First, I'd like to say that I've been a member of this community for a long time (5 years and counting). I, am by no means offended by nudity and I really do enjoy seeing the images others have put their hearts and souls into. It is that creativity that inspires others to create. However, in the recent months not a day goes by that there isn't a ton of more nude images posted to the galleries. Its like .. everyone has stopped trying to be creative and said "well, all the guys will look at this picture because the character is naked. So, I'll get more views". And its all of those people (and those "artists" who post those pictures) that will fire back with the usual "there's nothing wrong with it" or "if you don't like it ..." replies. I am, turning off the 'allow nudity' selection in my preferences because I'm tired of the hormone driven images that don't even qualify to be called art. They're just cheap .. p*rn. Thats my honest opinion. Like I said, i'm not offended by nudity .. just tired of the redundant use of it.

I have the no-nd flag on, and I still get plenty 'o that..shouldn't see any from me (the missus would disapprove..;)

My hubby has actually joked about the fact i should make an image befitting of the Renderotica gallery. The daggers i shot him were enough to let him know i didn't find it ammusing.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=1156068&Start=1&Artist=logansfury&ByArtist=Yes

Im not sure why the picture flew under your nudity filter radar. I just checked my pic settings thru the gallery edit feature, and as you can see, it is properly tagged :/

That seems to be a common problem - the nudity filters don't work all too well. shrugs

Isn't that like saying, there is a portrait overkill? There are a redundant use of those also in the gallery with a lot less variation of the same theme than nudity. I don't see anyone calling for a filter to take out the portraits. I just skip over the thumbnails of those in the gallery.

I'd also disagree that there is less creativity put into a image just because it has nudity than others, it depends on the artist, some have less and some have more. Just as in portraits, some do less with the theme and some do more. Is the problem with some that have a lack of artistic ability that they can only do such nudes? Then why single out nudity in particular when some that do nudes well are lumped in the same category?

Message edited on: 03/27/2006 14:13

Message edited on: 03/27/2006 14:25

Kathym: I totally agree. I, too have at least 5 years of R'osity membership, as well. I know exactly what you mean. When someone puts boobs big enough to float a battleship on someone,I have to wonder... I appreciate artistic nudity, but there is a line somewhere between artistic license and a porn magazine. Male or female, it really turns me off an otherwise good image. Of course, there's R'otica, et al for those kinds of images. They belong there, not here. I pose another question; what's the difference between erotica and porn?

Message edited on: 03/27/2006 14:27

Well, nudity is allowed in the galleries as long it's within the TOS. Set your nudity filter in your profile and you shouldn't see it. It's that easy. I'm a member for 5 years as well and I don't mind people posting nude dollies. To each his own. If I don't want to see it then I simply don't click on the thumbnail.

Hm, I do not post real nudes, but I often use the nudity-flag if my character isnt dresses with solidly outerwear. That means that I just use the nudity-flag for open blouses,slim panties o transparent clothes, since a admin wrote to me to flag all images with "erotics" parts. So perhaps not all "nudity" images have really nudes for theme? I know that sometimes just a Bikini is flaged nudity.
The rules are very strict here in town.

Anyway, some pin-ups are really eye-candys and great digital-art others are funny qo.We cant lump all nudes together. Erotics means a touch of nudity that wakes up the thought of the viewer. Porn is hardcore and is showing often the practices of SM Scene.

Message edited on: 03/27/2006 14:39

in case somebody didn't mention it already, the other reason that they post nudes is that clothing can be expensive, difficult to apply correctly, and it adds significantly to the render burden for poser's archaic memory-handling abilities.

In response: Puntomaus - the filters do not work properly. The kick out some and leave some just the same. Miss Nancy - any accessory adds to the render time .. but with clothing .. the body parts underneath can be made invisible hence, cutting down on the render time & memory cost. Unless we're talking for instance a suit of armor such as Sanctum's VA Grim suit or Utilize's Major Cache .. then there's no helping one way or another. LOL. I agree there is a difference between nudity, porn and erotica. My point is that it all doesn't belong here. And my 2nd point is those filters need to be fixed so when you select No Nudity you get no nudity.

Quote - "well, all the guys will look at this picture because the character is naked. So, I'll get more views".

Yes, that unfortunately seems to be the idea behind most "nudes" in the gallery. To be honest I'm tired of the juvenile facination with woman's breasts and how women are objectified. I don't have the nudity filter activated, but I do bypass images that have thumbnails showing boobs, butt or genitals. If the image is done tastefully, I enjoy looking at nudes, but I don't like looking at blatant nudity just for the sake of nudity or gaining views, which all too many images here are. Personally I prefer subtle or partial nudes, with natural looking bodies.

in case somebody didn't mention it already, the other reason that they post nudes is that clothing can be expensive, difficult to apply correctly, and it adds significantly to the render burden for poser's archaic memory-handling abilities. LOL ... now thats a good 1 ... or 3

kathym, if you think nudity does not belong here then you might want to delete some of your gallery images...

http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=1180287&Start=1&Artist=kathym&ByArtist=Yes

http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=1169601&Start=1&Artist=kathym&ByArtist=Yes

http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=1147253&Start=19&Artist=kathym&ByArtist=Yes

Message edited on: 03/27/2006 15:10

So it is the nudity that you have a problem with and not the lack of artistic ability and/or creativity.

If the nudity filter isn't working the way it should then it should be fixed with more enforcement of the nudity flag.

Just be clear on which premise you're going on, and don't confuse your dislike of nudity with a problem of creativity.

If your definition of images others have put their hearts and souls into. It is that creativity that inspires others to create. excludes nudity, then it's a faulty assumption that will only distort the issue and distract your efforts in getting the nudity filter fixed.

Message edited on: 03/27/2006 15:10

In response to Puntomass actually i did those to counter the stupid amount of female nudes there are here. There are few male nudes done .. hey, that would be a change for the better.

You have the right to uncheck or skip nudity...I can easily lose my right to post nudity here in a democractic majority vote. Why not just "check" the no nudity tag and make no public announcement? Last year I deleted a dozen renders and over 15,000 comments with the last TOS update. What you say has ramifications.

Good! Bring the ramifications! Sometimes things need to be shaken up a bit to bring about change.

the stupid amount of female nudes there are here. There are few male nudes done ..

So it's not all nudity that you're objecting to, just female nudity? I agree that it seems to be a double standard here about male nudity (I once got an image deleted because the beret I used wasn't big enough to cover the male nudity that violated the TOS) and it doesn't seem as popular as the female nudity (There is no accounting for taste)

In my experience it is harder to do a male nude than a female nude, but I have seen plenty that have greater skill at it and can do it it right. They don't seem to be as large a number as those do female nudity (Even from the female artists, which the ones I've talked to say that females are easier to do well) But I seriously doubt that they are going to tailor the nudity filter to take out only the female nudity, if that's what you're after, it seems pretty much a lost cause Message edited on: 03/27/2006 15:37

I don't know how much more simpler i can make it for everyone to comprehend. Its the over use of nudes in general (there are damn near no male nudes). The fact that a good percentage of those image feature girls with boobs, as artnik put it, " .. boobs big enough to float a battleship .." doesn't help their case any. There should be a gallery solely for hormone driven artwork.

Nudity is the natural state of all living animals (including the so-called "higher" ones) on this planet. Artistic ability isn't. I tried very hard to keep out of this, but I find the reverting back to the Dark Ages attitude beyond my endurance (and logic). Art, comrades, cannot be restricted by "political correctness" nor can it be fenced within rules and regulations --otherwise it is not Art, it is something else. Having said this (for purely therapeutic reasons) back into the shades I go. :) --Panos

Attached Link: http://www.olinda.com/ArtAndIdeas/lectures/ArtWeDontLike/entarteteKunst.htm

But that isn't a nudity issue, you're mixing the terms again. The case of the " .. boobs big enough to float a battleship .." is one of an image out of proportion and not as well done as some others. It's not a nudity vs. non-nudiy, it's more images with more skill vs. those without. There is also a greater percentage of images with V3 than those with Miki (by your accounting that would make them practically none by the same ratio as damn near no male nudes) Should they have their own gallery? If you want it as simple as possible, how about a gallery for those you don't like and the rest you do in their own gallery?

If God wanted people to be nude, they would have been born that way. ;=]

Doc!....................................... LOL --Panos

Sorry Kathym, but following this thread, I really wonder if the "nudity" of rendered females seems your real probleme. By sample are images with " .. boobs big enough to float a battleship .." are most cartoons or caricatures but rarely for " a gallery solely for hormone driven artwork." And altought I look arround here, I see such images not too often. So I really wonder how you find them always?!

I do not mind nudity in the galleries.

I mind the oh-so-supposedly-alluring-and-sexually-attractive-females with floating boobies that obviously do nothing in the render except just standing/sitting/lying/hovering above the ground without shadows and staring at the viewer in a quazi-seducing manner.

Do you see a naked chick in the gallery making dinner? Or ironing? or swimming? or working on the computer? or being a Grace or a Muse with all the attributes of the status? :) No :( All the naked chicks you see go on sitting/staying/hovering 2 inches above the ground staring at you through these enormous mammaries :/

So I agree with kathym. I love nudes. But to see the one that is worth seeing, one has to wade through the sea of boobies that are (for me) not supported by a message other than sex appeal.

I don't do nudes because it is hard to keep the line between a nice nude study and an image that shows my inability to clothe a model. In the eyes of the viewer I mean :)

kitty5 edited: typos typos :((

Message edited on: 03/27/2006 16:20

Attached Link: http://www.runtimedna.com/mod/forum/photos/Message187432.jpg

Message edited on: 03/27/2006 16:29

Sorry to disappoint you linda 357, but I need to remind you that Botticelli's Venus is not making dinner or ironing, neither does Goya's Naked Maya, or Renoir's Suzanna, or further back Aphrodite of Melos... :) ...but... as stahlratte so correctly pointed out above (#23)..... brrrrrr... it's getting freezing cold suddenly......... --Panos

At the rate of sounding like an outsider sticking his nose in where it might not belong, I agree. There seems to be an overabundance of "nude for the sake of being nude" images in the galleries. I'm starting to wonder if the 3D community hasn't degenerated to some point of mearly being a tool of adolescent fantasy wish fulfillment. Mind you, I didn't say that it's all like that. There is some great work being put out in the galleries, some of which are outstanding. But, you've got to wade through a lot of garbage to see it. I don't have anything against nudity myself. I was born naked, or so I'm told, and do it every day. I've also posted a couple, but usualy to make some kind of point within the context of the illustration. I'd post a link to one image in my gallery (under Bryce-Science Fiction)...but I'm not really sure how to to that (blush). Maybe with Poser, as well as all 3D programs the old saying about with great power comes great responsibility...or maybe restraint. Hope nobody takes any offence, as it was not my intent to offend. And forgive my spelling. These things need spellcheckers...

Nudity? Where? :P

Someone should post a nude of Gladys Emmanuel.
That would put a quick stop to it I'm sure. :)

munching on the popcorn Boy, never seen this topic before!

Pass the Popcorn, I'm very hungry. :O) Passing out M&M's~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yum!

• joining ghelmer and munching hormone driven popcorn * What topic? Where? Who? And most important, where is Gladys Emmanuel when we need her?

"There is some great work being put out in the galleries, some of which are outstanding. But, you've got to wade through a lot of garbage to see it." Yep, and that what you choose to call garbage includes lots of images that do not show any nudity at all ...

I hope everyone got this out of their system so things can go back to normal. WOW it kept me entertained for a while. As far as the nudity is concerned I for one don't mind it however, as long as the nudity tag is being used properly then what is the problem? Yes I'm going to say that if you don't want to view nudes then DON'T look. I see alot of over abundandce of stuff in the galleries but to each their own. This is an art community so enjoy things as you see fit. Life is too short. These M & M's are great:-) Thanks Turtle.

"There is some great work being put out in the galleries, some of which are outstanding. But, you've got to wade through a lot of garbage to see it." Yep, and that what you choose to call garbage includes lots of images that do not show any nudity at all ... ...and I agree. It's the same with movies or television or anything else. Who was it that said "90% of everything is crap."? I remember, I just can't spell his name right...

...my kingdom for a battleship model. Image the render! Hehehehe...

Boobs are like bubbles. They are prettier when there are lots of them. And doesn't a gagle of penises make everyone think of Springtime?

Witht he complexity of textures today for characters and the render times required to display them properly, who wants to put clothes on there models and slow down render times and cover up some awesome textures.... more nudity... it's great isn't it!

Ah!, yes springtime, when the dickweed gets into the pussywillows and makes them break out into kumquats!

I saw that enigma-man was doing models of am aircraft carrier, I'm sure he could do a battleship also and imagine the bubbles that one could render on that?

There are an abundance of all types of images of all kinds of skill levels. As I mentioned, portraits have a lot of the same types of complaints in common with what was wrong with nudity, I'm sure you could find a lot of others if you looked also.

It's not the nudity that they have in common, it's the skill in which they are done in, I agree you have to wade through a lot in every category since everyone has a different level of skill, some more, some less.

Message edited on: 03/27/2006 18:48

My two cents! Nudity doesn't equal

ART

Message edited on: 03/27/2006 18:51

Boy, wait'll Art finds out about that!"
He might get p*$$*d .............. or not.
;=]

Just wanted to post in one of these threads. Thanks to Geep, Acadia, Casette and PhilC. Oh and a quote from one of those early 'Heavy Metal' magazines: Billy Loves Naked Girls. Best Wishes, Rance pass the popcorn and roll the credits ...

kathym, let me quote YOU from another thread: "Nothing that happens online means anything" bonni

I don't have a problem with Ndit..it doesn't bother me in the slightest. However, if I want to visit here on my lunch break, my employer has a big problem with it (the pink-slip kind..[or 'instant unemployment' to the Europeans]). I have to do all sorts of tricks and deletions to keep myself out of trouble. So it's not always personal preference..
Jelly babies, anyone?
-Dr. Who..;)

"Nothing that happens online means anything" I thought everything on the InterWeb was poignant to all aspects of real life!!! Mmmmmmmmm... pass the M&M's! G

i'm keen on beer nuts ... yum big naked breats for the sake of big naked breasts...I've seen enough of them myself. I rather see nice perky ones covered by a thin see-through negligee ... now someone please make an artsy image of that please....but after 20,000 or so of those, I'd rather see some urban slum real life images....and after 20,000 of those, how about some wildlife.... or better yet, how about some originality.

i may agree that there are some renders out there that just lacks taste but to say that all nudes are devoid of its artistic value just doesn't sit right. we are given a choice in this world and if you choose not to see naked women with breasts big enough to sink a battleship then by all means don't. if the only reason why an artist makes nudes is to get more views then he/she is missing the point. fact of the matter is, i don't even think just because a piece is viewed a thousand times count. sometimes i click on a thumbnail and gets disapointed when the rest of the render doesn't deliver but by then it's too late...i already clicked it and it's already counted in. still doesn't make it the greatest, does it?