• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

The OFFICIAL "This week in your ORIGINAL ART collection?"
38 38

Started by mister_not_so_nice,

12,770 posts in this topic

Terry Doyle

Terry Doyle

Posted
Posted
It's obvious these images were drawn to elicit a response. Don't be upset because the response elicited isn't the one you were expecting.

 

And again, it was spelled out very clearly by me (and Travis for his piece) exactly what the piece would be.

 

What you posted was a link.

 

A link that said,

 

"Not Just a Bloodsucker"

 

Of course . . . how stoopid of me . . . I should have realised from your in-detail description that this was gonna be a cartoon of Vampirella sucking her t*tty and fr*gging herself off.

 

My bad . . .

 

Yes, it is "your bad." Because you conveniently dropped the "(NSFW)" which was also in the title. Heck, you just reposted it a minute ago.

 

My God... is defending your poor behavior so important that you now must resort to such tactics, in a sad attempt to justify your inconsiderate actions? (tsk)

 

You're right . . .

 

I should have re-posted the whole link for you.

 

Here you go:

 

Not Just A Bloodsucker! (NSFW)

 

Happy now?

 

 

More hits the merrier, eh??

 

Well, at least it shows I did warn folks about the kind of art they'd be likely to see. But there was no need to post the link, though. Simply adding "NSFW" to your post where you wrote it out would have been enough.

 

I mean, you've shown you have no problem writing out entire lines from my other posts. Why you'd choose to not rewrite this one out seems odd, unless you were just lying to cover for your own ill-advised antics.

 

Actually, I didn't have your link readily on hand to refer to - so I just quoted the title.

 

Just to keep you happy, I went back several pages of this thread and did a cut-and-paste on your link.

 

Happy now?

 

Good boy.

 

So, when you wanted to claim I hadn't warned folks of the kind of art this was, you didn't so much lie, as speak out of ignorance and then had to backpeddle. Okay, if you say so.

 

But again, you didn't have to repost the link. Just correcting your post with the correct information would have been plenty. Unless you wanted to repost the link yourself, for your own reasons. Maybe you want it to get more hits? (shrug)

 

Please show me, in any of the posts I've made, where I call you a liar and claim you didn't warn folks about the 'art' you were providing a link to?

 

All I said was that you posted a link (yes, it had a NWS label) that gave a brief description.

 

Wasn't your link (that offered the briefest of description) designed to arouse curiosity and get people to look?

 

So, yes, I was aware of the NWS label when I clicked on to your link. But, as I suggest, I was intrigued. Which was what your link was designed to do.

 

I'm not a prude, but I wasn't exactly impressed with the image that confronted me.

 

As this is a forum, in which we exchange thoughts and opinions, I exercised my right to respond to the 'art' you wanted people here to look at.

 

My response?

 

"Sadly, CAF is awash with this kind of cr*p".

 

That's an observation, not a direct attack (and nothing to do with whether or not the 'art' carried a NWS tag).

 

You took exception.

 

Fine.

 

Don't have a problem in the world with that.

 

Things get bad when, by your own admission, you start injecting sarcasm and accusations into your replies. So, by your own hand, you escalate matters.

 

So if you take offence at any of my subsequent comments, you played a big part in the way this discussion deteriorated.

 

You posted a link to a controversial image.

 

You shouldn't be too surprised when your controversial image elicits controversial feedback.

 

If you were hoping for lots of positive responses, perhaps you should clean up your act and post something that conforms more to the traditional idea of 'Comic Book Artwork' (and I'm struggling to see how a sleazy pin-up can be classed as comic-book art?).

 

Maybe I am a bit of a dinosaur on this one . . .

 

I just happen to like comic-strip illustration.

 

If I want to look at pornographic images, there are other avenues for that sort of thing.

 

Nothing against tastefully executed pin-up or good girl art (Gene Parke's Elvgren paintings are exquisite, for example), but the art you showcased is just plain sleazy, in my opinion.

 

You said something to the effect that you only bought the piece because you wanted an example of the artist's work - and it wasn't normally the type of image you go for.

 

Well, I happen to like Steve Ditko.

 

But I wouldn't buy a Ditko original that wasn't for me. I'd wait for the right example to surface, at the right time and at the right price.

 

Briefly looking through your CAF galleries, I notice that you have lots of pieces labelled NWS.

 

So, if you don't normally collect this type of stuff - why so many NWS examples (a total of 39 images)? (shrug)

 

And don't worry . . . I've absolutely no intention of looking at any of your (many) NWS pieces. One dissappointment is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Terry Doyle

Terry Doyle

Posted
Posted
Naturally, I don't expect such logic and common sense to come to reign.

 

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. If you truly don't have the capacity to understand why such images would elicit the responses you got then I'm sorry for wasting your time trying to explain it.

 

I understand the responses (to some degree, anyhow). But this thread is not the place for that. This thread is for sharing your art. If someone wants to whine about explicit images, they can start their own thread here (it's very easy to do) and rattle on until their keyboard gives out. This thread is not the place for that, though.

 

Also, the level of some of the "responses" goes far beyond just not liking a certain type of art. When you drag in and insult innocent people, who have nothing to do with anything, plus claim someone is lying, when it is easy to see they are not, then make personally insulting claim about a person, based on nothing but a piece of art you didn't like, that's not just someone responding they don't like a certian kind of art.

 

I understood what you were saying, but you don't seem to have gotten what I was saying. Is this one clear enough? It's not about someone just not liking a piece of art in my personal collection. It's not about someone feeling the need to say they don't like it. It's about the kind of behavior that seems all too commonplace around here, that ruins fun threads over some miserable crank wanting to make others miserable and doing anything they can to do so, which folks are willing to just let slide (including the moderators) as merely "responding to a piece of art." What has happened here is far beyond that. And if you are incapable or unwilling to see THAT, then I don't know what else there is left to say... other than, "it's just par for the course around here." (shrug)

 

2mm7inn.jpg

 

Quite the drama queen, aren't you? lol

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weird Paper

Weird Paper

Posted
Posted
It's obvious these images were drawn to elicit a response. Don't be upset because the response elicited isn't the one you were expecting.

 

And again, it was spelled out very clearly by me (and Travis for his piece) exactly what the piece would be.

 

What you posted was a link.

 

A link that said,

 

"Not Just a Bloodsucker"

 

Of course . . . how stoopid of me . . . I should have realised from your in-detail description that this was gonna be a cartoon of Vampirella sucking her t*tty and fr*gging herself off.

 

My bad . . .

 

Yes, it is "your bad." Because you conveniently dropped the "(NSFW)" which was also in the title. Heck, you just reposted it a minute ago.

 

My God... is defending your poor behavior so important that you now must resort to such tactics, in a sad attempt to justify your inconsiderate actions? (tsk)

 

You're right . . .

 

I should have re-posted the whole link for you.

 

Here you go:

 

Not Just A Bloodsucker! (NSFW)

 

Happy now?

 

 

More hits the merrier, eh??

 

Well, at least it shows I did warn folks about the kind of art they'd be likely to see. But there was no need to post the link, though. Simply adding "NSFW" to your post where you wrote it out would have been enough.

 

I mean, you've shown you have no problem writing out entire lines from my other posts. Why you'd choose to not rewrite this one out seems odd, unless you were just lying to cover for your own ill-advised antics.

 

Actually, I didn't have your link readily on hand to refer to - so I just quoted the title.

 

Just to keep you happy, I went back several pages of this thread and did a cut-and-paste on your link.

 

Happy now?

 

Good boy.

 

So, when you wanted to claim I hadn't warned folks of the kind of art this was, you didn't so much lie, as speak out of ignorance and then had to backpeddle. Okay, if you say so.

 

But again, you didn't have to repost the link. Just correcting your post with the correct information would have been plenty. Unless you wanted to repost the link yourself, for your own reasons. Maybe you want it to get more hits? (shrug)

 

Please show me, in any of the posts I've made, where I call you a liar and claim you didn't warn folks about the 'art' you were providing a link to?

 

All I said was that you posted a link (yes, it had a NWS label) that gave a brief description.

 

Wasn't your link (that offered the briefest of description) designed to arouse curiosity and get people to look?

 

So, yes, I was aware of the NWS label when I clicked on to your link. But, as I suggest, I was intrigued. Which was what your link was designed to do.

 

I'm not a prude, but I wasn't exactly impressed with the image that confronted me.

 

As this is a forum, in we exchange thoughts and opinions, I exercised my right to respond to the 'art' you wanted people here to look at.

 

My response?

 

"Sadly, CAF is awash with this kind of cr*p".

 

That's an observation, not a direct attack (and nothing to do with whether or not the 'art' carried a NWS tag).

 

You took exception.

 

Fine.

 

Don't have a problem in the world with that.

 

Things get bad when, by your own admission, you start injecting sarcasm and accusations into your replies. So, by your own hand, you escalate matters.

 

So if you take offence at any of my subsequent comments, you played a big part into the way this discussion deteriorated.

 

You posted a link to a controversial image.

 

You shouldn't be too surprised when your controversial image ilicits controversial feedback.

 

If you were hoping for lots of positive responses, perhaps you should clean up your act and post something that conforms more to the traditional idea of 'Comic Book Artwork' (and I'm struggling to see how a sleazy pin-up can be classed as comic-book art?).

 

Maybe I am a bit of a dinosaur on this one . . .

 

I just happen to like comic-strip illustration.

 

If I want to look at pornographic images, there are other avenues for that sort of thing.

 

Nothing against tastefully executed pin-up or good girl art (Gene Parke's Elvgren paintings are exquisite, for example), but the art you showcased is just plain sleazy.

 

You said something to the effect that you only bought the piece because you wanted an example of the artist's work (and it wasn't normally the type of image you go for), so won it in auction.

 

Well, I happen to like Steve Ditko.

 

But I wouldn't buy a Ditko original that wasn't for me. I'd wait for the right example to surface, at the right time and at the right price.

 

Briefly looking through your CAF galleries, I notice that you have lots of pieces labelled NWS.

 

So, if you don't normally collect this type of stuff - why so many NWS examples (a total of 39 images)? (shrug)

 

And don't worry . . . I've absolutely no intention of looking at any of your (many) NWS pieces. One dissappointment is enough.

I'm afraid I have to go with you on this one, Terry. I'm certain we're not alone as individuals who find it regrettable that CAF has become such a repository for amateurish smut. Don't misunderstand me -- I love CAF -- I'm proud to be a paid member -- but there are other websites for amateur fetish-borne porn. Is there a good reason this cancer has to infiltrate CAF also? Having guidelines would probably also necessitate that somebody, somewhere, be the final say in whether something was appropriate, and then you have the whole issue of censorship and subjective moderation. It's a genuine shame that maturity and restraint alone would not be enough to allow CAF to be what it's supposed to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CollectingFool

CollectingFool

Posted
Posted
I'm certain we're not alone as individuals who find it regrettable that CAF has become such a repository for amateurish smut.

 

Which brings up the point of what should be considered "Comic Art". I know there will never be a consensus but to me, comic art is art used in the production of a published comic book or art with a comic theme created by a published comic book artist. Only other things I'd want to see in CAF is illustration artwork that follows the same guidelines as there is cross-over there. Everything else is fan art. Not just excluding "smut" as you call it but family pictures, kids drawings, all that stuff. Maybe convention pics would be OK but under a different function, not in the general artwork database.

 

The one other "improvement" I would love to see but I know won't happen is a blocking function. Being able to block certain galleries from your search results would be fantastic. Certain members have made the search function practically worthless by filling CAF with artwork supposedly for sale but impossible to deal on. Would be great to filter those out.

 

I will agree with SequentialT on one thing, this thread has veered OT.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Terry Doyle

Terry Doyle

Posted
Posted
I picked this up today at Baltimore:

 

John Buscema\Tony Dazuniga

 

CCF08212011_00001.jpg

 

wow, very nice John

 

Thanks, Sorry if my posting art got in the middle of something else.

 

John

 

Sorry about the 'something else' deflecting attention from your super Buscema page.

 

Excellent example, congratulations. (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sequential T

Sequential T

Posted
Posted
I'm certain we're not alone as individuals who find it regrettable that CAF has become such a repository for amateurish smut.

 

Which brings up the point of what should be considered "Comic Art". I know there will never be a consensus but to me, comic art is art used in the production of a published comic book or art with a comic theme created by a published comic book artist. Only other things I'd want to see in CAF is illustration artwork that follows the same guidelines as there is cross-over there. Everything else is fan art.

 

Well, there are quite a few pages and pinups on my gallery from some of my artists that were adult material and published works. How would those qualify in your narrowed vision? I'm guessing for folks like "Weird Paper" and the resident crank here, those would still be unacceptable on CAF, right?

 

Well, there's no need to worry about any of this on my part anymore. I've deleted every post or reply I've made here, that had a link to this piece that seems to have everyone in a snit. (Sorry, I can't delete the posts from the miserable crank which has them, you'll have to take that up with him.) Furthermore, I'll never again post a link to my personal collection here again. No matter what the art is. It's obvious that this environment is NOT a place to share your love of the artform, so I'm no longer going to do so (which I'm pretty sure is all folks wanted all along). I guess you can call that a victory for whiny cranks everywhere.

 

And lastly, I've now put whiny crank on ignore, so I'll never have to deal with his petty-minded nonsense anymore. So, I have no idea what his last several posts have said (and please, don't both showing me, as I really do not care) and I'm more than happy to keep it that way.

 

I will agree with SequentialT on one thing, this thread has veered OT.

 

No, it hasn't. It has fit in perfectly to the mentality of the small-minded and petty people who inhabit this forum. As I've said pretty much all along: It's just par for the course around here. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
38 38
Go to topic listing