FA+
Shop
Disappointed.
13 years ago
Looks like the new rule has had consequences for one member of this site that I really, really like -- Norithics.
I understand that there is That Rule. The rule which Nori 'violated', regarding apparent underage characters. I don't, in principle, have a problem with a rule like that... it looks good on paper.
The trouble is that there is no objective way to enforce That Rule, and so this means that there is no /fair/ way to enforce That Rule. So what we have here is distinctly /unfair/ (good heavens I sound like I'm still in 4th grade). That's a problem.
That Rule can only be enforced subjectively, mostly because it's being enforced on art. Art is inherently subjective -- you're not filling in dots for a standardized test here; there's way more creativity and originality than that present in the stuff here. That's the root of the problem. Because art itself is not objective, That Rule, which is about certain details of art, cannot be objective.
This is not to say that it's impossible to make objective rules about art that can be enforced fairly. It's to say that it's extraordinarily difficult except in a few narrow cases. For example... this site allows the (for lack of a more comfortable term) genders Male, Female, and Herm (in all their many variations), along with a Group gender for multiple people in one piece of art. If we were (to be totally ridiculous) to narrow that down to just Male and Female, then where would Herm art go, assuming that it wasn't strictly speaking disallowed altogether?
My maternal grandfather (of whom I have nothing but sayings and photos, as he died five years before my birth) had a wonderful phrase that fits here like a glove.
"Anything worth doing, is worth doing well."
FA, you're better than this. Collectively and individually.
I understand that there is That Rule. The rule which Nori 'violated', regarding apparent underage characters. I don't, in principle, have a problem with a rule like that... it looks good on paper.
The trouble is that there is no objective way to enforce That Rule, and so this means that there is no /fair/ way to enforce That Rule. So what we have here is distinctly /unfair/ (good heavens I sound like I'm still in 4th grade). That's a problem.
That Rule can only be enforced subjectively, mostly because it's being enforced on art. Art is inherently subjective -- you're not filling in dots for a standardized test here; there's way more creativity and originality than that present in the stuff here. That's the root of the problem. Because art itself is not objective, That Rule, which is about certain details of art, cannot be objective.
This is not to say that it's impossible to make objective rules about art that can be enforced fairly. It's to say that it's extraordinarily difficult except in a few narrow cases. For example... this site allows the (for lack of a more comfortable term) genders Male, Female, and Herm (in all their many variations), along with a Group gender for multiple people in one piece of art. If we were (to be totally ridiculous) to narrow that down to just Male and Female, then where would Herm art go, assuming that it wasn't strictly speaking disallowed altogether?
My maternal grandfather (of whom I have nothing but sayings and photos, as he died five years before my birth) had a wonderful phrase that fits here like a glove.
"Anything worth doing, is worth doing well."
FA, you're better than this. Collectively and individually.
