not that there is anything wrong with skimp wear or skank wear.

i think it may have a lot to do with the pose

when does sexi turn into skanki?

it's a lot of work to make a pose look natural

adequatly express body language? 
maybe a couple extra twist/bends in the torso and shoulders would help?

When does skimpy become skanky? Well, I bet if you ask 500 ppl, you'll get 500 different answers on that since it all boils down to personal sensibilities ;). As far as the pose - no, I don't think it's the pose, tho a pose itself can be skanky I guess. But clothing can also be skanky ;). I think that most of the stuff in the stores is skanky, but that's just me.... Not everyone will feel the same way about my personal preference. I prefer elegant over skanky, but that IS just my own preference. Obviously, my tastes differ from the norm due to the prevalence of skank and lack of elegance....lol. Fabiana has elegance covered tho ;)

Laurie

Subtlety has all but vanished in popular culture.  I know exactly what you mean, however.  It's also a problem with other concepts.  When is it just "too much?"  One reason the boudoire poses from the 40's and 50's remain popular is that they capture the interest, there are visual cues and clues that let one speculate on possibilities, and the nudity or lack of is tastefully done.  It's the difference between splatter movies and true terror.  One shows you the buckets of blood and the monster right off the bat as shock value, the other hints, leads, misleads, but never exposes the creature...it plays off the subconscious.

I've seen outfits for 3D characters that walk that thin line daily.  It's all in the body language, all in the "intent" of the actor and artist as to how it comes across to the viewer and reader.  I would rather see a robe slip a shoulder with a "come hither" look than something that leaves nothing to the imagination and is crass...unless that is the specific intent of the artist for some reason.

You have a very valid question.  As stated, it's one that I deal with daily in not just art, but in my job where I teach college level composition and literature.  How do you lead the reader/viewer into your message without losing them to extraneous materials and pointless objectification?

I usually recommend that budding authors read the original "Body Language" book at least twice to get lessons on how presentation is everything, intent is relayed without words, and message IS the medium.

Oh, I guess I should have mentioned that I like skanky sometimes. Depends on what mood I'm in :P

Laurie

Some of the poses in our marketplace look to me to be one figure short of porn. What I mean is, based on the poses, it looks like sex of some sort is happening, but the male is invisible.

To me, that's skanky, no matter what the outfit. But as Laurie says, ask 500 people...

But I don't have anything against it, either.

Can something too skimpy sometimes be more "skanky" than nothing at all?

Monkeycloud: Yes, I believe it can.  There is a "purity" in total nudity and the message, the other is almost advertising...but that's just my take on the situation.

Quote - Can something too skimpy sometimes be more "skanky" than nothing at all?

Definitely ;)

Laurie

I wish I could remember the source of the quote, but I once read that the difference between nude and naked in intent on the part of both the artist and the viewer.  Nude is simply without clothing, not trying to elicit any type of salacious response.  Naked works in the other direction.

Think "Venus Rising from the Waves" vs Penthouse magazine.  There is a purity to the one image that is not even implied, and often mocked, in the other.

As Laurie says, skank is in the eye of the beholder. But to pick up on the other part of your question, yes, I think the model's expression and body language can have a bearing on what the viewer perceives.

Skank wear sends a message, and I prefer to subvert that message instead of reinforcing it with a sexy pose. If the model's looking embarrassed, or afraid, or angry, that puts (three) entirely different slants on things. The alert viewer is obliged to think about the picture, and that to my mind is a better outcome than going "phwoar!" and moving on.

I don't think you can formularise it to torso twists or anything as specific as that, though.

I think there are some poses which do send a rather specific message, which, like wearing red shoes, however, can be just ambiguous enough to give the poseur a sort of plausible deniability. The infamous "coy look" (chin pointing down, neck twisted, gaze looking up and over shoulder) is one of them.

But it's open to interpretation. Add some skimpy leather or latex, and the degree of interpretation is significantly narrower.

Here is a great online resource for body language and interpretation of positioning.  And, best of all, it's free:

http://www.center-for-nonverbal-studies.org/6101.html

And here is one for Semiotics, the language of symbols and interactions:

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html

These are great primers for anyone interested in messag, content, intent, all that stuff.

most people when standing (or anything else) are not positioned symetrically. They may put more weight on one leg, twist the hip to take some stress off the hip, and that sort of thing. For more realism you need to play with the morphs to get things like tension in the thigh or calf muscle.

for skank as a pose I think in terms of hip position, head position and expression.

In terms of eroticism skimpy can be more alluring than nudity. Thats why womans underwear is not the male equivelent of "tighty whities".

Quote - Here is a great online resource for body language and interpretation of positioning.  And, best of all, it's free:

http://www.center-for-nonverbal-studies.org/6101.html

And here is one for Semiotics, the language of symbols and interactions:

http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html

These are great primers for anyone interested in messag, content, intent, all that stuff.

Thanks Cedarwolf 

Cool links, Cedarwolf.

As always, I'm wary of strict interpretations of body language. Crossing the arms isn't always defensive, for instance. If your delts or lats are really sore from lifting, it's just much more comfortable to cross the arms sometimes regardless of how you feel about the people you're talking with.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure what conclusions you can come to when you're with someone who lifts weights or runs or regularly suffers from various types of tendonitis or arthritis or any kind of body ailment than causes pain. Physical discomfort does all sorts of weird things to body positioning.

But the way we interpret these things, even if it might be incorrect for any given individual, is interesting and useful to keep in mind when posing a figure.

Thanks for the links Cedarwolf. This seems like it would be a great poser tutorial topic.

thanks for the link. 

the lizard on the antigrav page is so cute. 

My guess is cultural context plays a big role.  If it looks like something a cheap hooker would wear, it's probably skanky. 

Quote - Some of the poses in our marketplace look to me to be one figure short of porn. What I mean is, based on the poses, it looks like sex of some sort is happening, but the male is invisible.

To me, that's skanky, no matter what the outfit. But as Laurie says, ask 500 people...

But I don't have anything against it, either.

This.

I see a lot of poses in the marketplace that are tagged as normal everyday poses but a lot of them have the figure sticking thier asses out, speading their legs wide open on a couch or arching their back out while pushing thier chest towards the camera. I don't know about you, but that's skanky/porn territory to me and it's not what I'm looking for. If I can't seem to get a pose right I'll use the Poser included poses and tweak them to my liking since they're not skank poses and already included in the program. I've posted three images to my gallery and if you've seen them, that's they type of imagery I prefer to make and see.

Well, at the same time I don't have anything against skank either...whatever trips ur trigger....lol. It makes no difference to my life ;).

Laurie

Well, there are lots and lots and lots of poses for V4 in the marketplace that range from sweet to ordinary to sexy to practically pornographic. There's truly something for everyone. I just find it amusing to see a girl lying on her side "relaxing" on a couch, holding one of her legs in the air.

Winterclaw, you are correct, at least from my observations.  Culture indeed dictates what is and is not acceptable.  Here's an obscure example of how this works: When Europe "discovered" Japan, the Japanese of the time were aghast at how filthy, dirty, disrespectful, and wasteful the Europeans were.  The Europeans thought the Japanese were just a bit too uptight and needed a little "enlightenment" to see the error of their clean, tidy, respectful ways.

In many cultures clothing for the day, or not, is definately contextual.  If you lived in Ivory Coast you wouldn't wear a parka.  Drape of the cloth, fold, type of cloth, color, texture, they all tell a story to the informed viewer.

It still, IMHO, goes back to intent.  What is the signal that the siginfier is putting forth for the receiver?

Glad to provide the links, folks.  As they say in my field: "There's a paper in that idea!"

It's a bit like barbed wire round a field.
Does it protect the property without spoiling the view?

Quote - Well, there are lots and lots and lots of poses for V4 in the marketplace that range from sweet to ordinary to sexy to practically pornographic. There's truly something for everyone. I just find it amusing to see a girl lying on her side "relaxing" on a couch, holding one of her legs in the air.

Sounds like she's doing some couch pilates...?

Quote - > Quote - Well, there are lots and lots and lots of poses for V4 in the marketplace that range from sweet to ordinary to sexy to practically pornographic. There's truly something for everyone. I just find it amusing to see a girl lying on her side "relaxing" on a couch, holding one of her legs in the air.

Sounds like she's doing some couch pilates...?

Is that what they call it these days? No wonder all the health pundits are lecturing about the benefits of exercise. :)

Quote - when does sexi turn into skanki?

Context.  A fully clothed person wearing "normal" clothes and standing "normally" can still talk like a skank, we would just not see it in a render unless there was a chat / thought bubble or if it is in the image notes.  Likewise, a nekkid toon with a "naughty" expression will not look like much if posed oddly.

Or, to both examples, if they are lit so as to be "wrong" somehow.  A sexy image that is hard to see loses its appeal.

If the dress is short and your not wearing any underwear that's  skanky. 

As the late supreme court member Mr. Justice Black was fond of saying: "I can't define pornography... but I know what I like!"

Pretty much the same issue here!

Skanky has a whole lot to do with presentation and/or/+- attitude, as a trip through any "red light" district will reveal to even casual observance.  Like anything else, there are levels, sometimes nuanced, other times blatant.  There is "real" skankiness and "faux" skankiness, along with the unintentionally skanky.  Not to "rub anybody's rhubarb", but late night watching of your basic Hip Hop Channel videos will present the gamut, with heavy emphasis on the "faux" masquerading as the "real".

Of course, a visit to your local Greyhound Bus Station will teach you some lessons as well.

IMHO.

Well, as long as we're talking about art, I wont go into the relative character merits of the average scantily clad femme vs. their stylishly garbed clerical, political or corporate counterparts :-)

I agree with Cedarwolf to a degree, but it's all relative. Elvis' hip swiveling was just as transgressive in its day as Jacko's crotch grabbing when it appeared and I'm pretty sure that a flash of ankle caused proper folk to have the vapors as much as thongs did at one time. Strangely, exposed skin amongst 'savages,' i.e. non-White folks has always seemed to be viewed a bit differently - but that is a whole 'nother story. No doubt there is enduring appeal to some things e.g. Lohan's Marilyn layout or Bettie Page. I wonder though if evolving tastes in art, literature etc. will eventually render them as niche as classical Latin. Things may well swing back, but I don't expect bustles of even one piece swimsuits to make a comeback - even among thouse who arguably 'should' be wearing them.

Expression is part of it. The same pose can be uninteresting or provocative depending on the face. Don't underestimate the power of the 'come hither' look. Ditto context. Is it a bedroom or a boardroom? Sprawling open legged on the ground is innocent enough for women's beach volleyball - in some other context, maybe not so much. A pose that might look unremarkable for a teen or a child playing might look different on an older adult and vice versa.

"Can something too skimpy sometimes be more "skanky" than nothing at all?"

Well, I think that "skanky" is a description of behavior, with an attendant moral judgement. Clothes can't be skanky, only the people who wear them and the uniform is optional. Clothing can be revealing or sexy in the eye of the beholder. Can less revealing clothing be sexier than more - of course.. OTOH, if that were a universal truth, then Hefner et al have wasted billions on nudity instead of burkas. Whether it's a demure chemise or the full Monty, if the intent or result is to tickle the baby making instinct to one degree or another... You can argue the one is more 'tasteful' and another is 'crude' or 'obscene,' but then I think you're getting into individual and cultural differences. N.B. I suppose T-shirt with a flashing 'Vacancy' sign and an arrow pointing crotch-ward would be skanky. I stand corrected.

"Think "Venus Rising from the Waves" vs Penthouse magazine."

LOL, I can remember when "Venus" would have been the source of pretty salacious interest to my companions and I, as were National Geographic, the Sears Catalog ... By the time you factor in viewer 'intent' (not the best term for a response which is largely beyond conscious control IMO), then the definition becomes so subjective as to be less than generally useful - again, just MO.

I think there has always been a bit of an element of unconscious class based judgement in this area. Sometimes the difference between art and pornography has been the framed in terms of the privileged classes looking askance at the taste of the less privileged. That goes for good vs. bad or high vs low in literature, recreation etc., e.g. a sport can become less acceptable when too many of the wrong people start playing it. Interestingly, I think Playboy readers looked down on Penthouse readers and they both looked down on Hustler. To a degree, it was stolid old line vs. hip nouveau riche vs.brash blue collar. There was always a class element though.

Quote - Of course, a visit to your local Greyhound Bus Station will teach you some lessons as well.

I hadn't noticed. Maybe it's different where you live. Up here, people who don't drive or can't afford to drive use Greyhound. There doesn't seem to be much connection between choice of transport and their choice of profession or style of dress other than the obvious socioeconomic one.

Well, there is the occasional crazy person who beheads other passengers. But, by occasional, I mean really quite infrequent.

Well, you may have a point. I suppose I should have been more specific, i.e., Greyhound Bus Stations in your basic urban settings like San Francisco, Oakland, and/or Sacramento, having prolonged first hand knowledge of all. This is not to imply that I am a skank by any means - LOL, just an observation over the years, having some years back - decades even - been occasionally employed as security in the first 2. And certainly not every person who frequents these establishments would be skanky, but if one wanted to see some walking around, passing through, even occasionally passed out, that is one of the guaranteed places to do so. I stand by that assertion with some clarification.

I once had occasion to pick up my daughter from the nightclubbing district of our nearest large city, and since then I've been more accepting of some of the more extreme Poser outfits. Apparently, people really do walk around the streets dressed like that... :)

Take a walk round Rotherham and you'll see plenty of skanky looking people.  Oh boy, will you ever.

I just remembered this from years ago - my buddy at university once said:

"Sexy is when she's with me; skanky is when she's with you."

He meant it in a nice way, honest. :)

Quote - I just remembered this from years ago - my buddy at university once said:

"Sexy is when she's with me; skanky is when she's with you."

He meant it in a nice way, honest. :)

Hah. Yeah. Skanky: the hot babe who won't have anything to do with you. Or: the hot babe your man keeps eyeing when he thinks you aren't looking.

"Sexy is when she's with me; skanky is when she's with you."

Jackpot! I think that pretty much sums it up.* *Maybe the father's variant may be sexy on someone else's daughter (not to be admitted of course), skanky on mine.

I'm struggling to get over my aversion to tattoos and piercings on women. They're just too commonplace. Ah for the days when ankle bracelets were racy. 

Quote - when does skimpy become skanky?

Personally I like extremely skimpy clothing, I like to be aroused, and rarely find any degree skimpiness in and of itself skanky, but some things, eg crotchless knickers, do strike me as skanky. It's in the eye of the beholder! You can't please everyone, so you may as well please yourself.

i spent some time last night searching for ww2 pinup images.  imo, a pinup can be classy.  though in Clara Bow's day, like someone mentioned above, the flash of ankle was scandalous.  so what looks classy today prolly wasn't always so.

and, i think, some of the skankiness impression comes from when the smile doesn't reach the model's eyes. 

Isn't it strange how the ages change perceptions, I'm sure in Ancient Rome during a damn good orgy, very little would have been considered skimpy or skanky, yet 2000 years later a 50 year old slightly overweight woman wearing a short skirt and fish net stockings is almost certain to be categorised as skanky.

I have a theory, that it isn't the clothes or the pose that determines the definition, it is the underlying intent of the person wearing them.

Quote - Isn't it strange how the ages change perceptions, I'm sure in Ancient Rome during a damn good orgy, very little would have been considered skimpy or skanky, yet 2000 years later a 50 year old slightly overweight woman wearing a short skirt and fish net stockings is almost certain to be categorised as skanky.

I have a theory, that it isn't the clothes or the pose that determines the definition, it is the underlying intent of the person wearing them.

What do you suppose the underlying intent of the woman you described is?

"What do you suppose the underlying intent of the woman you described is?"

I can answer that - or I could if I assumed that all 50 year old, slightly overweight women thought the same. Absent that, inferring intent would be foolish at best and at worst downright dangerous.

"What do you suppose the underlying intent of the woman you described is?"

I guess that depends on the woman, maybe she feels good dressed like that, maybe her perception of what is skanky and what isn't is different from somebody elses.

Do we disapprove of everyone that dresses outside of societys norms.

Now maybe if she was leaning on a lamp post on a street well know for its ladies of the night, and she was provacatively posing with her skirt raised high up on one thigh, then maybe we can make a judgement call.

Lets says though, she is out with her husband, he has no qualms about her dress sense.Do we judge that the same?

What really gives us the right to judge? 

For an in-depth lesson on skanky, a couple of hours perusing peopleofwalmart should enlighten you. It's amazing what people wear (and don't wear) out shopping. When did the rule about covering tushies change, and why wasn't I notified?