re: professional courtesy

[cwp]

OK, I was going to remain silent after my last post, but since we are discussing what is to happen, I wanted to voice my opinion.

I am against restraining people posting their work here.

I am for people have the respect of others to realize that by simply describing what is in their post in the subject line will let people decide on their own when it suits them to view the material. This is esp. important for ability for people who work for corporations and wish to view and participate (ie during lunch hour) and do not want to risk losing their job.

As Dennis pointed out, making someone follow a link can stop people from seeing some wonderful work, and getting the artist to have some of the exposure and critisim that leads to better work.

A descriptive subject, with no other changes preserve the rights of the individual to post what they want, while allowing others to view it at their discretion.

A good example of my own filters are Tim Herman's work. I came across his engraving examples of the ladies while at home, these are great work, and I even showed my wife how well he captured the sheerness of the stockings. This however is not appropriate for work. So when I saw the post of him winning an award at the show, I did not open it till I got home. I also didn't wait very long after I got home, since his work stuns me. Turns out it was fish, and from there on I could follow the post on my lunch hour. Again, a descriptive subject line would make that easier for me, and allow others the same flexibilty.

Thanks for listening.
--Carl

[sjaqua]

It is not my intent to re-light this fire. But I just saw an interesting quote in regards to a Supream Court ruling.

This from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression in reference of one of their 2003 Muzzel award winners.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has rightly determined that works of artistic merit cannot be considered "obscene" or "harmful to minors" solely because they depict nudity. Depiction of the human nude has been a form of artistic expression that has transcended the ages. To eliminate all nudity would rebuke history's most influential artists: Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Manet and Picasso, to name but a few. While distributing sexually explicit materials to minors may be made unlawful, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down general bans on depictions of nudity--even if it means minors could see such works."

Interesting fine line to straddle there. And with my feeeling on free speach, I must come out as totaly against the censoreship of ligitimate artist expression. A slight change (to the more liberal side) to my veiw on the issue, then as earlier stated. Because this ruling goes towards supporting my view of the Consitution and Bill of Rights as living breathing documents, constantly fighting off attacks, by those that think they know whats good for us all.

[Lloyd Hale]

Out of common courtesy We must identify any knife that might ruffle someones feathers ...if only because we are Gentlemen...

[sjaqua]

Because we are Ladies and Gentlemen we should perhaps agree to disagree?

[Tim Adlam]

...amen to that.

Like many people here, I prefer the option of "posted images staying on the board" rather than
a sub-gallery or linking off site.
We trust you all to post any "disclaimer" you deem appropriate in the subject heading.
The announcement will be edited and eventually it'll disappear.
New posters to this forum can figure it out from there.

Bring on the girls!...