Do the naysayers also argue that film and photography isn't art because it uses actors and models?

Please take a look at my latest work. I'd be interested to know if you think it is art.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2028195

Oh Hell's Ham & Eggs...I've got it. The material names have to match up. Since I was using a modified v4 from ADP, the materials room wasn't recognizing it as v4.1.

Learn from my error you will, Padawan.

[smacks own forehead and retires in shame....sigh]

kukri

About the discussion re: the tone and tenor of public comments. I have a simple, hopefully useful protocol. In public comments, visible to the entire community, I praise what I like about an image (I often go through an artist's entire gallery to find what I think is his/her best work.) I reserve critical comments for private e-mail or IM. This, hopefully, reinforces what's good (and what the artist does well) and points out areas of improvement without causing embarrassment. It is not true that the only useful, teachable moment is a negative one. That's a thin veil over someone's sadismus. This isn't boot camp, or an addict's intervention. No one here has been given a riding crop and a license to "discipline" bad artists. Nevertheless, a well-phrased suggestion for improvement in private can work wonders without provoking a defensive response. The "Ooooh, excellent!" comment isn't as useful, perhaps, but it is affirming. It's good to have some roses among the brickbats. And to those who go about bashing, armed with their self-righteous aesthetic certainty about "art," remember, as ye give, ye shall receive! :-)

Ah, censorship. Always turns out to be more trouble than it's worth, since it's based on impossibly subjective criteria ("this is pornographic!") and must, by its very nature, throttle more art than smut.

The moderators on R'Osity are already busier than a one-legged man at a butt kicking contest, so why saddle them with playing Big Nanny? When an inappropriate item appears in Freestuff, delete it when you notice it or get a complaint. Prior restraint is just too much trouble!

Perhaps 7 a week isn't unreasonable. But the reasoning behind the question puzzles me. I doubt if I've ever posted seven images in a week, but why the vehement insistance? "My image gets buried in the gallery so noone sees it?" Piffle.

NOTE: JAPERY - ENGAGE SENSE OF HUMOR HERE My highly unscientific survey (watching the hits on galleries) indicates to me that the best way to get eyeballs around here is to make the mammaries bigger than the head, add minimalist chainmail and soft focus, and voila! 1000 hits! :-) END JAPERY

Seriously, though, aside from the Victoria's-Secret-by-way-of-Frazetta images, the most eyeballs go to those who have a lot of relationships in the community. People like to see their friends' work. That's not a bad thing, in itself.

Now, sooner or later, the avalanche of artistry (note the Ezra Pound like alliteration) is going to bury the lovely meadow of Renderosity in which we all so adore lolling away the sunny hours. We will all eventually face the "Disaster of the Commons" - when everyone has unrestricted access to a resource eventually it is useless to everyone. So some sort of reasonable limit doesn't strike me as unfair.