Brains opened this issue on Jun 24, 2001 ยท 64 posts
Brains posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 11:40 AM
Hi All, I am slightly concerned at the amount of hits and comments some pictures are getting that contain very average pictures with a poser model of a near nude/nude lady. Dare we let the quality of a picture be judged by it's poser lady? I appreciate that not all pics like this are poor/average but I want to voice my concern that some are. Maybe this can be another topic as well:- Why do we have so many nude lady posts. If its about the art form of a human body then there would be more men as well I would have thought as they are humans as well. Thoughts welcome
Aaronius posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 12:05 PM
This I have to agree with, but it isn't just confined to the Bryce gallery... The point is, people come to renderosity to post their work, get feedback from other users, and develope their artform.... I think that the vast difference in amounts of picture viewings hurt the newer members, and in some cases encourage them to leave.... Some of the other artwork on this site is truly amazing, (I will also concede that some of the Poser work is great, and that the results are realistic) but only the cliques seem to know that, and therefore they, the SMALL minority, have the sense to be clicking with the use of their brains rather than the use of their loins.... Peace, Aaronius
Swade posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 3:06 PM
"Some of the other artwork on this site is truly amazing, (I will also concede that some of the Poser work is great, and that the results are realistic) but only the cliques seem to know that, and therefore they, the SMALL minority, have the sense to be clicking with the use of their brains rather than the use of their loins...." Well put Aaronius. I could not agree more. Swade
There are 10 kinds of people: Those who know binary, and those who don't.
A whiner is about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest.
Swade posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 3:08 PM
" Dare we let the quality of a picture be judged by it's poser lady? " Very good question Brains. I wonder the same thing myself at times. Swade
There are 10 kinds of people: Those who know binary, and those who don't.
A whiner is about as useful as a one-legged man at an arse kicking contest.
Aaronius posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 3:17 PM
Thanks Swade, I was rather impressed with myself when I thought of that one =] This subject really does get on my nerves though.... Aaronius
Brains posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 3:22 PM
Well it certainly is good to see I'm not alone. Aaronius has spoken and (I think) has well voiced the concern of some of us. Any other thoughts people?
Brains posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 3:29 PM
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=62848&Start=73&Sectionid=2&WhatsNew=Yes
This is my point look at this... These two images were posted around the same time. What differentiates them in quality?Brains posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 3:30 PM
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=62818&Start=73&Sectionid=2&WhatsNew=Yes
This is my point look at this... These two images were posted around the same time. What differentiates them in quality?Brains posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 3:33 PM
The nude picture got about 40 more hits with a total of 122. Yet I think the second picture was probably more difficult and definitely more creative.
Aaronius posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 3:40 PM
A better example would be a comparison between that and the pic right next to it, "Winter machine" what a scene from the lowly bryce! Less that half the viewings! OK, so there comments, but the point is well proven.... I wonder how many here at Renderosity, and also amongst the Administration of this site, share the same opinions that we have brought up.... hmmmmmmmm.... Once again, peace Aaronius
roobol posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 5:03 PM
To some extent I agree with all of the above, but I don't have the same experience with my own work. Although I make nudes at occasions, neither my most viewed image, nor my best ranked image has any nudity in it. Even the fact that I work with real models rather than with Poser doesn't seem to make a difference. And my most recent image did have nudity in it, but the people I asked didn't even notice, except the model herself... (for those stampeding off to my gallery, the girl standing behind the second window isn't dressed properly...). With all due respect, nudity, both male and female has been a subject of art for as long as art has been made. And I think it should stay a part of art, since it is an essential part of human life. But turning that breast dial in Poser to its limit, now that's a different story, and I'm afraid we'll have to live with that. But then again, the thumbnails and titles usually speak for themselves, so it's fairly simple to ignore them. Cheers, Kees
Photopium posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 6:34 PM
Exaggerated Nudity: Comic, Super-Heroine type art Nudity: Classic art, or Pinup art. Also, photo-real attempts Partial Nudity or tease shots: Could be Pin-up art, fashion art, or even commercial art. In other words, even that breast dial cranked up to 11 is a kind of art. This is an art site, let all be welcomed. If it's bad art, let the comments speak politely. If it is good art, the same If it is great art, all the better If your picture of a can of WD-40 got less hits then Barbarella on a blue background, then you are simply less mainstream in these parts. Thus, the real issue is between mainstream or "Pop" art versus Sophisticated or elitist art. If you chose to be off the mainstream, then you should expect less hits/comments. It doesn't have anything to do with the quality usually, so don't take it personally. -WTB
Poppi posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 7:05 PM
Hey now...I thought I heard a "Pop" to this thread. I do nudes...females, males, clowns..you name it. Why? I love alot of the well known "fantasy" pinup art. I got straight a's in life drawing all through college. When I twist my lil dials, the clothes don't fit too good. ;*( However, I must agree with this thread. I put so much time and effort into what I submit. I make special morphs for them...NO...NOT even Vicki2 or Kane, has all my lil "Poppi" morphs. It bothers me when I see someone with an out of the box, wall-eyed lookin' Vicki (AND out of the box, she IS walleyed, gang.)..With her boob dial cranked to unbelievable...getting more clicks than a wonderful clown, a couple enjoying a picnic, BOTH morphed and with original textures...Beauty is in the eye, I guess. Of course, if I really, really, need a "Hot 20" fix., I know what to do. Pop...pop...Poppi!!!
Brains posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 7:14 PM
I find it hard to understand your point of view on this. Do you mean pop art or porn. Are you saying porn is an artform? Bad Art - Fine, we can help each other improve Good Art - We can praise each other and encourage progression Great Art - Everyone can be happy Pop Art - Mindless porn under the guise of art. If that suits you don't go to an art site. I suppose I can't understand why artists need to attract people through their loins rather than their brains. Peace
Brains posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 7:16 PM
I refer above to William's reply...
Poppi posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 7:21 PM
No, I mean "pop" art. Porn is something else again. In fact, just a couple of weeks back I got myself pretty darned well flamed for vocalizing my distates of a picture that I still do consider "porn." There are elements to art...good art. Design elements. And, under the definition of porn, art, should have some redeeming social value. I even had the cops...like 6 squad cars roll up in front when I lived in Chicago. Alleged "Porn". Hey, now...They did not take my computer!!! Embarrassed me to my dying day, and my youngest never forgave that one.) Anyway, if all of these are absent, well, a wide open beaver can be viewed as "porn". At least, that is so, in my neck of the woods. Pop...pop..Poppi!!!
Brains posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 7:26 PM
What's the message that all these nude pictures are trying to convey? Can anyone please explain...
Photopium posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 7:28 PM
Well, Porn is subjective, even moreso then art. is the Venus d'Milo porn? Is "Last Tango In Paris" Porn? What about "Caligula"? I would say that Playboy is Nude Pinup Photography art, while "Swank" is a magazine to help guys get off. I can barely keep an erection going when viewing playboy pictorials (if one even gets started). However, I can still say "Wow, she's fine and deserves to be pinned-up" Penthouse, now, is in a grey area. -WTB
Brains posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 7:37 PM
Sorry I didn't get what you were saying. What is the reason behind the pics...
Aaronius posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 7:51 PM
While I do appreciate the skill involved in making Poser models realistic. (believe me, I have tried to use them in some artwork [clothed models, I dont have a need to do the nude thang] and they always seem plasticky) I will also take a techi/artistic view on the quality of image, but i will maintain that a lot of the images that are getting the viewings and commentry are really mindless people that seem to have bought Poser for that use only. I can appreciate even more the work of those that build their own humanoid models from scratch, that is skill! (And I hope to soon be able to join that stable.) Where is the A: artistic value B: technical skill C: point to putting a picture up on this site with just a sphere, a nekkid woman or man and some water to stand on. and usually there is no great pose the model just is there to make up the pixels..... Poppi, I think I saw where you got flamed, was it you who also said that all these images are not worth a rating of ten? Either way, at the time when I read what you said, I was in full agreement. We are supposed to be artists, we are supposed to have a modecum of open mindedness when it comes to other peoples' art, but there is a limit..... BTW, personally, I dont think that any kind of porn is art, sorry... I think maybe someone should take the plunge and open up Renderotica again, at least that would possibly bring down the one sidedness of the viewings here..... IMHO Peace all...
Poppi posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 8:39 PM
I said something to the effect of "It amazes me how far folks will go to get into the Hot 20." Those weren't the exact words, though. I have a different attitude about porn, I guess. You can take the raunchiest of poses, change them just a little bit. Then, you could put on a nice texture...add a few props. Tweak on lighting for a couple of days. Realize that you need a morph because this is POSER, here, and something looks unflattering. Okay, now, hummmm...that did not work all the way. It must be the texture map!!! It can go on like that for a long time. Not all Poser artists are grown equally.
bebop posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 9:26 PM
Brains posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 9:29 PM
Bebop. Good to see you can communicate on an adult level :(
bebop posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 9:56 PM
sorry I didn't realise I was communicating with adults
Photopium posted Sun, 24 June 2001 at 10:23 PM
hehe bebop :) I agree with bebop totally. I do what I do because I want to. People are free to click on it or not. Having low viewings sucks, and I totally sympathize with the people not getting hits, but this blatant jealousy isn't going to get you anywhere. It just makes you guys look petty, prudish, shameless and unprofessional. To the guy who said "No Porn is Art" well, good for you! Hopefully, you and your close-mindedness will look triumphantly down from heaven at the rest of us heathens burning in hell. Enjoy that! You and the other five people in Heaven will have a grand ole time slapping each other on the back. -WTB
warzog posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 1:23 AM
I have a problem with it for a different reason. I'll spend days, because of my OLD computer, trying to do as realistic a rendering as I can. And yet, I barely get any hits. While someone puts a Poser figure in a provocative pose, phasing into the floors, the walls, and itself, slaps "Nudity" on the title, and they get 5 times the hits mine do. By accident, I came across an idea that would lend itself to a "tasteful" (in my opinion) joke about nudes. Its' getting more hits than anything else I've done. I've also discovered that there are several mutual admiration societies who hit the hell out of each others stuff, no matter how good, or bad it is. They raise the hit level the first few hours, and then everyone wonders what's going on, and next thing you know, the hit rate goes through the roof! And then you have guys like the one in the Beginners Hot 20, who's doing props in Max, posing nudes in Poser, and rendering in Bryce? If that's a beginner.... I've had Poser for 3 months, and PSP7 for 2 weeks, I can't do props, textures, transmaps, bumps, morphs, or half the stuff he's done. I'M A BEGINNER! Very frustrating all around!
Aaronius posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 3:41 AM
Now there's an interesting point warzog. I have noticed the cliques that appear to occur on Renderosity.... WTB, whatever, man.... just the same as you, I'm allowed to have my opinion, and that is what it is.... interesting that you responded like that, a bit closed minded dont you think?.... hmmmmmmmmmm BTW, its not jealosy, it is voicing an observation I've had the displeasure of seeing.... Aaronius
Brains posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 4:06 AM
William I am surprised you bring professionalism into it in such as proud and arrogant manner. Do you think that I voicing this opinion because I don't have lots of hits myself? It has nothing to do with the amount of hits I receive, large or small. BTW I (like most artists) am proud of the DIVERSITY and variety in my gallery. I see this is something that William and I also seem to disagree on as I see all his pictures bear a remarkable similarity. Am I being close-minded to voice my concern that many pictures with sub-standard textures and composition get more hits than other more technical and creative works? I don't think so... I am merely worried that this site will lose any outside respect it has when people see that we cannot as a community discern the difference between gold and dross.
Aaronius posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 4:12 AM
shot.
RadArt posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 7:51 AM
I can respect very much your viewpoint when you put it in the perspective of someone that just plops a poser model on the screen, perhaps spreads some appendages, and takes a pic, WOW, I got a HOTTIE for the gallery!! That, to me, is an insult because I know too many here that work hours, days, sometimes even weeks on end to create their art!! BUT, I will also stress that this looong chore may also result in some nakkedness. Just because there IS a nudy rendering or something provocative in a rendering don't mean the artist whipped it up in a few moments just to spank his monkey in the gallery. Of all people, artists are supposed to be one of the most "open" minded of all types, we actually should NOT "see" SEX everytime we see a naked body, that's the problem, it's supposed to be art, not a centerfold. But then artists aren't stupid either, they should also KNOW if an image is just smacked together to gain hits or spanks or if it is really done for the sake of its art. I hope I am clear enough to understand here for I don't always explain what I am trying to say the best. Take care....
Photopium posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 9:49 AM
Absolutley my images all seem to be pretty much the same. Why am I okay with this? Because the only reason I turn poser on in the first place is to continue work on perfecting characters. For what purpose not even I know. You'll notice my last several images are all Marilyn. That's right, I'm working on Marilyn. I am trying to achieve the grail of realism. I will never be satisified totally with anything Poser or Vicky can do in this regard, so the quest goes on indefinately. That's all I give a crap about. I have no interest in rendering anything else. I suppose I could not post my images in the gallery to appease you "Wah, Nudity Sux" people, but the gallery exists for members to post WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT as long as it's not in violation of the few simple guidelines. YOU ARE ALL FREE TO NOT CLICK ON THE IMAGES. YOU ARE ALL FREE TO NOT CLICK ON THE IMAGES. YOU ARE ALL FREE TO NOT CLICK ON THE IMAGES. THERE IS A NUDITY FILTER THERE IS A NUDITY FILTER THERE IS A NUDITY FILTER Why do you people continue to try to piss on everyone else's parade? Sure you're free to post your opinions. Do you know there are already nine-thousand threads exactly like this one? Why start a new thread? You say it's about the art and not about the hits? Then turn that filter on, don't click on the boobs, and start supporting your fellow artists who do other type work. It's really that simple. You would not like it if you were a renderer of Cute Kittens and I came on here saying "Goddamn, I'm sick to high hell of those cute Kittens!" so stop attacking Nudes. If you continue to do so, I can only determine that it IS Jealousy of hits that inspires your comments like this. I say again, you can be mainstream or you can be ecclectic. If you choose to be ecclectic, then be prepared to dwell mostly in obscurity. That's life. -WTB
Allen9 posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 12:54 PM
Nudity, nudity, nudity... Moderators, couldn't we have a counter somewhere that just registers how many times this topic comes up again (and again, and again...)? This must be the 50th or so time in this year alone. I've said it before, so I'll say it again - in slightly different words, jest fer the hellovit: I've got nothing against nudity. In fact, I LIKE it - from time to time. I even, from time to time, went over to 'rotica before it died, to see the actual porn stuff (more out of curiosity than for actual jollies). BUT, I have to agree with one aspect of this conversation. I get awfully tired of seeing poorly done, 2-minute slapped together nudie shots getting zillions of hits just because there's "nakedidity" involved, while pics that other people put many many hours, or days or weeks into (with nudity OR without), don't get the hits. SO... Do your nudity all you want, but fer cryin-out-loud put some EFFORT into making them something worth looking at, and not just a "look how fucking fast I can turn out yet another pointless spread beaver" shot. Don't just slap out another "paint-by-numbers" naked butt!! There's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many of them around already! If'n yer gonna try to be an artist, put some fucking ART into it!
Aaronius posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 1:07 PM
Thank you....... Peace
Allen9 posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 3:45 PM
I do kinda miss 'rotica, by the way (R.I.P.). It was good to know there was always one 3D-art place I could count on to find lots of Tasteless Nudity, when in the occasional bizarre mood for same.
Allen9 posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 3:46 PM
...At least there was a good bit of well-executed Tasteless Nudity there. ;o)
bebop posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 3:55 PM
I really don't know what the point of this thread is.Brains and Aaronius, as you both work for the same company and are cousins, why do you need to engage in this dialogue here? Is this some kind of immature attempt at publicity?
Aaronius posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 6:02 PM
Nope, nothing of the kind. Seriously. Really it was an attempt to put a view out there and see what kind of response we would get. Believe, there was no underlying attempt to make this a publicity stunt. I suppose I personally wanted to see if there was anyone else in Renderosity that shared that same view.... I guess some do, some don't (that is what I had figured tho). Interesting result to say the least..... Cheers, Aaronius
CharlieBrown posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 6:05 PM
{Why do we have so many nude lady posts. If its about the art form of a human body then there would be more men as well I would have thought as they are humans as well.} Well... One reason is that the female figures are, in general, more detailed and beter modelled than the male ones. Another is that a lot of artists are male and would prefer to look at a female model (even a digital one). A third reason can be that guys LIKE the opportuntity to control a female, even if she IS only a digital woman... And yet another reason is this - some people are either using Poser 3 (which didn't have a lot of clothing available), or simply don't know how/want to bother with the clothing models. Additionally, many - male and female - find the female form more aesthetically pleasing to work with than the male one. Also, censors are, for some inane reason, more likely to object to displays of male genitalia than they are female ones...
bebop posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 6:58 PM
"I suppose I personally wanted to see if there was anyone else in Renderosity that shared that same view...." What view? the view that "I think that the vast difference in amounts of picture viewings hurt the newer members" or what or is it "a lot of the images that are getting the viewings and commentry are really mindless people that seem to have bought Poser for that use only." or what. If it's either of these two examples then no I don't agree. I'm afraid I still don't understand your question. How can the difference in amounts of picture viewings hurt the newer members? New members are helped on this site a lot. I know I was a new member a year ago and have had a tremendous amount of help in the time I've been here.Also new members here get a lot more exposure to their pictures than on any alternative site. And yes the majority of people who visit the galleries in their thousands to look at the pictures look at nude ones the statistics very clearly show that. There is nothing you can do about that apart from ban everyone. If you beleive there should be more Pictures without nudes and of a high technical standard then fine . Make some. Just don't try to influence what other people do. we are all free spirits and don't take to kindly to people trying to control that freedom. Please don't take any of my above statements personally they are meant for all the people who regularly bring up this issue.
warzog posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 7:57 PM
Allen9 & WTB: I think the problem is not the nudity in, and of, itself. It's more, the poor quality, ill conceived, poorly rendered nudity that bothers people. Especially when it's done to get high hit counts, and not for any real Artistic reason. When an artist, not a conartist, gets high hit counts, be it for a nude, or any other image, it makes you feel like, "YEH! This is what it's all about!" When you get con'd into looking at a piece of garbage, it makes you mad. And that's what you're seeing here. People, who thought they were going to see an artfully done nude, who were con'd, reacting with a very natural anger.
warzog posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 8:07 PM
Of course, their is another type of nude, which I forgot to mention: The Beginner. There is an area where you can rate an image. And an area where you can make comments to HELP, note the the word HELP, YES it says to "HELP the Artist to IMPROVE the Image." I have found that almost no one uses the ratings, instead, they use the area reserved to "HELP the Artist to IMPROVE the Image" to "rate" the image. I've seen images that had dozens of FLAMINGs, but not one suggestion on how to "HELP the Artist to IMPROVE the Image." Perhaps, just maybe, if that changed, we'd have fewer posts like this one!
Styxx posted Mon, 25 June 2001 at 9:38 PM
(clearing throat quietly) i have been doing nudes lately. i am trying to work on realistic looking skin, mainly wet, sometimes not. i don't do them for the jollies, or for hits. i find it's harder to make skin look real than cloth. my latest, called "close to real" took me a couple of days to do. lighting it just about killed me :) i have seen nudes here at 'rosity that just blow my mind (texture wips like syyd's, dmentia's and destiny's come to mind, but are certainly not the only ones to do so), that's how real they look. and yes, i've seen gratuitous T&A - but in a lot of these cases, it's either in pursuit of helpful comments because they really want to improve it, or the result of an inside joke. (then of course, there's the deluge of nudes after every thread like this one G) you may love nudes, you may loathe them.... but they are here. so look at them or not. peace. (what do you want to bet there will be another nudie protest within 14 days? it seems they are regular as clockwork! as to the counter idea, i'm sure at least one of the mods/admins is keeping track - just for the hell of it! G)
Brains posted Tue, 26 June 2001 at 5:51 AM
Well it seems on this one we'll have to agree to disagree. I can understand the viewpoint that some pictures nude or otherwise are well modelled and composited and lit. I think my problem is on a moral level as well as an artistic level. It appears that I am not the only who has this problem as you guys say this is another nude thread. What I definely cannot abide though on a purely artistic level is the way that some very good work of other artists gets overlooked. But I guess that's life... I opened this topic as it was important to me. I did not do it as a publicity stunt or a way to voice my disappointment in a lack of hits. I don't need or want to do either of these. Hopefully we can close this can of worms and agree to just keep on doing what we do best. Art. Brains
Aaronius posted Tue, 26 June 2001 at 5:54 AM
First of all, I just put forward my view, it wasn't really a question. If you look at my first post, it was a statement.... Second, as a relative newbie to renderosity, I was unaware that this subject had been brought up before, and as I said earlier, I wanted to see if people shared my viewpoint.... "I think the problem is not the nudity in, and of, itself. It's more, the poor quality, ill conceived, poorly rendered nudity that bothers people. Especially when it's done to get high hit counts, and not for any real Artistic reason. When an artist, not a conartist, gets high hit counts, be it for a nude, or any other image, it makes you feel like, "YEH! This is what it's all about!" When you get con'd into looking at a piece of garbage, it makes you mad. And that's what you're seeing here. People, who thought they were going to see an artfully done nude, who were con'd, reacting with a very natural anger." I think this one wraps it all up for me here... I am not out to burn bridges as soon as I get here. I respect your opinions, especially on an artistic level, but I still hold to my opinion on this "issue." Cheers all, Aaronius
CharlieBrown posted Tue, 26 June 2001 at 8:55 AM
{It appears that I am not the only who has this problem as you guys say this is another nude thread. } Nope. Like clockwork, ever three to five weeks a new thread complaining about this surfaces. After a week of discussion it's decided that the protesters are the minority view and that, since this site has Nudity Filters and you are NEVER obligated to click on a thumbnail, that nothing needs to be changed. Which seems the right decision for me.
illusions posted Tue, 26 June 2001 at 2:42 PM
HO-HUM!!!!!!! Did ja ever notice that these threads start out complaining about the NUMBER OF CLICKS nude images get, then evolve into nudity vs porn vs quality vs taste vs morality vs whatever; but the underlying theme stills seems to be the number of clicks. Images make the Hot 20 based on the number of times viewed. Obviously nude images are viewed more than non-nude or they wouldn't be making the Hot 20. WHO CARES?!?!?!?! Seems to me the real issue here is people that don't want anyone to look at nude images vs people that don't mind looking at nude images. Yes, there are some people that like to look at nudity regardless of the quality of the image...yes, there are some people that post a stock character in the nude in a stock pose...SO WHAT?!?!?!?! When my child was very young and she crayoned a bunch of scribbles and posted her "art" proudly on the refrigerator door, I would tell her how wonderful it was...which encouraged her to do more and to improve...of course, she isn't an "artist" so there was only so much improvement she could make over the years, but it never stopped her from feeling good about what she could create and posting it on the refrigerator door. Seems to me this argument is really about people who don't get enough attention resenting people that get more attention than they do. The nudity issue is just a smoke screen!
Ironbear posted Tue, 26 June 2001 at 5:05 PM
Wow! A nudity in the gallery thread. I don't think we've ever had one of these before.
"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"
Allen9 posted Tue, 26 June 2001 at 6:34 PM
Well, Bear, not in the previous 24 hours, anyway.
Ironbear posted Wed, 27 June 2001 at 1:53 AM
Er... Allen? That was sarcasm. [shhhh - don't tell anyone. ;)]
"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"
illusions posted Wed, 27 June 2001 at 7:26 AM
Wow bear...this may change things forever...hahahahahah
Ironbear posted Wed, 27 June 2001 at 12:35 PM
snicker
"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"
Allen9 posted Wed, 27 June 2001 at 1:03 PM
Awwwwww Bear, 'course I knowed it were sarcasm. So wuz my remark about 24 hours, 'cause we both knowed it done bin a good 48. snicker
Ironbear posted Wed, 27 June 2001 at 3:35 PM
Heh heh. Got any threes?
"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"
illusions posted Wed, 27 June 2001 at 5:59 PM
Go Fish! hehehe
Ironbear posted Wed, 27 June 2001 at 7:17 PM
Damn.
"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"
Slynky posted Fri, 29 June 2001 at 3:22 PM
Well, at lesat this thread didn't get as rough as my morality/piracy thread... but here goes. I've been at renderosity for abotu a wekk now. I noticed well before I started posting my photography that the chicks with 20 inch waist lines and DDD tits that somehow never sagged, or gave the model a hunchback, were getting massive hits. So I started posting my photography. I didn't notice it at the time, but of the first three I post, the one in the girl in her bra and underwear (in a pose that could be anything but porn), was getting the most hits, and hit the top 20 in photography (#2) within a few hours. The only reason I took some notice of it was because my pride and joy print got half as many hits (though still some cause the faceless girl with her bra on, so it got 40-50 hits in 2 days). the first print, the thumbnail shows breasts, but one has to open the picture full size to see if they can spot a nipple. Some of the artwork in the galleries are beyond incredible. I've watched the movie, played the games, and the shit people put on ehre sometimes really blows me away anyways. Then again, I've watched some porn, and these pixel babes are nothing compared to the videos. ry
bebop posted Fri, 29 June 2001 at 5:31 PM
"the girl in her bra and underwear was getting the most hits," Really? That's weird. Why do you think that is?
illusions posted Sat, 30 June 2001 at 11:20 AM
H0-HUM!
soulhuntre posted Mon, 02 July 2001 at 2:34 AM
Attached Link: http://slate.msn.com/culturebox/entries/01-06-28_110492.asp
Is it : 1) That people generally prefer to look at a nude human than Terragen landscape? 2) That *gasp* A lot of people come here to browse some cool art and are not taking this on as a doctoral work in evaluating your art on it's technical merits? 3) That most people don't any are as seriously as the artist takes it? I do this because it's fun, because I have use for the skills and because I can make money with it. If I ever decide to do a piece on the horror of starvation in Haiti I'll try and keep the nudity out of it. Personally, I love the freewheeling exploration. So what if some folks are working on poser porn for fun. I know another guy who has been putting up versions of the same image for weeks - I am thrilled to watch that happen. If you want to be elitist about your art, go for it. If your pissed because your not getting "the big clicks" I have to ask you why you care? Whay is that validation important to you? Art elitism is a funny thing... someone just paid 29K for a STYROFOAM CUP because someone else called it art. Sheesh - let the people look at the pretty girls and get over it.Ironbear posted Mon, 02 July 2001 at 10:26 AM
29 grand for a styrofoam cup? Er... no autograph, no fancy design, no nothing? Just plain Wendy's [or whatever] styrofoam? Sheesh...
"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"
KateTheShrew posted Mon, 02 July 2001 at 3:45 PM
Wow! I have a whole bag of art in my kitchen cupboard. g
soulhuntre posted Mon, 02 July 2001 at 11:54 PM
There was a dead ladybug in it.
illusions posted Thu, 05 July 2001 at 9:41 AM
HO...HUM...BORING...new topic please!!!!!!1
Allen9 posted Thu, 05 July 2001 at 12:17 PM
Yes, time for that new topic. It will be at least 48 maybe even 72 hours before someone else starts yet another thread on nudity. Let's enjoy it while we can.