Animation Source Forums

Pample has laready spoken, and said that, since she was the first person to ever submit art on this site, she wanted her gallery to stay. Personally, I would want the same, if it were me. Sure, there are people who have art accounts on a bunch of other sites, so this ONE will not matter so much to them, like CWH14Tails, she has a few galleries elsewhere that I have stumbled across... but people like myself and Pample, and a few others, who really love our art, and, even if we seldome update, we want ours to stay, I would think that is OK. Pample only has one other gallery, and that is on DeviantART, like myself.

Other artists, though, who used to update, and suddenly stopped, yes, I do think that unused galleries should be deleted. Unless, of course, they suddenly pop back on and say, "I'm back from(insert whatever they are returning from here)! I will send art now." Especially if they add, "I will send art again, but it will be while, i have to get my bearings and get myself reconfigured." That would be OK, to me at least.

But otherwise, long dead galleries are space-wasters... in my opinion.

what i was saying is that when they come back one time (if they have not come on because of various reasons)and find their art gone they might get upset

Sorry, but for once, I TOTALLY disagree with this. I just DONT understand what is the problem with this.
I mean, are you here for watching drawings, or for talking with the creator of the drawings? What IS the problem with inactive galleries? Are the drawings less interesting when the creator doesn't update his gallery? Why would we delete galleries that may interest other visitors?
Take Joshua's gallery, for example. He only has three drawings, but they are so beautiful that it would be a real shame to delete them.

Or take mine; I only sent three drawings, and not before some time, because of a lack of time, but does that make them less interesting than it was when I sent them?

And no, it doesn't take much space, the space taken is proportional to the number of drawings sent.

This is exactly the same for a website : should inactive websites be deleted, even if they host very interesting pages? The answer is clear : no. BTW, I would rather let Balto Source inactive than removing it from the web.

Finally, I don't know ANY site which would do this. Youtube doesn't, Deviantart doesn't, Fanfic.net doesn't.

im glad some people see it my way. i believ that would be completly unfair for someones work they might have put effort into dissappear. i wouldnt want someone to do anything like that to me for sure anybody else.

Well, then that all does make sense... sorry, I am used to sites that have a very tiny amount of web space, and old things that are left on it have to be deleted or else you can no loner update, the computer gets slow, etc... but you're right, I see now.

Depends, if the gallery has only 2-3 pics in it and the artist has'nt been on the site at all for 2 or so years then perhaps but I really like to look at the artwork anyway, ok sometimes I wish there were more updates but sometimes people can't.
Like Pample's gallery, ok it's not updated very much but she's one of the best artists here and I love to go through the galleries and just look at the pictures.
Sooo....I don't think deleting their entire gallery would be a good idea, maybe ask them to update their Artist presentation telling us all that they won't update much if at all so people don't contiually ask them if they're going to send in more pics but not delete.

Do museums take down Van Gogh's work, or Monet's work, or Polluck's work just because they're dead and aren't creating more art? Art is meant to be viewed and enjoyed- if the artist in question is actively sending stuff in, then that's just an added bonus.

I don't send in art that much anymore but has my art even though it's not very good been taken down?No it hasn't. I'm not calling this Rant pointless but it makes you wonder what they're going to draw next and makes you enjoy the old art more. If people joined the site to look at art and only art instead of chatting on the Shoutbox or Roleplaying they would go into fan art and say"What happened to the art?!" Yes you got that right every little bit of art would be deleted from the site because every artist needs time to do other things and get ideas and make the things. So that's my point.

Hate me for my opinion it's your fault not mine.

Are you even reading the rant? I'm talking artists who have been "inactive" for a long time! Not like a week. I'm talking 6 months to a year here.

I haven't sent art in; but I improvise with MS Paint doodles, or say "Hey, Kirada ain't gonna send art in for a while." But, now I have my own scanner, so there'll be more within the next week (my actual hand drawings, not those computer-crapped images I make. >.< ).

Now, Drop Dead Gorgeous has the idea. Stay away for the most part, and a few times every month send something in.

Now, her drawings are by hand. So all she has to do is scan/take a picture of them and put them there. Now on the other hand, if an artist does computer-artwork (like in Photoshop or Artgrounds) and it's got a great amount of detail, calling for a lot of time, that's acceptable.

I'm talking about those people with galleries where they spend .5 minutes to draw a sticked figured somethingorother, and never send art in again. Is that taking their time to whet the peoples' curiosity about their art, their improvements? No. There's one picture.


NOW, that Steet has posted his opinions about this, I ask that this topic be locked.

Before the topic gets locked,can I be allowed to say yes,inactive galleries should be deleted.

I get your point here. Pample has sentimental value to the site, because I was told she was the first person to ever have a gallery here.

I'm talking about those artists who notibly don't take their time, and don't bother coming on anymore. Those who just "vanish".

Locked upon request.