PDA

View Full Version : CG Chicks - What's up with that?


Leonard
01-19-2004, 03:22 AM
This morning, we had a Japanese chick plugging our 1,000,000th post on CGTalk (and removed it very quickly after making our point - and we're never putting another one on the front page again).

In under 3 hours from getting plugged, we had over 3500 hits to that thread. Some loved it, some didn't, others had a great laugh at how silly we were! Was it done in bad taste? Oh yes, and if you read the thread below, you betcha we got flamed for it. The point being, that sex sells and whether you like it or not, it can't be ignored.

As you browse through the thousands of images for EXPOSE' 1, 2 and the CGTalk gallery, you'll notice that a lot of the character work that dominates CG has to do with female subject matter. We also found that images with pretty girls attract the most attention (measured by post counts).

We ended up asking the question:
CG Chicks - What's up with that?

In this article, we interview Steven Stahlberg, Rob "Lunatique" Chang and Linda "Enayla" Bergkvist, some of the most prominent digital artists whose art works have depicted the female form.

>> CG Chicks - What's up with that? << (http://www.cgnetworks.com/story_custom.php?story_id=1904)

http://www.cgnetworks.com/stories/2004_1/cgchicks/cgchickstitle.jpg (http://www.cgnetworks.com/story_custom.php?story_id=1904)

DragonKore
01-19-2004, 03:35 AM
Nice article with a lot of truth to it. I must admit, when I saw the 1,000,000 posts picture, my first thought was, "Move you stupid black bar!" Then I clicked it to see if there was a non-censored picture in the thread somewhere. :rolleyes:

otacon
01-19-2004, 03:43 AM
In that case you might want to change your policy.
- Pornography
This excludes the tasteful use of nudity in artwork. Images or animations depicting blatantly pornographic acts including intercourse, masturbation, bestiality or abuse, and links to pornographic sites are not tolerated under any circumstances.

Pi3141
01-19-2004, 03:43 AM
LOL fantastic!!!! This was the greatest intro into an article ever.

:beer:

RockinAkin
01-19-2004, 03:44 AM
While the article does bring up good points, I'd argue that only a very few handful of people that create the naked cg chicks actually pull it off successfully with the desired intent to evoke feelings of Emotion, Beauty, Form, Etc, as discussed in that article.

That said, the other 95% is just degrading souless porn, made to grab clicks - just like that banner.
Dont believe me, just check out Renderosity... and thats the last thing I'd want CGTalk to become.

PixelShader
01-19-2004, 03:44 AM
CGTalk sure looks sexy today! :)

Nice stunt! The chick cracked me up good! I was thinking "what the hell!?" LOL!

Great work!

Geoff

Geta-Ve
01-19-2004, 03:49 AM
hmm i didnt recal seeing a 100 million post thing anywhere....

i saw a 1 million post but not 100 million...;)

onlooker
01-19-2004, 03:51 AM
Originally posted by DragonKore
I must admit, when I saw the 100,000,000 posts picture, my first thought was, "Move you stupid black bar!" Then I clicked it to see if there was a non-censored picture in the thread somewhere. :rolleyes:

No shit:) That's exactly what I thought. lol Too funny. ... It's all good.

gmask
01-19-2004, 03:54 AM
My first thought was.. wtf.. this is a cg website why is there a photograph of a girl there??

At any rate if one can't find pictures of nude or semi nude women on the internet their parents must be using some sort of new super porn blocking software installed or something cause the stuff is like so many loose stripper pamphlets blowing in the wind on the streets of Las vegas... kind of hard to avoid completely.. :rolleyes:

For me what annoys me about it all.. is that art can be reduced to the lowest common denominator.. is art to become the thing everyone likes the most or is the most turned on by?

Do people have realistic visions of natural beauty or do they become desensistized to what is reality and become unhappy when they cannot find the same level of beauty in the real world as they can in CG?

PS: Stick your tongue in your cheek when reading my post...

AdvancedLife
01-19-2004, 03:54 AM
stupid.

gruvsyco
01-19-2004, 03:58 AM
I have tendancy to agree with what DBZ said...

one of the reasons I've stopped visitng the CGTalk galleries is because too many people try this ploy.

Too be honest, when I first saw Stahlbergs stuff years ago, I was totally impressed. I admire the detail that he goes into in his models and he is probably way better than I will ever be but, I've grown quite tired of the CG pinup.

The art off Rob and Linda on the other hand seems to be going for quite a different look (mainly that the characters are mostly clothed).

Sciatica
01-19-2004, 04:00 AM
The model Im working on now (soon to be posted for critique) is a female.
A recently deceased female zombie...
I think she's hot... :love:

I have never really cared for the whole typical female characters that seem to frequently pop up here... but thats just me.. People obviously like it, people like making them.. so they have just as much right to make their females stunningly beautiful, as I do making mine.... umm... rotting...
I have found that nowdays, if I look at those types of images with more of a sense of humor, I can penetrate the part of the picture that irritates me, and instead, enjoy it for the incredible talent it took to make it (assuming its a quality peice of work :) )
I found the picture used for the 1,000,000 post to be greatly humerous, and its blatent use for thread promotion was wonderfully devious.. Im annoyed that I didnt think of using that first for all my threads...
"Heres a half-clothed female with a big gun... scroll down to read what the post is actually about.." :)

One reason why I got into this industry was because of the vast range of personalities, and the great sense of humor that seemed to float within the whole community.. Im glad some people havent lost this... so... In conclusion.. against my better judgment.. I say thumbs up to using the female figure to advertise! :thumbsup:

otacon
01-19-2004, 04:05 AM
Well said gmask.:thumbsup:

PixelShader
01-19-2004, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by AdvancedLife
stupid.

Well if it's so stupid, why'd you click on it then? And then why'd you even bother responding? LOL :D If it was really that stupid, you should have just gone read another thread instead of posting useless one word responses.

If you read the article, CGNetworks/CGTalk have been completely unbiased about the whole CG chick phenomenon. They neither support it nor do they villify it. All they've done is raised awareness for it - "What's up with that?" they asked the artists.

This has nothing to do with CGTalk policy, it has everything to do with generating good discussion on what defines art and where the line is drawn between art and cyberporn junk.

:thumbsup:

GMask -- Excellent points you've raised there!

is art to become the thing everyone likes the most or is the most turned on by?

Do people have realistic visions of natural beauty or do they become desensistized to what is reality and become unhappy when they cannot find the same level of beauty in the real world as they can in CG?

This is fantastic discussion and I'm glad that CGNetworks boldly tackled it!

:thumbsup:

Geoff

Fasty
01-19-2004, 04:11 AM
Ditto, AdvancedLife.

Yeah sex sells. Did we just figure this out or something?

Just because something works doesn't mean you should do it.

I guess it just comes down to morals and if you are willing to make people feel bad about themselves for a few bucks (or in this case, hits).

And we wonder why there are so few girls at this forum. Sheesh. :hmm:

AdvancedLife
01-19-2004, 04:12 AM
“good discussion”? ok what ever. I think art is a little more then poser porn. Sorry, but if you are over 30 this kind of thing looks pretty inmature.

gmask
01-19-2004, 04:15 AM
>>>If you read the article, CGNetworks/CGTalk have been completely unbiased about the whole CG chick phenomenon. They neither support it nor do they villify it. All they've done is raised awareness for it - "What's up with that?" they asked the artists.

Hmm their use of the nudie pics would seem to say otherwise.. for example the one used for the 1,000,000 post was originally a touch up they use to promote their CG wares .. so I think it would be incorrect to argue that they don't support it .. more specifically they take advantage of it and do so unabashedly when they say things like .. well y'know sex sells.. at least two of the artists in the article clearly try to make a point about representing women as something more than sex objects..


If the majority of submissions to Expose where hardcore pornography that was well done in CG then would that be the same "art book" that it is considered today?

AdvancedLife
01-19-2004, 04:24 AM
You don’t see ILM, Weta or any respected money making fx house resorting to this high school crap. I'm no prude but it’s just not just not professional. Sex sells though better though incitement rather then explicated Japanese crotch shots on the front page, That is what I think is stupid.

otacon
01-19-2004, 04:26 AM
It seems like they just wanted to throw more fuel on the fire.

So, people are getting offended about the 1,000,000 posts picture....ok lets see how they like it if we put up another naked woman right next to it.

Doesn't sound too professional does it? Not only that, but there is plenty of good art in the gallery that could be getting plugged, but they are more concerned about upping the post count rather than helping out their fellow artist.

PixelShader
01-19-2004, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by AdvancedLife
“good discussion”? ok what ever.

Hey look sorry if it offended you. I happen to enjoy discussions like these. If you don't like it, please read another thread ok?

>>I think art is a little more then poser porn.

Exactly. Look at EXPOSE' and CGTalk gallery!

>> Sorry, but if you are over 30 this kind of thing looks pretty inmature.

They made their point. Raised awareness about it, carry on...

>> Hmm their use of the nudie pics would seem to say otherwise..

Not really GMask. Sure, you can nitpick but if you look at CGTalk and EXPOSE' from a wholistic manner, it sticks true to its intent to celebrate digital art.

Geoff

RockinAkin
01-19-2004, 04:28 AM
Exactly.

The people who clicked the naked chick thumbnail to the 1 million posts thread with the intention of seeing a larger image of that naked chick, are the ones that do not belong on this forum.

The people that clicked the thumbnail thinking "WTF?", and would have clicked and left congratulatory message regardless of whatever image was used as the thumbnail are the real artists and citizens of this forum.

Leonard
01-19-2004, 04:29 AM
Hi everyone,

Point taken! I'm happy to remove the Jap-anese chick, and apologise for the lame stunt.

Cheers!

Leonard

Edit: Jap-anese (must get "jap" out of vocab!)

AnimBot
01-19-2004, 04:32 AM
Yea these discussions are getting so old now. It's pointless they always go around in circles.

gmask
01-19-2004, 04:34 AM
Originally posted by Leonard
Hi everyone,

Point taken! I'm happy to remove the Jap chick, and apologise for the lame stunt.

Cheers!

Leonard

Thanks.. it truly was unneccesary ..

I'm happy to see professional articles about the issue of how women are represented in computer art.

PixelShader
01-19-2004, 04:34 AM
Meh forget it Leo!

It's a great article, and can still be a fantastic discussion.

This is what I love about CGTalk - great discussions, and the mods/admins really listen to the community.

Thanks Leo.

Geoff.

otacon
01-19-2004, 04:35 AM
Thanks Leonard. Its good to know someone here has some respect for the site.

Sciatica
01-19-2004, 04:40 AM
Interesting that everybody says that its unprofessional to do this sort of stuff... while its the professionals who are doing it... The reason you don't see Weta and Pixar creating this sort of stuff is because its not their market..
Theres plenty of video game studios that use half naked females... hell.. the entire video game field is packed with them... ILM, Im sure, has created many of the "sterotypical females" for Star Wars and such.. as have many other film related studios.. Just look at the action genera in film.. You would be hardpressed to find a female in those films that wasnt "the ideal figure:rolleyes:". Im sure that many people who work at all these studios like this sort of work..

When your working in a field where most of the people have very dominant inner childs, I think a bit of immaturity is expected.
If this field was mature, we would all have to wear suits to work, and spend all day saying "Yes Boss! Your Q4F34S report will be stapled to the GF594 file! Yes Boss!"

I feel weird supporting this, cause I don't like it eather.. but its just personal taste.. People should be alowed to create what they want. If you dont like it, and think its immature, then make your own mature pictures and get a leg up on everybody.. Take it to your advantage..

Fasty
01-19-2004, 04:41 AM
Originally posted by Leonard
Hi everyone,

Point taken! I'm happy to remove the Jap chick, and apologise for the lame stunt.

Cheers!

Leonard

No problem! :thumbsup:

BiTMAP
01-19-2004, 04:41 AM
I find it QUITE funny that this is all happening. I've just realised (last night) that i'm sorta on a quest for Perfect Female Beauty of the purest form. But not what everyone else defines beauty as, but what I define it as...

Its kinda interesting and i'm sorta looking at artists in the article, and some of there work is close I can tell, but I feel that not until I have created it will I see it.

*sigh* if only my hands did not shake, and I could draw..

FloydBishop
01-19-2004, 04:48 AM
CG females are so popular because you can gather reference with a clear conscience.

:bounce:

Woyman
01-19-2004, 04:49 AM
Point taken! I'm happy to remove the Jap chick...

You do know that the term Jap for a Japanese is derogatory right?

Just thought you'd like to know. :)

dvornik
01-19-2004, 04:50 AM
Still a long way to go until we see quality CG porn.

On the other hand it would be nice to see some CG Male Nudes by Women (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/3905514672/102-0918471-7357739?v=glance) or openely homoerotic modelling.

Pinup... jeezus...

[edit] Oh man... The Asian chick looked way better than what you have now...

PixelShader
01-19-2004, 04:55 AM
Originally posted by Sciatica
Interesting that everybody says that its unprofessional to do this sort of stuff... while its the professionals who are doing it... .

EXACTLY. As much as we hate it, it happens in this industry. A good example is the Need for Speed Underground game that Stahlberg et al recently worked on. Are the chicks really necessary? Aren't you playing the game for the cars?

Geoff

Leonard
01-19-2004, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by Woyman
You do know that the term Jap for a Japanese is derogatory right?

Just thought you'd like to know. :)

LOL Nope, never occurred to me! I've edited my post. :)

Oey thanks for the heads up guys! Really appreciate it.

Leo

MCronin
01-19-2004, 05:04 AM
Great, next how about doing an article about the bizarre fascination so many CG artists have with all things Asian, in particular Japanese.

Leonard
01-19-2004, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by MCronin
Great, next how about doing an article about the bizarre fascination so many CG artists have with all things Asian, in particular Japanese.

And martial arts, and anime, iPods, XBox's...

We're guys and we're geeks! :)

Peace!

Leo

dudeguy
01-19-2004, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Floyd Bishop
CG females are so popular because you can gather reference with a clear conscience.

:bounce: LMAO

So true, it's an excuse for people to look at without any guilt what a lot of society looks down upon but obviously supports finacially.

Thankfully times are changing and people's views are becoming more accepting and open.

3 cheers for nudity!

MrMunkily
01-19-2004, 05:16 AM
I'm goin to quote something vaguely appropriate:

---

Lisa: You pig! You're the one responsible for degrading all of those women!
Rogers: Hey hey! What about men, huh? He degrades them too!
Clark: Yeah. Men are equally degraded in pornographic films.
Lisa: The men are always in a position of power!
Rogers: The men are the ones who want the product so bad. They're the victims!
Lisa: Well, then, it exploits men by exploiting women.
Clark: Hence... it exploits... people.

(Ron Jeremy in Orgazmo)
---

</After all, what's a little exploitation between friends>

dudeguy
01-19-2004, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by MCronin
Great, next how about doing an article about the bizarre fascination so many CG artists have with all things Asian, in particular Japanese. I don't see any validity or reasoning behind your comments, how are you drawing a relation between how artists are fascinated with the human body, in this case the female form and Asian culture?

Just curious, if you're Asian?

Day-Dreamer
01-19-2004, 06:03 AM
cg chick from fight club..:love: :love:

Jackdeth
01-19-2004, 06:03 AM
Asian woman and CG seem to go together. Its a beautiful thing...

Liquid7800
01-19-2004, 06:26 AM
I always thought women in general are alot easier to draw than male characters...hence their appearance in this new art form (CG) more and more. Women renderings require less attention to detail lips are much easier and wrinkles for the most part are non-existant in young women which are the majority of the art here....

Look at anime chicks or jap animation style women zero detail to face besides the eyes and lips. Lets face it men are harder to draw well and therefore avoided more.

A well drawn hero is both powerful in presence and memorable...the opposite is just as true with men not rendered correctly; Get their lips wrong and you got a weird looking guy or no wrinkles and he looks just as weird.

rebo
01-19-2004, 07:02 AM
Yeah sex sells. Did we just figure this out or something?

Just because something works doesn't mean you should do it.

I guess it just comes down to morals and if you are willing to make people feel bad about themselves for a few bucks (or in this case, hits).

And we wonder why there are so few girls at this forum. Sheesh.



It seems like they just wanted to throw more fuel on the fire.

So, people are getting offended about the 1,000,000 posts picture....ok lets see how they like it if we put up another naked woman right next to it.

Doesn't sound too professional does it? Not only that, but there is plenty of good art in the gallery that could be getting plugged, but they are more concerned about upping the post count rather than helping out their fellow artist.


My thoughts exactly. Im sure i would be asked to remove similar porn pictures if i chose to use them as an avatar/siggy. We learnt nothing new by this stunt, it was a missed opportunity.

It certainly does no justice to the artists you interviewed.

jeremybirn
01-19-2004, 07:10 AM
Right now, the number of people using 3D to make airbrushed-looking fantasy art isn't surprising. You can go on all day about if it's right, wrong, art, cheesecake, whatever; but there it is.

The interesting (disturbing? profitable?) thing is thinking a little bit into the future, about what CG will be used for in about 20 years. It seems likely there will be a convergence of the adult entertainment and interactive entertainment industries, allowing every porn user/viewer to control, customize, and interact with the content, as they already want to. Once the technology is ready, it's only a matter of time before this happens on an industry-shaking scale.

-jeremy

PixelShader
01-19-2004, 07:11 AM
Originally posted by rebo
My thoughts exactly.... We learnt nothing new by this stunt, it was a missed opportunity.

I have to disagree there. The stunt was to generate controversy and PR for the article and that it succeeded, as can be seen by the number of posts in this thread already. They pulled the plug before it got any worse, so no problems. :thumbsup:

It's a good article - bound to get lot's of hits.

In fact, from reading your post, you're the one who's throwing fuel onto the fire that's already been doused out. It's over, done. Carry on...

Geoff

rebo
01-19-2004, 07:16 AM
An article with Stahlberg, Lunatique and Linda Bergkvist, would of got loads of hits anyway as its bound to be interesting reading. I would of read the article regardless, just as I would of posted congrats on the million post thread regardless.

However the context in which it was delivered limited any reasonable discussion about their art and how their representations of the female form are both enlightening and inspiring.

Anyway glad its kinda over...

Sil3
01-19-2004, 07:16 AM
Im always amazed when i see people getting "upset" by girls pics when those same people wont even open their mouths if they see a violente scene. Lets face it, if instead of the japanese girl pic it was a guy with a machine gun showing heavy fire or a guy with an axe with blood still driping from it´s blade no one would ask why was that pic choosen.

Why is violence so acceptable and pics of nudes women are not? Why do parents take their children to see violent movies (Terminator, etc) where we see killing and more killing, but if a girl show up on a scene and appears naked it becames a scandal, as long as there´s no nudity everything it´s ok, even the most violente scenes. Look at news on TV, it´s violence on top of violence, nobody complains...it´s reason to really ask ourselfs if it´s ok to show extreme violence on TV news (like war images, police beatings, etc). IMO those are the images that should be banned, it´s the exposure to those images that makes us indiferent to violence, it may shock us the first time, but it wont the second...if u ask me if i prefer to see a pic of dead people or a pic of a nude girl in a more provocative pose, i choose the girl, sorry for not being "normal" :shrug:

rebo
01-19-2004, 07:19 AM
How about choosing neither? The world isnt black and white, art can only be assessed in the context in which it is presented.

PixelShader
01-19-2004, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by rebo
How about choosing neither? The world isnt black and white, art can only be assessed in the context which it is presented.

I agree, however, isn't it true that one man's porn is another man's erotica? I also think that it depends on the viewers individually and how they react to it. As this has clearly shown - some people were horrified by what they saw and others loved it.

How can you assess art? Some people regard the work being presented at Renderosity as Poser cyberporn trash, while others could equally argue that it is art.

I agree that the world isn't black and white - there's a whole grey area. However, wouldn't you agree that art cannot be fully assessed in the context that it is presented, because art is really defined in the eye of the beholder?

Geoff.

AnimBot
01-19-2004, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by Sil3
Im always amazed when i see people getting "upset" by girls pics when those same people wont even open their mouths if they see a violente scene. Lets face it, if instead of the japanese girl pic it was a guy with a machine gun showing heavy fire or a guy with an axe with blood still driping from it´s blade no one would ask why was that pic choosen.

Why is violence so acceptable and pics of nudes women are not? Why do parents take their children to see violent movies (Terminator, etc) where we see killing and more killing, but if a girl show up on a scene and appears naked it becames a scandal, as long as there´s no nudity everything it´s ok, even the most violente scenes. Look at news on TV, it´s violence on top of violence, nobody complains...it´s reason to really ask ourselfs if it´s ok to show extreme violence on TV news (like war images, police beatings, etc). IMO those are the images that should be banned, it´s the exposure to those images that makes us indiferent to violence, it may shock us the first time, but it wont the second...if u ask me if i prefer to see a pic of dead people or a pic of a nude girl in a more provocative pose, i choose the girl, sorry for not being "normal" :shrug:

Somewhat along the same lines is this issue. I don't know why so many people complain about the repetetive crap that hollywood puts out yet whenever we get the same repetetive young girl in a G-string with big guns people insist that no one should complain it's all in good fun. It's just boring to see it plugged so often. It's gotten to the point that even when I see someone who has done an excellent job on a pinup style girl I don't even care. It just gets lost in the crowd of others.

(...)
01-19-2004, 07:52 AM
From the article:
I'm very lucky that I have a gorgeous wife, so she shoulders most of the modeling duties. But she's very understanding if I ask other girls to model for me. Hell, she's my photography assistant when I shoot other girls.

Dude, you are living the life! :beer:

rebo
01-19-2004, 07:58 AM
Sure I do agree that much is dependant upon the indiviual viewer, however my original statement is still valid, reference must still be made to the context. For instance Animbot was making a point about how violent images are accepted whilst nakednes is not. The situation isnt as clearcut as this, violent images such as robocop gunning down a 'perp' are accepted because of the tradition of action-adventure, goodies and baddies, cops and robbers. This cannot be compared to a porn film where the sole purpose is sexual gratification of the viewer. Just as the sadistic torture and murdering of the protagonists in Michael Haneke's Funny Games cannot be compared to a 19th Century nude. The contexts are completely different.

oxyg3n
01-19-2004, 07:59 AM
Bergkvist: The female body has all the natural, gentle forms that you can find in nature. All the hills, valleys, and soft, smooth planes. There are very few sharp edges, few harsh lines, few unflattering bumps and angles. In itself, the female body is artistic - it's natural for artists to want to depict something like that.



This is exactly why I enjoy drawing/creating images of women.

gmask
01-19-2004, 07:59 AM
>>>isn't it true that one man's porn is another man's erotica?

Uh.. yeah a jag fest is a jag fest.. it might have made more sense to say one man's art is another man's pornography in either case a cheap stunt is a cheap stunt.. from now on all front page plugs should use a photo of a nude woman.. cause more people will visit even if it has nothing to do with the thread.. cause sex sells.. <<<tongue thrust through cheek in bloody explosion>>>

Leonard
01-19-2004, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by gmask
>>>isn't it true that one man's porn is another man's erotica?

Uh.. yeah a jag fest is a jag fest.. it might have made more sense to say one man's art is another man's pornography in either case a cheap stunt is a cheap stunt.. from now on all front page plugs should use a photo of a nude woman.. cause more people will visit even if it has nothing to do with the thread.. cause sex sells.. <<<tongue thrust through cheek in bloody explosion>>>

LOL! Yeah it was a cheap stunt and never happening again, so don't worry about it!! :)

Leo

Ps: except maybe on April Fool's day....gotta think about that one...

rebo
01-19-2004, 08:04 AM
Isnt it strange that possibly the greatest scuplture ever created was that of a male.

http://vlsi.colorado.edu/~rbloem/david.html

PixelShader
01-19-2004, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by rebo
Sure I do agree that much is dependant upon the indiviual viewer, however my original statement is still valid, reference must still be made to the context. For instance Animbot was making a point about how violent images are accepted whilst nakednes is not. The situation isnt as clearcut as this, violent images such as robocop gunning down a 'perp' are accepted because of the tradition of action-adventure, goodies and baddies, cops and robbers. This cannot be compared to a porn film where the sole purpose is sexual gratification of the viewer. Just as the sadistic torture and murdering of the protagonists in Michael Haneke's Funny Games cannot be compared to a 19th Century nude. The contexts are completely different.

Rebo I'm in agreement! :)

I was just saying that it also comes down to the viewer and how they depict it. Many modern galleries now have the most absurd displays - a messy bed, for example - is that art? It's a messy bed for crying out loud! But yes, some people regard it as art...

And GMask, Perhaps our cultures read the meaning of the word differently, "erotica" to me (and others working with me) alludes to erotic photography, not hardcore pornographic material. I'm sorry if semantics have caused us to cross paths here, as this is definitely not my intention. My point is that everyone has a different view of the same thing.

Geoff

Garma
01-19-2004, 08:08 AM
nice article. Cool thing is: this article isn't plugged for 2 days and this thread got 4 pages already :thumbsup:

Enayla
01-19-2004, 08:16 AM
Wow.

I totally missed the entire thing (well, except the article, naturally, since it’s still there). I grin when I think about it, though: it’s somewhat intriguing that so many people would click the link with the naked (?) woman, and then be insulted because it was just a ‘cheap’ trick. I’d say it’s more along the lines of an experiment. It’s interesting to see the reactions. And the insane number of people that hurriedly clicked the picture rather than not: says a bit about how strong an impact the female body has, for good and for bad.

Anyway, glad people enjoyed the article :] Don’t take the ‘stunt’ thing too seriously, I doubt any harm was intended.

rebo
01-19-2004, 08:20 AM
Enayla, your interview was very interesting thanks for the opportunity for a look into your imagination. Keep painting (and posting :) )!!

p.s. I wasnt insulted at all just disappointed :P

imashination
01-19-2004, 08:23 AM
Why so many cg chicks? simple, women look better than men.

Men are typically overweight, covered in stubble or hair, don't use makeup and have a complexion like sandpaper.

Women spend hours each day perfecting their already gorgeous features until they look so perfect, you'd think they were a 3D rendering.

Draw a picture of something beautiful and you have a decent chance of ending up with a beautiful picture that people want to see.

Humans are attracted to certain things, by drawing them you will have a wider audience. Show me a perky chick draped over a Yamaha R1, holding a rocket launcher and I'll be drooling.
:drool:

Enayla
01-19-2004, 08:28 AM
Hey, I strongly disagree ;]

Men are just as beautiful as women, you just have to look a little harder to see it, sometimes. Which makes it all that much more interesting: it's a more subtle attraction, less obvious and less in-your-face.

There are a lot of men I think are gorgeous, with everything from the curve of their lashes to the fullness of their lips making me go ga-ga over them (and no, not just men in magazines or in movies: I'm talking about regular guys that I come across every day).

It's just a different beauty.

[edit] And a thought that occured to me: I very rarely see attractive men painted by men, but very often beautiful women painted by women. Rather interesting, really.

PixelShader
01-19-2004, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by Enayla
Wow.

I totally missed the entire thing (well, except the article, naturally, since it’s still there). I grin when I think about it, though: it’s somewhat intriguing that so many people would click the link with the naked (?) woman, and then be insulted because it was just a ‘cheap’ trick. I’d say it’s more along the lines of an experiment. It’s interesting to see the reactions. And the insane number of people that hurriedly clicked the picture rather than not: says a bit about how strong an impact the female body has, for good and for bad.

Anyway, glad people enjoyed the article :] Don’t take the ‘stunt’ thing too seriously, I doubt any harm was intended.

Nope she wasn't naked - just very hot. Lot's of people clicked through...

Quoting Leo in the original post: "Was it done in bad taste? Oh yes, and if you read the thread below, you betcha we got flamed for it! The point being, that sex sells and whether you like it or not, it can't be ignored."

Personally I feel that the stunt was successful as it drove the point across. It was really fascinating to see the responses - the elation, excitement, to complete and utter disgust! LOL

It's all good! :thumbsup:

Geoff

Fasty
01-19-2004, 08:37 AM
Sex sells. The sky is blue. Let's move on :cool:

Sceme
01-19-2004, 08:49 AM
For me, i almost always ignore those Not_So_Much_Clothes_On chicks images, because they just don't give anything to me. Mostly i wonder, why they don't model good clothes for them?...always small pants and something small for covering breasts. It is weird.

While there is so many talented and skilled 3d artists in here, then why don't they do good clothes for those characters :/
As far i know, clothes are very hard to do. I think u should take that challenge :)

I maybe have a weird taste concerning females, so those too perfect female characters....i don't even see them as very sexy chicks :/.

Sometimes i have almost the same problem with male characters.
I think peoples tries to make too perfect characters. I saw couble more Not_So_Perfect male heads and i think they looked more "realistic" than some of those perfect ones.

Personally, i imagine that someday if i can make characters, i will make full clothes on her/him.

Well. This is just my oppinion.

Cyborgguineapig
01-19-2004, 09:03 AM
Hehe maybe I am weird but I never clicked on the image, I clicked instead on the link above it to the article.:p

Lunatique
01-19-2004, 09:34 AM
Heh, my wife thinks women are MUCH more fun and pleasing to look at than men. It's a miracle that she married me. . ..

Agent D
01-19-2004, 09:43 AM
Well, people have been creating women in artwork since the beginning(literally), and I don't see how or why they would stop. Besides, aside from the sexually driven aspects, humans are one of the hardest and most interesting subjects to draw/paint/model, and If I had to guess, I would put the number of truly realistic human CG models I've seen at about 4 or 5.

Nice interview, I pretty much agree with what was said. And for what it's worth, I would take a guess that a large portion of those who clicked the image were simply wondering why it twas there or if it was CG.

I do get a good laugh out of all the people who freak out about it though, and either rant endlessly, or claim it's far below their superior tastes, and unworthy of civilized thinking. People will draw what people want to draw. Chill out. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Enayla
[edit] And a thought that occured to me: I very rarely see attractive men painted by men, but very often beautiful women painted by women. Rather interesting, really.

I think that's just because most of us don't know what one looks like. We just don't think about it, as opposed to women who live in societies where female appearance and beauty is heavily emphasized in daily life. :shrug:

Sean11
01-19-2004, 09:49 AM
Can someone email me a copy of this pic??

I want to see it :applause:

nineinchneil
01-19-2004, 10:00 AM
just curious, what do you guys think of the woman portrayed in this speed painting by A.pipe : http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=116029&perpage=20&pagenumber=2

personally, i think it's hilarious, and will stay on my desktop for at least a couple weeks.

but i do believe that everything has a level of moderation. yes, showing amazonian-bodied women in artwork is definitely an oversaturated subject, but it also depends on the context in which they are placed. but i also think that it's not good for an artist to pidgeonhole himself/herself by just sticking to one subject. stahlberg has definitely pidgeonholed himself; whenever i read the name 'stahlberg', i instantly have a picture of a thong-clad cg render; that's not a good thing. a good artist is tries to being as versatile as he can be. i don't mean to say that stahlberg is bad at what he does (because he isn't), but i do wonder how he is at creating animals, or evoking intellectual messages in his work. i really would like to see him apply his talents at other aspects of the field.
while i have nothing against the subject itself, i do think that the artist isn't even trying to expand his/her horizons, and that's not a good thing.

AnimZiggy
01-19-2004, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Enayla

[edit] And a thought that occured to me: I very rarely see attractive men painted by men, but very often beautiful women painted by women. Rather interesting, really.

As being a girl myself, I agree to that Enayla, It's very rare to see men painted by men but in the 3d/cg world heros are necessary lol and you see them all the time....

And as for the cg girls, it's natural to see so many of them, especially 3d, since the biggest precentage in this forum are males (and generally in the 3d industry).

I'm off to make a 3d gorgeous man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D

Atwooki
01-19-2004, 11:14 AM
anim_ziggy:
As being a girl myself, I agree to that Enayla, It's very rare to see men painted by men but in the 3d/cg world heros are necessary lol and you see them all the time....

Seems to me, that when guys depict guys (and I am generalising here!), they tend towards 'superheroes' and 'musclebound hunks', not 'modelesque' prettyboys;
Whereas when the female form is tackled, the opposite is depicted: prettiness, voluptuousness, curvaceousness, etc.
D they have a genuine appreciation/appraissal of generic hormonal opposites?

What would the female fraternity think if guys started depicting 'butch' women or excessively 'pretty' boys on a regular basis, I wonder....? Hey! maybe some do, and I've not noticed!

Women, (correct me if I'm misguided here) tend to be broader in their appreciation, in that they'll readily depict 'beauty' in any subject matter: delicate/sensitive males, bold/assertive females, old age, youth; without fear of repproach......

Then again, how many female artists depict 'superheroes' (the large muscular type) or excessively buxom women.... hmmm :)

Looks like men are drawn towards 'physical' extremes (in their creative aspirations and appreciation) and women towards the more emotional and psychological strengths of character depiction and glorification....Please bear in mind, that these are 'general' observations :)

Atwooki

flingster
01-19-2004, 01:07 PM
why should cg be any different from any other art medium all dominated by semi nude females?
take a look at print media and advertising also dominated by semi nude female...take a look at a womens magazine eg vogue...advertising dominated by semi nude females.

basically sex sells...why? ask a psycologist, ask a philosopher get two different answers!

men are very visual, and everybody likes to see a good looking semi nude female...something to do with rules of attaction i guess.

lastly as a man...i prefer to look at semi nude females...but hey...each to there own i guess.
whats important is people don't confuse this imagery with real life and assume an available looking semi nude female in a picture makes all females want to be seen in this way...and can be treated in this way...object like in other words.
:eek:

one love...peace out.

Ocean Size
01-19-2004, 01:23 PM
The female form is the pinnacle of creation.

rebo
01-19-2004, 01:42 PM
And the crutch of imagination.

Stahlberg
01-19-2004, 01:50 PM
nineinchneil:
a good artist is tries to being as versatile as he can be.
i do wonder how he is at creating animals, or evoking intellectual messages in his work.
It's a shame when people spout off on subjects they know very little about.
I've worked as an artist for nearly 20 years. It would probably be easier to list what I haven't drawn, than what I have. I've likely used every style and method and material known to man (except paint-enemas).
And it's weird how you seem to assume I've got all the time in the world to experiment. I'm trying to run a business here you know...

As for intellectual messages, how should I put it politely...
:rolleyes:

3DArtZ
01-19-2004, 01:54 PM
Here's a cg chick.
picture taken down, sorry, not my server.....


Mike Fitz

Atwooki
01-19-2004, 02:05 PM
nineinchneil:
It seems that this industry more than any other will only consider employing someone AFTER they've been 'p'holed' (or done it to themselves!) :D
Nice tidy little boxes, thank you, with no loose ends or round corners.
Of course, after the artist is comfortably and successfully positioned in his 'hole', everybody's 'amazed' that he/she can do other things also...

Atwooki

Neil
01-19-2004, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by Atwooki
anim_ziggy:
Seems to me, that when guys depict guys (and I am generalising here!), they tend towards 'superheroes' and 'musclebound hunks', not 'modelesque' prettyboys;

I hate to bring this up again... but there is a slow movement. The main characters in video games like Final Fantasy are no longer muscle bound hard-asses. They're beautiful guys with jewelry and nice hair...etc.
And what happened?
People start a thread on here saying that they hate it and that video game characters should all be manly. So instead, we just resort to cranking out more macho male characters to please the audience and shut everyone up.

Quizboy
01-19-2004, 02:31 PM
...there are way too many people who are simply uptight about sex. i'm extremely horny, and i embrace it. It's just a part of my natural character which hopefully will never die (and I hear that later in life it very often does, ouch!.) My horniness is no less honorable a character trait than my moral commitment to family and friends. Because I accept this as such I don't get all agitated if someone presents me with a sexy image and it turns me on.

If more people would accept this unavoidable element of their own character, they wouldn't have to get all revved up on this issue. Or are none of you horny?

DotPainter
01-19-2004, 02:51 PM
The article was OK, however, I think one has to look at the history of art in the West to understand why we have this fascination with nudity. Many of the most famous Greek or Roman classical sculptures feature nude humans. Is it porno? No, just a testament to the artistic skill of the sculptor in capturing of the human form. This skill in capturing the beauty of the human body is why so many artistic pieces, painted and otherwise, feature nude and semi-nude characters. No one I know would think of that as porn. However, with the rise of the morality codes and refirmationist fervor in Europe, backed up by the puritan ethos from early America, you get this idea of censorship as a way of controlling immoral and deviant impulses. I think that censorship actually promotes more deviant behavior. Nudity, therefore, in art is as old as art itself. For example, anyone who ever takes serious art classes in figure painting will have to paint someone who is posing nude.

I don't know why CG art has such a problem with nudity. True, most times you don't have the victorian themes to justify a non-pornographic intent, but just the same every nude image is not intended to bring about sexual arousal. The representation of females in the CG realm is more often associated with market forces, IMO than anything else. This is because most CG is created and for professional purposes: movies, games and illustration. However, purely artistic works must surely be judged based on intent not purely the fact that it contains nudity.

It is strange that this came up in reference to a post about the 1,000,000th post on CGTalk. I don't hear any complaints about the fact that, as I write this, there is a plug on the front page about the Brazilian Carnival/Samba Queen Valéria Valenssa,
http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=116490. This is a perfect example of the need to professionally produce an artistic representation of a CG female engaging in an artistic performance that is designed to showcase her beauty and sensuality....( whew!) Seems that Brazil is one place where they have no problems with nudity and censorship in everyday life.

As for CG females in Japan, many computer games for the PC there feature nude females. I read an article recently that said that if it wasn't for these games, some of which are quite bizarre actually, that the PC game industry would be dead, since consoles are king there! In a strange quirk of Japanese culture however, any explicit videos of live actresses are digitally censored, where the virtual ones aren't :surprised. So much for the sexual/cultural side. On the artistic side, there are also quite a lot of web pages from Japan that feature works of "digital beauties" or female CG figures in very modest, if suggestive poses (ie, not nude). I have seen many inspirational images on these pages and they are part of my reference library. There are also quite a few Japanese books featuring digital females, which are mostly clothed. Mr. Stahlberg's work is quite often displayed in these volumes.

"Digital Beauties" book review:
Digital Beauties Review (http://metropolis.japantoday.com/tokyo/415/art.asp)

All about Japan on the book "Digital Quties" (Japanese page):
All About Japan Review (http://allabout.co.jp/computer/virtualbeauty/closeup/CU20030118A/index.htm)

The Massive online Japanese Directory of digital female artwork (in Japanese):
DIGITAL QUTIES (http://www.magiccity.ne.jp/~link/3D/)

jjburton
01-19-2004, 02:56 PM
Quizboy- yes, most men under the age of "death" are horny. However, just because we feel something, doesn't mean that it is acceptable to pour yourselves into it. There are a lot of different world views that are represented in this forum, and I think that it needs to be careful in not offending it's members.

Both softporn and hardcore porn have been on the rise in the US for some time and not everyone is pleased with the results. It's rise has seen the self esteem of many young girls shattered because they know they can never reach that level of sexuality that is shoved down their throats. When you get married, as many of us are, you will also most likely find that engagement in looking at porn is very hurtful to your spouse. That being said, I try to avoid looking at it.

There is a fine line sometimes between what is pornographic and what is art, and I have appreicated CGtalk's commitment to clearly mark things that could be construed as being pornographic and I hope they continue to do so. I wish, however, that they wouldn't use some of the thumbnails that they do. And I do indeed hope that this doesn't become another Renderosity, I had to stop going to that site because of it. And I'd hate to have to leave this great community.

slaughters
01-19-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by rebo
Isnt it strange that possibly the greatest scuplture ever created was that of a male.

http://vlsi.colorado.edu/~rbloem/david.html I guess it just proves how hard it really is to model the male figure. It took a master artist to get it right :)

PixelShader
01-19-2004, 03:13 PM
Isnt it strange that possibly the greatest scuplture ever created was that of a male.

http://vlsi.colorado.edu/~rblo

Not really. One could similarly argue that possibly the greatest painting ever created was that of a female.

http://www.harley.com/abstract-art/davinci.html

wuensch
01-19-2004, 03:24 PM
hehe.--- cannot withstand to add my 2 cents:
the lowest (and most important for survival) common dominator of human (and animal)desires are:
1: feed
2: replicate



makes me wonder why there is so few pictures of nice food here on cgtalk ;-)
But check out Tv-ads--- There are a lot more pictures of food then of beautiful women/men--
Also fine Art:
For every picture of a naked human there must be 100 picture with apples, pears, food of all kinds out there---

Olli

Estrellex
01-19-2004, 03:32 PM
Why such a strong negative reaction from some people? Knee-jerk emotions can be awfully powerful, but they are blinding toward logical thinking, and tend to be terribly transitory.

If you respond to a post that you do not like, you are only feeding what you despise. On a forum such as this or any forum, apathy is truly the most powerful resource that a person can use. If you don't like what you see, simply ignoring something is much, much, more effective at sabotaging a thread than any amount of flaming will ever manage.

Surely, just because someone objects to an image, no matter the content, shouldn't mean that the picture should never have been made.

It's your mouse, your monitor, your choice.

goertzen_frank
01-19-2004, 03:42 PM
I think there's just more paintings of food and more food in ad's because food doest have a union. And generally don't mind being still for hours.

Lunatique
01-19-2004, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by nineinchneil
stahlberg has definitely pidgeonholed himself; whenever i read the name 'stahlberg', i instantly have a picture of a thong-clad cg render; that's not a good thing. a good artist is tries to being as versatile as he can be. i don't mean to say that stahlberg is bad at what he does (because he isn't), but i do wonder how he is at creating animals, or evoking intellectual messages in his work. i really would like to see him apply his talents at other aspects of the field.


I've been to Steven's house several times, and on his walls at home, I see paintings he's done of an old man, horses..etc among other things, but nowhere do I see any thong-clad cg chicks.

You guys gotta seperate Stahlberg, the guy that does CG chicks for a living(his JOB) from Stahlberg, the artist. The 3 months I've worked at Optidigit so far, I've seen him paint a spaceship, make particle effects for a TV commercial, paint a legendary Malaysian warrior, and quite a few other things--and the ONLY times I've seen him working on CG chicks were--guess what? FOR CLIENTS. Making CG virtual chicks is his job--and it's what's dominated his career so far.

So, yes, Steven has more versatility than most people that post at cgtalk. Just because he doesn't go around advertising the fact that he can paint just about anything, or make just about anything in 3D, compose and arrange music, or has the ability to create and write screenplays--does not mean he's one dimensional.

And of course, a post like this just wouldn't be the same without this icon: :rolleyes:

AnimZiggy
01-19-2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Atwooki
anim_ziggy:


Seems to me, that when guys depict guys (and I am generalising here!), they tend towards 'superheroes' and 'musclebound hunks', not 'modelesque' prettyboys;
Whereas when the female form is tackled, the opposite is depicted: prettiness, voluptuousness, curvaceousness, etc.
D they have a genuine appreciation/appraissal of generic hormonal opposites?

What would the female fraternity think if guys started depicting 'butch' women or excessively 'pretty' boys on a regular basis, I wonder....? Hey! maybe some do, and I've not noticed!

Women, (correct me if I'm misguided here) tend to be broader in their appreciation, in that they'll readily depict 'beauty' in any subject matter: delicate/sensitive males, bold/assertive females, old age, youth; without fear of repproach......

Then again, how many female artists depict 'superheroes' (the large muscular type) or excessively buxom women.... hmmm :)

Looks like men are drawn towards 'physical' extremes (in their creative aspirations and appreciation) and women towards the more emotional and psychological strengths of character depiction and glorification....Please bear in mind, that these are 'general' observations :)

Atwooki

In my opinion

yes i think they tend to muscles super heros etc but that is the general approach.. I've seen many male artists create male characters that are not stereotypical at all.

I wouldn't mind if I saw 'butch' women or 'excessive' pretty boys. Every artist depicts what he or she consider to be attractive and beautiful...

Well I am 'broader' in my appriciation but then again, as I mentioned before every one has different tastes..I'm not sure if it's a woman thing only, to be honest. Maybe it is... you'd have to ask more women to find out. ;)

True, I don't...

Yes, these are general observations and maybe a big precent of men and women agree to them but there are always exceptions. Face it, the world is interesting cos people have different tastes!!!

:)

JDMedia
01-19-2004, 04:12 PM
PHAT! These guys really are tha bomb! I'm only 21 yet, and I think I can still learn a lot!

If these guys show something they make me wanna do the same!

Keep it up forever!

parallax
01-19-2004, 04:35 PM
Come on people, lighten up.

I thought it was hilarious, and although it has nothing to do with CG, it has everything to do with the everyday life of the advertising industry and the entertainment industry in general.

It was a nice over-the-top parody. Thing is, women are used a lot in Advertising, because we, the 'consumers', want that.
If the effect of using women to sell stuff wasn't that big, we would've stopped doing that ages ago.
You might like it or not, and i could agree with you on a lot a things against 'female advertising', but fact is, we've accepted women in advertising.
It might even be a fact of mere biology. Seduction is part of the 'dating game', and is used to 'sell' yourself in this world.
Agencies are simply using this fact.
Hell, you could say we are conditioned by it. However, it doesn't work all the time.

Now back to the program :thumbsup:

thhchx
01-19-2004, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Lunatique
So, yes, Steven has more versatility than most people that post at cgtalk. Just because he doesn't go around advertising the fact that he can paint just about anything, or make just about anything in 3D, compose and arrange music, or has the ability to create and write screenplays--does not mean he's one dimensional.
[/B]

Don't really need to go into that...

I'm sure Steven can do a hell lot more than creating those CG chicks (so do many people who frequent forums such as this.)

But then again, most of the time, it's those CG chicks people get to see in publications and Steven's name goes right under those images. Guess that's the impression people get.

Afterall, he's rather well known, pretty much a 'celebrity'. It's natural that people will have the inclination to associate him with what little they know - i.e. those CG chicks.

Though, the problem, I'd say, is more about how certain people post in forums. Personal attacks shouldn't be happening in the first place. That's totally uncalled for.

Omita
01-19-2004, 05:18 PM
This seems like a no brainer... the female form is one of the most beutiful forms on the planet. We design sports cards based on feminie curves. Even most women I know think the female figure is more attractive then male figure.

Plus, all the other stuff that people are writing.

Neil
01-19-2004, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by jjburton
When you get married, as many of us are, you will also most likely find that engagement in looking at porn is very hurtful to your spouse. That being said, I try to avoid looking at it.

I like how you said you "TRY" to avoid looking at it, not I "don't" look at it. :)

willtroll4food
01-19-2004, 05:51 PM
Since 99.9 % CG work is done by guys...............

but I am willing to bet there are more cars images made.

rbfeik
01-19-2004, 06:05 PM
since 99.9 % of CG is done by males.........

but I bet cars are #1 subject.

CG.p
01-19-2004, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by PixelShader
CGTalk sure looks sexy today! :)

Nice stunt! The jap chick cracked me up good!

Wow. I'm not female or Japanese and I STILL found that offensive.

LordDubu
01-19-2004, 06:41 PM
I wasn't so much offended by the thumbnail, as I was dissapointed to find out it wasn't CG. My intial reaction when I saw it was, HOLY CRAP is that a 3D Model? Had it been, the artist would have had my utmost respect and admiration.

Look its no suprise that 90% of the first models male 3D beginners attempt is a woman. It's funny, but watch the threads around here, anytime you see someone building a nude female, it's almost always an extremely naive beginner's model.

That's exactly why I clicked on the link, I thought it was a well done super-photo-real cg erotica.

If it's done well, and is an outpouring of art from the heart of an artist, I don't mind nudity, sexuality any more than I do voilence. And for the record, this is the opinion of an ultra-right-wing-puritanical-bible-thumper.

All this being said, my next project decidely will contain frank male nudity, just to fly in the face of the "mainstream".

CG.p
01-19-2004, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Lord Dubu
I wasn't so much offended by the thumbnail, as I was dissapointed to find out it wasn't CG.

I didn't mean the thumbnail I meant the "jap chick" post.

LordDubu
01-19-2004, 06:57 PM
CG.p nah i know you didn't I wasn't responding to you directly but to the majority opinion on this thread, which seems to be. "A censored nude on the front page is a hangable offense, and anyone aroused by artistic represetnations of nudity are hentai asiaphile perverts that must be destroyed."

Simply put, representing the nude human form in art is not even in the vaguest since novel. CG just is the current tool used to do it. While the general aesthetic might change, in one era it's obese women that are attractive, in another its effete males, in ours its anorexic females (majority opinion, not my own).

I guess in a nutshell what I'm saying is, nudity is a valid form of artistic expression, and it neither marks the exhibitor as either naive, or perverse. Every piece should be judged by its own merit.

Don't ever let someone else tell you what you should consider valid self-expression, if you do, you'll find yourself watching the emperor walk by in the nude and joining in with the silent masses out of fear of appearing ignorant.

Alice
01-19-2004, 06:57 PM
comon!
Why do young guys learn 3d?
To make their perfect 3d woman :p

Serously, the female body is so beautiful and can be drawn in so many ways.
Besides, the internet is full of refference material on females while its hard to find loads of good seminude pictures on men without surfing gay-porn.
To this date, I havn´t once gotten a young wellshaped male modell on the lifedrawingsessions I´ve been attending to.

And yes, im working with a picture of a semi nude woman right now, though its a birtdaypresent for my younger brother.

otacon
01-19-2004, 07:06 PM
Im hearing all this talk about how beautiful the female body is, and i agree. BUT, for those who saw the picture on the front page, what is so beautiful about a girl who is spreading her legs, in a grungy environment with harsh lighting? It looked more like a porn ad.

LordDubu
01-19-2004, 07:12 PM
The debate at this point has diverged into a couple of different topics, which is indicative of internet flame wars. I see two major opinions on this forum:

1) Naked chicks in art are the mark of sexist immaturity.

On this point I disagree, read my previous spots.

2) A photo of a naked chick on the cover is unprofessional.

On this point I agree. However, if said photo HAD been CG, then I'd have supported it's place on the front page with vengence.

Atwooki
01-19-2004, 08:11 PM
Lord Dubu:
On this point I agree. However, if said photo HAD been CG, then I'd have supported it's place on the front page with vengence.

and if the image had been a layer from a 3D tracked composite?

Atwooki

nineinchneil
01-19-2004, 08:12 PM
stahlberg, i meant no disrespect at all. you're right, i was speaking only based on the knowledge that the majority of the public knows; you're known for your perfection of the female seductive form. i do not know the real you. but i'm glad to hear that there's more to your palette than women.
but based on what you're publically known for, i used it as a point for my argument against pidgeonholing. i think that 'pidgeonholing' isn't defined by what the individual does to himself. it's what his public image does to him. you have to admit that most people associate you exclusively to the female form. you could train yourself in mastering every single aspect of this artform, but if you don't exhibit it, you're pidgeonholing yourself.
once again, i mean no disrespect, i'm just trying to make a point about the majority of cg women out there. it's obviously your choice if you care to show your other works to the public. it's not like you have to prove yourself; you're famous, and well respected. i understand that time is always our biggest constraint.
i just want to point out that i did not mean this to be an attack on you, man.

LordDubu
01-19-2004, 08:23 PM
Atwooki, if it was technically worthy of the front page, and it was within forum anti-porn guidelines, then yes.

(However, and this is a bone I've been picking alot lately. Some really amazing stuff technically doesn't get plugged, while other stuff more visually stunning fails to get the nod. But that is a divergent topic which is neither here nor there.)

gmask
01-19-2004, 10:04 PM
Okay well to hell with CG or Photos of girls let's all go to a local strip club and stuff some dollars into some g-strings.. like the coca-cola saying goes ... there's nothing like the real thing.. :scream:

Maybe we can get the girls to put some tracking dots on their nipples and we can then write it off our taxes.. :rolleyes:

oh wait I forgot that I'm old enough to do that.. sorry kids :eek:

Day-Dreamer
01-19-2004, 10:06 PM
Fuel

PixelShader
01-19-2004, 10:35 PM
Heya,

GMask--
What's up with the "oh wait I forgot I'm old enough to do that...sorry kids". Sure, there might be a bunch of kids on this thread but for the most part the discussion has been quite civil and mature. In stark contrast, your posts are the ones containing inflammatory comments such as these.

>> A photo of a naked chick on the cover is unprofessional.
>> On this point I agree. However, if said photo HAD been CG, then I'd have supported it's place on the front page with vengence.

Absolutely. If you read the initial post by Leo it was just there to make a point after which they removed it. No harm done at all - good way to get you all to read this thread and the article actually. :) Remember, all PR is good PR.

Secondly, she wasn't naked at all - just a very suggestive pose with everything covered up strategically.

What cracks me up even more is that a month ago, everyone was clicking on the thread for 3d.sk which had a porn star advertising the service! Did anyone give a damn about whether it was "professional" then? Absolutely not! Was she CG? No.

http://www.3d.sk/obr1.jpg

:beer:

NightCrawler3d
01-19-2004, 11:31 PM
Once I heard this on sienfield
The different between men’s and women’s bodies is that
woman’s body is like a piece of art
But men's bodies are like a tool
If u compare it with cars the woman is like a Ferrari
But the man is like a jeep

Its up to u if u agree with that or not

BoydLake
01-19-2004, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by PixelShader
What cracks me up even more is that a month ago, everyone was clicking on the thread for 3d.sk which had a porn star advertising the service! Did anyone give a damn about whether it was "professional" then? Absolutely not! Was she CG? No.

http://www.3d.sk/obr1.jpg

:beer:

Actually there were some objections to the ad on the front page to 3d.sk (voiced by a female CG Talker) , but those objections were beaten down in favor of the "any naked chick is a good chick" mentality.

Keiyentai
01-19-2004, 11:56 PM
THanks Pixal Shader I was trying to remeber the name of that website so I could say that lol. No one complained. Hell a couple people where like "WHoa thats the porn star Kelly somthing!" but this joke with the "CGChicks" was funny. I liked it hell I saved them on my comp cuase it was funny. I dont htink any limits where crossed. THere where clothed and for the Japanese girl who wasent her boobs where covered by a GAINT BANNER while Kelly's was covered by a small white sign and you could practicualy could see her crotch...and if you went to the site you could so I dont know why people are complaing about this. If you people want PORN I can give ya about 4000+ sites with it. Not hard to find it on the net. What CGTalk posted WAS NOT PORN...they where not doing anything in a sexual manner. THey wherent touching there selfs or anything. Sence when is Porn being in a provacitive pose? If thats all it takes then I can be a porn start really easy.......

Leo I think what you did was funny and cool. I'm sorry so many uptight people made it so you had to take it down. THing that gets me though is some one made a painting of a NAKED blonde girl getting her heart ripped out by a demon and it was quite detailed yet it got a CGTalk award! No one complained on it's "Content" so I dont know what every ones bitch about this. Not like 99.9% of everyone on CGTalk hasent seen what a women HAS! Bah.....

In closing I think it was cool. I give you probs Leo. :applause: :bounce: :drool:

flingster
01-20-2004, 12:03 AM
dictionary definition of the two terms.

ART:the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings

PORNOGRAPHY:books, magazines, films, etc. with no artistic value which describe or show sexual acts or naked people in a way that is intended to be sexually exciting but would be considered unpleasant or offensive by many people

i leave it to you all to decide which picture falls into which camp.
:hmm:

gmask
01-20-2004, 12:06 AM
>>>What's up with the "oh wait I forgot I'm old enough to do that...sorry kids". Sure, there might be a bunch of kids on this thread but for the most part the discussion has been quite civil and mature. In stark contrast, your posts are the ones containing inflammatory comments such as these.

The very nature of sticking the overtly sexual image was no different in attitude than my previous post..

>> A photo of a naked chick on the cover is unprofessional.
>> On this point I agree. However, if said photo HAD been CG, then I'd have supported it's place on the front page with vengence.

I don't feel that even a CG picture would ahve been justified for the 1,000,000 thread.. unless the name of this website is CGporn or CGgirl.. then maybe it would have made sense.

>>Absolutely. If you read the initial post by Leo it was just there to make a point after which they removed it.

Is the point that they owe their success to sexual images of women or that the website offers a safe forum for "professionals" to show and their work and get technical help.

>>>No harm done at all - good way to get you all to read this thread and the article actually. :)

The harm is to their reputation/professionalism.. despite apologies and removals.. I think it was in realy poor taste and does not promote art only purient exploitation and the lowest common denominator.

>>>Remember, all PR is good PR.

I bet that is what Michael Jackson says to himself everynight before he tucks himself in to beddy bye.

>>>Secondly, she wasn't naked at all - just a very suggestive pose with everything covered up strategically.

The meaning is still the same.. maybe KFC should advertise their chicken with a crotch shot of a woman that has a black box over groin that says finger licking good?

>>>What cracks me up even more is that a month ago, everyone was clicking on the thread for 3d.sk which had a porn star advertising the service! Did anyone give a damn about whether it was "professional" then? Absolutely not! Was she CG? No.

Anyway .. like I have allready stated you'd have to be daft to be incapable of finding porn stars on the internet.. and yes I find that approach and placing such a image like that on this website a bit tasteless.


However.. regardless of wether or not she is an actual porn star the pose she is in is not wanton.. the image on the 1 mil thread is posed looking up through her spread legs and she has the expression of orgasm on her face. The difference would be between someone posting a CG model of a man with a penis and a man with an erect penis.. in either case you could argue that it's art and regardless of your like of dislike of the male form one is certainly more offensive than the other. Heck the model could have shorts on and if you could see the erection through the pants I imagine it would still be offensive..

At any rate my point would be that sure use the female form women are beautiful..yada yada but don't fool yourself into thinking that all women are sexual beings or sex objects.. use them in your content but have the decency to explore some other subjects besides arousal and eroticism.. there is more to art than that... If everyone was Stahlberg then it wouldn't be that exciting would it?

http://gmaskfx.com/cgtalk/art.jpg

PixelShader
01-20-2004, 12:25 AM
GMask, sorry to have gotten you so wound up. I simply feel that your comments in the previous posts were unjustifiably impolite and inflammatory - as if you are actually wanting to start some sort of altercation. I certainly hope this is not your intent.

I disagree with all points and frankly am short of breath to even bother typing in responses. It seems that you and I have completely different views and are just beating the same drum over and over again to no end.

I hope there's no harm done and that we can both enjoy CGTalk.

On that note, I'll just end by saying that I completely disagree with you on all points and what's done is done. Let bygones be bygones.

Geoff

Leonard
01-20-2004, 12:27 AM
Pixelshader and Gmask - please knock it off and read another thread.

Leo

:buttrock:

Fasty
01-20-2004, 12:34 AM
Keiyentai, how funny do you think it would be if you had a daughter who gets bombarded with these kinds of images day in and day out by the media and develops an eating disorder? Would that be funny? Would that be worth a few laughs?

Keiyentai
01-20-2004, 12:46 AM
If I had a daughter who saw things like this I would tell her to feel good about her self and not to think that to look good you have to be a twig who eats a baggle for breakfast/lunch/dinner. If she wanted to be a model when she got older it would be her choice. I'm not saying that being anorexic or anything is a good thing. I simply said I see no relation to the pics that Leo post could be dubbed as Pornogrphic. I dont want to start a "If you where a parent what would you do" cuase I have a 15 month old son and CGTalk is NOT the place to discuss parental issues...

Leonard
01-20-2004, 12:51 AM
Hey guys knock it off.

Thanks,

Leo

Lunatique
01-20-2004, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Neil
I like how you said you "TRY" to avoid looking at it, not I "don't" look at it. :)

Not all females are offended/turned off by porn. Lots of women out there gets turned on by porn.

DotPainter
01-20-2004, 01:33 AM
I am sure there must be someplace where someone who has the desire can submit pornographic aka "erotic" 3d works for feedback and suggestions. People being people, I am sure there are 3d artists who have done such works and may probably be around here. So, since CG is a medium for artistic expression, like any other, I am not shocked in the least that someone may want to do some such thing. If someone was to do such artwork, I wouln't want them to feel strange or less than an artist for doing it. Not to say that I would like the piece, just like I may not like any other artistic effort regardless of subject matter. Either way, I do not try to say what is a legitimate form of creative expression and what is not. I just know what I like and what I don't. For example, I have been reading Heavy Metal magazine for years and I have found the stuff there quite entertaining, even though others only see the cartoons with naked chicks......

Kinda reminds me of the decisions Museums must make concerning displaying the artwork of certain more "controversial" artists, to say the least. I think there is also a level of maturity that is necessary when discussing such issues.

Quizboy
01-20-2004, 01:35 AM
Ok, my first head got to announce how horny i am - now my other head wants to make a point here which seems to have been missed.

First the quotes:

nineinchnail said:
stahlberg has definitely pidgeonholed himself; whenever i read the name 'stahlberg', i instantly have a picture of a thong-clad cg render; that's not a good thing. a good artist is tries to being as versatile as he can be. i don't mean to say that stahlberg is bad at what he does (because he isn't), but i do wonder how he is at creating animals, or evoking intellectual messages in his work. i really would like to see him apply his talents at other aspects of the field.

Then Lunatique said:

I've been to Steven's house several times, and on his walls at home, I see paintings he's done of an old man, horses..etc among other things, but nowhere do I see any thong-clad cg chicks.

nineinchnails said:
you have to admit that most people associate you exclusively to the female form. you could train yourself in mastering every single aspect of this artform, but if you don't exhibit it, you're pidgeonholing yourself.
once again, i mean no disrespect, i'm just trying to make a point about the majority of cg women out there. it's obviously your choice if you care to show your other works to the public. it's not like you have to prove yourself; you're famous, and well respected. i understand that time is always our biggest constraint.

Did anyone stop to think that maybe the reason Stahlberg is so "famous, and well respected" is that he's mastered the most asked for subject in his art? Could it be that if Stahlberg was as good at making horses or old men as he is at making voluptuous women - that no one would know about it, know about him, or care?

A cookie for the first person to name the artist who made this:

http://www.xinxang.com/images/horse.jpg

and this:

http://www.xinxang.com/images/count.jpg

didn't steal this from anyone's house to get it either.

Quizboy
01-20-2004, 01:36 AM
(cont.)

an identical case in point but two decades earlier is the art of another brilliant illustrator by the name of Hajimi Sorayama. His name is publicly synonymous with "Sexy Robots" like this:

http://www.xinxang.com/images/sexyrobot.jpg

while the very same artist used the same original style to do this:
http://www.xinxang.com/images/metalfish.jpg
and this:
http://www.xinxang.com/images/metalbaby.jpg

So I beg the question, who's defining the parameters of these artist's fame and respect? The artists...or us?

gmask
01-20-2004, 01:44 AM
>>>So I beg the question, who's defining the parameters of these artist's fame and respect? The artists...or us?

No doubt each of these artists are technically talented.. the question is what is the difference between art and cannon fodder for sexual fantasy..

Anyone remember the scene in the movie Brainstorm http://imdb.com/title/tt0085271/ where the guy hooks himself up with a tape loop during the orgasm and nearly kills himself?

We may not be too far from that being a possibility.

DotPainter
01-20-2004, 01:50 AM
Maybe oneday CG will be used to generate virtual lovemaking machines that make a lot of money and get more attention than the CG cars, virtual characters and virtual environments generated for movies and commercials...........

Wonder why?

Actually, I think that some of us are scared to say that too is a use for and part of CG... kinda the "dark side" as some would say.

gmask
01-20-2004, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by DotPainter
Maybe oneday CG will be used to generate virtual lovemaking machines that make a lot of money and get more attention than the CG cars, virtual characters and virtual environments generated for movies and commercials...........

Wonder why?

Actually, I think that some of us are scared to say that too is a use for and part of CG... kinda the "dark side" as some would say.

Yes this will come to pass.. why is because the obsession with sex is easy to exploit and make money from.

The one good thing I could see coming from it is that at some point as the earth becomes more over populated people will need some way to deal with having sex without multiplying. I think there are also alot of people who like the idea of simply becoming a machine.. who needs bodies when you can have an avatar.

"Free range" people as it were will become obsolete..

Apparently there is a popular video game in Japan that is basically a virtual girlfriend..

DotPainter
01-20-2004, 02:02 AM
Yeah but free range is a lot better and more wholesome than that other fake stuff......

nineinchneil
01-20-2004, 03:50 AM
well said, quizboy. but once again, i used stahlberg as an example for my argument, because most people only know stahlberg for his depictions of amazonian women. it's based on the information that is spread out in this industry; and while it may not be an accurate portrait of mr. stahlberg, it is infact what he has gained a reputation in.
concerning your question, i think that if an artist wants to exhibit his work, he should be consciously aware of the things he's showing. if he's exhibiting 10 renders of sports cars every month, even though he has the ability to (and probably already has) create other forms of art, then he shouldn't be surprised when people think that car's are all this guys does. if your goal is to show your work to the world, then i do think that you're leaving it up to the public to define the parameters of your artistry; even if it isn't true.
i truly am glad to hear and see some of stahlberg's other work. i've looked up his work before, but could only find his studies of the human form. maybe i didn't look hard enough.
heck, maybe i shouldn't have used stahlberg as an example. once again, sorry steve.

Lunatique
01-20-2004, 04:26 AM
Originally posted by Quizboy


A cookie for the first person to name the artist who made this:

http://www.xinxang.com/images/horse.jpg

and this:

http://www.xinxang.com/images/count.jpg

didn't steal this from anyone's house to get it either.

Exactly. How many people would care that Steven painted those? (Do I get my cookie?)

Fasty
01-20-2004, 04:30 AM
They're beautiful! :love:

nineinchneil
01-20-2004, 05:28 AM
lunatique, you're telling me that you don't think that if these paintings that stahlberg did were given half as much 'airtime' as his voluptuous women, people wouldn't think even higher of him? the portrait of the count is freaking amazing! granted, the average person wouldn't think much of it, but i think that anybody who respects art, would admire stahlberg that much more.

RockinAkin
01-20-2004, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by Lunatique
How many people would care that Steven painted those
I dont know about you, but I certainly do care!

I must admit that felt the same way that Nineinchnails did about Stahlberg's work, being originally very impressed with the quality of his workmanship, but after a while, a bit turned off by his seeming reliance on semi nude women in provacative poses to "sell" his images. I felt that he was 1-dimentional. Now, after seeing more of his work like those paintings posted above, I realize how wrong I was to think that he was limited only to the digital women area of CG, and have newfound respect for him.

Out of curiosity, may I ask why you haven't put more paintings like those on your portfolio website?

I know you dont have to prove anything to us, but it certainly would have helped me (and I'm sure many others) to recognize your underlying talent and diversity easier.
:beer:

Quizboy
01-20-2004, 06:08 AM
Lunatique gets the cookie!:beer: (although it's a CGTalk webpage cookie...so you've already got it)

nin - it wouldn't have mattered if you used someone else other than Steven Stahlberg as an example, that's why i mentioned Soroyama. i'm just trying to suggest that you take a closer look at your argument from the flip side up. It's not Steven Stahlberg choosing his 'airtime' it's the public.

Enayla
01-20-2004, 06:09 AM
Nudity isn’t much of a big deal in Sweden.

There’s no problem with a man’s dangling crown jewels on prime time television: there’s no problem with naked girls, either, nude people as a general rule aren’t a thing to be really ashamed of. A lot of the time, my friends and I are kind of half-shocked at the censorship regarding nudity in some other countries – it just doesn’t seem ‘real’ when you’re brought up in a culture where it’s really not that much to fight about. Nor is sex, really, we’re not quite as uptight as you’d think.

Me, I’m a girl, and I have no problems with nudity, or porn, or erotica: I can’t see why I should. The sex-drive is one of the most natural things about us, and to me, it seems more ‘off’ to try to pretend it’s not there or to suppress it, than to embrace it.

That having been said, the only time I do have something of a problem with nudity, or porn, or whatever form sex or sensuality chooses to come in – is when it’s presented in a degrading manner, to either male or female. That, more than anything else, bugs me.

I see great difference in a picture where the naked person, sprawled wantonly or chastely reclining, has something in their eyes and something respectful to the way they’re depicted, and when the picture (photo, painting, 3D image, whatever) is disrespectfully and even debasingly portrayed. I find it somewhat disturbing when I see images that very clearly show the naked person as not so much a person, as an object: a dead-eyed thing ripe for the taking.

Is it just me, or isn’t one of the sexiest, most appealing things not the nakedness in itself, but the spark in the eye and the gleam of intelligence?

Surely, naked people – be they male or female – must have been portrayed since further back than the clothed ones have?

I’ll go ahead and link to a stunning image filled with people quite devoid of articles of clothing… from perhaps a time when everyone had not yet decided that the only respectful way to portray someone would be to picture them fully clothed rather than in their birthday suit:
Nymphs and Satyr (http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Nymphes_et_satyre.jpg)

There’s nothing wrong with naked bodies. It’s a pity today’s society has gone so far as to think nudity is, in some ways, by far more horrible than a man getting his brains blown out.

gmask
01-20-2004, 06:24 AM
>>Nudity isn’t much of a big deal in Sweden. There’s no problem with a man’s dangling crown jewels on prime time television:

Just out of curiosity do they show men with erections or intercourse on regular broadcast television in sweden?

Enayla
01-20-2004, 06:32 AM
Hahah, no, I don't think so.

parallax
01-20-2004, 06:57 AM
Don't make these pictures into more then they are.
It is not porn.
Although you probably won't see sexual intercourse on Dutch television (unless its educational), there's plenty of nudity.
You can't deny the existance of that, thats simply ignorant.

Calling pictures with barely naked women porn, is just plain stupid. And i know it, i;m from the country that gave us tulips, wooden shoes and paid sex.

I guess there's nothing wrong with shooting people with your assault rifle though..:shrug:

Keiyentai
01-20-2004, 07:19 AM
I agree. I dont see what the point is. They wherent Naked. If it was a Violent gory blood filled pic there would probaly 6 pages of "Yess! That kicks ass!" I think it's pointless that this subject has gone this far....none were nude...no one was hurt in the process can we drop it now?

nineinchneil
01-20-2004, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Quizboy

nin - it wouldn't have mattered if you used someone else other than Steven Stahlberg as an example, that's why i mentioned Soroyama. i'm just trying to suggest that you take a closer look at your argument from the flip side up. It's not Steven Stahlberg choosing his 'airtime' it's the public.

but that's my point. it is indeed the public that's choosing his 'airtime', and defining the parameters of his artistry.
i know sorayama not only for his erotica, but also for his amazing method of rendering chrome on canvas. he does a LOT of chrome. he's freaking great at it. but once you start seeing a bunch of his images done using chrome, you begin to ask if there's anything else this guy can do? but i'll wager that this was probably part of what he wanted to be known for; his erotica, and his ability to shade chrome better than any other painter. that's all i'm saying; an artist who puts his work out for the public to view needs to understand that the public will try and categorize him. they will take what's most appealing about his work, and file him under that subject. so it shouldn't be surprising or insulting if someone thinks that you're pidgeonholing yourself, if all they have is the very little info on your artistic abilities.
i don't think we're disagreeing with each other, quizboy. but i sure as hell am enjoying this conversation.
neil

nineinchneil
01-20-2004, 07:28 AM
. . . and one more time, for good measure. . . SORRY STEVE!!!!!!

BiTMAP
01-20-2004, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Enayla
Is it just me, or isn’t one of the sexiest, most appealing things not the nakedness in itself, but the spark in the eye and the gleam of intelligence?

There’s nothing wrong with naked bodies. It’s a pity today’s society has gone so far as to think nudity is, in some ways, by far more horrible than a man getting his brains blown out.

I'm a christian and I believe that things like sex should be saved for marriage. But I however fully agree with the terms of what your saying. Specialy what you define as the more sexualy pleaseing aspects of nudity. HOwever I see a point to "sensoring" it. I believe that it leaves it too open for men and women to be tempted into doing things that they really shouldn't be doing. but thats not something i want to fight about. I believe that we need more artists devoting time to making the character have the spark of life then just making it anotomicly correct. (alot like your work which i do love).

Atwooki
01-20-2004, 08:52 AM
BiTMAP:
I'm a christian and I believe that things like sex should be saved for marriage. But I however fully agree with the terms of what your saying. Specialy what you define as the more sexualy pleaseing aspects of nudity. HOwever I see a point to "sensoring" it. I believe that it leaves it too open for men and women to be tempted into doing things that they really shouldn't be doing. but thats not something i want to fight about. I believe that we need more artists devoting time to making the character have the spark of life then just making it anotomicly correct. (alot like your work which i do love).

Everybody has different beliefs and principles:
If your getting too hot or turned on; change channels. It's easy :)

Guilt gets in the way of so many things. I enjoy getting turned on as much by a beautiful sunset as I do by a beautiful/interesting face/body - Anatomically correct, or not.

Atwooki

Enayla
01-20-2004, 09:08 AM
HOwever I see a point to "sensoring" it. I believe that it leaves it too open for men and women to be tempted into doing things that they really shouldn't be doing.
I believe my mind is by far a more powerful tool for temptation: no images I have seen online or offline could ever compete with those my mind could conjure, without any aid. I do not think that censorship will help anyone refrain from doing something they “shouldn’t” be doing (and I’ll leave room here for what that might be, I suspect we have differing opinions :]). Quite the contrary, I believe censorship encourages curiosity, and curiosity and taboo in combination is a very powerful thing indeed.

The more forbidden and hidden something is, the more intriguing it becomes. Well, that’s what I believe, at any rate. An open-minded attitude towards the human body might instead encourage safe use of it, respect for it and affection for it. If treated decently.

And thank you very kindly for your compliment :] I don’t mean any disrespect by not agreeing with you on the censorship bit: it’s just a differing point of view and this post isn’t me trying to pick a fight with you over different opinions and religious ideals :)

Lunatique
01-20-2004, 12:35 PM
I don't know how many people feel the same way I do, but I have always found complete nakedness nowhere as interesting as the suggestion of sexual allure. There are people(men and women) with "bedroom eyes" that can seduce and temp far more effectively than someone who's just naked. The mind is the most powerful aphrodiasiac known to us.

Maybe this is why some people think that beautiful women are the hardest things to do in art--because it takes a lot in order for a drawing/painting to compete with our own imagination of the perfect feminine ideal.

gmask
01-20-2004, 03:40 PM
>>Everybody has different beliefs and principles:
If your getting too hot or turned on; change channels. It's easy :)


This may be true but after a certain point depending on where you are in the world the law steps in and you simple can't justify any imagery on this basis alone.. as per the policies for this website "It's NOT a free speech forum." it also says that CGtalk does not tolerate "- Potentially inflammatory discussions or comments regarding social issues".

There appears to be a conflict of interest.

neverthemachine
01-20-2004, 04:20 PM
Well i think that making CG chicks that are erotic brings out the beast among us. :)

And Portraying women in a more dynamic, dramatic way softens our hearts.

Its an escape.

:)

Neil
01-20-2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Lunatique
I don't know how many people feel the same way I do, but I have always found complete nakedness nowhere as interesting as the suggestion of sexual allure.

I didn't wanna contribute anymore to this thread, but i had to say i completely agree. I don't get what the craze is when these celebs show up to red carpet events with see through dresses and their breasts hanging out.
That's not really flattering for me. *cough J-LO *cough.
A classy backless dress shows enough for you to look sexy and suggest that the rest of your body is equally sexy.
Mags like Allure do a better job making women look sexy than Maxim and Playboy.

nineinchneil
01-20-2004, 05:00 PM
i second that. . .

Quizboy
01-20-2004, 05:08 PM
you know i would love to see an artist do a series of deliberately "unseductive" nudes. i'll do it myself once i feel my skills will do this justice. do perfectly anatomical, beautifully rendered men and women naked or almost completely naked and attempt to create anti-arousal through the unappeal of the pose or slouch in nature, or maybe express a powerful depressive emotion that overshadows any sexuality that anyone would try to pull out of the image.

you'd have to be really, really good to pull it off effectively though. need some time.

gmask
01-20-2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by Quizboy
you know i would love to see an artist do a series of deliberately "unseductive" nudes.

Actually this is doen quite frequently.. many WIPs here so fully nude figures in the default position which despite being more or less spread eagle is not especially seductive. Even still in one case the subject appeared to be quite young it that in itself caused an uproar because she was shown completely nude and anatomically correct.

However I think you meant something else.. I have taken many figure drawing classes and the poses are mostly unseductive... for one the model needs to be compfortable holding the pose for an extended period of time and well it would be perhaps an awkward situation for the pose to be seductive.

BoydLake
01-20-2004, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Quizboy
you know i would love to see an artist do a series of deliberately "unseductive" nudes. .....

This is done all the time.... and is nice to see.

To to pull it off though, the artist has to have something more to say than "Hehe-heheheheh...... check it out.....she's HOT....hehehe-hehehehehehe.....and NAKED .....heheh-hehehehehe."

You've swerved into something that seems to be ignored by most in this thread though. Not all nudity is Pornography and not everyone criticizing Porn has hang-ups about nudity.


The differences between porn and art should be obvious.

Stahlberg
01-21-2004, 01:46 AM
gmask wrote:
Just out of curiosity do they show men with erections or intercourse on regular broadcast television in sweden?
I saw intercourse once, on regular primetime swedish TV. It was presented as part of an article about Chiccolina or whatever her name is, but no one reacted adversely. I've also seen professional strippers strip, in our version of the Johnny Carson Show, around 7 pm.
I went to a strip club in Pat Pong in Bangkok once with my wife, my brother-in-law and his girlfriend. Wasn't my idea, can't remember whose it was. I've known families - dads and sons with their spouses - to watch porn movies together, and with no more fuss than a gory scary movie.
It's pretty much like this in all Scandinavia... most of the rest of Europe isn't much different. And Europe doesn't have more child abuse or divorce or sex crime or STD or child pregnancies or whatever than for instance the Bible Belt. Possibly less because kids would usually have a better and earlier sex education.
Not putting anyone down, just spreading information. :)

edit:
nineinchneil, thanks. I was aiming my reply mostly to you, but also to others, who in the past expressed the same opinion... guess I'm getting touchy about it. :)

DotPainter
01-21-2004, 02:58 AM
Hmmm, I don't know, but I still say that de Nile is a river in Egypt......


Deep down inside we want our artistic depiction of a woman to be the epitomy of sensuality and to come so close to perfectly representing our utmost inner ideals of feminine beauty that it comes alive. That way we can have our perfect woman fall into our arms. Something like the legend of the ancient Greek sculptor who fell in love with his greatest masterpiece and it came alive or something like that. You get my gist.

Artist: "She had that spark of sensuality and life in her eyes that has never before been captured so well in a work of art. I am in love with it!" :surprised

A virtual love goddess....... :D

gmask
01-21-2004, 04:34 PM
>>>I saw intercourse once, on regular primetime swedish TV.

It amazes me that Sweden has that high suicide rate.. what's up with that?


>>>>I've known families - dads and sons with their spouses - to watch porn movies together, and with no more fuss than a gory scary movie.

Okay that's a bit weird.. I mean maybe I have to see this movie ( as most porn isn't realy all that entertaining as far as cinema goes) but it say that it is a foreign concept.

Yes it is true that some countires have unusual or far from the norm habits.. I smirk at the idea that sweden is any kind of dipstick for the globes morales ;-)

parallax
01-21-2004, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by gmask
>>>I saw intercourse once, on regular primetime swedish TV.

It amazes me that Sweden has that high suicide rate.. what's up with that?



I may have not read the entire thread, but i really don't know what to make of that suicide remark:shrug:

gmask
01-21-2004, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by parallax
I may have not read the entire thread, but i really don't know what to make of that suicide remark:shrug:

LOL.. I only meant that just because a country has more liberal or different habits than other parts of the world doens't mean it is without it's own problems.

Loosely meaning having more sexual freedoms or fewer taboos does not neccessarily equate to longevity or happiness.. maybe it's the water.


Show of hands.. who has watched porn with their parents and how many would actually want to?

otacon
01-21-2004, 10:20 PM
Never in a million years...:surprised

wuensch
01-22-2004, 08:10 AM
dont know too much about swedish statistics, but could it be that you are mistaking it for Finland, which certainly has one of the higher suicide rates in the world (with Japan).
Imagine living in a country where the night lasts for 6 months---
Before judging a country by its suicide rate, think about that the US have a statistic rate of violent deaths caused by assault with a deadly weapon that rivals that of thirdworld countries in civil war.
Dont know if thats any better.
In the end I see in this thread a generalized and un-precise use of the term "porn".
Pin-Up, Cheesekake, Nude-studies do not equal porn.
I am pretty sure that I have not once seen real sexual oriented porn here.
btw (at least here in germany by definition: gewalt-pornography: very explicit exhibition of violence degrading the human being to an mere object for entertainment) :
violent pictures can be porn , too.
its about degrading the human being.

Oh, and one more thing often mixed together in discussion that are important when judging:

Moral:
system based on tradition, form of society and religion defining rules and norms for behaviour, that regulate human behaviour at a certain time and undergoes changes over time and society

Ethic:
universal norm and model for behaviour that deduces itself from the reponsibility towards others.

Olli

gmask
01-22-2004, 03:48 PM
>>dont know too much about swedish statistics, but could it be that you are mistaking it for Finland, which certainly has one of the higher suicide rates in the world (with Japan).

Actually depending on which age group you are referring to Sweden is #7 in the world.. germany is #10

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_sui_rat_mid_age


>>>In the end I see in this thread a generalized and un-precise use of the term "porn".
Pin-Up, Cheesekake, Nude-studies do not equal porn.
I am pretty sure that I have not once seen real sexual oriented porn here.

I don't think anyone is argueing that nude studies on there own are porn.. however I think if you are talking about erect penises that would offend more people here than a nude girl.. why is that? An erection is simply a bodily function.

If a work is overtly sexual.. showing intercourse or penetration then by the rules of the forum it should not be here.. Even masturbation is not allowed but I have seen a few studies of females where that is questionable... where the subject is grabbing their crotch or tugging at their underwear moaning exstacy. It may not be porn in your terms or by law but it's tasteless and trashy none the less.

>>>btw (at least here in germany by definition: gewalt-pornography: very explicit exhibition of violence degrading the human being to an mere object for entertainment) :
violent pictures can be porn , too. its about degrading the human being.

Perhaps then it is degrading to put black boxes over the offending body parts.. is a person a thing that can be cut into little bits as neccessary to make a point? Out of context the photograph the started this debate clearly is from a pornographic shoot.. porno reducing the humanity of the subject as a tool for sexual pleasure or titillation.

At any rate the end result of using that picture was I think not the debate that was intended.. cleary on the issue of idealised women there are many different opinions on the subject.

Currently the website is somewhat in balance.. it is not devoid of idealised women and "porno" is not allowed.

My argument would be that by and large when you see "idealised" representations of women they are nude are pratically nude and often erotic. Is the ideal women ready for sex? Is the ideal woman a sex toy .. an object?

BoydLake
01-22-2004, 04:04 PM
I consider a naked woman fondling herself porn...but hey, that's just me. That one got splashed all over this board and printed in Expose I...and still appears in advertising for Expose, so I don't accept that this board is devoid of porn.

wuensch
01-22-2004, 06:30 PM
i still think its wholly dependent on the context.
A woman fondling herself could be shown in a pornographic way or something totally different---

"My argument would be that by and large when you see "idealised" representations of women they are nude are pratically nude and often erotic. Is the ideal women ready for sex? Is the ideal woman a sex toy .. an object?"

Thats a whole differnt story---
why are women mostly portrayed erotic?(are they, or are you making the assumption that a naked woman with good proportions in default pose is already erotic?)
why are men mostly portrayed as heroes (are they?)

I know there is lots of such stuff at renderosity, but i would still consider cg-talk quite diversified in its pictures/models.
olli

gmask
01-22-2004, 07:15 PM
>>>why are women mostly portrayed erotic?(are they, or are you making the assumption that a naked woman with good proportions in default pose is already erotic?)

I've allready stated earlier that nude in default pose is not by default erotic. Although given exagerrated proportions of certain body parts you could surmise that the intention is to create a woman who might ideally sexual.

>>why are men mostly portrayed as heroes (are they?)

I see far more male villians than female ones but either way men when heros or villians are not protrayed as sexual. On the contrary a heroic man may be muscular but he's holding an axe rather than posed holding his memeber with his butt in the air.

Outisde of the CG world male leads can be older and heroic and not neccessarily muscle bound. Then there are characters like Gollum who is hideously ugly and unheroic and still very popular. I have to wonder if he were a she if he'd still be a popular character?

>>>I know there is lots of such stuff at renderosity, but i would still consider cg-talk quite diversified in its pictures/models.

No-one was comparing this site to renderosity but yes by far and large the qulaity and skill level is much higher here on average.

If the point of the CG chick article was to discuss the gender politics of the way women are represented in computer graphics then I would say that it is one sided and biased. The article serves more as a justification of the proven idea that more people click on links with the words nude women in them than anything else. You might as well say things like mob rules and might makes right.

While I feel that all three artists make good points and themselves create reasonable representations of women that they are being used to justify more purient renditions of women.

In regards to the way the article was promoted here's an anecdote..

When I was in art school there was to be night of female performance artists. The student responsible for makign the flyers thought it would be clever to use an image of "Cherry Poptart" on the flyer. Cherry is a busty comic character. However she did this without considering the artists it would be representing and many were very upset as this was not contrary to their work and beleifs but a cheap gag to grab attention.

Likewise someone I know who works in an educational institution received an email titled somethign along the lines of "The Breast Association wants you to eat out". Initially this mail appeared to be porno spam but in fact it was a invitation to a breast cancer fund raiser dinner. The receiver of the email wrote back to point out the confusing aspect of the subject and later receive a flaming email from the head of that persons department spouting things about freedom of speech and the english language etc.

wuensch
01-22-2004, 10:58 PM
hehe--- that anecdote is really funny.
Coming from a comic book background i can honestly say, that stereotypes in CG are seem like full thought out deep characters compared to what some Comic-book series namely the superheroes) call a character.
Games are mostly like comicbooks come alive.
I know there are a lot of exceptions, but yet---

In times when even world politics seem to be written by a comic-book writer, who would really critisize---
;-)
Olli

Stahlberg
01-24-2004, 03:54 PM
I smirk at the idea that sweden is any kind of dipstick for the globes morales ;-)

Does that mean you think your own country is such a dipstick? (no pun intended)

Perhaps the rest of the world should be more like Scandinavia (including Iceland), Benelux, France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy etc in this one particular little way. (Not sure about the attitudes in the rest of Europe.) Certainly better than the other extreme, seen most clearly in pre-war Afghanistan.

Let me just mention one other area where Sweden has always been a fore-runner: women's liberation. No normal and sober Swedish adult would even think of pulling a 'Cherry Poptart' stunt in the situation mentioned. Which may indicate that 'sexual liberalism' or 'immorality' or whatever you want to call it isn't so bad for women as gmask and others seem to think.

Now I guess someone will crack a joke about 'normal and sober Swedish adults being very very hard to find'... :)

johanflood
01-25-2004, 06:53 PM
some of my work was published in the Digital Beauties book from Taschen. Swedish Elle wrote that my work are a teenagers dreams. When I was younger I really liked the work by Boris Vallejo and I think he would have got the same comment. I agree that it is dreams but I think it has nothing to do with age. If you have seen the picture by boris vallejo with the man in a suit sitting in the office visualizing himself as conan surrounded by women.

TumikSmacker
01-26-2004, 01:56 AM
to know what you guys are talking about where can i see this pic that started all this? was it that bad? :shrug:

janzak
01-01-2006, 11:49 AM
>>>I saw intercourse once, on regular primetime swedish TV.

It amazes me that Sweden has that high suicide rate.. what's up with that?


Oh for God's sake, what kind of a remark is that? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_sui_rat_fem
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_sui_rat_mal
Here, the Swedish females (I suppose it's them we should look at because the common opinion is that the girls take the most damage from sexualization) are #23 on the list while males are #29. Not that it matters.

In Sweden, we have something called "freedom of speech". This means that on one side of this argument, we have people who depict nudity, masturbation or whatever - and on the other side we have those who oppose to it. This is the case in any argument in the entire world - and means that on one TV-channel there might be some show on where guys fool around naked while on another there is some debate about the entire issue. I don't feel there's a need to be forced into any one direction when it comes to what I can, want or am able to watch on TV here in Sweden.

mahir
01-01-2006, 01:24 PM
OK now this revival is almost 2 years old! Pointless?
*shuffles away*

gavin_hughes
01-01-2006, 01:32 PM
OK now this revival is almost 2 years old! Pointless?
*shuffles away*
and your pointless post is keeping it afloat...
as is mine. :rolleyes:

Leonard
01-02-2006, 04:15 AM
Hi all,

I have closed this thread as it had no responses since 2004 and was recently revived and made little sense.

Best,

Leonard