as I was trying to make sure my latest work would be ok for the gallery here(its not).

I ran across this rule

"No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. "

o.0 unfortunatly the impish, pedantic side couldnt help and go

"wah? no gentital contact? but...but....what about nude horseback riding?"

soooooooooo :P

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand while I am at it...I take it a highly volitile political work wouldnt be aloud..particular with nudity....and a touch of poo......

LMAO!!! Good luck DE. giggle

Laurie

Doesn't the "sitting" exception apply here ?

Quote - Doesn't the "sitting" exception apply here ?

I had thought of that...but then the whole...its a living animal....came in. So how is anyone suppose to do say...Lady Godiva?

Quote - LMAO!!! Good luck DE. giggle

Laurie

;)

thatcher I do not think shall be making an appearance here >.<

I sit down

Close my eyes

See Thatcher nude.

Suddenly need a drink.

I wonder why.

Quote - I sit down

Close my eyes

See Thatcher nude.

Suddenly need a drink.

I wonder why.

grins...just...grins

well it -is- posted just I do not think I could post it here....

Yeah vilters I was rather thinking the same thing. LOL

Laurie

I wasn't feel my best so I thought I would just sit a take it easy, now thanks to the last couple of post I feel very...very...unwell.

Only kidding....just in case.

I think there is an all pervading fear that if a tight rein isn't kept on the gallery then it will degenerate into something like Sodom and Gomorrah. To be fair Rendo could have a point in rigidly enforsing their rules, keeping the site PG and ... no point in having rules of you don't inforce them.

And if you break the site rules ....... then Rendo will do unto you what God did unto the Sodomites (....... not sure what that was but I can't imagine it could be any worse than what they did to each other....)

Quote - I think there is an all pervading fear that if a tight rein isn't kept on the gallery then it will degenerate into something like Sodom and Gomorrah. To be fair Rendo could have a point in rigidly enforsing their rules, keeping the site PG and ... no point in having rules of you don't inforce them.

 

And if you break the site rules ....... then Rendo will do unto you what God did unto the Sodomites (....... not sure what that was but I can't imagine it could be any worse than what they did to each other....)

Genesis 19:24 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven

He burned them to the ground....

Personally, I like the fact that the rules are in place and that they are enforced. If I wanted to see that other stuff, I would just look at pr0n on the interwebs. I come here for education and look in the galleries to see what others have done and try to emulate what I see. I don't need to look at explicit pictures for that.

Quote - Personally, I like the fact that the rules are in place and that they are enforced. If I wanted to see that other stuff, I would just look at pr0n on the interwebs. I come here for education and look in the galleries to see what others have done and try to emulate what I see. I don't need to look at explicit pictures for that.

ah but not all nudity is pr0n. Sometimes the nudity is to make a point. Not a sexual one as in porn but a general over, vulgar political one.

though to be honest I think the piece in question would probably be removed due to poo>.<

Was going to say something about there being enough crap in the Gallery already, then remembered I cannot light an empty room.

It might also be worth remembering that a scene of a naked child getting ready / in the process of a bath falls under child pronography even if the scene itself is otherwise innocent in tone and depiction, especially when camera blocking or suds in the tub would cover enough of the child.

Quote - > Quote - Personally, I like the fact that the rules are in place and that they are enforced. If I wanted to see that other stuff, I would just look at pr0n on the interwebs. I come here for education and look in the galleries to see what others have done and try to emulate what I see. I don't need to look at explicit pictures for that.

ah but not all nudity is pr0n. Sometimes the nudity is to make a point. Not a sexual one as in porn but a general over, vulgar political one.

 

though to be honest I think the piece in question would probably be removed due to poo>.<

If it's done tastefully, there is nothing wrong with nudity. All I am saying is, I have done a couple of 'pinup' renders myself, just to see if I could do it, but I would rather look at real photos of real nudes.

And yeah, poo is one of those things I don't need to see, even in a politically slated pic...

Quote - Was going to say something about there being enough crap in the Gallery already, then remembered I cannot light an empty room.

It might also be worth remembering that a scene of a naked child getting ready / in the process of a bath falls under child pronography even if the scene itself is otherwise innocent in tone and depiction, especially when camera blocking or suds in the tub would cover enough of the child.

o.0 how on earth did that get into the topic?

I have no issues with no nude children...I was a heavy supporter of it when it was brought in.

the picture in question is a political one...not one of child pornography.

that aside...the start of this thread was with tongue in cheek.

Quote - > Quote - It might also be worth remembering that a scene of a naked child getting ready / in the process of a bath falls under child pronography even if the scene itself is otherwise innocent in tone and depiction, especially when camera blocking or suds in the tub would cover enough of the child.

o.0 how on earth did that get into the topic?

That which is allowed or not and "implied but not seen."  In your OP, such an image might be allowed if the result is implied but not shown, as should a scene of a sufficiently covered child at bath time oppoed to a full frontal of a child standing next to the tub.

For example, the political considerations of showing an obviously British funeral with the pall bearers carrying a horizontal Port-A-Potty still might not be allowed, even if there was no actual poo.  "Implied but not seen."

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - It might also be worth remembering that a scene of a naked child getting ready / in the process of a bath falls under child pronography even if the scene itself is otherwise innocent in tone and depiction, especially when camera blocking or suds in the tub would cover enough of the child.

o.0 how on earth did that get into the topic?

That which is allowed or not and "implied but not seen."  In your OP, such an image might be allowed if the result is implied but not shown, as should a scene of a sufficiently covered child at bath time oppoed to a full frontal of a child standing next to the tub.

For example, the political considerations of showing an obviously British funeral with the pall bearers carrying a horizontal Port-A-Potty still might not be allowed, even if there was no actual poo.  "Implied but not seen."

oh no the poo is quite clear. very visible. no implied.

no port-a-potty though.....just maggy thatcher. OH and a flag....

and implied but not seen? that covers a WHOLE slew of things....I could go to random pictures in the gallery and go it IMPLIES she is going to have sex and there fore should be removed.

or it IMPLIES she is going to be nude and therefore her breasts would be bared in a pornographic way and there fore should be removed.

I think I shall post a ...black box.....that should be safe.

Apparently, I am not the least bit helpful, so I will just wander off. :)

Quote - I think I shall post a ...black box.....that should be safe.

Not if Schrodinger's cat is inside, since quite a lot can be implied while not being seen. :p

Maybe a Content Advisory billboard with the standard thumb being a close up of the larger image?

Hmmm, Not to mention that the gallery file size restrictions on renderosity are somewhat of a deterent... If your art is in someway in violation of the gallery guidelines simply don't post it here. For me the file limitation of 500k and the content restrictions (while I don't create much in the way of "obscene" art anymore) and definitions laid out by renderosity as to what is deemed "obscene" have made me take an attitude of "nevermind". I fully understand Renderosity's logic however.

"fantastic Image!"

"wonderful!, very realistic."

"a lovely Render!"

And blah, blah, blah. Please.

...Of course if I were utilizing the Gallery as a marketing device it would be a completely different scenerio. As it is, I've been making art for way too long and in too many environments outside of digital media to need confirmation or Kudo's anymore.

Quote - Apparently, I am not the least bit helpful, so I will just wander off. :)

Quote - I think I shall post a ...black box.....that should be safe.

Not if Schrodinger's cat is inside, since quite a lot can be implied while not being seen. :p

Maybe a Content Advisory billboard with the standard thumb being a close up of the larger image?

I spat my coffee at that laughing!

Quote - Hmmm, Not to mention that the gallery file size restrictions on renderosity are somewhat of a deterent... If your art is in someway in violation of the gallery guidelines simply don't post it here. For me the file limitation of 500k and the content restrictions (while I don't create much in the way of "obscene" art anymore) and definitions laid out by renderosity as to what is deemed "obscene" have made me take an attitude of "nevermind". I fully understand Renderosity's logic however.

"fantastic Image!"

"wonderful!, very realistic."

"a lovely Render!"

And blah, blah, blah. Please.

...Of course if I were utilizing the Gallery as a marketing device it would be a completely different scenerio. As it is, I've been making art for way too long and in too many environments outside of digital media to need confirmation or Kudo's anymore.

and saddly that is why I post at Deviant.

I havent posted work here since 2007

?  looking up 'pedantic' in dictionary ...

i need a Queen's English dictionary for my reference library.

Yup... having just checked out your image in the DA gallery I reckon that wouldn't be acceptable in the Rendo galley. He he. Probably not by a long shot ;)

Nice work on that morph... truly grotesque!

Personally, I like the DA gallery for its unrestricted image dimensions too. My stuff is designed to be zoomed. Plus I get to hang out with my old art college pals who still paint and impress them with my Poser skills... he he ;)

Quote - Yup... having just checked out your image in the DA gallery I reckon that wouldn't be acceptable in the Rendo galley. He he. Probably not by a long shot ;)

Nice work on that morph... truly grotesque!

Personally, I like the DA gallery for its unrestricted image dimensions too. My stuff is designed to be zoomed. Plus I get to hang out with my old art college pals who still paint and impress them with my Poser skills... he he ;)

grins that morph nearly drove me nuts. particularly the goggle on the throat.

getting the eyes to drag down at the corners...and the TEETH>.<

but she was worth it...though she may come out again...a rather political piece again....though I have to work on dave cameron. :)

I prefer DA due to the freedom of it.

AFAIK, you can post politically oriented images here but I'd check to make sure.

There's a Political category I'm sure...

Just not sure that the number 2 there would pass muster ;)

No issues myself. As a parent of a 17 month old, a 17 day old... and a dog, its something I get to see rather a lot of.

The old iron lady in question's latterday carers too, I'd expect...