Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=1186515&Start=1&Artist=Giolon&ByArtist=Yes

When I create the characters for my renders, can I not create them as I see fit (within TOS)? Why should you get to dictate what style is appropriate? Half the point of digital renders is that it ISN'T real and that you AREN'T constrained by reality. If I want a fantastically or comic inspired female characters in my images, then that's what goes there -- nudity or not. You are so hypocritical in that you way you'd like to see more male nudity, but no more females with big breasts, while at the same time saying "OMG there's too much nudity!!1!one". Please, get a grip and skip over the stuff you don't want to see. What's next? "zOMG! no more green skin! it's teh garbage!"

Message edited on: 03/30/2006 04:38

Giolon, the pet peeve is NOT the big-breasted female nudity in the galleries. It is the obvious "I-want-huge-clicks-in-my-gallery-and-be-like-Vallejo-so-I-quickly-throw-in-badly-lit-but-huge-breasted-female-and-reap-the-fame-NOW" attitude of some artists :) Only they forget that some guys like legs! some like bootylicious gals! and some even like GASP! small breasts O_O and some like short plump women with something to hold onto on them :) Next time the fad will be rendering naked tripod alien cows and when the galleries will be full of them it will be the time to start a "Naked Alien Tripod Cow Over Kill" thread ;) Michal 4blueyes

Time for a PINK PONY revival.

Next time the fad will be rendering naked tripod alien cows and when the galleries will be full of them it will be the time to start a "Naked Alien Tripod Cow Over Kill" thread ;) I remember "overkill" threads about Koshini, fairies, Naked Vicki in a Temple With a Sword, pretty much anything. Last year, some of the Japanese content creators had an April Fool's Day game where you had to make a render using three fairly silly objects and Victoria 3, and in return you'd get a nice free gift. Many people participated, and it was really quite fun. Naturally, some people who didn't know about the game were posting to complain about all these weird pictures in the galleries... bonni

Ah yes, the Namshie complaints. I thought they quite creative myself and it was certainly worth it to get that Wonder Woman outfit. But some didn't like it because it made her look ugly. As I mentioned there is no accounting for taste. "I-want-huge-clicks-in-my-gallery-and-be-like-Vallejo-so-I-quickly-throw-in-badly-lit-but-huge-breasted-female-and-reap-the-fame-NOW" attitude of some artists isn't that a HUGE assumption about the motives on your part? Which is partly another question of taste and partly a question of skill. As I have pointed out numerous times before, they way people seem to learn on this site is through practice and example, they see something they like in other images then they try to do it themselves through trial and error they eventually get better at doing it. The thing is that there seems to be a constant stream of people starting out doing a lot of the same things as others do when they start out so the pattern continues with a steady stream of the same kinds of images.

Ummm.... Why would anyone care whether they had huge clicks in their gallery? Is there money involved? A contest?

Why would anyone care whether they had huge clicks in their gallery? Is there money involved? A contest? I think it's a religious thing. They believe that the more views they get, the more likely they are to go to heaven. bonni

If you get no views, it's kind of depressing to know you put so much work into something, and nobody wants to even LOOK at it. So you look around and see what gets a lot of hits, to see what you can change to garner more interest. What's the first trend you notice? Tits = Hits. So if someone does that, so what? You have to know that female nudity is going to be more popular than male nudity. I know I'd sure rather look at some boobs than a penis.

I think it's a religious thing. They believe that the more views they get, the more likely they are to go to heaven. LOL! That's a good one. But seriously, I think it's more like some kind of contest. I know I'm happy when I get many hits, comments or rankings (preferrably "excellent" rankings :)). It's nice to get some recognition for your work. What I've noticed, though, is that many hits does not automatically translate into many comments. So the real challenge for me is to get people to care for my images enough to actually leave comments. Personally, I do not feel that I "use" nudity to that purpose, because nekkid people (mostly women) is what I like to do, anyway. But it certainly doesn't hurt. :)

I can see that. I feel much that way, too. I guess if I didn't have the website, I'd post all sorts of things in my gallery.

"Tits = Hits." Yes and No. My biggest hits 700/800, not much to most of you, are non-nude, but for one. I think maybe thumb presentation has a lot to do with the hits too.

As I've said before, art is individual and subjective. What one person likes, someone else doesn't. It's a unique phenomena and can't really be explained, and as the old addage states "there is no accounting for taste".

I don't believe in censorship. Censorship takes away rights. I personally don't want what I can and cannot view dictated to me by people who insist that their way is the only "right" way and can't be bothered to turn the channel, throw out the magazine or walk away.

If I don't want to look at something, I don't. I have free will and no one is making me "look" at anything I don't want to look at.

I personally don't care to look at some people's askewed views of "the ideal woman", but I don't begrudge them the right to express that view through their art.

It's easy to just skip on by, turn the channel, throw out the magazine or walk away.

This way we each have a choice... to either look or not to look. That to me is a win-win situation.

Message edited on: 03/30/2006 18:48

Yes, indeed, artist folk are funny. Whenever I read one of these, I try to take the person at their word and assume they have no agenda other than a passion for their vision of artistic perfection. Nothing wrong with having your own esthetic, moral, religious or other viewpoint. When they start calling for purges of what they don't like though, it begins to smell less like passion and more like something else - something that would seem out of place in an "art community." But then I don't know. I'm not an artist, I just come here for the entertainment

It's not just in the art community, it's everywhere.

Schools are banning classic literature from their libraries because some fanatical parents have suddenly decided that the books are "immoral" and promote "racism" etc.

Schools no longer have "Christmas Concerts", everything is "Holiday" this and "Holiday" that. They're even changing words to Christmas Carols to replace "Christmas" with "Holiday". And songs or anything to do with "Santa" is banned from many schools because he's associated with "Christmas", and "Christmas" is a bad word in schools these days.

It's to a point that it's become offensive for Christians to celebrate their major religious Holiday out in the open for fear of offending "non Christians".

Halloween is something else on the "banned" hit list. Some parents are saying that it's "Devil Worship", and many schools are now banning Halloween celebrations.

Ironically enough these same parents let their kids play ultra violent video games that are shoot/kill and/or have occult ties in them IE: Deamons, magic, necromancers etc.

Then there is "The Lord's Prayer" issue. So far as I know the only schools where I live that still have that are the private religious schools. A funny thing that while Christians can't resite "The Lord's Prayer" in public schools, students of other religions are allowed to carry/wear items pretaining to their religion in full view including a "knife" (sorry, I forgot the official name).

A couple of years ago some parents started to protest Rememberance Day events in schools. So far as I know the school districts have stood fast on that issue and continue to honour our fallen soldiers, as they should.

Instead of learning and promoting tolerance and understanding about each others' differences, fanatics are promoting censorship and then complain about racism and intolerance because they've taken away choices of our children and they don't get a chance to learn about one another in order to understand.

If I had my way I'd abolish the word "Censorship" and hand out ear plugs and blind folds at the door and tell people "You don't want to look or listen, wear these".

gets off soap box

Message edited on: 03/31/2006 07:50

Christmas? Ah, the birth of Christ, yes. Holiday, I have no idea what you are talking about. Celebrating the Almighty Dollar? Yen? Ruble, Peso? It confuses me. Getting back to the nudity issue, I'm from the Hugh Hefner generation where suductivly clothed models were the norm. Are the overly developed mammaries you see in the galleries realistic? Actually, yes, there have been some very famous strippers, names elude me, that had gigantic frontal appendages.

Tanks for the mammaries? Sorry..... :-D

Getting back to the nudity issue, I'm from the Hugh Hefner generation where suductivly clothed models were the norm. Not only the "norm", but leaving something to the imagination is actually more sexy than blatant nudity. 8-)

steps up to Acadia's soap box >Schools no longer have "Christmas Concerts" Christmas is a Christian holiday. The schools/teachers, as representatives of the government, must remain neutral. Thus they cannot have a christian celebration. One could speculate that having a holiday celebration is merely an attempt to have a religious celebration while skirting the laws. > A funny thing that while Christians can't resite "The Lord's Prayer" in public schools If a child is stopped from reciting their prayer (regardless of what religion they are) by an official of the school then the official has violated the childs rights. If a child is made to recite a prayer by an official of the school then the official has violated the childs rights. If the child is intentionally being disruptive and asked to stop then the childs rights are not being violated. >students of other religions are allowed to carry/wear items pertaining to their religion in full view including a "knife" (sorry, I forgot the official name). It is a Sikh (name of the religion) Kirpan (name of the item) and I have read that to call it a knife is like calling a crucifix a trinket.

Ok here you have 3 images; First is the orginal (I do love this images and I did win an contest with it :)) I don't say it is the best images, it is Just an image I like :)

This is the second images, where I have put in a nude female, just to get more views Still good? (edit for spelling and nude flag)

Message edited on: 04/01/2006 04:37

The 3 images, this is how I would do an nude images if I wanted to - my male friends would love it :) (argh forgot the nude flag...again)

Message edited on: 04/01/2006 04:39

Attached Link: for dave-so

Dave-so -- if you want diversity, my gallery has it. I do lots of anime, fantasy & real life (underwater, animal, etc).

Now don't get me when I post here. I'm not saying that nudity is wrong or right. However, think of the masters of art. From Michaelangelo to Vallejo & Royo, we have plenty of nudes. Nudity has never, ever been wrong. The CHURCH throughout history has had ups & downs w/this topic. At times, they were ok w/nudity. Look at the madonna statues w/nude male infant babes. At other times, they bought out the nudes & hid them away only to bring the "masters" out for display & money.

The way nudity is displayed makes it either gratuitous, blazen or very well done. Otherwise, people would say you can't render a cucumber or a summer squash w/o clothing cuz it looks like a man's you=know-what. People have their individual tastes just like history has shown, in & out of the CHURCH.

Message edited on: 04/01/2006 08:36

Message edited on: 04/01/2006 08:37

jecnodde: I understand the point you're trying to make and I think it's a good one. Putting the figure adds nothing to the picture. Just to get hits? Fine, if that's what somebody wants, I guess it's okay. Each illustration stands on it's own merits and combining the two doesn't do a thing to advance either one. Then again, maybe it's me. Maybe I'm just too thickheaded to understand that human society has gotten so corse over the last 40 or so years that it takes something outrageous to get a response. For what it's worth, I think the unicorn piece is very well done and displays a good sense of dramatic conflict and energy in an otherwise peaceful setting. It's a piece you should be very happy with. The other piece is nice as well (by itself), but, and this is me again, I'd prefer it tell a little bit of a story. (Mind you, I do understand that it was done for illustrative purposes only.)

Attached Link: Chicken or Egg example

***(Mind you, I do understand that it was done for illustrative purposes only.)*** Being that it means that the 2 examples weren't designed to go together. I also thought they stood well enough on their own so what point did it prove? I challenge the notion that artists use nudity to get hits, since that's sort of a chicken and egg type question, do they get hits because of the nudity, or do the artist use nudity to get the hits? In my experience of watching the images that go through the gallery is that you couldn't stop them from getting hits or votes even if you wanted to. In Febuary IgnisSerpentus and Prog stopped enabling the comments to protest the stealing one of Prog's images and the complaints about the Hot 20, it didn't stop them from getting in the Hot 20 for those images without the comments or telling people not to vote for them. (As Ringo Starr said in the "Yellow Submarine" movie "I'm a born lever-puller" when he saw a sign that said "Don't pull") A lot of people asked them to enable the comments again so they did since the protest obviously wasn't going anywhere. Just like artist are going to use nudity at every skill level and some will do it better than others. To attribute motives to them that they are just to get more viewings is forgetting that it would get viewings whether they wanted it to or not.

i need to read your post again or twice , Argon18, but one thing I will say, the number of hits does not equate to a good piece of art, in the galleries or in the Hot 20.

:) I post those images just to show that sometimes nudity can destroy a good image. I never post an image to get comments (exept those 3 :)) Image 1 and 3 it ok to me. But in image 2 I think there is to much nudity and it is only here that image will ever been shown. I did just post those image to show that I do understand what the starter of this topic is saying - it is not nudity itself that is the problem - it is images as image2 in my example that is the problem - where you can SEE that nudity is there just to get more views. But again this is Just my thinking. Love Jenny

But in your case that was an eample, when the 2 images clearly didn't fit together, and weren't designed to. Where is an example of an image that WAS designed to fit together and you can SEE it is there just to get views and not because of the skill level of the artist? I never said that just because an image got views or was in the Hot 20 that, it was any good. It has been proven over and over again that the Hot20 is only based on popularity, all of the complaints about the Hot20 are from people that misunderstand that fact. As for views, that's hit or miss, since I sometimes click on a thumbnail because I'm curious, not that it was a good image or not, I'm sure a lot of other people do too.

Message edited on: 04/01/2006 11:04

"But in your case that was an eample, when the 2 images clearly didn't fit together, and weren't designed to. Where is an example of an image that WAS designed to fit together and you can SEE it is there just to get views and not because of the skill level of the artist?" It is just that - when you SEE that it is just get the views that is the problem, isn't it? I peronally think I can see diffrent between a good pin-up image and those "where you can see it is just there to get views" images. But then again it is just my thinking. Love Jenny

Inferred or implied? Infer is when you make the assumption that it was done to just to get views, no matter what the artist intended when they made it. Imply is when the artist either didn't have enough skill to do what they wanted and just through the nudity in there or just did it through laziness. Which is the difference and how can you tell?

Biggest problem with the naked ladies is they don't potray much. They are there, blank stare and all. Renders to me should tell some type of story, the scene has a lot to do with why the person is nude to begin with. This goes back to the aforementioned comments about composition. Doing a good nude or portrait is actually more difficult due to the attention to detail that should be done, pose, expression, lighting, background setting.

nickedshield, I agree with you. A good composition will tell a story. Even if it's a portrait, clothed or otherwise, it will tell a story. The devil is in the details.

And the circle of life from post #99 is still turning, since what nickedshield said in post #131 is what I said in post #7. It's not about nudity, it's about quality since all kinds of images have different skill levels. The same complaints about Nudity being all the same with very little effort put into it can be applied to a lot of portraits. It's not only the devil that's in the details, it's also the genius, since a portrait with skill at all the details will put more quality into the image that makes it more distinctive and stand out from the rest. That also applies to nudity, the amount of skill put into the image makes it different than all the others of the same theme. The thing is that level of skill is not the same for every artist and not learned overnight but through a lot of practice, trial and error. So it's no wonder that a lot of images are at different skill levels.

I do agree with you all - what have been said in posting 131 - 133. I do belive that when an artist isn't pleased or have put their heart into it - it do show. And how can I tell? It is as when you hear a commersial made song, you can hear that there is no passion, no love no other mening behind it exept getting money. The same goes for images, I know, course I have made some images without the same passion that other of my images have, and I think it is shown when my heart is made into an image or not. The problem is that often those "having nude female to get more views" images are often making me feel that there is no passion behind them. But I also want to say I have seen some really heartbreaking images with nude female, where nudity is used as a way to tell the story. And please don't say I don't have to look at those with nudity, course there are some images that don't have any nude thumbnail, but when you click on the thumbnail, hoping to see something good, you get an great scene, good lighting, poses, yes everything, but it is damage by that nude, sexy posing female in the front of the whole scene. But then again it is my thinking :) And I think this is a great subject for discassion Love Jenny

damaged by that nude, sexy posing female in the front of the whole scene As Temperance Brennan says on the "Bones" TV show, "I don't know what that means"

If all the other elements of the image are done well, how is it damaged by a nude figure? Is it that the nude itself is technically not up to the standard of the other elements or that you discount it because it had the nude figure?

I'm frequently disappointed by the full image after looking at the thumbnail, but not because of unsuspected nudity. Because it didn't fulfill the promise of the way the thumbnail was potrayed. Message edited on: 04/01/2006 14:53

Lol I mean when a female really dont fit in to the scene - as in my image nr2 :) Nothing more or less - when an female really dont look like it belong in the image :) Comeon if I made an thumbnail of the image nr 2, with just an unicorn head, then when you clicked on the thumbnail, you get the image nr2, wouldn't you feel a little bit disepointed and think the scene is damage by the nude, sexy posing female in the front? It could be a boat, a car or whatever that looks like it don't fit, but MOST time it is uselly that nude female that looks like it have been put into the images just to get more views. I like nudity when it looks good :) not when it looks like it have been put in there as a way to attrack more viewers. Not the nudity, ok? - I'm talking about it used as an way of getting more views got that? But then on the other hand every artist have the right to do what they want -I just don't have to like it? "As Temperance Brennan says on the "Bones" TV show, "I don't know what that means" " Ok, I live in Sweden, don't know that show is it good? Love Jenny (Oh this is getting more fun, I'm really getting under your skin Argon18? :) And even if you don't agree with me, you have to admit you also like an good discussion.)

Attached Link: About the TV show

If you're talking about composition then, I'm not sure I've seen hardly any of the kind you mentioned in the gallery. Could you give an example of what you mean of an image that was supposed to be complete, but has a nude figure in it that doesn't fit the composition, the one you gave earlier wasn't supposed to be a good composition right? I have seen a lot of the reverse, where the thumbnail has nudity in it, but the full sized image doesn't. That's what the con men call the "bait and switch" I'd agree with that being a very dishonest way to get more views, but it only works once by each artist since you tend not to want to trust them to fall for it twice. It's a futile attempt by artists with little skill to grab more attention than they deserve Why else would we post in the forum if we didn't like a good discussion, pray tell? A lot don't seem to know how far to take one or when they lost the focus of one, but that usually happens over emotionally charged issues. Yes "Bones" is a good show about an Federal Law Enforcement Agent (played by David Boreanaz) and a forensic anthropologist (played by Emily Deschanel) team up to solve crimes, they have a good chemistry together and the plots are suspenseful with the way they catch the killers.

"Could you give an example of what you mean of an image that was supposed to be complete, but has a nude figure in it that doesn't fit the composition, the one you gave earlier wasn't supposed to be a good composition right?" No I can, But I will not -course I don't want to "hang" the artist. And the thing is, I could have posted my image2, with the nude woman, and some would think it is good. "If you're talking about composition then, I'm not sure I've seen hardly any of the kind you mentioned in the gallery." It can might be me having high demands on things... I have allways know what I like and dislike. :) "I have seen a lot of the reverse, where the thumbnail has nudity in it, but the full sized image doesn't." It is also bad "Why else would we post in the forum if we didn't like a good discussion, pray tell? A lot don't seem to know how far to take one or when they lost the focus of one, but that usually happens over emotionally charged issues." So true - and why is is so important to "win"? I mean don't we discusse just for the joy of telling ower own oppinion? I just love to discusse, to me it is never matter if I win or lose - hey I can even switch side just to keep the discussion alive :) Anyway I still don't like to see images where you get the felling that the nude woman is there just to get more views. But then again it is just how I feel, it doesn't make it wrong, bad or right. (Then I have allways wondering why female warrior dont't have anything on their bodys, I mean if I was a warrior I would wear so good armor I could without it stoping my moment...hmmm but when I think about it I would rather be an acher, standing behind all those in big armory and shoting my arrows at the enimy) "Yes "Bones" is a good show about an Federal Law Enforcement Agent (played by David Boreanaz) and a forensic anthropologist (played by Emily Deschanel) team up to solve crimes, they have a good chemistry together and the plots are suspenseful with the way they catch the killers." Mmm that sounds familier, I wonder if it is not shown on Swedish tv under another name. Or I have seen some commeriell about it. Love Jenny

Quote - "Yes "Bones" is a good show about an Federal Law Enforcement Agent (played by David Boreanaz) and a forensic anthropologist (played by Emily Deschanel) team up to solve crimes, they have a good chemistry together and the plots are suspenseful with the way they catch the killers."

I beg to differ on that. I have read all of Kathy Kathy Reiche's books and I was quite eager to to watch this show based on her books. However, I was sorely disappointed. The actress in the lead role is a terrible actress. In addition to that she's much to young to be believable in a such a role. Also, in the books "Bones" is right in there down in the dirt retrieving her own skeletons/remains, not standing, looking for 10 seconds and telling others to "bag 'em". I'm surprised that the show was renewed actually. I recommend the books, but stay away from the show.

Attached Link: I did find an example

I guess there are examples of the kind of poor composition you're talking about in the gallery, but from what the artist said in the description ***"just playing around with the figures"*** I doubt it was trying to get more views, it was more about laziness of slapping the figures haphazardly on a backround. You might SEE that kind of thing in the gallery, but I'd be willing to bet that it was more about a lack of attention to details or skill than an attempt to garner more views from it. I first started watching "Bones" because I had been a fan of the show "Angel" and David Boreanaz was in both of them and I liked the banter between them. If you're a fan of the books, then the TV is rarely any comparison. It usually take the resources of a major motion picture like with LOTR or Chronicles of Narnia to do any justice to them and even that is iffy to make sure it's done right, so I wouldn't expect it with the pressures of an ongoing TV series.

Can anyone tell me how I can set my filter so that I see ONLY nudes?  That's what I'd like.  GIVE ME ALL THE NUDES YOU CAN!!!!!

David P. Hoadley

Quote - Can anyone tell me how I can set my filter so that I see ONLY nudes?  That's what I'd like.  GIVE ME ALL THE NUDES YOU CAN!!!!!

David P. Hoadley

 

That's not a bad idea, that way you wouldn't have to wade through all the other crap on the site right? Since they want to complain about the opposite, you can do the same.

I genuinely believe that the nude human form, in all its aspects, is a work of art unto itself.  The creator of all life did not create things ugly!  Ugly, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  The only art I dislike aare those depicting pain and torture, but even those have their aficionados.
 I am not so great and gross in my ego that I would dare to presume to judge the taste of others.
David P. Hoadley

I'd like to note that I did not post that naked female image in my post above!!!! LOL 

If I were going to post a naked picture, it would likely be a gorgeous "bad boy", man hunk!!!!!!!!!   :blushing:

**jecnodde posted the nude.  The picture's been carried over into every other post since then by the Brave New Forum's impeccable software.  The same software that periodically freezes my browser, something that's never happened with me with the old Forum, or any other forum for that matter.  Something's Rotten With the State of Denmark... and it ain't my Mozilla browser. David P. Hoadley

P.S. Here's a better looking Nude, Ghoulish eyes and all!
**

Guys, now that my ebots looks like they are working ok again, I'm a little amazed you still are talking about the same bored thing... You like nudity? WATCH IT !! You dislike it ? DON'T SEE IT !! But conversations about all the same are boreD... humans was in the trees only 10.000 years ago, we have a INSTINCTIVE CONDITIONING to nudity and signals coming from private parts. Read Desmond Morris

Quote - Can anyone tell me how I can set my filter so that I see ONLY nudes?  That's what I'd like.  GIVE ME ALL THE NUDES YOU CAN!!!!!

David P. Hoadley

ME TOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Attached Link: D. H. Lawrence

"Read Desmond Morris"

Personally, I prefer D. H. Lawrence.

Hoadley

Well Desmond Morris only put it from a zoological perspective, it's fine as long as you only look at those aspects and are bound by instinctual conditioning and the opposing view is held by many with the repressed puritanical conditioning.

It has long been my view that  it is only a small part of the potential of the human race, that we are a lot more than just Naked Apes, more like Naked Angels, caught between one stage and on the way to evolving to another.

I prefer the lyricism of D. H. Lawrence, especially the scene on the forest floor where  Oliver Mellors impregnates Constance Chatterley.  The poetic passion of that one scene is worth the whole book.
Hoadley

If the nudity is no big deal, why do most of the images have the women fondling their nipples? Making sure they're still attached?

Of course, why else?!  Or maybe they just enjoy relishing in the pure beauty of being alive, and realizing their own physical vitality.
Hoadley