I posted in Raunchyminds WIP gallery (not the forum, I can't seem to upload a pic to the forums), a full frontal view of him, if anyone is interested in checking out his other anotomocal parts.

:b_unbelievable:

That's become quite a look-a-like, from these pictures. 

How about a render of the side profile of the head, to be posted here ?

Quote - aww he's CUTE!

I gotta find some movies with him GG

And you're getting very close there David! Nice job! The upper lip is too thick but other than that, it's VERY close!

For early Hedgehog, seek thee out Debbie Does Dallas. The original. For a howl, find The Madams Family. Hedgehog as an afraid of sex Uncle Fester. Plus the fact that all the actors in there took the characters and had a ball with them (pun intended). There are Many More...... ;)

I've er..well, (in the documentary at least) seen Ron Jeremy do things that were alluded to be impossible in the movie Clerks (don't want to spring the TOS cops on me..;). As Forrest Gump would say...'and that's all I'm gonna say about that'..;)

As for not finding people in sites, if you think ranchy-mines is hard to find artists in, try Deviant Art..;)

there a million ways to fill a freeway..;)

Quote - I use Poser to create erotic artwork, but not because it turns me on, especially. I do it for the challenge, for the income (sex sells), for lots of reasons, but "because it makes me aroused" just isn't one of them.

;)

You could probably get a pretty good conversation on this topic at Raunchy Minds, by the way. Very good forums there.

bonni

Hey Bonni, I was going to add a response almost word for word from your reply. Except every once in a while I find myself getting turned on, but that's mostly from the story I'm working on and not the actual images. As for your "sex sells" quote, you're absolutely right. I make a solid $500 extra a month from my AltaWoman site, sometimes more if I have a good month. And that's all based on Erotic 3D. It's been online for 10 years! A fact that I'm pretty darn proud of. I read your bio, and I like that fact that you said what you did and also run a Christian based website. Kind of gives some validity to the usage of Poser for porn. (I'm Jewish, btw, but religion is religion) Anyway, I agree with the other replies that this website is probably not the best for discussing your porn habits. As with any large community, you have the 'holier than thou' types (mostly hypocrites) that will tell you the human body has nothing to do with SEX! That something that I always found ironic. A forum that focuses on software that produces the human body and yet we have to act like the "naughty bits" don't exist. Lee

Ron Jeremy is beyond doubt a legend in the American porn industry. He wasn't always as 'round" as he is now, although he was never quite 'leading man' material. I like that last picture but it looks like the eyebrows on the texture and those on the character don't match up.

Whoo, nice going !  Good night for now...

Shape wise he's looking great. I can still see the eyebrow area of the mesh though. You might check in the Poser materials and make sure that every aspect of the eyebrow material is absolutely identical to the skin material. It looks a little darker but I don't know if that's because the underlying material is darker or has a different diffuse setting or what.

Is it just me or does anyone else think it's a hoot that he chose the Dork to make a digital Round Jeremy?

I know, I know, it's just the coincedence  of the Dork being used to make him lol

"...which one most graphically rings our bell?"

The Pizza Hut girl, the Taco Bell chihauhua and Col. Sanders.  Discuss.

LOL lmkenzie... at least you didn't choose Ronald McDonald....

THAT would have been scary...

Now now, you know he couldn't mention RmcD here.... Creey Clown, perhaps..... >:)

Creepy Clown? the originator has passed away, but his site lives on.
As I remember, Jeremy's been a character actor in a few movies here and there, mostly B flicks. He's been in the trade since the 70's, I've actually seen some of his movies (don't tell no one..I was young and foolish back then..;) He's also an excellent pianist (no jokes, please), and has been known to cook Italian meals for the cast and crew..;)

Ahh, Don Tatro.... And having just carbon dated myself, anyone seen the DB and the pink pony....?

Outstanding work David.  I'm really impressed.  Too bad Lee Moon's p**is prop went away.  I never expected such a grand result.  Frankenstein and Karl Rove would be proud :-)

I think I actually have Lee Moon's Male genital prop somewhere in my archive.  On the other hand, momodot's morphman comes replete with some pretty interesting genital MT's, governinig both the size an and direction of sw*** of the Tsts, so even with out it,I DON"T thinik it's going to be either a problem, or particularly slow doen the action.
What I find truly remarkable is that Ronny has attracted this degtree of attention, and 'pumped up' so much interest it what was previously a dying thread.  Of my previous clones, not even Stepnainie Swift received this much attention, only Aishwarnya Rei did.  Which does to show I guess, that you can't keep a good man 'down'. 

Ron is a crossover cultural icon who's appeared on "legitimate" venues.  I suppose it's the combination of middling comic talent and his rather unlikely appearance.  Plus, he's one of the few holdovers from the 'porno chic' days of Deep Throat and DMJ before E. Meese and J. Falwell et al made sex dirty again. 

To turn this thread back to its topic, I would personally distinguish between the erotic, erotica, and pornography.

What is erotic, is, as said before, entirely a personal matter. Some people find some quite strange things erotic.

"Erotica" is a useful term for pictures that are intended primarily as artworks, but which deal with sexual themes.

"Pornography", to my mind, is something for which the degree of sexual titillation is the only thing that counts. There is no attempt at artistic quality. (I am aware that some would not agree with this definition.)

The distinction must be made, otherwise one concludes that there are subjects that cannot be treated by the artist, which to me is an abhorent conclusion. It is terrible to say that some subjects are "suitable for artists" (flowers, butterflies, etc) and others are not (sexual acts). And I don't see any great reason why the subject cannot be discussed politely here. It would be against the ToS to post a graphic description of a sex act, but not to write that people do, in fact, have sex..

Whatever arbitrary set of categories you choose is still subject to the same subjective evaluation.  Your erotica is someone else's porn.  The same thing goes for defining "artistic quality" - Lord knows there've been enough threads debating that.  That old Supreme Court justice put it best, "I know it when I see it."  I find such terms of dubious value when their meaning is going to differ between groups and individuals.  If someone tells you an image is 'pornographic' it could be anything from a bare breasted Madonna to Debbie Does a Doberman.  Unless you know the person fairly well, you don't really know what they mean.  You can discuss what you like or dislike about something or how it moves you emotionally but IMO trying to categorize is pretty much a waste of time that only leads to endless circular debates and dead horse abuse.

I do wonder if Rodin had sculpted Ron Jeremy performing his signature act of self-satisfaction, would it be art ot porn?  

It would be art!  Rodin is a famous name, so anything he did is not catorgorized as art.  However if I sculpt Ron Jeremy doing the hedgehog, it'll automatically be porn, because I'm a nobody.  Utimately, the difference between erotic art and porn depends mainly upon whose signature it is that appears in the bottom right hand corner.
David P. Hoadley

"Pornography", to my mind, is something for which the degree of sexual titillation is the only thing that counts. There is no attempt at artistic quality. (I am aware that some would not agree with this definition.)

i don't exactly disagree, because that definition sort of works for me too, if just as a starting point for discussion -- but it has the same disadvantage as all the other ones:  it's still personal.  unless i know somebody put an image out there solely with intent to sexually arouse people, with no artistic idea in mind, i can't rightly pontificate on how that's "clearly porn", because i am not a mindreader.  with some things it seems pretty obvious -- they're artistically so bad that i'm tempted to deny them the "art" label right away.  but really, defining art by quality doesn't work either.  some imagery i might want to call porn because it's in self-identified porn magazines -- hustler, penthouse, playboy ... woops.  some of that stuff actually looks like people cared about the expression of the model beyond the spread legs, and lots of care is taken with lighting, with setting a mood.  when does that become art?  and this is all a whole lot harder with writing, because i find writing more difficult to separate from art than imagery.  so i end up, once again, saying "to me this image says nothing at all artistically, it just displays some 'fuck me' pose, therefore i classify it as porn", but i fail at finding a definition that works across the board.

the distinction between erotica and porn is also not per se personally important to me -- i don't actually sort my images with tags like "porn" versus "erotica".  sometimes an image turns my crank, and that image might well have been created as art, and part of what attracts me is the artistic value -- but i am not really looking at it with the art in mind whilst my crank is being turned, ya know?  other times even a really flagrant image without apparent artistic pretensions does nothing for me.  actually, most times self-identified porn does nothing for me, and i require some artistic values to even get into it.  that really smudges that porn/erotica line.

The distinction must be made, otherwise one concludes that there are subjects that cannot be treated by the artist, which to me is an abhorent conclusion.

that would be a very bad thing, i agree.  but i don't actually see why we need distinctions to prevent it, and, being as that distinction between porn and erotica is attempted by lots of people, i don't see it working all that well.  if you create distinctions, people will immediately start arguing about where the line should be drawn.  i think instead that anything and everything should be fair game for the artist, no subject should be taboo.  i rather not draw a line at all that's supposed to be meaningful for everyone.  i am quite comfortable with drawing my own personal lines, and letting everyone else do the same.

re Marie -

No worries there, mate.  I propose to my 3D creation, but he's just too aloof to respond.

Argh, our posts crossed, dphoadley.  Anyway, I just wanted to swing back to the main theme of this thread to say - yeah, sometimes I do like the characters I've put together in my own renders, and sure, if I could jump right in to that fantasy world, maybe something could happen between me and him, or her, but who knows indeed.... 

Actually, I'm inclined to think that the oft-expressed view that artistic merit is only in the eye of the beholder is too much of a snap judgement. If that were true, there would be no such thing as art theory or art criticism; the subject would be impossible. Find a good art critic and read an essay discussing, let's say, any painting by J-L David (to name a favorite painter). Now try applying the same critical principles to a few Poser images.

There may be borderline cases, true, but it's wrong to focus on these and thus imply that the core areas don't exist. I can show you pictures that CLEARLY have artistic merit, and others that CLEARLY do not (and never were intended to have). So in principle, objective judgement is possible. The existence of reddish-purple and blueish-purple and purple doesn't mean that red and blue don't exist.

I think some movies of Ron are truly artistic, especially in his display of endurance.  Like John Henry, he's 'a steel driving man!'
David P. Hoadley

Attached Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Morn

Perhaps the main difference between erotica and porn is a certain sense of artless innocense, but again, there is no firm and fast border.  Hot and cold are well knwn concepts, but between the two there are endless shades of 'warm.'

ARTLESS innocence? I don't think so! What is artless is the geek who gets his hands on Poser so as to blow Vicky's breasts up to a huge extent and then render her with a plain background, default lighting and her legs open. That is pornography.

But as you say, if the artist is Rodin, or Corot, or Picasso, then the result is art whatever perverted act the subject is. Let us be charitable and say that's because they would bring their skill and artistic integrity to any subject.

The point I'm trying to make is that it's not the subject so much as the manner, and quality, of the treatment. Though as I said before, others would use the term differently. I'm trying to propose a definition that I think is useful.

I think ya'll are forgetting one key difference between erotica and porn. That is the degree of explicitness. Both erotica and porn tittilate the viewer/reader. However, porn is much more graphic in it's depiction of what's going on. Porn 'shows' more. Erotica 'suggests.' I do agree that it's often very subjective, but I suspect that few individuals would consider a full on close-up of intercourse or some other sexual activity involving genitalia as anything other than pornography. That's where the line is clearest between the two IMHO. The September Morn image's history would suggest that that line is relative to the cultural norms as opposed to a univeral absolute. Please bear in mind that my intent in that statement is to classify the imagery 'academically' rather than put a moral value judgement on it. For the record, I also believe that something can be classified as pornographic and still be 'art.' Once upon a time back in my youth I came across a porn director named Andrew Blake who's work was clearly art as well as pornography. He took great care with lighting, environment, costuming, storyline, music and all aspects of the final movie to create something that was beautiful. His work was clearly a very different thing from the cheap, "let's rent a hotel room and throw two people in there that are just boffing each other" crap that seems to dominate the porn industry.

bobasaur, i don't think anyone is forgetting that, it's just that for some people that's not the most relevant distinguishing factor.  :)  phantast thinks it's the artistic component that makes the difference, while you think it's the subject (its explicitness).  that's one more reason why i believe the distinction between erotica and porn isn't as useful as one might think at first glance, and why people will be arguing about it until the cows come home -- those definitions are along completely different axes, and they're not even the only definitions in existence.

phantast, when i say that art is in the eye of the beholder that isn't a snap judgment, it's a carefully considered one. yes, there is art theory and art criticism -- and have you noticed the immense disagreements within those over the centuries?  the arguments continue to this day:  should art teach us something about reality, should it be an articulate expression of the artist's emotions (ie. should it communicate), should it be harmonious -- and what constitutes harmony, should it be representational, should it be morally uplifting, does its true source lie in the mysterious (like religion), what about technical merit, does intent matter, does it indeed require a human creator at all (if it's carved by wind, can it be art)...

those discussions can be interesting and enlightening, and people who want to talk sensibly about art should know something about those questions.  but outside of that, when it comes to each of us here, and what we appreciate as art, it's personal.  i am decidedly unsure whether we can define art anymore.  it probably was easier before warhol, but i came to it afterwards  :).  there's value in the discussions for me, not in hammering down The Definition.

also, i find borderline conditions inherently more interesting, which is why i focus on them -- that doesn't imply a core doesn't exist (though truly, in this case i doubt whether one single core of art exists), it just says that i think that core gets plenty of attention as it is, and that borderliners get marginalized and invalidated by defendants of the core.  which is pretty much a given as soon as morality gets into the equation.

True Story: I did the credits for a friend of mine's full length independant feature film. After the premiere I was at the party with a number of other people. I got into a discussion with one individual who stated "I don't get it. It must be art." They were completely serious. As far as usefulnees of the distinction between erotica and porn, that's probably only relevant in a 'per discussion' basis. We could arbitrarily define the two for the purposes of our discussion here and it would be useful in that it would provide a common reference for this discussion. There would be a stepping stone that we could use to get into other, deeper aspects of using Poser erotically. However it's very possible that it would be useless for the next such discussion that comes along.

nod.  yes, very good point.  IME most discussions would be more fruitful if they were preceded by a definition of terms.

and wow, i feel sorry for the person who said "i don't get it, it must be art.".  it shows pretty clearly how left out of it many regular people feel, which is too bad.

"it shows pretty clearly how left out of it many regular people feel, which is too bad." [grin] Interestingly enough I got the impression that that individual considered 'art' to be "left out" of what's regular rather then them being left out of art. I've actually known a number of people who feel that 'art' is that weird far out stuff that's not relevant to the regular world. That's an aspect of its definition that is rarely noted at discussions here at this 'artist' web site.

There will always be ill-educated people in the world. :(

My 50 cents:

Pornography and art are utterly mixed terms... pornography is representation you would not consume in public spaces or leave on your coffee table when the in-laws come to visit... this pornography may or may not be art. Its requisite subject matter varies by time and place but in the West today it typically involves genitals displayed in anticipation of or in the prosecution of sexual acts represented in such a way intended to prevoke sexual excitement. I would extend it to weirdness like persons licking toilet bowls or stepping on bugs in a prurient manner... again stuff you would not peruses pictures of on a crowded subway. I have been places in the world where a Sears catalog is most decidedly pornography... certainly representations of even non-sexual violence can be termed pornographic despite the origin of that word.

Erotica is pornography you can leave on the coffee table when your friends visit but might put away when your mom visits... depending on what your mom is like.

As for Art... IMHO it is presumptuous for some one to judge IF something is art but reasonable for ANYONE to judge if it is GOOD art. Something requires only a single nomination to be art as far as I am concerned... any other criteria seems unsustainable. I think that purveyors of simply pornographic material do not feel compelled to make any artistic claims in the West now. Even when they were required to in order to avoid sanction it was clearly a transparent ruse. Yet a third-party may nominate as art something that was made without that intention... I believe this is self evident. Once someone claims a thing is art all one can debate is whether it is good art or bad art.

I disagree. If someone claims something is art, ask them why it's art. If their reply is along the lines of  "because I say so", then you can dismiss it. There is a difference between any old claim and a supportable claim.

Quote - Renderosity - R Daz3d - PG-13 Otica - snuff and some XXX.

My apologies if someone already addressed this, but have you been to Rotica lately? It really cannot in any way shape or form be construed as snuff and "some" XXX.

I

I’m reading the different posts here, when suddenly I asked myself: ‘But what difference does it make!?  Why must we moralize what we enjoy doing!”

I enjoy creating new figures in Eve 4.  I especially enjoy the fact that Eve 4 is a full working genital model.  Does that make evil?

I then enjoy posing those figures in provocative ways.  Does that make it evil?

I then enjoy rendering those poses, and occasionally posting them to various galleries.  Does THAT make it evil?

I am standing now on the threshold of the second Jubilee of my life, I’ve raised five children, and served in the armed forces of my adopted country, and as far as I know, I’ve broken no laws, therefore I ask:

“Why must I justify, or moralize a certain creative activity that gives me pleasure?  Who cares whether it’s ART or not, as long as its fun?”

Those are my thoughts on the matter.

David P. Hoadley

I had a buddy who was going to have sex with a girl he just met.  As they were getting undressed the girl asked him if it was ok for her Great Dane to lick his rectum while he was getting it on with her.  Now that might be pornographic, and it could be erotic to some, but I just thought it was funny as hell.  It is a real shame I don't have a Great Dane in my Poser arsenal to recreate the scene with.

"If you have ever wondered how David Blaine does his levitation trick ask yourself this question.........How come they never show his penis?"

He must be a cousin of Ron Jeremy's, 'Birds of a feather...' or whatever.
David P. Hoadley

Quote - I disagree. If someone claims something is art, ask them why it's art. If their reply is along the lines of  "because I say so", then you can dismiss it. There is a difference between any old claim and a supportable claim.

Phantast, I mean no offense but what causes you to make this claim? It is not at all evident to me what the basis for it is??? "There is a difference between any old claim and a supportable claim." How is this true? In that one is more compelling than another, not that one is more true than another? Why can you dismiss the claim if someone justifies it only with "because I say so". I might only be able to defend my belief that the earth orbits the sun by saying "because I say so" but that would have no baring on whether the statement was true. One can not demand rational criteria for the the defense of claims that have no rational basis.

If I sit on a milk crate and declare it is a chair few would argue with me even though the object was not made with the intention I might... I could say of a giant inaccessible rock formation or a tiny sculpture that they are chairs despite the fact that they could never be used as such. The case remains that I can unilaterally declare something a chair based on my perception of function, resemblance or intention and all that could be argued is whether it is a good chair or a bad chair, a chair you respect or a chair you dismiss or despise.

Some things are defined by terms, perhaps a cat, although that is not truly so straight forward, other things are not defined categorically although they may seem to be, a loud noise, a nonsense or a nuisance, a chair, a table... Something may seem a table to me and not to you, it may seem somewhat a table or very much a table or even hardly a table at all to me while still being a table for any number of reasons. Its classification can not be disputed other than as a quantitative or qualitative matter as opposed to a categorical imperative. A rock is defined categorically but a thing defined by utility, resemblance, or tradition can not. If I say that in Egypt a cushion is a chair can anyone make a sensible argument it is not other than to say "because I say so"?

It is like the "solution" to xeno's paradox which claims motion is impossible because for motion to take place a thing must traverse an infinite number of points in a finite time.... this is an error of category, motion and the conceptual construct of a point are categorically different and are not reconcilable in this case although they might seem to be in the hazy terms of normal life.. issues of categorical rather than functional definition can not be compared coherently, they are apples and oranges... this does not even attend to matters of faith. To be an artist is to have faith in art or money as far as I can tell.  Wittgenstein discusses at length the fallacies derived from errors in category and the false metaphors derived from grammatical syntax, the structure of language.

N.B. I don't take my deepestly held belief too seriously myself so again please don't see this as a personal attack :)

In other words momodot, to put your dessertation in a nutshell: Art is what we like, and Trash is what we don't like!

That sounds like a fairly godd definition to me.  Some like the works of Andy Warhol, I don't, so to me his stuff is Trash (Soup can? Really now...).  I happen to like the on-screen perambulations of Ron Jeremy, so therefore his stuff is Art (Plus the guy's got stamina and a labido you have to see to believe).

Is there even a (mostly) universally agreed upon definition of "art" in academic circles? I honestly don't know but that would seem to be a reasonable standard for definition. And as for David's question, But what difference does it make!? Why must we moralize what we enjoy doing! I'm not sure that anyone in this particular conversation is moralizing anything. However, you may intend this simply as a rhetorical question not directed at anyone to which my answer would be, "I don't know the reason why (although there are many theories), but I know that seems to be a normal characteristic of human beings." Other thoughts: We (just humans in general) often define things that are destructive or hurtful as immoral. I can certainly think of reasons why 'lust' could be considered evil/destructive/hurtful although those who thought so would err in that they would attribute to lust what should more accurately be attributed to the human response to lust. It is in our best intereest to identify things that are destructive or hurtful so we can avoid them. Sadly when it comes to some things we blame the stimulus rather than the response. If, as so many believe, marriage is a sacred (or at least a good) thing, shouldn't depictions of things that are considered good and moral within its context be considered good and moral? In other words why would it be considered immoral to depict a married man boffing his own wife? Isn't that supposed to be a good and right thing?

I vehemently disagree that "art is what we like and trash is what we don't like". I greatly dislike the work of Lucien Freud, but that doesn't induce me to say anything disparaging about him as a painter. He is a great artist. I just happen not to like what he does.

About claims, I am reminded of a Monty Python sketch featuring a TV show called "Stake Your Claim!" in which people were invited to claim anything they liked. So the first guest claimed that he wrote all the plays of Shakespeare.

Presenter: So how do you explain the fact that these plays were being performed long before you were born?

Guest: Ah. Err. Well ... this is where my claim breaks down ...

Presenter: Go away. Get out of the studio.

Guest (defensive): Look, I didn't realise you were going to ask me to justify anything!

But again, one man's trash is another man's treasure. I've seen a lot of socalled art in museums and on exhibishions that makes me want to cream like the little boy in The Emperor's New Clothes. A lot of it makes me look around for the candid camera, because honestly, is THAT supposed to be art?!

Then again, I am probably one of the uneducated masses. I tend to go by the "this doesn't make sense, so it's probably Art" too.

I like Andy Warhol's soup cans, but I won't call them art. They're just pretty pictures. And to me there's a huge difference between Art and a pretty picture.

I make pretty pictures. None of my renderings are of a sort that I would ever call Art myself. Some of them are good. A few are VERY good. But they're not Art.

A lot of them are porn too, btw.

To me, the difference between porn and erotica is the level of hardcoreness. Erotica is what is suggested, porn is explicit.

Personally I find this one of my pics probably the most erotic one I've done yet. Some may not even see it as erotic, and a fair deal of people will be repulsed on several levels. But to me, it's erotic.

And for obvious reasons I can't show any of my porn pics here but people can always IM me and have a link. Actually that pic is part of a larger series where some of them are definately porn.

Erotica is in the eye of the beholder. IMO porn is not. Porn is what EVERYBODY will agree is porn. Explicit sex. Closeups of genitals doing "things". Erotica will be percieved as porn by some, but not all.

I am thinking about the matter of what is "Art" in this context... is it work that involves "cultural expression"?

I certainly don't care for the idea of art as "personal expression" but maybe a chair that is art differs from a chair that is not art by its "cultural expression". Even if it did not bespeak cultural significance at the time it was made cultural significance can be ascribed to it at any time after the fact and this will make it art... thus Papua New Gionea Lime Spoons and early twentieth century French urinals in the museums.

How can "cultural expression" be defined? Something invested with cultural significance in the literal sense of the word? That is it represents or embodies or elicits reaction or consideration in terms of the society in which it exists or in which it was created? Non-art being artifacts and other things lacking in cultural significance, import and interest? Things having no penumbra of association or significance in terms of culture or tradition?

I still say porn is stuff you don't look at with your parents in the room. Erotica is pornography you can attempt to justify on the basis of its cultural or aesthetic significance. Practically speaking the difference between erotica and porn in the US most often comes down to penetration or clinical detail although there are exceptions both ways although many people still say the true difference between them is sharp focus and soft focus... put vasoline on your lens and anything you point your camera is art. The post modern version is any image is art so long as it is twenty-six square feet or larger in surface area. I once tested this with enormous wall sized blow ups of photographs of a plastic hamburger squeaky toy for dogs... a very well received exhibition it was! At the time my paintings of nudes were shockingly retardatar expressions of my Philistinism and naivite.

In its pejorative sense I would apply the word pornography to images of more than two kittens in a basket at once, especially if they have ribbons tied in bows around their necks. Likewise looped video of war atrocities exhibited in an empty art gallery.