HOME | DD
x0rcist — Censor THIS
Published: 2002-05-30 09:33:18 +0000 UTC; Views: 9485; Favourites: 47; Downloads: 397
Redirect to original
Description
The fair-use copyright exemption:-Is used for nonprofit educational purposes.
-Is a parody of another work.
-Is used for critical purposes such as in a newspaper review of a work of art.
-Is used in a work of scholarship.
-Is the very subject of something you're commenting on in your work.
-Is strictly for your own personal use and does not affect the income of the original creator.
-Does not contain the very "essence" of the original image.
[link]
Educate yourself.
Related content
Comments: 313
This Jark person says one thing, and Brazensix says another Dygel says bananas, and Brazensix says coconuts.
by analyzing their posts, they don't even agree with what the other says when someone repeats the words that one agrees with.
Theres no point in going to any of them.
Your questions will forever be unanswered, and don't bother disagreeing with this BrazenSix guy because he will silence you with a ban, or close your forums.
-----
---------------------------------------- ---
Join the Capitalist Movement!! we give Big Big Monitors!!!
Knowledge is Power, Ignorance is Waste of what good minds can accomplish.
When I was a little boy.... things were black and white, good and evil...... But as I grew..... I discovered there was only gray.
---
Patryck!~
MSN-Svx2027@hotmail.com
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would have named it "pr0n for j00"
-----
-------------------------------------
[xaphan] [link]
-------------------------------------
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I don't understand why this is so popular... can anyone help me out here?...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
. . . i laugh at how stupid some people are.
i love the way everyone is saying how they 'have a problem' with the way things are run here at devART.
. . . get a life?
-----
[chris russell] [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Exactly who do you guys think is getting rich running and maintaining this site?
When DeviantArt gets shut down because the Admins got sick of dealing with all of the lame complainers, just remember this thread.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i think this is a load of shit. its nothing special... just a load of shit.
its not that a dislike it... its just boring. boring and a load of shit.
-----
[chris russell] [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If your shocked by the statement I made above , I'm high on caffene.
-----
Join the Capitalist Movement!! we give Big Big Monitors!!!
---
Patryck!~
MSN-Svx2027@hotmail.com
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
kaliquiz.. Who are all these "kids" that you speak of? Perhaps it should be pointed out that most of the people who have been vocal against some of the policies here, are in their 20's and 30's (and older).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I myself find that there are rules which are inforced for right justifications and some that are unjust.
For Example, hostile Deviants/Individuals challege with reason that they have been victims who had their own works taken down becaues
A. They Violated a Copyright Agreement
B. They Submitted Pornographic Images
C. They Are a scapegoat for unknown reasons.
D. They submitted nonsense to stir problems.
So as people are joining, others are going and being banned like the 2 individuals "AxoneFlux" and "Ka-os"
Whom were talented well known artists, But what have they done wrong? That is a question we are all asking.
I'm not sure if the works are even looked at before being removed, but there is for a fact a competition of other deviants who challege others buy reporting them for reasons that are not relevant, which may be revenge or Jelousy.
A Witch Hunt is being braught against others for reasons that they have fallen victims of their works being removed too.
This should be looked at more closely in a fashionable way then clicking a button and the problem is gone, or questions will begin to pile upon other questions, and the situation will get worse.
Napster is the right analogy to what is going on in here too.
Napster/Deviant Art is where music/Art is being circulated around from hosts to clients.
Napster got hammered down for infringements.
Deviant art is an equivalent of Napster and is very well breaking some rules not because of it's Administrators but for it's users whom don't really care because it's not their site to worry if it is another Napster Victim.
I remember the days where all of us ravaged down to Napster and download, rampaged to get more and more stuff before they came down for our own selfishness of greed to get more mp3s and breaking rules, laughing our assess off because we got what we wanted for free before it was over.
But is it fair if you were the owner of the ramsacked and beatin up Napster?
For a fact, if this site were to come down, everyone would be shoving to take everything they can, and then thats it, move on to another server and continue on.
I've had 2 of my submitted works taken down because of copyright problems. Now what gets me is that this was not investigated to see if the images I used were copyrighted from the place they originated from, but instead removed without questions.
To my knowledge, This is one of the largest sites where art is being displayed, and people take part as a community.
I agree that If we are shoved around we should take action, but not in an immature way such as posting a "Censor This" graphic that clearly says "I'm going to fight dirty on your grounds"
Pathetic. But sadly it works in getting the attention of others, And still it only gives people the wrong image of the individual and keeps others away from socializing with them too.
I'm sure that every one of you people would do the same to protect yourselves the same way the administrators are.
It's common sense, and not one forum or site, have I never seen people arguing and calling the owners/Moderators/Admins Tyrants because they are doing the right thing. But before Judgement is taken into consideration, there should be justified reason and examination of the materials that are about to be removed and a brief explanation why they are being removed than a copy and paste of the legal rules.
But I'm sure the administrators don't have all the time to cleary point out the rules for everyone one at a time.
And for my last, I would like to state that joining this group did not come with any small prints on the bottom, everything was made clear before we were aloud to submit any materials. It's weather the materials fit the catergory of the site, and no-one is being silenced, or else this page here would be gone by yesterday. right?
now you can tell me to shut up.
-----
Join the Capitalist Movement!! we give Big Big Monitors!!!
---
Patryck!~
MSN-Svx2027@hotmail.com
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The area of art and copyright is a very gray one. If you want to use images/photos/text, etc. in your own artistic creations it’s important to know the facts. Almost ALL artwork created with found imagery or using existing imagery such as the collage work of Joseph Cornell and Hannah Hoch, or the work of Andy Warhol and the photo series (now a book) Disciple & Master by photographer Joel-Peter Witkin (where he makes his own version of famous photos) falls under what is known as the Fair Use exemption and it can apply to any of the following examples:
- Work is in the public domain (most stuff published/released before 1923)
- Is used in a nonprofit purpose (not making money on your creation)
- Is used for an education purpose or work of scholarship
- Is used for critical review in newspapers, etc.
- Is used for personal use
And these most important ones for artists me thinks:
- Is a parody of another work (almost ALL art can be called a parody and Warhol’s Campbell Soup can is a great example of this)
- Does not contain the “essence” of the original image.
- Images that merge concept with execution
The last two are very complicated and hard to define - even by a copyright lawyer! They also seem to apply to lots of artistic creations, which I have already mentioned above.
Using small - or undifinable parts of an existing image in another piece of work is often referred to as “de minimis doctrine” in law and it allows you to copy small parts of a preexisting work. This is how works of collage - photomontage and assemblage have been legal forms of art for years! In this digital age - suddenly people seem to want to rewrite the artistic common held knowledge so that digital artists don’t have the same free reign which is absurd. Most modern court cases where this comes up - as in the “sampling” of a song or beat, noise, whatever, in music - fall flat on there face (thats how everyone from NIN to Eminem sell music). A few obvious ones hold up in court if the musician has sampled what is clearly a part/riff of another song - but when they have been altered beyond recognition - the cases are tossed out of court. The sound in question has now become something else - it has been altered into a new piece of music.
And last but not least - Images that merge concept with execution (or anything else since this seems to often apply to new software applications made with previous technologies). It is where a concept and its execution are inexplicably merged. It can be applied to artwork in many ways since 2 people using the same tools or materials can often come up with the same design.
I used a great article written by Mary E. Carter @ [link] for referencing this rather long post - as well as my common knowledge as a working artist.
Now with all I mentioned I must also add that naturally I don’t condone the stealing of another’s work or what people like to refer to as “ripping” - but there are exceptions - especially in the realm of art - to everything! I love the work of the Dada and Surrealist movements as well as Witkin’s photos and some of Warhols work. As an artist I began making collage/assemblage with paper, found objects and glue long before I ever owned a computer and lately I’ve been returning to this medium so this issue is important to me. I also don’t see many differences between computer collage or “photo manips” as they’re often referred to and hands-on collage/photomontage.
I see nothing wrong with an artist expressing his views with art on an art site and would hope that the staff would respect that way of expression. I find this particular piece of work to be a humorous way of expressing a point which has mostly been expressed with anger, hurt or in letters posted as pieces of art which were read by many and people were asked to sign them - no one had to sign anything here. They could view it or not view it - they could comment or not comment. The fact that it's gotten such a huge response means that others were moved by it - in one way or another . . .
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i also think it's brilliant that this work is dual purposed-- it's not just a work to look at. it's become a forum of its own.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
stapler and x0rcist, very very well put. community is not fostered in private communication, why is it seen as so threatening to make objections public and use art to communicate it (cause every one knows, art is never used to make social commentary and reflect objections in society).??? clearly the issue so many artists here are shocked and horrified with goes beyond private notes-- it's not practical, there would be too many for the admins to read. again, what is so threatening about an open forum?
it is not the fact that people are angry that is hurting the community, it is a symptom of the damaging issues.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Comparing DA to Napster is not a valid argument. Napster's sole intent was the organization and assisted transfer of copyrighted works. They had no chance in a legal battle with the RIAA and it's powerful lobbyists.
DA is a much different animal, 99.9% of the works here are for private non-profit use. Industry sales are not being effected, therefore the momentum for a lawsuit to even begin is not there. In the event that another artist's image is "ripped", it's doubtful that it would in any way directly effect the income of the of the original artist, and most likey not hold the same "essence" as the original anyway. Various possible settlements could include royalties being paid out (much like the sampling debate), but since there is no income generated, it's pointless. DA is playing judge and jury with harsh penalties, so backlash is inevitable.
I do however understand it's ultimately DA that pays the bills and they can do what they wish. They also have to live with the consequences of thier decisions. I'd hate to be in this touchy situation personally.
Never have I said I support the idea of copyright anarchy, I simply have a problem with the policy violator witch hunting mentality that's degrading this community. Persoanlly, my work is ripped often. Most of the time (unless its blatent) I choose not to "report" it because my work has inspired someone to create. If the rip is in bad faith, then I will contact the artist directly and ask for it to be removed. I've yet to have to "report" anyone. The noose seems to be tightening around here and many excellent artists have left as a result. That's why I chose to express these feelings with this image. If for some reason you can't view it objectively and ask yourself what the motivation was behind it, then state your opinion and move on like an adult. The fact that this image spurred such a large reaction shows that there are many strong opinions regarding this issue.
"Do you have a problem with DA staff" "If you don't like DA then leave" etc. etc.
Should every artist that attempts to raise awareness simply leave? Should I restrain my expression so that someone won't mistake concern for defiance? I hope not.
-----
.: [x0rcist] :: [link] :.
.: [ABN0RMiS.C0M] :: [link] :: [BREED] :: [link] :.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i am so dissapointed to everyone who actually likes this, its not art!!!! 48 favs...... my god. that is more than someone that has spent all day on a peice. he probably spent like 5 minutes on this, and it isnt even art. this is terrible. i cant believe how much this community is going downhill if poeple respect "art" like this. its trash.
-----
____ +++
___/ /¯¯¯siron+++ [link] [link]
+++ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Hey? Hey guys?
Shut the fuck up. I know you have something better to do today.
-----
Jason a.k.a Heavy Distortion
Look me up in your local Amish phone book.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
My only comment is what I have said all along:
1>When this site was created rules were also created.
2>When you joined this site you HAD to say "Yes, I agree to the rules of this site" in order to join.
Based on that I don't understand how you can feel that you have any right to disoby those rules. Anybody.
If I'm wrong...I'm very willing to get notes explaining why to me. I'd really perfer that I'm not corrected on my page.
-----
NetGuru
+ Certified DeviantART Addict
+ CyberCare Force
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I find this to be very uproarious, and the comments to be one of the most humorous part of this. Well done x0rcis, I applaud you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
um.................the guy..........he looks like a fucking mafia lunch lady. he's bling bling'n too. I dunno.....I think that it is funny, but it isn't artistic. Half of the stuff on here isn't artistic, but that doesn't get ripped. It's your oppinion. A good one at that. Aye I am not starting shit.
good luck to yas.
-----
Wrapping you up in an American flag I fuck you for the glory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Damn, what a shithole this place has become.
-----
Spiral out, keep going
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Will this make Daily Deviation??
-----
Join the Capitalist Movement!! we give Big Big Monitors!!!
---
Patryck!~
MSN-Svx2027@hotmail.com
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Riocobra, welcome to [link] , your ignorance will fit in well here.
Fat Sack Of Suck: define censoring
SmarterChild: Definition for censoring provided by The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Other important copyright information
NOUN
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable. 2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security. 3. One that condemns or censures. 4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals. 5. Psychology The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.
~~READ THIS PART ESPECIALLY, RIO. 10 TIMES OVER IF NEEDED~~
TRANSITIVE VERB
Inflected forms: -sored, -sor·ing, -sors
To examine and expurgate.
ETYMOLOGY
Latin censor, Roman censor, from censere, to assess. See kens-.
Type "more" to see the rest of the definition for "censoring."
>>> Type "my zip code is" and the five digits to let me know where you are.
Yup. Nice try though.
Also your comparison to Deviant Submissions to that of NAPSTER honest to god made me burst out laughing. Here you have a program create for ONE INTENDED PURPOSE. The distribution of mp3 files. Im sorry, but it does not take a genius to figure out the intent behind napster, no matter what was claimed. On the other side of the fence you have [link] , an obvious online art community, not an underground copyright violation gang. Compare the sheer number of users of napster to [link] for that matter. Lets not forget that owning an mp3 file pretty much gives you the entire satisfaction and feelings of total ownership of that piece of work, where as visual art that is not always the case. Owning a copied image of the original lacks the authentic feel of actual possession of that piece, something that an mp3 file can more easily provide to that of a cd. Example: "Oh I really want this [band]'s new top 40 suckfest, instead of buying the cd, ill download it off napster!" in comparison to "Oh I really love this photo of [model/celeb/sports figure/pedofile] that I found on this interenet site, but instead of saving it to my harddrive or paying a membership fee to access it, I will go to [link] and download a picture of [model/celeb/sports figure/pedofile] halfway mutilated with a skull comming out of their left nipple. Hardly the same effect. I guess i can see how you can some how draw comparisons between napster and DA... the same way some people insist on crediting a 2000 year old fictional book with the answers to existence. Grab at enough straws and who knows what one can fool themselves into believing.
p.s. keep up with the great art you've submitted so far. you've made some wonderful contributions to your community. yup
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"The answer is no, they are what's called a "blind middleman" and not personally responsible for the content."
As people have mentioned, this is VERY incorrect.
Napster was a blind middleman. They were MORE blind than hotmail and usenet because they didn't even host the files on their servers, they just allowed users to search for files using their servers.
If napster were hosting those files, they would've sunk a LOT earlier. At any rate, they were still held liable for the illegal activities that took place using their service.
We host our images for the entire public to access, making us even more liable than Napster. And we all know where Napster ended up going.
-----
- arc
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
2 of my stuff got removed. I couldn't figure it out... There was no rascist or anti-semitism on them, but thats what the message I got when it got remmoved, and then the list went on, pornographic... etc...
There was no copyright on the images I used on my wallpapers in the first place. If they were copyrighted, it would say.
-----
Join the Capitalist Movement!! we give Big Big Monitors!!!
---
Patryck!~
MSN-Svx2027@hotmail.com
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Should DA get a lawyer?"
YES. Instead of leaving it to children and old men with no legal expertise at all, YES. If the site is going to police itself, it really needs competent and Bar approved help. I'd say misinformed and misguided efforts hurt more than doing nothing at all...but, I can't say that's true from a legal standpoint (as I'm no legal expert), most assuredly from a community stand-point.
Also funny to me, "A note about this would've been nice" amid cries of trying to save the community. The spirit of community is truly fostered in private and secret communication. Also, its been said that the rules are the rules...perhaps better to garner support than to talk to walls. After all, those this piece are ridiculing also made high-profile forum posts to state their intentions. Oh well.
The "love it or leave it" type comments are always lovely as well.
I suppose this could be fixed by going subscribption-only, but of course, then everyone would be paying customers...
-----
Never look into the barrel of the gun.
[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wait, did that "blind middleman" defense work for napster (which was basically the sharing of a form of art)? I must have been watching a different trial than everyone else. In my version they were forced to shut down till they could filter out copyrighted material. Corporations are on a copyright lawsuit kick and I'd be covering my ass too if I was an admin. They are covering your asses too by trying to keep this place open as a forum for art. And for you guys being censored so much... I sure see alot of the same anti-administration bullshit in these comments. You've been able to express your thoughts and opinions on the subject many times. I can see how making contributions here gives you the illusion that you are vested in the development, but it's just an illusion. You cannot "change" this community, only contribute to it. But in the end, it's the admins that have the power to delete any submissions that they feel could bring legal bills that they could not pay. I'd be more cautious than they are if it was my ass on the line. Whether they would win or lose in court, just the cost of the proceedings would close this place down. The problem that I've seen with this whole matter is that people are taking the deletions personally. Do you believe that they would have left them up if they would've felt safe doing so? I'd like to think so. And if you break the contract that you signed on the way in the door, you have to be ready for the consequences. I think of censorship as something that affects matierial that people take offense to. And I see this as covering the collective ass for the benefit of the many, and not the benefit of the few. Even if free speech is involved. Copyright on the internet is a grey area that you don't mess around with these days.
If they delete it on here, pay for your own website and post it there. As many have said before me, this isn't a democracy.
On a final note, I'd buy a new dictionary if yours lists "Censoring" as a noun. I'm pretty sure it was "Censor" that was described by that definition. Educate yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
its not sinking......its just stuck in a storm which will pass overtime.
Xorcist:at the end of the day those people that were banned will be staying banned so your uprising will do nothing but loose you respect from the other artists.....that includes me.
imo you have 3 options
1)LEAVE and don't comeback
2)take a break for a month and comeback and see if things have improved
3)STAY and help make this place great again.
-----
My Icon is not a cause,a new clique or a reveloution....its a plea
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
glad i jumped of the ship before it started sinking
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Poignant. But what the fuck does poignant really mean? Go ahead and quote the dictionary like some student of critical thought, but really. Is this the way the future's supposed to feel?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Humor is aslo a kind of art. If you "right-thinkers" (you know who you are) don't understand shit, just do everyone a favor and stop dissing everything that offend your over-sensitive minds. Shall it be only by respect for what you don't comprehend. You think it's stupid? Well then, why are you rushing into kiddy fights by arguing endlessly? Who is the dumb one?
And to those who go "this ain't art because [insert any crappy reason here]", if we all were using your lame elitist criterias we should also be dissing people like Andy Warhol... Oh well, maybe you do, too.
Yes this deviation made me giggle, simply because I also like "stupid", simplist or cartoon humor (whatever you prefer to call it), therefore it has a place in my favorite list. And I like it even more now that I know something that simple can piss that much people.
I love y'all
smoochies
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
they should get Frank Castanza's lawyer
-----
I love multimedia but i aint gay! [link]
AussieSinglesOnline: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
should DA get a lawyer?
-----
See what I see [link]
>_2 [link]
detected......
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
a shameless display of machismo bullshit.
-----
n0ThinG[v3] - [link]
edit@
==========================
Cancer bites - kill it -[link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Truly though, I don't like this. All you're doing is playing the antagonist card, and you're doing a good job at it. There's little artistic talent in this...so...
Because an opposite view (read: controversial) is expressed, the soul intent of the person conveying it is controversal? How is that its so easy for people to cast aside the fact that maybe....just maybe, those banned were our friends. We truely enjoyed their work and their influence they had on us. Its not something we can sleep off over a weekend. Please get that through your fucking heads you stupid nazi bastards, then maybe you will understand the blight we feel.
wow I can beleive the idiocy of some of you people... if you don't like how they run the community then leave... very simple
Some of us like it so much we wish to change it to (in our oppinion[s]) better the community. Its only that simple to people who think simple.
one thing to note, however, is that we are not censoring art at all. we are merely removing deviations which are very obvious they are copyright infringements.
Yes you are, you fool. Attach whatever euphemism or comfy sugar coated excuse you want, that is what you are doing.
Censoring
NOUN
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable. 2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security. 3. One that condemns or censures. 4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals. 5. Psychology The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.
Removing of "copyright(ed)" material falls under otherwise objectionable
Educate yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Agreed with Arc..
-----
[link] StachtuS & ErevuS - Collaboration with Anemovatis - Final
[link] Join the VelociCRAPtor crew today!
There is a place that still remains.. it eats the fear, it eats the pain..
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
x0rist: interesting point of view. from a legal standpoint, however, i am not so sure that we follow in that area seeing as we see what is posted whereas hotmail is private. newsgroups posts are essentially private, though accessed publicly.
anyhow, point taken. i understand what you mean. would have been nicer to hear it in a note or an email so that the context could have been better understood.
one thing to note, however, is that we are not censoring art at all. we are merely removing deviations which are very obvious they are copyright infringements.
-----
the American Dream does not come to those who fall asleep ...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not to say i dont like this community but admins and big names are basically like cops and there allways gonna win. Even the most involved deviant cant get a word in unless theu have one of those little bat eared icons
-----
I love multimedia but i aint gay! [link]
AussieSinglesOnline: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think in both of the cases that you've spoken about hotmail and usenet the courts have already helped to decide to what extent those systems are accountable. Hotmail doesn't really have "moderators" to go through the e-mail and usenet is for all purposes a public system with few controls in place to really stop people from doing things. The "Blind middle man" ideal is also not working for file sharing systems even though those systems might not know what files are available like Napster did. Unfortunately with websites the jury is still somewhat out due to the fact that a website need not be destroyed by a court order or police action but simply by the threat and/or the legal expenses behind defending oneself against litigious copyright holders. Many sites have been stopped simply by copyright holders contacting the ISP/Hosts and having them disconnect the site. The owners then have to find new hosting and the cycle continues. Should it come to court action it would be difficult for the site owners/admins to distance themselves especially if the work in question was a huge fav on the front page of the site with a few hundred comments.
At some point one has to make a decision about how to serve the community by staying up and keeping resources out of the hands of lawyers. Sometimes this ends up in the admins creating "safe" policy to avoid lawsuits. It's sad and most people don't like it but I think until something is done in law minimizing what damage companies can do then that's the way it is. Often art is about pushing bounderies and making statements but often it's just making something pretty, fun, testing out ones' skills, especially for the younger newer artist. Not everything HAS to have a message, and I'd say most art doesn't have a contreversial message. But it's usually the contraversial messages that attract lawsuits and at the same time help us to learn something about ourselves.
In this latest round of discussion I've seen people sign "petitions" while they knew little if anything about the issue. Most people signed because everyone else decided it was a good idea, on "principal", because they were friends with ..., because so-and-so is cool, and because they hate someone else. Aside from the Admin and Artist I don't remember hearing from anyone who had first hand knowledge of the situation or who actually had seen the pictures in question to be informed enough to comment on their legitimacy. It would have been easy enough to find some host somewhere to show the picture in question for proper defense and to keep people better informed. Unfortunately it always seems easier for people to call names, have tantrums, complain about censorship and the unfareness of life, and then try to get everyone around them to "see it there way". Because, of course, they cannot - will not be wrong. And forget about coming to agreements, apologies, or trying to minimize a situation - WE'RE ARTISTS DAMNIT, WE'RE TEMPERMENTAL AND BROODING... didn't you get your hand book, black turtle neck and baret.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
lolz...the picture looks funny as hell...Infact I call it gangsta quality...
-----
help fight Cancer, volunteer your computer...Join team Deviant ART![link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Glad your on the good side... this is a great jab at censorship... i love it. kind of reminds me of the work of Guillermo Gomez-Peña. DOWN WITH CENSORSHIP!!!
-------------
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
rofl, you kids are only proving my point.
this is why i don't submit here - because of childish pathetic milksop's like yourself that flame in groups, attack in numbers, and never come up with a valid point that makes me look wrong or bad.
so with all do respect, fuck off each and everyone of you!
you come here talking shit about me deleting my gallery, and my two DD's (WOOHOO!) but i doubt any of you could have even come close to the talent and devotion i had and still hold in my graphics.
i rip on you for submiting materialistic bullshit filled with blasphemy, and NO mature or rational points.
You are all going off on age - but by doing that it all infects your atributes, not mine. you are the ones acting like kids - flaming my page - comming here with random fabricated assumptions about who i am..
did any of you read my comments? your little clan of "artist united does not mean shit" apparently none of you have the ability to read - let alone fathom any of the valid points and foundations i so softly laid upon your screen.
i hope you kids will soon relize - flaming my page will not make me back down like some dog with his tail between his legs, bowing in your so awe inspiring presence!
god forbid someone speaks there MIND about bullshit.
i rip on you because you get publicity for shit, and you know it, i don't even HAVE to tell you that, when you look at the submition, and you look at how much time and effort you put into it, i bet you laugh at how pathetic half these fucking kids are for making it your favs.
how many OTHER peices have you submited that got THIS MUCH ATTENTION?
are you fucking dumb? apparently.
so once again, i am done wasting my time trying to prove my extensive experience with art and devotion - i love what i do - and i will be doing it for a long time - with or without the sad montebanc's (cough*).
And another thing - Stay the fuck off my page until you are ready to grow up.
ciao!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
if you have an issue with the staff, here's a logical little routine you might want to try - TALK TO US.
you could always try instant messaging us with something similar to what you've posted above. it's your choice - this issue isn't my deal since i haven't followed since the start, but the deviantART staff are OPEN to suggestions. all you have to do is talk to us about it, we're EASILY accessable.
changing your user icons, creating images like this, and generally being unconstructive will not get your point across - believe me. if someone were to have a chat with me about the whole thing i might be able to take their suggestions on board then work about resolving the problem.
that's my advice to you.. you can either pretend to be intelligent and appeal to the immature end of the deviantART community through tactics like this, or act like a big grown up and talk about it.
food for thought.
-----
- arc
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
~ topical, bang-on and brave. rule the width baby. roll the width! (did i mention tasteless? that's what makes it perfect...)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>