Page 5 of 6

PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 9:59 pm
by Tangent
GlitterFey wrote:*Glitter cries in a corner and throws away the fanart she inked for JP last night. :wink:

There there, it's okay... :shifty: *directs a kitten to collect the discarded fanart* :shifty:

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:23 am
by Tenma
I always thought "smut" by definition was worse than regular porn. Hardcore versus softcore.

At any rate, it's probably not prudent to make terminological distinctions between the two.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:47 am
by Mcfarlane Salsa
One man's cereal is another man's porn.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:09 am
by GlitterFey
Man, why is this so hard for you guys? /:)

Okay, so the before poster was wrong - clothes does not equal smut. Smut is very softcore! Smut is like the "porn" that Josh draws - they are sitting around, naked, being cute and or hawt. They are NOT penetrating each other with vibrators or other things nor are they dripping with any sort of sexual, um, juices. So.

NONE OF THE FOLLOWING LINKS ARE WORK SAFE and all of them are from other fanartists (and ocassionally JP) and are housed on Packy's fanart server/thingy.

Smut: http://packy.dardan.com/walky/avalon_nude/aaa

Smut: http://packy.dardan.com/walky/avalon_nude/aab

Smut: http://packy.dardan.com/walky/avalon_nude/aac

Smut: http://packy.dardan.com/walky/avalon_nude/aan

Smut: http://packy.dardan.com/walky/avalon_nude/acd

Smut: http://packy.dardan.com/walky/avalon_nude/acq

Porn: http://packy.dardan.com/walky/avalon_nude/acu

Porn: http://packy.dardan.com/walky/avalon_nude/adb

Porn: http://packy.dardan.com/walky/avalon_nude/ace

"Smut" is benign. "Porn" is explicit. These are common definitions in fanart land.

Does that help clarify the difference? Remember, I'm not saying that porn is *bad* - just that it's not exactly the same as "smut" so I was suggesting making two threads. However, since many of you didn't get the point I wanted to educate you (porn is an issue very near and dear to my heart).

Also: for any of you Walkyphiles - the IW! community's smut fanart is almost exclusively "smut" as anything with explicit general content is generally frowned upon loudly by the community and, often, Willis. Again, it's not that I think *this* community should act the exact same way - I am proferring it as an example that I think some of you will be familiar with.

Okay, enjoy! :D

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:52 am
by Nick 101
I sense the difference. Thanks for clearing it out. :)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:09 pm
by Josh Phillips
GlitterFey wrote:Man, why is this so hard for you guys? /:)

Because you're fighting several decades of common English usage. :-) To the layperson, "smut" and "porn" are wholly interchangeable terms.

"Smut" is benign. "Porn" is explicit. These are common definitions in fanart land.

So THAT'S where this is coming from. :-) It makes a bit more sense now. Personally, I have no clue what goes on in the fanart community at large, so my confusion was maximized.

Anyways, I imagine there are as many opinions on the subject as there are people posting artwork (heck, there are probably more opinions than people), and I figure it's up to the viewer to decide whether a piece is to their tastes or not. I just hope people post more art in general. :-)

(*sigh* And it doesn't have to involve sexuality either, I guess...)

JOSH.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:57 pm
by Spaceman42
How about we just label and link instead of inline images? That should take care of most of the problems, no?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:13 pm
by Tangent
Because some of us enjoy seeing the pics in-thread and don't click the links?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:40 pm
by mzacher
Tangent wrote:Because some of us enjoy seeing the pics in-thread and don't click the links?


...the only issue I have with this is that links tend to eat less of the bandwidth from personal servers than full images in the threads do.

And I'd rather not invoke the Wrath of my Sysadmin. Please. :wink:

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:53 pm
by Tenma
I'm echoing Josh's comments here... Aside from this forum, I have zero experience with the fanart community at large. Seems a novel concept, though, so I'll attempt to adhere to the definitions.

And I'm pleased to see that my work managed to make it into both example categories. :-)

Ironically, I haven't drawn any nudes for years now.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 9:50 pm
by BanditAngel
Image

Thumbnailing strikes me as a decent compromise :)

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:03 pm
by Tangent
Sounds like a superb idea. It gives you a taste of the pic, doesn't break the borders of the page if it's over 800 pixels wide, and doesn't eat up band width. And people can choose from there if they want to click the link.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:47 pm
by GlitterFey
Hrm. I hope my idea didn't make anyone think that maybe they oughtn't to post the images for reasons of being offensive. I mean, smut is still NSFW so whether it is "smut" or "porn" you'd probably be in just as much trouble (if you were a body who had to worry about it). Reasons of bandwidth.... I have another solution.

If you wanted to do individual threads, then it would just be the one image instead of the 5 or so above it pulling down bandwidth. However, people could easily miss out on other art, so I can see a downside to that also. Personally, I'm not a fan of clicking links either since, well, I don't. The thumbnail compromise seems good too, but I don't know how to do that unless it just means creating a thumbnail image, uploading both and linking from the thumb.

Man, am I starting to think it may have been better if I'd never opened my mouth. >.<

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:12 am
by BanditAngel
If the image is hosted on imageshack.us, it will automatically generate a thumbnail and the default is to link to that, not the full image. Of course, for people who have their own server, I can merely seethe with jealousy ;) (But, yes, you'd have to manually resize the image in GIMP / Photoshop / whathave you, upload both, and use the thumbnail picture for linking.)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:13 am
by Mcfarlane Salsa
BanditAngel wrote:If the image is hosted on imageshack.us, it will automatically generate a thumbnail and the default is to link to that, not the full image. Of course, for people who have their own server, I can merely seethe with jealousy ;) (But, yes, you'd have to manually resize the image in GIMP / Photoshop / whathave you, upload both, and use the thumbnail picture for linking.)


If you use Packy's website, it'll have a little thumbnail in the gallery you can use. PM me for an account.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:13 am
by Nick 101
BanditAngel wrote:Image

Thumbnailing strikes me as a decent compromise :)

Cute.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:01 am
by Cholma
GlitterFey wrote:The thumbnail compromise seems good too, but I don't know how to do that unless it just means creating a thumbnail image, uploading both and linking from the thumb.


You create a thumbnail link by embedding the image inside a regular link and using the 'height' and 'width' tags within the image link:

(a href="http://www.example.com/avapr0n.jpg")(img src="http://www.example.com/avapr0n.jpg" height="75" width="150" /)(/a)
Use <> instead of () of course. This works with HTML; not sure about BBcode. Let's test it!

HTML:
<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~cholma/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/AvaWalky20021030.jpg/"><img src="http://home.earthlink.net/~cholma/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/AvaWalky20021030.jpg" height="79" width="175"/></a>

BBcode with height & width:
Image

BBcode without height & width:
Image

Okay, then! HTML seems disabled even though the left side of post comment page says 'HTML ON' (although the IMG HTML tag worked. Hmm.) and BBcode doesn't allow the Height & Width modifiers. :/

Sooooo, you can post the link itself using BBcode and image thumbnail using the HTML (IMG SRC=" "/) tag, but you can't make the image itself a link. Unless... maybe you can combine BBcode and HTML--

BBcode link with HTML IMG height & width:
<img src="http://home.earthlink.net/~cholma/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/AvaWalky20021030.jpg" height="75" width="150"/>

Hey! That worked! :)

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:07 am
by Tangent
Actually that only reduces the image size. The bandwidth cost is still the same. It's an issue with some of my early Tangents, I just saved the images and put up reduced sizes... and then found out by Glych that those images were still taking as long to load as the full-sized image, and taking up as much bandwidth.

I really should go back into my archives someday and finish reducing the rest of the images...

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 3:48 pm
by Mravac Kid
Tenma wrote:I'm echoing Josh's comments here... Aside from this forum, I have zero experience with the fanart community at large. Seems a novel concept, though, so I'll attempt to adhere to the definitions.

And I'm pleased to see that my work managed to make it into both example categories. :-)

Ironically, I haven't drawn any nudes for years now.

Well, that will need to be corrected, now won't it? ;)

As for the pic size, I agree with Tangent, I like seeing the full pic in the thread. Of course, with broadband my previous issues about loading times have been eliminated...
And I also see mzacher's point, and that's why I either upload pics to Packy's site (which is specifically intended to allow people to post fanart, and link it to forums), or Imageshack (for places which aren't covered by Packy's site).

Anyway, if you want to use thumbnails, Imageshack is a good place, but doesn't accept nudity... Packy's site doesn't give immediate links for thumbnails, so it would require some work:
Basically, you need to post the thumbnail pic, and make it link to the pic.
Lemme see if I can conjure an example...

Image

And here's the code I used...

Code: Select all
[url=http://packy.dardan.com/walky/avalon_nude/acw?full=1][img]http://packy.dardan.com/walky/albums/avalon_nude/acw.thumb.jpg[/img][/url]

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:28 pm
by Cholma
Tangent wrote:Actually that only reduces the image size. The bandwidth cost is still the same.


Interesting. I did not know that... but it makes perfect sense now that you made me think about it.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:55 pm
by zippthorn
GlitterFey wrote:I mean, smut is still NSFW so whether it is "smut" or "porn" you'd probably be in just as much trouble (if you were a body who had to worry about it).


Well, since the thread is titled "Smut" it doesn't matter if it's only got porn or sexy-but-not-nude piccies.

Zippthorn

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:38 pm
by bunnyThor
GlitterFey wrote:"Smut" is benign. "Porn" is explicit. These are common definitions in fanart land.


They are? Maybe in some corners, but I have yet to see any evidence that they are part of the universally accepted jargon--not that much of *anything* is ever universally accepted in fandom.

Does that help clarify the difference? Remember, I'm not saying that porn is *bad*


You just did! You said that "smut" was benign, which implies that "porn" is not.

Also: for any of you Walkyphiles - the IW! community's smut fanart is almost exclusively "smut" as anything with explicit general content is generally frowned upon loudly by the community and, often, Willis. Again, it's not that I think *this* community should act the exact same way - I am proferring it as an example that I think some of you will be familiar with.


Okay, so you don't think we should act a certain way, but you still insist on providing a model of behavior that you obviously approve of. That's not a mixed message or anything.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:39 pm
by GrassyNoel
bunnyThor wrote:You just did! You said that "smut" was benign, which implies that "porn" is not.

explicit != bad, in some people's opinion :-)

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:07 pm
by GlitterFey
bunnyThor wrote:You just did! You said that "smut" was benign, which implies that "porn" is not.


That is a gross misunderstanding on your part, not an implicit statement on my part. Not benign does not equal bad. We're not talking about cancer, here. If your lexicon is limited, it is not my problem nor my responsibility.

bunnyThor wrote:Okay, so you don't think we should act a certain way, but you still insist on providing a model of behavior that you obviously approve of. That's not a mixed message or anything.


You are trying to start a fight and I'm not taking that bait. Goodday to you.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 12:08 am
by bunnyThor
GlitterFey wrote:
bunnyThor wrote:You just did! You said that "smut" was benign, which implies that "porn" is not.


That is a gross misunderstanding on your part, not an implicit statement on my part. Not benign does not equal bad. We're not talking about cancer, here. If your lexicon is limited, it is not my problem nor my responsibility.


Fine, "not benign" *does* equal "not good", which usually means "bad", though it also encompasses "neutral", which is not exactly a ringing endorsement either.

And considering that I'm about the fifth person to comment on this, it is much more likely that the lexical difficulties originate on your end.

GlitterFey wrote:
bunnyThor wrote:Okay, so you don't think we should act a certain way, but you still insist on providing a model of behavior that you obviously approve of. That's not a mixed message or anything.


You are trying to start a fight and I'm not taking that bait. Goodday to you.


You come in, huffily turn up your nose at what people were happily enjoying before you arrived, and then start pointing fingers when people call you on it? Goodday to you as well, madam.