Astounding and very well made image. The two hands are a beautiful symbol. I read Orwell, but I did not know that there were so many words in Newspeak . Thank you for the references.

Considering the effects of Ingsoc on individual freedom in Orwell's 1984 - its not so beautiful a symbol. Akin to a Nazi Swastika in its meaning.

UC Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff says "Language always comes with what is called "framing." Conceptual art is defined relative to a conceptual framework. Remove the ability to post in text the frame – and you eliminate a large number of possible concepts which may be communicated.

A different work than your norm...nicely done!

Thanks Neil – as you know my work needs to be presented with its contextual framework intact. Renderosity’s new text limits make this impossible. Others who post story oriented material will be impacted as well. My intent with this, and my posts to follow, is to point to the morally depraved basis of Renderosity’s decision.

My favorite book of all time....plusgood!

Excellent work. That explains the removed posts. As someone who writes a lot for my image. I write everything out ahead of time and then set up sections. The first 3900 characters go in the main post then everything else I put into a comment, immediately after posting the image. Interestingly I've been able to post up to 6000 characters in a comment as opposed to the 4096 allowed in the image post. It's too bad they make us do so much extra work, but that is my fix. So you can get about 10,000 characters in with you image by cheating. The other alternative is using the writer's gallery and posting a link there to your image in the image gallery of choice.

Thanks adorety, I had considered the writers gallery, but I had didn’t like the 800x800 limit on images – I hadn’t thought about cross-linking writer’s and image posts. It is a solution worth looking into, greatly appreciated. My process is much the same as yours – I set up everything in Word and up till now have been using the comment section to post additional material. Unfortunately Renderosity has made that impossible.

adorety, Continued ... Yes, I have committed the sin of speaking truth’s which are uncomfortable … for some. It does not matter to these people that I speak truthfully, and with benign intent. Truth has no value to those who have made evasion a way of life. Such people are driven and obsessed with ”appearance” and are unwilling to accept a helping hand, to see their work objectively through others eyes if it threatens their illusion, whatever that illusion may be.

adorety, Continued … The removed posts … removed arbitrarily – a practice which was put to stop, as there was no violation of site rules involved. Those who do not want an objective in-put in regards to their work always had protection – they merely needed to select the option not to accept critical comment. That way they still get the comments of praise they desire with no critical input at all.

great image

Thanks flavia

adorety, Continued … They claim they are about free exchange of ideas and collaborative interaction – then deny there is a moral ethical basis for honest clear discourse. They are so fearful of honest objectivity that they convolute benign question into affront. They lie to themselves about the words you have written then have the audacity to lie to you, about you, to your face (well, via e-mail, anyway).

The thing that gave Renderosity credibility was the ability to comment objectively – which requires exposition – without exposition there is little or nothing to distinguish an objective comment from a cut-down. Defending the integrity of your work (as example I point to my post’s R.E.M. Repair & Engineering Module and Enceladus Station) also requires exposition. Someone can deliver a cut-down in one sentence.

The sad fact is that in pandering to drama-queens who never need excuse to act out, and in denying the logic of their own rules and policies, Renderosity has in fact damaged their own credibility … It’s sad to see that anti-intellectualism and denial of reality has such sway. But then the ability to say meaningful things only matters to those who value the meaning of things. I believe the Inquisition used red-hot tongs to rip out tongues … brutal, but harder to deny what you are actually doing.

Then, sometimes - as Sigmund Freud so "adroitly" pointed out - a cigar is nothing more than a cigar... That said, tyranny exists on both ends of the spectrum...

JeanneDeau, Individual rights under objective law by definition is not tyranny …versus institutionalized slavery under socialism? Surely … you jest. This is not the same category of concern at all. Renderosity owns this site, it is their private property. The fact I point out is that arbitrary disregard of their own policies results in an arbitrary kind of callousness in the treatment of their members. My theatrical art is parody. The attitude it reflects (on their part) is reality. By holding such callous disrespect for the intelligence of their customers … they act against their own best interest.

JeanneDeau, Now I shall speak another uncomfortable truth: In my opinion Renderosity created a conflict of interest, a contradiction – with the legacy of their policies, the system they put in place to protect the integrity of their galleries (i.e. the choice to accept critique or not) and the sentiments voiced in their mission statement, all being on one side – and practices intended to cater to their clients, i.e. the vendors, on the other side.

JeanneDeau, The galleries are provided as a draw for customers, and vendors naturally wanted to use the enthusiasm of member created art as a “natural” form of advertising. I am an ardent capitalist – I am all for this. I wish nothing but the best for them – I hope they make millions. However, somewhere, the lines became blurred. There are members who are by formal or informal agreement creating advertising art – and the vendors funding this do not want critique on those images. Even if the pay is trade of products provided free to members to create advertising art – now there is money on the line. That is, I believe, the source of the contradiction.

JeanneDeau, Then there is the matter of members who are also vendors – blurring the lines even further and perhaps making the conflicts of interest even more intractable. It is how Renderosity has chosen to deal with this, with callous disregard for the integrity and intelligence of their members, which is at issue. You do not succeed by alienating your customer base. It’s simply bad form in business management to do so.

JeanneDeau, Now I shall speak another uncomfortable truth: in their mission statement, Renderosity aspires to be a destination for professional and serious artists, and hobbyist artists – an admirable thing for them to want. Point of fact – serious artists generally desire frank, honest, and clear critique – critique of a kind that the hobbyist, who is just creating art for fun, does not desire. There need be no conflict. The hobbyist has always had all the protection they need – the hobbyist simply need select the option not to accept critical comment. By pandering to artists who want it both ways – Renderosity has generated a contradiction which compromises their integrity.

JeanneDeau, The arbitrary character limit now placed on image captions and comments was put in place vindictively – to blur the distinction between legitimate critique and a mere “slam” on an artist’s work. This allows Renderosity to summarily remove legitimate critique on images tied to vendor’s interests –unfortunately it also violates the integrity of the gallery system put in place many years ago.

I’ve been coming to Renderosity virtually since it opened its doors – even if I did not have this user ID till 2006, (I had a different ID prior to that, login and password lost in a move and unable to recover it) I did not post art here till 2008-2009. I love posting my work here – which makes the arbitrary reduction in post length to summarily prevent lengthy comment, and their other offensive back-handed slaps (when honest integrity in terms of their policy would have sufficed) an even greater insult.

Is here