Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=372579

Ok, time for a rant. I'm offended at this and want to say so. If this thread gets locked I understand. There's a fellow who has worked hard for months on an image with 22 figures in it. Its his first post here on 'osity and even though he's been a member for a while, he's new to the galleries and the forum. He posted with clear communication that his image is a WIP and the shadows are turned off. Its a great image with a rich historical subject matter. Quite accurate as well if you venture into the written account of the event. Yet a commentor has posted that its amaturish, triumphantly dry, and hopes to never see Biblical art again. The commentor has no gallery of his own and his comments have no assistance in how to make the render better. Does he tear up all new posters here? How would he like it if folks tore him up on his first post? We'd all laugh together at my first render and it was no where near as complex as this (and that's not the reaction I found...folks said nice things and encouraged me). His comment has nothing to do with making the scene better, or overcoming technical issues. His comment merely asks for silence on a genre. Well, sir, you want to never see Biblical art again? You have that right and its guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States under the First Amendment. You have the right to not click on the thumbs of Biblical art. Please feel free to exercise that right. This is my personal view and not necessarily the view of 'osity. Thank you for letting me be an individual this morning.

What amazes me about commentors of that type is that they are usually made by people who have no art of there own posted online.

I happen to agree with that particular commentator... except for 2 points. 1) If I felt that religious art was offensive, I wouldn't go into that section of the gallery. 2) Religious art (from any mythos) doesn't have to be drily documentary or badly executed. (It doesn't have to be sappily sentimental either!) The encouraging comments mostly dealt with the fact that the artist got so many figures in one scene. This is hardly an ideal to strive for! It may do the artist a disservice if he is led to believe that accumulation is a worthy goal. If the artist got other things right, perhaps you'd have had more to talk about? If I were really going to help this artist, in lieu of applauding the number of figures, I'd suggest that he look at the dramatic lighting in the relevant medieval altarpieces: the scenes were busy and intense, but the eye was led where the artist intended. Flat lighting removes emotional impact, and this is supposed to be an emotional moment. I'd also suggest that he look at other, more dramatic and interesting, perspectives (including Dali's Crucifixions), and then determine where the viewer would be standing (or floating) for best effect. He may choose a documentary distance view... but it would be a deliberate decision. Note, a lower viewpoint would obviate the necessity to show any city walls. Having decided whether he was going for the documentary or emotional approach, he could THEN determine the needed accuracy for the elements of the image. Soldiers who drew duty on that hilltop would probably have rather been doing latrine-cleaning... there would be few officers. The men might be bored, but they'd have kept an eye out all around (since this was a religious fanatic with a known group of followers). An emotional approach would have the soldiers reflecting the might of Pax Romana (spiffy armor); a more honest approach would have slightly scruffy guys on guard duty (overweight, bored, and resting tired feet when they got a chance). The dirt, rocks, stonewalls, etc. in that area of the world are mostly RED sandstone. I'd suggest to the artist that he look at photos of some of the remaining structures or desert landscapes. This rock under proper lighting can be almost bloody in appearance, or quite brilliant with a bit of polish. Heavy overcast increases the effective saturation of colors. (I prefer to photograph wildflowers under a grey sky, and many people pack white umbrellas with their cameras in case the clouds don't cooperate.) If his sky is going to be this bleak, he needs to enhance his colors accordingly. Whether it is a starship battle, a NVITWS, a ballroom filled with waltzing aristocrats, or a religious scene, WHATEVER, it doesn't have to be awful... if the artist does some research and makes some decisions about lighting and composition before getting started. Carolly

There are a few people and many clones who use the gallery to bash. Sadly I have seen this before. Technically I think the person's comment qualifies as a TOS violation. They made a specific reference to not wanting to see "any" biblical art..not just this person's art. That seems to be the fuel for the insults. Seems discriminatory to me. I don't think anythingother than a put down was intended. Not being anyting that could remotely be described as real criticism, it really seems plain insult slinging. Sadly many people think insults count as criticism. Either way, it certainly isn't a shining moment for the gallery. Usually that has been a safe place for people.

-Anton, creator of ApolloMaximus: 32,000+ downloads since 3-13-07
"Conviction without truth is denial; Denial in the face of truth is concealment."

NEW The Poser FaceInterMixer

Attached Link: Last time

Was curious if it was a clone. No trace of him anywhere on the site really. Probably a clone. But seems he is a bit cruel. This was the othing I could find

-Anton, creator of ApolloMaximus: 32,000+ downloads since 3-13-07
"Conviction without truth is denial; Denial in the face of truth is concealment."

NEW The Poser FaceInterMixer

Eric - thanx for bringing this to our attention. IMHO, this is a matter of principle : we believe in free speech and expression. So (again, IMHO), the derogatory comment should not be locked, it should be met with the comments of more, er, thoughtful people. I dunno if I qualify as "thoughtful", but I've posted my comments on the image. And Hauksdottir - your kind of comments are the kind that'll help the guy making better pictures. I think you'd do him a favor by posting them on the image. Gallery comments don't HAVE to be nothing but "Wow" "Nice" or "Booh" one-liners ;o)

gosh i hate nerd wars. i hate em! when people talk crap just to get a rise out of the norms, man, that just irritates me. i posted a reply to the fella who did the pic. hope it's a little more constructive than smallheadhellion's.

It looks like most of the comments were positive or constructive, so hopefully the poster doesn't take the nasty rant too seriously. It reminds me a lot of a medieval painting.

I agree with thip comment above....Hauksdottir's comments are the kind of good kind and helpful criticism that should be expressed.

He hates religious art? Oh yeah right, if someone posted a Hindu piece with multiple arms and bare titties, he'd be singing its praises like crazy. Carolly, great post.

Non helpful negative posts do nothing for anyone. They're a complete waste of the poster's time. Of course, some people just like to cause trouble. Carolly, that was one of the best critiques I've ever read here, as well as a good primer for someone starting out. Really great post.

I agree with EricofSD and especially with Carolly's comments, but I have to take issue with one aspect of this discussion. Eric said, 'The commentor has no gallery of his own' and Fillingin said, 'What amazes me about commentors of that type is that they are usually made by people who have no art of there own posted online' Now, I've seen this argument used time and time again in this type of thread. The theory goes like this. "This person has no art in sight, therefore has no right to comment on anyone else's art" Bulls**t! Plain and simple! I don't have a single render posted here. I never make scenes or render them in poser. I make models instead. But I'm a photographer and deal on a daily basis with issues like lighting, composition and content. So who's gonna tell me I have no right to comment on images I see here? I agree wholeheartedly that negative comments, like the one being discussed here, are unwelcome and unhelpful (to say the least), but don't tell me you need a gallery before you can comment at Renderosity. For all you know, the person commenting could be a painter or sculptor who spends all their time doing that, and has no interest in making images in poser. mac PS Carolly - Dali's 'crucixion', 'Christ of St John on the Cross', hangs in the Art Gallery in Glasgow, Scotland (my home town), and I can guarantee that standing in front of it is an awe-inspiring experience!

The comment has been yanked. If there had been any information on how to make the image look less "dry and amateurish" then the comment would have stayed. Critiques can be harsh, but they also must be helpful. If you get a troll-by on an image, please feel free to IM one of us so we can take a look into it. It's quicker than hoping one of us looks at a gallery rant. (We usually go, "Oh, no, not another NVIATWS commentary!") ;-) Cheers!

you don't need a gallery, but it does help bring a level of validity to your comments. otherwise your probably just another troll, just another 14 year old boy who thinks it's funny to piss ppl off. best to just ignore them, if it's too bad talk to a moderator or ClintH.

Prompted by all the comments here, I decided to take a look. The artist hasn't done a bad job at all; certainly nothing to justify the attack, and even then, to attack a piece on religious grounds is nothing short of pathetic. I'm an atheist, but I believe this community is big enough to support many religious views. Kudos to the artist for portraying their thoughts and emotions.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Thanks for catching this for us Eric,

We try to get to all the images, but to be honest it is impossible, with so many images posted daily to the Poser Gallery, to go back and re-check gallery comments on Every-Image :)

That is where the members come in :)
We really appreciate you letting us know if you see a "Troll-comment" posted, not only under Your Image, but on any member's image.

The "gallery comments" section is intened to be used for constructive comments directed at the Artist's artwork! The Comment area is Not a place to voice a Non-art related opinion!

No one is asking members to Only post positive comments, just to post your constructive "artwork-related" comments in a positive and respectful manner :)

ladynimue

Member/User Conduct:

Members and users are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that is constructive and respectful of others at all times. Additionally, we would hope that each member/user would do their best to facilitate a culture of collaboration and positive reinforcement, so that we can all share our passion for art while realizing our personal ambitions, and developing friendships.

Members/Users will not use this community for;

Destructive commentary/communications made with the intent to disrupt or attack (Trolling). This applies to any communications within this community, whether in the forums, art galleries, graffiti wall, chat, or IM.

this troller does not speak for most people that are atheist. I'm a thorough atheist, and I've got Christian religious art in my gallery (Catholic and Lutheran/Evangelical, to be specific). I'm fascinated by old cathedrals and religious art/architecture of all kinds - it does not affect my atheism one bit. It IS a horrible thing to see any religious art destroyed or censored. I hate it when ANY art is destroyed or censored. Most of the great art in human civilisation is religious or spiritual in some way. Just because I may be atheist doesn't mean I can't see its artistic value. It may actually be BECAUSE I'm atheist that I respect the beauty in religious and spiritual art, be it Christian or not. maclean, you DO have a wide variety of artwork and photography, a very good portfolio in fact, its just not posted on this website... Model making is virtual sculpture, its as much art as any rendering. But yeah... I think people should feel free to comment whether they are artists or not. It just looks suspicious when someone trolls all the time with no gallery. But, in those cases I tend to suspect it might be a clone of someone else hiding behind anonymity.

maclean, point well taken and I'll back up from the comment about not having a gallery. I'm sure there are many who post elsewhere or don't post online at all. Its just easier for me to understand a negative comment if I can see their work and compare. And I'm sure there are many who view art and do not produce any of their own. In that sense, its interesting sometimes to know what non artists think of our work. Cresent, Ladynmue, you're right, I should have IM'd someone instead of posting here. Hopefully, there won't be any flaming and my apology for the rant. My hope is that we will learn from those ahead of us and be encouraging to those we can help.

Hugs to you Eric :) We really do appreciate you bringing this to our attention - be it in a Forum thread,a private IM or email :) Doesn't matter how we get the information, as long as we get it - cause if we don't know anything is wrong, we can't fix it :) Have a wonderful weekend everyone. ladynimue

'you don't need a gallery, but it does help bring a level of validity to your comments' I agree 100% with that. And I do understand why people say "Yeah, well let's see what YOU'VE done". You would maybe invest in stocks and bonds reccommended by the President of the World Bank, but not if the pizza delivery guy reccommended them. Makes sense. Especially where you're dealing with an obvious troll. People will continue to ask for some kind of 'validity', but there are genuine occasions when they won't find it. As far as the image goes, I thought it was pretty well done. A brave attempt at a difficult subject. And you know, it would never even have occurred to me that it was 'religious' in that sense. Just like when I look at a black (or afro-american, if you live in the US) person. It never occurs to me to think "black". It's just a person. Maybe I'm weird. mac

I'm going to stick my neck out and voice an observation I have made over the years.

JoeyAristophanes put it into words very simply: "He hates religious art? Oh yeah right, if someone posted a Hindu piece with multiple arms and bare titties, he'd be singing its praises like crazy"

It has been my observation that people who bash "religious art" don't have aproblem with religion as a whole. They have a problem with Christianity, and they have a problem with Christ. These same people won't throw a fit when it's a picture of any other religious figure. They also don't seem to have a problem with any anti-Christin images.
~EA

I don't have a problem at all with religious art and do not really care for organised religion. I really like reading mythology and have a huge collection of books regarding art history, and most of the art is religious in nature... Greco-Roman, Muslim, Celtic, Christian, I like it all. Some I like more than others but there's quite a bit of Christianity represented among my favourites, especially with my obsession for European cathedrals. Quite ironically the only religious art represented in my gallery is Christian. personally I really liked the image posted, and it didn't deserve to be trolled. But that's what trolls do, unfortunately. I'm glad to see the problem taken care of.

If you a were a non-Muslim in a Muslim country, you might get tired of all the Muslim religious works while retaining an appreciation for Jewish and Christian art. Not to yank this thread into a heated debate, but it's hard to like Christian artwork if you've had people try to shove Christianity down your throat over the years. That's why some people have a problem with Christian art but not other kinds of religious art. Bad experiences with "good Christians" will do that. It's not a valid reason for trashing someone's art like that, though.

As some people have commented that this reminds them of the art of the middle ages I thought I'd throw this one in. Just to be helpful, of course. :-) In what is known as either the Early or Low Middle Ages art was produced that had nothing to do with the perspective that we are used to. The scenes are set to show what is important either by lighting or by making the centrepiece larger than what surrounds it, whether that surrounding area is closer to the viewer or further away. In this sense the scene is highly reminicent of the art of that period. The perspective in the render is skewed and the centrepiece of the scene is held by the light shining on the crucified figure of Christ. In hindsight (and after agreeing with those who suggested that the artist add all kinds of rocks and vegitation) I'd now have to say that leaving the scene barren, exactly as it is, may have more emotional impact. Imagine for yourself the horror of watching someone you love and admire struggling for 6 hours on a cross before finally "giving up the ghost". My guess is that you'd be emotionally barren, regarding the world as an empty place, a place of nothing but pain, sorrow and emptiness. I'd say he's caught that quite well. ttfn John