Ok. As a woman, I'll take it as a complement that so many men (I assume) are viewing nude photos of women because you are so drawn to our beauty. That said, when ranking photos by # of views, out of the top 100, i think it's 99% nude women. So, since there is such a numerical bias - not caused by the caliber or artistry of the photograph - I would suggest two separate listings of best photography by number of views- one for nudes, one for all others. That said, I also find it odd that the vast majority of photos in the top 100 most commented and most ranked are by just two photographers.

The same is true of the Poser Forum and you suggestion might equally be as useful there. Persnoally I'd rather look at fractals. ;)

You noticed? There should be a nude gallery and then all others. That would make it easier for all the men too, less searching through non naked stuff.

In my humble opinion one needs to completely ignore rankings and the forums' Hot 20 features, unless one assesses them as nothing more than fun. There's no way that a site as huge as this is ever going to reach consensus on what makes an aesthetically successful image. Perhaps some of the smaller, more specialized galleries are more fair, I have seen that in the Vue community, there appears to be a more mature and artistically informed criteria of achievement as opposed to the Poser community, but even there, you see some of the same names time and again in the Hot 20 at the expense of the names of equally talented artists who don't do whatever it takes to get those votes. Rankings and the Hot 20 are fine for those who enjoy Renderosity as sort of a popularity contest, or who feel that votes from the masses are a mark of achievement, nothing wrong with that per se. It's also true that some of the very popular artists are popular on merit as much as anything else. However, there have been incidents where it became clear that members were soliciting votes and views from their friends and potential appreciators at other sites, or by virtue of the tit-for-tat positive feedback phenomenon. While your suggestions are clearly well-intentioned, I seriously doubt if it would be possible to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were. Furthermore, to do so would imply that nudes or images that include nudity are implicitly less worthy of artistic merit, a connotation that would ultimately be as problematic and perhaps fraudulent as the notion that an image is superior just because it got more views than its gallery neighbors. You'd also get into the grey are of of "a nude" vs. "an image with some nudity," not something that can be universally quantified unless you go to an either/or system ... again, a can of worms.

Anyway, as you probably already know, the popularity of nude art photogrphy existed long before Renderosity did. It's just that way, the relationship between human biological impulses and art as commodity being what it is. Creativity is at some level related to the procreatve impulse, which perhaps is the primary fuel for the fact that images of human nudity have been prevelant throughout the visual arts for as long as there has been clothing. :-) The issue of separating nude from non-nude images in your viewing is actually separate, and is already facilitated by Renderosity's "nude flag" that can be set at your member page. Futhermore, and I ask you to forgive me if I'm being too serious here, but maybe it's sort of uncool for people to be making generalizations about "men" and what they want to view. Just imagine the response if men started making sexist remarks like that about women. :-) I can't deny what you're saying, obviously there's a lot of truth to it, especially when you're talking about very young men. However, in the numerous discussions on this and related topics over the years, it's been made clear that there are plenty of men who get tired with the excess of cheesecake (or beefcake as the case may be) and nude imagery, believe it or not. Just a thought. :-)

Message edited on: 01/21/2005 18:04

I could have sworn they were doing nudes b.c. (before clothing) but I could be wrong about that.

You're absolutely right, dialyn, I was just kidding for irony.

I guess those two photographers must be pretty good. But I don't know if the term "men" is strictly accurate. My guess is that most of them are 13-to-17-yr-old boys. Where else can they see this stuff without having to click thru a "you must be 18 or over" button?

I do think it is sexist to believe only men stare at nude women. Although nudes in general leave me underwhelmed, there are women who are lovers of the female form, just as there are men who prefer male figures. There is the odd person who prefers naked horses and dogs, but that's probably a different conversation. And I'm not going anywhere near the controversy of Sponge Bob, naked or clothed. It's all too confusing.

Sponge Bob? :shiver with trepidation: Him and that purple Teletubbie are evil! EVIL!!! I tell you good people that if you let your children watch these demented fantasies, they'll grow up holding hands and giggling (always a sure sign of vile plots afoot). The only cure is to buy your boys shotguns and show them how to hold them crotch high as they kill, kill, kill! That'll make men, real men, out'a them. Oh, and give them their own subscriptions to Hustler and Playboy. The sooner they see naked women, the sooner they'll know how to do what needs doin'. ;^) <---tongue firmly in cheek Carolly

They love you. You love them. ..... Oh, sorry, that's Barney. Naked dinosaurs. Eek. Though I've helped drift the conversation into the land of O.T., I wouldn't mind the separation of nudes into their own little universe. But I doubt if that will happen since this has been discussed before and I think it turned into an unworkable situation (I could be mistaken...I so often am).

ok. whatever! i figured some people must be pretty hard up (oops) when the comment was made about heavy viewing of nudes in poser. oh well.

Actually, reading the titles of the spam messages delivered daily is probably more titillating than anything viewed in these galleries.

there is a gallery here? where?!?!?!?!?!?! ~looking around~ oh, there it is. ~looking through entrance to gallery~ nope, way to many images in there, not gonna go in. ~twitching~ it takes 2 weeks to see every piece of art in an art show with only 100 pieces in it. no way..uh-uh. way to many there.

It would appear it's so much easier to render a naked or half naked woman in these places and much more rewarding to create them because you know someone will actually always look at your work when female skin is present. What gets me is that one would think that with so much of this it would get somewhat tedious after a time, same old, same old, even boobs would get boring after seeing five thousand day after day. Ironically many of the naked or pin up pics (in poser anyways) appear to be created by women here. This either means women enjoy the female form more, perhaps because of artistic value, or they cater to males senses to draw them into the marketplace to buy their textures. Maybe both reasons apply. As for young boys flocking this place to get a thrill, I'm sure that happens here like everywhere else on the net. It's free and it's abundantly easy. Maybe some older boys too.

live and learn! boy (no pun intended) was i uninformed. who knew what the younger generations was up to!

What is impressive to me, right now, is that the Photography Gallery "hot 20" is not full of nudes, but has a nice variety of subjects. I would be willing to guess, without looking, the same could not be said of the Poser "hot 20."

Okay, so I looked and I will say that there is a marvelous Pegasus pair by Luceferino up on the Poser Hot 20 right that is beautifully done, and some of the females do have some clothing, how ever uncomfortable and foolish some of it looks to me. Another pick from me from Poser Hot 20: take a look at dido6's takeoff on the pulp cover. There is hope, afterall. I guess we just have to search out what we like and ignore the rest.

Ladies your right; since I started posting here in the gallary I have seen it to be a little tilted...( where have all the real artists gone? ) If they have to allow that type of "art", then maybe they should have a back door added to the site, like one of those speakeasies. (knock 3 times to get in)
Anyway, it's nice to know that there are still some really talented art work being created and shown here.

The problem is...what is a real artist and who determines it? There has been discussions before about having a separate gallery restricted to "real artists." I know that would disallow me on my best day, but who is going to determine that? Currently we have some "art" by "real artists" hanging on our library walls that looks to me to be less interesting than that done by a creative five year old. But it's real art, apparently because someone is silly enough to spend $15,000 for it (or at least the artist thinks it is worth that; I've yet to see one actually sell). Art is so subjective that what looks crude to me may be a wonderfully insightful work to someone else. I wouldn't pay $150,000 for a toilet I could buy in a hardware store for $75, but someone did and thought they got a bargain in an art gallery. I wouldn't buy one of the endless Poser nudes because, frankly, I know there are hundreds more where they come from, and I can generate them myself if I was so inclined; but that doesn't mean in those hundreds there isn't art...it just means I personally wouldn't buy them. There are a lot of people here who think of themselves as artists who I personally think are novices and hobbyists. There are a few people here who think of themselves as beginners who I personally think of as artists because I see them going beyond the software into an area of imagination and creativity that calls me to look again at what they have done. (My slim criteria for art is that it is something that makes me want to look again...which is not what most people would use). Who am I to say? I'm not. That's the point. We don't have many people here who really are qualified enough to say to me "this is an artist" and "this isn't," but their word might be good enough for someone else. Should there be a separate gallery for nudes? Well, I don't know. There is a difference between soft porn for the sweaty palmed set, and a true study of the human form. The former I have no use for; the latter I might like to see but I wouldn't wander into a nudie gallery to view. And if someone takes a truly moving photography of a naked baby in the arms of his or her mother or father, would that go into a nude gallery??? I know I am famous for making mountains out of mole hills, but it's a question that seems less easy than just separating the naked from the clothed, the human body from the landscapes, the beastly from the beasties. Or maybe not? I'm not an artist or an art critic and clearly I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to art and what is artistic and who is an artist. But I still like to talk about it. Go figure that. Oh well, I've beaten that dead horse enough for one day. Onward, my dears.

I don't think that there should be a seperate gallery. The Nudity flag should be used and (correct me if I'm wrong) you can set it so you can't see the images.

oh my goodness, i never suggested a separate gallery. i just suggested separate rankings, that's all. forget it folks. taint happening.

Sorry, I'm a dim light. I apologize.

::grins:: 'Sides... I know where there is a seperate gallery for nudes... It's called Renderotica.

What gets me is that one would think that with so much of this it would get somewhat tedious after a time, same old, same old It's been going on for some time now. Men haven't gotten tired of it yet. Good thing, too. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here to discuss the issue.

What I can't understand is that it's at least an equal amount of women as there are men posting these images, why do men get all the blame for it? Apparently a lot of gals want to see it as well. Every time this subject come up (and it's with frightening regularity) it's obvious that the nudity flag in the personal profile isn't being used correctly a lot more so than the nudity flag on the images. It seems that with some ppl it's a lot like car wrecks, they don't want to look but they can't help themselves. As for the Hot 20 it seems to be a lot of other factors than that since it's a lot more about popularity than anything else. The number of views is a lot more about controversy than nudity if you check the images that are the most viewed since nudity will only get you so far. The rankings as they are don't seem to be working for any image since ppl don't seem to be using them in any meaningful way other than politeness so making any separate ones for nudity probably wouldn't change anything.