HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| Trans-it
Trans-it
♂️
[2450886]
[2006-03-30 19:17:50 +0000 UTC]
"Pieter D'herde"
(United Kingdom)
# Statistics
Favourites: 65; Deviations: 5; Watchers: 20
Watching: 26; Pageviews: 7758; Comments Made: 375; Friends: 26
# Comments
Comments: 111
OK, so you complain to here even though you don't really know anything about her intentions. You should read the journal that you were commenting on *properly*.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What other possibility is there?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You didn't get me. What I meant was: is there any other possibility to know what other people mean?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
!= knowing
Anyway, I (think) I understand why Faded-again does what she does; she explained herself shallowly in the journal entry. But as I have said before, understanding does not equal accepting. That's what my whole point is about. I see why she does what she does. But I just don't agree.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly! But it doesn't imply it isn't worth it to express my discontent.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
NO SHE DOESN'T! This is from her journal: "My thoughts on my pictures being unartistic? I think they are pictures of something artistic (The human body, more specific, the female body), done in a fairly unartistic way."
So there you have it. She doesn't claim artistry, only that the human body is artistic, but I think we can all agree on that one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Please read my initial comment on her journal again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Read my initial comment on your profile again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you mean Faded-again's answer, no. Unless calling one a troll and refusing a proper answer is your conception of an answer.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your question is why does she post stuff that according to you isn't art on a site that according to you contains 95% stuff that doesn't do it for you. The descriptive answer would be: because she wants to, the prescriptive answer, or rather, counter-question, would be: why the hell not?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Again, understanding and accepting are the keywords here. I completely agree with your analysis of the situation. I understand why she does what she does. But I find it absurd, given the premise that she knows why she does what she does (see Socrates' intellectualism). Do you see what I'm getting at? It would have been forgiveable if she didn't know, or better, if she accepted this insight. But she clearly doesn't want to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The intellectualistic premise (knowing is doing)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So do you mean if she had insight into that premise she would stop doing this? Or do you mean if she had insight into the fact that you don't like her stuff, she would stop doing it? Or do you mean that if she had insight into the fact that this is an artsite, she would stop posting that?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The first option is the basic assumption of intellectualism. I personally adhere to your third option.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have to disagree. I think she's quite aware it's an artsite. I believe that's why she posted it here. The level of response you get here on dA is MUCH more interesting than what you're likely to get on Facebook. Also, Facebook is focused on friends. Friends aren't the ones you primarily want to take your clothes off for, or am I wrong?
To me it seems like she had actually been taking her time to look at pinup already posted, to see how that was received and perceived by this community, considering that she had noted closeups of labias have been praised, while the only thing that made these pictures prominent was that they had many pixels. While I partly disagree with this, I think she is in her full right to claim that much of deviantarts art gets praised even though there is little artistic merit in it. And I have also like her, noticed that when pictures have good quality(e.g. many pixels) they get MUCH better received at once. A picture of a labia with bad, grainy quality and a low amount of pixels gets deleted much quicker than one just like it with excellent quality and many pixels. I personally think that bad, grainy quality is a cool effect if it suits the overall style of the picture. And I absolutely think that casual porn suits this style very well, but deviantart doesn't so... Personally I don't see what's wrong with bodies shown for pleasure, but most people in the world seems to be of the opinion that such pleasure is of a somewhat lesser esthetic than others, but the same people praise pictures with beautiful human subjects in them. And those pictures WOULD NOT be praised by these very same people if the subject were not as pleasurable to look at. It's a fucking double moral, which the world is fucking filled with and I'm FUCKING tired of it.
Also, while you keep bringing up your point about intellectualism, I don't think it even applies here. Especially not since you adhered to my third option, namely that she would stop posting those pictures if she had insight in the fact that this is an artsite. Firstly, whether she thinks she gains more doing so or not does not apply to the mere fact that this is an artsite or not. And here comes that disgusting double moral, yet again. You don't claim that your stuff is art, but you still post it on an artsite and get annoyed at people who do the same. Where is the logic here? Where is your intellectualism now?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very predictable point, but only half true. Yes, I don't consider my stuff as works of art. That's why I call it stuff, not works. They fit in a section of the site that is not aimed at art.
Faded-again's pictures however are (mostly) posted in a part of the site that is dedicated to photography. A part of the site where one could expect some standards. I must confess I'm still troubled on how to integrate these standards in my conception of art. But they are very real. And it'd be a loss if they faded away.
I do understand your sorrow for the world. Oh and, just wonder, what do you think she wants people to respond to the pictures?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Uh, no, that's wrong. You've never complained about the fact that she posted it in the wrong section until now, you were complaning about the fact that she posted it on an artsite in the first place. How are you better in that regard?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Besides, who is talking about being better or worse? This isn't about superiority. This is about expressing judgments on the works of (and on) someone who refuses to accept any judgment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No we obviously don't. It is wrong to bother someone who doesn't want to listen. It is perfectly OK to comment at least once. But it is wrong to keep on judging someone in several comments who doesn't appreciate it, especially when they've already admitted to the critique!!! About her refusing to be judged, that is a far cry from the truth. When you commented, her answer wasn't about refusing anything. It was with reciprocal irritation she gave obvious answers to your obvious statements. Your criticism wasn't nice, constructive criticism, it was with destructive criticism, loaded irritation. You didn't exactly deserve a very nice answer, if that's what you think, as you complained about her not being polite enough... hahaha
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's equally wrong to not want to listen.
And no, I don't think my comments were over the line. Of course I could have written 'wow, you look great, a few technical remarks though and it will truly be art', but I would have been lying. I don't need to see any more of her. In that aspect, she's right in telling me where the door is. But then again, that only applies for her specifically. My point in my first comment was that I only took her as an example of the whole site.
Oh and, "When you commented, her answer wasn't about refusing anything", it wasn't answering anything either. I had to go on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You make me sick! You really think she doesn't have the right not to answer to your whining about there being 95% bullshit on deviantart? Stop whining and go to another site!
"Oh and, "When you commented, her answer wasn't about refusing anything", it wasn't answering anything either. I had to go on."
Hell yeah it was answering:
""But then why post it on a site that tries to be of artistic importance?"
- For responses like yours. People on this site will generally give more thought out responses, rather than just asking if they can fuck me."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You must suffer from a lot in the world.
"You really think she doesn't have the right not to answer to your whining about there being 95% bullshit on deviantart?"
This is not what I said. I don't want her to excuse the crap of this site, and have never asked her to. It has nothing to do with her. I only want her to explain her own stuff (whether it really is crap or not I will leave in the middle, it just doesn't work for me). But her explanation is just not good enough. Same goes for her answer you praise so much. If this site were truly that different in that people give thought out remarks (one of the reasons why she posts here, which I in fact can accept), she could as well have done the same.
You and I know there is crap being posted on this site as we speak. We watch the frontpage and see something we don't like. Most of the time, we ignore it. But this time, probably due to the content (pretty girl in underwear, no need to lie about it) we decide to open the deviation. We check the deviant's page and see they've written a journal entry in which they justify their actions. We think 'Oh hey, this might actually be something more than crap; it's thought out stuff'. So we engage in discussion, hoping. We address specific points in the justification such as the relation between beauty and prettiness. We get an answer that basically says the same as the original text. So we ask again.
And it gets so disappointing. Because there was hope. Mind you, not expectation. But only a glimpse of being positively surprised. And no, it doesn't serve any purpose to discuss. But why should it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Haha, seems like you're suffering a lot as well. I respect your explanation as to why it happened to be her that you chose to engage upon. I'm not saying discussing in general is supposed to serve any purpous(other than the obvious ones, which to me are good enough) or that it was wrong of you engage in discussion in the first place, but when you try to discuss with somebody who doesn't want to discuss, you are in essence doing something wrong, while the other person isn't. Is that so hard to understand?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sometimes. Not about the world's questions, but about art. But most of the time I'm a cheerful person.
No, I understand you perfectly. And I even accept parts of it. I don't think I did something wrong (but as I said earlier, it may not have been my most courteous moment; then again, I hoped to find something), as it is only the consequence of posting yourself on a website that promotes discussion.
As far as I can tell, you have been trying to show me I'm a complete and utter arsehole. And that's okay with me. But now let me ask you something: why do you come to this site? What do you hope to find?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Take a look in my favourites and you'll quickly find out what I come here for. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know what you're trying to show me, and I understand why you think so. But I don't see it as a fact.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OK, in that case you are an asshole.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Just someone with a strong opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Some strong opinions, are the ones of an asshole.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never questioned that. Call me all you want if that makes you feel better or if you think it'll help you understand. Just bear in mind that I wasn't trolling when I engaged in discussion with Faded-again, even though you may think I was.
If it were only for the cheap laughs, I wouldn't have spent my time on it. There are easier ways to get your thrills. I didn't ask just to laugh. There is a fundamental difference between serious and non-serious asking. Whether expecting something makes me an asshole or not, I will leave up to you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll admit I don't know the exact definition of trolling, but I don't care. I don't think there is one. Call it whatever you want to help you understand that I don't think you were nice, and I don't mean neutral, I mean that you were actively being bothersome. What you're saying is fully applying to your first comment. After all, people are in the right to speak their minds at least once in an earnest moment of wonder, or two. I understand the outburst thing and that she just happened to be the one and all that, but after your THIRD fucking comment, that doesn't apply anymore. I bet there are several places that are very well suited to discuss whatever you want to discuss, but like you say about her stuff: this isn't it. Devinatart does have an extensive and well designed discussion forum though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow, three whole comments! Unseen. As if a discussion only lasts 3 lines each.
But as said before, useless to discuss with those that don't want to. And of course I was bothersome! That was the point. But not meant as being mean, and in fact, not mean. Challenging
About this not being the place for discussion, I find that a very odd thing to say. This site is a public showcase for our stuff. We can't but expect people to voice their opinions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As I said. people are in the right to speak their minds at least once in an earnest moment of wonder, or two, but even if you were to discuss on a forum, certain rules of respect for other people applu. If they don't want to discuss it, EVEN in a forum, then DON'T! I WANT to discuss with you, that's why it's OK to discuss with me, but not with her, cause she doesn't want to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Only possible reply is: she shouldn't have posted it then in the public field, where discussion is inherent. Which ultimately leads back to my point: she shouldn't have posted it at all.
And why do you keep hammering on the rules of respect? You (a) know my position: I did not behave unrespectfully: I only asked the questions I found relevant in a decent manner (the only non-courteous element you may discern is my persistance in wanting answers, which is, I believe, not a bad thing); and (b) rules of respect were not breached by me, but by her. Not that I really put much value in your position: I would even consider the respect-argument as irrelevant (non-thematic) in the discussion I started with Faded-again (it was taken for granted): questions were asked but not very well responded. Anyway, so lala, you know where this leads is.
We're running in circles basically.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I KNOW you didn't do anything else then being persistent. That doesn't make it OK!!!! Not even close.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>