Danbooru

Edit war

Posted under General

post #1170841

Check the tag story. fine art parody keeps being added and removed to a post that's clearly a reference to a well known classical painting. I'm a bit sick of adding it back by now.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one to see the obvious referencing. If you guys decide that that level of reference doesn't warrant a fine art parody tag, then by all means please change the wiki to reflect it. As the wiki stands right now, that post deserves the tag.

Updated by jxh2154

Really doesn't matter that much. I'd be fooled that it was a parody at first, but on closer inspection, it doesn't look all that much like a parody. There's no "remix" or reference with another copyright like post #1367391, nor is there a style parody going on in particular. Moreso, that there's no atributed artist makes me think it's some official art, so not really a one-off parody.

souryuu9 said:

Yeah, the problem here is the word "parody". I think both fine art parody and style parody should be renamed, and use the parody tag separately for posts that warrant it.

Edit: No, not really. Danbooru uses the words "parody", "reference", and even "remix" synonymously, and anyone who reads the wiki pages would know that. That's not the issue here, the issue is whether one really is refering to the other, or whether it's drawing something similar.

Edit: "Crossover" was the other word I was looking for.

Updated

Danbooru uses the words "parody", "reference", and even "remix" synonymously, and anyone who reads the wiki pages would know that.

Based on the comments in the referenced post, some people are stickling over using the word properly. Regardless of whether this particular post warrants the tag, it might become a point of argument later on.

Serlo said:

unless real suggestions are made, it's fine as it is for most.

I did offer a real suggestion though. The two tags I mentioned implicate parody, and the wiki for parody explicitly mentions the intent to be humorous, and that definition doesn't really work for something like post #1407988.

Updated

Wording of the tag aside, do we have a consensus on whether this image actually fits the intent of the tag? I'm inclined to think it does, though it's in a grey area compared to more obvious parodies/derivatives/homages/references.

I think the more you stop and think about/look at it, the less it seems like a parody. Especially given it seems to be some official art for something.

I don't think it is a parody, but I think it'd be fine to leave it on. I think more people will be interested in finding it from the scenery and fantasy tags than the fine art parody tag.

Also, it's tagged night for the moon and stars in the sky, yet the sky's blue. Shouldn't it be tagged dusk instead?

post #1170841 is not referencing the Tower of Babel. There are similarities, but it's still at the level that you would need an explicit evidence (such as the creator's comment) to really state it is referencing Babel, instead of just simple similarities.

I've googled グリムグリモア バベルの塔 (GrimGrimoire Tower of Babel) together, along with several JAP reviews for GrimGrimoire, no where mentioned such a connection. Wouldn't it be strange for fans to not say anything even once, if the referencing is so obvious?

Let's look at an example: post #1409686 and post #1070948. The poses are strikingly similar, so should post #1070948 get derivative_work tag, seeing how it was posted on the internet later than the other one? My personal answer is no, simply because there is not enough evidence one is referencing/plagiarising the other one. It's a possibility, but coincidence is equally a possibility.

About the tag name, fine_art_parody is fine as it is so I vote to keep it and its implication to parody.

Updated

post #1170841 is not referencing the Tower of Babel.

EDIT: Since I refuse to argue in the face of the above quotation, I actually went and sent an email to vanillaware asking them about this. I have little to none hope they answer it, but right now it beats arguing with whoever can look at that picture and not see how it couldn't be made without a heavy and direct reference to these two paintings

Updated

_cf said:

EDIT: Since I refuse to argue in the face of the above quotation, I actually went and sent an email to vanillaware asking them about this. I have little to none hope they answer it, but right now it beats arguing with whoever can look at that picture and not see how it couldn't be made without a heavy and direct reference to these two paintings

I'll be nice and ask you to be civilized. Opinions differ, raging or being passive agressive about it doesn't help anything. Can't wait to get a confirmation from Vanillaware to get this argument over with, whichever the result is.

1 2