megsck wrote:if it didnt need the bunny, why openly defy rules and keep it in? rules are there for a reason, and if a site sets them up and then just decides who doesnt have to follow them, then that site is corrupt and should just pick the shirts it wants to print as opposed to letting other people vote. dont get me wrong, the design is awesome but just because your awesome doesnt mean that you have the right to make your own rules. he has one entry with no bunnies, why not just enter that one? i have nothing against this artist, and i hope his frog shirt gets printed, my gripe is with a site that says they have a competition for anyone who wants to submit, to keep this competition fair we have rules, then when something breaks the rules they just look the other way? then why didnt they look the other way for other things? why do we have rules at all? its a slippery slope and to keep the respect of their viewers they should be a little more consistant.
They did look the other way for other things. Half of the fog is off-theme.
All the irony of someone who took to complaining in depth about her previous off-theme rejection aside, this is a lesson in "letter of law" and "spirit of law". The critter in alex's piece, being that its entire face and body is being smeared back, could technically be anything. That it is likely a bunny, however, brings up the actual REASON for the rule. It is not a hatred of bunnies. It is a tiring of relying on pointless cuteness for a win. It is incredibly telling that people who never seem to care about thematic irrelevance are the people who would jump on some of the most artistic pieces for such a negligible thing.
Woot is a company that once rejected a cat in a pumpkin for being "already printed", and allowed the resub to remain in despite it being the exact same cat with tiger stripes. They're never going to care about fairness. But the bunny rule is in place to allow work like this alexmdc print to have a chance. In objecting, people are basically not understanding the purpose, and are condemning the exact work the rule intends to foster.
I am not going to pretend that I would not prefer the "bunny rule" to be more basic and to-the-point: no pointless mongoose would be better. No horrible designs would be best. But it is nice to see something that is an actual DESIGN have a chance. It's nice to see something artistic and wearable. Here's the difference: No one, if woot chose to reject it, would not get why they did it. I don't think anyone would have objected, only been upset they didn't do it sooner so Alex could rework it. But by them not rejecting it, most of us who are actually intellectually sound understand the why of it.
The fact is, woot shouldn't need ANY rules, because woot should just print good tees. People should not be submitting generic, repetitive crap that need these rules to come up. But until people start respecting that art is not all about money, and business has a responsibility to care about the product it sells, I don't think anyone who truly respects art cares. The rules exist to keep people who have no respect for them out. I don't think, looking at this piece, that anyone can say that Alex was at all disrespecting the theme at hand. It is, again, incredibly telling who the people are who care.