Here's an image I'm working on called "The Dying Tree." As you can see, in it I use the Millenium Girl figures. It seemed dumb to put clothes on them since they are part of a tree. With the new restrictions regarding rendered images, is this allowable or is it not? I honestly have no idea. Mike

I would have to say no. Obscene (well according to my translation of the forum rules) usually falls under pornographic acts or whatnot. And since you "nudity" on the message header, you should be okay. You are depicting death, but you arent doing it in a violent way, nor are you excluding any gender or age from this. You are showing the life cycle, from birth until our inevitable death. I myself think its cool.

I don't know,Egaeus,me too I've alredy be censored. But I find your image GREAT!!!!! Really powerfull! My compliments...post it!!!

roll wit it baby!!! it rocks outside of the censorable feild. if anything, it should be highlighted for originality. (BTW, do you suffer from nightmares?) lecoeurdechagrin (The Heart of Sorrow)

egaeus, thats fantastic! I don't think its obscene at all :)

Seriously weird, unusual, surreal even. Certainly thought provoking, but obscene NO. Like it lots.

No, it's not obscene at all, it's like chohole said, surreal. I do have a couple pointers that may help improve the image a bit if I may have your permission to do a little postwork on your piece and post it here in this thread. If that's okay with you. Davo

I'll go with chohole, wierd, unusual, surreal, grotesque... and very excellently done. ;]

picasso wasnt this surreal :-) great image!!!! a great work of art :-))

No! That's not obscene at all! Not in my book, anyway: to me, obscenity involves portaying images that are exploitative or offensively gross in some way, sexually tacky, or something like that. It's very difficult to define, and there's certainly no blanket like 'if it contains nudity, it's obscene' much though some serious prudes would like to think. Using the human body-- which in itself is NOT obscene, not in the slightest-- to illustrate an idea is as old as art itself, and the naked human body is an object of beauty as much as it can be made an object of obscene stuff. Personally I think your work is very powerful and expressive and it would seriously detract from it if you put underwear on the models! And as Sam (my boyfriend, here just now) says, the nudity of the figures "is certainly not what you first notice".

Neither do I! It think it has a very Hellraiser/Cliver Barker feeling too it! Liz Pope Dreamspinner Inc.

Not obscene...disturbing, yes. But not obscene. Very well done. I would try to get a little more symmetry though, looks kind of heavy on one side. I'd give those babys root too, lol. Just my opinion.

I think the roots thing is an excellent idea! Great pic by the way :-)

Outstanding. I don't think anyone could call this obscene, though with the way things are going... I heard some of the Supreme Court case being argued yesterday (well reports of it anyway, I was not there), and the Supremes seemed pretty dubious about the new law under review. But they were pretty hard on both sides, so who know which way it will go. But even if they side with the government, I can't see this being interpreted as obscene. It is very original and very artistic. Fantastic concept. jon

Attached Link: http://guide.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html

I would say no, under the Supreme Court decision in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), and as modified in the context of child pornography in the Court's decision of New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). But you can read these decisions yourself, using the link. In fact, if you read Ferber, I think you will find that the images at R'osity aren't likely to fall under the category of virtual kiddie porn, even if the Court upholds the most recent legislation on the topic.

Wow, Salvador Dali on acid. No not at all obscene. It's the most interesting representation of the life cycle I've seen. Good work.

This is an excellent, original concept! If I can make some suggestions: 1) move the baby's upper leg forward (not to hide the crotch, but to strengthen the rootedness of the tree). Possibly move the babyarm on the left out a bit, too. This should anchor the tree into the ground more. 2) do you have morphs for the fingers? If they were stretched and gnarled a bit, they would look more twiggy, as well as possibly grasping for life. 3) More texture, and a bump map which accentuates it, will take some of the shine off the skin. You don't want to lose the humanity, but I think more texturing will help. I wish I'd thought of this idea! Carolly

I love this image! VERY artistic............ Krel

Thanks for everyone's comments. I actually was thinking of putting roots on the baby, and the suggestions for repositioning the baby's limbs and making the fingers of some of the other figures more branch-like appeal to me. I had hoped to underplay the nudity, and I think adding the bark bump map helps. Mike