What is it about the issue of nudity that makes people on both sides of this "argument" so incomprehensibly silly? If you suggest that perhaps folks might do a little more than insert Vicky A and Pose B and light set up C and latest, greatest Prop D and then hit "render", you're accused of being a prude, and folks start posting dim-witted "cartoons" involving nuns, as if that said anything worthwhile. But when you have people rather baldly writing how lazy they are to bother learning how to make conforming clothing work, then you start to wonder how much of this really is "art" and how much is just jack-off pictures, as Jettboy states. And when you have the tired line about "nudity in art throughout the centuries", you start to wonder how much people really know about the history of art. Face it: this place isn't about the art. It's about pretty pictures of usually naked women, but that's about as much "art" as those tired paintings you see in motel rooms. You want to create art? GET YOUR DAMN PIECE TO SAY SOMETHING. Make it communicate. Otherwise, it's just an interesting study and nothing more. Just my two cents, as if anyone will bother...

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider