What if an artist intends for it to be ambiguous?
Then no misunderstanding of the artist's intent occurs.
The artist's intent is irrelevant if nobody can tell what it is.
Like drawing a black dot and getting upset that people don't get what it means. If it's just in your head, it doesn't matter.
Interpretation means there's room for ambiguity, which means the artist left the question open.
Again, draw a black dot and then rage when people don't understand what it means.
That's why I hate when artists leave the description field blank. Tell me about the artwork, don't just throw it up online with absolutely no explanation.
I do love when artists put something interesting in the description field: agreed.
Fossas have interesting feet. Probably pretty dexterous with all the time they spend in trees.
I like when artists at least try to make the anatomy accurate to the species instead of just recolored human feet.
Already posted one of these. I wonder why the file wasn't rejected…
There's nothing nasty about the first three doggies. They're nice.
Why would you assume that "nasty" has anything to do with the images posted in the first place?
Dad bods are good and sexy
Read the OP subject line.
Do you have sources for these?
Sorry, I usually append artists to Twitter file names, but I didn't do it that time. Mobile Chrome won't let me.
Does anyone know if mobile Firefox prompts for a file name when saving images?>>3605484
You're right, I just threw them in there for no reason.
Here, have a cookie.
>>3605501>Does anyone know if mobile Firefox prompts for a file name when saving images?
It doesn't. Not on Android, at least. Phones are severely crippled devices.>cookie
Yes, punished twice!!
He was punished for having feet like that!!
And she was punished for trying to help him.
Anybody have those two models?