Attached Link: The post which this relates to.

Well, I can see that you are not able to comprehend an informal approach on my part. You clearly believe that I am some art deprived, ignorant, narcissistic child who hasn't the slightest idea what is and isn't vital in the realm of human interest. Are we not all human? Is it not a very function of being "individual" to have differing likes and dislikes? I, myself, when glancing at magazine covers would stop and stare at the technical achievement of some of the contest entries. I might give this issue a passing glanceif I were ten years old and into comical images of lizards frolicking in the snow. But I'm not. And no, I must contest; most readers of this magazine are also not interested in childish images of such poor quality however comical they may be. Artistic mastery is not merely appealing to human interest, but doing so in such a way so that it is appealing to not only the mind but the eye as well. True I may sound bitter, but it's probably because this is the first time I am going to be published in Renderosity; the community which I have followed since my infancy in Brycian art. I have been published on similar sites and in similar publications, but this one is special to me, I have gained so much from Renderosity and was delighted to finally be able to give back. Needless to say, I am rather disappointed in the cover selection for the one month which I will be published. You may say, people don't judge a book by its cover, but you would be very wrong. If you would honestly pick up a magazine with a blank white manila folder as its cover, for any reason other than curiosity as to why any publisher in their right mind would allow a magazine to be published with a manila folder cover, you'd be a damn liar. Much in the same way, I would ignorantly judge this magazine by the sub standard cover. True, he probably did spend a long time moving those inverse kinematics based poser bones, but that doesn't mean they've created art Otherwise people would buy action figures, pose them, and submit them to museums. But they don't, because it's not their art; it's in fact not art at all. The fact that you call me ignorant, on multiple occasions, really hurts. I am hugely interested in the arts, hence why I became fascinated by Bryce. I actually render quite a few 'artsy' works within Bryce; they are simply far outnumbered by my technical tinkering. Take a look in my gallery. Perhaps, your shallow view of what you so sparingly call 'art' is limited to simplistic and easily understood images featuring comical creations found in a child's book. I must say sir that your outlook on 'art' is that of toddler. You seem to believe that only human based images are art, or in any case 'interesting'. Ever heard the saying: simple minds speak of peoplemediocre minds speak of eventswhile great minds speak of 'ideas'? This is a simple image for a simple mind. So what if I among others attempted to convey an original and thought provoking 'idea' in our entries? I would hope that others would find an intriguing image a better 'seller' than a simplistic rendering such as the winner. Using that logic, my drawing above should be on the cover. It fits the theme, people will be fascinated for hours by the simple color scheme, and above all else, it conveys human emotion; what person wouldn't want to chop a tree down in the middle of a snowstorm with a broadsword? Do you actually chastise us for attempting to convey an original 'idea', in an original medium? Wasn't it Schriener who said, a child sees everything, looks straight at it, examines it, without any preconceived idea; most people, after they are about eleven or twelve, quite lose this power, they see everything through a few preconceived ideas which hang like a veil between them and the outer world? I am fully convinced that you are viewing art through this veil; you believe ideas can only be conveyed through human emotion or personified emotions. I find this rather sad I have one last message to leave you on. I too entered an art contest when I was younger. About 6 years old I guess. The contest was simple enough, color in the image provided to the best of your ability. Those crazy market basket folk had a trick up their sleeve though. I colored that image so technically accurate. I even employed my basic understanding of 'shading' to get a better effect. I marveled in my own ability to 'create', in my mind this was art. It was simple, it wasn't even my own work, I was applying various colored crayons to a previously drawn image. My entry was very similar to BigT's; I simply used the guidelines to my advantage, simplistic yet perfectly so. Much to my dismay, upon returning to the supermarket the next week to retrieve my winnings I found that I hadn't wonThe winning entry was done by a girl who took the original image and completely redrew it employing her own ideas on how it should be done. This was indeed art. Even though I was 6 years old I knew why I had lost and I accepted it. I did the bare minimum, forgoing what lay 'outside' the black pre printed lines. The winning entry portrays simple personified emotions through a linear based approach. The snow is not yellow and unrealistic looking for some deep hidden emotion, nor are some of the joints miss-bent to portray sheathed anguishThis image doesn't speak, it doesn't explain, there is no story, it 'says'.simple as that. I honestly hope you do not cast your unguarded remarks of 'ignorance' or 'sour grapes' in my direction again. Your complete lack of any backup for these remarks portrays you as an addle minded individual that is sparked by the slightest hint of the playground taunt "fight, fight, fight, fight".