Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou. Thank you! ....Thanks! RC

Oh. You're back.

Hisminky, that's all well and good if you don't pay for hosting, as many people do here. That being said... I am very sorry to everyone whose work is deleted. I hope this is cleared up - and that the pictures are restored. RC

Attached Link: http://www.fallencity.net/lore/index.php

You know something, this is very true and I never really consciously realized it until now. Thank you, R'osity, for not being annoying. :) RC

I really should know better than to leave my specific comments unspecified. That was addressed to Grey Tower and SerenityBlue.

You're going to have a harder time finding masculine armor. It would help if we knew what figure(s) you're using, too. For female armor (v3), check out the free stuff from Awful Soul, as well as RDNA's free section for an assortment of characters. Rummage through the free section here. Look for things that could be retextured (with proper credit, of course).

Message edited on: 09/11/2004 00:25

If people would stop kneejerking, and read the thread in it's entirety, they would notice that the right to speak back wasn't challenged. It was the OP's seeming demand to have it removed that was challenged, as well as her(?) claim that there were copyright violations.

What renders this "un-art"? Your reaction to it? It's (apparent or interpreted) sentiments?

I hold to Scott McCloud's definition of art - anything pursued that is not directly intrinsic to survival or reproduction.

Look, I could say that taking snapshots of flowers isn't "art". Plenty of people have told me that I do not do anything resembling art because I use Poser (as well as other programs). It does not make it true. If you do it as self-expression, then it is art, and worthy of defense as self-expression, as is ANYTHING done on here. If you thought it should be done with more class, well, I do too - but it is still a matter of personal expression, and abides by the R'osity TOS.

I reserve the right to post things that might offend someone, as do you. Welcome to the US.

(And by the way - did you expect everyone in the Politics gallery to AGREE with you?)

"Best of all, let's have a "My Stuff Only" button, which would suit everyone." Hee!

Sometimes a person gets "baited" into it, and that isn't fair. Looks like we lost another talented artist because of the assinine actions of a few.

Can you point out where the baiting was? The picture was provocative, not bait.

Her gallery was there yesterday, and now it's gone. That's about the sixth person I see leave Renderosity for reasons of intolerance on so-called "free speech."

I remember something about her objection to another's free speech on the basis of it's offensiveness.

Yet, when someone says something against outrageous posts, they are the ones that get sniped. It is NOT unAmerican to be kind, and thoughtful towards others. I am so tired of people jumping on someone because they question the value. Isn't that under "free speech" too?

This is the part that always makes me lose friends. ^_^

Here is the nature of the First Amendment: People have the right (and sometimes the duty) to go against norms and accepted behavior so long as they do not harm anyone physically or make the threat to do so.

Nowhere does the Constitution state that I have the right to not be offended. Nowhere does it say that the world has to remain fluffy bunnies and pink candy floss.

It is American to piss off your neighbors with your beliefs. It's American to have a hissy fit and stomp off because people won't kowtow to your personal aesthetic, unfortunately.

It's not American, in my ever so humble opinion, to demand that others' free expression be curtailed because you are not adult enough to exercise the freedom to look away.

No one "sniped" at her for objecting, but pointed out she had the right to look away. I recall the only snide post being after she stomped her wee feet, took her toys and went home because we're all stinkmeanies.

R'osity has it's own guidelines. Since the picture is still up after this little fest o' fun, I'm assuming it didn't violate them.

There are plenty of places on the 'net for artists. I'm certain she'll find one that will not challenge her sense of propriety. That will allow her to remain in her happy place, and those of us to remain in our relatively un-curtailed space of creative expression.

Is this unfortunate? Yes. Is the departure of the OP something I'm going to lose sleep over? No. Not really. I want to share spaces on the net with people who are not afraid to express themselves for fear of offending others.

Not to rank the picture in question among the greats, but artists have been offending people since the beginning of tribalism, and using their mediums to provoke thought, dissent, and discussion. Purposeful art is necessary, even if you disagree with it's purpose. It ain't just about making pretties.

Finally, for your enjoyment, some Thomas Paine:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."

RC

Garblesnix, Ha, I can spell you for driving. grin RC (palm springs) PS: Jan, my regards to you and your husband for his charity.

No. This is a graphics site. It's also a place for expression. I occasionally find myself offended by some of the sentiments expressed in artwork here. However, if it's so bad that it causes me active distress, I stop viewing it. I decided a while back that my right to not be offended does not outweigh others' right to self-expression. If you are so offended by the expression of one's beliefs that you want to take your toys and leave the sandbox, well... Good luck - and may you have all the freedom to express yourself elsewhere that you would deny people here.

Now that I'm somewhat less sleepy...

Some of the most necessary art is that which abuses the sensibilities, insults the viewer or listener, inspires disgust, rage, humor, debate, and thought.

When I get pissed off about a piece of art, I ask why. I contemplate the reason behind my reaction. If someone designed the image to propagate a falsehood (like some monuments do), then I tend to decide the art isn't really worth my time.

Question: Is the art in question - "1000 Deaths" - offensive?

Answer: How is it any more offensive than waving the pictures of the dead Uday and Qusay Hussein? I actually find it less offensive, since the point is not to celebrate another human being's death, but to make we-the-viewer realize that the people dying are real, and not some score on an international Playstation.

Violet, hate to say this, but if it were one of my children in that picture, I'd find out what his/her motivation was beforehand in making the picture - and then protest, if the sole purpose was to dance on my child's grave.

This image was not made for celebration.

This image is mourning, just as we all should, for all the human death that this war has caused.

As a relative of a serviceman who is currently in Iraq, I find nothing wrong with this picture. I think that anything showing people that the deaths in Iraq are real is a good thing.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/freestuff.ez?Form.Contrib=svdl&Topsectionid=0