There is an entire class taught on the philosophies on what is art and what isn't at the college i go to, now, where to begin?

The 'canon' has always been established in art history, as the ideal artworks. It is usually the work of a master that establishes a canon, and generations after, find inspiration in the canon, and follow it like a guideline, to create artwork or improve on old methods. Like Vermeer's constrasting and rich use of light, or michelangelo's muscle bound figure work, there will always be a canon for one to strive for. There has always been clashing opinions on what is good or bad art, though, everyone follows their own path.

I think this is what you mean in the fandom, a canon is a difficult thing to establish in such a community with such fluctuating values and opinions, and where 'freedom of expression reigns.'

A similar fate befelled deviantart what with the badly drawn and cheesy anime, or slashs on anime. When it comes down to it, websites such as these, are an easy way for people to share little bits of their lives, whatever it may be. They have an equal opportunity to post up their work, but do not fret, if you want to draw people in, do so by not saying a word about what art is good or bad. Let us decide for ourselves. As a community, we give attention to what pieces of other people's art fit into our own tastes. All of our work gets buried, but a good way to get exposure is to be as social as possible. It is after all, a community. ;)

Sometimes (sometimes?!) I get rather pissed at the whole "It's my opinion and it's just as valid!" thing. If that's true then absolutely anything and everything is "art" and we no longer have a word that has any meaning. Urf, sorry, it's early. This always comes up when someone's defending someone's picture of a guitar on their bed (which they're just showing off). Oh it's art IN MY OPINION. *sigh* Sure, fine, whatever. Again, I wasn't bitching at even the rudest artist posting their first efforts, only the most obvious of things like as I used for an example, someone showing off their new guitar or someone posting silly snapshots of their friends or something.

I guess I'm a bit lost as to the "rules" of the situation, as in what's "allowed" to be posted and what isn't.

The very definition of the word "artwork" is so incredibly broad in both scope and spectrum that is seems almost all-inclusive of pretty much anything. Any product of one's imagination, brought to life in any form of creativity meets the criteria of being "art". Even photography, in my opinion, has many elements of creativity: framing, lighting, angle, depth-of-field, and so many other factors, all of which are at the discretion of the photographer, which in turn make his/her images totally unique to them, though perhaps in subtle ways. To that point, I'd find it very hard to endure someone saying that the photography of Ansel Adams - for example - is /not/ art . Personally, I would have to think they'd done a few too many drugs, or were perhaps on them presently.

Having said all that, I think I'd end up being in the same category as Atomicat, as most of what I have posted here on FA is photography, and digital at that.

I guess all this is really to ask, /are/ there rules here on FA as to what is art and what isn't? If so, what do they base these rules on, and what is their educational and professional background? In other words, what qualification do they have to be the judge of "art" and "not-art"? I didn't read about any rules about what's art and what's not in the Terms-of-Service Agreement. Maybe I missed that part.

Can anyone shed some more light on this subject?

Oh anyone who can say that photography isn't art has been sniffing far too much glue for far too long. Lighting? Wrong lighting, no picture. Perfect example, the last couple of pictures of that white horse. Mid-afternoon lighting on that, just a picture of a horse. The whole "is it "furry" or ain't it" debate well, oi gevalt! For me (and I know for you as well) there's a huge connection with nature. For some of these kids, shut up in an urban box, surrounded by concrete, it's vixens in bikinis and nothing else. Again, there was a whole debate earlier about this place being used as a Photobucket site. People were posting just anything and then using the excuse that in their "opinion" it was art.

I've been called an elitist bastard... and I am! Shit, I've worked in the art world, swam in it, for over 20 YEARS now. For some pretentious 22-year-old art student getting stoned on daddy's money to tell me that their "opinion" is just as valid as mine is pure bullshit. Taken to absurd extremes, then so is a five-year-old child's.

P.S. Speaking of light... you gotta take your pictures much later in the day. Try evening light, it's beautiful!

The rules of FA do not have an art "judgement" policy at this time. Right now if it is legal, and if it was made by you or for you, you can post it; the only "over and above" is NO photographic naughty-bits regardless of whether the person is of consenting age or not because the owners of the site have no way of keeping track or verifying who truely is the age they say they are. The staff also promised twice now that no one would be told they couldn't post here regardless of whether or not it "belonged" or was high quality enough (after the y!gallery kicked off all the anthro artists and put in quality controls) and that if it was legal it belonged here (cub art drama).

They tried to do a photobucket rule once, and it was removed within a day. No one, not even the staff, could decide on where the line was between a snapshot and art. A lot of people got their feelings very hurt when people said their photography looked like a photobucket snapshot, a lot of people were mad when they were told they couldn't post pictures of fursuits when they made the fursuits ("no fursuits" was a specific rule, yes, on a fur site), or photos of other things they had made, other people thought the rule didn't go far enough and anything not "furry" didn't belong, others said "no photography and no posts from people who aren't artists", others wanted to get rid of anyone who scribbled . . . .

It came down to this: people wanted to have their time in the spotlight. They got bumped off the front page too fast, and whatever was bumping them off was the bad guy.

Even if you look to the staff for whether they have the knowhow to judge art, no one will agree. Dragoneer has the schooling and the professional background, but many artists don't take him seriously because he does Digimon fan art primarily (at least I think it's Digimon, could be Pokemon, I don't know these things), with sticky trademark laws and many people feeling that's not furry at all. Should he be picking and choosing what belongs on a fur (but not fur) art site?

So there's the long version. *chuckles*

Okie. I think I follow now.

So I guess it's safe to say, at this point, it's more the users being a bit upset because there's so many people posting, that stuff only stays on the "front page" for a few minutes. I guess that's a valid complaint, although I'm not sure there's any practical/efficient way to remedy that.

I'm /am/ glad to know now that there aren't "art" judges out there trying to determine the worthiness of one form of art over another. I think that's good, as art shall always be in the eye of the beholder, much as it always has been.

In curiosity: the whole "cub art" drama was happening right about the time I joined. What was that all about? Was it ever resolved?

Oh that whole thing was about posting pictures where the characters were under-aged. Nooo, it's not pedophilia per-se, but many people were very upset by it and the fur flew as usual.

I guess the line is in the intent of the poster. That's where I get tweaked, when it's obvious that the poster is just showing off as in my examples, a picture of a new guitar they bought, or a bad goofy picture of their mom.

Hmm. I guess that it's all still in the eye of the beholder, but if someone's just snapping a pic of their new guitar just for the sake of showing it to the world, then I'm not sure that's classified as "art" and I think (aka my opinion) is that it's not appropriate for this sute, being that it's dedicated to art. LiveJournal might be a more appropriate medium. But I'm guessing that other people would feel differently, even though I agree with you on that point.

Anyway, I guess there will be endless debate on what's "appropriate" and what's not. But for what it's worth, I've found your pictures to be quite enjoyable, and aside from any arguments as to their being "art" or not, I like them, which makes them "art" to me. :)

I try not to take these sites too seriously, where you can mass upload any number of pictures... it's just bound to be abused at some point.

If it annoys you, scour the net for another photography site, but more directed towards quality control. (i lurk around conceptart.org, but i still feel those dudes on that site rape me up the ass with their skillz :D)

Well, I use a simple technique to avoid this things: I just ignore them ;)

I think it's very effective but... It could work to one and don't work to another one... very personal, I don't know... ^^'

Ah, I do, but I dunno, was just kinda frustrated one night when I posted something and by the time I'd answered one other comment, clicked on the main page, it was gone. Urf, just a bit of vent.