Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 14 10:48 am)
I've looked at the image closely-- it's not one that would offend me though it does repel me. I don't see clarifying elements in the composition that are not very ambiguous. For instance, The black heart with the dollar sign that she seems to have been in some sort of sexual contingency with-- whose is it? and why is she seemingly so satisfied? If it was intended to make a statement it is unclear what that statement is. So, some sort of misunderstandings could easily arise. I'm not much on art as statement anyway. They usually degrade women just as a throwaway to some ideal being trumpeted. Not that I think any tiny bit of art can actually degrade women. Not that I want any censorship. I mainly don't like art as statement because I don't want to be preached to by some kid who suddenly discovered there are ideals in the world. So, Art as statement better be damned F@cking good before I'll even glance at it twice. Somebody gave you some hassles so I glanced at yours more than twice. Doesn't seem to have rocked "the world as we know it" to its knees. Emily
You already posted this disclaimer to the image comments. Why would you repost them here, unless you're trying to increase the number of views, or perhaps stir something up that the image alone didn't? :-) I understand what you're saying about the image, and agree with the person who said that they liked art that provoked debate and thought. However, your image as presented is a violation of Renderosity's TOS, at least as I understand them, so don't be too "Upity" if it gets deleted. Perhaps you could continue to provoke debate and thought without putting yourself in a situation where you risk what might feel like "censorship." There are others who seem to be able to do that now and then. Marque: For the same reason that my eyebrows raised when I saw an earlier post by this person?
"Marque: For the same reason that my eyebrows raised when I saw an earlier post by this person?" Tsk tsk - so young and yet so cynical. ;)
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
and? and? i looked at this why? there really was not that much of a message. or, if there was, i did not get it. did i really want to look at yet another orgasmic naked chick in the poser gallery? i looked at this why? well, i won't be tricked again. i looked at this and was not moved...at all. i will more likely than not never look at your stuff again, unless you HAPPEN to catch my eye without trickery.
Problem is, certain people may think that a certain person is a certain person. With a certain agenda. Or something. Maybe. But yeah, welcome to 'Rosity. It's great. Really.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
Hey Legume, funny you should mention that. For the strangest of reasons, I had "Be Bop A Lula, She's My Baybe" playing in my head when I posted my previous responses. How strange. Then I began to crave the music of an obscure band from the seventies known to there followers as Be Bop Deluxe(be dammed if I'll give into the temptation though...scratchy vinyl sucks). Then as I was bopping around the threads I noticed your thread. What does it all mean Doctor.
I know. I know. The imagry has something to do with Joan Jett and The BLACKHEARTS right? Did she become a hooker? I thought her music was still paying off. Isn't it a pity. Isn't it a shame. Noone every warned the girl, rock n roll is a vicious game. But then come to think of it, so is this Poser world.
Hmm, just another nekkid chick in a pic, oh well. On to Joan Jett though, I have no idea what she's doing now - think she's still touring with the Blackhearts. Anyone know what ever happened to the rest of her first band (Runaways)?
Dreams are just nightmares on prozac...
Digital
WasteLanD
So then that would be a cloned, clone clowning around. Hmmmmmmmmm, where's Inspector Clouseau when you need him. Oh well call in Inspector Gadget, he'll do in a pinch. Columbo probably already has it figured out any way. An imposter clone clowning around. An interesting assertion. All that symbolisim. All that trouble. Such pain and devotion. Such........(blatant setup)!
An imposter clone clowning around. An interesting assertion. All that symbolisim. All that trouble. Such pain and devotion. Such........(blatant setup)! yup....that's right. you win the mensa murder mystery of the week. or, at least the right to enter it with only a minimal charge to your credit card. CONGRATULATIONS...you ARE a winner. :*)
what does it all mean, daddy ? huh? huh? SHUT UP KID.... you ain't old enough to mess with that stuff...
Humankind has not
woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound
together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle,
1854
hmmm... Maybe there's no symbols here. Maybe it's just WYSIWYG... Art = Subjective! I never watch TV for entertainment! Instead, i come here to read those intriguing threads... I must say, you all bring a Smile to my face! :-) Maybe, they should change Poser App name to "Virtual Therapy"... ;-) Later! Marco
very unusual picture :) I like it in fact. I would go as far as to class it as art, it has the power to make people think & talk about it which all good art should do. Don't be so quick to grab your hat & coat George. Just think what a boring place the world would be if all the great artists decided to give up after the first negative comment they got. Long live the pink pony ;)
A girl in love with money, is this something new? It is not art, it is heresay and not really pertinant to only hookers. Besides, hookers are kept wealthy by men with money to spend on sex. I don't get what this all has to do with Joan Jett and the Blackhearts and 80,000 clones though? I feel confused and out of place here.
"Will somebody please tell me where this absurd idea comes from that the purpose of art is to make statements..." Glad to oblige. Absurd or not, it comes from the history of art. It flourished both as a purpose and a topic of debate throughout the prior century. Robert Hughes' "Shock of the New" sought desperately to devalue the notion, generally failed, but managed to present some interesting arguments in favor of the "absurd" dismissal. Tracts by critics such as Sontag, Bell, and Danto offer further interesting elucidation. Not everyone agrees, however, there's no "question that this is one angle of aesthetics which some creative people have pursused in various contexts throughout history. That's the nice thing about art. Anyone who says they have the be-all, end-all definition of it is full of pink pony poo. By the same token, those silly people who are so eager to dole out underinformed judgements of this-or-that NOT being art tend to be equally full of it. "Art" is simply not containable in one tidy definition. If it were, it would have died centuries ago. >"What a bunch of modern clap-trap." You mean you weren't really asking?
The purpose of art is to decorate the walls of my home, therefore it should not make me go "Ewwww, that's just WRONG", it should not look better upside down, and it most definitely should not clash with the rest of the decor. So there. Nyah. Humph! Kate (who knows what she likes and doesn't give a rat's behind about whether it has deep meaning or anything as dumb as that, just so it looks good hanging on the wall over the sofa, dammit. G)
And they say that women are complicated creatures! :-) Well, i think that this community examplifies perfectly the idom IDIC(Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations)... And that's what i Love about it! Makes life so much more interesting me thinks! Well, gotta get back to work, Santa doesn't like his Elfs sitting on the Job... Marco
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.
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=291257
A number of people have IM'd me about my latest gallery image and seem to think that it somehow degrades women. Just to clarify the situation a little if I can. This image has nothing to with women as prostitutes in fact it has a lot more to do with men.You need to look closer at the other elements in the composition and the environment in which the image is displayed. Thanks