I hope I am not stepping on any toes but it seems strange to me that there is so little discussing of the erotic possibilities that come from creating adult artwork in poser. I have no qualms admitting that the ONLY reason I spend so much money on poser add-ons is that they allow me to explore an erotic side that can only exist in fantasy.

Poser and the various characters allow me to play out adult fantasies and explore the "other side to my midnight".

Any others share my feelings?

Yeah, they've all gone to sites like RaunchyMinds and Renderotica. Renderosity is a more PG rated site.

Quote - Yeah, they've all gone to sites like RaunchyMinds and Renderotica. Renderosity is a more PG rated site.

If Renderosity is so PG then I wonder why there are soooooo many nudes here? Seems like a PG site would completely ban all nudity. If a film has nudity it gets an "R" rating, doesn't it?

They sell a great troll over at DAZ. Can't compete with that one!

Listen, I'm just telling you how it is, if you want to open the same can of worms that have been discussed here adnauseum you'll get the same responses. The forums are not the galleries. Even the Galleries have certain rules regarding nudity. If you have questions regarding what is allowed where, I'd reccommend you read the site Terms of Service rules. They're fairly self explanitory. You'll see a lot of the same faces and screen names from here over at those sites with much less inhibition in regards to what we'l discuss. I'm a firm believer in "Everything has it's proper place". Those sites are the proper places for erotica discussions, Renderosity just isn't.

I'm not saying you can't broach the subject, but you'll likely get similar responses from most everyone involved. We go to the sites that focus on erotica for all of our erotica needs. Myself included. In fact, I prefer discussing erotica and porn, or whatever you want to call nudity, over at Maleposerotica, my nudes of choice.

Perhaps people don't discuss erotic uses of Poser because that's not really the thrust* of this forum. Renderotica is a more naturally appropriate place for such discussions, although I imagine they'd be permitted here within TOS, so to that end*, you can always start the discussion if you like. :-)

Although I've tried doing some mild erotica in Poser, I can't say that it "turns me on," because ... it just seems so silly to me. I like real people, ya know? However, the popularity of Renderotica shows that many people feel as you do. When I do Poser "erotica," it doesn't always involve nudity, and never involves graphic sexuality. I find cute "tease" sort of images to be more appealing than all-out porn, which to my eye is just plain gross, or boring, or stupid looking more often than not. My ideal is more like the pinups of Vargas ... leave something to the imagination, play, keep it upbeat. Erotica involves all the senses, not just the most base impulses. Too many people think that "erotica" means "pornography." My two cents anyway.

Although obviously there is no literal MPAA rating for Renderosity. I think Miz' metaphor is appropriate. It seems the staff* would prefer this to be more of a PG to "soft R" sort of site. Most of us comply accordingly. The fact that there are so many nudes in the galleries is because members* post them there, not because the staff* encourages it. Although I'm no prude and find truly artistic or incidental nudity to be beautiful, most of the images with nudity that I see in the galleries here are quite crass and unappealing. Oh well, to each their own, live and let live and all that.

asterisk * indicates "no pun intended" :-)

IMVHO poser is a valuable tool* from a neuro-psychiatric viewpoint, as it allows users at the x-rated sites to act out their violent fantasies (rape, murder, torture etc.) without physically harming any actual women. there may be a small percentage who do go on to act out these psychopathic behaviours on actual women, hence it can also be an useful way for law enforcement agents to monitor potential criminals.

Poser is pretty good for making virtual erotica or pornography; it depends on your skill and patience, as well as a good collection of morphs and props.

There is also quite a bit of money to be made from 3D porn, if you have the time and inclination to do so.

Nekkid people is nekkid people, pose them as you will shall be the whole of the law. :D

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Quote - They sell a great troll over at DAZ. Can't compete with that one!

You know, calling me a TROLL because I made a remark tells me a lot. If the idea that Poser 6 is being used to create erotic artwork offends you then I suggest you contact me directly.

Don't worry, I won't post again

Quote - IMVHO poser is a valuable tool* from a neuro-psychiatric viewpoint, as it allows users at the x-rated sites to act out their violent fantasies (rape, murder, torture etc.) without physically harming any actual women. there may be a small percentage who do go on to act out these psychopathic behaviours on actual women, hence it can also be an useful way for law enforcement agents to monitor potential criminals.

What a load of psycho crap .......... It that the best you could do? How very, very sad!

I have been paid a hefty sum to create a plethora of sexual images using Poser. It was for a book (or ebook or something LOL) that was like the Kama Sutra, so they ranged from the tried and true 'standards' to the all out yoga inspired to the all but impossible. All in all there were about 300 images in total.

♠Ω Poser eZine Ω♠
♠Ω Poser Free Stuff Ω♠
♠Ω My Homepage Ω♠

www.3rddimensiongraphics.net

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

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity Gallery

my apologies, drafter, if references to sociopathic behaviour are upsetting. anyway, I'd much rather they post violent images than have them actually harm women physically. nobody's forcing me to look at those images, hence I see no overwhelming harm in allowing them to express themselves that way. although they might want to understand that part of the definition of the behaviour is an inability to understand how such images may severely shock and disturb others.

it's funny..I actually bought the Kama Sutra..and I think I only counted about 23 positions or so..;) don't everyone go running to check at the sametime..;)

There are a few artists here who do the works of Eros, but frankly you couldn't go into specifics if you don't want to violate TOS (I like TNG better..;) I've even seen animations, but dag, you can get all the eros you want on the web..still de non gustibus disputatum..;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Quote - I hope I am not stepping on any toes but it seems strange to me that there is so little discussing of the erotic possibilities that come from creating adult artwork in poser. I have no qualms admitting that the ONLY reason I spend so much money on poser add-ons is that they allow me to explore an erotic side that can only exist in fantasy.

Poser and the various characters allow me to play out adult fantasies and explore the "other side to my midnight".

Any others share my feelings?

Nothing personal, but if I want to explore my erotic side, I'd rather do it up close and personal with the love of my life and not vicariously through computer generated pixels.

Of course I do realize that there are people out there that find cartoons and other computer generized pixels sexually stimulating. I don't understand it, but I do realize it.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Quote - > Quote - Yeah, they've all gone to sites like RaunchyMinds and Renderotica. Renderosity is a more PG rated site.

If Renderosity is so PG then I wonder why there are soooooo many nudes here? Seems like a PG site would completely ban all nudity. If a film has nudity it gets an "R" rating, doesn't it?

There is "R" and then there is "XXX". You won't find blatant sex acts depicted in an R rated movie. However in the theater down the street that caters to the XXX crowd, you will find guys in trench coats sitting one per row, LOL

Which is what I think Mizrael was trying to say. Renderosity while allowing nudity, doesn't allow depiction of anything remotely sexual, such as sexual poses or sexual acts being depicted. Renderotica on the other hand caters to the more extreme crowd. They are in essence the XXX theater down the street.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Quote - it's funny..I actually bought the Kama Sutra..and I think I only counted about 23 positions or so..;)

Actually, there are only 10. Any others are variations of those 10 :)

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Attached Link: http://market.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/index.php?ViewProduct=44363

> Quote - They sell a great troll over at DAZ. Can't compete with that one!

Wanna bet? LOL

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Poser and the various characters allow me to play out adult fantasies and explore the "other side to my midnight". more power to you. i see nothing whatsoever wrong with that. i don't mind discussing it either. me, i admit to either cringing or laughing out loud when seeing 3D erotica. it's just so very, very bad. no way can that stuff turn me on, or even just aesthetically please me. i realize that 90% of everything is crap, and that includes porn, of course -- but i swear, when it comes to 3D erotica, that percentage goes up to 99.999%. probably because it's hard enough to strike a realistic pose to begin with (sorta ironic, considering the software is called "poser"), but getting two or more people to interact believably is on a whole new level of competency. and, while one can achieve non-touching poses alright, anything where flesh comes in contact with other flesh is problematic because digital mesh behaves nothing like real flesh. another problem is that there's more to believable intimacy than a realistic pose. expressions matter so very much. the vacant gaze of most portrait renders gets occasionally mistaken as deep soulfulness, but that simply won't fly in a supposedly intimate depiction of two people interacting passionately -- i know fake when i see it that clearly. good erotica is damn hard to create. good 3D erotica might just be outside of what most people can achieve with the amount of effort they put into it. do you notice this sort of thing? can you overlook all that? in how much is an erotic depiction a trigger only, and can therefore be somewhat crude? i find that sort of stuff (what makes people tick :) fascinating.

Acadia, thats pretty distrubing, and i dont think it classafies as a troll...

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

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

I did warn you that you'd opened a stinky old can of worms Drafter. It's best to listen and go talk about these sorts of things where they're welcomed and you won't get responses like the troll comment, which was rather rude.

A Troll usually drops a stink bomb and runs, you at least asked an honest question and stuck around for the responses, even if you don't like the answers you got. A Troll wouldn't have done that most likely. My main reason for replying was to let you know there are places you can discuss these things without recriminations. I do hope you check out those sites if you're really interested in the answers. On top of all the erotic imagry you'll find, I think you'll find some well thought out discussions there too.

Oh and as for me? Well the most erotic thing I've seen Poser do is drape dynamic cloth over a figure as it's posing. Sometimes the peep show effect of that grabs my interest as the cloth settles in teh right and wrong places. :scared:

I keep forgetting about rauchy minds site LOL, was there for the Cinema contest a while ago then just sort of stopped stopping by.

♠Ω Poser eZine Ω♠
♠Ω Poser Free Stuff Ω♠
♠Ω My Homepage Ω♠

www.3rddimensiongraphics.net

RM

drafter69; Ignore the 'troll' remarks; that always happens these days when ever that 'S' word is invoked around here.... I'm with Bonnie. I like to do erotica not for the "Oooh, I see nekkid Vickie boobies, I gotta go to the bathroom NOOOOOOOOOW!" reason that many seem to not only assume, but have engraved into their ids, but for the challenge of it. I animate, and as mentioned above, one of the hardest things to get right is that interaction, contact and emotion. Some think that animating martial arts is hardest, but there you have a handy cheat; real martial arts motions are fast enough that you can get away with errrors, or hide them behind clothing or props. Two naked meshes is much more unforgiving. You -will- have more enlightened and educational discourse at both Rotica and Raunchyminds, if for no other reason that the self appointed Purity Police won't be all over you every third posting attempting to appear clever and righteous (and managing neither). Renderotica actually was once the sister site to Rosity several ego-quakes ago. Raunchyminds came about through the fallout from yet another ego-quake. And though it isn't an erotic site, Runtime DNA was formed by some of the former big names in Poser, period,after yet another ego-quake. Then again, there is nothing in the TOS forbidding this topic, so said PP really don't have a leg to stand on suggesting you take your marbles and get thee elsewhere, do they....?

Oddly enough, I have never created any erotic art with Poser, for pay or pleasure.

I understand it's quite a lucrative market, so maybe I should try to work on it.

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

I appreciate all the input to my question. I seriously doubt that I will post much of anything again as some on the responses are very hurtful and certainly not what I had expected.

"Nothing personal, but if I want to explore my erotic side, I'd rather do it up close and personal with the love of my life and not vicariously through computer generated pixels."

That is the remark that actually hurt the most as in my life I am physically not able to expore my erotic side except through poser and my fantasy. Some of us have serious physical limitations that can never be overcome.

The question was legitimate and I will take it elseware. Thank you and goodbuy.

Quote - I appreciate all the input to my question. I seriously doubt that I will post much of anything again as some on the responses are very hurtful and certainly not what I had expected.

"Nothing personal, but if I want to explore my erotic side, I'd rather do it up close and personal with the love of my life and not vicariously through computer generated pixels."

That is the remark that actually hurt the most as in my life I am physically not able to expore my erotic side except through poser and my fantasy. Some of us have serious physical limitations that can never be overcome.

The question was legitimate and I will take it elseware. Thank you and goodbuy.

I wouldn't get upset about that reply. I know Acadia as a friend and I can assure you she does not say hurtful things.

Your physical limitations are/were not known, so please take the remarks in the spirit they were intended, just as an honest, straightforward reply.

Do not feel you can't post here. People in this forum are generally rather nice.

Hell, they put up with me so they must have a lot of patience. :)

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

You simply have the wrong site to post your question.

Try one of the sites that caters more specifically to erotic art.

You would be even less welcomed at Daz3d, they dont even like to admit that people have genitalia.

try raunchy minds , male poserotica or renderotica and you will be welcome.

Rotica also has a chat room that can be entertaining.

If you need specific website addresses I have pmed you with a couple. Mentioning them here gets the same reaction as farting in church.

Actually Dale, I stand on two very good legs and my suggestion that Drafter take his or her questions to site where they'd be more welcome was for his/her sake not because I personally don't care to see erotic stuff here. I was honestly pointing the original poster to sites where that type of question is not only welcomed but also appreciated.. And since Erotica does include stuff like Snuff, Rape Bondage, torture and sexual acts, it indeed does fall under the TOS forbidden discussions:

Posting Unacceptable Images or Writing Themes:
No Rape [actual or implied]
No Torture [defined as: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding, crucifixion) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure]
No Sexual acts [no depictions of sexual intercourse - between humanoids/non-humanoids/animals - no masturbation]
No Physical arousal [This includes but is not exclusive to: no images of an erect penis/ no images showing the inner portion of the vulva or vaginal area]
No Explicit sexual content [No manipulation of breasts/nipples/ no sexual situations/ no “implied” sexual acts/ no extreme or explicit S&M bondage situations/ no lewd or obscene sexual references]
No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing.
Refer to the Child Image Guidelines
No character attacks, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelous.

Raunchy Minds might be the better site. Renderotica's forums seem to indulge more in EXTREME politics than in erotica. I know, I was flamed for being a voice of moderation in one of them.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Quote - [ I wouldn't get upset about that reply.....

Your physical limitations are/were not known, so please take the remarks in the spirit they were intended, just as an honest, straightforward reply.

Do not feel you can't post here. People in this forum are generally rather nice.

Exactly! Thank you :)

And Sam is right. I would never say anything to anyone to intentionally hurt them. I'm not a malicious person and neither is anyone in my circle of friends.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

I agree with hoadley (although I don't recall seeing him at 'rotica when I was there). they might decide to move drafter's thread into thunderdome if he uses terms like "hurt" and "crap", as that's when the sharks tend to move in for the kill. :lol: I recall similar threads on the b-t-k issue at 'rotica, and they're very reasonable about it, explaining why they do it. however, I still would advise against drafter trying to initiate another such thread there, for his own sake.

That's because I refrain from posting in arenas where behave so uncivily as the denizens of 'rotica do, and in fact are egged on in this behavior by a few of their own moderators.
The TOS here at 'rosity may be a little too restrictive for my taste, and the moderators a bit 'prudish' at times, but at least they don't take sides in debates and level insulting epithets at members whose opinions they dislike.
I prefer not to say any more about the particular forum that I was flamed in, other than that the moderator involved still holds a position of respect and trust at that site.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

It annoys me when I see people like hoadley & nancy spouting such utter shite about a site they're not welcome at because they are shit stirring, back stabbing troublemakers

Drafter feel free to post this topic at Renderotica, you will not get flamed over it

matt, long time no see! I haven't actually said anything bad about your site, if you check this thread. as I said, I think you're doing a good service providing a place for b-t-k enthusiasts, as it provides an outlet for them, thus possibly preventing them from doing it in real life. however, it's unwise for you to guarantee that some new member won't be flamed, given past performance for those interested, matt (one of the mods for an rpg they have at 'rotica) is angry at me because, in their chat room, I asked them to be fair with one of their artists who was suspected of photoshopping some pin-up photos (don't recall his name). when I asked them not to form a lynch mob, and give him a chance to defend himself, they lost their cool and I haven't been back since. however, just to reiterate, I've never said anything bad about their site; quite the contrary - I support their work there. the main reason I haven't been back there is that I found I had lost interest, especially as the members of this site have been far more generous to me, in terms of free models, beta versions of new figures, etc.

Are there any erotic/pornographic Poser art sites that are not also oriented toward sexual violence? I have discussed the filtering for sexual violance with the admins even here :) For some reason there seems to be a great conflation between sexuality and "sexual" violence in the Poser universe.

Quote - It annoys me when I see people like hoadley & nancy spouting such utter shite about a site they're not welcome at because they are shit stirring, back stabbing troublemakers

Drafter feel free to post this topic at Renderotica, you will not get flamed over it

Sir; you have just proved my point! As for the verbal abuse, I see little call for it. Surely civil debate should allow for the honest exchange of ideas with name calling.
As for what annoys you or not, I really couldn't care less, I do believe in a Democracy that my opinion is as worthy as the next mans.

Drafter is of course free to adopt or ignore my advice as he sees fit, just as any other man.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

No there does not seem to be a site that is sexually themed but unwelcome of violence within sex and sexuality. We've been having that discussion co-currently in another thread.

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief.
Renderosity Gallery

Ummm... Have I somehow missed seeing sexually violent imagry at Maleposerotica? Oh, I forgot, there was one image I saw with oooo... spanking! Ah well.

Quote - I do believe in a Democracy that my opinion is as worthy as the next mans.

Ah, so that's why you spammed the R'otica forums and got your head handed to you on a plate by the mods

I see this thread getting locked down in the very near future. What started out as a discussion has turned into a personal mud slinging grudge match.

Can't we all just get along and leave whatever happened at another forum there? IMHO it is done and in the past and you should all move on and get over it already :)

If you don't like one another, then ignore each other. But for Heaven's sake, stop trolling each other.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Quote - I see this thread getting locked down in the very near future. What started out as a discussion has turned into a personal mud slinging grudge match.

Can't we all just get along and leave whatever happened at another forum there? IMHO it is done and in the past and you should all move on and get over it already :)

If you don't like one another, then ignore each other. But for Heaven's sake, stop trolling each other.

I stand corrected,
David P. Hoadley

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Quote - me, i admit to either cringing or laughing out loud when seeing 3D erotica. it's just so very, very bad. no way can that stuff turn me on, or even just aesthetically please me. i realize that 90% of everything is crap, and that includes porn, of course -- but i swear, when it comes to 3D erotica, that percentage goes up to 99.999%. probably because it's hard enough to strike a realistic pose to begin with (sorta ironic, considering the software is called "poser"), but getting two or more people to interact believably is on a whole new level of competency. and, while one can achieve non-touching poses alright, anything where flesh comes in contact with other flesh is problematic because digital mesh behaves nothing like real flesh. another problem is that there's more to believable intimacy than a realistic pose. expressions matter so very much. the vacant gaze of most portrait renders gets occasionally mistaken as deep soulfulness, but that simply won't fly in a supposedly intimate depiction of two people interacting passionately -- i know fake when i see it that clearly.

I'll stop there. because I think you're describing a general problem with Poser. And I think there are a couple of particularly obvious features: 1: Default Vicky You can get the basic Vicky, with limited morphs, for free. So there are huge numbers of pics with the same Vicky, maybe with free alternative textures. And the breast morphs, which can help show the difference between somebody standing and somebody laying on their back, are a paid-for extra. 2: All or Nothing Expressions Most Poser expression morphs, not just for Vicky, are a bit exaggerated when set to 1. Since people do use exaggerated facial expressions sometimes, you need that option, but too many people set every morph they use to the maximum. Anyway, if you check my gallery, I'm not using Vicky very much. Even this one uses Vicky 2, not the current one, with a lot of tweaking of the face morphs. And I sometimes wonder if the INJ-morph system discourages dial twiddling.

Not only on expressions, Antonia; I found that when sculpting my Aishwarha and Stephanie Swift characters (here in the forums), using Eve 4, that I reach a point where the mesh began to tear. At that point, I've learned by experience that it's best to spawn a morph target, and then set it at between 0.500-0.800 (usually 0.700 is best), and that way a certain softness of the face is preserved.
What goes for sculpting a face certainly applies to basic expressions, ie. less is better.
Yours truly,
David P. Hoadley

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

.

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

Quote - No there does not seem to be a site that is sexually themed but unwelcome of violence within sex and sexuality. We've been having that discussion co-currently in another thread.

Uhm that depends on what you call violence.

Yes we have some pics on Raunchyminds that may be classified as violent, but PLEASE remember that BDSM isn't about violence - it's about consenting adults doing something they like to do.

Of course, when you render such things it may look more "violent" than fun, especially to the people whho are NOT turned on by such activities, but ...

PROPER BDSM isn't violence by far. Quite the contrary actually. It's alot about trust and care.

No, Rosity is a place where such discussions easily go out of hand, but that's why places like Raunchyminds and Renderotica exists. And Maleposerotica of course, though that one is a bit more specialized ;o)

Well said, TG.

Yes, well I am "Special" after all! LOL!

i checked out raunchy minds yesterday, and it seems to me well- suited to your interests, drafter69. the denizens seem very friendly to newcomers, and non-judgmental of specific fetishes. trekkie, i think a lot of people view certain aspects of BDSM as violent because they a) don't take the consent factor into account, b) don't grok that for some people pain can be pleasurable, and c) some form of female submission has previously been forced on generations of women and that's still going on in some countries, and it is therefore now very suspect. if one doesn't have that knowledge, or plain doesn't believe people when they talk about consent, or thinks female submission is unacceptably anti-feminist,then BDSM can sure can look violent.

I think it's the same thing that Poser newbies can fall prey to; the idea that an unclothed figure is there for the manipulating. So they do that. Some folks just never get past that part.

There's a crazy**world website out there (substitute the most likely letters) that does a lot of Poser prawnography (shrimp in compromising positions..;) you know what I mean..;), but as often the case..almost all of it is silly or sick, depending on your bent. Call me old-fashioned, but it reminds me of my first visit to a tpless beach; there are a lot of things out there that are better not exposed..;) from each according to their talent, to each according to their kink..;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

The people at Raunchy seem very nice, easy going, and open minded. Friendly place. Much better quality work for the most part than at 'otica in my opinion (please no offense anyone).

Pakled, for the very longest time I did nudes because I didn't have a machine capable of running a figure and clothes for it in the same scene :) Then of course the figures and some great hair are free but good clothes cost money.

Reverting to the originating post:

"I hope I am not stepping on any toes but it seems strange to me that there is so little discussing of the erotic possibilities that come from creating adult artwork in poser. I have no qualms admitting that the ONLY reason I spend so much money on poser add-ons is that they allow me to explore an erotic side that can only exist in fantasy.

Poser and the various characters allow me to play out adult fantasies and explore the "other side to my midnight".

Any others share my feelings? "

Yup! I do.

I like to create scenes with naked/skimpily-clad/transparently-clothed females.

Not in close-up, not explicit, but as a suggestion of what might be about to happen..

I'm not sure what "film" category my few semi-successful renders would be put in, but probably most of them would be "Parental Guidence" (as long as the parents where somewhat liberal-minded).

Mostly, I don't post my stuff in galleries. Certainly not here (just in case..), but also 'cos I usually don't think it's good enough to display. Occasionally I've slipped and posted at one of the above-mentioned other sites.

I can't see any harm in it. Others think they can. I just try to stay out of the vision of those others, 'cos often they resort to violence (OK, mostly verbal, but violence none the less) to try to impose their views on my morality-set. Yeah, I'm a coward. I don't like confrontation. Mainly 'cos if I get confronted, I tend to react with anger, and that's not a good thing! So I try to avoid all that..

IMHO, violence (and I'm not talking about BDSM/consenting inflicted pain etc, more about imposed pain) is much worse than (even explicit) consnting pornography

Ummm... I think I'm rambling a bit. I'd better shut up.... too many beers...

Diolma <- looks for big rock in nudist beach to hide under, with pair of binoculars at the ready...

Cheers,
Diolma

I think Drafter mislead us, perhaps not intentionally, in his initial post.

His post gave the impression that he was talking about adult fantasy art, the kind you would find at some of the more risque sites like Renderotica.

However, he left a comment on 2 of my gallery images, Ashley in a wistful pose, and Alley Cat a biker chick, both of which are fully clothed and said he liked the "erotica".

Now I'm either unclear about what the term "adult fantasy" involves, or he is.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Not neccesarily, Erotica, as with Porn, is in the eye of the beholder. Anything that evokes an erotic emotion from someone can be called Erotica. Hence my comment regarding watching Cloth drape a nekkid figure in the cloth room. The Peepshow effect can be someone interesting at times. And these are figures being put into clothing. ;)

Acadia,

What someone finds erotic/arousing is (fairly obviously) subjective.

Erotic: "Pertaining to sexual love, amatory, amorous" (Chambers Dictionary).
Which leaves a plethora of options open, no?

You (or I, for that matter) could create a picture which to your (or my) mind was sexually innocent. But others might not view it that way...

There's no "black/white" rules (or even guide-lines).

Which is why I don't post in the galleries here...:-))

Cheers,
Diolma

I misled no one!

The two pics in your gallery are very erotic. One shows a woman in a leather skirt that come up to her ass wearing leather clothing and her pose pretty much says: "Wanna Play?"

The second pic shows your female in a semi-see-thru dress in a very provocative pose.

Both are very erotic and sexually provocative in their content or suggestiveness.

Quote - I think Drafter mislead us, perhaps not intentionally, in his initial post.

His post gave the impression that he was talking about adult fantasy art, the kind you would find at some of the more risque sites like Renderotica.

However, he left a comment on 2 of my gallery images, Ashley in a wistful pose, and Alley Cat a biker chick, both of which are fully clothed and said he liked the "erotica".

Now I'm either unclear about what the term "adult fantasy" involves, or he is.

Quote - The second pic shows your female in a semi-see-thru dress in a very provocative pose.

The dress is the "Posh Dress" and is only shear from the knees down .... see the following link, 5th texture down:

http://www.morphography.uk.vu/dlposhv3.html

As for the pose? If you consider a pose meant to depict someone stopping to check the heel on their shoe "very provocative", I strongly suggest that you stay away from places such as Renderotica et al. By the sounds of it you meant something totally different in your initial post that what it came across like. Do a google search for some of the terms you used.... you'll find out what true "adult fantasy" is.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

I suggest that Erotica has very personal definitions. Your picture show a woman in a slightly erotic pose. Your other picture show a woman in a very erotic pose. No one said the pictures are pornographic or obscene; mearly erotic.

When you look at the gallery page and choose the most viewed you get a collection of pictures (art) that are erotic and a large nuymber are nude.

My original post talks about the use of Poser as a tool to express "erotic" fantasy. You keep wanting to change my words to pornographic. I am a member of Renderotica as well as Raunchyminds and I am very aware of what represents erotic and what is pornographic.

Sorry if it offends you but the two pictures in your gallery meet my definition of "erotic". You could have chosen less provocative clothing and poses and yet you made a choice in each element of your artwork and most of those choices seemed focused on the erotic.

I have no intention of discussing pornography. I create it and I love it. It allows me to express in fantasy what can never be in reality. While I do not care for some of the violent artwork I do accept that they have a place and are legitimate art.

Erotic; violent; pornographic are seperate catagories and should not be mixed. I find your art to be erotic. I suggest you deal with it or stop creating your style of artwork.

Quote - > Quote - The second pic shows your female in a semi-see-thru dress in a very provocative pose.

The dress is the "Posh Dress" and is only shear from the knees down .... see the following link, 5th texture down:

http://www.morphography.uk.vu/dlposhv3.html

As for the pose? If you consider a pose meant to depict someone stopping to check the heel on their shoe "very provocative", I strongly suggest that you stay away from places such as Renderotica et al. By the sounds of it you meant something totally different in your initial post that what it came across like. Do a google search for some of the terms you used.... you'll find out what true "adult fantasy" is.

Quote - I find your art to be erotic. I suggest you deal with it or stop creating your style of artwork.

I never said it wasn't :)

I enjoy soft and sensual art; both looking at it and creating it. I have no wish, want or desire to look at blatant nudes for the sake of nudes, or computer generated pixels posed in sexual positions alone or "together".

"Erotic" is tasteful and covert with connotations and hints, if they are picked up on.

"Porn" is raunchy and "out there" leaving nothing to the imagination and serves only one purpose.

However, going back again to your initial post, you used the following phrases:

erotic possibilities that come from creating adult artwork in poser.
allow me to play out adult fantasies
explore the "other side to my midnight".

To me your description, whether you like it or not, fits the "Getting off on Porn" catagory, which is why people were telling you to go discuss it at Renderotica, and not here.

I would hardly consider those 2 images of mine that you have chosen to use as a platform for your cause here, to be "adult". Are they sensual? One is most certainly, and I created it to be that way. The other is simply a pretty girl wearing an elegant dress and stopping to check her heel. Erotic? Not to my mind.

However, I would have no problem letting a young child look at either one of those images either. They are fully clothed, no private parts are showing and you see far more, less, worse in a shopping mall or on a public beach.

As I said earlier, while you may not have meant to, it's apparent by the statements in your initial post, that you exagerated what you were talking about. You came across as wanting to discuss "Porn", when in fact it seems you were referring to erotic/sensual art instead. I suggest you deal with that and perhaps pick your words a bit more wisely in the future.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Ok, Both of you go to your rooms and take a time out! :tt2:

But seriously, can we all just agree that erotic doesn't have a clear cut definition and is pretty much 50/50 what the viewer sees as well as what the artist intended? Sometimes the two are not the same. Also, the checking the heel image, while it sounds like it was "Sensually" posed, doesn't sound erotic to "Me". Though similar in meaning, "Sensual" and "Erotic" are still two different things.

Quote - Ok, Both of you go to your rooms and take a time out! :tt2:

But seriously, can we all just agree that erotic doesn't have a clear cut definition and is pretty much 50/50 what the viewer sees as well as what the artist intended? Sometimes the two are not the same. Also, the checking the heel image, while it sounds like it was "Sensually" posed, doesn't sound erotic to "Me". Though similar in meaning, "Sensual" and "Erotic" are still two different things.

I'll agree with that :)

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

This discussion is getting pointless.

The various views are subjective, so cannot be accepted by one faction or defended by another.
All have already made up their mind, and for each, it is truth. Trying to change that point of view is bound to fail, since each only holds an opinion, not an incontravertable fact, able to be backed up with forensic evidence. It's just a difference of interpretation.

So there can be no conclusion, except, perhaps, an agreement to differ.

Can be fun, for a while, but sooner or later it becomes boring. (Well, at least, to me it does - but then that's just my opinion, which I will not try to impose on anyone else..)

:-))

Cheers,
Diolma

drafter69, i don't think you misled "us" -- i certainly don't feel misled in the least. i appreciate people who speak for themselves. I suggest that Erotica has very personal definitions. ding. but in the very next sentences, you screw up this promising start: Your picture show a woman in a slightly erotic pose. Your other picture show a woman in a very erotic pose. you need to be more precise in your choice of words, and i suspect your thoughts might need a little alignment too. saying "it is erotic" implies not a personal, but a generic eroticism. while that may exist (though i sure wouldn't want to define it), we're pretty obviously outside of it here. and if erotica is so personal, claiming a specific woman is depicted in an erotic pose is stepping outside the personal realm -- you might find it erotic, but other people (including the artist) might not. and pounding on them saying "no matter what you call it, it is erotic" is disrespectful -- it's personal, get it? she could have chosen other clothes? whatever for? she doesn't find this getup erotic! she doesn't have to find it erotic. 9 out of 10 sex therapists might not find it erotic. you do, and that's good enough for you to enjoy it -- nothing wrong with the enjoyment. just don't push your personal interpretation on the artist (or anyone else). that is the sort of crap that leads to "she asked for it, just look at how she dressed". bad idea. say "i find that pose erotic" instead of generalizing from your personal interpretation. you're both generalizing, you and acadia, and it's not surprising you're at loggerheads. you see a come-hither attitude in an image where she sees somebody fixing a shoe. that's what "it's personal" means -- you simply have very different interpretations of the same scene. neither of you is right. neither of you is wrong. i think that's probably the salient point to "it's personal"; there is no right or wrong in erotic appreciation. furthermore, let it go. acadia seems convinced that you want icky porn while her art is "soft and sensual". best to walk away from discussions with people who don't recognize their own judgmentalism.

Quote - furthermore, let it go. acadia seems convinced that you want icky porn while her art is "soft and sensual". best to walk away from discussions with people who sling thinly veiled judgmentalism at you for pointing at the shady underside of the beast which they've dressed up all clean and wholesome with pastel colours and flowers, and just a wee bit of transparency below the knees of the burqa.

I totally agree with your post for the most part.

However, I must correct you on the "thinly veiled" part. I don't make "veiled" judgements. I put it right out there front and centre. I stated several times that in my opinion that the way he phrased his post that it comes across as referring too porn. Nothing veiled about it.

Did I make a judgement? Sure I did, but so did others. Which is why people told him to go to Renderotica if he was looking for that "type" of "art".

No one is saying that what he thinks or does is a bad thing. However I am saying that he isn't clear on the concept of terms, and as other pointed out, it's a purely subjective interpretation anyway.

As for the "burqa" statement? I'm not even going to speak on it. I think it clearly states what your opinion is of women.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Acadia, you're beating a dead horse. As you so rightly repremanded me in the exchange with whatsisname: 'Let it go.'
I myself found one pose to be highly erotic (I could swear that I've met that woman standing under a streetlamp after midnight somewhere -Oh yes, it was in the Old central bus station in Tel-Aviv, she was a single mother from Russia, raising two kid all by herself. I rather admired her courage and fortitude.)
The other picture is just TOO dark for me to see any real detail at all, erotic or otherwise. But then my aging eyes, and aging monitor aren't what they use to be.
David P. Hoadley

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

How about I end this silly discussion. It is obvious that you can't stand the idea that anyone might see any erotic qualities to your artwork. The woman standing in the leather shorts is a sight that people see everyday so how could there possibly be anything erotic about it? In fact there are several women around here dressed like that who hang around the corner most evenings.

You are right..... You are right...... You are right. There that should finally make your feel vindicated in your need.

I'll look forward to seeing what else you post to your gallery.

Quote - > Quote - furthermore, let it go. acadia seems convinced that you want icky porn while her art is "soft and sensual". best to walk away from discussions with people who sling thinly veiled judgmentalism at you for pointing at the shady underside of the beast which they've dressed up all clean and wholesome with pastel colours and flowers, and just a wee bit of transparency below the knees of the burqa.

I totally agree with your post for the most part.

However, I must correct you on the "thinly veiled" part. I don't make "veiled" judgements. I put it right out there front and centre. I stated several times that in my opinion that the way he phrased his post that it comes across as referring too porn. Nothing veiled about it.

Did I make a judgement? Sure I did, but so did others. Which is why people told him to go to Renderotica if he was looking for that "type" of "art".

No one is saying that what he thinks or does is a bad thing. However I am saying that he isn't clear on the concept of terms, and as other pointed out, it's a purely subjective interpretation anyway.

As for the "burqa" statement? I'm not even going to speak on it. I think it clearly states what your opinion is of women.

drafter, I think that you should let it go too. You've more than adequately made your point. I agree with you, the women standing if front of the brick wall wearing micro-mini hot pants is erotic. Her face is definately an invitation for fun-n-games. As to the other, it's just too dark to tell what she was looking at over her shoulder. In fact I couldn't even see that was looking over her shoulder -it looked to me that she was looking off to her side. As for inspecting the heel of her shoe, who can say? I didn't even know she was wearing shoes, until Acadia said she was. For me, it was all too dark to see either shoes, feet, OR Transparent hemline of dress.
Maybe if I had a newer monitor, things might be different. Whatever ...when push comes to shove, erotica is where you find it. For me, one of the most erotic images I ever saw was of a pregnant young woman inspecting her belly, but then I having fathered five children (three of whom hav epresented me with grandchildren), I guess you could say that I have a fertility fetish.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

eh..I'm slightly constrained by the corporate world; lunchtime 'rosity is on their dime, after all. I don' care what others do..I think in 5 years I've done 3 n*des..all joke pics, and all deleted..;) May get around to it someday, but the missus might have a problem with that..;) s'ok..;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Quote - It is obvious that you can't stand the idea that anyone might see any erotic qualities to your artwork.The woman standing in the leather shorts is a sight that people see everyday so how could there possibly be anything erotic about it? In fact there are several women around here dressed like that who hang around the corner most evenings.

Ummm, go back and read my post on page 2.

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

Oh yes, manipulating characters in 3D space gets me sooooo horny. Tweak those joint parameters, you dirty thing! Oh, you sexy thing, adjust the hue and saturation on your monitor. Unf unf unf. :rolleyes:

Do the impossible, see the invisible

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER

Touch the untouchable, break the unbreakable

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER

Jolly good show, Sarte, jolly good show! Oh boy, oh boy, I can feel NIRVANA approaching!**
**

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

acadia, you said: if I want to explore my erotic side, I'd rather do it up close and personal with the love of my life and not vicariously through computer generated pixels. just for the record, this is what i read as thinly veiled judgment. at best it was carelessly worded; it was certainly not deeply thought out, and it really raised my eyebrows. what's with the false dichotomy? why assume those who enjoy 3D erotica don't also have a love of their life with whom to explore things? they're not all sitting furtively cowering in XXX theatres, dressed in semen-stained trenchcoats. why is 3D erotica by definition vicarious? and what if somebody doesn't have a love of their life? nice for you that you do; what are they supposed to, twiddle their thumbs until somebody shows up? this sounded to me like a judgment on people whose erotic senses are touched by pixels on a screen, like you were better than they, and you pitied them. there was more along similar lines in two other posts. you say you didn't mean to be intentionally hurtful, and i believe you; your posts generally are helpful and kind. but this was a statement that could easily hurt nonetheless (and did), and you might want to rethink it; i didn't see you twigging even a little bit to what was actually problematic about that statement. my burqa quip was a jab at your "dress with transparency only below the knees". i thought better of it and edited it out to be less snarky, but it was not a reflection of how i feel about women (chuckle), but of how i feel about "my erotica is more wholesome than yours". anyway. enough. this is really boring now, and i am a little peeved because this thread could have been interesting -- a few people tried to discuss the subject from various angles in good faith, and i was hoping for more of that. i think i go and render some dirty old women in trenchcoats now.

Now that we've all cleared the air, and everybody has vented their spleen on one thing and another, could we discuss positions now, which one most graphically rings our bell? I think that that would be (tee-hee0 TITILATING!
(Actually, mine is the ... I better NOT say, I'll probably be in violation of TOS).

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Well, risking to revive this beaten-to-death-horse of a thread...

Yes, I'm turned on occasionally by Poser pictures.

Not always, and not always the same sort of pictures, but some of them definately works. And that goes for some of the pics I produce myself as well.

And yes, I do render gasp porn.

Again: not always, but... actually.. most of the time. Because I like to look at good looking nude male figures. So that's what I render. Being a female heterosexual, looking at nude women does absolutely nothing for me, wuite the contrary. All that the various Vickies do to me is remind me that I really SHOULD go on a diet...

So I look at male poser characters. mostly nude. And whaddayaknow: I'm not even ashamed to admit it!

Then again I do live in a country where porn usually mostly provokes a yawn. Denmark was the first country to allow picture pornography, back in 1969 (hehe she said sixtynine....) and ever since we've been so surrounded by it that it hardly raises an eyebrow anymore. I do realize that it's different for some people though.

Positions, huh? I do think THAT part of the debate is better suited for Raunchyminds ;)

I was looking at your gallery at Raunchyminds yesterday, and feeling extremely envious of your artistic ability. I thought your look alike standing in a pond of water was very sensuous, very erotic. But my all time favorite is the NVIATWAS climbing up the wall afraid of a mouse. That was hilarious. And then there's your nude Alan Rickman pinup (with its very carefully posistioned hands). Far Out, as we used t say way back when I was young in the 70's.
More Power to You!
David P. Hoadley

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

What?!? You looked at her RM Gallery and not Mine? Pshaw! You get a D+ for the day!

I didn't know that you had one there, you should tell me these things. Yes I'll look at your gallery too. Tell me (pant, pant), does it have some rally JUICY stuff. I'm going, I'm going to look at your stuff!
(Some time later) ".... ooooo that's so wicked...I love it!"

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

It's only juicy if you like the guys. :tt2:

I actually did go and look at them.
Technically: they're fantastic works of art.
Sexually: they're no QUITE my cup of tea.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Hehehe, that's cool. We don't all like green tea or gay sex. At least we can enjoy art.

Green tea? No, I'm not Japanese, although intellectually I can appreciate the esthetic beauty of a 'Cha-no-you' (I think that's the name). Actually, living in the Middle East, I've developed a taste for thick, black, and extremely sweet Turkish Coffee.
I have a nephew who's gay, he'd probably appreciate your art on a more viseral level than I do. For myself, only the technical aspect of the play of light and shadow on flesh was the most I could derive from it.
Haveing done a Stephanie Swift clone in Eve 4, I'm now workingf on a Ron Jeremy clone for Dork. If you like, when I'm done I'll send you a copy to play around with.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

LOL! Are you making him Anatomically Correct? I never found Ron Jeremy attractive, or even watched his porn. I don't think he ever did any gay porn in anycase. I hear he's got Amazing equipment though. LOL!

Attached Link: Link to wikipedia's article on Ron Jeremy

> Quote - LOL! Are you making him Anatomically Correct? I never found Ron Jeremy attractive, or even watched his porn. I don't think he ever did any gay porn in anycase. I hear he's got Amazing equipment though. LOL!

Neither has Alan Rickman, but that hasn't stopped Trekki from paring him up with 'Whathisname;' and no, while Ron's never done any gay porn, but with some of the things that he does to himself, who needs partner, gay or othewise?

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

LOL! I'm afraid to even ask what he does to himself, I'm sure it would break the TOS if you told me in anycase! That link seems to be down at the moment.

I'm glad you liked my pictures :m_grin: and I must admit the NWIATWASAAM is one of my personal favourites. I can just see it happen. Not that I can really understand what makes people panic over a mouse?! Mice are cute (when they're not crapping in your flour at least) and Mousie doubly so :o)

And yeah, for those who didn't know, I do mostly gay pics. Can't see anything wrong with it personally, since it's perfectly accepted when men do pictures with two women... and I definately prefer to look at males myself :o)

Besides, I have a lot of gay friends, and they're just great people to be around!

While serving at some lonely outposts while on IDF reserve duty, I occassionally found myself freaked out by a few rats. but for me, it wasn't fear of the creature itself, as that it might be a carrier of rabies.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Oh but rats are ...well sewer rats are nasty at least. Pet rats are cute. And as with the mice in your food supply, they're only cute when they're not being a menace :o)

I didn't know rats could carry rabies btw. I know bats can, but I didn't know about rats. Eww...

Attached Link: Link to Ron Jeremy

Here's the link to Ron Jeremy, I apparently pasted the wrong URL.

Trekki, I could tell you a few things about rats that would sprout hair on a bald man's pate, but then I'd be in violation of TOS.
Hope that Mizrael find the link on Ron Jeremy ...er...broadening.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

And... when does the clone for Dork get done for our posing pleasure - ack, ducks !

Eternal Hobbyist

**infinity10**: Here is the WIP, you need to look past the mustache, and see the lip below. Any suggestions and criticism would be welcome.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

That's quite close, but I'd say the eyebrow region needs adjustment yet, and I'd give him the thicker neck and under-chin. Nice going. I don't know about that 9+ inch appendage .....

Eternal Hobbyist

Attached Link: Another stupid question: Is there an easy way to copy a face in posette?

First things first, when I finish the face, I'll move on to the 9+ inch (23 cm) appendage. In the link above, you can follow my very first attempt to clone a figure, this time in Posette. Dork's face, however, isn't quite as easy to sculpt as Posette's, just not as many available MT's, and the mesh is a little less forgiving. On the other hand, I believe that Dork has as yet much untapped potential. I've seen at CGI (I think that's the name of the site, could be wrong) what wonderous results can be achieved with very little vertices. So, while I may not achieve 'The Hedghog' in Dork to the same degree that Snape has been realized in Mike & Apollo, I think that I'll come pretty darn close. David P. Hoadley

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

If it is not for re-distribution, I'm certain one may - without changing the number of vertices - take the head mesh into a 3D Modelling program ( a real one, not Poser !) and sculpt the features there, and re-export. Or am I already stating what's been said and done... whoops.

Dormus has turn out very nice, speaking of the Dork.

Eternal Hobbyist

I've been looking at this a while and the jawbone seems off. Ron (no, he and I are *not* on a first name basis, yet) has a chubby face but his jaw line isn't indented (see where I've drawn the arrows). I think it'll help if that gets straightened out.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

Thanks Bobasaur, I too came to that conclusion, but before I could correct, I needed to edit my dork morphs and put them in a proper working for easy reference. Then I worked on my texture, struggling with photoshop, an app that I'm not all that familiar with. Then I spawned a MT, and transferred it to Domus (along with all the facial MT that I got from momodot). The new 'Hedgehog MT' I set at a value of 0.001 t initiate general shape, and then I proceeded to rework the face. This is the precent rendition. A full frontal genital will be posted at raunchyminds in a WIP thread that I open there. Criticiasm is invited.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

whoa, nice! i'm not a ron jeremy fan (and i am ethically uncomfortable with look-alikes), but your work on these is getting better and better.

Justy go with the flow, **pleonastic**, just go with the flow. Momodot fixed a Ron Jeremy texture, so see how you like it,

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Quote - i'm not a ron jeremy fan

I've never heard of him so I did a google.ca search.

All I can say is "That :blink: guy stars in adult films?!" :blink: :blink: :blink:

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi

He did with Porn what Sean Connery did with espionage, and Alan Rickman does with HP. Believe it or not, he has a BA in theater.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

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!

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.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

: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 ?

Eternal Hobbyist

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..;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

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.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

After much fiddling, spawning MT's, combining Mt's, and agonizing over this and that, this is what I've come up with. I doubt that its finished, but this is what there is.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Three-quarters view.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Profile.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

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

Eternal Hobbyist

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.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

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.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

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..;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

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 :-)

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

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'.

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

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.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

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?

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

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

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

"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.

Eternal Hobbyist

Here's my donation of artistically erotic porn. This is my Marie, like the myth, I've become quite fond of my creation -but she DOES ring my bell. DPH

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

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....

Eternal Hobbyist

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

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

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

BTW, for those of you who man not have known, the painting 'September Morn' was once considered pornographic. Today, it is considered something of a classic, but when it first went on display, it became the center of extreme controversy. All whole generation of Americans were titilated by the image of the French girl emerging shyly from her morning swim.

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.'

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

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.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

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.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

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.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

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

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

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.

Free men do not ask permission to bear arms!!

"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

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

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).

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

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?

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

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.

@momodot Your 'cultural expression' concept is an interesting twist. I'm curious... There were certain styles of houses and furniture that were popular in the '60s (the styles used in the movie 'The Incredibles" for example). There were certain styles of graphics and font treatments popular in the '70s. Would you consider those things 'art' because they clearly reflect the culture of the time? Does it matter if they weren't considered 'art' at the time of their construction (I suspect not but I'm asking just in case)? Please note that I'm not at all challenging or arguing - I'm just trying to clarify what you mean.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

Cigar Store Indians -though an advertising device at the time of their creation, they are now a much sought after piece of Americana. From a heritage point of view, they would certainly count as works of art today. So are the few surviving figure heads of the old time clippers (most of which depicted bare breasted females, and could be concieved of as erotic, if not pornographic. Back then, though I doubt that anyone conceived of a difference between the two, and simply classified them both as 'Lewd').
David P. Hoadley

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Quote - There were certain styles of graphics and font treatments popular in the '70s. Would you consider those things 'art' because they clearly reflect the culture of the time? Does it matter if they weren't considered 'art' at the time of their construction (I suspect not but I'm asking just in case)? Please note that I'm not at all challenging or arguing - I'm just trying to clarify what you mean.

No worries. I am not at all sure what I mean. I think what I am thinking is that what distinguishes art from non-art is not intention, and maybe not even reception, but maybe whether or not the thing has meaningful cultural content. A certain spoon might have content due to style while another might not. But merely historic significance in this case does not rate. Something that is perceived as having cultural meaning when it was made might at a future time be found not to have it while something taken for granted as neutral in terms of cultural meaning might be found in another time or in another place to have cultural meaning.

Cultural significance, cultural meaning... I am not sure what that might mean. The thing conveys substantive information about their culture or have a certain strong or even inchoate resonance in their culture or when viewed by another culture?

Bad art is art by virtue of its relation to culture and its relation to good art... Steven King may be compared to George Elliot or Jackson Pollack on its artistic merits but to compare it to a sandwich is fatuous... unless the sandwich has some cultural significance that is recognized, say in the case of a McDonald's Hamburger.

Kitsch is interesting to consider, it is often created as Art then rejected as Art and then rehabilitated as Art with the admixture of nostalgia or irony and then maybe dismissed again as intellectual fashion changes. The problem with "what is Art" today is irony... irony can invest anything with spurious significance... most people rebel at this but can not articulate why.

I think that where I differ from some people is that I think of art in functional terms... does it serve as art. Bad art serves as art. It allows people to speculate financially, to show off economically or intellectually, to forge group identity as with the audience for the Avant Guard or for Kitsch, and to fuel ego by rejecting it or valorizing it in the face of opposition by philistines and the unwashed masses. These are the functions of art. I can not see art in Platonic terms since it is not an object like a table or a chair. The functionality of an abstract is different than the functionality of a real object.

An academic standard for art? Stuff normal people hate.

Over and over as an art student art a prestigious institution I was told regular people just were not equipped to appreciate art, I said that they appreciated art a whole lot, they just don't appreciate /your/ Art. I grew up "disadvantaged" but I don't remember ever being in a home that didn't have a calender or a porno centerfold or a picture of Jesus, Mary, Martin Luther King or JFK on the wall.

That's some real interesting food for thought. I appreciate you sharing it.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

yes, momodot, make my neurons churn! :) the cultural aspects of art are very interesting, and you made me think of another example: we don't just reach back in time, but we also view and acquire items as art that are no such thing in their contemporary culture of origin, where they're instead purely functional items. i don't know how meaningful that is -- we often completely shift the meaning of the item when we do that. maybe something becomes art a lot more easily when its original cultural context is removed?

I don't think meaningful cultural content works. A national flag has that, but isn't art.

If one wants a definition, I would say this: the difference between art and non-art is profundity. Non-art, including, since the matter has been raised, wooden indians and ships' figureheads, is all on the surface. What you see at once is all there is. A work of art you can come back to and see something new. A great work of art, you keep seeing new things the more often you look.

You are absolutly right Phantast! Damn! I thought I had it figured out :)

I can't agree with the exact formulation you have for profundity... I think you can come back again and again to something very simple because its simplicity efects you deeply... so is that profondity in the affect the thing creats in a certain context rather than an inherent deepness of content or form? Also how do you account for bad art, it is niether profound nor does it touch me profoundly but it is not "fake" art it is only "bad" art.

I don't want to give up on this but I am at an impass.

Thank you Phantast, pleonastic, Bobasaur.

I once belived that art had a transendance to it that set it apart from other things... but I lost my faith :(

"I can't define it, but I know it when I see it " - The Supreme Court..;)
I always said erotica was what aroused women, but prawongraphy (we have a parser on our mail at work..fergiv me..;) is what aroused men..;) totally wrong, full of exceptions, but what I thought at the time..;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

I recall the multi-million dollar space probe that failed because one group of engineers had used the metric system and another the English system of measurements. At least both of those systems are based on replicable physical reality and one or the other would have sufficed for the utilitarian purpose of measurement. Such objectivity simply does not apply to questions like whether Mapplethorpe's work is art or pornography.

It's fine to believe in some holy grail of artistic objectivity but I don't think it exists. Entire atristic movements are persona no arta to the academy one day and hailed as great the next. Eurocentric authorities completely dismissed African and other non European works that are now acknowledged. What changed, the art or cultural atitudes? There may well be some validity to artistic evaluation if based on something empirical like perceptual psychology. You can determine that more people like red paintings than blue paintings perhaps though I still don't think one can honestly define one group as more "artistic" than the other.

Beyond that, it's pretty much fodder for intellectual masturbation amongst the elites. The vast gulf between what people really like and what the critics and academicians tell them they should like is the cause of many people saying 'I don't understand it so it must be art.' Of course, the 'authorities' have every right to establish their criteria and declare who is in or out but their pronouncements are hardly relevant to the vast majority of real people in the real world. The fact is that most people asked to explain why they like something are not going to be able to expound in terms that would delight a critic, they just like it period. Perhaps for them, art bypasses the rational brain and gors straight to the emotional and esthetic - which I would think is the real idea of art to begin with.

As for art/erotica vs. porn, if one can view some explicit images like Mapplethorpe's or Indian temple friezes or whatever as art rather than pornography than a definition based on how graphic an image is becomes unworkable. Do we say that an image of as man inserting a whip into his anus is art if shot as a profile but porn if the distended sphincter is shown? And would it be impossible for the latter to be shown in an artistic manner?

Objective, functional definitions may have utility. A flaccid penis is OK but an erect one isn't; a dildo touching a vagina is fine but the slightest degree of penetration is taboo... Those are things one can work with, things that enable unambiguous communication of information, fairly enforceable rules etc. Anything else may make for entertaining conversation or rancorous debate but nothing really useful.

On the contrary, subjective criteria lead to chaos and are always subject to a variety of political, religious and other forces that guarantee that result. I can't legally rent an 'XXX' rated movie in my county but I can drive a few miles and rent as many as I want. OTOH, I can go to the local convenience store and buy a magazine with images that depict all the explicti acts that appear in the banned movies. We used to be able to buy them at a local newstand but they were forced to close because they sold magazines that depicted the same acts between two men that were acceptable if performed between men and women or even two women. It may be fun to debate smut vs. genteel stimulation or whatever the alternatives are supposed to be but the reality, at least in the US. today is that both are likely to be tarred with the same brush. and the finer points of theory and sensibility have no influence whatsoever.

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken

'I like Andy Warhol's soup cans, but I won't call them art.'

It is art though. Warhol meant to express in this work and in most of his art his belief that commercial imagery had become the art of our times - for the masses anyway. Sometimes you need that understanding of the artist to gain an insight into the artistic value of the piece.

If everything is art then art is nothing so it's understood that there has to be some rules no matter how contentiously those rules are debated. The same is true about pornography and erotica. There have to be some rules of delineation even if that border proves as difficult to find as this thread has demonstrated.

I find that I lean more toward the position of treatment over subject matter because everything has the right to be the subject matter of art. It all depends on how that subject matter is handled.

'"I can't define it, but I know it when I see it " - The Supreme Court.'

Yup :)

I always said erotic was what aroused women, but prawongraphy... is what aroused men..;)

Pretty funny! better than "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it " in my opinion :)

I hate to quote Goering but it might be relevent...

"When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun!"

Does that tell use what art is?

"When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun!"
Which only goes to show that even an opportunistic SOB like Goering had something preceptive to say. The problem with most art critics, is that they tend to be elitist, and anti-democratic. Which is why I prefer my own definition that -Art is what I like, and Trash is what I don't like! For me, Warhol's work are trash, especially if he's trying to make a statement. Art who'e intention is to make a statement is propaganda -not art, and usually appeals to some with an atavistic yearnings for elitism. The Nazis were good at it, and so are our own cultural snobs.

Some great works of art do indeed make statements, but that isn't their main motivation.
David P. Hoadley

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Hello all Ive been doing poser for about 3 years and I do alot of erotic art. Back in the pass I did the art work for free to show it off to people but to do good erotic art take time and money. So I treat it like a business now. I hate to say it but sex sells. Iam away buying textures, models,photoshop brushes, ect from here anything to help in my art work. And to make erotic art it takes passion, time, skill and money Some people stay away from this type of work and i respect that but i like making erotic art its a challenge to me. I try to go for the wow factor in my art lol. well that my 2 cent.

Kainxxx2000

Or as someone else once said, "When I hear the word 'gun' I reach for my culture."

Incidentally, about changing opinions in art criticism, you will find exactly the same thing in science. A way of looking at things is discarded when a more enlightened way of thinking comes along. We learn as we go. In the 19thC JS Bach was considered to have little merit as a composer. That changed, now he's considered one of the greats. That will never change - there will never be a time when he goes back to being considered third-rate.

"there will never be a time when he goes back to being considered third-rate." I'm not so sure about that. Anyone who doesn't know about capping a cop or the trials and tribulations of being a thug or ho is considered at least third-rate by many in this generation. Who knows what their grandkids will think.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

It should be a TOS violation to excerpt long passages from Wikipedia ;^)

But these clips save you from having to read a pretty long entry and might help... ever since Phantast brought up the flag I am at loose ends. I am hoping some one can set me somewhat at ease or this thing is going to plague me... I know a definition of art is arbitrary but some how I am driven by the idea that it is possible to construct a passable definition!

Wikipedia:
In addition to serving as a method of pure creativity and self-expression, the purpose of works of art may be to communicate ideas, such as in politically-, religiously-, or philosophically-motivated art, to create a sense of beauty, to explore the nature of perception, for pleasure, or to generate strong emotions. The purpose may also be seemingly nonexistent.

Characteristics of art
There follow some generally accepted characteristics of art:

encourages an intuitive understanding rather than a rational understanding, as, for example, with an article in a scientific journal;
was created with the intention of evoking such an understanding or an attempt at such an understanding in the audience;
was created with no other purpose or function other than to be itself (a radical, "pure art" definition);
elusive, in that the work may communicate on many different levels of appreciation;
in relation to the above, the piece may offer itself to many different interpretations, or, though it superficially depicts a mundane event or object, invites reflection upon elevated themes;
demonstrates a high level of ability or fluency within a medium; this characteristic might be considered a point of contention, since many modern artists (most notably, conceptual artists) do not themselves create the works they conceive, or do not even create the work in a conventional, demonstrative sense;
the conferral of a particularly appealing or aesthetically satisfying structure or form upon an original set of unrelated, passive constituents.

Also the following more concise definition from a dictionary:

A human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium or a high quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty.

The way to work ugly art into this is I guess is to extend the term "beauty" to conceptual, intellectual, and emotional beauty as well as aesthetic beauty as in the Wikipedia item.

Maybe the best distinction between erotica and pornography is that erotica is whatever gets you off and pornography is whatever gets other people get off :0)

More seriously, maybe erotica is intended to arouse while pornography is intended to climax. My understand is that in a strip club it is bad form to climax when given a lap dance in the public area leaving me to wonder what the point of it is then!

Or is it that erotica is meant to be stimulating or climax assisting in its absence by creating an evocative mental image and fantasy, it is "art of the past moment", while pornography is intended to stimulate and facilitate climax in its actual presence, it is art of the "present moment"? Can pornography be created without the intention of furthering the pursuit of climax in most of its audience?

Is the difference between erotica and pornography located with the audience at all? Is it ultimately (community standards aside) mainly a manner of how its creator relates to it? Is it that when an artist attempts to charge their work with the sexual it is erotic work but when the author seeks to devolp sexual visual or literary imagery that may or may not have an aesthetic charge that it is pornograghy?

Is is the pornonogrphic/erotic difference best thought of in terms of intent, function, or social context? Are all of these just too reductive.... it seems it is responsible to attempt some definition given that law and statute are applied nearly everywhere.

"Sex is politics" - Gore Vidal

Is it that we only flatter ourselves when we think art is politics while in fact what defines pornography is that it really is politics?

I think that one thing this discussion has shown is that definitions of pornography based on content/subject fail. It becomes like the silly situation with Indian cinema posters, where if there is 0.05" separation between the heroine's and hero's lips it's OK and if they actual touch it's taboo. Which brings me back to intent. This is relatively easy if you have access to the creator. So imagine three Poser users, A, B and C. All have produced pictures with sexual content.

Me: Mr A, why did you make this picture?

Mr A: 'Cos I get paid by for making pictures of hot chicks with big melons.

OK, so Mr A's picture is pornography.

Me: Mr B, why did you make this picture?

Mr B: It's a work of art.

Me: Why is it a work of art?

Mr B: Err - it just is. Besides, dphoadley likes it, and it says here that anything that dphoadley likes is art, and anything he doesn't like is trash, and you can't quarrel with that, can you?

Verdict: this is pornography being passed off as art.

Me: Mr C, why did you make this picture?

Mr C: It's a work of art.

Me: Why is it a work of art?

Mr C: Well, I was looking to make something that combined formal beauty with subversiveness; allow me to elaborate on the features of the composition ...

Verdict: Well, this is actually some sort of art, and Mr C knows something about what he's doing. But, as someone asked earlier, is it good art or bad art?

Me: Please can you comment on why is the girl looking so very bored, and why is her hair sticking out at that angle?

Mr C: Err - I didn't know how to fix that.

So - it's art, but it isn't good art. It's technically deficient. It may also not convey either the message intended by the artist or any other message. (Those last four words are important.)

Actually Mr. B's response (with dphoadley's belief system applied) would be "because I like it and I think it is." However, even if that didn't define it as 'art' that doesn't mean it's pornography. Essentially what is being said is that it's pornography because 'me' says it is. Furthermore the response to Mr. A is in error as well for the same reason. Being a commercial product doesn't equate to being pornography. Mr. C's response begs the question, is a knowledge of artistic terminology and concepts required for something to be art? What, then, of those that are naturally gifted at expressing themselves visually who don't have the formal training and can't name the concepts (even though others who are educated can see those concepts applied well in their work)?

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

This is based on hazy memory of a piece in an old photogramphic magazine, late Sixties or early Seventies, and discussing what was coyly described as "glamour" photography; very soft porn, if that. The suggested distinction was whethee the photographer or the model dominated the creation of the picture. Whether the photographer seemed to be recording what the girl was doing, or whether there was a sense of something more. Of course, in those days it was harder to show anything in the UK. Topless models in newspapers were still shocking, and from where I was "Swinging Sixties" was still an ugly rumour about a few hundred people somewhere in semi-mythical London. But the idea had stuck in my mind, and it still seems to suggest something. From what I've seen, pictorial porn still seems to be observation, rather than a creation by the photographer or director.

BTW I hope my comments did not come across as attacking Phantast. This has actually been one of the best art vs. porn vs. erotica threads I seen and I have no intention of attacking anyone.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

Phantast, I can not accept the intention of the creator as the basis for determining if something is pornography or art... one can innocently attempt to create art and end up with pornography or innocently set out to make pornography and inadvertently come up with art. It was a truism in art school that in the case of great art it was often the artist who was the last person to have any idea of what they were doing or what they were about.

From my perspective:

"A" might be producing great works of art but certainly if they are successful in his/her mission they will be pornography.

"B" might very well be creating art even if he/she is a blithering idiot. Again one can only hope the stuff is pornography if that is their aim :)

"C" could be creating perfect crap that utterly isn't art even if his/shis response is totally honest... many people believe they are making art while they most certainly are not. My skepticism and experience would lead me to believe that it is far more likely in this case that "B" was making art that that "C" was making art... this based on years of teaching and museum work.

In my experience talented artists, even competent artists, are seldom able to articulate in anyway what they are doing while poseurs are just full of brilliant insight into their work, rationalizations of their technique, and explications of their cultural significance. I knew an accomplished and hugely serious and talented sculpture who did monumental abstract forms of great workmanship in steel and whenever he was asked what his work was about and how he came to it would respond "Penis fits Vagina". However this was his answer to most querys such as "Do you want a beer?" or "Is your mother coming to visit?"

The case here is that very often in my experience the best artists will insist they are "mere" craftsmen/women, that their work has not content, and they they have no idea what they are doing they just wanted to see how a certain thing would look.

AntoniaTiger's comment is very interesting, in art is it a matter of the work is "trans formative" in that the work communicates more powerfully then the subject matter? This could be stretched to encompass matters such as spoons or a simple cup. Does this criteria of "trans formative nature" cover both good and bad art, both "communicative" and "blank" art?

I supposed in a cheesecake photograph it could be either the photographer the model or even the printer who is investing the image with its trans formative element. I had not proposed "transcendent" as a measure since that would leave out bad art, but "trans formative" would be more inclusive.... attempts at art which are not in fact art might be failed or bogus attempts at the "trans formative". Can something be truly trans formative without being art? Now we are back to the flag and my bubble is burst!

Reading here I think that "art" must be removed from the consideration of whether something is pornography. Even the US courts define obscenity as pornographic work devoid of serious educational, scientific, or artistic merit. Here they distinguish value from intent, and they suggest that pornography can indeed have serious artistic value. Maybe if we except these things we must eliminate artistic merit as a means of distinguishing erotica from pornography. We are left again with a functional cultural standard of may this image be sold at a mainstream book store or shown on television or is the subject matter and representation beyond the limits that the community will accept in the public as opposed to private realm. Will the public libraries be aloud to purchase it, could a politician discuss their appreciation for it etc. without negative repercussions. Then pornography would be material proscribed from public view but permitted in discrete private consumption and obscenity that which the community would seek to ban even from private use.

???

BTW you are not gonna see any pictures of woman topless in any American newspaper!

In the big city where I live in North America the public pool provides times for person's who are not permitted to be present with persons of the opposite sex in the pool. Some children from religious homes swim with their entire bodies except their hands, feet and, face swaddled in a combination of Lycra and loose fitting cloth. I am always horrified/amazed to see women attempting to have a coffee and a donut by sliding the food up under the veil that covers all their head but their eyes. Last summer in the park I saw a woman in a thong bikini skate by a woman in full black chador with only one eye peaking out... I wondered if they were each jealous of each other ;) In the place these very modest immigrants come from I understand that you can sell a Victoria Secrets catalog on the black market for almost $100 US! Here somepeople put even three year old girls in chador such is their concern for modesty. I am allowed to comment since I come from this ethnic group only many generations assimilated to Western life. meanwhile ther is another ellement here that so demonizes the body that spouse change into pajamas alone in the bathroom and a multitude of mitts and gloves are sold that permit you to bathe without touching yourself :) But probably the pornogrophy made here is as rude as made anywhere :)

what defines pornography is that it really is politics?

what defines it for legal purposes, sure, i think so. beyond that my favourite sarcastic definition is: Sexually oriented material that is not considered acceptable to the viewer; the same material when judged subjectively acceptable is often referred to as "erotica". because that's my impression of the majority opinion after decades of listening to these types of discussions. and those people vote for the politicians who make the law. heck, we only have the term pornography to discuss today because in the 19th century some people in power decided that sex was bad for the masses, it sapped their precious energy which was needed to make the new industrial society run run run. anything that distracted from that was dangerous. and what better way to control people than to control their most primal drives? i think gore vidal hit the nail on the head when he said "sex is politics".

Phantast, judging by intent doesn't work for me at all -- because first and foremost it requires access to the artist. that's right out. unless if we had access to all artists everywhere, and could raise the dead for this purpose, and assure all artists of safety from prosecution, and invented the perfect truth serum that can not only detect lies but also when people fool themselves, and give everyone the power of erudition, we would still require some external validation of that intent. until then the jury will remain out.

and the US legal code's definition of obscenity fails for me as well because it can't stand on its own -- somebody has to be elevated to over the rest of us judge what's literally, artistically, politically, or scientifically valuable. and those values change as society changes. so at best we have a definition that relies on subjective criteria, "community standards", and an "average person". that definition is intrinsically bound to its time, place, and culture (as momodot so aptly pointed out with remarks about that ethnic/religious group).

i don't mind elevating experts to judge when it comes to relatively clearly measurable factors -- the FDA is a good idea (though there too one can easily see how experts might fail when the factors become complex). i do mind it a lot when it comes to what i may or may not look at, or share with my friends, or do with my own body. the repression of sexual imagery really bugs me because it vilifies a basic human need.

on a tangent, has anyone else noticed how the word "porn" has been taken over by some people to use in non-sexual contexts, to indicate some form of sensually loaded consumption? there is a "food porn" community on livejournal, for example, where people talk and share pictures about great meals.

Quote - If Renderosity is so PG then I wonder why there are soooooo many nudes here? Seems like a PG site would completely ban all nudity. If a film has nudity it gets an "R" rating, doesn't it?

erm, no.
there are many places where artistic nudity is completely acceptable and natural. erotic is nowhere near synonymous with nudity. an erotic image can be non-nude, and a nude image can easily be non-erotic. artistic nudity, or even pinup and fetish style images (within reason) are generally totally acceptable to most people, while erotic imagery generally does not intermix well in these galleries.

that said, i honestly dont care what people do with my products. i stay away from sites like renderotica lately because while i have no problem with nudity or erotic imagery, i have an aversion to some of the mutilation, gore and other wierd stuff that proliferates there. also, a site with very few rules and low moderation generally attracts the dredges of the internet - who thrive in such an environment.

as for the debate about 'what constitutes pornography'....
everyone here damned well knows what constitutes pornography. the fact that it is even being debated is absurd.

Quote - as for the debate about 'what constitutes pornography'....
everyone here damned well knows what constitutes pornography. the fact that it is even being debated is absurd.

I honestly don't! With pornography I do "know it when I see" it but that doesn't satisfy my intelectual curiosity. I don't care for the unreflected life. My curiosity forces me to search for a way to characterize pornography... not to simply use the term to classify but instead to understand and classify the term. This started for me with the issue of whether art and pornography were catagorically compatable... my impression is that pornography and art are catagorically different rather than reflecting qualities on a spectrum, this is why things can be one both or neither of the two. I want to know not what belongs to the class "Pornography" but instead what constitutes the concept "Pornography"... if all I wanted was a guide to catagorize representations and subject matter I could "kow it when I see it" or more simply just read the TOS. Instead, how can I learn the characteristics of pornography? Not the characteristics of those things that are catagorized as pornography but of the catagory. My difficulties are plain as was shown by Phantast pointing out that I could not define "Art" in such a manner that wasn't neccessarilty inclusive of the class "flags" :(

After posting earlier this morning I went to the big ethnic food market in the neighborhood and experenced something I am embarsed to admit I often experience. When i see women in western atire I don't "scope" to much, I am notorious for not noticing even extremes in bust size of women who I might even know well... I do check out other things to be utterly honest but overal my relation to women is pretty matter of fact... I was a dancer and then work many years in a woman dominated field. BUT when I was in the market I was so acutely aware of the sexualized body of the women in chador. Women covered all but thier eyes I felt lavasious in looking at when I spoke to them, the eyes seemed utterly intimate and I was concerned about how my gaze might seem (the girls I am thinking of here were in their mid-twenties), women in chador that showed the face seemed almost lewd, and I was very uncomfortanble going past these ladies in the naerrow isles. Freeky! Now some girls are pretty hot, and I'll look at pretty much any lady in a swim suit but with that kind of Western nudity I don't feel the erotic charge to the body that I feel when I am around traditionalist. It isn't a forbiden fruit thing at all I don''t think.... it is the identity self representation... the chador clad women is participating in the representation of the female body as lewd while the girl in the beach thong is participating in the representation of the body a normalized and common place... inocent!

OT

Word shift... "food-porn", "realestate-porn", etc.

"Gay" is being used in a few new way now, not just for something being weak like "That idea is sooo gay!" but also for when some one likes something a lot like "Man! Is your dad always so gay for your mom?" or "He is so totally gay for hockey" or "Yeah, I like the Sopranos but I'm not totally gay for it."

I saw a Simpson's cartoon where some 10-12 yearld kids catch a boy they know with his girlfriend and they say "Kissing a girl! That is so gay!"

OT

Quote - I saw a Simpson's cartoon where some 10-12 yearld kids catch a boy they know with his girlfriend and they say "Kissing a girl! That is so gay!"

heh

Quote - my impression is that pornography and art are catagorically different rather than reflecting qualities on a spectrum

i think the easiest way to categorise it is that while artistic nudes may contain nudity, and may even be arousing, their primary purpose is not to arouse the viewer.

pornography's sole purpose is to arouse the viewer. any artistic value is merely an afterthought.

although they can overlap, i suppose. some pornography has quite a bit of artistic value (whereas most is just hastily thrown together crap)... and some artistic nudes, taken out of context, can be viewed as pornography.
renderosity's TOS seems to filter out most porn-type art though, and thats good enough for me. not that i mind seeing it, just that its not very conducive to a work environment or this type of community.

Quote - [...]. some pornography has quite a bit of artistic value (whereas most is just hastily thrown together crap)

Excuse me, but it's pretty obvious here that you haven't actually looked at any of the pictures that can be produced here. Not touting my own horn, but on Raunchyminds there's a LOT of pictures that, although undeniably pornographic by the definitions established in this thread, are also very very beautiful and far from "hastily thrown together crap". I suggest you take a look before you say something that categorically.

Also RM has very few rules and low moderation, but ... strangely enough we're not plagued by the scum of the Internet over there. It's all about general attitude I s'pose. "Smile and the world smiles at you" kind of thing...

I think this debate has been truly one of the best here for a long time. People has been debating with an open mind, and it's interesting how similar, yet different people view the difference between nudity, erotica and porn. Of course it's 3 different things, but again, sometimes they overlap.

strangely enough we're not plagued by the scum of the Internet over there. It's all about general attitude I s'pose. "Smile and the world smiles at you" kind of thing...

That is a nice thing.

- - -

Blackhearted... good to hear from you.

Where does erotic fit in? You have the "artistic nude" not designed to arouse (tooo much) which might be William Bouguereau? Manet? Degas? or maybe not?? and pornography designed "sole" purpose is to arouse the viewer... Egon Schiele? later Picasso? George Grosz did work that is certainly pornorphic in every sense but I dont suppose it was intended to arouse anyone sexually. Then there is pornography (art?) by someone like Jeff Koons or Cindy Sherman that seems specifically engineered to prevent somone from becoming aroused.

There is an essay "The Nude and the Naked" by Keneth Clark which is well known in art history studies. Clark said, "the nude is not the subject of art but a form of art." He said the naked figure was a figure "deprived" of clothes. Are naked people pornographic and nude people erotic?

My own criteria for "artistic nudity" in my own work is nudes that are not particularly sexual or having of sexual inuendo. Nudes that are frank :) But that doesn't really tell me what erotica or pornography really are. A test case-by-case for thumbs up or down doesn't really satify my desire for un understanding of what are the precise determning factors.

"The Male Nude in Contemporary Photography" by Melody D. Davis is a very interesting political analysis of representations of the nude form.

ABOVE: I found a Bouguereau image that doesn't violate RMP TOS!

- - -

I heard once somewhere the opinion that porno publisher Larry Flynt and televagilist Gerry Falwell were in the same buisness... making sex dirty.

Quote - > Quote - [...]. some pornography has quite a bit of artistic value (whereas most is just hastily thrown together crap)

Excuse me, but it's pretty obvious here that you haven't actually looked at any of the pictures that can be produced here.

if its pornographic, its not here.
although ive seen several submissions in the rosity gallery which are blatant eroticism, theyre far from pornography.

artistic nudity = PG, erotic art = R, pornography = XXX

and i should clarify my earlier statement that 'there is no debate about what constitutes pornography':

you can debate whether something is erotic art, or artistic nude... fine art nude, eroticism, whatever the terms are. two people can look at a painting of a nude woman and one might see it as erotic, another might see it as a simple artistic nude.
but there is no real debate -- in renderosity gallery terms -- about what constitutes 'pornography'. by bringing in classic painters and how they were viewed you simple muddle things -- keep in mind that just a short while ago catching a glimpse of a woman's ankles was considered naughty. i am referring to current gallery submissions.

the rosity gallery has various forms of erotic art and artistic nudes created by people with varying tastes, skill levels and interests, but in the last 6 years i havent seen anything i would call outright 'pornography'.

Quote - Incidentally, about changing opinions in art criticism, you will find exactly the same thing in science. A way of looking at things is discarded when a more enlightened way of thinking comes along. We learn as we go. In the 19thC JS Bach was considered to have little merit as a composer. That changed, now he's considered one of the greats. That will never change - there will never be a time when he goes back to being considered third-rate.

Pretty sweeping generalization there.

Take more modern examples with music. Some of the early rap and hip-hop acts were considered not worthy of musical attention and was largely ignored. Now there's more appreciation for their work with the popularity of the genre as their contribution is recognized. But if the genre loses its popularity at some point no one is going to care and they'll sink back into relative obscurity.

So yes, I can see Bach going back to be considered third rate.

Quote - the rosity gallery has various forms of erotic art and artistic nudes created by people with varying tastes, skill levels and interests, but in the last 6 years i havent seen anything i would call outright 'pornography'.

Real-life bit of artistic history that shows things aren't so clear as you make them out. In the 1950s and 1960s there was a Montreal-based photographer who specialized in male physique photography: shirtless, very fit men taken in usually outdoorsy settings. The pictures were advertised in certain magazines and could be mail-ordered.

It was only in the 1970s and 1980s that is was finally realized what this was: the photographer was gay and he was supplying the pictures for a gay audience. It was porn, at least the porn that they could get away with by disguising it as something else which gave them plausible deniability. Nowdays, of course, where gay porn and erotica is far easier to get there isn't the need to disguise it they can be explicit. But back in the day those semi-clothed male models (many of whom weren't gay themselves) was what they had.

Now there's appreciation of said photographers work: porn disguised as art now considered as art that used to be porn.

General question:
If my male figues are depicted in a sexually aroused state, that would condemn my 3D renders as pornographic ? Even if done with tasteful setting, decor and lighting ?

And if they were shown in non-aroused state, same environments, it would be erotica ? Or, considered just nude art like the grand masters of the Western tradition 1500s-1800s ?

Eternal Hobbyist

I would except the erection picture as erotica if the mood is matter of fact rather than coy or lavascious but I don't think any formal guidlines or TOS would except the erection as not pornographic. I have painted the artis's model with erection but no lewdness... I know it can be done... but "The Male Nude in Contemporary Photography" by Melody D. Davis discusses in a very interesting way how the male hedimony tries to control representations of the erection and why!

As an art student I avoided painting women because at the time I was very sensitive to issues of exploitation but my images of men in classical poses was considered subversive and even enraged some people... when I was first exhibited comercially in New York city there was an attempt to pidgen hole me as a Gay Artist although my nudes were not sexual. Some gay men seemed somehow "disapointed" when they realized I was not gay... but what was really so powerful was that reaction by some people to my nudes back in art school: anger! I had chosen the male also because I wanted to not fall in the trap of making the figure beautiful or being erotically attracted to the model, but when I gave up exhibiting and became a teacher I started painting women... pretty women.

Quote -
If my male figues are depicted in a sexually aroused state, that would condemn my 3D renders as pornographic ? Even if done with tasteful setting, decor and lighting ?

And if they were shown in non-aroused state, same environments, it would be erotica ? Or, considered just nude art like the grand masters of the Western tradition 1500s-1800s ?

male nudity in a movie might give it an R rating. a male erection in a movie will give it a XXX one instantly.
a nudist colony or beach generally has hundreds of nude people - men women and children. it is an environment thought of as natural and non-sexual by most people there. they dont go there to get their rocks off, but rather to relax and become comfortable in their own skin. see how long you last walking around one with an erection. they have strict policies against photography, overt public affection/sexuality, hitting on people, bringing in pornography, sexually explicit language, even suggestive jewelry.

these days in most cultures nudity in itself is not pornography. suggestive nudity can cross the line into erotic art. i define pornography as involving sexual acts. pornography can be artistic, but this is generally an afterthought and not the primary purpose.
things change with the times. these days i wouldnt even call Playboy pornography -- but rather a mens magazine with some nudes.

Quote - So yes, I can see Bach going back to be considered third rate.

Utter fluff. Bach will never be considered "third rate" by anyone who knows what they're talking about.

Quote - > Quote - So yes, I can see Bach going back to be considered third rate.

Utter fluff. Bach will never be considered "third rate" by anyone who knows what they're talking about.

That's the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning.

"I am right, and anyone who knows what I'm talking about knows I'm right, so if they say I'm wrong they clearly don't know what they're talking about."

It occurred to me that we are not differentiating personal taste from quality. Sometimes one can recognize quality without liking what is depicted (for example I highly respect the music of Steely Dan and it's clearly very well done but I don't personally enjoy very much of it). To that end I'm throwing these definitions up as ideas. Art Self expression through some medium that is separate and distinct from the artist. (includes visual arts, sculpture, writing, music etc.) Good/bad art The degree that the self expression conforms to the aesthetic standards and principles of the culture. Liked/disliked art The completely subjective degree to which an individual viewer values the art. Erotica/porn Artistic expression that elicits sexual arousal. The difference between the two being the degree of arousal that is elicited and the explicitness of the content. Since sexual arousal is a very subjective thing the difference between the two is also very subjective.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - [...]. some pornography has quite a bit of artistic value (whereas most is just hastily thrown together crap)

Excuse me, but it's pretty obvious here that you haven't actually looked at any of the pictures that can be produced here.

if its pornographic, its not here.
although ive seen several submissions in the rosity gallery which are blatant eroticism, theyre far from pornography.

Of course not. The post was referring to Raunchy Minds. And the "here" wasn't meant as a place pointer, more like the first "here" i the sentence. If I said "Now listen here" I don't mean you have to go to Denmark to meet me and hear me actually say it either...

Quote - i define pornography as involving sexual acts. pornography can be artistic, but this is generally an afterthought and not the primary purpose.

Now that's way too broad.

If "involving sexual acts" is defined as pornography than you've just lumped in the majority of modern film and television, most novels, and the Bible. All of which contain suggested or explicit "sexual acts".

Pornography isn't involving sexual acts, it's meant to cause a sexual action (sexual release through masturbation, or some form of excitement related to sex). That's why porn is largely in the eyes of the beholder.

Meanwhile you have sexual acts that are portrayed for many other reasons, including those involving an erect penis. The glowing condom "dueling penis" scene from the Blake Edwards film "Skin Deep" is utterly hysterical and clearly meant as comedy, not as pornography.

For the uninitiated, John Ritter is having sex with a woman in a completely dark room, but he's wearing a luminous condom. You see it appear and disappear a few times with appropriate sounds...and then the door opens and in walks the woman's significant other, unaware that she was cheating on him. And he's ready for action, hot to trot, ready and willing, pick your phrase. And he's wearing a glowing condom as well. And sees (because of the glowing condom Ritter is wearing) that he's being cheated on. What follows is a physical scuffle the viewer hears but only sees throught the movement of these two glowing condoms like some demented lightsaber battle before Ritter flees the room and the ticked-off guy.

Let's see, there's the rape seen in "A Clockwork Orange". Meant not for sexual titillation but to express how demented Roddy MacDowell's character was and provide justification for the revenge carried out on him later by the couple.

"American Beauty", where everyone is cheating with everyone else and the repercussions thereof.

And so on and so forth.

Now, when it comes to the galleries here there's not an issue with certain guidelines being set about what is allowable or not through some criteria. But don't pretend that means you've clearly defined pornography because there are plenty of images, some with people not nude at all, that could be used to the same ends.

i think that even you will admit that the above is more the exception than the rule. your above example from skin deep also lacks nudity, which i believe - in some form - is an essential component of pornography.
its a pretty safe bet that most often nudity + sexual acts = pornography.

nothing in this world can be defined by an unwavering, straightforward definition. there are always exceptions.
that said, i should refine my personal 'opinion' though:
erotic art is meant to arouse, and pornography is erotic art that depicts explicit sexual acts. i left that out above.

while i think erotic art (in advertising, marketing, media, etc) definitely has its place in our everyday world, pornography is better left behind closed doors. renderosity is a community trying to reach the broadest public - family - audience. if anything, as they market to a wider audience the gallery and marketplace restrictions will get tighter, rather than laxer.

bobasaur - thats an interesting point. if one were to go to renderotica, for example, and select 50 images at random from the various softcore/hardcore galleries there...
then assign each image a ranking of 1-10, with 1 being innocent artistic nudity, 5 being eroticism, and 10 being shameless pornography.
then give each of the same images a 1-10 ranking on quality and artistic merit, with 1 being the lowest quality and 10 being the highest, i am willing to bet that you would notice an inverse relationship between explicitness and quality.
of course this is a massive generalisation, but based on my past experiences id be willing to bet its pretty accurate. there are of course exceptions -- ive seen some very talented people there put out work that is pure pornography and in total contrast to what i just said. but overall in my experience there, here at rosity and in other galleries the above relationship is more or less accurate.

the conclusions you draw from it, of course, are highly debateable.

I know I'm not Bobasaur, but I still object to your idea that "blatant explicitness = crappy render" - quite the contrary in my expirience. Again, I'm not referring to Rotica because I look far too rarely at their galleries, so perhaps we're just lucky and have all the great artists over at RaunchyMinds? I dunno, but I DO know that there's a lot of the pictures there that are technically perfect, yet still are very very explicit porn.

There are crappy renders too (though actually not very many, and some of them will likely be mine) - but look in any Poser gallery, whether or not it's consisting of NVIATWAS or not, and you'll see a lot of beginners doing pictures, and intermediate, and then the people who can really do magic in Poser and create stunning pics. Just because the subject is porn doesn't mean people spend any less time on them, quite the contrary. I know one artist who PAINTS the most amazing female genitalia, as postwork, because there aren't any of the Poser oens that are REALLY good enough for closeups. And that is not something you just slap on in a matter of minutes. It takes a LOT of time. And IMO it's art. But it's also porn.

We have an Image of the Week gallery there where the best picture of the week is selected by the admins. It means we have to look at all new pictures posted within the last week, so in essence it means we do look at all the pics there. And if you look at which pictures are chosen there you will see that, allthough they're all of a very very VERY high standard, artistically, there's also a lot of them (not all, but well it IS an erotic themed site) that are porn by most definitions.

Heh, this discussion has moved so rapidly it's hard to catch up! So a few summary points -

Bobasaur - I didn't take your comments as a personal attack, but I think you misread my last post. I was taking it that the pictures of A, B and C were all sexual in subject and so could be considered pornography if they weren't art.

Blackhearted - I think we agree pretty much. If the primary purpose of a work is to cause sexual arousal then it's pornography. But the emphasis has to be on primary. I would say that a work of art could cause arousal but still be primarily art - in which case it isn't pornography. Back to intent.

And as to whether this is a useless distinction because one can't ask dead artists about their intent - well, I was giving the easy example where A, B and C can be cross-examined. In the case where you can't ask the artist, you have to form your own judgement as to what the intention was. The work itself should provide an abundance of clues for those who can read them.

Keith - sorry, but xoconostle is right, and it isn't a fallacy. It's a matter of understanding.

Ernyoka1 - you are being hard on Rotica; there is some excellent stuff posted there, of very high quality. There is also some chaff, but you get that at any community site. Equally, I can't speak about RM, which I know I should visit more, but I find the layout of the site off-putting.

Waaaay too serious, all this!

IMO, you may get some erotic pleasure from Poser if you roll up the manual and...

:D

Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.

My Store

My Gallery

Quote -
Ernyoka1 - you are being hard on Rotica; there is some excellent stuff posted there, of very high quality. There is also some chaff, but you get that at any community site. Equally, I can't speak about RM, which I know I should visit more, but I find the layout of the site off-putting.

If you think so, then you haven't read my posts properly.

I merely said I didn't KNOW about Roitica because I browser their galleries too seldom. That's not being harsh I think.

I said, which is true, that there's a lot of awesome and stunning art/porn on Raunchy Minds. I know that because I've seen it. That's not saying the same thing isn't true about Rotica, again, I just said I didn't know.

I like Renderotica but due to time restrictions I don't go there much. it's definately not for lack of ..er.. lust...

Quote - as for the debate about 'what constitutes pornography'....
everyone here damned well knows what constitutes pornography. the fact that it is even being debated is absurd.

Ain't that the truth!

http://schuetzenpowder.com/sigs.jpg

no, it ain't the truth. witness that despite the bald assertion that even debating it is absurd, blackhearted is now up to his neck in precisely the same discussion that the rest of us have previously managed to have without throwing out malarkey such as that. here's a thought: if you think a discussion is absurd, don't participate. i'm gonna stay out of this turn of the debate because it's just the same old stuff that i've heard a million times over (which doesn't imbue it with any more insight or truth). it's hard to have a good discussion in forums that digs a little deeper, and i appreciate that several of you hung in here this long and tried to look at things from different points of view. that was really interesting.

Bobasaur, you tried to define art as:
Self expression through some medium that is separate and distinct from the artist. (includes visual arts, sculpture, writing, music etc.)

why separate and distinct from the artist? what about dance? singing, for that matter? spoken poetry? acting?

and does "self expression" relate only to things intrinsic to the artist's personality (which is how i normally interpret that term)? for me there is more to it than that -- i am almost more interested in expressing things that aren't part of me at all, but that affect me in some way. are my ideas about the world still categorizable as "self expression"?

Maybe Blackhearted is just trying to throw some cold water on a heated discussion...maybe?

http://schuetzenpowder.com/sigs.jpg

Good questions. I had included singing and poetry because the artist is using something else - words and music rather than him or her self. I hadn't thought about dancing though, and I do consider that artistic. Maybe it would have been better to say something like, "an intentional attempt to convey meaning through aesthetics" but that's probably too abstract. I'll have to think about that. Hopefully the importance of the distinction between quality vs. "liking it" made sense though. That often gets blurred together when people are talking about good/bad art. As far as the "self-expression" part, in my mind expressing things about something that affects you is still expressing yourself. You would be expressing your views, thoughts, feelings, impressions on whatever it was.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

Blackhearted has been around long enough to know that this discussion is probably one of the most civil, non-heated discussions on this beloved "dead horse" that we've had around here in a while. [grin]

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

Here's an example of a picture that for some is porn, and for some are just... probably a crappy render. A few may consider it art (blind people I guess) but still... a pic that is fully within the Rosity TOS and still both very erotic and decidedly pornographic - if THIS is your kink (it's NOT mine, just for the record, but I know someone who would find this absolutely tittilating)

Oppressing white males like that is truly pornographic! [grin] Bobasaur wanders off muttering, "Oppress me, too. Please oppress me, too."

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

^ because of the cropping, id say that is that is erotica - not pornography.

still, it walks the line since some may classify that as S&M. something like that, if you submit it to the RO gallery one moderator might pull it, another one might think its perfectly acceptable.
...and both would be perfectly valid in their reasoning.

and in case you were wondering, if i were a mod id probably pull it.
not because i object, but because of the stigma associated with such fetish imageryand the family atmosphere renderosity is trying to maintain. sure, i do pinup myself - but ask yourself if your boss, or the neighbor's 10 year old kid walked in on you while you were viewing them which would you rather they see on your screen: a simple pinup, or something like the above.

also, when you look at an image to decide whether to allow it in the gallery, other factors should be evaluated -- such as the immediate 'before' and 'after' of an image, as well as what is deliberately hidden by cropping.
for example, someone can create an image of a leering man buttoning up his pants standing over an unconscious woman lying in an alley with torn clothing (yet still covered). while the way they render it might not have any nudity, violence, or anything that directly violates the TOS - i still do not think it is appropriate for this site. such examples are commonplace at renderotica.
i am by no means comparing that to the above image, just using it to illustrate a point on how an image can not violate the TOS directly yet still be inappropriate.

erotisism and pornography are the children of of imagination. art isn't art because someone painted it, a poem isn't poetry because it has words that are used in a certain way. art is and always will be what we percieve it to be. often we are told by academia and critics what to accept or dismiss as art but we as individuals overide any social or educational summerisation of what art, erotisism or pornography are. we as the individual often dismiss the socio and cultural iplications and tolerences of what is and isn't art. it isn't beauty that is in the eye of the beholder...it's art. one man's fodder for masterbation is often another man's depiction of form and function. is the mona lisa art. many say yes.....but is it or is it some tart with a silly smile..oh yes i can see how it's an amalgam of female and male. i can see how the landscape has been used to good effect but is it art? of course it is..to me at least but to some it's utter crap. thats not an inegmatic smile..she looks like she's got heamaroids they may say...missing the fact that heamaroids could indeed cause someone to have an inegmatic smile lol. i personaly think renee macintosh's work re his furniture and interior design to be good art. many would disagree saying how can a chair be a work of art. often for me the art isn't in the functionality but the design, the clean lines, the ergonomics can fry if the design looks good for me. i used to collect japanese swords. the old ones. some of them again for me were works of art. they all measure the same length and width all have the same style guard but each one is differrent. each blade carries its own definition. anyway i'm starting to confuse myself and drift.......art (something) is art because we make it so on more than one level. sociaty tells us whats porn we tell sociaty whats art. jmo

billy

Quote - and in case you were wondering, if i were a mod id probably pull it.
not because i object, but because of the stigma associated with such fetish imageryand the family atmosphere renderosity is trying to maintain. sure, i do pinup myself - but ask yourself if your boss, or the neighbor's 10 year old kid walked in on you while you were viewing them which would you rather they see on your screen: a simple pinup, or something like the above.

What, an image representing the burgeoning feminist power of the 20th century finally "getting a leg up" on the patriarchy?

Or an image representing the oppression some men feel women have when it comes to divorce?

Or a closeup from a strip where the dominatrix-style villain has the hero at her mercy?

Or a fetish image?

Wait, wait, it might be one of those sexualized ads you see all the time these days for a line of women's boots.

If your neighbours' 10 year old walked in and immediately thought S&M image, I'd wonder what exactly your neighbours were teaching their 10 year old.

:rolleyes:

Quote - ... when you look at an image to decide whether to allow it in the gallery, other factors should be evaluated -- such as the immediate 'before' and 'after' of an image, as well as what is deliberately hidden by cropping.

What's not in the picture is only the imagination of the viewer, and is going to be different for each viewer.

The artist can say what the context of the picture is intended to be, but even that's just imaginary.

Arguing that a different camera angle would change what's shown and bring something none TOS compliant in to view, would only hold up if the imagined transgression had actually be modelled.

Quote - What's not in the picture is only the imagination of the viewer, and is going to be different for each viewer.

people have been cleverly trying to manipulate the TOS ever since the rosity galleries first went up.

sure, some images have interpretations that will change with every viewer. they might be innocent artistic nudity to one person, and extremely erotic to another.

but if someone renders the immediate aftermath or prelude to a violent rape, for example, where the logical progression of events takes the average viewer in a direction that is clear violation of the TOS, then the image should be viewed as a TOS violation in itself.

same applies to someone who cleverly obscures TOS violations with objects in the foreground, hands, clever cropping, etc., for example. IMO a render of two people having sex, with the genitals obscured by a cup on a coffee table in the foreground is no less a TOS violation than if the genitals were in plain view.

again, this is my opinion. i consider this my place of business, so im not happy when images like the above two examples are submitted. my family, friends and even business contacts sometimes come here, and to be honest i am glad that the administration is cleaning the place up a little. if anyone wants to view totally explicit and pornographic renders, renderotica is just down the hall. you sign no agreement when joining renderosity that this is the only gallery you can submit images to, or view.

Quote - ... but if someone renders the immediate aftermath or prelude to a violent rape ...

I have no problem with "immediate aftermath", that's something in the picture.

Just about any picture with two people in it could be projected as a prelude to some sort of violent activity.
If a violent act isn't in the image, the possibility that one will take place can only be supplied by additional context from the artist or the thought processes of the viewer.
Nobody can actually say what happens next, because that's not what's in the image.

Quote - same applies to someone who cleverly obscures TOS violations with objects in the foreground, hands, clever cropping, etc., for example. IMO a render of two people having sex, with the genitals obscured by a cup on a coffee table in the foreground is no less a TOS violation than if the genitals were in plain view.

But at least in these cases your opinionating about what's actually in the picture.
Although the technique of interposing objects between people and the viewer is acceptable to film and television regulators.

I have no problem with catch all clauses that provide the right for any objectionable image to be removed, but the objection has to be about what's in the image, not some projection to an imaginary picture of a future event.

Blackhearted, who gives a flying duck? the only one yabbering on about rosity's TOS here is you. the rest of us were having a perfectly civil discussion of perceptions -- about erotica, about porn, about art. until you came in with your arrogant eye-rolling and your know-it-all pronouncement of how obvious porn is, and how absurd discussing it all is (yeah, so absurd that it's been discussed by lots of smart people, including the supreme court of the US, with its well known penchant for absurdity).

now that you've managed to completely derail that oh-so-absurd discussion, would it be too much to suggest that you spare yourself, go away and roll your eyes at our absurdity in private? surely it's an enormous waste of your time to step down from your exalted level and mingle with us idiots. in private you can think some more about fine-tuning your assertions, such as that it becomes blindingly obvious why a mild fetish image is unacceptable to families with 10-year olds and your business contacts (who are all perfect clones of yourself?), but hundreds of scantily clad (if that), large-breasted women with come-hither poses are perfectly conducive to that wholesome family atmosphere. i must be completely unobservant of my neighbours, being as i think they'd consider those child-unsafe.

oops, did i just mock your superior knowledge? us uppity peons just don't know our place...

isnt it past your bedtime, pleonastic?

Nobody mention, ladies, lakes, swords, or peasants :glare: or I'll feel duty bound to quote some Python :biggrin:

weekend silliness overtakes me

so is that python allegorical or the coding language or as in the animal ?

Eternal Hobbyist

It's Monty Python's Flying Circus (and he was right; some moistened bint lobbing a scimitar at you is no basis for a form of government).

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

Lets face it she could have been going to anything with that :cursing: sword, I mean how's a potential monarch to know whether their about to be on the right end of a bit of divine providence :woot: or cut short :crying: in their prime by a NVITBOTW :sneaky:

Quote - also, a site with very few rules and low moderation generally attracts the dredges of the internet - who thrive in such an environment.

Blackhearted, that may be your opinion, but after being around the Poser Community since the PFO days, being involved in running more than one of the sites, and watching how the sites grow and develop, from my perspective I can see that the more rules and moderation a site has, the more aberrated its community becomes and it's there that the dredges thrive. This seems to pretty much hold true in any community. Online or RL. Granted, my definition of dredges may differ from yours.

Quote - but if someone renders the immediate aftermath or prelude to a violent rape

Quote - same applies to someone who cleverly obscures TOS violations with objects in the foreground, hands, clever cropping, etc., for example. IMO a render of two people having sex, with the genitals obscured by a cup on a coffee table in the foreground is no less a TOS violation than if the genitals were in plain view.

Trust me...these things would not pass here, so no worries ;)

~Jani

Renderosity Community Admin
---------------------------------------

Quote - " same applies to someone who cleverly obscures TOS violations with objects in the foreground, hands, clever cropping, etc., for example. IMO a render of two people having sex, with the genitals obscured by a cup on a coffee table in the foreground is no less a TOS violation than if the genitals were in plain view.".

So what's being said here is that a man and woman in a clinch would be breaking the tos cos they could be doing it through the zipper. how on earth can you surmise there screwing if you cant see. couldn't they be just smooching or cuddling. so now no one can do couples and coffee cups. ...how can you cleverly obscure a tos violation for gods sake. you either break the tos or you don't. if a violation is obscure how can it be deemed a violation as such and if it is how can it be deemed obscure. sorry but it sounds a bit to pedantic to to be actually talking about coffee cups and willys in the context of removing something. what next...nudity advisories for figures obscuring breasts and ass with lingerie........as for 10 yr olds and what you allow. ...this site would be a complete no no to my kids. whilst a lot of whats here could loosely be called art much of it that leans towards big tits and come hither smiles is mainly tutilating smut...i don't expect anyone to agree with me but pulleeeeeeeeze. take a look at some of the jugs on a vast amount of the female renders. i suppose little johnny needs something to work with whilst exploring himself lmao...in my day it was the gus catalogue . when my kids wanted to see art i took them to galleries. not smut filled websites. and i do realize there is some fantastically great work on this site and others like it. just that intermingled with the good stuff is ...no other word i can think of but smutt jmo

billy

:)

There's several arguments raging elsenet on the issue of just what is and is not sexual. And the US Government seems to be doing one of those insane censorship death-rides. Neither seems to be a proper topic for this thread. But, with the limits of Poser, I have to wonder why anyone even wants to try and show the sort of explicit detail that, I gather, is known in the porn business as the "money shot". I've never been uninvolved enough to take note of just what actual penetration looks like, but any time you get one part of a character in contact with another, things get difficult in Poser.

Quote - > Quote - also, a site with very few rules and low moderation generally attracts the dredges of the internet - who thrive in such an environment.

Blackhearted, that may be your opinion, but after being around the Poser Community since the PFO days, being involved in running more than one of the sites, and watching how the sites grow and develop, from my perspective I can see that the more rules and moderation a site has, the more aberrated its community becomes and it's there that the dredges thrive. This seems to pretty much hold true in any community. Online or RL. Granted, my definition of dredges may differ from yours.

and youve done an admirable job of running rotica dispite some of the problems youve faced.

Quote - I can see that the more rules and moderation a site has, the more aberrated its community becomes and it's there that the dredges thrive.

ehh, i disagree there. there is a type of person that will always push and push against the rules of a site, club, group, etc -- doesnt like being told what to do, and likes to stir up the hornets nest because they get off on the attention. a handful of those pop up at renderosity because its much easier to stir up shit in a community with rules than in one without.
but as for dredges of the internet i was referring to something else. over the years at rotica ive seen a few quite disturbing images. i dont mean porn, or even fetish, S&M, bondage, etc. its the ones like female dismemberment that really frighten me, because someone who gets their rocks off on creating and viewing images of women graphically being cut up into pieces, beheaded, etc is a severely disturbed individual.
its always been my opinion that everyones sexual interests are their own business - as long as they involve consenting adults i really dont care what people do in the bedroom. but i do draw the line at things which hurt non-consenting people. yes, onc ecould argue that there is no way to determine consent in a render, but no sane person would allow you to dismember, cannibalize, etc them -- and no court would find you innocent of guilt. some people use sites like renderotica as a haven and an outlet for their criminal fantasies. dont get me started on some fairy renders either (i am not pidgeonholing them all).

renderosity is cleaning itself up to become a family site. that doesnt mean that you cant post nude or erotic renders - it just prohibits images that are more sexual in nature than a pinup. i see nothing wrong with this. if ever i feel like i need to post a hardcore render, i will go to renderotica and post it there. if ever i feel like i need to go off on someone in an unmoderated forum, ill head over to the chicken coop at poserpros. noone is forced to pick only one community and stick to it. i am sick and tired of seeing people constantly try and bend these poser communities to their own idea of what a community should be like.

ack, too late to edit to clarify:

Quote - and dont get me started on some fairy renders either (i am not pidgeonholing them all)

-- all it takes these days is a pair of wings to disguise child porn. 'fae' engaging in hardcore sexual activity, or having meticulously handpainted prepubescent genitals :rolleyes:

wow..where to begin..;)

As I recall it, Bach was a Kappelmeister (sp?) for the Prussian royalty at the very start of the 18th Century. His job (aside from helping to churn out rug rats, something he was equally prolific at..;) was to provide music on demand for the Kaiser (if that term was in vogue that far back).

Since, at the time, there wasn't 1 Germany (there were hundreds), it's possible he got lost in the shuffle. It was in the mid-19th Century that Mendelsohnn got him properly introduced into popularity, so he was kind of obscure until then.

One thing about 'rotica is what I consider a limitation of Poser; that extreme emotions of any type don't come out looking as well; aside from the regular teeth, glowing nostrils, and slight deformations of the mesh, they tend to look more artificial than the serene (sometimes zombie-like) default expression you get 'out of the box'. This tends to make them look more fake than different modes of 'prawno' would. So that explains some of the crappines..;)

As for the Trekkiegrrl pic..I've heard (from reading..I ain't the 'whips and chains' crowd by any means..;) it's actually the sub (submissive) rather than the dom (dominant) that 'calls the shots' in the action..the sub sets the limits, and the dom has to follow them..I call it, 'Master and Servant'..;)

enough for now..this is becoming 'the thread that would not die'..;)

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

Quote - i dont mean porn, or even fetish, S&M, bondage, etc. its the ones like female dismemberment that really frighten me, because someone who gets their rocks off on creating and viewing images of women graphically being cut up into pieces, beheaded, etc is a severely disturbed individual.
its always been my opinion that everyones sexual interests are their own business - as long as they involve consenting adults i really dont care what people do in the bedroom. but i do draw the line at things which hurt non-consenting people. yes, onc ecould argue that there is no way to determine consent in a render, but no sane person would allow you to dismember, cannibalize, etc them -- and no court would find you innocent of guilt. some people use sites like renderotica as a haven and an outlet for their criminal fantasies.

First off, there is no such thing as a criminal fantasy. There are only criminal acts. Last time I looked, we don't have thought police. At least not yet.

These images are fantasies. To assume a person would actually engage in this behavior is as silly as assuming all the people who post at rosity are going to suddenly force their women to go out half naked in ridiculous armor weilding swords a person twice their size couldn't heft. Not exactly sure which one is the more disturbing fantasy.

Attached Link: http://www.babeswithblades.com/photo_gallery.htm

if it weren't for the price of armor these days and the lack of relatively undisturbed temples...

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

> Quote - These images are fantasies. To assume a person would actually engage in this behavior is as silly as assuming all the people who post at rosity are going to suddenly force their women to go out half naked in ridiculous armor weilding swords a person twice their size couldn't heft. Not exactly sure which one is the more disturbing fantasy.

I can't miss a lead in like that:

I can't remember where i picked up this image but it seems rather apropos:

Bobasaur, only YOU could have found a site like this!
DPH
; - D

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

I'm actually slightly miffed at the way you deem my image, Blackhearted. Let me tell you, my 10-year old actually watched when I did this. So now I'm a Bad Mom™ because I subjected my kid to smut? - even if I don't personally see that pic as the slightest bit erotic MYSELF?!

Yeah I know some people find it erotic, but I don't. And I was in NO WAY trying to "bend the TOS" - I don't NEED to. If I want to post pics that are not suited for the TOS here, I know where to go. And as some of my pics are "too much" for the TOS at even those places, I can post them in my LiveJournal where noone decides but me what is posted there.

Some people find nude or scantily clad females erotic - I don't. For the record, I'm female, if I want to look at one, I can go look in the moirror, something I'd prefer not to do more than absolutely necessary, thankyouverymuch.

I wouldn't even mind showing my pic to my mom who's 77 - she would probably not see it as a porn/erotic image either. More likely she would see it as a manifestation of a metaphor, hence the "under foot" title.

The point is, you can't decide clearly what is porn and what is not.. Some people may see blatant porn if you happened to see someone's hair. Eroticism is culturally decided. In some cultures, this lead to the overly enlarged lips (like some african and southern american tribes has used) - or the elongated necks, the lotus feet or something similar. Some thing it the heigth of beauty and therefor also erotic, some find it a gross mutilation.

Personally I find circumcision a gross mutilation.

If anything, my first pic in this thread (the one I merely linked to) is more disturbing to my 10-year old, because she's also an avid Harry Potter fan and she's not quite sure why or how I can possibly place those two people in a picture together (and yes she can see who they're supposed to be)

So far I've tried all sorts of bad explanations as to not scar her for life with a too early introduction to slash but... It would still need more explanation than simply a pic of a man and a woman embracing each other, in the nude. Not that I mind, I'm just not sure she's old enough to properly understand the different aspects of sexuality. (or perhaps I'm not ready to explain it to her? Could very well be the case as well L)

Quote - First off, there is no such thing as a criminal fantasy. There are only criminal acts. Last time I looked, we don't have thought police. At least not yet.

These images are fantasies. To assume a person would actually engage in this behavior is as silly as assuming all the people who post at rosity are going to suddenly force their women to go out half naked in ridiculous armor weilding swords a person twice their size couldn't heft. Not exactly sure which one is the more disturbing fantasy.

youre not? perhaps youve been at rotica a little too long.

someone that fantasizes about gruesomely dismembering women, literally gets off on such imagery, is a sick person. encouraging them to share such images in a community puts them one step closer to thinking that such things are acceptable, and one step closer to them acting on them. same goes for child porn.

Blackhearted, after beaten ye olde strawman some more, says: yes, onc ecould argue that there is no way to determine consent in a render,

one could? blink. damn straight. it's a given. consent cannot apply to digital meshes. they cannot give it. they cannot even understand the concept. they are not people, they're not even animals; they have no central nervous system, they cannot think, they cannot feel pain, they're not real. digital meshes are like fiction. no mystery author gets put on trial for murdering their own fictional characters either.

one might make a contrary argument about a mesh that is intended to be a real person's physical likeness -- i am distinctly uncomfortable with renders that do so even in a completely wholesome context because they go over my line of data privacy: i believe all people should own the right to their own data (which includes their physical likeness), and usage by others should be very strictly regulated, much more so than it is now. i dislike real-people fic and tabloids as well, and don't consume them.

as to people's fantasies -- spare me your thought police. fantasies are not criminal. they are, like written fiction, and like 3D renders, imaginary. there is no punishment for thinking bad thoughts, and that's a good thing, or we'd probably all be in jail.

Keith, that image rocks my socks. :)

ernoka. the boot was for me one of the good pics. and doing it (excuse the pun in front of your kid was no big deal. what i would call smutt are all the bursting out the bra pics lmao. for me they are smuttier than most nudes. but i doubt they harm anyone....that said i would'nt let my kids at the age of ten near a site that had a violence, bad language or a nudity advisory capability without supervision.

blackhearted..of course you're right in the main...every site needs rules. some things do go beyond the line. the reason we need the rules are because as a collective we could never agree as what does and does not constitute line crossing. someone, usually the owners or managers dictate it for us and themselves depending on what kind of site they want. we read the rules and if we agree join. what i can't agree with is someone saying....we'll pull a pic if it tries to evade or obscure the tos of the site....isn't that what most of the sexual pics do. sounds pedantic and heavy handed to me. isn't it good enough that a pic will be pulled if it simply breaks the tos without people claiming we'll do this and that if you put a teacup in prominant position.

as for art in genral depicting nudes or even sex. whilst i wouldn't let my kids at a young age surf for it. i wouldn't mind them by my side asking any questions they wanted while i was here or at any other 3d sites or while i was creating (trying to anyway ) a nude model figure or anything else. even if i stumbled on a porno site while they were here i wouldn't be phased. its a fact of life they're gonna see stuff like that themselves when they do surf on there own. i'd sooner have them know what it is and why it's there. that it's fictional has little or nothing to do with love and rarely happens the way it's depicted on a site or film as it does in real life. i rarely censored them from watching films when they were doing so with me or their mum. they knew at an early age the blood was fake, the head that was chopped off was false and the tits that stuck out likebasketballs were plastic.

billy

and like 3D renders, imaginary.

sorry but once the mesh is rendered and put on display it stops being imaginary and becomes a reality that depicts a physical thing. it may like all art have come from the imagination but but it's tangible can be noticed by one or more of the physical senses be it sculprure, painting, or street drama. maybe writing would be the hardest to prove as being physically but the words are their to see. it being a work of fiction or not has no relevance.

as for no crime for thinking something..you're obviously not a catholic lmao.....thinking about killing someone to a devout catholic is almost as bad as doing the deed and unless you repent before death will not enter the kingdom of heaven. though i know thats not what you meant lol

billy

Do anatomicaly correct drawings in a textbook qualify as porn? Or is it erotica? For that matter, I seem to recall getting excited over the latest issue of Fredericks of Hollywood, when they used drawings and paintings. Is that porn, erotica or just catalog art?

Back to the textbook question. If the drawing depicts the innerworkings of sex, is that porn? If it isn't, then if that same textbook used photos instead of drawings to show the same thing, is that porn?

We as americans, as a whole tend to be very prudish about these things in the open, but in private it's another story.

I believe the Japanese have a saying that goes something like this, "Nudity is often seen, but rarely looked at."

Quote - [youre not? perhaps youve been at rotica a little too long.

someone that fantasizes about gruesomely dismembering women, literally gets off on such imagery, is a sick person. encouraging them to share such images in a community puts them one step closer to thinking that such things are acceptable, and one step closer to them acting on them. same goes for child porn.

Actually, you haven't been there enough to understand anything about Rotica. If you had been, you wouldn't assume that every image there was made or is viewed with the intention of "getting off".

uhoh..we'll have to keep billy423 from the b.e.a..;)
Yup..take the wrong link, and you find out how out there some folks can get..even the stories (the abbreviations at the end are strange enough)

once the novelty wears off, you tend to start ignoring things. Good thing Poser men have detacheable pn*..wasn't that a King Missle song? who knew? (or is it attacheable.."I can rent it out when I don't need it, and..;)"

I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit

anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)

whats the...b.e.a. pakled?

billy

Quote - whats the...b.e.a. pakled?

billy

Yeah, Pakled, what does it mean. I've had to learn NVIATWAS, I've had to learn NOTLD, and I alread knew about the NKVD and the KGB, and the OSS, and the CIA, and the DOI, the DOA, and the DIA, and Shin Bet, and the Mossad, and the .... Oh Heck!

David P. Hoadley

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Quote - "

whats the...b.e.a. pakled?

billy"

Thanks pakled for the link on the site, definately 'far out' stuff. And now having seen it, I still find IT hard to believe. Surely those are photo manips!
David P. Hoadley

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

BEA with pics that must be photomanips? It seems like the bea whatever it is is something that would breach the TOS here, so Pakled... Be smart and PM me the link ;o)

Hehe I was inspired to make a joke:
And please note it's not Pakled, it's A pakled.

Why did the contrary pakled look at porn on the internet?
.

.

He looked for things that could make him come...

Quote - BEA with pics that must be photomanips? It seems like the bea whatever it is is something that would breach the TOS here, so Pakled... Be smart and PM me the link ;o)

If you DO browse the site, you'll feel a definate WEIGHT removed from your chest. The ladies could all be pin-up girls for 'Dairy Queen.'
DPH

STOP PALESTINIAN CHILD ABUSE!!!! ISLAMIC HATRED OF JEWS

Ah.. in that case I think I've seen the site. Scary! Makes me remember why I prefer to look at males ;)

Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL

Subject: Erotic Pleasure from Poser