Got my Bamboo tablet on Tuesday.  Unfortunately, the DVD drive on my Mac is kaput, so I can only use it for now with my PC laptop until I can figure out a way to get  the driver software on my desktop.

 Simple; Do NOT use rthe driver that comes witht he tablet.
Go to their site and download the latest driver. Somethign in the region of version 5.33

http://us.wacom.com/en/support/drivers/

The new driver is FAR better then the old one.

Thanks, Tony. I was actually thinking of that the other day then promptly forgot all about it. :)

I still need to go get a new DVD drive though for other purposes, but at least I've got the Bamboo working now.

congrats 

for when ya need new nibs or anything else

https://store.wacom.com/us/accessories/nibs-and-ink-refills/

they have different nibs ya might like

pliers will get the old nib out ,just leave enough of the nib so ya have something to grab with the pliers.

if the old nib gets flush with the pen ya have one heck of a time getting the old nib out. 

Three extra ones came with the pack, but sounds like someone could have come up with a better design to make changing the nibs easier.

 EClark1894 quote

** **Three extra ones came with the pack, but sounds like someone could have come up with a better design to make changing the nibs easier.

get no argument out of me. just never ever let it get flush with the pen

mileage may very but a normal nib only last me about one month. 

I think it would be fair to say are philosophy's are very different.

Jackson Pollock ,Pablo Picasso and so on they do what they do and over the centuries there's been all the movements and all.

but to me which I don't exspect you to agree.

They can't touch the talent of Royo or Boris which to me are the greatest Artist that ever lived.

I know I know how dare I say Royo and Boris are greater than Michelangelo ,Da Vinci ,Pablo ,Jackson etc etc

& I have no doubt the gallery would want to hang this barbarian for such blasphemy but I so don't care.

I have never cared what the gallery ,teachers or fine Artist have to say.

I will always improve my style of Art.

Hey, I think Royo and Vallejo are great! Nothing wrong with loving their art. Their reasons for doing art, though, were quite different. The fantasy artists tell a strong story and delight the eye -- with beauty, with horror, with drama. A fantastic use of the medium.

Picasso, Pollack, DeKooning, Matisse -- these guys were coming out of the end of the crazy prudishness of the Victorian era. And I'm pretty sure they'd totally agree with you. Because what was popular in fine art at the time was realism: nudes, forests, ships, pastoral landscapes, flowers. Nice stuff, but a few centuries of that stuff and it gets old. The modernists were rebelling against the idea of fine art being held hostage by rich patrons -- and their extremely conservative tastes. Over a period of about 30 years, the modernists broke just about every single rule, and they did it flagrantly. Much of the time, they wanted people to look at their art and be shocked. They're the reason you can paint a blue nude with imperfect proportions and glowing hair -- and people today won't automatically laugh at you and tell you to put your "crayons" away. Because it's been made acceptable and accepted. The modernists were also very political (most were extremely left-wing), and many of their paintings are political commentary on the times, the plight of the poor, the horror of war, etc. (After so many millions died in WW1 -- trying to represent these things with the very delicate and genteel styles that were in fashion seemed disgusting to these artists). And some artists painted parodies of each other -- and themselves.

I think if Picasso were reading this now, he'd chuckle -- and be extremely pleased that people are STILL arguing about his paintings 100 years after he painted them. :) You don't have to like their stuff, though I think they're worth looking at anyway. If nothing else, if it weren't for the modernists, we'd still be painting nothing but postcard type pictures of women with little dogs, and tall ships on big waves. :)

While you both have valid points, my own preferences are based on 'subject' rather than artist.  I'd rather have a poorly painted Babe hanging on my wall than a beautifully painted Vase with a Flower in it :-D

You can keep all that funky stuff with people who have square heads and eyes stuck to the sides of their noses, I don't like that style.  And to be honest, I get kinda frustrated when people continually worship those past artists, it's like they think they were the only people who ever lived who deserve to be called artists.  Fact is, I see stuff painted nowadays that runs rings around them, yet those artists are just a nobody.  So for me, the best artist is one who has technical skill and just happens to paint a subject I like.

Anyway, back on topic, where's Clarkie's first doodle?

While you both have valid points, my own preferences are based on 'subject' rather than artist.  I'd rather have a poorly painted Babe hanging on my wall than a beautifully painted Vase with a Flower in it :-D

You can keep all that funky stuff with people who have square heads and eyes stuck to the sides of their noses, I don't like that style.  And to be honest, I get kinda frustrated when people continually worship those past artists, it's like they think they were the only people who ever lived who deserve to be called artists.  Fact is, I see stuff painted nowadays that runs rings around them, yet those artists are just a nobody.  So for me, the best artist is one who has technical skill and just happens to paint a subject I like.

Anyway, back on topic, where's Clarkie's first doodle?

I certainly don't think these are the only artists worth being called artists. That would be really silly. I'm into all sorts of art from ancient to tribal to pop to contemporary and everything in between. (Though my favorite portrait artist is sometimes Vermeer/ sometimes Picasso.  And my favorite landscape artists is Cezanne. ) :)

I guess you're not into non-representational art, then? You know, the kind that shows you the raw emotional power of simple composition and color alone?

Anyway, abstract expressionism -- about more than subject matter itself. About the artist's relationship to the subject.

Pumeco, given your stated interest in certain kinds of erotic horror, surely you must like De Kooning! Most of his paintings are of women. :D (said with just a little humorous sarcasm) Take this one for instance. This one is entitled Seated Woman. I find this painting to be UTTERLY. FUCKING. TERRIFYING.

He was quite capable of doing a traditional pretty nude. But what he was interested in painting wasn't what a woman looked like (We all know what women look like --There are billions of images of nude women. He was painting how women made him feel. Very few artists are capable of being this... honest.

People didn't hang these kind of paintings on their walls in order to make the wall look nice. They did it to make their guests gasp -- to react with strong emotion. :D (These days, few people would do it at all. The paintings are worth too much.)

Well I've never heard of the artist, and it's not the sort of image I'd want on my wall, but it's still an interesting image.

I think that's the sort of thing where the artist themself would make a good subject for a documentary, but like I said, it's not something for my wall.  But it's good that it terrifies you because it means that the artist created a work that means something, so good for him, because whatever it means (good or bad), at least it means something.

What interests me more about your comment is that you assumed I'm a fan of "Erotic Horror" - and you're right - I am!

Thing is, I've never said so, so how on earth did you know that?
You reading my mind like that is even scarier than what you're getting from that painting :-D

 pumeco how do you think women always stay a head of us dudes ? they can read are minds & see are souls.talk about scary

Well I've never heard of the artist, and it's not the sort of image I'd want on my wall, but it's still an interesting image.

I think that's the sort of thing where the artist themself would make a good subject for a documentary, but like I said, it's not something for my wall.  But it's good that it terrifies you because it means that the artist created a work that means something, so good for him, because whatever it means (good or bad), at least it means something.

What interests me more about your comment is that you assumed I'm a fan of "Erotic Horror" - and you're right - I am!

Thing is, I've never said so, so how on earth did you know that?
You reading my mind like that is even scarier than what you're getting from that painting :-D

Much as I'd love to let you believe I am psychic, I'll tell you how I figured it. You had that whole conversation with... please forgive me, I cannot remember his username .... the guy here who makes horror movies, I believe (if I'm not mistaken) which star his wife. And to me it was clear from that dialogue that it was a genre that you found very intriguing. I don't think you named the genre specifically, but it was what you two were discussing, essentially. :) So, not psychic. I frequently (though not always) just pay attention to things people say.

And, yes, I agree that getting something, particularly a strong visceral reaction, from a painting is a positive thing. I don't have to like a piece of art to respect its power to affect me. I hated, absolutely hated De Kooning when I first came across his paintings. Now I really like them. And I would put a good quality reproduction on my wall. But then my walls are currently covered with my photos, and they're in need of a change. :)

Didn't you folks hear? Painting is dead.

:)

Jackson Pollock is probably my favorite abstract (or modern or whatever you want to call it) artists. The man was tormented beyond words and went into a sort of trance as he painted. I'd cover every wall in my house with his work before I ever hung a single Royo or Vallejo. Those two are good for what they do, but there's no depth to their stuff. It's just commercial art - eye candy for little boys to drool over and comic book publishers and video game houses to make fortunes from, and in a hundred years no one will care about them or remember their names because there's a million and one other artists out there producing the exact same thing. 

Jackson Pollock is probably my favorite abstract (or modern or whatever you want to call it) artists. The man was tormented beyond words and went into a sort of trance as he painted. I'd cover every wall in my house with his work before I ever hung a single Royo or Vallejo. Those two are good for what they do, but there's no depth to their stuff. It's just commercial art - eye candy for little boys to drool over and comic book publishers and video game houses to make fortunes from, and in a hundred years no one will care about them or remember their names because there's a million and one other artists out there producing the exact same thing. 

I've never quite got Jackson Pollock (I should try harder) -- and I think this is most likely because I've never seen one "in person". I'm told they are very powerful when you actually get to behold them. Like Mark Rothko (whose stuff is dismal in photographs) only even more so. On that note, I remember wondering what the big deal with Van Gogh was, until I saw one of his "bowls of flowers".  The collection that came to this city was one of the most expensive (it included some Cezanne, Matisse, Dufy -- and several others). But the Van Gogh was the only one behind glass. A smallish and very unassuming, humble painting. And yet looking through that glass was like looking at a terrarium. The flowers were alive. Because of the texture of the brush strokes, I guess some paintings react to light in ways that can never be reproduced except by a skilled forger who copies them stroke by stroke. I expect Pollock's paintings are similar in many ways. The light becomes almost like a living thing...

AmbientShade quote* Jackson Pollock is probably my favorite abstract (or modern or whatever you want to call it) artists. The man was tormented beyond words and went into a sort of trance as he painted. I'd cover every wall in my house with his work before I ever hung a single Royo or Vallejo. Those two are good for what they do, but there's no depth to their stuff. It's just commercial art - eye candy for little boys to drool over and comic book publishers and video game houses to make fortunes from, and in a hundred years no one will care about them or remember their names because there's a million and one other artists out there producing the exact same thing.* 

 https://thepatriotperspective.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/vietnam-wall.jpg I see how this has depth to it.

I get how superman ,batman have morals so there's depth to them.

but if ya paint something and you half to tell me what I am suppose to be looking at and seeing,well then are definitions of depth & Art are not the same.

Anyways you are right about the point of Heavy Metal and there Artist & Fans is all about cool eye candy and some cool story lines.
was never meant to be taken seriously.

Royo & Boris along with the others inspired 100's of Artist. I wouldn't right them off so easily.

nothing wrong with making a dollar. 

True art, for me, doesn't need to explain itself. It has a different meaning to everyone that sees it. Pollock stopped naming his paintings because he was sick of people looking for the meaning attached to it. His goal was for the viewer to experience the work as a whole, to let it speak to them, instead of trying to pick out one aspect over another. Every piece, every grain of sand or piece of glass or drop of paint in it had its own life and story to tell, but no one ever really grasped it. His popularity for his work just drove him more insane and further into depression and alcoholism, to the point where he stopped painting all together. 

I've never been a fan of superheroes. They represent too many problems with modern society for my liking, so I don't see them or their stories as art. I've always been drawn to the anti-hero concept - the perceived villain that winds up saving you from the 'good' and the 'bad' alike. 'Evil' after all, is just a point of view. 

True art, for me, doesn't need to explain itself. It has a different meaning to everyone that sees it. Pollock stopped naming his paintings because he was sick of people looking for the meaning attached to it. His goal was for the viewer to experience the work as a whole, to let it speak to them, instead of trying to pick out one aspect over another. Every piece, every grain of sand or piece of glass or drop of paint in it had its own life and story to tell, but no one ever really grasped it. His popularity for his work just drove him more insane and further into depression and alcoholism, to the point where he stopped painting all together. 

I've never been a fan of superheroes. They represent too many problems with modern society for my liking, so I don't see them or their stories as art. I've always been drawn to the anti-hero concept - the perceived villain that winds up saving you from the 'good' and the 'bad' alike. 'Evil' after all, is just a point of view. 

Well, I have to take issue with several things you say in this post, Shane. So let's start with the first.  For me, art needs to tell me a story. Maybe because I like to write, I just look at it for it's utilitarian function, but for me True art communicates something to the people who see it. That's why I don't really like abstract art. It's like the polar bear in the blizzard picture. I just don't see it. I love true superheroes like Superman, Wonder Woman and Spiderman. Even Batman to some extent, but Bats is basically just crazy. True Superheroes are people who, because they've experienced bad things in their lives want to try and help others.

And anti-heroes just make me sick. They're basically good or bad, depending on the situation. Which is, why your comment about being drawn to them, while saying that "true" superheroes represent what's good and bad with the world, irks me. Anti-heroes, to me represent what's wrong with the world. They have no moral center, and they're just basically in it for themselves. And you can never tell whose side they're going to be on in a fight.

I also disagree with the "evil is just another point of view" comment , but I'm not gonna get into that here.

@RorrKonn
You can say that again, I think women know it's in their best interest to understand men so that they can play with our minds, which is ultimately to their own advantage.  I mean think about it, everything from the assets they have to the way they walk is just a tease.  And as if there weren't enough, they have the internet now, so they can read about Man's most twisted fantasies and delve even deeper into our minds!  This in turn allows them to perfect their teasing all the more, which in turn allowes them to emotionally extract more "ManBrain-Info" from us!

I think they're the human equivalent of a mind probe :-D

@Moriador
Ah right, you must be talking about Don Stuefloten (dnstuefloten) and his "Hag" movie.  Yes, I love his stuff big-time, it's just one of those things that clicked with me immediately.  He's the sort of person that could do no wrong, and by that I mean it wouldn't matter how good or bad a peice of work was, it would still appeal because he puts surreal imagery to surreal sound, and adds a story in a way I like.  I wasn't joking about those little Vignettes he did, they're the most memorable things I've seen in a long time - they just work :-)

That said, it's interesting you classify his work as "Erotic Horror".  I watched all Vignettes, one directly after the other so that it plays as a complete movie, but for me there was no Horror aspect in it.  Even the rape element of it, I can't put it under Horror because to me it felt like she wanted it and even got a kick out of being forewarned about it, like the very thought of it pleases her.  For that reason, I think it would fall under 'Surreal Erotica' rather than Erotic Horror (for me anyway).

@Shane
I can see why you would like a complete room decorated in Pollock's splatter art, it would look pretty unique, but I don't get why you think he's any better than Royo or Vallejo.  You'd no doubt like a Pollock on your wall because you like the way it looks, and I understand that, but I don't get how he differs from what Royo and Vallejo produce in that respect.  If you put a Pollock on your wall, then isn't that just "Eye Candy" too?

The other thing, and I giggled a bit when I read it, is that you see the Royo and Vellejo stuff as "art for little boys to drool over".  That's even harder to grap because it suggests that when those little boys become men, that they'll lose interest in fantasy females.  Nothing could be further from the truth, I think the interest in Fantasy Women only gets stronger as a person gets older, has for me anyway - lol

• When you're young, you see and you want, but you can't have, you have no chance.
• When you mature you have the best chance of getting it for real, so you go for it given half the chance.
• When you're old, you left it too late if you didn't get it for real when you had the chance.

But the thing is, what's common to all those age groups, surely, is the want for it?  I'm roughly the same age as you are, and honestly, I get no less enjoyment out of those types of things now than I did when I were a kid.  In fact, I get more enjoyment out of them now because I understand elements of them that didn't really click before.  I do agree about it being highly commercialised, but then again, guess why it's highly commercial?

It's what people want to see, kinda like how the Poser Marketplace looks with all the highly sexual elements to it, it's what people want.

@Primorge
Hah! ;-)

@Clarkie
Again, I'm probably very shallow in most peoples eyes (something that will never bother me), but the only thing I like about the Superheroines thing is the images of the women looking hot.  I have read through fantasy comics online, but the only time I do that is if the subject is either really odd, or in some way captivating right from the beginning.

And when it comes to those Good Versus Evil discussions, well, I almost always laugh to myself because to me, the worshippers of "what is good" are often a bunch of hypocrites.  If ever you come across such a discussion, one of the best things you can do is point them to the play I've attached to this post.  It will literally drive them mad because after watching it, they suddenly realise how hypocritical the whole discussion is.  This play was banned ourtight by the BBC before they even got a chance to air it.  There's a lot of theories floating around as to why it was banned, but in my opinion it was banned for one very simple reason:

Because out of Evil came good, therefore the Play could therefore be seen as Promotion of Evil, and we can't have that, can we :-D

This is the original and best, it's about a husband and wife who's life revolves around caring for their "vegetable" daugher at home.  Then a man comes along, he's actually the Devil dressed as a repectable man, but he's the perfect conman and lies his way into the home of the couple so that he can have access to their diabled daughter.  With her parents out of the way, he starts taking sexual advantage of her as she's unable to defend herself or even say anything about it.  Disgusting, eh?

Sure, but watch the play, and you'll see why the hypocrites finally met their match ;-)

This play was written by one of our top playwrights, the highly respected Dennis Potter, so it's very cleverly written .  And although it got banned outright, it eventually got aired many years later and I for one am extremely glad it did.  I've seen this a few times now and it never fails to give that ultra-rare satisfaction of knowing that there's not a single hypocrite out there, that will be able to defend "Good in the face of Evil" after seeing it - and that is the reason it's so powerful.  I honestly don't think the hypocrites could care less that the girl was getting raped big-time in this instance, that's just a front, I think all they really cared about was that it proved that Evil can be good, and that, in my opinion, is why it got banned and remained banned for such a long time.

If you find the time, watch this and ask yourself, did the Devil to good or bad?
This is the best thing out there to make people question it, and after seeing it, that question is a lot harder for some than they could ever imagine ;-)

Anyway, crap, I'm rambling on again, so just to get you in the mood, here's a quote direct from the play, it's a message from Devil himself:

Now the time has come to see
What will happen twixt you and me
You'll find the Devil is hard to beat
You're at his mercy, my little sweet

Yeah I know, it sounds like one of Roxie's poems :-D

@Clarke: I would make it much longer but I don't really feel like posting all that in a public forum. The basics are, superheros are always predictable. Superman never dies, and the good guy always wins. It's the same story being told over and over and over, making everything inbetween pointless. It's boring. Antiheroes are more believable, because they are unpredictable and are usually only in it for themselves, just like real people. There is no such thing as true altruism, as every action, no matter how insignificant or massive, happens without at least some shred of selfishness. Because people are selfish and ultimately self-serving, no matter who they are or what they're doing, simply because they believe this or that needs to happen, so they do it in order to fulfill their beliefs, thus making it a selfish act. Otherwise they would be indifferent to it and do nothing but go about their way as though nothing ever happened. Even superman is selfish. For once I'd like to see Lex Luther win and save the world from itself by completely obliterating it, but that will never happen, because the fans need a savior in order to feel good about themselves and give them that hope for the light at the end of the tunnel. I see Superman as a captor, not a savior, therefore I don't call it art. But, we're all entitled to our own opinions. Nothing is ever really right or wrong, just different. 

@Pumeco: I prefer art that makes me think about life, death, pain, suffering, the illusion of happiness, the human condition, that sort of thing. T&A doesn't appeal to me. Never has. It's superficial and boring. I didn't hang that kind of art on my walls when I was a kid, so why would I do it now? If I want to look at naked women I'll buy a copy of playboy, or save my money and just google it. The only female art I have is McFarlane's Red Ridinghood, with her cutting her grandmother out of the wolve's belly. The rest is demons, gargoyles, a half dozen iterations of Spawn, some dragons, a few giants and such. And frogs. I love frogs. 

@Shane
Believe it or not, the only nude female I've ever had on my wall was a super-sized poster called "Nasstasja Kinski and the Serpent" - by Richard Avedon.

It's a long story, but basically I never owned it even when it was on my wall.  It came to me in a massive frame with damaged glass (I promised to clean the print for the owner).  It ended up on my wall for a long time until the owner collected it.  I thought it looked absolutely amazing, and when the time came to hand it back, I had such a hard time finding another copy that I eventually gave up.  I tried so hard that I eventually spoke to the poster publisher who said they do have an archived copy left, but I can't have it as they always hang on to the last one.  I still love it to this day, and no doubt I could find one on eBay (which I didn't have back then).  I'll definitely be buying one when I have my own place.  You have to believe me, the supersized version of that print looks absolutely incredible when you see it for real, it's a very different experience to seeing it normal size or on the screen.

But anyway, out of curiosity now, do you see T&A for little boys to drool over, or do you see an artistic nude shot by a competent photographer?
Either way, I bet it's way more classy than the sort of thing you thought I'd have on my wall, right? :-D

Turns out the original is pretty sought after too :

And just to annoy you, Shane, that's the grown-ups version above, but due to your dislikle of erotica for the wall, here's the "little boys" version :-P

Now admit it, you didn't picture me having something as classy as "Nasstasja Kinski and the Serpent" hanging on my wall, did you?  :-D
Ok, don't answer that :-P

Nice photo. I wouldn't hang it on my wall, simply due to its religious symbolism, and the phallic worshiping nature of it. A photo like that can only have one of those two messages behind it, if not both. Why aren't her legs in the shot? Removing the feet of the woman so that she can't stand on her own, always being conquered by the phallus that lies on top of her. Interesting how the artist's unspoken messages can come through that way, intentional or not. 

No, I'm not surprised in the least that you would hang that on your wall and be proud of it. 

I'd much rather have the lego version for its sarcasm. At least she has feet.  ;)

Well once we where told we where a bunch of long haired white trash tattooed hippies that belong out in the woods some where.LOL.We took it as a complement. 

I never take nothing seriously .like the saying goes "don't take life so serious ,no one gets out a live".

what hangs on my walls ?

evel knievel,batman,kiss ,nazareth album covers n posters, farrah fawcett ,cheryl ladd, terminator ,transformers  ,royo ,boris ,skulls ,demonds, & hot nude girls.to name a few .

yes I know I'm not sophisticated and belong out in the woods some where. ;) 

The meaning of life to me is "have fun." while ya here. 

 kiss destroyer ,love gun .nazareth no mean city .iron maiden killers album covers where influential in becoming a Artist.

@Shane
Well I'll not pretend I don't realise you're being witty and sarcastic, but actually, you mentioned something interesting I wasn't aware of.

I can see the phallic aspect of it, but I can't see any reason why anyone would have a problem with that, or why they wouldn't be proud to put it on their wall because of it.  Why wouldn't a woman worship such things?  - I don't see anything wrong in that.  However, not surprisingly, any religious aspect of it has totally flew over my head.  I've said before I have no interest in religion, so there's likely millions of things I see and cannot see any symbolism in it.

But I'm genuinely interested in know what you are referring to there regards the religious thing and what it has to do with cropping the feet.  Before you answer that though, something you're probably not aware of, is that the snake was actually her idea (or so I hear), not that of the photographer.

@RorrKonn
Your place sounds like it has walls of sheer awesomeness, and I have to say, I'd rather look at your walls covered with Retro Babes (my favourite subject), Skulls, and Hot Nudes - than Shane's Splatter-Art and Frogs :-P

Unless Shane is pulling our legs and actually has a bunch of smoking-hot French nudes on his walls, maybe that's what he meant by Frogs :-)

No honestly I wasn't trying to be witty or sarcastic. You asked what I see in the image so I was telling you what I see.

I know that, but I'm curious what's religious about it; you said it's a good photo but you wouldn't have it on your wall because of the religious element.
Obviously I'm curious now, what's the religious element of it?

I get how you see a restraint thing, that the Serpent might be in control there, but honestly, looking at it I got the opposite.  To me it looks as if she absolutely adores the Serpent, like it's her pet and is happy to be there with it (and let's not forget, the Serpent was her idea).  Top me the result just looks really elegant.  I did think to myself, the first time I saw it, that it was strange to crop the feet like he did, but I just put that down to general composition, that it would have been good to include the feet but the composition would suffer if he had - and never thought more of it.

But even if, like you said, the missing feet is representative of restraint so that she cannot escape the Serpent, then so what because restraint and the general image of women effectively being the 'Damsel in Distress' is a staple of good Erotica, always has been - its the reason BDSM is such a popular adult passtime - it's control and restraint.  So it's a big 'so what' on the feet cropping thing, but as it'll eventually be working it's way back onto my wall someday, I really would love to know what religious symbolism there is in the image, if nothing else, just so that I know more about it.  I really am very curious about that.

Eve and the serpent in the garden of Eden. The creation myth. The birth of sin. come on, you don't have to know religion to know that story, it's pretty much universal and almost always the inspiration behind photos and paintings like that. Either that or the phallic symbolism of the snake and the woman worshiping it - symbolizing male dominion over the female, which is why a lot of females would be offended by it. Or I'd say put off by it. It's a pretty common theme so it's not like it's something they've never seen before. I don't know much of anything about bdsm or the rules of erotica and all that so I don't see that in the photo. It's not an erotic photo to me, but whatever. 

It's not an erotic photo to me either, I like it because it looks elegant, look how Mr Snake flows in harmony with the shape of her body :-)

But I've never, not even in school, read the story about Adam and Eve or whatever, and I didn't even know a snake was involved, but now that I hear it was, perhaps I missed out on a really kinky story I might have enjoyed!  I'm pretty sure you'll think I'm pulling your leg here (but I'm not) when I tell you that the only thing I know about "Adam and Eve" is what I've picked up by overhearing stuff over time, and I've sort of pieced it all together as best I can.

Here is what I thought Adam and Eve was about:  Basically, there was a man and a woman who used to walk around nude, but Eve noticed that Adam was paying far too much attention to her private parts, so she looked for something to cover herself up and she found a fig leaf of something.  Understandably, Adam got a bit annoyed about the situation so I just assume he did the same to get his own back on Eve, and that's why when we see a picture of Adam and Eve, they always have a fig leaf covering their love equipment.

That's pretty much it, that's all I know (or rather guessed).  Other than that, I think the basic story is that eventually, they couldn't resist each other any longer and the fig leaves just had to go.  This resulted in some passion which I assume is what lead to the rest of the world being born?  I don't know, I honestly don't, and like I said, Mr Snake is a new one on me - he's a sly one!  The only thing I can say to that is if Eve looked anything like Nastassja, I'm guessing Mr Snake had one hell of a good time assuming Mr Snake was involved in the way I think you're suggesting he was involved.

What you might find even harder to believe than my guess on the whole Adam and Eve story, is that actually, I didn't even know it had anything to do with religion.  I actually thought it was a Mythical Fairitale or something, kinda like Unicorns and stuff like that!

Anyway, you're way too prudish for a guy, Shane.  I honestly don't think you could care less about whether women would get offended by an image where a women is being dominated, I think you're just playing the good guy because you're a mod here (which is fine).  But there's nothing wrong with the domination of women.  It's been proven time and time again that despite societies morals, most women love being dominated as much as most men love to dominate them.  It's just one of those things that society finds hard to accept in the general scheme of things despite the overwhelming amount of research that was done about it.  And why am I telling you this?

Because evey time you act like you care about whether women would find such an image offensive (and even if you genuinely do), I'm guessing most of them are secretly laughing at such comments even though most would never admit it.  Of course, most women only admit it anonymously in surveys, which never fails to end in the same result, that most women love it.

 See, that's exactly why I don't like abstract paintings. Hidden meanings like religious symbolism, which to be honest, I never would have thought of it you hadn't said anything, or the feet cropping thing so she can't escape.

BTW, I'm not female so I'm not offended by it, but I would never put it on my wall either because of the "ick" factor. I just plain hate snakes, which I suppose Shane would see as me having homophobic tendencies or something because of the phallus symbolism. 

How to get off track. LOL.

Hey, back on track; How s the tablet doing?

Tony has a point, and I just thought, maybe Clarkie could draw Nastassja Kinski and the Serpent as an attempt to overcome his fear of Mr Snake :-D
It would also count as him not breaking tradition, because it would involve drawing a babe as well, and Nastassja is definitely a babe!

Go on Clarkie, be a sport, even if it comes out hilarious, so what, laughing is good for you :-)

You can google the myth and figure out the role of the snake on your own. 

I'm not a prude. Not by a long shot. And honestly I don't really care who is offended by what. Just because I point it out doesn't mean I'm offended by it. You asked me what I saw so I told you what I saw. It's symbolism. It's why art exists in the first place. I just don't get excited over looking at naked bodies like you do. I study anatomy. I look at naked bodies all day long, of all different shapes sizes, colors, genders, ages, dead, alive, with skin, without skin, etc. It's like looking at furniture to me. My days of getting excited over naked people are long gone. I know what they look like on the inside, so that's really all I see anymore. For wall art I like darker more macabre things, or sarcasm, or things that violate the senses.

I'd much rather hang this on my wall than your snake girl. It's far more interesting to me, and I love his music so I can connect to it on a deeper level. 

How to get off track. LOL.

Hey, back on track; How s the tablet doing?

Tablet's fine, although admittedly I haven't used it as much as I had thought. Still getting used to it, but learning.

@Shane
I like the gritty surreal stuff too, love it, but you totally missed the point of why I said what I said.

It's what you said to RorrKonn that I thought was so ridiculous it just had to be debated, at least a little bit.  It was that you effectively painted almost the entire male population as 'horny little boys' because they drool over the female form.  I posted the snake girl to show you just how far off your comment can be.  Yes, I get excited by a naked female like any other normal man would, but that doesn't mean I have a bunch of naked women on my wall.  There was only that one, and right now, there are none.  And even when there was only the one, it's not something I got excited about sexually, I just like the image, like I said, to me it's a very elegant looking piece of work.

The other aspect of it was, even if there was a bunch of naked women on our walls and we got excited by them, there's nothing odd about that, it's not something that is the domain of little boys as you put it, and therefore, it's not something you grow out of in adulthood.  I've seen (and love) all sorts of strange art, I've seen stuff that would no doubt make a lot of people cringe, but of course there are things that are and aren't suitable for a wall.

BTW, I suppose I'd better read the Adam and Eve story, I'm really curious about it since you mentioned the snake.
Will have to see what it's all about as long as it's free and online, I'm not buying it.

I stand by what I said. That's how I see it. And like I said that's why that stuff exists in video games, whether you agree with the reasoning or not. And obviously what I said was true or it wouldn't sell so many video games and comic books. Don't get upset just because it's pointed out. I don't like that you suggest that guys who don't find that sort of art appealing are not normal, but whatever. This debate is pointless. I feel like I'm losing IQ points letting it carry on. 

@Shane
Honestly, I'm not trying to be awkward but you can be very hypocritical at times you know, and no, you're not losing IQ points by dabating it, you only lose IQ points by calling an end to something if you don't like the responses.

Anyway, I found the story online easy enough, but it's got something to do with the Bible, and I'm sorry, no offence intended but I'm not reading all that religious stuff.  In my defence, I did give it a try, I at least read the opening part to Adam and Eve and I discovered pretty quick that the Snake is the Devil, which is cool.  But then it gets boring and nothing happens.  If anyone knows what chapter the Devil Snake actually does something, please let me know and I'll still check it out, but like I said, I just cannot read through religious works.

On the plus side, due to your refusal to explain Mr Devil Snake to me, and not being one to give-up easily, I thought I'd take a shortcut.  I typed "Adam and Eve Snake" into Google Images hoping it would at least give me a clue as to the 'role' of Mr Devil Snake, what he's all about etc.  It resulted in me coming across an amazingly erotic image as a result, but sadly, I'm not sure it's something Renderosity would allow to be displayed on the forum, and I'm worried Clarkie might have nightmares if he sees what Mr Devil Snake gets up to behind locked doors :-D

Not posting the image here, but here's the link if anyone wants to see; only click on it if you want to see Mr Devil Snake preparing to do what he does best!
NSFW WARNING - Click here for Mr Devil Snake

Now that, in all honesty, is a piece of art I would definitely hang on my wall (no kidding), the lucky Devil, he gets all the best jobs, I've always said so!

You said you like art with meaning and depth, and it surely has that by the apple-cart load, so I wonder what an erotic image such as that means to you, is it good enough for your wall, and is it good enough to come across as more than nudity?

@EClark -- You say true art must communicate something. I agree. If its only point is that it looks nice, the it's not art, it's design, essentially, wallpaper.

But why privilege certain "messages" over others? Why is narrative more worthwhile than philosophy or aesthetics?

Take Mark Rothko, for example. When you see his paintings in a museum, they are enormous, and if they are hung the way he wanted them to be viewed, they are in a tight space where you are forced to view them close up and not from a distance. You are forced to look at the brush strokes and the texture, to move you head to see the whole canvas. What does this mean? Well, if you're a post-modernist, it means whatever it means to you. To me, he is communicating the simple power of COLOR and COMPOSITION and PLACEMENT of art. The way certain color combinations and compositions have, all by themselves, a striking effect. Additionally, how the brush strokes themselves create a composition within even a single color. How you can have a very static composition of rectangles that, when viewed up close, appears very dynamic and unstable because of the texture of the paint.

What could be more basic to art than color and composition and texture? What could be more important to the artist than understanding and knowing the way these extremely fundamental aspects of vision affect the human psyche? If you don't bother to think about these things -- if you're happy to go with the typical 9 box grid rule for composition because you were told that's what you should do -- what does that say about you as an artist? 

@Shane -- I love your comments on the Kinsky photo. But, I hate to tell you, you're not normal (you actually think about what you see -- and apparently that's just weird ;) ) On the other hand, it does make you very interesting to listen to. Who the hell wants to be "normal" anyway? (I do understand your point, though. The idea that being anything other than boringly emptyheaded is somehow deviant is crazy. It used to be that women were the ones confronted with this idea that we weren't supposed to be overly intellectual, but now it seems to be swinging the other way, and men are supposed to be big dumb brutes who do very little besides unthinkingly following some basic -- and supposedly uniform -- animal instincts. How sad that people demand so much mindless conformity from others.)

Pumeco, all I have to say about that image is -- BORING. The whole snake, women, devil thing has been soooo overdone. It's cliche to the max. Sheesh. Don't people have any new ideas?

PS -- Why would women think snakes are erotic? They'd make terrible and truly unsexy phalluses -- that is, unless you think men are fundamentally flaccid creatures, all talk and slithering, but no ability to actually close the deal, so to speak. LOL. And that's hardly much of a turn on. (I get why this is a great metaphor for the Devil -- but if you're not interested in the religious symbolism, then the whole thing makes no sense at all. You could just as well photograph a woman's arse with a potato and a tarantula.)

"...But, I hate to tell you, you're not normal (you actually think about what you see -- and apparently that's just weird ;)"

But your comment is rude because it suggests that those he was debating it with don't think about their art, and that's just not true.  Not to point out the obvious here, but the piece you're all debating but seemingly mocking too, is the one that caused the most discussion, it's the one I had on my wall.

You see the irony?

The way Shane speaks about such things is that it's just stuff for horny little boys to drool over, like there is no artistic value in it for an adult.  So far, the artistic value in it is so high that a mere copy of that image sold for over 75.000 dollars in auction, that's just a copy, not the original negative, so it's not as if the purchaser intends to make a quick buck selling copies of it to hormone-filled teenagers, is it?

You don't half talk some nonsense sometimes, hah, and I tell you what, if Shane ever comes across the supersized version of that image in a gallery somewhere, he'll feel the real reason why I like it, and I'm guessing he'll feel pretty idiotic for what he said.  Standing in front of it is a totally differerent thing to seeing it on the screen.  The large version looks good, but the supersized version is something else, it's really impressive.  Bottom line is, it's an elegant peice of work that has proven (even here) that it can spark a discussion; Shane's comment about such things is way off, and your supporting his comments is equally ridiculous!

Right, time for tea and a bloody good sulk now ... peasants!

"Pumeco, all I have to say about that image is -- BORING. The whole snake, women, devil thing has been soooo overdone. It's cliche to the max. Sheesh. Don't people have any new ideas?"

Don't knock it.  Out of curiosity I just cropped the crap off the bottom and converted it to Black and White, looks every bit as good as I thought it would.

"Why would women think snakes are erotic?"

Presumably for the same reason a man would, but to be honest, I don't care whether a woman finds it erotic because an image like that is obviously created to appeal to the male of our species, not the female.  It's the power of suggestion that makes having a snake in the same image as a nude woman, erotic, it's not the snake itself that is erotic.

"I get why this is a great metaphor for the Devil -- but if you're not interested in the religious symbolism, then the whole thing makes no sense at all."

Nonsense, how can something I don't know about have any meaning to me in the first place?  And why would such an image have no interest to me just because I don't understand why some religion has taken it upon themselves to make Mr Devil Snake symbolic of something?  Even now, I still don't see any religious symbolism in it, so tell me, what's religious about it, cause the only thing I can imagine is that maybe, what is on Mr Devil Snake's mind, is somehow frowned upon by a religion?

Is that it?

If that's all it is, then it's not even religious symbolism.  Such things cannot be considered religious just because some religion doesn't like it.  As far as I'm concerned (and I'm not religious), Mr Devil Snake has his head well and truly screwed-on.  Whatever he's doing, it's getting him a lot more attention from the ladies than I ever get.  The only thing Mr Devil Snake "symbolises" to me, is a clever bastard - I want his phone number - we need to chat - I need to know his secret - I want to see his little Red book of Funtime Girls.

I would be just as within my right to claim Mr Devil Snake as a symbolism of "Luck with the Ladies" as some religion would be to claim him as a religious symbol.  I would like to know why it's considered a religious symbol, but I'm pretty sure, even before I find out, that the reason will be laughable to say the least.  I couldn't care less about religion, so religious symbolism is no such thing to me, I'm not religious, and religious symbolism should only have meaning to those that are religious.

All I know is, put Mr Devil Snake in the same image as a naked woman, and he symbolises only one thing, it has nothing to do with religion, and the only thing I'd be "worshipping" are the assets in the image, not a God ;-)

Pumeco, items that involve celebrities sell for silly amounts of money, and it has little bearing on the artistic value of the item. Britney Spears' spat out some chewing gum, and it sold at auction for $14,000.

Shane isn't completely correct. There's some artistic merit to the photo -- in that it was taken by someone who understands photography.  It's not just someone's iPhone selfie on Instagram. Of course, his deconstruction of the meaning of the photo is compelling precisely because the elements he points out were purposeful and intentional. However, I find it hard to disagree with his main point that the true purpose of the photo is to turn its viewers on. And beyond that, there's very little there. It's aesthetically more pleasing than your typical internet porn, but in the end, that's all it's got. It's just a big cliche. Cliche's aren't art. They're a lazy way to bypass the use of the frontal lobes by doing something that's been done over and over and over again already.

Again, unless you really believe that whole Facebook philosophy, just because you like something doesn't make it good. 

One of the things he points out are the feet (or rather lack of), and he points out that it represents her not being able to escape the Serpent, right?

Thing is, if that's true (and please, bear in mind I'm not saying it isn't), then for me the photographer failed on that one because even after it being pointed out to me, I just don't get that from the photo, to me it just doesn't look as if it's been cropped for that reason.  So if it's true, the photographer not only failed there, but failed badly, cause you know me by now, if there was even a hint of it meaning she was powerless to do anything, that would make it erotic for me.

So you see, the funny thing is, I would actually prefer it if I could see that in the image, but I just can't.  I mean I asked about what feet has to do with it, but wasn't given any link to explain where that theory even came from.  Same with the religious thing, what's the big secret?

Tell me, dammit :-D

There's no "link" to give you that will explain how to see beneath the surface of things. That's something you get from being educated. And I don't mean formally educated, necessarily. I just mean educated in the sense that of having a keen desire to know about things and not automatically dismissing them because you don't agree with them, like them, believe them, or understand them.

Reading your forum posts is like... 

"I like this because it's got a babe in it. A sexy babe. I like sexy babes because I'm a heterosexual male. So I like women, right? Women. Sexy women. Because I'm not gay. And I have pictures of sexy babes on my wall because, I'm a heterosexual male. And straight men like sexy women. And this is sexy. Therefore I like it, and it's good because I am definitely not gay."

Dude, we get it. You find women attractive. Why you feel compelled to point this out in almost every single discussion at some point is beyond me. All I know is that more you harp on the subject, the more it seems like you're desperately trying to prove something and the less convincing you sound.

Thing is, no one cares who or what you find sexually attractive.  It's the 21st century. :D  It's okay to be straight or gay or bi or even a bit unsure. Really.

Some comments on the current off topic.

Shane, you might look into the symbolism of reptiles and religion, it goes back a lot further than most think, and the serpent representing evil is a fairly modern interpretation.  Look for any interpretation from the devil to a god, from the bringer of death to the giver of life, and you'll probably find it somewhere in antiquity. Each one equal in validity to the current, "evil". 

I'm somewhat familiar with the photo, and of Avedon.   Avedon had a pretty wide field that he played with in his art photos, some of which may shock people, but that's how it is.

Pumeco:"So if it's true, the photographer not only failed there, but failed badly, cause you know me by now, if there was even a hint of it meaning she was powerless to do anything, that would make it erotic for me."  S/M and bondage may be more to your liking then, but isn't liable to win you any favor with normal ladies.  There is nothing erotic about a helpless woman, or as you say, powerless.  In your mind, it would convey dominance over her, rather than what is more attractive. I don't like anything that portrays the woman as the subject, object, goal or victim, I'd rather see her as a participant of her own free will.

It's a nice photo, nicely posed, well exposed, technically correct, but the epitome of photography?  Naah.  Good nevertheless, but nothing I'd spend any money on.  My reaction, she's got guts, as those things are neither harmless, sluggish, or predictable.  No symbolism in the cropping, just necessary to the subject and format.

Doric

@Doric: I didn't say it represented evil. I said it's a phallic symbol, representing male dominance. And yes it also represents a lot of other things, depending on the context in which it's being used. For this particular photo, the eve and the serpent is what stands out the most. A common theme and what most people, at least in the western world, relate the serpent to today. 

Unless it's being used in this symbol, where it then represents medical and healing, iterations of which date back to Sumer, the oldest culture we have any real knowledge of today.

Of course Clovis is far older than Sumer, and there are fragments of cultures even older than Clovis, but we don't know what their belief systems or symbolisms were. 

No, Moriador, "uneducated" is something you just demonstrated perfectly.  Those types of discussions (including the one you just made up) come about whenever hypocritical nonsense is spouted with no way to back it up.  Just like Shane is doing and just like you are doing.  You "get" nothing about me, and the only reason you can't show me anything regards the feet, is because it's nonsense, likely something he plucked out of thin air to look clever - and something you fell for without even looking into it.

"Educated" is knowing that the work of Vallejo is superior on every level to that ... um ... stuff ... Pollock produces (stuff I reckon a blindfolded chimp could pull-off).  I'm guessing the reason he gave up trying to name the stuff is because there's not really much you can give the same peice of crap time and time again, is there?

And "Educated" is being able to tell the difference between the "Classy" work Avedon produced and something "tacky" designed to "turn you on".  I think most people can see that the Avedon image with the Serpent is designed to be elegant and aesthetically pleasing, not erotic or pornographic, and I'm pretty sure our friend, Mr Devil Snake, wasn't posed as perfectly as that if all Avedon intended was to "turn on" a bunch of teens.  Those things are going to be obvious to most people (excluding yourself and Shane I mean).  What you need to realise is that something intended to be commercial, doesn't mean it's designed to turn people on - even if it happens to do so - and for me, it doesn't - as I already pointed out.

Don't try to belittle people just because you're out of your depth, and get over the fact that some of us couldn't care less about whether what is said is what people want to hear.  I prefer to say the facts rather than pull nonsense out of thin air, and I wonlt be changing the way I discuss thing no matter how you interpret it.  You just did what most people do when they can't explain themselves, you tried to find something that actually, is of your own imagination and switch the situation.  You seem to forget why those "discussions" you speak of, pop-up in the first place, they're usually brought about by the hypocricy I see and hear, and I seem to recall that on the previous occasion it was caused by a simillar hypocricy:  women going around flashing their breasts, and tying themselves to a freaking fence in public is supposed to do something for their cause I suppose?

Why on earth you think I need to "tell people I find women attractive" is pretty hilarious, I'm a bloke, of course I do, but you're clearly not educated enough to understand why the discussions go the way they go - I can't help you there.  You could not have said a more childish thing than you just did.  Now, if you can manage it (and I doubt it), go and find something to back-up what Shane said (and you are happy to agree with) - or I'll just have to assume it's because it's nonsense and can't be backed-up.

If I'm out of order here then I'm sure glad I am, because like it or not, I'll stick to lusting after women, I'll stick to not believeing in anything religious whatsoever, and I'll stick to having an "Education" ample enough to tell me that anyone who would put a "Pollock" on his wall is not fit to comment on other artists work in the way he did.  Where I come from, Shane would likely have been stoned after a statement like that, and I think he'd have got even worse for suggesting that the art he referred to is for litte boys to get excited over.  Grow up, either one of those artists Shane dismissed as "little boys stuff" could do a "Pollock" with their bloody eyes closed, and so could I, so could you, and so could a blind-folded chimp with a couple of tubes of paint to splatter around.  Turn the situation around though, and I'm pretty sure Pollock couldn't produce what the other artists produced, even with his eyes wide open!  I mean there's deep and meaningful discussion, and then there's nonsense like has been posted here.

I'm off to bed now, and tomorrow will bring one thing for sure:
-You will not have backed-up this nonsense with any links to any facts whatsoever, because it's nonsense.

I never saw symbolism in the cropping of the feet, Clarkie never saw symbolism in the cropping of the feet either, and by his very admission, it's only the comment Shane made that put that apsect into his head.  Clarkie was right the first time, he never saw because there's nothing to see, there is no symbolic gesture in the cropping of the feet, and as you're into photography yourself (as I am), you should know that if it were a specific crop to the feet, he'd have to have cropped the image directly below the ankles (not knees) to successfully symbolise such a thing.  It's hardly surprising then, that I just don't see the symbolism, it's cause there isn't any other than the power of suggestion (something I tried educating Shane about earlier with it's link to BDSM) - AKA nothing to do with telling people I find women attractive sacasm intended.

Well goodnight then, it's getting late, and being a teenager and all, I'd really like to get a quick fapp in before I fall asleep.
Bloody hell, you know it's times like this I really wish I had that Avedon still hanging on the wall to help me along.

You realise how idiotic both your comments are now?
I hope so.

@Doric
Well I'm glad to see at least someone else doesn't see symbolism in the crop!

But yeah, it's a cool photo, it's something that needs to be seen for real to be appreciated fully though.  As for the ladies, I'm not even into BDSM in as far as I never get a chance to practice it, but I would rather have a girl into that stuff than not, because it's a very broad thing and I'm pretty sure that any female that isn't broad minded enough, would absolutely bore me to tears!

Anyway, I'd better shut-up otherwise Moriador will have another go at me for getting all sexual and stuff.

AmbientShade who's the musician with the wings ?

pumeco I've done a few snakeish dragons paintings. I want the apple on my wall ,it's killer.

know the name of the photographer ,model or person who owns the photo ? 

@RorrKonn
Sorry mate, I haven't a clue, I found it on Google Images after searching for "Adam and Eve Snake" - and just grabbed the photo from the results.
But I agree, it's killer that one :-P

And you know what, if you search Google Images for stuff like "Girl with Snake" or "Snake Babe" or stuff like that, the two best images I've found so far are indeed Avedon's Kinski Serpent, and the one with the Apple that you like.  Moriador suggests the subject is overdone, but I don't think it is because most of the attempts at those "Girl with Snake" images that crop up on Google, look really false or awkward - but those two don't.

Two images, same subject, and completely different with a completely different purpose, yet both images rock for their own reason ;-)