Female game character (nudity), Steven Stahlberg (3D)

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10 October 2006   #31
Quote: The version up on playboy, is that a much older version?

The version they're showing in the 'behind the scenes' type section, is an early WIP. (They also show the initial sketch there). The version I ended up with is of course the final version, but Playboy cut out the background to fit it in with the other girls.

.
 
Old 10 October 2006   #32
Originally Posted by Stahlberg: Not sure why the image isn't showing up in my portfolio, have to investigate.


may be someone has reported it as inappropriate?

i hope not!

@Oddity: if i can express my tought without offense to no one, as per your words, you should criticize all those artists that portraits pin-up or people (male or female) in sexy provocative behaviour, don't you? the half of this forum!
the Steven's image is clearly seductive, but is not seduction part of our life? why do you want to rise yourself as a censor?
who is sinless throw the first stone (someone said)

friendly... Vince

Last edited by tanassi : 10 October 2006 at 10:17 AM.
 
Old 10 October 2006   #33
Steven if i would aloud my self critics i would talk about guns and blood. Talking or doing critics on your cg womans : i would just hurt my self. you are my guide since the first model you did. but i never liked the womans with guns and blood. not only from you just in general. but this does not sweep away that you're doing still today the most sexy cg womans on this planet. talking about too much skin ist just boring stuff. skin is skin and not more than that. erotic art is art as any and if some people has a problem with just click to a other artist. Steven is a welllknow artist for this genre , so what are you looking for ? i would be proud like nothing else to make it to the playboy. ok with a other content ...but you did it :-) send me the model i'll dress here up different while people is talking down your stuff. you got my 5 as always . that's all i can say :-)
Georges
__________________
Laura


 
Old 10 October 2006   #34
Quote:

It's the fundamental purpose of the image that's at fault, not the naked body. Nakedness is irrelevant. Don't pretend you can't recognise the difference between seeing a mother's breast as she feeds her baby, and seeing a topless model displaying her wares for your viewing pleasure. Your image (a lot of your images) are erotica dressed up as art, the purpose of which is to squeeze them into an area where they don't belong. It's sole intention is to sexually titillate the viewer, and portray the subject as a sex object to be drooled over by horny viewers.
It's the lowest possible form of art, and anyone who produces it has no integrity whatsoever, pandering as it does to the most basic and easy to find instinct of any animal.



Please. Being a CG "artist" is as much craft as it is art (often more craft). Regardless of how you view the artistic merit in this, it is an outstanding piece of craftmanship. And I don't see how his craftmanship, in any way, compromises his artistic integrity. I could question the artistic merit in you taking a dump after lunch hour; does that make you any less of an artist? No. Everything does not revolve around art. Besides, I didn't see Stahlberg proclaim this piece a high form of art. Take your political correctness somewhere else.

Last edited by Zeicon : 10 October 2006 at 10:51 AM.
 
Old 10 October 2006   #35
Originally Posted by oDDity: It's the fundamental purpose of the image that's at fault, not the naked body. Nakedness is irrelevant. Don't pretend you can't recognise the difference between seeing a mother's breast as she feeds her baby, and seeing a topless model displaying her wares for your viewing pleasure. Your image (a lot of your images) are erotica dressed up as art, the purpose of which is to squeeze them into an area where they don't belong. It's sole intention is to sexually titillate the viewer, and portray the subject as a sex object to be drooled over by horny viewers.
It's the lowest possible form of art, and anyone who produces it has no integrity whatsoever, pandering as it does to the most basic and easy to find instinct of any animal.


Its interesting to see that sexuality has such a low esteem in your view. Isnt it just a human feeling equal to all others? Its funny that you mentioning breast feeding as glorious true example for a non sexually oriented form of nudity, since in my opinion its the first time (hopefully) any human has its experience of sexuality this way.
I also think that instincts you can find the animal world do not necessarily implements they are unworthy depiction, since fear, aggression and hunger while not even less necessary and basic are things you can find in the human world as well and no one will waste a word on it.
In my opinion sexually appealing pictures are art as well as any other art. Its time for renaissance in your medieval world i would say.


__________________
--no crops were harmed during the typing of this message--

Last edited by Matze4d : 10 October 2006 at 11:08 AM.
 
Old 10 October 2006   #36
Nice image, but not my favorite of your work.

I like best the covered image, as I find it more "erotic".
The covered image leaves more to the imagination, its no fun when they give you all done.

JK.

__________________
Donnie: Why do you wear that stupid bunny suit?
Frank: Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
My website

 
Old 10 October 2006   #37
You can't divorce the subject matter from the technical merits of the piece. This is not a technical display of modeling, texturing and lighting, there is a core concept behind this, and it's puerile and crass in the extreme. The technical merits of it cannot hide what it is.
I agree that these intentionally provocative CG vixens in poses which make them no more than meat in a butcher's window are far too regular an occurance on CG sites, but that's only becasue the vast majority of the members are males, either trying to make their fantasies real, or get easy popularity by producing sexual fantasies for the other males to drool over.
Do you really want the line between pornography and art blurred to the point where art has been dragged down to the same level as porn?
Porn, like the number zero, when multiplied by anything else, always ends up as zero.
 
Old 10 October 2006   #38
Originally Posted by Matze4d: In my opinion sexually appealing pictures are art as well as any other art. Its time for renaissance in your medieval world i would say.

What's the difference between a 'sexually appealing' picture and a pornographic one?
I assume you'd agree there must be some rules as what is to be shown here?
I'd suggest that anything which is specifically intended to sexually arouse the viewer is pornography and not art.
 
Old 10 October 2006   #39
Well, no matter what censors and puritans say, this image and all your works are a kick in the ass. I loved both versions, covered and uncovered. 5 stars for sure.
 
Old 10 October 2006   #40
Originally Posted by oDDity: I'd suggest that anything which is specifically intended to sexually arouse the viewer is pornography and not art.



Thank god oDDity is here to tell us what is art and what isn't...
As Leigh pointed out, you should remember that your recents posts only reflects your own personal opinion on what is art, what is pornography, etc... and not some kind of universal truth on the matter.
I'd suggest you refrain from trying to impose your views on other people.

As for steven's piece, it certainly is very well executed. I personally like the full body shot the best. the cropped one, because of its lack of perpective, do feel a bit flat. The character is great.
 
Old 10 October 2006   #41
oDDity, kindly refrain from posting offensive judgements on the artist here. This forum is for constructive criticism and commentary on the technical and artistic aspects of the work, not social ones, let alone personal character judgements about the artist. The rules for artwork, and specifically pornography, as defined by our own gallery guidelines are to restrict only works which display pornographic acts, not images of nudity.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
Old 10 October 2006   #42
Question Where is the babe?

Canīt see any picture
__________________
Not fate but what we make...

John Connor (T2)
 
Old 10 October 2006   #43
The icon is showing up, maybe is a bug. I like the piece it is very well done. I have seen images in this forum (plugged too) that are far more provocative than this.

I wish I was comissioned to make an image that would appear in Playboy; it would give me a good excuse to buy one! LOL
__________________
vertexangel.com/
twitter
 
Old 10 October 2006   #44
great work steven, really dig the image, but personally i prefer the covered up version with the shadow work of the bra, just seems to be a tad more erotic (dont get me wrong, love the other image aswell ) top work

(think i mite have an excuse to buy playboy now - artistic reasons
__________________


 
Old 10 October 2006   #45
very nice modeling. great textures and render too!

i would like to see the "uncovered" model in the same posture as the "covered" model. the new posture works better i think.

anyways, really cool model. i thought the hair was 3d at first looking at its shadows. so did you paint the shadow too?

ps. is there some sort of censoring going on here? this is the last place where i would expect censorship getting anal like this! i cant see the original posted image and neither the one in your cgportfolio.
__________________

 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright Đ2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.