Figure work and prudishness

Christopher M. Grimes wrote

on 22 Oct 2008 12:28 PM

Dave, I think that the star rating is averaging the number each viewer clicks on, for example if it currently shows four stars and someone clicks on one star then the displayed figure will drop. 

I really doubt there is any censoring going on as I am sure that most members here are artists and as such we, above most others, appreciate the human form.  Many of us have faced censoring of one sort or another while attempting to show our work, however in this environment of artists sharing with artists I just can't see prudishness or the like entering into it.

Just my thoughts on this.

dcorc wrote

on 22 Oct 2008 4:20 PM

Christopher M. Grimes:

Dave, I think that the star rating is averaging the number each viewer clicks on, for example if it currently shows four stars and someone clicks on one star then the displayed figure will drop. 

Hi Christopher

I'm certain you are correct about the mechanism. My point is, however, that I saw it go down in steps, as I checked the gallery in the course of the day.

Christopher M. Grimes:

I really doubt there is any censoring going on

I'm not suggesting that the site is censoring.

Christopher M. Grimes:

as I am sure that most members here are artists and as such we, above most others, appreciate the human form.  Many of us have faced censoring of one sort or another while attempting to show our work, however in this environment of artists sharing with artists I just can't see prudishness or the like entering into it.

Just my thoughts on this.

I wish I could share your optimism, but considerable experience as a moderator on three other sites over the past 5 years or so and a member on several more have unfortunately taught me otherwise. I haven't seen any other starred works here so far having their ratings so consistently knocked down. Hence my flagging this issue up here at the earliest possible stage. I think this is something which needs monitoring, in the context of figure work shown here.

I thought it might make my point more clearly if we examine the maths. If we are correct that the star rating is a simple average of votes, then the minimum vote numbers needed to swing a (one person) 5-star vote down to various levels work out like this:

(5+1)2 =3 stars
(5+1+1)/3 = 2.33 stars
(5+1+1+1)/4 = 2 stars
(5+1+1+1+1)/5 = 1.8 stars
(5+1+1+1+1+1)/6 = 1.66 stars
(5+1+1+1+1+1+1)/7 = 1.57 stars

implying that a sequence between four and six sequential one-star votes have been cast, in order to reduce the average below two stars.

(This also assumes that the total numbers of votes being cast are small - an assumption warranted by the relatively small number of members on the site in total, the proportion of images which have stars, and the high proportion of those which have 5 stars)

Dave

Catherine Uffen wrote

on 25 Oct 2008 12:37 AM

I wonder if

a) there are conventional artists here who don't like digital

b) they don't like male nudes in digital

c) they are alarmed by this modern nude young male staring at them.

I don't think that just because we're all artists it means that we're all tolerant of all kinds of media and styles.

I like it by the way.

cathy

Comrade Vladimir wrote

on 25 Oct 2008 3:38 AM

answers to each as the come

A) They should learn to be more accepting and to so closed minded.

B) same as above but also learn not to be bigoted .

And C)  this male is of the appearance of an 19 or 20 year old (same age as I)  as are all my male figures

people should be more open minded about things bigotry is unacceptable full stop

dcorc wrote

on 25 Oct 2008 5:08 AM

Catherine Uffen:

I don't think that just because we're all artists it means that we're all tolerant of all kinds of media and styles.

 

So, hypothetically, if I decided that I dislike watercolours, it would be OK then if I went round the gallery giving 1-star to all the watercolour paintings?

Catherine Uffen wrote

on 25 Oct 2008 4:20 PM

Oh dear, I've been misunderstood.

I think it is reprehensible that anyone would downgrade a picture out of prudishness.

I thought that someone above was arguing that as we are all artists we can assume that other members aren't downgrading as a result of prudishness. I was just pointing out that there are prudish and narrow minded artists and as much as we'd like to, we can't rely on artists being fair or knowledgable or on their having developed taste.

I am so sorry to have confused things.

cathy

Comrade Vladimir wrote

on 25 Oct 2008 5:33 PM

ahhh i see cathy 

sorry i misunderstood

those staed reasons are the most probable reasons yes alas

Bob Bahr wrote

on 3 Nov 2008 11:54 AM

Just to clarify one point, as an AA staff member, I can say that to my knowledge no one here would even consider tinkering with a post's star rating. That's not our way.

dcorc wrote

on 4 Dec 2008 12:58 AM

Bob Bahr:

Just to clarify one point, as an AA staff member, I can say that to my knowledge no one here would even consider tinkering with a post's star rating. That's not our way.

I wasn't suggesting that the staff would.

I'm suggesting that there have been incidents where members posting work involving nudity have been marked down for it by other members, as a way of showing their disapproval of nudity.

I am also concerned that a campaign by a small number of members has resulted in the proposed fencing-off of figure-work into a separate gallery here. It seems to me that any art-site worthy of the name should be taking a stand in defence of figure-work as a valid form of artistic expression, and not encouraging prudery, nor allowing what I strongly suspect to be the religious right, from dictating conditions to the rest of us.

Bob Bahr wrote

on 4 Dec 2008 6:40 AM

dcorc, the staff talked about this issue before we even launched the forum, so rest assured that a special interest group is not bullying us. we're made of stronger stuff than that! I'd like to point out that nude figures and clothed figures will share the same gallery. We are sorting things into categorizes so people can find what they need, and yes, this structure also allows us to warn folks who don't want to see nudity that this particular gallery has some. One sentence stating that nudity is in the gallery hurts no one, and helps some. I think it's a good interim solution.

In terms of star ratings, I think people should be able to give more or less stars based on whatever criteria they like, whether it's an aversion or devotion to the color blue, to landscapes, to perfect draftsmanship, to nudity, to abstraction, to pug dogs, or petunias. We will try to make the ratings more transparent so people can see if they are being skewed by a few very low ratings -- but that capability is a bit beyond us right now.

dcorc, thanks for speaking up and stating your views.

Comrade Vladimir wrote

on 4 Dec 2008 8:23 AM

"In terms of star ratings, I think people should be able to give more or less stars based on whatever criteria they like, whether it's an aversion or devotion to the color blue, to landscapes, to perfect draftsmanship, to nudity, to abstraction, to pug dogs, or petunias."

Fine, I am certian we can ALL play this game!

johanne7 wrote

on 10 Dec 2008 6:41 AM

It's not prudish to decide that the painting is rather amateur and the person will grow into a more accomplished artist.  You cannot believe that a sketch with relatively little modeling of features and musculature should be getting 4 or 5 stars.  The general sensitivity of the portrait is good but it does need to have some thought taken to make it portray the three dimensionality of the face and form as well as attention to warm and cool colors in skin and shadow.   I love drawing people of all ages and mode of dress and have done so for years.  I find the human face and body always a challenge but as long as the pose is not overtly pornographic and done only for shock value, dressed or not is fine. 

dcorc wrote

on 10 Dec 2008 1:07 PM

I suggest you check the general standard of work here which is getting 4 or 5 stars. To be blunt, I think very little indeed on this site warrants 5 stars if you are to go by the sort of criteria you imply.

Again, you miss my point, namely that I believe the work was marked down not because of standard, but because there are people objecting to content (i.e. nudity), and abusing the star-rating system to show their disapproval. This is what I am saying is indicative of prudishness, and unfairness.

johanne7 wrote

on 10 Dec 2008 5:16 PM

OK, think what you like, but I really do not think this is the case.   I also disagree with your estimate of the content of other pictures that are on the site.   Many of the pictures are very well done and should be complemented for content and expertise.   For some reason you have put on a pair of blinders as to the quality of many other artists which is very unfair to them.   Do we not tend to see the faults in others that are really ours at times?