Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to ningishzidda [2017-05-06 18:29:34 +0000 UTC]

Has it been that long, m'dear?  Whoof.  For my part, I *finally* petered out a few years back, due to finances and other stuff.  I've been playing New Worlds-Ateraan for a year now, which is free, has an Ice Age feel and playerbase size, enforced RP and a lot of other nice features (I really appreciate, for instance, that it has a strong seafaring component, and that discussion of system mechanics is a major taboo).

If you ever want to pop in and check it out, among my several hats -- my GS resume sorta leaked, fast -- I'm the Immigrant Guildmaster, which is among other things their equivalent of head of the Mentors.  Gods know I'm thrilled every time a gifted roleplayer like you drops in.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to XimonDunedain [2017-03-21 01:57:02 +0000 UTC]

You're quite welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to oOMadCatOo [2014-06-29 19:51:06 +0000 UTC]

You're quite welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to marrciano [2013-04-21 06:03:26 +0000 UTC]

You're very welcome. You have a bunch of very evocative shots.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to Trichardsen [2013-03-26 06:49:07 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome! Some amazing shots you've taken there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to gothic-manga09 [2013-03-24 23:50:53 +0000 UTC]

You're quite welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to ningishzidda [2012-09-09 05:28:29 +0000 UTC]

Heh, it took me a wee bit, but I got there!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ningishzidda In reply to Bevan-Ravenswing [2012-09-09 16:28:04 +0000 UTC]

lol

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to Darko-Stojanovic-Art [2011-10-26 13:22:32 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome ... it's a nifty composition, and getting that 3D quality on your first oil painting? Terrific!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Darko-Stojanovic-Art In reply to Bevan-Ravenswing [2011-10-26 21:18:49 +0000 UTC]

Thanks again! Next time I'll try painting 2-3 oil paintings at once, so I should produce next couple of paintings faster than the first one.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to EdenJAM [2011-07-16 19:58:22 +0000 UTC]

You're quite welcome; it's a lovely piece.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to moonbeam-goddess [2011-04-12 21:46:02 +0000 UTC]

You're quite welcome, m'lady! We're only in the last two days getting flowers in ourselves, but I desperately miss wildflowers and woods ...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

moonbeam-goddess In reply to Bevan-Ravenswing [2011-04-13 14:03:08 +0000 UTC]

Wildflowers are the best ^^ I go out of my way to find the best ones, just to look at.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to natalie-ruth-lala [2011-03-06 06:43:16 +0000 UTC]

You're quite welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

natalie-ruth-lala In reply to Bevan-Ravenswing [2011-03-06 10:53:06 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to justeline [2011-02-26 21:11:15 +0000 UTC]

Why thankew, milady!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to xXBrokenMemoriesXx [2011-02-23 18:53:32 +0000 UTC]

You're quite welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to lGeminilxlWindl [2011-02-08 18:26:43 +0000 UTC]

So, in short, the dividing line you want to establish as to whether pieces should be banned from this site or not is whether you like them or not.

Swell.

Tell me, do you apply this interesting criterion of yours to other works on dA? Are you trolling the pages of those putting up a zillion off-kilter cosplay pics? Amateurish line sketches or cartoons? Muddy still lifes or fuzzy photographs? What other kinds of art are you trying to vote off the island? Not just disparage - we all have the right to do that - but to ban outright from dA?

No, I didn't think so. However much a cartoonist is an amateurish clunk bettered by many a junior high school student, drawing themes that might be disgusting as well as puerile, you wouldn't dare, even if it had occurred to you to try, which it likely hasn't.

Of course this is about puritanism. For what other kind of art do the trolls routinely question the intent of the artist or disparage the artist's motives? "Trashy?" Are you serious? That's your reason?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lGeminilxlWindl In reply to Bevan-Ravenswing [2011-02-10 01:54:59 +0000 UTC]

Well, this is getting out of hand. I don't have the energy to deal with this.

No.
Bullshit.
I don't tend to criticize users who don't draw/cosplay very well because they DO have a chance to improve, and they should have support from other site members. Instead, users focus on breasts. It's sad.
Uncalled for. Grow up. Not all "cartoonists" are what you make them out to be. Most junior high students, and high school students, could puke on paper and pass, so don't even start.
You have no idea of the content of my art. I don't know where you're getting your information, unless this is based off of some personal opinion on homosexuality.

The user in question was not an artist, come off it.
Not a troll, sorry.
Yes, I'm serious. No, it's not the only reason. Again, come off it.

Finally, while I stand by that "Not a troll" statement, I feel the need to say this, in all good spirit, before I'm finished with you and forget you ever breathed hard enough to type:


u mad?

oh, yeah. u mad.

You will never forget me~.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to lGeminilxlWindl [2011-02-10 06:43:38 +0000 UTC]

It got out of hand the moment you baldly proclaimed that you were going to try to run off the site a deviant who had, in point of fact, broken no site rules, simply because you didn't like the content of the pictures. That's trolling. If you're going to do the behavior, you might as well embrace the behavior.

I'll finish with this sticky little essay of mine, which was posted to a similar debate on dA:

---------------------


This is coming in on the back end of the discussion, but one comment struck me: the notion that an artwork is porn if - and only if - it's intended to elicit a sexual response. Now let's leave aside the absurdity that we’re psychic and somehow "know" an artist's intent. I have a premise to suggest, a question to ask and an observation to make.

The premise is this: that the purpose of "art" is to elicit an emotional response. Can we agree upon that? Whether a feeling of contentment or delight upon seeing beauty, of unease upon seeing something stark or grim, of approval upon seeing technical excellence, of revulsion or fear upon seeing horror, the failure to provoke an emotional reaction from the viewer means the artist has failed. There is nothing in the message, and therefore no message.

The question is this: would someone tell me why - uniquely - sexuality is the one human emotion exempted? We can feel pleasure in the iconic "The Kiss" by Alfred Eisenstaedt, we can realize the horrors of war in the famous photographs of Nick Ut, Robert Capa and Matthew Brady, we can see the despair leaching from the work of Jacob Riis. What makes these right - makes these art - but when the emotion felt is desire, suddenly that's out of bounds? I don't understand that.

Now the detractors usually work by a couple tacit assumptions. The first is that a dividing line between art and porn is the technical skill of the photographer: that an out of focus shot, or one made by a phone cam, is somehow not "artistic" thereby. But that's a crock, and moreover I doubt most of them would care to be held by the same standard. The deviations of one poster to this discussion, for instance, are - in my own opinion, mind - amateurish cartoons bettered by many a junior high school student ... is that poster "not an artist" because the work falls short of the standards of a pro? Do we debar any photo not executed by a full-time photographer using thousands of dollars of expensive equipment and extensive post-production retouching? Of course we don't. Come to that, how many famous artists were reviled in their own lifetimes - the Cezannes, Gaugins, Van Goghs and Pollocks of the world - as talentless dabblers?

The second assumption's even sillier: that "art" is somehow dependent on what body parts aren’t shown. Over and over, we see comments along the lines of, well, I got nuttin' against nudes, but when the photo's full frontal (or a penis, or showing pudenda, or parted legs), now that's smut. This I've never understood. A backside is a body part. A bared female breast is a body part. Most public places you get arrested for flashing them bare. What makes breasts less "pornographic" than genitalia?

Shall I join in the speculation? It’s because a lot of folks out there are puritans. Open sexuality bugs the hell out of them ... that is, any display beyond which they’d feel comfortable doing themselves; I've long believed, by way of example, that the unspoken definition of "slut" is "a woman who's slept with two more people than I did myself at her age."

Alright, so noted. But that's not a statement of principle. It's a statement of Idon'tLikeIt. Well, so what? Hell, I don't like Pollock's work, come to that: I think he was a vastly overrated hack. Quite a few art galleries and art historians would, of course, disagree with me, and I'm not quite egotistical enough to imagine that whether or not Jackson Pollock was really an artist depends on my approval.

Perhaps some other folks on dA could rein their egos in as well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

lGeminilxlWindl In reply to Bevan-Ravenswing [2011-02-10 16:27:42 +0000 UTC]

TL;DR
But key points for you:
-Much of the pictures were very likely stolen
-Many of the submissions broke ToS in VARIOUS ways
-Linking to porn/hentai on NG, and worse, posting the flash projects directly to DA were clear violations
-Semen and similar bodily fluids are AGAINST THE RULES
-Depicting an erection is AGAINST THE RULES
-Depicting RAPE? Hello?

One more time, come off it.
Now goodbye, dear. In the long run, it's not you who decides. Or is that just the short run?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to lGeminilxlWindl [2011-02-11 02:57:45 +0000 UTC]

1) You have no actual notion one way or the other; you just ASSUME that the pictures were stolen.

2) Deviations in violation of the TOS are subject to removal and should be removed. But that's not what I was talking about, and you know it. The specific deviation where I addressed your comments was one you sought to remove where NO violations of any sort were in play ... because it was "trashy." Don't try to BS us now and claim you're acting in defense of "policy."

3) That's what, the second or third time you've said you're done talking? Dare I hope you mean it this time?

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Bevan-Ravenswing In reply to Gothica-Peaches [2011-01-19 10:43:15 +0000 UTC]

You're quite welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0