Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL


Subject: Sexual identity for figures

jhmcd2 opened this issue on Apr 10, 2008 · 306 posts


ghonma posted Sat, 12 April 2008 at 2:51 PM

Quote - FACE IT!  And if you honestly think there's still a problem with puttin a feature such as genatals, that is natural to ever last person on the planet, on child  figures, than I refer you to any art work made by anyone from before the nineteen hundred, especialy renesance work.

I'm with XENO on this, the ignorance of some people on the whole 'classical art' thing is quite amusing.

Try this, go and do some research on what a 'Cherub' actually is. Hint: It's not a naked baby with oversized genitalia and wings. Those flying rugrats you see in Renaissance art are actually 'Putti' a motif from ancient Greco-Roman art, often associated with eroticism, leisure, playfulness and the goddess Aphrodite. ie they are actually icons of sexuality and romantic love and not some 'expression of divine innocence' or some such bullcrap.

The main reason they wound up in that era's artwork is because some Renaissance artists 'rediscovered' them and then had a blast secretly thumbing their noses at their foolish patrons by adding them to straight laced religious works. Of course they couched it in a whole pile of Bible BS and since wikipedia was still a few centuries away, no one ever knew any different.

Anyone using them in contemporary work should think twice about what kind of message they are sending.