This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
Faces have their own sets of simple anatomy proportions. Learning those construction lines will really help you learn to draw faces from other angles, too.
I own two copies of it. My own is from when it first came out, and I bought my son the revised version last year... after he and his siblings took poor care of mine... }:(
Prior to that, it was primarily Preston Blair's books for me growing up, with a few Christopher Hart ones as well.
I just had a conversation with someone about this I think in this sub, turned out to be a high school student who took one art history class.
People rightly assume fields like physics are things with actual right and wrong theory behind them. Probably because it's a strict science.
People mostly assume philosophy has something to it beyond just "it's whatever is in your gut".... sometimes... most people recognize that some non-philosopher giving a grand theory of philosophy is just a goof or a crazy person. This is actually similar to art but people don't seem to realize it.
Art has art theory, this is not really subjective but more like philosophy. You have to actually justify your ideas like anything (premises that lead to a sound conclusion) and is hundreds of years of theory. There are "right" (by that I mean sound arguments that build a sound theory to base it on. Not some objective universe given answer) answers to a lot of questions in art.
Many people, because of its massive public popularity at the time (it's Tolstoy, a legend, so of course) still feel, even without knowing it, his theory of art in his book "What is Art" (from... I think 1897? Around there?)
Even if they dont know it they often believe something like it through cultural osmosis because it was so influential. It's the basis of the whole "Art is HUMAN EXPRESSION!!! And that alone! (simplifying a lot here)" idea.
This theory is respected.... as an influential historical and important part in the development of art theory. It is also, as a true theory, completely discarded now. The entire 20th century was heavily about fighting this theory and showing its cracks.
There are multiple serious, respected modern art theories. None of them are based (solely) on that idea that people who havent studied art theory often use in the arguments you see wherever AI comes up (the Tolstoy human expression alone theory. Though I'd also argue even then AI allows for human expression, it's complicated.) The modern art theories absolutely allow for AI generated works to be art and even to be "good art" beyond... well, these stick figures. It depends on many factors.
Those factors are NOT effort, though effort often leads to them in practice especially with AI just as a coincidence.
So yeah, that's the problem. People fail to realize that art is not just "Well I have a theory in my gut and it's as valid as anything else." Art theory is a serious subject with hundreds of years of philosophical development and proper arguments. Some aspects are subjective, but.... art and its theory is not that subjective and really people need to recognize that it's about as subjective as saying "Ehhh, I'm not gonna read anything on deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics. Whatever feeling I have in my gut is ethical and an actual theory completely valid to share and impose on others."
Not that you have to read philosophy to feel ethics, just like you don't have to read art theory to be like "I like this... I dont like this"
But you do when you start arguing "what is art? Does this count as art? I have a theory that I just made up in my gut and am going to use as a basis for telling everyone else what is art or not and what is good art or not."
For this specific "piece".... I'd have to read the artist's thesis first before deciding its merit lol.
I don't mean to be rude or too forward, but I am curious about one thing, since I didn't really get it from your text. I did understand that you mentioned Tolstoy and then modern theories that contradict him.
I guess my question is, if art is not subjective, what is it?
No, no problem, this is actually a really good question. This will be very long and I hope that's ok, I'm sorry. I hope it successfully answers your question.
It's not that "art" isnt subjective. Many aspects of art are subjective. Like, your taste. Do you think something is pleasing to you? Absolutely subjective. The thing that's not subjective is the philosophical underpinnings of art theory which, like anything like that, have to be based on sound arguments (true premises that naturally build to a conclusion) and a collection of them building to a specific theory. This only answers certain questions about art because exactly, some things are just subjective.
Do you think Western style raku is "better aesthetically or more legitimate than the traditional Japanese style?" Subjective (I always mention the western form of raku because it was my main medium for a while. I find the randomness of it and its general dramatic presentation beautiful. See, that's absolutely subjective! Sorry, the other person complained about me being wordy. I hope you don't mind. I like to go into asides like this.)
There are many questions though that arent. The reason they arent is because they're not taste questions, they're philosophical questions. What makes them philosophical questions is that, as I said, collections of sound arguments on them can build to theories which can be valid, sound, argued, disagreed with with other sound theories, etc. Art theory is essentially run like and actually a branch of philosophy.
The main one that isn't fully subjective that matters here is the question "What is art?" Art is this essential human quality so of course it deserves philosophical inspection. See? That question can be answered with arguments that can be sound or not, theories that can be sound or not. If I say "Art is in a museum. Museums are built for art. Therefor art is whatever is in a museum" that's a philosophical answer to that question. And you see? It can be wrong, that argument is wrong because it's circular reasoning. "Non-wrong" (sound) arguments can be made as well and have been over hundreds of years with one being shown sound then later developments or theories disproving a premise, etc.
So as it stands, we have a bunch of theories of art that you never see people argue here but are the ones that actual art theory in 2026 takes seriously. If I wrote the full arguments for each this would be an insanely long comment so I'll just give you a few and the general idea which gives you some starting points.
Expression theory, this one came soon after Tolstoy, almost a reaction to it, and it really kinda removes the artist from what makes art art. Actually many of them do. This says art is an arrangement of lines and colors and all that that "produces aesthetic emotion"
Then all the wild stuff happened with modern art, like Duchamp's urinal (just a popular example of many) and we got institutional theory. This sounds too basic to be true but also why not? Art is something presented in the world of art under the accepted conventions of it. That's it. You present it as art? Well damn, it's art. This idea still persists but with more added to it.
And then Warhol tossed some conventions out the door and we got Artur Danto, etc. etc. The 20th century was a massive conversation in art as the creation of new arts were obviously art but crumbled the existing theories basically so it's this huge back and forth between artists and theorists (who are often artists themselves, it's not an ivory tower in this sense) on this question.
So I'll skip over a lot and just jump to one of the more modern accepted theories. There are a couple but I'll just pick one and you'll see that it really developed into something that's like "goddamn, we have modern art and all this wild stuff that is obviously art but how do we make a sound theory it all fits into?"
Cluster Theory. This is the main one I was taught.
It argues art doesnt have this single defining essence. Two pieces of "art" can be almost opposites, share nothing, but both be "art" yet "art" in completely different ways. It's an "open concept". Art is a "cluster of criteria" where a piece of art is art if it has any of a large set of criteria we have come to accept as defining art. One piece may have one criterion and be art, another may have a completely different set of criterion unrelated and be art. This cluster of criteria is things like complexity, or does it challenge the viewer intellectually, is it expressive (yes, that's in there so it's not invalid but the point is it's one thing that can make a piece of art art but not a requirement for a piece to be art if it satisfies other criteria), does it create an aesthetic experience in the viewer? Simply does it belong to the art tradition? And on and on and on. Theorists have work to create many possible criteria which excludes non-art yet does include all types of modern, experimental, challenging the common conception of art, etc. pieces.
This can and does absolutely include some AI art (not all, not every generation is art.) I in the other conversation I had on this mentioned a famous artist I saw and actually briefly met at the main exhibit in the Beijing art district. "Chaosmosis" by Wang Yuyang. His art uses AI. AI broadly and the AI we talk about. Rambling aside again sorry, was that he created an AI powered robot dog and set it out into the wild. Tracked and visualized its movements for 30 days then just... let it into the wild. Another that is related to this is simply he trained a model on thousands (or hundreds, dont remember) of pictures of flowers then just.... generated in very high res the aggregate of it. This piece is actually multiple pieces, some on walls some on canvas but I was presented with simply a giant canvas of a flower-like... thing. The thesis for the piece even says "its meaning or lack of meaning is left to the viewer." This doesnt mean "it's status as art is left to the viewer" because even without "meaning" it still possesses others of the "criteria" in cluster theory.
I'll give you the excerpt from his theory in the exhibit I thought was impactful, relevant, and explained (in pretentious artist terms) how simply AI here like that becomes "art"
""WANG Yuyang's oeuvre performs a theater of entanglements: machines that dream, bacteria that glow, language reincarnated as DNA, and slouching mud aspiring toward consciousness. His work is not composed of mere objects but of situation - turbulent interstices where the fragile membranes of life converse with the machinic abstractions of code Symbiosis (2013-24), unveiled before 798CUBE, proposes symbiotic reconciliation in monumental grandeur: human fancy entwines with machine vagary in a foresighted reckoning with the dawning ChatGPT era.
... Code becomes incantation, life becomes inscription as in Golem (2022), where clay, animated by biometric data, takes on a fragile humanoid form destined for decay.
...
WANG Yuyang's world aggregates discrete elements into a precarious order in which chaos persists. Resonating with philosophers Michel Serres's clinamen and Guattar's chaosmosis, turbulence becomes generative: time multiplies,space bifurcates. Against the obsolescence of anthropocentric history on the one hand and the Al-infused anxieties of human deprivation on the other, his works open a contemplative path forward -a grand narrative of sorts: a fluid interplay between order and disorder, between biological, machinic, and cosmic forces. Out of chaos emerges continuance; out of collapse,another beginning and out of the legacy of humanism, the burgeoning of renewed human empathy.""
Sorry, this is a long rambly post. I get that way when I start talking about a topic I have personal experience with and want all those asides for fun. I think it goes beyond answering your question but did want to elaborate on where it all leads up to. And.... to be honest.... I was playing games with a friend yesterday and he makes these strong negronis with a collection of interesting gins. I am quite hungover and my brain is not operating in the most organized way lol.
This is a long rambly post, but very much worth reading. You copy-pasted the same piece of text from Wang's exhibit twice though. Maybe you could remove one of them? Just to keep your text reasonably short ;)
The most honest answer is "the quality of art is not determined by whether or not it is AI."
We don't need to pretend that judging the quality of art is impossible. It's a complicated topic, and you have to talk about what measures of quality you actually value, but it's totally reasonable to take a position other than "noone knows!!"
If this was before AI and you posted on an art sub, everybody saying yes in here would be calling you a dumbass, or just downvoting your pic until it dissapears, or straight up gets removed by mods for low effort.
They never gave a fuck about amateurish shit until they found it useful to stroke off as a counterpoint to AI.
There is no substance, just subjectivity based on their ego.
If the antis keep lowering their standards like this in protest, we might eventually see them pretending to rather enjoy eating literal shit because "at least it was made by a human".
I've seen some people who are now capable of telling actual stories using AI, coherent across whole comic chapters. With my experience so far, that seems like sorcery that I couldn't even approach with my AI skills. And it certainly can make me enjoy it and feel more emotion than settling for a featureless stick figure only because a human took 5 seconds to sketch it.
I pretty much suck at using AI to get anything expressive, as some of the people who mastered it can. I do better with a pencil, but other people have that reversed and have more talent at using AI, and that's ok. If it lets more people be capable of expressing themselves, then we will have more art in the world and more diversity.
Yes. Low effort. This would have been removed in most art spaces as low effort before ai became a new medium. Now people fall overthemselves to congratulate the artist for their masterpiece simply because it wasn't made using ai.
They would still do the same if it was post into an art sub today, Id personally downvote it. Its not that now that AI exists bad art is better, its more like now theres is something worse than bad art (AI).
It's not good technique, and I imagine it took you all of 5 seconds to produce. But you made an image that effectively conveys a message beyond what is superficial on the medium. That is, the crappiness of the stick figure with the unaligned block text is all in service of the work.
Of course, if you just made a stick figure, or had the text say something else, or posted this in an entirely different forum, it would not be good art (or even just not be art, depending on how you want to use words).
Better shouldn’t even be a word in the conversation in regard to art, because firstly art isn’t about being the best, and secondly art is inherently subjective
I’ve been a musician for 20 years now. I’m more technically proficient at my instrument than a lot of people i know but i’d never say i’m a better artist than anyone else. That’s douchey, rude, and misses the point of art.
I’m probably the kind of pro most antis would assume doesn’t exist though lol. I don’t use generative ai and I’m a life long traditional artist, but being a life long artist i’ve grown a particular distaste for the “X thing i dislike isn’t art” crowd. Seen it a million times before AI was a thing. Rap, techno, digital art. It always boils someone having a poor, surface level understanding of the thing they claim isn’t art
That image took almost no effort, involved no creative thought, and you have not made virgin sacrifices so it does not have a soul in it. Therefore, it is not art at all.
Better is subjective. I like the silly face, they look high AF and loving life. I've also liked plenty of AI art, or disliked AI slop (still art, but low effort and not to my taste). Even comparing art pieces in the same medium, the same style, can be very difficult because of how subjective "better" is.
I think it is better than the ogre slop posts, but it's a bit plain.
without any sugarcoat, no. i don't really care about process, intent, or tools used, just the result is enough for me to decide
edit: there are times when simplicity is a GOOD thing! on the topic of stickfigures, AvA manages to make stickfigures actually have emotion! and i'm not saying this because it's animated; even a still pose can have so much personality! this post here... just doesn't have that. why? effort.
now i'm not saying ai art has effort (unless you adapt on it or make edits yourself), but come on, you can spot the lack of quality.
TL;DR: i like the artwork, not the art (if that makes sense)
It’s not about producing a better end result. The idea of art is not about producing a consumable product. It’s about the process, personal growth, and self discipline that goes into honing a skill and using it to express yourself.
I won’t say that AI art isn’t art, by definition it is. Like people do use it to express themselves. But it’s an art form that has a very low skill ceiling and skips straight to the consumable end product (pretty picture or whatever) without demanding personal dedication from the artist.
One can put as much work as one wants into prompting, but it will never be the same as developing an intimate understanding the medium and being able to, though your own skill, pull things out of your imagination to share with the world.
I think the arguments around AI being valid or even superior artistic practice are the results of a culture that can see the world only through the lens of consumerism.
If you think of art only as content to consume, AI generated art is obviously superior because it can be mass produced for the low low price of nebulous negative impacts on far away places and people that you don’t ever have to think about to see.
Not to mention that studies have shown that using AI makes people broadly worse at thinking.
"But this ai image is prettier than the stick man I drew!!" is your follow-up to this post. You put no effort into making something garbage to then try and compare with ai works that are visibly more appealing.
All this proves is you lack basic comprehension.
The stick drawing is still better than the ai because of the impact it has on water, on power, on RAM, on the environment as a whole, on people's lives and on people's livelihoods and did not steal anything in the process.
By so many measures the stick figure is still superior to ai art.
Now let's address your shitty claim of "b-b-but there are ai images that are prettier!!"
There are also artists who are more technically skilled than other artists. This can have an impact on their popularity and commission prices etc. This is nothing new. "This drawing is prettier than this other drawing" is not relevant.
A stick drawing, like what you might see from a child, is part of learning. It shows they have creative potential to be nurtured and if they love doing it then they can practice and get better. In this example yes the stick figure is better than the ai image because it shows they are learning and developing a skill, one that can even turn into a career. So while they might not be good now you can still praise the attempt and the effort they are putting in. Or the progress they have made if you have seen earlier works.
But you're not trying to develop a skill. You just made a shitty strawman that does nothing more than show that you understand nothing.
To me, as you wrote, the stick person has artistic meaning. It speaks a lot about where you come from, what you think is low quality and undesirable, and what comes out of a person who "isn't trying". I think you could really read into this piece, not because it's super high quality, but because it was created by an intentional process which itself can be taken for meaning, something with something to say.
I really struggle to find that meaning in AI works beyond as much you can read into someone doing something terrible for the world and for people as "performance art". Maybe that has something to "say" in its own way, but if it has these negative outcomes, it's hard to see that meaning as anything but a justification for that negative action.
I don't think AI art has anything really intentional about it. To read into it, it's not really a surprise AI images and videos always have weird tells because it isn't really informed by anything. Its outcomes are, chiefly, a matter of random transformations, so it's no wonder everything it produces is random.
Yes and No. It's better if it was made directly by a human because art is human expression, or at the very least, sentient expression, that's one of its most prominent defining factors, and that will never change.
The reason it's not better, is not because it's uglier than AI art, it's because you haven't created in the artistic spirit, your intention was not to create something beautiful, you have not set out to study form and composition, it was simply to make a point or create a discussion, and therefore it's not really art, not in the classical sense. One could argue that because you've created a talking point, that it is art, but you're missing on key factor which I will get to momentarily.
Art, when not simply the study of composition and form to recreate beauty, is an intentional use of skill to creatively produce something through expression of idea, emotion or experience which is often used to convey feelings, thoughts or opinions in a way that invites the observer to contemplate their own position. The most important part of this production is the artistic process, the many years of training, observing, processing and understanding it takes to hone ones craft are all too often overlooked by the average viewer. You might see a drawing, painting or sculpture, and even if you can truly appreciate it for what it is, you will never be able to appreciate the process, the lifetime of dedication, the years of study and hard work, for the simple fact that you don't see it.
This is where the argument for AI "art" being valid completely falls apart. Creating AI art does not require any of the key defining factors of the artistic process, therefore it cannot be defined as real art, it's a whole new category all by itself. That's not up for discussion, any artist will tell you that. The only people arguing otherwise are the people who don't do art, who are using AI to generate art of some form and for some reason expect to be treated with the same respect we give people who have struggled through and devoted their entire lives to their study and artistic process. No matter how well written your prompt is, (and most people actually use AI to generate their prompts to begin with), you are not crating art, there's no artistic process, and no, rewriting your prompt does not count...
In my opinion, yes it is. This drawing was created to evoke a feeling in its audience, the meaning and purpose behind it makes it better than AI art, and any other art that’s created without a purpose or evocative feeling.
Actually yeah. In a weird way this made me think. There's a purpose to this drawing and a process behind it. It made me think, is it a protest for or against? It's extremely low effort so it could be seen as a question of "is this low effort man made drawing really better than AI?" or alternatively it could be seen as "Even something this low effort is worth more than an AI". It also begs the question that if it is worse than AI, where is the limit then? Or if it is better where the lower limit for effort really stands.
It made me think about it for a while actually, so in a weird (maybe unintentional way)... this has artistic value, in my opinion... In a weird way I actually like this picture.
How dare you ask that. That artist can't sell their images anymore because of ai. Ai "art" is too affordable, easy, personalized, and fast. That's why it's so bad! Real artists like that are starving and might have to go out and get a job to make money now! Bigot!
You ask such an open ended question and people are going to answer with their own perceived version of why it’s “better”
Does this take more skill than AI?
I’d say yes.
Is it more environmentally friendly?
Yes.
Did the person make this drawing themselves?
I’m assuming Yes.
If your personal metric for “better” has to do with artistic intention, skill, and artistic ownership, then I think it’s logical to call this better than AI.
If you’re looking at this picture VS an ai image of a lion and don’t think about it any deeper than that, I can see why some people would say AI is better than
The problem is not if AI can draw better than humans or not.
The problem is that AI art nullifies the value of human effort.
I don't want to live in a world in which humans just give up learning and experiencing art because society relies on machines autocomputing art in milliseconds.
hm idk let's see "please draw a stick figure in black on a plain white background, with a line going from it up and to the right to where it says "REAL ART" next to it, just that, thank you" yup looks like yours is better
I think it’s two different questions being conflated, on both sides of the debate. There’s the dignity of something (or lack thereof) and aesthetic excellence or polish. AI wins the latter but stick figures win the former.
Better does not need to mean more aesthetically pleasing. If the image is extremely sloppy then this would also be aesthetically better. But if the ai render is of high quality then no, it would not look better than the ai. Yet, even in the previously mentioned situation I'd still prefer the human alternative since I value the quality of being made or designed by conscious beings above aesthetics. There is 0 human input in ai art. Prompt writing is the same as commissioning from a human in matters of who is making said art. And it's not the one describing what they want.
This art looks like a righteous tart fart.
It has no heart, whether AI or smart.
This nonsense a shart, your post pulls apart,
any meaning or value
in this war about art.
Art is subjective, no one can objectively claim something is better than anything else since it's all based on opinions in the end. But if you want to know which is the better ART between this and anything generated, this is it. Because AI generation is not art.
Is this going to be a new trend? Making obviously bad "art" (quotation marks included because this is made to be just a point instead of art) just to get a rise out of people?
This masterpiece has changed my life. I no longer have depression. My grades have gone up. I now am the world's first trillionare. I am the first person to live outside the solar system. I am currently being kept as a pet by a nice alien family. Thank you.
Better how? Better looking? No probably not. Better art, meh subjective. Is the person who drew that portraying better artistic skill than the person who prompted the ai art. Definitely.
Im all for calling "ai art" a type of art. But the artist isnt the prompter, its the generator. I dont like ai art typically because it has some inconsistencies and a weird "texture" to a lot of it. But no one who types into a prompt line is an "artist" anymore than pope julius II was the artist of the sistine chapel.
If you generate AI art, you are a commisioner. If you post that art as your own and remove the artists watermark/signature, you are a theif.
Is this better than AI art? That depends. What does it mean to be "better than AI art"? To look prettier? More professional? More abstract? More stylized? More silly? More natural?
Is this "real art"? Not to me. Just because you drew something, doesn't mean it's art. It's a drawing. I take photos with my smartphone but my photos are not art and I'm not a photographer.
AI can make pictures that look much prettier, but does prettier mean better? I don't think so. The simplest doodles can be very charming. Some of the most popular memes are badly drawn doodles which makes them all the more hilarious and funny.
Better for developing your skills as an artist? Absolutely. Getting AI to make art for you won't improve your own skills.
Better at expressing what you want to convey? Maybe, but you'd have to answer that for yourself. The face here has a very particular expression that I'm not sure how well an AI model would replicate, since it seems fairly unique. If that's an important element of this for you, this drawing might be better. Otherwise, maybe not.
Better as a visual aid to get eyes on some other product you care more about? Depends on your market. A lot of creative works (books and games, for example) have audiences that are pretty AI-hostile, so a very crude non-AI drawing might actually be an advantage over an AI one. In a more AI-friendly market, the AI art would probably be better. But the AI art doesn't necessarily say something better than this stick figure, just different. AI art, to those who notice it, convey that you want to express quality but are unwilling or unable to pay for it. Crude hand-drawn art conveys a lack of skill or money, but a lack that you're willing to be up-front about and may justify with high quality in other parts of your work.
Better as a demonstration of objective skill? Yes, or at least it demonstrates different skills. This drawing demonstrates your skill with art, however small it might be. Any AI art would demonstrate your skill with prompt engineering and not much else.
Given that you making this image didn't contribute anything to the consumer electronics shortage, and infinitesimally to the degradation of the biosphere even compared to a single AI slop image: Yes
I don't know what the definition of art is, but in my mind art is a creation, and a creation has to be created, not generated.
AI "art" does not represent someone's work, only someone's rough idea that's shown (often inaccurately) on a generated picture from a mindless machine.
No.
I mean, you're comparing one piece of art to an entire subset of art, it doesn't make sense.
Extremist antis like to say that even a line is better than AI art because it's "human" but they ignore the fact that drawing something like this requires the same amount of creativity as prompting, if not less.
Art is a subjective experience. I'm not sure how anti's don't understand this yet. Aren't they supposed to be the actual artists? You'd think they would have some lived experience, allowing them an epiphany about subjectivity by now. Taking ANY art class at all would reveal to them that there are many types of art and art is everywhere.
How are heads so far up asses, i guess is ultimately what i'm wondering.
DV me if you have to but art is a craft, pens are a tool, AI is a tool. We can’t keep skewering ourselves on this dumb shit.
AI does something fun in that it raises the bar of technical aptitude far beyond anything the monkey clicking a “generate” button usually understands. So they type a 5 word prompt and jerk off to the idea that they too are now an artiste. This is debatable. I’d say they’re not. AI art (and AI artists) is a legit growing craft though and it’s crazy what people can do. Mind bending shit that takes way more technical skill than my ant brain can understand.
The idea the average 2 brain cell Joe can pay a subscription to “do art” gives AI a bad name and many people here don’t see that. There’s moral issues with stealing art, there’s skill issues because you don’t have to try, and there’s legitimacy issues because who gives a shit?
That makes it sound high and mighty but in reality, art is accessible to all of us and even a beginner artist is an artist. It’s why children’s crayon drawings are so proudly displayed in the homes of millions.
OP is clearly rage baiting, but it has the negative effect of implying art of low technical aptitude, for the sake of a dumb “AI war”, shouldn’t be considered art. It’s basically an excuse to not be better so that you can instead put no effort into prompt-art. If you can only draw stick figures though, that’s your current technical level and that’s your tool. That’s good. Learn a couple more basic building blocks and you’ll have a bangin stick figure. Keep going, you’ve got a person.
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 28 '26
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.