Doesn't bother me one way or the other. Nudity, that is. I've posted my share of nekkid wimmin pics here so I can hardly complain when others do. Simple fact is, a lot of people like to see others sans clothes. Art? Who knows? The debate is a huge can of worms and until someone can come up with a definitive answer to the question "What is Art?", I'll pass it by. I can only speak for my own stuff, and by that measure, I claim some of my nekkid wimmin pics are art. Not because they're technically proficient - most of them aren't that good - not because they say much about the human condition (whatever that is) but because they say exactly what I wanted them to say when I thought of the idea. That's as good a definition - for me - of art as I'll ever get.

I agree that there are many pics that could do with a lot more thought, work, care and attention, or even basic skill... and that includes all of mine but it's not my place to complain if someone's idea of what constitutes a great image isn't the same as mine.

There's been a recent "controversy" here in the UK, where a gallery decided to pull one of Waterhouse's paintings, pretty much because it showed an awful lot of boobies. Bit silly, really, and the painting is now back on display. I have to be clear that I absolutely do not like the Pre Raphaelites at all, and Waterhouse in particular really gets my goat. Artistry instead of art, sentimental, twee, bland, well painted chocolate box type pictures which really grind my gears. But... many people like them and it's not my place to tell them they can't see 'em.

Same goes here at Rendo. I may not like a lot of the stuff here but getting people to make pictures, rather than cutting holes in each other has to be a good thing.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery