Character: (2D) In her bed (NUDITY)

[Aros]

No offense.. But this is a photo. IMO you're faking the CG.

Any reliable proof you can show us?

[Joril]

You did this with a mouse??

*drops to the ground*
:eek: :eek: :eek:

Just how much "picture" is in there?

[no2_pentarou]

This isn't a photo with paint over it, I did this from a few differents pictures, by looking at them, beside me... working over it using layers would be too easy :)

I start with a rough sketch, then fill it with base skin color. 90% of the whole work is Airbrush, Burn Tool for shadows and Dodge tool for highlights. The "night" effect was done in the end using FlamingPear's MrContrast

Used a LOT of gaussian blur too, great way to smooth all those spots you get drawing with a mouse. Airbrush-burn-dodge-blur.Repeat

Its might also be easier to work in grayscale for come parts and then color it using the "Colorize" option from Hue/Saturation. Smoother gradients that way

Parts of the BED are from an edited picture, that's all, because i wanted to concentrate on the character


[ADMIN]Removed for extremely explicit content - please censor if you wish this thread to stay open[ADMIN]

Ok there was a WIP here to show how its done, but I can't censor the whole WIP, it looks silly, so, well.. its gone :)

[Aros]

Thx for proving my point =P

[no2_pentarou]

The same technique was used here for a past project, in case you were still wondering


http://homepage.mac.com/digitalphoenix/wip/wip.html

[nanabaky]

well, excellant job oO bravo

the wip link is really good too :) added to buddies, this is a nice help to learn how to draw with photoshop ;)

[no2_pentarou]

Hey, thanks :thumbsup:

[steverage]

Looks cool, but you should use some more appropriate reference!! This is porn!! - Nothing wrong that of course.... but, as showreel material....maybe not

[no2_pentarou]

Oh no, this isn't porn...kinda (very) explicit but not porn

And this isn't showreel material either, I'm not an illustrator, I work with C4D and Maya, I did this to practice skin texture for a future project

[steverage]

But still, coulda put her in a more 'classical' pose! Yr gonna offend 50% of your audience!

[no2_pentarou]

Well sorry if I offended you, I just wanted to do something different, just for fun

Maybe I should add "explicit" in the post title ;)

[steverage]

It doesnt offend me - but some of the ladies of CGtalk might have issues!! And DEFFO put nudity on the title - kids check this place too m8!

[lildragon]

To avoid this from being removed, I think you should censor the fact that she's masturbating, this is extremely explicit. And if you don't censor it, it WILL be removed very shortly.

This is porn man

-lil

[steverage]

Et voilá - told you man - this isnt art as far as I see it...You should use your talents more creatively - porn is an easy way out

[no2_pentarou]

Here you go, the "new" title should give everyone a better understanding of what's inside the thread.

I didn't think about that at all before posting, maybe because there's too much porn/explicit stuff/nudity everywhere on the web

[steverage]

true, but this is a site about art and creativity - people dont come here expecting to see a woman masturbating - yr a good artist - drape something over her lap...

[bramley1]

lol - theres gonna be a fight soon

firstly - great piece of work - i love it (not cos shes wanking) - but its good work.

But i have to agree - it might get stopped for being explciit - maybe cover her muff up - and put a link to the full pic for adults only etc

[no2_pentarou]

Ok then gimme a minute to do that

Should I censor the WIP too?

[steverage]

Im not trying to get into an argument, I like it i just think its a bit extreme - to quote Maud Flanders:

"wont somebody purhlease think of the children!"

[no2_pentarou]

New pix is up, sorry about that everyone :)

Problem is, if you add "nudity" those who should NOT go there... well... they click on it even faster to see it... and if you DONT add "nudity" then more people might get offended :)

Maybe there's should be a place on cgtalk for erotic arts (not porn of course)

[Joril]

Prudish aren't we?

[no2_pentarou]

Is that ok?

New Pix (http://homepage.mac.com/digitalphoenix/dessin5.jpg)

[coupon]

didn't see it before, but now it's just scary, that's not motion blur is it?:p

[no2_pentarou]

Motion blur? LOL

Yeah it ruins the whole pix but it's better than being kicked out for indecend behavior ;)

[Wiro]

Joril: I was wondering how long it would take for someone to critisize Lildragon for being too prudent. I think he did the right thing. We don't want the galleries swamped with porn under the cover of art.

no2_pentarou: Man, you just destroyed your own picture there! Instead of blurring it all to hell. why not just place something in the foreground? Or a sheet over it? Or if you can't be bothered, a black square.
What subjects people chose to depict is up to them of course but I really can't think of any other reason to paint porn than for the shock effect (And that seemed to work here). There are far more tasteful ways of showing the female nude.

Eeeemhoe of course

Wiro

[steverage]

I am not prudish - I just dont think this is the place for that kind of image. Sure theres porn all over the net but this is a site for artists. Its the fact she has her finger *in* her!! Would you like explaining that to yr kid?! It would have been just as easy to place her hand on her stomach...

[no2_pentarou]

Lildragon isnt too prudent, as a moderator, that was the right thing to do :thumbsup:


And yeah, a black square is much better

New "new" Pix (http://homepage.mac.com/digitalphoenix/dessin5.jpg)

[no2_pentarou]

This is almost funny, while reading the first replies I got, I really told myself that the whole thread was gonna be about fake pictures or suspicions about my work and so on bla bla bla :)

Next time I'll post something "normal", you know... with.... clothes.... ;)

[Joril]

Originally posted by Wiro
Joril: I was wondering how long it would take for someone to critisize Lildragon for being too prudent. I think he did the right thing. We don't want the galleries swamped with porn under the cover of art.


I knew I'd get a comment for my statement. ;)
Some balance is always in order, right?
I'm no mod, so I don't speak for the "common good".

no2_pentarou: why don't you work in a cover-up sheet, if you have the time, the black square looks so... obstrusive(is that a word?)

[no2_pentarou]

Joril: I don't really want to add elements to cover it up... I worked all week on it and I did it like this on purpose. I drew it for me, so, sure I can censor it for posting but i don't want to change the look of it.

I know that would be a lot better to look at than a black square...

I don't know, maybe if I have some free time to do it, but I would prefer to draw something different...

[Angelus26]

Great 2D skills there, wish I could draw that good, don't see the big deal with the content either, I mean isn't stuff like this more unpleasent/damaging to kids...

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=49953

or

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=53674

Not that I really care, but it's funny what's considered obscene and what's not, I didn't think this picture was distasteful. It's like it's ok to watch people being blown to bits on the news but look out, some girl enjoying herself!

Not that I'm saying we should all get nekkid, but just think society's norms are funny.

[CGmonkey]

No big deal? I mean.. porn don't belong here dude :] Seriously, there are forums for that kind of art.

I didn't see the art myself though.

[no2_pentarou]

Angelus26: Yeah that's funny... gruesome gore and violence is accepted everywhere but mild nudity or sex (oh no!) is a big no-no

I guess it would have been better is she was killing someone with a chainsaw with blood splattered everywhere than just enjoying herself

[three]

I'm totally with no2 and angelus here. It's totally screwed up.
I would much more prefer to explain to my kids that she is enjoying herself and that it's a totally natural act of human kind, than have to explain to them why some stupid mother****er is filling another MF with lead.
I would rather have my kids watching pornos than watching the news on CNN right now.

And regarding the "oh, the girls might get offended"... why? That's ridiculous, why would girls get more offended by that than us guys?
Lay it off.
And I think it's a disgrace that he had to censor his art like this. Art is free, and this WAS art, now it's "the piece formally known as art" (with a black square).

Sorry for the rant, but I'm getting fed up with censorship in art (be it music or painted/CG'ed).
And NO, it's NOT a rant against any mod at all, just a batallion of words against the world of cencorship of naturalism and extrusion of war/massacre.

And no2_pentarou, maybe you should put a skirt on her, sunglasses and blood and splatter all over her face, and make her look really horny.
That's what most people like these days, at least it seems.

:beer:

[no2_pentarou]

" And no2_pentarou, maybe you should put a skirt on her, sunglasses and blood and splatter all over her face, and make her look really horny.
That's what most people like these days, at least it seems."


Yeah! :scream: :scream:

Naaa

;)

[three]

haha, too bad dude ;)

my luck that you took it for the joke it was :D

[no2_pentarou]

three: is that what you want, only with sunglasses and blood everywhere? :applause:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_1/images/music-britney-spears.jpg

[SpaceFork]

LOL, Id like to see that one with sunglasses and blood splatter for sure!

[no2_pentarou]

I won't draw britney, that's for sure, even with blood & gore :eek:

hehehe

[jrockstar]

Hmm this is a very nice drawing
The shadows are very realistic and the expression on her face ... great work!

If I should give it some criticism it would be for the contrast being a little high to my taste. That’s all ... ;)

It's kind of sad that so much people could only rate this image on the "vulgarity" scale. :hmm:

[xynaria]

Your 2D skills are somewhat amazing... but on a critique level I'd say you're losing the form a bit especially above the chest towards the collar bone and the thighs look a bit 'soggy' (no pun intended.. can't think of another word at the mo). 'Contextually er, why?, but then again why not I suppose.
In another thread people are talking about CG and *cough* 'art' and posing that perhaps cg is not taken as 'seriously' as it might be in comparison to traditional media. Perhaps one of the reasons is that as in 'the outside world' there is a very large problem on this board with peoples attitude. There seems to be an almost blank refusal to allow anything refering back to areas of life where disagreement may occur. 'Art' is part of life and as such sometimes, if even in a manner some might term crass, it is going to acheive it's dynamic by referencing those things whether they be sexual, 'political' or whatever in nature. I can understand that with a main focus here of being a graphics board that maybe some feel that areas where contention might arise should not be encouraged, but at the mo it's in danger of getting so sanitised as to be farcical. People, including the young masturabate, they even know that there's a war on and that it might have 'issues'. Things such as this inevitably feed through into peoples work but are not being seen through in their implications in critiques but censored. Perhaps it's time that a seperate gallery was made for work that can't be seen as ineffectual? because in the traditional world the kind of censorship going on here would be considered totally ludicrous. At worst the attitude would possibly be.. oh, girl having a wank, oh quite well drawn but yawn. :)

[twitchy]

didnt see the original pic, but this is awsome. very talented indeed. maybe if she was wearing underwear or something it wouldnt be conidered porn (would it?)

[Carnifex]

What bothers me more than anything in this thread ( and it's not the picture) is how some people are incredibly quick to dismiss this as not being art. What an incredibly pompous and narrowminded attitude to show towards what is undeniably art. He created it, and it's art. Regardless of the subject matter.
Like a couple of people here have mentioned there is something seriously wrong in a society where violence is considered more acceptable than sex, an act that is arguably one of the most natural and benign things a person can do.
Oh my god! She's masturbating!!! Oh the horror, the humanity, the indecency! Well, I would never...I mean...You can't just...Well, that's just...Totally...Totally...Totally something whatever it is.

Get over it. It's not like you haven't done that yourself and if you claim you haven't then you're either lying or the unfortunate sufferer of some rather severe psychological issues.

This is art in a way, that pigs rotting in a fishtank can never be.

No2, good job on this one. Looks great and I wish I had a chance to see it before you felt you had to mutilate your piece with censorship.

[Aneks]

Not to add fuel to the fire of this whole thing but ...

This has become quite a good discussion on what is obsecene and what isn't. I look on this boards quite a lot and see huge ammounts of violence and the horror and juvenille (sic) imagery. This is much more offensive to me than nudity or explicit sexuality.

I agree that lil Dragon was doing the right thing when he warned you. these forums are not open to anything there are clearly indicated rules. That said no artist should fear censorship of any kind. A dedicated thread might be the best way to sort this out. Just keep all the stuff that the more sensative viewers might balk at there.

REMEBER
Erotica is not porn. One challenges and titlates the other merely stimualtes.

I have done jobs in which the material is offensive to me on a personal or political level ie adds for companies who have are owned by evil multinationals. I don't really know how I fell about this deep down ?!?!?

:shrug:

To me mediocrity is the only true form of obscenity

--------------------------------
aneks
maya/shake/inferno

[Vash T Stampede]

Very good! Excellent work With the coulours!



By the way where can I get an Uncencored Version??:scream:

[insanelight]

I want see it not censured ! :bounce:

[addicted2art]

This is obscene.... if the subject is a male, I am sure no one care less how good the 2d skill is, this thread would have been locked and closed long ago....

[Rivendale]

I think you did a great job on the skin and making it seem translucent, good work.

This is obscene.... if the subject is a male, I am sure no one care less how good the 2d skill is, this thread would have been locked and closed long ago....

hehe, that's probably true. Tells you somthing about the way we look upon sexuality, and art.

I don't think there's anything obscene with the image, everythng about it makes me feel good, and there's nothing wrong with feeling good is it?

[Creature]

Am I the only one who thinks that the area 'round her belly is way too thin? Or maybe I'm the only one who drew his eyes way from the more explicit parts of the image :D

[xynaria]

Originally posted by addicted2art
This is obscene....


er.. does this mean that you feel depraved and corrupted by it, as defined in the dictionary.. if so then that is a little worrying. :)

[gaggle]

Ontopic:
Beautiful. I think on the technical side of things she gets pretty blurred in some places.. maybe the room is really damp? :) I find it amazing, borderlining on the "I don't belive that's true", that you've drawn it using just a mouse.

But anyway, yeah, I think it's a pretty image.

I haven't seen the full image, uncensored and all, so I don't neccessairly know how the whole thing plays out. Clearly it's pretty darn explicit, and while I leave it up to you to make it as you see fit, I think you could consider what kind of statement it is you're making. Explicit erotic images can be very pretty just the same when not so explicit, for example by covering her slightly up, a leg obscuring the view, etc. You would essentially be sending the same message.. or, rather, I for one would see the same example of human vulnerability and tenderness.. maybe even moreso, because you would be leaving just a tiny bit up to the imagination. Just my thought on the matter, you've made it clear covering her up wasn't your intention so I'm not saying you should now. Just something that could be interesting to consider for your next image I think :)


Offtopic:
I don't have access to the rules of this board atm, but I got to pondering if perhaps it could be considered to add a field to topics that defines if they contain content only people who want to see can see? Your profile would hold your age and a password-protected area for defining if you want to filter out certain erotic or violent topics, and when you go to create a topic there'd be a little checkbox that would lock it from users not allowed to see such content.

I think as it is CGTalk has to reserve the right to do some amount of censoring, if for nothing else than the fact that children are exposed to the content as well. But at the same time I find it incredibly annoying that I can't, if I choose to, see the image uncensored. no2_pentarou's hompage is apparently down atm, so that path isn't even available.

Leave the choice for uncensored topics up to the user?

[slaughters]

no2_pentarou has all ready stated lildragon did the right thing by asking to censor the image.

I do agree with addicted2art that if this had been an image of a man masterbating in bed there probably have been many fewer people claiming it was Erotica and not Porn.

I also noticed that the area around the stomache looked a little too thin as well. The right shoulder and arm look a little strange also as it disappears behind the breast. Sort of too rounded. The upper lip looks just a little too fat/wide at its peak as well. Maybe the teeth just need to be moved up a little.

This is one reason why Porn'ish images are kind of a cheat. The shock value tends to draw peoples eyes away to specific areas and reduces critiques of the actual image to critques of the images content.

[Wiro]

It's not a question wether it's art or not. It's a question of approprietness and this kind of art is not appropriate to these forums. If you put up a billboard of someone masturbating in the middle of Times Square, it'll be taken down no matter how loudly you complain about a "free world", "it's art" or "how we all wank anyway". Just accept it and find a board where you CAN post or find pics like these if it really is so important to you.

"You" being plural for those that think the uncensored picture had it's place here, not aimed at any single persons.

Wiro

[three]

no2, haha :D that Britney image would probably get sent to heaven if you just would splatter some dirt on her cheeks and ofcourse blood. Maybe you should also put a spear in her hands, over the lap or something... that would probably be popular.

I guess that all art is not as appreciated here as I thought, but hey, there's probably somewhere else where you could put images like this and get a "yawn" and some crits.
Besides, I can't think of a better place for "traditional" art than here.
Love you CGTalk, but ****ing hate your censorship.

:beer:

[Vash T Stampede]

Mh, Lots of anti-Nuuuudism here, Ok let me try and resolve this..

no2_pentarou why did you choose to draw the girl in this "position" was if from an example? or just intended it to be this way?

I have no objection to the picture, mostly because of the way I look at it, the way it has been drawed, coloured etc...
The fact that it is a nude girl does not alter my judgement on the picture. ( though it is nice to look at :p )

[xynaria]

Originally posted by Wiro
It's not a question wether it's art or not. It's a question of approprietness and this kind of art is not appropriate to these forums. If you put up a billboard of someone masturbating in the middle of Times Square, it'll be taken down no matter how loudly you complain about a "free world", "it's art" or "how we all wank anyway". Just accept it and find a board where you CAN post or find pics like these if it really is so important to you.

"You" being plural for those that think the uncensored picture had it's place here, not aimed at any single persons.

Wiro

Myself I don't think the Times Square comparison is really apt Wiro, surely one could more liken this to an art gallery..not a public advertising hoarding..... no?.. in which case there wouldn't be many problems given that the 'general public' were forewarned that they might find some images offensive.
While *cough* 'common sense' would say this wasn't gonna go any way here other than the way it's gone, there's been a lot of hullaballlo at times over images just because the anatomy included a penis. Okay the board has its right to determine its own criteria but isn't it getting just a tad silly when, someone can't post things that might provoke any sort of appraisal of personal values, as in the locking of the Iraq piece. Surely dealing with any of these issues in this way is often counter productive. As it stands Egon Schiele wouldn't be able to show some of his work here, neither would Picasso, possibly Goya, Aubrey Beardsley, maybe even Heironymous Bosch, to name but a few. :)

[Edouard]

Your a great artist; but if you make a new drawing try to make it erotic and not "too porn".

I hope you will make some more erotic pictures in the future.
:thumbsup:

[squidinc]

if you want to compare this to something lets compare it to a magazine, 3d world for example. a magazine thats aimed at everyone that has an interest in 3D....you'd never find a page thats says "don't turn the page, theres a girl playing with herself", there are seperate magazines for that kind of thing so why not post this elsewhere on a forum thats suited to this kind of image, this forum as I see it is for suitable artwork, naked women fine :thumbsup: but naked chicks fingering themselves is just porn ( even though its technically brilliant )

[Widler]

You could probably add Brom to that as well XYNaria.
Anyway though..until CGtalk has a locked off
"explicit area" posting artwork of this nature
of coarse is gonna cause a big fight and
not to mention a waste of time arguing over
weather it should or shouldn't be on here.

I have sat through way to many art classes
and none of the naked models were masterbating!

My point being is that sure it's great to make this
artwork, just be ready to spend some of your time
arguing about it.

...and yeah i think the stomach is too thin as well.
great piece though.

[Creature]

Originally posted by Widler

I have sat through way to many art classes
and none of the naked models were masterbating!


Too bad, isn't it :D

[no2_pentarou]

Oh thanks for all the comments, i'll try to answer everyone...

[no2_pentarou]

Carnifex: I don't know if I can put a LINK (not the image directly, for those who want to see it... Any moderator reading this? Can I?

Vash T Stampede: Thanks a lot

Creature: A few people said to me that the belly area was too thin, but most of them hadn't noticed that the pillow she has underneat her is hiding part of her body

slaughters: I said lildragon did the right thing about the censor BECAUSE of his "job" as a moderator, not because I really agree to censor my drawing for everyone

Vash T Stampede: yeah I intended it to be that way, all the way from the beginning, for fun, to do something different from my previous works

Edouard: I sure will do :thumbsup:

[Widler]

Yeah maybe your right maybe the pillow is hiding the
rest of her stomach, anyway it still looks a weird to me,
then again alot of stomachs do look strange. (HEH!)

Sorry prolly nit picking here! (i hate that)

[no2_pentarou]

It is easier to see with the lights on
(without most of the shadows)

http://homepage.mac.com/digitalphoenix/pillow.jpg

[M.Rogne]

:eek:

[slaughters]

Am I the only one then that thinks the right shoulder and upper lip look weird too?

[thecut]

Well, i just want to say it's a good 2D.

I am just disgusted. In the world we live at last with war and blood everywhere, you're not
capable of recognise the beauties things !

disgusted about the lack of free visual expression.

You are some artists, an artist don't shock himself, he shock !


Good luck no2_pentarou and continuous, you're traveling on the right way !!



:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[no2_pentarou]

slaughters: yeah the right shoulder SUCKS, i'll try better next time (or fix it if I have time to do so)


thecut: thanks! :buttrock:

[Matt]

Originally posted by lildragon
To avoid this from being removed, I think you should censor the fact that she's masturbating, this is extremely explicit. And if you don't censor it, it WILL be removed very shortly.

This is porn man

-lil

what you say? couldn't hear you over that noise...

FAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAP

lmao

[lildragon]

Was there something I said that you didn't like Matt?

-lil

[no2_pentarou]

all this mess for ONE finger, lol
:p :p

[TES]

can you give some link to the uncensored picture?I wanna to see it whole.....without that stupid black rectalange place.....

[no2_pentarou]

I don't know if I can post a link to the original image, i've asked moderators about this but I didnt get an answer yet (just a link, not an embedded image)

[no2_pentarou]

Original pic

Warning, DONT click here if you don't want to (http://homepage.mac.com/digitalphoenix/dessin5x.jpg)

[nanabaky]

I understand and agree with the moderators who need to preserve the integrity of this excellant forum. Some peolpe feel offensed and can't (or don't want to) see any part of this nice drawing but only ONE.

However, thanks for posting this link back. It preserves your Art and the whole forum.

(Maybe you'd better draw toons or ugly bloody warriors, this will probably not be censured... :p :p :p )

[no2_pentarou]

"Maybe you'd better draw toons or ugly bloody warriors"


How about some ugly bloody NAKED warrior on his bed?


:eek: :eek: :eek:

No.

:applause:

[ndog]

no2_pentarou, thanks for posting the link to the unedited version. Did you say there was a WIP for this drawing?

[no2_pentarou]

Yeah, there was a very simple wip for this, but it doesnt show a lot because I didnt do it while I was working. Its mostly ON/OFF for some layers of the final drawing, mostly lightning. HERE (http://homepage.mac.com/digitalphoenix/dessin5wip.jpg) & HERE (another project but same technique) (http://homepage.mac.com/digitalphoenix/wip/wip.html)

[jERiCHO DARQUA]

Originally posted by steverage
It doesnt offend me - but some of the ladies of CGtalk might have issues!! And DEFFO put nudity on the title - kids check this place too m8!
Hey, i think some threads filled with violence are much worse than this. Violence is bad for childs, not this.

Perhaps it would be good to censor all weapns and warpics?
I think its just time for someone to draw a masturbating man^^.

At Pantarou: good Job anyway:beer:

[xynaria]

ROFLMAO The black square actually makes it look rather sordid and far more agressive than it actually is. :)

Have any women replied to this thread and if so..did they feel offended?

[no2_pentarou]

The Return of The Evil Agressive Black Square™

[iBlue]

why would you waist such talent on something that for all intensive purposes, belongs on a porn site.

In the case of art, an erotic painting can be quiet cool, but the line between an erotic style and flat out porn is pretty blatant. When it comes to good art, showing less is more.

I hope to see something tasteful by you next time. :hmm:

[Widler]

Origional quote from Iblue

When it comes to good art, showing less is more.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah i totally agree, + i think it's kind of a cop out to
say that having a black cube over the genital area
ruins the art or takes away from the art.

I mean even with the censorship their we obviously
know what's going on, and further if it wasn't
censored would us "artists" be critiqing the lines
describing the vagina? I highly doubt it.

I don't care if it's censored...and i certainly wouldn't
be raving about this site if it weren't censored.

That's just dumb, i'd go check out porn.

Oh yeah , sorry if anyone already mentioned this in
the thread but, if the girl wasn't wanking it, but was
just lying their naked, would that be censored?

Sorry end of rant.(cranky...nothing personal)

[moroten]

Originally posted by iBlue
When it comes to good art, showing less is more.

I hope to see something tasteful by you next time. :hmm:

So in your opinion Jeff Koons and Robert Mapplethorpe are bad artists since they "show more"? A lot of the CG obsession and sickening indulgence in war and violence are a lot more tasteless than this and depicted with immense detail, thus with your logic effectively disqualifying themselves as "good art". But hey, these are still times where sex is bad and war is good, at least in some parts of the world.

Let me supply the discussion with a link to a great artist who definitively showed a lot more than could be asked for: http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/

Peace
-Daniel

[no2_pentarou]

"Oh yeah , sorry if anyone already mentioned this in the thread but, if the girl wasn't wanking it, but was just lying their naked, would that be censored?"

Widler: Good point you have here, looks like there's only one finger who draws the borderline between graceful but explicit erotica and disgusting Oh-My-God-Porn...
This isnt' porn... porn is... well... you probably all get tons of porn spam by email each day so...

[jERiCHO DARQUA]

whats about H.R.GIGER? Is his work porn?

[Vash T Stampede]

After seeing the unsencored pic, I have to say it is indeed a good drawing, It isn't even that Obscene..

:beer:

[no2_pentarou]

"whats about H.R.GIGER? Is his work porn?"

don't know, but he's talented, that's for sure :thumbsup:

[Widler]

Sorry Moroten!

I guess i shouldn't be posting when i'm this tired i wouldn't
want to state something i didn't believe in. But artwork can
be so subjective you know.

To clarify, i think the less is more thing applies to the nude
masterbating women art personally. Not to say that he
shouldn't show the master act so graphically, but i think
dealing with the content of the pic, it can't be telling too
much of a story.
(I'm not knocking it though, i love it.)

But i'm sure in other cases more is more can also work out.
We should all know that as artists, it's called composition.
Well that's the way i think of it anyways. You gotta decide
what you want and what you don't want in your work.

Sorry I'm not going to blab on this thread anymore.

Escher of corse is all about illusion of angles and
geometry so of coarse his stuff is gonna be busy.

Anyway sorry if this has gotten off topic.

[jERiCHO DARQUA]

and this? Done by naval lint? is this Porn? (excellent style, b.t.w.)

[Timon]

it is not a photo , so i dont think its porn.

[jERiCHO DARQUA]

I think we have to ask another question:
Could Porn be Art?
Well, i think ive posted enough on this today^^

[iBlue]

@jERiCHO DARQUA:

Your comparing abstract art to realism... thus, your argument is flawed and dismissable.

@no2_pentarou

Your right, the fact that she was masturbating does cross the line. If she wasnt but just laying naked, even with her vagina visible, i would see no problem with it.

I hope your next work is in good taste, your very talented. :)

[Angelus26]

Your right, the fact that she was masturbating does cross the line. If she wasnt but just laying naked, even with her vagina visible, i would see no problem with it.

I hope your next work is in good taste, your very talented.

Why do you consider an image that shows sex/self love to be in poor taste?

Do you see sex as something bad/cheap/distasteful?

[iBlue]

Is porn bad taste? Is it aired on TV next to the simpsons? Would you let your kids watch it with you? How about show it in elementary schools? Or would you let your inlaws see your collection? Would even watch it in church? In front of yoru parents?

Is it bad taste? come on.

How i see sex and how i see art is like comparing apples and oranges. I see them as they are, two seperate entities

[Angelus26]

Okay, here's the current image on the front page: So the girl is censored and distasteful, the artist told to 'do better' but this is what??? No complaints here???

What does that say about our society?

It's this attitude, not the picture of the girl that I find perverted.

http://members.shaw.ca/dmandryk/Assets/Images/portfolio%20images/The_Rotter_lowrez.jpg

[Wiro]

I've started to see the light now. We should all post porn to these galleries. All of our collections. You know, just to be politically incorrect and opinionated and show we are against the grain and all. No really!!

Wiro

[iBlue]

That picture represents Human nature. I see nothing perverted about the genetic encoding of our people and how we came to be the dominent species on this planet.

You dont like being dominent in the food chain? Do yourself a favor and go and get killed by a bear.

The fact that you find the human instict to 1) invent and 2) compete perveted, is strange. You act like we arent animals!

ps.
Dont bring religion in this. (I can already see your reply :rolleyes: )

[no2_pentarou]

feel free to give some TECHNICAL comments about the drawing when you're all done with this apparently endless debate, that's all I wanted. this is an interesting thread lol

[squidinc]

I don't think thats a girl, it doesn't even look human

[iBlue]

Originally posted by no2_pentarou
feel free to give some TECHNICAL comments about the drawing when you're all done with this apparently endless debate, that's all I wanted. this is an interesting thread lol

No crits on the art itself just the subject it addresses, your work is amazing :thumbsup:

[lildragon]

Originally posted by iBlue
Human nature. I see nothing perverted about the genetic encoding of our species and how we came to be the dominent species on this planet.

Ok I'm not going to say much here because I'll say something quite harsh. So Leigh is going to handle this. But in my nicest voice I'll say this.

At your workplace do me a favor and put up porn sites and wallpapers on your computer, call your boss over and say oh look at this. And see what happens. Matter of fact, go give kids porn material and tell their parents it's all fine and dandy, and see which side of the jail cell bars you'll be standing. This thread will be handled by Leigh I'm out

-lil

[no2_pentarou]

I probably got "only" a 2 stars rating because of those who voted on the subject they were offended by intead of the drawing itself, I guess... :rolleyes:

[iBlue]

Originally posted by lildragon
Ok I'm not going to say much here because I'll say something quite harsh. So Leigh is going to handle this. But in my nicest voice I'll say this.

-lil

please scroll up and read my response on porn lildragon, your replying to my response on war.

[leigh]

Okay, I have just waded through all seven pages of this thread.
I have also seen the original uncensored image.

Now, I am going to give my perspective on this, which I think will be the first female comment in this thread.

Now, I am EXTREMELY liberal. I am not in any way prude or shy of things of a sexual nature.

However, I find this image to be totally unsuitable for this forum. As far as I am concerned, it is pornographic, and it is obviously offensive to many people who have looked at it. I would define any depiction of a sexual act as pornographic, and since the subject in this image is clearly masturbating, it is pornographic in my opinion, and in the opinions of many others here too.

I don't think it's a debate as to whether or not it is art, I think the important thing to focus on here is whether it is tasteful or not, and consequently, whether it is suitable for CG Talk.
And in this case, I do not think that this image is particularly tasteful.

Let us look at the subject. It is a person masturbating. How would you all have responded if it was a picture of a man masturbating? I very much doubt that the image would have lasted very long here.
But because it's female, some of you have tolerated it. And if we are going to tolerate this, then it means that we will have to tolerate images of men masturbating too. Would you like that? I think not.

It's not simply a matter of putting "Warning: Nudity" in the title either. The fact is that you are posting images that are potentially offensive to many people, whether you have warned them or not is irrelevant.

Furthermore, if we allow pictures like this on CG Talk, then what will be next? Pictures of people having sex?

I certainly think that subject matter such as this is not suitable for this forum. There is nothing wrong with artwork depicting nudity, but the moment the image portrays an actual sexual act, it has gone over the boundary.

What it comes down to, is that we don't want pictures of people wanking on CG Talk. Enough said.

All that aside, I actually think this is nothing more than a doctored photograph anyway.

[no2_pentarou]

This is NOT a doctored photograph, i've been using photoshop for years now, that would be very lame to do so

[iBlue]

well said leigh :D

But yea, he did draw it (at least i hope so) :)

[Wiro]

Originally posted by Angelus26
[B]Okay, here's the current image on the front page: So the girl is censored and distasteful, the artist told to 'do better' but this is what??? No complaints here???
What does that say about our society?
It's this attitude, not the picture of the girl that I find perverted.


Perverted or not, it would be greatly appreciated if this discussion could continue without trying to discredit other artists work. We are discussing no2_pentarou's piece here. Protect the innocent!

Thanks

Wiro

[Angelus26]

I wasn't talking about that piece, by perverted I meant IBlue's attitude of 'War is cool, Sex is not'.

IBlue, look, I really don't care much either way at the end of the day, I can fully understand why the picture got censored owing to the circumstances, but on the matter of principle I find the 'sex is bad' attitude of yours and some other forumers funny, if someone did make some CG images of people having sex would that really have been so bad? A picture that dealt with the very forces and energies that create life? What for most people is probably the most fun you can have alive. Why is that so wrong and hush-hush here?

But ya know, whateva, bring on the next big guns pic.

[Wiro]

Originally posted by Angelus26
But ya know, whateva, bring on the next big guns pic.

Well, showing a picture with a person and a gun would I guess be equivalent to a person standing naked showing his or her sex. No problem with that! We've had that before and it's not been censored as far as I know.

A person firing the gun and blasting the brains out of another person, gore and all would be equivalent to someone masturbating or having explicit sex. Wether or not they get cencored depends on how it's shown.

So yeah, bring on the guns. And naked chicks (or guys)

Wiro

[iBlue]

Originally posted by Angelus26
I wasn't talking about that piece, by perverted I meant IBlue's attitude of 'War is cool, Sex is not'.

Someone needs to learn to read.

a) war is not "good" its human nature
b) sex is not "bad" its also human nature.
c) Art is not porn and vise versa

What part of this are you not getting? because if it needs to be written in big, bold, flashing letters... i can arrange this. :rolleyes:

[edit: My thoughts exactly Wiro :bounce: ]

[McC]

no2: Very excellent piece. Your skills in Photoshop are well beyond mine, and I commend your excellent work.

The lot of ya: ROFL! You guys are hilarious ;) :applause: This is by no means porn. And I'd think the same thing if it were a guy, too. I probably wouldn't be as inclined to look at the picture, but that doesn't detract from the fact that no2 is an extremely skilled Photoshop artist. It also doesn't take away from the fact that he chose to depict a realistic, common scene -- it's practically a standard genre scene, no more uncommon in reality than someone driving a car. I guess depicting real life is a crime now, huh? Offending people's "sensibilities" is a crime? Interesting...I wonder what the various great painters throughout history who challenged public sensibilities would say to that. Most of them met the same kind of revulsion at first, and are now among the most well-respected artists in the world (numerous examples of such works spring to mind from the MFA, which is just a block down the street from me). The desire to be PC is getting to be ridiculous.

[three]

I would have no problems with watching a picture of a guy wanking.
Equally sexy and erotic.
But pornographic... hum, can't agree.

This discussion, for my part, is from now on closed.

no2, I really do commend you to your skills. I would be happy to be half as good as you.
:beer:
keep it up, and PM me if you've got something new to show.
:thumbsup:

[xynaria]

Originally posted by Leigh

However, I find this image to be totally unsuitable for this forum. As far as I am concerned, it is pornographic, and it is obviously offensive to many people who have looked at it. I would define any depiction of a sexual act as pornographic, and since the subject in this image is clearly masturbating, it is pornographic in my opinion, and in the opinions of many others here too.



Firstly I think Wiro has used the best description here of this image... 'inappropiate' ...and though it might not seem so, I can agree to a large extent on that, even though personally I am totally against any kind of censorship. What bothers me more is some of the arguments used to say why it might be deemed inappropiate. To me common sense would dictate that if you put up a picture of someone wanking on a public forum you are gonna get it 'censored' in one form or another or asked to be removed. However.. the public forum is also an 'art forum' and as such in theory leaves itself open to any kind of depiction that refers back into life or the imagination. That then creates a bit of a paradox in that as such anything should be fair game whether it is '2 aeroplanes out for a jolly afternoons dogfighting' or 'girl thinking of something onatistic'. I suppose it's very much down on a 'moral' level as to what peoples interest or thresholds are, but on here it is down to whatever criteria CG Talk deem as acceptable for this board and as such I think its time that was clarified and the 'Read before you post' ammended. To be honest my biggest beef with CGTalk is it's locking of the 2D Iraq post.. that is censorship that I can find no excuse for, heavy moderation..yes but locking .. no because it affects each and every one of us and such a piece had far more of a dynamic than most that was effectively castrated.

Geeting back to the quote from Leigh..
please re read what you have written because quite frankly it appears somewhat inane. "I would define any depiction of a sexual act as pornographic,"
By that *cough* 'definition' then there is an awful lot of quite mainstream television and cinema that is 'pornographic'. !!!!!!!!! Glad you aren't running the courts. :rolleyes:
Pornography as a concept didn't exist till the Victorians invented or rather 'appropiated' it. Today in reality it has no real 'meaning', if it ever really had, as it has been abused and 'devalued' to such an extent. Dictionaries tend to articulate it as having the intention to deprave and corrupt. Might I be congenitally niave but I have no understanding of what to deprave is and to corrupt in that context seems a little open to question. OK that's semantics but they are the only (often inarticulate) vehicle here for conveying our thoughts. It would proably better to use a less inarticulate language to descibe things whether that be 'girls having a sexually stimulating time together' or '4 people seeming to find pleasure in cramming whatever they can into any available orifice', at least then it would be calmly descriptive rather than battered by an half assed psuedo moral overload. :)

[Stillwell]

Originally posted by Leigh
All that aside, I actually think this is nothing more than a doctored photograph anyway. [/B]

That's not very nice of you Leigh.

[Gunnah]

I don't usually post much, but this one was to hard to pass up :)

#1
"c) Art is not porn and vise versa"

it's only really pr0n if he *intended* to stimulate sexual excitement.

#2
He asked for crits on the artwork, not the *subject* matter

#3 I *DO* agree there should be 'explicit content' warnings on artwork like this, or have an adult warning like they do on gfxartist.

#4
" I would define any depiction of a sexual act as pornographic"

Oh come on now :) That's a lil over edge, isn't it.....(define: orcasmic ) :)



It's been interesting to see how a discussion can be formed from peoples personal 'opinions' on what is pr0n (or isnt, for that matter), from a request for some critiques. Fascinating thread.

G

[lildragon]

This ends now, if anyone has any beef with it, take it up with me.

YOU ALL HIT THE AGREE BUTTON WHEN YOU SIGNED UP TO CGTALK RIGHT? THEN ABIDE BY THE RULES AND IF NOT LEAVE SIMPLE AS THAT

By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

This ends now. Fact remains it was explicit, he censored it, now comment on the art.

salud

[no2_pentarou]

Thanks for all of you who gave me some comments on my work, instead of concentrating on the whole social/moral issue, which differs a lot from people to people. Its just a matter of opinion. :thumbsup:

"This ends now. Fact remains it was explicit, he censored it, now comment on the art."
Thanks lildragon

[MacGyver]

Why is that no2's work gets criticised, but something like this doesn't:

http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=53846

[iBlue]

thats abstract art and isnt sexually explicit :rolleyes:

[qu2k]

if someone had this much talent and made a picture of a guy jacking off or someone blowing someones brains out, i wouldnt care either way. its a display of great skill

[jason-slab]

nicely painted, u can see its not a paint over

o and the hair (on her head):D doesn't look right, how about some gravity there!

other than that it looks really good, well i think so at least!

|jason

[greek_fire]

just wanted to show my support for the artist. so what if its sexually explicit? as long as people are warned, those who don't want to see it don't have to look. good job. :thumbsup:

[Thelios]

no2_pentarou
that is a really good job you did, the colors are great! keep up the good work:buttrock: :thumbsup:
my only crit would be, it looks like the face is aliitle too light, looks like it is slightly "glowing." But then again I am new to painting so you may be right and I may be wrong, just personal oppinion I guess.
cheers!:beer:

[jERiCHO DARQUA]

Originally posted by lildragon
Ok I'm not going to say much here because I'll say something quite harsh. So Leigh is going to handle this. But in my nicest voice I'll say this.

At your workplace do me a favor and put up porn sites and wallpapers on your computer, call your boss over and say oh look at this. And see what happens. Matter of fact, go give kids porn material and tell their parents it's all fine and dandy, and see which side of the jail cell bars you'll be standing. This thread will be handled by Leigh I'm out

-lil
I dont know if you are an american, but i think you represent a quite interesting point.
In Germany games, videos, etc are forbidden that contain brutal scenes, blood, extreme violence..., but we arent that strict regarding nudity. Of course, children dont get to see any porn in germany too, when its about the law to decide. So, its the other way arround in the states: You censor every naked nipple, but blood and voilence dont seem to be important for you. So, i think almost every kid gets to see porn at some time. And i dont think its wrong for them. Really. What should they become? Terrible Perverts? I dont think so. But i am not so sure about that, regarding the american relation towards weapons, world domination and heroism.
(again, nothing against cersorship in here, its your forum, your rules)

And of course: Much porn is bad taste, but also alot of fine art which is dealing a bit more obvious with sex and nudity is easily damned to be porn.

I think its the role of Art to show what soomebody is thinking. It should show whats beautiful and good as well as whats evil and ugly. And about realism: Porn isnt representing realism.;) And i think, Photo, video (and food(cooking):)), which some of you include to be "realistic" should be recognised as art too.

So last but not least. Masturbation is not bad. You wont get dumb or ill from it, but some people, especially those who visits churchs on sunday didnt learn that yet^^...
Or is this the problem: Ohhh! No! I must prevent my daughter of the danger of masterbation! She is going to hell if i fail! :p

[jERiCHO DARQUA]

Originally posted by lildragon
This ends now, if anyone has any beef with it, take it up with me.

YOU ALL HIT THE AGREE BUTTON WHEN YOU SIGNED UP TO CGTALK RIGHT? THEN ABIDE BY THE RULES AND IF NOT LEAVE SIMPLE AS THAT



This ends now. Fact remains it was explicit, he censored it, now comment on the art.

salud

Yeah, i read it, and i have no problem with you guys censored the pic. Its okay, its your forum.
But: we can discuss the art/porn thing, cant we? Thats really interesting^^

[Creature]

I think I'll do porn images too - cause this topic gets 9 pages of replies while other nonporn topics barley make it to the 2nd page despite the art in it is equal if not better than the art in this thread....

[no2_pentarou]

Haha, such a long thread :buttrock:

[Prototype3X]

Nice work!

[18th_Devil]

its a very nice piece, definatly nice eye candy...but her waist is really buggin me since its so thin...looks as if shes gonna snap in half.
its nice though :)

i don't really see it as porn...to me its more art then it is porn cuz first its not a photograph of a real person and second u spent the time creating it on a computer...
still of course it is offensive...mainly cuz of the posing.

[Soljarag]

Nice work!!!

[no2_pentarou]

Thanks! :wavey:

[RmachucaA]

The hair does seem to defy gravity in an awkward manner, apart from that, very tastefull and most importantly, refined.

BTW:

Well, according to Leigh's point of view most of PICASSO'S drafts and paintings are illegal in 9/10 of the world :-)


FORTUNATELY IT ISNT SO, ill have the balls to say that even tho she said she was totally unbiased,.... hmmm, how shall i say this.... its like a woman saying she will be punctual..... it'll never happen :-) And I say this with all respect to all forum moderators, but you guys struck a cord when the picture was deemed "pornographic". I believe it isnt so, why? because it is tastefull and well crafted. it would'nt be if it was EXPLICIT which it isnt! you can barely see the bush, much less the lips..etc..etc.
CLEARLY the pic was not intended to be offensive, so please have that in mind.

[NelsonInomvan]

I have no words man. Awesome you are a great talent.

And i don't think this i porn this is art man

Man she looks so pretty :p

I admire your work man

[no2_pentarou]

Any ideas for the next one? Anyone? :love:

[ChandlerL]

Originally posted by no2_pentarou
Angelus26: Yeah that's funny... gruesome gore and violence is accepted everywhere but mild nudity or sex (oh no!) is a big no-no

I guess it would have been better is she was killing someone with a chainsaw with blood splattered everywhere than just enjoying herself

*chuckle*

[ChandlerL]

Originally posted by Widler
Yeah i totally agree, + i think it's kind of a cop out to
say that having a black cube over the genital area
ruins the art or takes away from the art....

I was trying to read your message but there was a black cube obscuring your text.

:rolleyes:

[ChandlerL]

Originally posted by Wiro
I've started to see the light now. We should all post porn to these galleries. All of our collections. You know, just to be politically incorrect and opinionated and show we are against the grain and all. No really!!

Wiro

What made this even funnier was your avatar image sitting to the left of your text. :)

[MacGyver]

Originally posted by iBlue
thats abstract art and isnt sexually explicit :rolleyes:
Bullsh*t. Thats what is so very ironic about this thread. It displays the double-sidedness of the "liberal arts" mind. Just because the image looks as if the artist was on LSD, you shrug it off because it is "abstract". Since when is something spreading its legs wide and shoving labia in your face not explicit? Just because no2's image pokes into the realm of photoreal is no reason to call it explicit and that one not.

By saying that, I am not trying to discredit Navel_Lint for his great work. I am simply posing the question as to why some work on this forum is shunned and some not.

Fantastic work by both no2 and Navel_Lint, but there is no reason to have double standards. If you are going to pick one guy, pick on them all. If the mods have issues with no2's artwork, they should really consider being more strict on everyone that posts images that violate the forums rules:


By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

[iBlue]

Which of the two would be more likely to be presented on the cover of hustler? hmmm?

this is what seperates art and porn.

yeesh, i think i might need to get the big flashing letters after all, people just cant read these days. :rolleyes:

[no2_pentarou]

"Which of the two would be more likely to be presented on the cover of hustler?"

Neither.

"this is what seperates art and porn."

Exactly, that's why Navel_Lint & I post our art here on CGtalk instead of getting a job at Hustler.:thumbsup:

[Spirit2029]

Well after sifting through the whole 10 pages of arguments and critisim I dont know where I stand. I do know this though...I find it rather odd that threads like these end up having so many comments and so much interest. And we have all seen these threads before, not to say this was put up for pure shock value, or to start a debate, or generate a buzz, BUT COMMON. There are a ton of threads in here from people that wants serious critiques and comments on their work, and it seems most get viewed, but nothin ever gets said.. but do a naked women palyin with herself, or a well lit cube or sphere, and everyone has somethin to say.. Sorry my gripe is over...

Spirit2029

it is a very nicely done painting, but I think simply posing her on the bed, minus the finger play, would have prolly been a more respected image..but what do i know...

[no2_pentarou]

My intentions had nothing to do with shock value or buzz, all I want(ed) is some comments on the work itself, whatever the subject of it might be:)

[iBlue]

sure :rolleyes:

[slaughters]

Now I'm one of the few who actually gave constructive criticism on this image, but I also beleive that this seems to be on the porn side of sexual depiction of a nude female.

Having said that. All of you its "Art" not "Porn" people, please define porn for me. Stop dancing around the issue and define your terms.

I'll tell you that photo-realistic masterbating females shoving fingers up their *ehm* selves sort of slides into the porn category for me.

[no2_pentarou]

pornographic
[ADJ] (Impurity): impure, unclean, dirty, immodest, shameless, indecorous, indelicate, indecent, loose, risqué, coarse, gross, smutty, ribald, obscene, bawdy, pornographic, concupiscent, prurient, lustful, carnal, lewd, lascivious.

Basically, sexual AND vulgar
This is sexual but NOT vulgar

Let's stop this endless debate about what I did is, should be, might be, could be or want to be.

This is a forum for posting art in all its forms, to get comments and critics ABOUT ARTWORK.

[v_lestat_98]

I normally don’t post on these boards, but I believe these needs to be addressed. I showed my Wife this image last night to get her opinion, and when she saw it, she mentioned nothing of pornography, but just how well it was done. Also, before you type, we are not into porn or any form thereof. We are both artists, and feel this is a wonderful image that deserves much credit. As for the comment(s) made by Leigh, I can’t believe you are a moderator of this site, since you can’t decipher art from a photograph. Your artwork is not that impressive, and I think you retaliated harshly, because you can’t replicate such a nice piece. As for Lildragon, I don’t care who you are. You have no right to criticize a piece that is so well done as this. As for the porn issue, I would much rather explain to our 3 yr old daughter what is going on in this image (which is completely natural) than explain why people kill, rape, and perform inexcusable acts on other persons. This is a fine piece of work from no2_pentarou, and he deserves credit where credit is due. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and you should accept that.

No2_pentarou – the image is excellent, but as others have stated…The waist is way too thin. Other than that, nice job (love the textures).

[no2_pentarou]

v_lestat_98: this reply is one of the best I got, really. Thanks for your support

As for her waist, I really think this is only because of the pink pillow she's lying on. That pillow is hiding a good part of her waist, it's not flat, it forms somekind of a "U" around her, that's also why that part of the pillow has some strong highlights on it, it's high enough to get some light from behind. But I agree that it may be visually a bit confusing ;)

[IMarshal]

It's incredible how everything now-a-days seems to turn political - the discussion on war.

[v_lestat_98]

No mention of war here. That can be seen on fox. Wounderfull image no2.

[RamboSambo]

shoudlnt this go to the general discussion forum?

.....and if this is considered art or not is'nt the issue, this simply isnt the place for it - as you agreed when you signed up.

---------------

-the waist is a bit confusing:wip:
but nice work

[Jevin]

First thing's first, the image. Dispite having a half-fried 56k, and thus, a very slow loading time, and having read the numerous posts, I decided that I should take a look at the picture myself. Firstly, about the pillow-waist issue, I think the pillow is what needs work, because it just doesn't look like there's a 100+ lbs woman on it. Looks more like it's got 5 lbs of weight. I would imagine the bent would be sharper, flatter, and thus, show more shading, which might help seperate the woman from the pillow in the viewer's eyes. 2nd, it could just be me, but I don't see where the elbow is on the farthest arm. No one else has mentioned it, I think, so maybe it IS just me. *shrugs* The piece is done very well overall, but the main continual flaw is proportions and simple anatomy issues. You are fantastic at shading and coloring, but still have a long way to go on the rest of it. I agree about the shine being too bright, and fuzzy. It doesn't give the impression of a soft light, but more like she's beginning to fry.

Now, for the "issues" (I will adress these by topic, not by poster, seeing as how I am not confronting them as people, rather I am simply confronting the statements that have been said)

The first one goes to the definition of pornography posted on the previous page. How can you use pornography IN your definition of pornography, the definition of a definition states that you can't, doesn't it? Well, maybe not the definition, but rather the rules for defining a word.

This is what I got from dictionary.com:

Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
The presentation or production of this material.
Lurid or sensational material

Now, this image was explicit, but apparently it's primary purpose was not arousal. However, this material is obviously sensational, or we wouldn't be past the page 10 mark in the thread. So, by that definition, it is pornography. It's also important to keep in mind that just because something is defined as pornographic it does not mean that it cannot be art. Only if it's defined by one of the first two definitions.

As for the "how is this nude pic, and this nude pic" any different debate.. I don't get it. Obviously the moderators have a line drawn and that's their call, but to say that no one had remarks against the explicitness of the fairy picture means you didn't read the thread. The 2nd reply questioned it.

[edit]
Also, keep in mind, "freedom" is limited to public areas. This board is owned by someone who is gracious enough to let you post here, so it's sort of like borrowing a computer to put your work on it. The owner can delete whatever he or she wants.
[end of edit]

As for the sex versus war debate.... I'm appaulled. Where on earth do you people live that say that this sort of thing is common. I don't see naked women doing that left and right, in the streets, on vacation, on the news. You forget that it's not the act that is the main issue, it's the fact that the act is being shown. You might ask "How do people get away with gore and blood and etc?" and to that I say... they don't. Haven't you seen any of the countless news reports blaming violence in movies and games for violent actions. Just about every school shooting I can remember has been blamed on Doom. For goodness sakes, before then there was violent crimes and suicides that claimed D&D was the cause. It shows an amazing lack of acknowledgement to overlook societies condemnation of violence. Which brings me to my next, and final major point.

Violence in art is not done to entertain or arouse, or make you feel "warm and fuzzy inside." It's done to shock and appaul, to show the dark, seedy, unwanted side. It says "This is reality! Hate it!" That is why violent art is more accepted, because it often (not always) is saying that it's a bad thing. A social taboo that is praised because it is put in the form of art seems wrong to some people. That is their right.

Also on a side note, the comment about people who do not do what the woman in that picture was doing are severely disturbed and/or have social hangups, I would like to point out that some people from an early age decide as part of their religion that any for of premarital gratification is a sin. They would be offended by that statement.

I don't post at this board often either, but I found that I had things that might help people understand each other's side a bit more. If this adds nothing to it, please feel free to completely ignore the entire post.

[slaughters]

no2_pentarou,

That was not a definition of porn. It was simply a Thesaurs lookup of simular words.

RamboSambo,

You are correct. This really belongs in the general discussion forum.

v_lestat,

Attacking Leigh was in bad taste.

1-She is a very talented artist
2-Even if she was not. How would that make her opinion "less" than yours ? Over educated art snots allways make me angry.

You also did not say what you would consider porn to be. You leaped to the defense of something you refused to define.

Jevin,

Nicely written.

[steverage]

Whoa, turn my back for 5 mins and 10 pages of comments appear!!


v_lestat_98

Leigh, I can’t believe you are a moderator of this site, since you can’t decipher art from a photograph. Your artwork is not that impressive, and I think you retaliated harshly, because you can’t replicate such a nice piece.


Dude - a) personal attack not warrented, b) her stuff rules and u aint obviously seen it c) Shes a moderator cos she knows how to constructively criticise and not just launch tinpot personal attacks.

[no2_pentarou]

I won't make replies unless it's directly related to my artwork... we're all writing a thesis on society here and this isn't the forum to do so and as lildragon said, it was explicit, I censored it, now comment on the art itself.

[lildragon]

This has ran it's course.

no2_pentarou start anew

as for v_lestat_98 your personal attacks on leigh and myself were uncalled for.

-lil