Sorry, but as a "work of art" I find that quite unimpressive.

I see talent and technique, but no difference between that and a CGI render or one of the millions of erotic/pornographic spreads floating around the internet.

Unlike the original hyperrealism of the 60's which transgressed boundaries between traditional art and photography, what is the artistic point of yet another "sexy" female in a world swamped with such imagery ?

I mean, who still pays for "artistic nudes" these days ?

Only those too prudish to admit they like porn, I guess. Lol.

I don't mind looking at naked people, not at all.

But to be "art", there has to be something else that catches my interrest. A certain style or technique that CGI can't easily replicate.

The  simple "realistic nude" is pretty much dead now. Too many of them out there, too easy to do.You can't tell where "art" begins and where "porn" ends these days.

CGI killed the realists, I guess.

;-)

 

 

BTW, I don't consider 99% of CGI to be art.

Neither 99% of photography.

I'm a virtual scale modeller, trying to build a virtual world I can play with.

As a boy I built houses from Lego blocks, had Matchbox cars and built Airfix kits.

Now I build everything from polygons and instead of decals and enamel paint I use texture maps and shader nodes.

It had nothing to do with "art" back then, it has nothing to do with "art" now.

Problem is, most people feel better if they can call themselves "artists" so they dismiss the value craft has.

The nice thing about CGI is that you can acually share your craft.

I can use someone else's craft to add it to my own, like I could buy the craft that was condensed in an Airfix kit to achieve things I couldn't have done of my own.