One of my friends hit me up and told me that every day he will try to draw 1 nsfw picture and asked me to upload them here on e621. He doesn't want to be named because he values his privacy, so how can I tag his work without name-dropping him? Should I just use a different artist name or something?

anonymous_artist

Apparently he doesn't want to use this tag because he actually wants people to be able to keep up with art pieces from him, he just doesn't want to be named. Should I just use an alias?

edit: he specified "i just don't want to be recognized"

Yeah, sure.

Yeah, brainstorm with him and decide a good penname for him.

Make him an alias name he agrees to, something that's not connected to him.

A good idea would be no line on his real name, nothing with a connection to him or the place he lives is, no name taken from any of his favorite movies/games/etc.

This is plus tag what you see is somewhat related to why Ohmuu is DNP, just throwing it out there

I know of a few artists that have split names for sfw/nsfw. There doesn't seem to be a standard of how thats handled though as often just one artist tag is used for both. Often it doesnt matter since they mention their nsfw account on their SFW one, but other artists dont want them tied together.

It feels like these can only be done case-by-case though, since artists often change names.

Uploading artwork from artists who don't want certain art under their main tag. This sounds similar to the permission I got from several artists who are on the DNP.

Cane751 said:
Uploading artwork from artists who don't want certain art under their main tag. This sounds similar to the permission I got from several artists who are on the DNP.

surely if it was conditional dnp then he would be instantly recognized..

As a side note it doesn't matter anymore atm cause the post got taken down for "not meeting the minimum quality requirement (artistic)" which is kinda weird since art is subjective but oh well. Would be nice if someone could direct me to the page where they explain what the requirements are, if there is one.

First of all, the suffix _(artist) is unnecessary. There is no pixeloutlaw, so don't use a suffix. You can either change the tag's type by using the prefix artist: or by using the tags list. Do bear in mind that artist:foo and character:foo are the same tags, so if you ever do come across a situation where the character and the artist share a name, then you'll want a suffix, but usually on the character themselves.

Second of all, this image appears to be a bunch of curves and angles with little regard for anatomy. The basic phenotype is present, but beyond that it can certainly use improvement.
Take a look instead at his second image, and you'll notice there's more of a "skeleton" present in the body. The shoulders look a bit off to me, but definitely better than the Goodra.

Furrin_Gok said:
First of all, the suffix _(artist) is unnecessary. There is no pixeloutlaw, so don't use a suffix. You can either change the tag's type by using the prefix artist: or by using the tags list. Do bear in mind that artist:foo and character:foo are the same tags, so if you ever do come across a situation where the character and the artist share a name, then you'll want a suffix, but usually on the character themselves.

Second of all, this image appears to be a bunch of curves and angles with little regard for anatomy. The basic phenotype is present, but beyond that it can certainly use improvement.
Take a look instead at his second image, and you'll notice there's more of a "skeleton" present in the body. The shoulders look a bit off to me, but definitely better than the Goodra.

I forwarded this to him and he told me he finds his goodra better than the second image. He also told me that "goodra has always been a very curvy character, basically just curves, and a skeletons can have bends, like in the spine. goodra is mostly made of fat, so much that the official artwork I used for reference was basically just as curvy. I appreciate the criticism but I can't really see the use of it since it depends on how faithfully the artist wants to draw a character."

So like I said I don't get why deleting a post from lack of quality works, since art is subjective.

On my end thanks for clarifying the tags, I couldn't find how to do it.

"art is subjective" doesn't imply that there are no standards for beauty shared between humans. If there were no shared standards for beauty, then art galleries wouldn't exist, and places like Paris would not be ridiculously popular tourist destinations.

The principles of graphic design codify some of what we know about 'how to make things beautiful'. IMO, being somewhat competent at all of them, or very competent at the most important of them, is enough to pass E621's quality standards

savageorange said:
"art is subjective" doesn't imply that there are no standards for beauty shared between humans. If there were no shared standards for beauty, then art galleries wouldn't exist, and places like Paris would not be ridiculously popular tourist destinations.

The principles of graphic design codify some of what we know about 'how to make things beautiful'. IMO, being somewhat competent at all of them, or very competent at the most important of them, is enough to pass E621's quality standards

I'm saying art is subjective cause I don't find his goodra being particularly bad, not takedown-worthy anyways. It does feel like it's nothing noteworthy, but I feel the same on at least a quarter of uploads on e621. Seems like it just depends on the persons taste.

savageorange said:
"art is subjective" doesn't imply that there are no standards for beauty shared between humans. If there were no shared standards for beauty, then art galleries wouldn't exist,

Art IS subjective though. What we find "pretty" at any given point in time can change. Human history is an ever evolving series of changing standards. I mean, look at the difference between what "pretty hair" for a woman was in the 50's, the 80's and now. Walking into an art gallery is not supposed to be a guarantee that you enjoy everything inside of it. *I* like artist X. that doesn't mean you will too.

and places like Paris would not be ridiculously popular tourist destinations.

Yes, but the WHOLE WORLD doesn't want to go to Paris. Paris isn't popular with everyone.

Some people like the beach for vacation. Some people like the mountains. Some people like cities, some people like countyside. When people go to paris, they don't all follow a universal itinerary. Everyone has their own ideas of where they want to go. Some go to museums, some go to tourist destinations (like the Eiffel Tower, or the Arc de Triomph), some people want to go to disneyland Paris, others want to go visit Cathedrals, others want to go shopping.

It's not universal. It's not shared.

Did you ever wonder why (some) Asian girls wear such short skirts? It's because exposing the legs is not seen as provocative or sexy there, it's not seen as showing off. On the other hand, any sort of low cut collar that exposes cleavage is very sexy and forward. Shoulders are also very sexy. They have different modesty standards. Some groups of women in africa never wear shirts -- they think it's hilarious that most men around the world are focused on breasts.

ANyway.

Royallyoffended said:
I'm saying art is subjective cause I don't find his goodra being particularly bad, not takedown-worthy anyways. It does feel like it's nothing noteworthy, but I feel the same on at least a quarter of uploads on e621. Seems like it just depends on the persons taste.

Let me see if I can put this into words... Part of the problem is that most of the lines don't taper. there's one or two that do, but most of them end with a thick rounded edge. -- this is pretty jarring especially in places where small details are being drawn.

The expression seems pretty wooden--I"m not sure what emotion is being expressed. they don't look post-orgasmic. Both arms seem oddly flipper like, which is accurate enough, but maybe more than it SHOULD be.

The head tentacle things are oddly straight along the bottom o_o and there's only one real colored outline used which is... a bit odd.

see how much some little adustments help? (also, I know my edit is pretty lame, but I am using a mouse, not the pen tool and don't have the source files to make thigns better... also, I am sleepy)

(most programs with a pen/pathmaking/whatever tool will have the option to taper your lines as you go... very helpful!

And the lighting is very inconsistant -- It seems to come from behind and above for the head, behind and to the side for the tail, somewhere to the front and about midway up for the leg on the right, and the left on the left is jsut weird, as the thigh is lit up, while the belly is in shadow.

It's not a bad drawing, but it could be polished up to be a lot better. :)

I actually think the goodra is pretty dang cute -- but it has several 'mistakes' that LOOK like the mistakes people make when learning how to use their tools.

There's no shame in that. Art is a journey and we have to go through many places to get to where we're going. <3

SnowWolf said:
Art IS subjective though. What we find "pretty" at any given point in time can change. Human history is an ever evolving series of changing standards. I mean, look at the difference between what "pretty hair" for a woman was in the 50's, the 80's and now. Walking into an art gallery is not supposed to be a guarantee that you enjoy everything inside of it. *I* like artist X. that doesn't mean you will too.

Yes, but the WHOLE WORLD doesn't want to go to Paris. Paris isn't popular with everyone.

Some people like the beach for vacation. Some people like the mountains. Some people like cities, some people like countyside. When people go to paris, they don't all follow a universal itinerary. Everyone has their own ideas of where they want to go. Some go to museums, some go to tourist destinations (like the Eiffel Tower, or the Arc de Triomph), some people want to go to disneyland Paris, others want to go visit Cathedrals, others want to go shopping.

It's not universal. It's not shared.

Did you ever wonder why (some) Asian girls wear such short skirts? It's because exposing the legs is not seen as provocative or sexy there, it's not seen as showing off. On the other hand, any sort of low cut collar that exposes cleavage is very sexy and forward. Shoulders are also very sexy. They have different modesty standards. Some groups of women in africa never wear shirts -- they think it's hilarious that most men around the world are focused on breasts.

ANyway.

Let me see if I can put this into words... Part of the problem is that most of the lines don't taper. there's one or two that do, but most of them end with a thick rounded edge. -- this is pretty jarring especially in places where small details are being drawn.

The expression seems pretty wooden--I"m not sure what emotion is being expressed. they don't look post-orgasmic. Both arms seem oddly flipper like, which is accurate enough, but maybe more than it SHOULD be.

The head tentacle things are oddly straight along the bottom o_o and there's only one real colored outline used which is... a bit odd.

see how much some little adustments help? (also, I know my edit is pretty lame, but I am using a mouse, not the pen tool and don't have the source files to make thigns better... also, I am sleepy)

(most programs with a pen/pathmaking/whatever tool will have the option to taper your lines as you go... very helpful!

And the lighting is very inconsistant -- It seems to come from behind and above for the head, behind and to the side for the tail, somewhere to the front and about midway up for the leg on the right, and the left on the left is jsut weird, as the thigh is lit up, while the belly is in shadow.

It's not a bad drawing, but it could be polished up to be a lot better. :)

I actually think the goodra is pretty dang cute -- but it has several 'mistakes' that LOOK like the mistakes people make when learning how to use their tools.

There's no shame in that. Art is a journey and we have to go through many places to get to where we're going. <3

Thanks, I'll be forwarding this to the artist. Any way I can check with you if something is going to be taken down or not? I'd like to know before I post something and avoid getting in trouble.

SnowWolf said:
Art IS subjective though. What we find "pretty" at any given point in time can change. Human history is an ever evolving series of changing standards. I mean, look at the difference between what "pretty hair" for a woman was in the 50's, the 80's and now. Walking into an art gallery is not supposed to be a guarantee that you enjoy everything inside of it. *I* like artist X. that doesn't mean you will too.

I don't see how this addresses the point, since AFAICS we are not talking about what *concrete elements* anyone in particular prefers.

It's flatly wrong to assert only "art is subjective". PART of art is subjective, and that's an important distinction, especially in this context. You don't need to be a great artist to tell the difference in visual standards, between bad composition and good, between sloppy linework and clean, sharp linework, etc. Even if you don't understand what the difference you are seeing *is*, you can tell that one seems pictorially stronger than the other. And we can say, for example, that most people prefer a finished drawing to a sketch. That's just one example of how preferences converge to at least the same general area.

Talking about different cultures is missing the point because 'art is subjective' was raised in the context of doubting the theoretical validity of e621 approval/disapproval. E621's quality standards are not about anything like legs or breasts or the definition of pretty hair (or even the cultural significance of colors), they are about abstract design elements like composition, line quality, etc.

Naturally personal bias creeps in to mod decisions, but this is most relevant when a picture is artistically mediocre -- AFAICS, if you clear the bar by a good enough margin, you simply get approved, as long as the subject matter is relevant.

savageorange said:
I don't see how this addresses the point, since AFAICS we are not talking about what *concrete elements* anyone in particular prefers.

It's flatly wrong to assert only "art is subjective". PART of art is subjective, and that's an important distinction, especially in this context. You don't need to be a great artist to tell the difference in visual standards, between bad composition and good, between sloppy linework and clean, sharp linework, etc. Even if you don't understand what the difference you are seeing *is*, you can tell that one seems pictorially stronger than the other. And we can say, for example, that most people prefer a finished drawing to a sketch. That's just one example of how preferences converge to at least the same general area.

Talking about different cultures is missing the point because 'art is subjective' was raised in the context of doubting the theoretical validity of e621 approval/disapproval. E621's quality standards are not about anything like legs or breasts or the definition of pretty hair (or even the cultural significance of colors), they are about abstract design elements like composition, line quality, etc.

Naturally personal bias creeps in to mod decisions, but this is most relevant when a picture is artistically mediocre -- AFAICS, if you clear the bar by a good enough margin, you simply get approved, as long as the subject matter is relevant.

What about modern art pieces? Thinking of those really divisive "one red square in the corner of a canvas" that people pay millions for whilst other laugh at.

Royallyoffended said:
What about modern art pieces? Thinking of those really divisive "one red square in the corner of a canvas" that people pay millions for whilst other laugh at.

We follow a specific set of art quality here. While some places may prefer a different style, you've got to match ours.

Furrin_Gok said:
We follow a specific set of art quality here. While some places may prefer a different style, you've got to match ours.

I wasn't talking about e621 I was talking about art being subjective or not..

Royallyoffended said:
Thanks, I'll be forwarding this to the artist. Any way I can check with you if something is going to be taken down or not? I'd like to know before I post something and avoid getting in trouble.

Well since everyone else hasn't addressed the important part here... You won't get in trouble for uploading art that doesn't meet artistic standards. Not unless you are spamming the site with dozens of fingerpaintings :p

That said, you're welcome to PM me, or any of the other members of the staff for their opinion on the matter :)

savageorange said:
I don't see how this addresses the point, since AFAICS we are not talking about what *concrete elements* anyone in particular prefers.

You're the one who started this a discussion about how art is not subjective.

I didn't disagree that there are not *common aesthetic* of beauty (and things that humans are generally programmed to find aesthetic pleasure in--like symmetry in faces... but those are not art. It's like saying "blue is artistic" ... which is.. inaccurate. you can say that blue is generally found to be soothing and calming. You can say that blue is mellow and relaxing. and these things are generally true. but blue is not in itself artistic. Yes, good composition is important, but it's not universal what makes good composition. Good linework is important, but sketches can also be good. Many good artworks specifically and purposefully break the rules.

but all of this goes into a lot of conversation that really *isn't* relevant here*...

After all, when dude said "art is subjective" what he is saying is that he liked it, but understands that not everyone will share that opinion.

which is a pretty great way of thinking and I personally really appreciate how he's handled this whole situation. <3

Royallyoffended said:
What about modern art pieces? Thinking of those really divisive "one red square in the corner of a canvas" that people pay millions for whilst other laugh at.

AH, I love this stuff. :D

First, that's not modern art. it's abstract art.

This is specifically De Stijl (or Neoplasticism) ... the whole point of it was, well, to quote:

You have to understand that this was very revolutionary at it's time. This was in a time when much "real" art was focused on realism and detail... as opposed to abstracting ideas down to the most basic primary colors and 4-sided shapes... the idea of trying to find the 'ideal' geometic forms and ideas. Literally, in order to try and find a universal beauty, these guys were studying the idea of squares and red paint.

Meanwhile, this is Suprematism. is It had it's roots around the same time -- 1915, though in Russia, rather than the Netherlands. The idea of Suprematism was to focus on the artistic feeling rather than the idea of what things looked like. The appearance of a thing was pointless, what mattered was the emotion.

This style was a fight against materialism. the founder writes: Art no longer cares to serve the state and religion, it no longer wishes to illustrate the history of manners, it wants to have nothing further to do with the object, as such, and believes that it can exist, in and for itself, without "things"

That said... while these were their goals-- they don't always succeed. That said, those who laugh at these images do so because they don't understand the history behind it... and it's... easy to laugh at something we don't understand. we see a red square and dismiss it as minimalistic artistic effort".. .we laugh and make jokes about how someone was scamming the world with their red-squares.

They don't realize that these black squares were drawn in an era when Stalinism was limiting the freedom of artist, or that "socialist realism" is a thing. (What's socialism realism, you ask? the official art style of the Soviet Union between 1932 and 1988, characterized by the glorification of communist values, and the removal of anything that reflected poorly on Communism. Creativity need not apply.) and that other forms of abstraction were prohibited. Which is to say, after a point, the artist was literally forbidden from creating any art that was 'abstract' in any way.

This whole "art is subjective" argument is dumb. It's pretty clear when someone is deliberately making something weird as an artistic choice, and when someone is simply drawing something like shit because of lack of skill/experience.

I went to art school and I would ALWAYS hear this as a lame-ass excuse from my fellow students...got old fast having to hear the teachers shoot down that shitty argument again and again.