Attached Link: Even more nudity with impending violence :O)

Because this is a hobby for most people. They run hot and cold with it. They may not do a render where this policy change is applicable for some time to come and have not educated themselves of the finer points of it so this is going to continue. The site made a decision to change a policy, now it's their responsibility to manage it properly.

Quote - You lack the time and ability to use select, copy, paste in a basic art program?  One of the most basic functions in any art program?  It takes seconds, not the hopeful HOURS you put into a peice of art.

Its just a point i find proposterous.   (kevlar again, covering all important vulnerable body parts here).   If there is so much work and passion in your art, why is it soooooo laborious to make a 200x200 pixel thumbnail?    I mean, to make an image, get it on the net, use programs or techiniques to make it and get it here........ thats some difficult stuff, theoretically.   I'd  like to think if people can do that, they can manage a thumbnail.

It can be done easily enough, but it's not the thumbnail I want with the necessary cropping. I don't tend to do the tremendous closeups a lot of others do so I'm finding if I just include the head with no naughty bits I'm not getting a thumbnail that I consider properly representative of the render.

Quote - Hi Steve,

Your image hasn't been removed. It's been put into holding.
Your image thumbnail is of someone's backside. Clearly defined as nudity in the guidelines.

1. The message you received from Jani clearly states her email address for you to respond to. Alternatively, in your site mail box, just press "Reply" to reply, or from your email program, press the "Reply" button.
2. Here is a tutorial on how to make a thumbnail:
   http://www.renderosity.com/mod/tutorial/index.php?tutorial_id=1570
   Jani also gave you instructions in her message on how to get the replacement thumbnail to her.
3. Arguing isn't compulsory.

No one can seem to answer this question  - if someone has set the "No Nudity filter", why are thumbnails containing nudity being shown to them. Isn't this a fault with the set up of the galleries?

They aren't. (Already discussed in the pages of this thread. Or simply switch on your nudity filter to see for yourself.)

If you want your image deleted then please reply to Jani to that effect. Thanks.

1. I read the message then didn't know where to find it again. I have never used this facility before. I was asking where in the site are the messages held. Never mind - I finally figured it out myself.

2. When I did find it, I cannot see how to attach an image to a message. How is this done?

3. How do I alter my image to suit the guidelines. It says I cannot airbrush it. Is totally black allowed? Can I put text on a black background?

4. Yes is is of a backside but then so is the example given. That has a red swimsuit on, mine is in deep black shadow. You can't see anything.

5. The guidelines don't say how big a thumbnail should be. Of course I know how to make one, it was the specifications I was after.

6. If the "nudity off" filter works as you say it does, what is the point of all this?

All in all very unhelpful and unfriendly.

Tiari - i don't need to give you  an earful.  all i need to do is point back to my previous posts where i state how given the artwork , this is not always possible to do and retain the meaning and quality of the original image, nor even accurately depict it.  the more i look at unfinished works, the more i realize i can't post them here.  if you can't understand that, i don't know what to tell you.

karen1573 - you don't need to repeat yourselves.  that's what looks so bad.  what you're not doing is actually explaining your reasoning after it's been challenged directly.  instead various mods just keep repeating the same insults to our work.  i know i've tried to address most posts directly (minus the ones that made me too heated), and i've got no actual responsibilities to the community.

as for answers to questions: do these pictures seen on quite popular magazines distributed practically everywhere fit the new thumbnail policy?
vanity fair - kate moss
bazaar - britney spears
vanity fair - scarlett johanson & kiera knightley
vanity fair - demi moore pregnant
vanity fair - demi moore painted
vogue - jennifer aniston
time - howard schatz cover
time - howard schatz cover 2

and just to say, i didn't look up "nude," "breast," or anything like that.  some i came across quite accidentally just looking for magazine covers.  and that doesn't even get into the perfume ads.

Cobalt:  I was not referring to you, and I can see, sadly, in some instances it would be hard to express the meaning of the whole image, while cropping say, 90 percent of it out.  My comment was not intended to those instances.    No, it was towards the ones that either do not know, or "cant invest the time" to make a thumbnail at all, as their bases of argument.      However, even in instances where it could be hard to get the meaning across, I still have some slight contention with an image being 90 percent nudity........ I can't fathom say, a 600x800 image filled with only nude body parts. (though again I agree, something might get lost in translation of cropping).

The guidelines and TOS of the sight itself, sort of set the precidence for the content anyway.  Since no actual sex acts, manipulation or mastrubation is allowed in images....... one must assume, if it contains nudity (and by the genre of say, pin up, romance.... fantasy).  Again it could be a black square thumbnail, and the idea would be put across.

That being the case, and its again, only my opinion, if someone posted a nude under, for instance "Poser - Pinup", without even seeing the thumb I can make a good guess to what it contains.  Nude female, singular.  A thumb with a clip of the face and partial background can, indeed tell me the "Tone".  Also, even a close up of a minor detail can tell me the skill level, or "theme" of the "pin up".

Since I view nudes, and have no problem with them, the only invoncenience i see with the cropped or blank thumbnail, is occassionally i have no preview and go to the full size, and it does not "interest" me. (or worse lol).  However its a minor inconvenience, and IE graced me with a back arrow for just those occassions.  Slightly invonvenient, but hardly a hardship.

Again I still have the kevlar on, lol.  I certainly don't expect anyone to agree, its just my meager opinion.  The point, in closing, is that its worth it, by gum, to put a little thought / knowledge into a thumbnail to advertise an image that hopefully a lot of time was put into in the first place.

first off, the nudity doesn't need to fill the scene.  if you do an image of  a nude female and it's not meant to titillate, seduce, entice, or otherwise make people go, "wow, she's hot. i really wanna do her,"  getting the meaning across without showing key parts of the figure isn't easy unless you a) really emphasized the expression rather than the whole body (see my image "hunger," i think the thumb is actually stronger than the whole) and c) deliberately compromised the pose and composition so that cropping the head without the breasts is easy and doesn't make a really awkward and bizarre composition.

for instance, there are certain places on the arm that if you crop, it looks cropped.  but in others, it looks amputated.  you can't just crop a nude willy-nilly and have it look right.  the less complex the pose and the more derivative it is, the easier it is.  but the more inventive you are and the more extreme and interesting the pose, the less  you can just crop anywhere you want.

heck, even my pretty straight-forward nude studies i don't care that much about cropping. it's my other, more complex pieces i have a problem with.

i had a very hard time making a thumbnail for my most recent image (desolation) cropping out her breast (again, before the ruling).  and i still think it's awful.  i'm very proud of the image (it took much longer to pose, light and postwork than you would imagine), but i think the thumbnail sucks butt.  i wouldn't click on it.  showing more of her torso just looks much better.  i could make it something i'd be proud to post then.  as it is.... i'm already going to have to cut so much from my gallery that it just seems pathetic, so i might as well post and hope some people actually take a look and like it.  and this is an image where i knew what i wanted it to look like from start to finish.  i didn't start with, "well, considering i can't have a thumbnail show a breast or buttocks because that might offend people..."  i started with what i wanted to express and the image i wanted to do that with.  it's pretty easy to just start with what you want to say and end up somewhere out of rendo's present bounds. 

so now my gallery here will be, imho,  incomplete, mediocre and misleading. if i post links to any other galleries, people will be surprised at what they find as it won't be the same as what i post here.

if all i did was pinups, i wouldn't be affected at all.  i know how to make stomachs, legs and other body parts express "i'm hot."  heck, i know how to make lips do that.  which is the point.  i don't see how a series of lips, high heels or other such images would make the gallery look better.  or pinups in bikinis rather than naked.  conversely, the new rule penalizes people who did put more thought and effort into their work, but decided to use nudity.

as for pictures of nude body parts- see mfenberg's gallery, as i mentioned earlier in the thread.  it's gorgeous.  i find it very inspiring.  that said, i've done some illustrator works in that sort of theme, so i also have my own interest in closeups of body parts.

Quote - ... but, in some of these posts, of the most ardent complaintants, they will state the inability, or they do not want to "take the time" to make an appropriate thumbnail.

You didn't get that from me, because my point has never been that it's too hard or takes too much time - only that I'm not willing to do it because the policy change is a case of making a large number of people go out of their way for the benefit of a small number of people (even taking at face value that some people might complain about titties in thumbnails).

Look at it in another context.  E.g. the homeless guy you give a dollar to when you pass him.  He's been happy to take your dollar every time you offer it (and after all, he ought to be, because he gets value from it).  Today, he tells you that starting in one week, you have to give him your dollar in the form of a cashier's check.  He still wants your dollar, but he says it's unprofessional for you to give him a dirty, wadded up $1 bill.  At this point your eyebrow is probably going to go up.

Karen:

Quote - The reasons why we've made this change have been posted in the front page article since the beginning, and have been restated time and time again, in this thread and others.

*One of our goals is to promote artists and show the world the wonderfully creative art work that is expressed through digital mediums. Another goal is to have consistency of the rules and presentation across all areas of our site: [...]
In order to reach both these goals...

*The first item is symantically meaningless.  Restricting thumbnails in such a way that they actually cannot represent the image they're related to is really counter to that goal anyway.

Consistency of the rules would have been better enforced from the web page side instead of forcing hundreds of people to change their practices, with many judgment calls and much margin for error on everyone's part, including site admin types.  Regarding consistency, that's simply arbitrary.  "A foolish consistency" and whatnot.

*Many Renderosity members have expressed to us that while they admire artistic nudity, they really don't like it when it's so "In Your Face" in the thumbnail. 

*And as ought to be evident from this thread, many object to the policy.  Obviously it should be reverted to satisfy us!

In addition, we want to feature artists from the Art Charts in the weekly newsletter. However, since we don't allow nude thumbnails in our weekly newsletter

Solution:  don't mail links to nudity out with the newsletter (you probably oughtn't be doing that anyway).  Or filter the thumbs based on content type.  Or contact artists who actually MADE the art charts before mailing out links to their content .  Again, for the sake of a few people (the fifty at maximum who might be on the art charts), hundreds are made to go out of their way.  Dumb.

You are giving the homeless man something for nothing, so that is ludicrous.  Since you are the giver, its up to you, what you give.

Here, renderosity is the "giver" the supplier of the gallery.  Therefore technically, they can ask for what they want in return for those services.

Renderosity is free to join, free to post to the galleries and get feedback, and free in forums as a resource to an artistic community.   I could see such arguments debated hotly over a subscription say, that is paid for on a subscriber basis, but it is hard to contend with things that are free.

Would you argue with a provider who gave a freestuff texture because they didnt want it used for commercial use?   Would you argue with a freestuff provider that told you not to redistribute the dress they gave you for nothing?

Again, i agree, and am sorry that some of the meaning behind some images is curtailed in cropped thumbs.  I do agree to that, that often, the theme or nuance cannot come across.  I would assume, since you have been here quite a while, you have a veiwing base, and collegues here that know, and appreciate your work.  They too, following the same rules, I don't think would think you are "cheating them" with a thumbnail.   I know I don't.

Ahh, but who benefits from me putting things in the gallery?  I get a smidgen of self-gratification for whatever reason - Rendo gets a ton of money from sales.  It's self-referential advertising, don't kid yourself.  It costs money, sure, and it's offered free - do I make money off of it?  No.  Does Rendo?  Yes, certainly.  What do you think the production credit link feature is there for?  All the features offered for free are in support of the marketplace here, which makes tons and tons of cash (myself I've spent nearly $500 here).

Edit: note I use "me" in the greater sense, I'm not so arrogant as to say I, personally, make people buy things with my uberfantstische mad skillz.  Overall, the gallery is a major cash cow for the site, that was my point.

Look at it this way:  If Rendo charged you $1 to post a single image, for each image, how busy do you think the gallery would be?  So what's of value here, the service offered that lets one post to the gallery, or the gallery content itself?  That's what I mean about the tail wagging the dog.

As of February 3, 2007 18:00 CST (GMT-6), I found fully 14 images on the first 15 pages of the gallery that violate the new thumbnail rule. those 15 pages were posted in less than 24 hours. Sounds like they need a mod to browse the gallery in real time, 24/7 to remove violations. After all, what's the point in trying to make the gallery more "professional" if they even let one thumb slip through their fingers! I find it hard to believe those 15 members who violated the new rule, didn't read or understand the warning "No Nudity/Violence in thumbnails, please read information at the above link" posted in the upload dialog. I find it difficult to understand why they couldn't be bothered to go to the link and read the information, then clean up their thumbnail to comply with the new rule.

I am against the new rule, but, by george, it needs to be enforced consistently and everyone should be considerate enough to abide by it, whether they agree with it or not! That does not mean I think we should lay down and accept it without protest or comment though.

Note: Some of my statements carry a hint of sarcasm. I offer no apology for that.

Quote - Here, renderosity is the "giver" the supplier of the gallery.

No, I am the giver!!!!
If Renderosity removes some image you can go to any other site to see it, but if I don't make the image Renderosity will be able to show you NOTHING!

Quote - I find it hard to believe those 15 members who violated the new rule, didn't read or understand the warning "No Nudity/Violence in thumbnails, please read information at the above link" posted in the upload dialog. I find it difficult to understand why they couldn't be bothered to go to the link and read the information, then clean up their thumbnail to comply with the new rule.

People read nothing, they only click the download or upload buttons, if you ask them if they agree they will click YES, if yes was not the correct answer, next time they visit the site they will answer NO.

lol.  renderosity is the giver?  i suppose that musicians should be so thankful for places to play, they should simply thank clubs for the opportunity and not ask for any money in return.  or copywriters should just thank magazines and newspapers for publishing their work while remaining unpaid.

this isn't a non-profit organization.  this isn't  a community service.  note the .com.  we get visibility and they get often professional quality advertisements of the products they sell, along with gobs of traffic for their banner ads.  if they weren't getting the better end of the deal, they would have closed the forums and shut down the gallery a long time ago.  i know a few people who have worked  hard to make community sites popular, spent ages making content, and become quite comfortable off the revenue just from banner ads.  so no store to add to that.

http://stephdelineated.blogspot.com/2007/01/i-wish-i-had-written-this.html

note these two paragraphs:

"In this country, there are almost twice as many neurosurgeons as there are professional illustrators. There are eleven times as many certified mechanics. There are SEVENTY times as many people in the IT field.

So, given that they are less rare, and therefore less in demand, would it make sense to ask your mechanic to work on your car for free? Would you look him in the eye, with a straight face, and tell him that his compensation would be the ability to have his work shown to others as you drive down the street?"

Quote - I noted nobody responded with thier definition of porn.

Now you guys want to talk about evil, and how nudity is evil.  Nobody said that.  However I do think the objectification of females is - and porn does that, not appreciation of females   (which I see often in nude art).  

For the record:
por·nog·ra·phy     /pɔrˈnɒgrəfi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pawr-nog-ruh-fee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation–noun obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit. 

Gee, I wonder why an ART site doesn't want to be represented by that.  Go figure.

Like you, I consider porn "evil," and I have been on the other side of this argument (black and white is so much simpler than color...) many times, even here, and sneered at for "Puritanism." The reason "we" insist that the PTB are saying "nudity = porn" is that it is implicit in their move to control porn by restricting nudity. In my skewed world-view, a picture that shows one person grovelling and licking the shiny boot of another is porn, and so is a picture of a dead child with her entrails strewed about like rose petals. Their clothes don't matter. Go figure.

Defining pornography is hopeless, and what troubles me is not the unwillingness to view body parts or acts -- one loose definition of Puritanism -- but the intellectual hypocrisy of promoting something while denouncing it or denouncing something publicly that you revel in privately. That is my definition of Puritanism, and it applies to this site as much as it does to Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Joseph Smith, Pope Pius XII and any rich Buddhist.

You can't even use the handy notion of whether the work was "porn to the artist." I promise you that Courbet's lovely pornography was, in his mind, just that. And I'm confident that the Naked Maja was conceived as porn. And if you want quibble about Caravaggio's Amor Victorious, then take a look at the leer on the face of his adolescent John the Baptist as he fondles a pushy ram.

The "porn to the viewer" definition is hopeless because it has the lifespan of a mayfly. I'm 63, and I find bare expanses between female bellybutton and belt unnerving because for my generation, they would be considered provocative. It's a case study in subjective judgment; I have to remind myself that most of these "slutty" girls are no more thinking "provoke" than my generation's teeny boppers were when they bared their calves. I find myself understanding (which is not the same thing as approving) Arab squeamishness.

How subtle are the distinctions? I've been labeled "Puritan" in other threads after repeating my still unanswered question: If the leering adolescent split beaver in Amor Victorious were a girl, would the picture be considered a masterpiece of Renaissance art? Consider the fate of Courbet's beautiful 'Origine du Monde before answering.

How subtle? I love that Courbet, with no illusions that it has the artistic merit of Caravaggio, whose work I also love. But six years ago I was checking my company's servers for stuff that shouldn't be there (personal files that clog the server, like MPEGs) and I stumbled across a 40Meg photo. It was one of my employees, posing to recreate Courbet's picture. An added complication was that it was in one male employee's folder and she was living with another male employee. Oh, the stories I missed hearing. I went quietly to the owner's  supervisor and asked her to tell him to remove it and not store large personal files here. That picture was pornographic, by my definition, though not especially offensive. Why pornographic? Because the reason I recognized her (weren't you wondering?) was that unlike the somnolent, relaxed figure in the Courbet, she was propped up on her elbows and grinning impishly at the camera. And I was more bothered by the fidelity question than by the nastiness question. She and her erstwhile boyfriend broke up a few weeks later.

The point of my story is not, "And THAT'S pornography!" You say you "know it when you see it," but you should remember that this is because you are applying your own personal definition to what you see. For me, as for you, the word "pornography" is reserved for those things you feel are meant to titillate but instead repulse you. "Erotica" generally means "successfully titillate." Nobody can predict your reaction. If you get wet pants watching spike heels crush baby mice (a notorious porn genre), it's erotica, and those of us regarding pictures than simulate this as porn are "Puritans." Conversely, if I feel a terrible stirring every time I see beautiful wrist, that is erotica, even if in your more modern mind it's "just weird."

I too am curious about "davinci."
M

Mick,
Well said.  Lots of points I will remember.  Lots for me to think about.  And alot that I learned.  So well worth the whole debate for me = ).

Cobolt,
I think you are one put in a bad place here with this decision because you actually happen to have talent.  It's unfortunate that someone with your talent has to be lumped in with the rest.  Like has been said before its a case of a few bad apples ruining the bunch.  Whatever has been said - I do empathise in this situation.

Not a PTB, but still:

Quote - I think you are one put in a bad place here with this decision because you actually happen to have talent. .

It's just a re hash of:

Quote - JenX  Posted Tue, Jan 30, 2007 5:11 pm, Edited Tue, Jan 30, 2007 5:12 pm

Also, on the nudity thing.
Let's get real.
There's Botticelli.
There's Michelangelo.

And then there's the Poser Gallery.
Not saying that there aren't very beautiful nude artwork in the Poser galleries.  There are.  But, one must separate the wheat from the chaf.  A LOT.  However, most of it....well, most of it looks like little Karrie got into mommy's makeup, put it all over her barbie doll, put playdoh on the boobs to make them bigger, and took a photo.  No expressions.  Usually thoughtless composition and overal integrity with regards to lighting and..well, reality.  With stuff like "gee, my hand can't go through my boob, why can hers?" never comes to mind with many of the members.
So, please, let's REALLY not insult the masters by thinking that much of the galleries here are anywhere close to on par.

And with that, I'm finished here.
It's amazing what you can find out about "TPTB" when they stop guarding thier words so closely.
I know that JenX has dropped her mod status, but I doubt that her feelings were dramatically changed with that change of status.

I don't know about anyone else, but I will not be spending any money with a place that employs people that will call so many people's work crap.  I will not be opening myself to the abuse of the "PTB" who seem to find it accaptable to all but call the majority people posting thier images talentless hacks.

I decided long ago that I would not subject myself to abuse, and that I would not quietly take any abuse dished out to me.

I will continue to watch the site in hopes that things change, but I'm not holding my breath if these are the candid thoughts of the people that are supposed to be "support staff."

Quote - Renderosity is a business, and first and foremost they have to look after their bottom line while taking into consideration the community itself.

**Now this makes me sadder than anything else I have read here.

I could have sworn that the LOGO up at the top says ART COMMUNITY.

I haven't read through the rest of the pages. I don't even want to after seeing this statement, so apologies if anyone else has adressed this.

Renderosity has done what it wanted to and, regardless of assurances from those behind the scenes here, what is said by the members of the ART COMMUNITY are not going to effect this change. And please, don't tell me that by allowing a thumbnail that Renderosity already had in effect before this change shows that you do listen.

You know what? I like Rendo. I like the admins here. And I knew it deep down all along. But it still saddens me that it's finally out in the open. Rendo is a business. Rendo is no longer an ART COMMUNITY. Should't you guys change your logo, though?**

Quote - I could have sworn that the LOGO up at the top says ART COMMUNITY. Should't you guys change your logo, though?

It's hard to see online, but in there it mentions "run by hypocrites." Taking the money for all manner of products but actually posting pictures of the products in use in no longer allowed. It's only a matter of time before a great number of renders that don't violate the TOS start getting pulled. :O)

I am on a "watch" list I am sure. So I better watch what I say. What is truly sad, about all of this is that it feels dead around here. Like someone is slowly sucking the life out of a once splendid bird.... leaving it to shudder on the ground, with no will to try to lift it's self up and fly once more.
Ariana

*""And with that, I'm finished here.
It's amazing what you can find out about "TPTB" when they stop guarding thier words so closely.
I know that JenX has dropped her mod status, but I doubt that her feelings were dramatically changed with that change of status.

I don't know about anyone else, but I will not be spending any money with a place that employs people that will call so many people's work crap.  I will not be opening myself to the abuse of the "PTB" who seem to find it accaptable to all but call the majority people posting thier images talentless hacks.

I decided long ago that I would not subject myself to abuse, and that I would not quietly take any abuse dished out to me.

I will continue to watch the site in hopes that things change, but I'm not holding my breath if these are the candid thoughts of the people that are supposed to be "support staff."""*

It is interesting to me that you feel these comments apply to you.  It is obvious that both myself and the other person you quoted there were not referring to ALL.  I wont put you on the spot to actually say that YES you feel ALL art in Renderosities galleries is comparable to Divincis - because well Id bet my butt you wouldn't respond anyway.  

If you do and you fib not then at the low low cost of $20 I will offer you a copy of my fine masterpiece titled "A Purple Line"

Get um while thier hot!!!

/sarcasm off

Amazing! Riviting! Worthy of the Codex Cartesium!...y'know, this is what happens when I try to dray a straight line in Real life..;)  I  think $20 is too low, make a 3d model of it, and a certain sea creature's site could sell it for $75 easy..;)

very Zen, actually.

jjroland - those are very kind words, and i really appreciate them.  and i'm very impressed that in such a heated dispute, you can still see clearly enough to get something valuable out of the words of someone who disagrees with you.  that takes a good deal of courage and thoughtfulness.

i do feel, however, that i can't say i'm any different than your average renderosity artist.  i have my own critiques of various people's works, and my own reactions.  i would never use them as an implicit rule for a supposedly open gallery.  i might have a "choice" gallery, but i bet some of what is fine art to me, is meaningless pinup to someone else, and vice versa.  i would never claim that my personal opinion was more "professional" or "tasteful."  for me, the whole point is that the ptb are trying to create a subjective filter with an arbitrarily objective rule.

(general statement- not directed at anyone in particular)
i am a renderosity artist.  i am at once an individual and representative.  i've been a member for almost 5 years; and i've posted quite a bit.  i think i'm as much a part of this community as anyone else.

my impression is that the mods are saying not just that some of the thumbnails are "tasteless" and "unprofessional," but that the work the link to is.  and that the new policy will hide that.  why not just have a "mod's choice" gallery as the primary one?  get someone from each group to pick a certain number of  "professional" and "tasteful" pics per week, or per day, or what have you.  explicitly say, "we want renderosity to promote a specific image, an image we've agreed upon."  not a  "tasteful" image or a "professional" one, because unless the mods are all (unbeknownst to me)  high profile and highly established members of a creative professional community, i don't think they have the qualifications or the right to make such a statement.   right now i get the feeling they have conflicting goals: they want to apply particular and personal guidelines of taste, they don't want to actually remove the pics that don't meet that standard from easy browsing, and they want people who explicitly ask to see nudity to have the same experience as those who don't.  this isn't an effective policy, it isn't an honest policy, and it's an insulting one.

i still like the mods.  i think they do a lot of work for very little return.  but i also think they have opinions  that don't seem to represent the community as a whole.  if most of the community didn't like those pictures, most of the community wouldn't make them and most of the community wouldn't look  at them.  and personally, i would never agree to moderate at a community if i had the low opinion of the majority of works that multiple moderators have shown both in this thread and in their announcement.

calling our previous works "unprofessional," "tasteless,"  and like "3rd (and also 4th) rate porn."  with the only justification for such blatant and outright attack on our work being that it's "just" thumbnails and no particular artist was insulted isn't acceptable.   insulting our collective works with such extreme and hateful language as JenX used is actually made worse when coupled with the hypocritical, "well, but you're different."

in light of the general reaction to blanket criticisms external to the community (like at cgsociety and deviantart), a single comment of such a type would generally warrant pages and pages of rants about elitism and how personal creativity shouldn't be bound by someone else's idea of art.  but somehow, because it's from inside the community, the message seems to be, "you should say thank you or be quiet."  in fact, i'd love to have seen the reaction in the forums if a 3dsmax or lightwave user popped in and posted, "your gallery looks unprofessional, tasteless and like a 4th rate porn site."  or JenX's rant.  i'd bet not one person would have supported him/her, and that the downright hostile and insulting response thread would have been over 100 posts in an hour.  but renderosity mods say it, and it's supposed to go down easier.

if anything, i think people who should know the community more thoroughly, and know the heights of its accomplishments better, they should be held to a much higher standard than someone who's had only hours to browse the galleries instead of years.

Quote - my impression is that the mods are saying not just that some of the thumbnails are "tasteless" and "unprofessional," but that the work the link to is.  and that the new policy will hide that.

No particular comment on what moderator X or former-moderator Y might have said, but it should be noted that the new policy likely was as much a surprise to them as it was to us.  It smells strongly of a business-side policy change and nothing whatsoever to do with the community or Rendo moderator team.

Then they came for the fairies, and I did not speak out - because I do not render fairies. Then they came for the topless children, and I did not speak out - because I do not render children. Then they came for the thumbnails, and I did not speak out - because I do not use thumbnails - and there was no one left... Sadly, these arguments and rants, have all been said before and people just give up and move away and this community is slowly fading. Why because Renderosity is a shop not an art community, the galleries are here to draw the customers. The galleries are here to promote rendering to fuel the sales. I have no problem with this and as a shop they have every right to decide what will be in their shop window. But... My one observation is this, by progressing alienating and loosing the diversity of other types of poser artists we are left with an imbalance in the gallery. This then requires additional rules to try and stop the imbalance. Take away the children, there appears to be more adult content, take away nudity there appears to be more violence... Until what is left is a very very small selection of the Poser community. Will the sales from the remaining very small community that be enough to ensure the continued life of this site? I don't know but I do find that I'm doing more of my 3D content shopping elsewhere. PS. The quote above is in no way meant to trivialize the horrors of the past, please forgive me.

one of my favorite artists just pulled his gallery.  if he did nudes, i didn't see them.  he was a photographer, and he had one of the few galleries i'd buy as a coffee table book.

i believe the mods are wholly responsible for their own posts. and their own posts are the ones that have used terms like "playdoh," "barbie," "3rd rate porn site," and "professional and tasteful."  when i talk about saying, i mean literally what they have said, not the implementation of the rule itself.

I rarely find myself defending the mods, but I'm certainly not as deeply offended by Jenx's comments as cobalt dream and orchid noir. A couple of reasons: The people who post in the forums are not the majority of the 2500-odd members but a select group of highly motivated users who are "serious" about Poser. We get the occasional "Dude, how do I put a sword in Judy's hand?" from the noob who can't be bothered to read the manual for his free P5 and thought he'd be making his very own "quiet time in the toilet" art five minutes after downloading.  But 90% of the people in the forums are serious artists or at least serious technicians with artistic interests.

So while the "present company excepted" aside is usually unacceptable, in a case like this, it is sort of accurate. And she's right that this is not the Prado, nor is it an professional art gallery funded by rich fat cats who think they can get richer by selling your work. But who said it was? A much better analogy is the State Fair art show, with a touch of the local artist's club. I love State Fair art shows. Not the same way I love the National Art Gallery, BMFA, DAM or the Tate, but quite a lot. I don't go to visit my favorite Renoir (Boston), Bierhorst (DAM), or Leighton (Tate), but to see what kids are up to, to look for pleasant surprises, and to possibly find an artist I can afford. Of 200 entries, a huge percentage is schlock, even if it's juried. Those I may or may not bother with. Of 10-20 State Fairs I've attended I have found things I considered buying at more than half.

I've never been a part of an Artist club, but I've done the comparable for my vocation: joined and attended Poetry and Short Story clubs. On that analogy, I don't expect to meet Matisse at a club meeting or see the next Rothko's work. I expect to meet earnest people serious about their art, most of them hobbyists, some of them brave but untrained, some of them with quirky visions they are desperate to realize. I expect we'll spend the evening critiquing each other constructively because we care about what we are doing. I expect to see things I loathe, to be loathed, and all with overall passion and civility.

R'osity has an element that belongs in neither circle and would be shunned by both. You all know who it is, and it isn't a matter of professionalism. The loud-mouthed lout whose idea of art is naked beachball tits. He draws them because he can't photograph them or, most likely, possess them. Give him a Real Doll, and he'd go away to spend long hours in the privacy of his room. If he submitted to the State Fair, he'd either be rejected by the jury or ignored by the fair-goers (except for pimple-faced boys dragged to the exhibit and blue-haired ladies who want him pilloried). If he showed up at the Art Club they would try to make him unwelcome and, if it came to that, ban him. Here, he rules the galleries. If you don't think so, take a look at the Top 20.

I don't want him banned, but I wish he would go away, and I pay absolutely no attention to him, except when provoked. R'osity's nudity rules are intended to make him welcome without appearing to welcome him. I'm surprised none of the admins have defended him with that rightwing special interest in free speech that makes them money. I don't find him particularly offensive, just uninteresting with a spice of tiresome. I'm much more disturbed by the people who design props like a "Throne of Doom" that turned up in the freebies a few years ago -- transparently a drooling, fanged vulva -- or post pictures of women being degraded and humiliated (within the generous limits of the TOS, of course, and properly aged and dressed).

Frankly, I never visit the galleries unless someone I trust recommends and links here in the forums. The dross level is just too much trouble to wade through. And by dross I don't mean lack of quality, I mean lack of seriousness in the sense I'm using the word. Seriousness can be playful, but it must be more than just frivolous. PJZ99 and LinkDink's voluptuous girls are "serious" in the sense I mean, as are the some of the sentimental Pink Pony fairies and Keane kids, and the occasional arresting, heart-grabbing, unforgettable image.

If someone said to me, "You're no da Vinci," my answer would be "Well, duh," not outrage. And that would be so even if I were a professional artist. I'm no Yeats either, or Frost, Fowles or Atwood. I wish, but I know my limits, and I have their eyes behind my shoulder when I write. I can't match, but I'd like them to approve.

And in non-defense of the admins, the fact that the galleries are glutted with bad (that is, frivolous) art is not an argument for their current jihad. The frivolousness is only incidentally nude, and the very people who are making these stupid rules are the ones who let them in, welcome them, and take their money. No, not the admins, but the shadowy PTB who con mostly decent folk into doing their dirty work. And, finally, if you sell your soul to the Devil, you do not get to plead that you are only doing your job. ANd more finally, if all you got for it was a 10cc jolt to your vanity, don't look to me for sympathy.

M

I didn't really intend to downplay the harshness of some of what's been said - some ill-thought things have been said by people on both sides of the argument - but I'm just pointing out that as a group, the moderator team tends to be people who are fiercely loyal to some ideal or other that prompts them to WANT to be volunteers, which as Cobaltdream pointed out is a thankless task.  I don't blame them for being loyal to the concept or whatever it is that made them want to basically work for free.  

I know that that's separate from your point Cobaltdream, and I intentionally sidestepped most of your article because I largely agree with you, but I just wanted to make clear that they're not responsible for the new policy, only its enforcement (although perhaps with more vigor and zeal than is really necessary or wise).

Just back from reading "Cropped thumbs?" and I want to apologize to Orchid_Noir for questioning her "davinci" reaction. If the context of JenX's remarks was the kind of arrogant, patronizing sneer that she seems to regard as her right as admin, I can see why your hackles rose.

M

A point of note - JenX has stepped away from her position as a moderator.

mickma - i understand everything you have to say, and largely agree.  but this isn't a small club with exclusive membership.  the galleries aren't juried, and if they were i'm not sure the mods have the qualifications to do so.  and that guy with the doll, i'm betting he does tons of pics in fetish outfits which would fit the nudity standards. 

it's been my continued point that in every single experience i've had in the art community, from students to professionals, from fine art to dance to design, nudity isn't an issue.  most fine art standards i know would place a simple and well wrought nude above just about everything i've seen at cgsociety.  what bothers me is the hypocrisy of the standard (not in the thumbs, but don't take it out of the gallery) and the complete unfairness of it.  and none of that addresses the fact that if someone didn't like how the galleries were in the first place, and didn't respect the majority of of site members, why become a moderator?  this isn't like the one guy in your analogy.  this is going to a free-for-all where most of the people are guys (and girls) like that, most of the artwork is of that type, and it's always been like that.  you're the anomaly, not him.  i'm pretty sure i am, too, but frankly i have lots of different artistic standards and that's just one type i'd say doesn't fit in even the student fine art community.  which this isn't.  i could go somewhere else that was more akin to your examples, but i stay here because i get something out of it being open.

i would never have an issue with the cgportfolio posts which are moderated to check for quality.  if that was done here, i wouldn't complain.  it would be consistent and explicitly  subjective.  i'd still think the change was somewhat mercenary- let the site be entirely open and full of revenue generating traffic until you get big enough to start keeping some people out- but it wouldn't be as unnecessarily binding as the new rule is.

I wanted to add one more thing. Many people that post pics here are trying to be better, and some will post everything they do (*which maybe opens the door for mediocrity). Some are going for numbers. Well I am beginning to see that that (*numbers) is a false barometer as well...it is nothing more than a personal popularity contest. Many get several pages of comments on a not so great pic, then you see something awesome by a newbie or less popular artist, and nothing. 500 hits and 1 comment. So there is already a form of "Quality" control in place. I do art for myself, and until 3D came into my life, I never cared to show except at conventions, and art shows. Going on line is less satisfying then I thought it would be. But when you have "certain" people with the power to hurt you, and your art..it does give the feel of being "under a microscope" subject to their whims and caprice. Moderators should be there to see that no one "Flames" another, but NOT to interject their opinions...because that defeats the purpose of having moderators! In a great debate forum the moderators are required to stay NEUTRAL, and not interject their thoughts or the debate would fall into chaos! I have seen "Some" mods actually flame the members! But in a succint way, short and sweet....to the bone! Now I don't know how others feel about that, but it seems that the most successful mods are the ones without an opinion. BTW, those don't reside here. 
Ariana