Fri, Feb 7, 8:54 AM CST

Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL



Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum

Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom

Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Feb 07 7:37 am)



Subject: Is this obscene?


egaeus ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 11:12 AM · edited Fri, 07 February 2025 at 8:52 AM

Content Advisory! This message contains nudity

file_227401.jpg

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


amp-three ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 11:17 AM

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. a3-ro2.gif


vronsky ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 11:50 AM

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


lecoeurdechagrin ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 12:26 PM

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)


pokeydots ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 2:15 PM

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

Poser 9 SR3  and 8 sr3
=================
Processor Type:  AMD Phenom II 830 Quad-Core
2.80GHz, 4000MHz System Bus, 2MB L2 Cache + 6MB Shared L3 Cache
Hard Drive Size:  1TB
Processor - Clock Speed:  2.8 GHz
Operating System:  Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit 
Graphics Type:  ATI Radeon HD 4200
•ATI Radeon HD 4200 integrated graphics 
System Ram:  8GB 


chohole ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 2:52 PM

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

The greatest part of wisdom is learning to develop  the ineffable genius of extracting the "neither here nor there" out of any situation...."



davo ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 2:57 PM

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


Ironbear ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 2:59 PM

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

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

  • Monkeysmell


theeverman ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 3:21 PM

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


Strangechilde ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 3:37 PM

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".


Dreamspinner ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 3:40 PM

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


ElectricAardvark ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 4:10 PM

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.


rain ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 7:24 PM

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


jstro ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 8:08 PM

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

 
~jon
My Blog - Mad Utopia Writing in a new era.


kbade ( ) posted Wed, 31 October 2001 at 10:19 PM

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.


wolfetrap ( ) posted Thu, 01 November 2001 at 12:14 AM

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.


hauksdottir ( ) posted Thu, 01 November 2001 at 1:24 AM

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


Krel ( ) posted Thu, 01 November 2001 at 6:28 AM

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


egaeus ( ) posted Thu, 01 November 2001 at 11:55 AM

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


Privacy Notice

This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.