A tasteful nude is fine. Lately though, it's just a naked Vicki in a scene with no reason for the nudity.
There's even a certain merchant who's items I can't take a look at while at work because sure enough, in the middle of their scene renders is a naked Vicki for no reason.

As for the Hot 20, it's pretty obvious when it's being manipulated. And those who said it are right. It's not called the "best" 20.

"Square blocks painted on canvas or paint splattered willy-nilly (seemingly in a fit of spasm) are not art (sorry - that sums up my basic feelings about most abstract art, especially that of the latter half of the twentienth century)" Kuroyume i felt the same way like you did but later learned its not whats painted on the canvas but how its done.....if your gonna take a regular rolling brush and make a red line across a huge white canvas than fine ...its crap.....but do that same huge painting with say............. a pin .....and you would probably respect it alot more ......its not really the subject matter its more in the line of the technique that is used .......the same can be said about poser.....2 poser pics....pretty much the same......but one of the pics the artist made the clothes ....made the textures......made the hair and so forth ...while the other just got the props from vendors or free stuff and didnt make the textures and so forth.....which one are you gonna respect more?.....i dont mind people using other peoples props and textures.....but leave some room for yourself to add your own touch to it instead of giving credit on your gallery pics to the artists who created them ......and the only thing original person did was adjust the lights and not even pose the character .....big deal ( sorry for goin off topic abit ) nnuu

---Like 90-95% of the pictures are of just a naked woman with maybe perhaps a nice background these days. But it's worth is when you see those truly original pictures.----

It's the same way with anything that is created on a computer. Years ago, only the hardcore computer geek owned a computer. Now a days everyone owns one and there are TONS of professional programs that the average computer user can create with. Just look at how many CRAPPY web sites are out there, or all of those web sites that look the same (like so many Amazon.com rip offs)

I never claimed to be a 3D artist, but I enjoy learning and playing with Poser...the first time I loaded Vicki nude I was AMAZED at how realistic she looked, just posing her seemed awesome to me and that's what most people are posting. If it was easy enough for everyone to create a digital masterpiece then it would get OLD fast. It takes real skill and creativity to produce something that's a cut above the rest and some of us may never get there, but at least it's fun trying.

So I just say that you sit through all the "cookie cutter" pictures so that you really appreciate something truly unique when it comes along.

I'd like to see more variety. There is a sameness to a lot of the posts. It seems to me that Poser is tailor-made for one-panel comics, for example. More humor would definately liven up the gallery.

Attached Link: Real Art Here

Turtle.. ROFLMAO!~

Yawn.... Somebody bored? Oh well, lets have a go at the faerie pictures. Yawn.... As for the following comment by SamTherapy, the inanity of it staggers the mind:- "In my country, the general definition is "Indecent; likely to deprave or corrupt". Pictures of naked children usually fall into that category." May I suggest you think about what you wrote? If pictures of naked children usually fall in to the catagory of things which are "likely to deprave or corrupt.", then what will actual real live naked children do to us? Aggghhh? In fact, virtually the whole of humanity must be depraved and corrupt because they see or have seen their children or siblings or friends naked. No wonder that certain societies are so repressed, when there is such totally wooly thinking going on. Please SamTherapy...tell me that you have no influence on any decision making process which affects anyone but yourself.... please???

Is it just me or is there a pattern of naked chicks staring at the moon from behind? 2 moons in one package. Anyways I think a lot of people are more into getting views than anything else...

lol@turtle

What's up with naked chicks just staring out into space in default position riding on the P4 horse or people who post images 24hrs a day non-stop?

Well, I don't know. When you compare Nekked Vicki with other examples of what people call art (think... Turner Prize, think... David Hockney, think... Pollock...) I know which I'd rather look at. But at the same time I really would like to know how these guys get away with it. I mean, if I shat in a jug and stuck it in a display cabinet nobody would offer me 1,700 for it. Instead, I'd be arrested. Where's the fairness in that? Hmm? Anyone?

And I think Rendo entries should be restricted to one per person per year. See how many temples you'd get then.

Stormrage said ... **Who creates fantastic images? Well mine are mostly pinups but then I don't show the work I have done for pay. ** Same here, and I create MY art for myself. And I like naked women :) I don't give a crap if they are in a temple, in a bed, standing in a room with a whip. I like em. I'm one of those single guys (except I'm a girl) who can't get a date so creates Poser nudes snicker My commercial work is completely different. I've only done one single nude for money. And it wasn't in a temple or with a sword. Most of the stuff I get paid for is humorous, or scene work.

Well I should just keep my nose out of here. I am not wanting to be flamed. I have not done any Nudes, a few of my images they do not have clothes on but you can not see anything, there is a plant in the way or something. And I do tons of Faerie and Elf art work. So I am sorry that did offend me. Go look if you like at my gallery there are a few that show some skin but nothing that needs the budity tag other then some of the promo images I did to show off so characters and textures I helped make. But they are not in Poser gallery they are in the Product showcase gallery. Other then that I do Not do nudes. But you will find plenty of Elfs and Faereies in my galleries. I do not love to look at nudes, that I will admit but there are some nude art works out there that are wonderfuly done. To each their own. But do not lump faeries and elfs all in the same as nudes. Thanks. Backs off the soap box

Um, Hockney and Pollock aren't valid artists? Ay, ay, ay. I won't argue, we're all entitled to our opinions, but to voice my own, I think they're both artists of remarkable accomplishment and influence. I just saw a production of "Giulio Cesare" at the San Francisco Opera with sets by Hockney ... I wish there were Poser versions of those magnificently whimsical sets for nekkid Vicky! ;-) Pollock? OK, but are you familiar with his earlier work? Some truly striking stuff, if you like painting and its history. Sorry to veer OT but I cringe every time I see someone say things like "Warhol was an idiot" or "Legume doesn't make art, he makes controversy" or "Philip Glass doesn't make real music" or "Jack Kerouac's writing isn't writing, it's typewriting." No offense to tuttle or anyone else intended, I'd just rather discuss the merits of various creative endeavors than see them dismissed. Hm, Turner prize ... Damien Hirst? Heh heh ... good one for debate. He did some funny "spin art" with David Bowie, ahem. Maybe we can agree, there. Oops, veered way off topic ... I better take my clothes off and get back on board ... where'd I put that sword?

No offense taken xoconostle. I'm very traditional with my artistic tastes is all. If I say an artist is naff, I'm just stating it from a personal perspective, not telling anyone else what to think. I've had people say I'm a bit of a philistine in my views, but I just say it as I see it. For illustration (pun intended), Shakespeare is generally accepted the best writer that ever lived, but speaking personally, I'd rather stuff wasps up my arse whilst licking piss off a thistle than read ten words of one of his plays. See, it's just what flicks my bean, nothing more. I have no artistic pretention ;) Hmmm, what a gross paragraph that was. My apologies. I guess I never really got over going to the same school as that popular pop-art pappa David Hockney.

Pollack may have been good, but I cannot condone cans of paint hurled at a canvas as "real art". An accident, an act of natural law, just art, okay, but "real art", no. See, there's the difference. Human art is an act against nature, the construction of something from disorder or away from basic regularity (pigments, base, brushes, canvas, wood frame, marble stone, clay, whatever the mediums and tools) and forcing a sentient decision upon it that makes a statement or aesthetic by the use of experiential skill. One cannot precisely (or even grossly) control the trajectory of flying paint and whatever control there is isn't enough to be considered 'talent' (barring those who use an airbrush and possibly spray paint since there is control of a tool and skill involved). If I took a large chunk of marble and dropped it from 50 ft up, then took a piece and said, "This is Art!", would you agree with that assessment? I certainly wouldn't. There is no precision, skill, direction, and very little applied consciousness to the execution of the final product. Now, if, before hoisting it up to be smashed, I had used my experience (and possibly technology) to examine the marble and then produced carefully selected cracks and breaks so that when it landed, it resulted in (nearly) the form to which I was aiming, that would be "real art" (as well as skill worthy of global fame! :) Otherwise, it is, as I stated, an act of natural law with a little human intervention. Although there is a minute amount of conscious effort (such as which direction should the paint be generally directed), it's not enough to help it rise above the murkiness to the level of "real art." Rant over ;) Kuroyume

Thanks for the flames, Isaac. I was merely stating the legal definition of "obscene" in the UK, I did not say I agreed with it, did I? My point is, there is no accurate description of obscene, and any sufficiently pissed off public figure can (and often does) use that very inaccuracy to his or her advantage. It's a pyrrhic victory to be "right" but branded a pornographer, particularly a child pornographer, yes? For the record, I dislike faery pictures because they bore the tits off me. Now, would you like to reconsider what you wrote?

You guys are really hung up on technique and technical proficiency; like the software isn't doing most of that for you (art for people who can't draw, right?). It seems kind of arrogant to me--all you have to do is figure out the software and you're suddenly making "art." That's not art--it's barely even craft. Isn't there a conceptual aspect here that's being ignored? Is art just decoration? Something that looks nice hanging over the sofa? I have a story I like to tell in moments like these (which we seem to have here every few months): once I was at the Walker museum in Minneapolis, looking at a bunch of big, gorgeous Rothkos--door-sized canvases with rich bands of color. This guy walks up, pushing a kid in a stroller. "Sheesh," he says. "You or I coulda done that." "Maybe," I said. But what I WISH I'd said was, "maybe, DUMBASS, but it didn't occur to us, and wouldn't occur to us in a million years, to make images like these, to think about space and color and form in this way, you ignorant fuck, and that's why this guy's work is hanging in this museum and you're just some pinhead pushing a stroller."

besides the fact that people (organics) are hard to draw by hand and that Poser(high res characters) gives ppl the chance to use them "as they see fit" and that clothing is still very hard to use. and that many, if not most of the props available, in both the market place and free stuff are fantasy based. it's not a brain teaser to figure out why so many Vickys in temples, prisons ect. exist. when I post a pinup I get hundreds upon hundreds of viewings when i post non-nudes I get 10's upon 10's of hits. If you want more non-nudes leave comments, show your friends and make some your selfs. the artist shouldn't have to ask you to vote it into the hot 20. just do it.

Well Sam, let me quote what you said again. "Mosca - define "obscene". In my country, the general definition is "Indecent; likely to deprave or corrupt". Pictures of naked children usually fall into that category." The latter part looks like your opinion to me. I don't know of many countries where pictures of naked children are "usually" considered as obscene or indecent by the legal system. Otherwise almost every house in the country could be raided for the pics in the famly album. Even UK law makers are not that stupid, quite. As to public figures stiring the mud to their own purposes, yes, I'm sure that they do. Just as you tried doing in your post. So, please, do try to keep your "legal" statements accurate and separate from personal opinion. :)

"...and that clothing is still very hard to use." Not for me. I'm wearing several clothing items as I write this. No, but seriously--clothing hard to use? For who?

trying to figure out if Mosca's last statement was classifying me as an artist or software user.. People who buy my works would say artist. People watching me use poser would say software user. Depends on what you get out of it

No, but seriously--clothing hard to use? For who? Playboy bunnies dont quite have the concept down yet...and I for one, am glad they haven't :P

Isaac, yes, there is a difference between innocent family album pics - but not always. There have been several high profile cases in this country in recent years where some unfortunate has been dragged through the legal system and the popular press for taking "inappropriate" pictures of their own children. Under the current climate of paedophile hysteria in the UK any and all pictures of children or child like creatures are viewed with suspicion. And yes, UK law makers are that stupid. Now, I'll ask politely that you refrain from accusing me of trying to stir the mud. As for the matter of my opinion, I'll state it again, since you didn't seem to get it - I don't like faery pics because I find 'em boring, I don't give a damn if it's represented by a child figure or an adult, to me it's a twee image of some "sweet" creature with wings. Turtle's pic above is the best take on the genre, and I'd prefer more of those.

It's not that clothing is hard to use (except for me in the cloth room of Poser 5) but it is hard to find the right clothing. Try finding a modern skirt for Vicky that is longer than two inches. They are there but not very many. Try finding a blouse that isn't low cut. There are normal looking clothes, but not all that many compared to the endless scanty armor outfits. And poor Mike, what a bore he is. He looks better naked than he does in the clunky jackets that he is often stuck with. And do I want to have to paint all the clothes on in post work? If I had that much ability, I'd be trying to make money as an artist myself.

Storm-- Art is about what you say, and how you say it. I think lots of folks here have the "how" part down, at least within the narrow confines of the prevailing semi-realist, comic-book-cover aesthetic; it's the "what" that we seem to have trouble with sometimes--all those look-alike images flooding the galleries. There's also a disturbing tendency in the forums for people to reject any art that's happened since about 1880 because it's weird or non-representational or difficult, which means that we're doomed to spend eternity paging through hundreds and hundreds of nearly identical, pre-imagined Vic-a-likes in the galleries. My personal wish for R'osity is that we all try to think about the "what" part at least as much as we think about the "how" part--but the "how" is ultimately easier and more like instant gratification (push the button and "art" comes out!), so I'm not holding my breath.

i don't know Mosca.. Artists have always painted the past the present the future or what they want for any of that. their dreams Most work from what they know.. That's the world around them.. and lets face it todays world is a cookie cutter type thing. Unfortunantly. I try to portray the differences even in my pinups. I was actually bowled over when someone said one of my pieces regarding a punk hairdo woman was beautiful to him because she was NOT the normal barbie doll. I like to see the weirdness the strangeness. the difference in today's world. Sure I do fantasy but most of my work is what I see today.

ohh.. my point S my point is that we emmulate what we like.. what is popular. To many here on rosity naked vicky in a temple gets comments. because now it's a running joke. People scream that the pink? or was it purple pony got the hot 20 or whatever because of nefarious reasons. The true artists here don't care about the hot 20. The ratings. True artists don't care what you say about their art True artists don't worry what is said they worry only about their next piece. That's what I do.. If You don't like my art fine.. that's your choice.. but don't call most of us not artists because we use a piece of software. Poser has opened up my creativity where before it was held under by my lack of drawing ability. I take time with my work. I refine my skills and talents. I create because I want to. And I create what I want to. Most of us do.

My opinion is that there is perhaps too much "technique" and too little "story". I don't like to "put down" too easily the pictures that are posted. It's true that there are many beginners or inexperienced, but I think that there are also many talented image creators that post here at Renderosity. The problem is that apparently, many good image creators, if they have 2 hours for an image, are likely to spend 110 minutes on technical or aesthetical challenges (the best lighting, the most luscious environment, and so on), and maybe only 10 minutes on thinking about the story that's implied in the picture, and how the elements of the image can add to that story, and not only to the visual appeal. In other words: even naked Vickys in temples with swords can be ok, if you can see that they are there for a reason, and this reason is described in the picture in order for it to make the story of the picture interesting. I don't have much free time for creating my images, and probably neither do i have the technical skills that some of the great Poser image creators have, but when I make a picture I try to make either a story, or a symbolic content, emerge from the picture and it's elements. Sometimes I succeed in that, many times I don't, but that's another story. :-)

"...and you're just some pinhead pushing a stroller"

Careful, my strollers always contained my best work. :)

OK...the temple is the small indentation on the sides of your head, aft of your eyes. It's not funny, if you have to explain it, blah, ah well :)

"But I want everyone to love me! If they reject my art, they reject me. I am not loved!"

"The reason for this is of course that people tend to need affirmation, so those who have the strongest desire toward this will more often than not post the kinds of images that they have learned most folks want to see."

Okay, which of those two lines got your attention best? The emotional outcry that by passed the thought process or the more long-winded (need I say boring) clinical explanation of why we behave as we do (er some of us). [More boring intellectual stuff to follow, since I tend to be the boring intellectual type and not really given to emotional outcry, so be (yawn) forewarned of what follows. :O) ]

Art, music, etc., is no different. It tends to work on the emotion and less on the intellect. Not a hard and fast, but as a general rule we respond to things around us, form likes and dislikes base on emotional connection rather than an intellectual one.

So does it really surprise anyone that sex sells? Or that naked vicki in the temple is popular? Or that folks tend to gravitate toward the quick fix, by-pass the mental process, and go straight to instant gratification?

Art, like people, exists on many levels. Whether it be
"Fluff", "Commercial", or "Art Gallery" quality that we are going for, we as artist seek to connect with our audience based upon like and dislike, and momentary state of mood. Ours and theirs. If it were not so, we would not post our art for others to see. We share our art, we want others to appreciate the effort we make. But the length to which we will go to gain that approval differs, just as does artist talent. I do not blame folks who have learned to cater to their fans, nor fans for liking the art they like, or even naked vicki in the temple (which I have never done, and may probably never do).

I will keep doing the kind of art I do because that is what I am about, and I hope that there are a few who enjoy it. It would be nice if one day I happened to do something that was totally awesome, blew everyone away, and got me noticed in the Hot 20 or landed me lots of hits and glowing praise. But, whether it happens or not, I challenge myself to do the best I can do, and I try not to take it all so serious that I lose sight of what really matters. Taking pride in what I do and being able to share that joy with others. To me, this is what makes the gallery worthwhile. So, if only one person find enjoyment in something I have done, than the effort was not in vain.

So, keep posting those naked vickies in the temple. I will keep skipping over them, and scanning the Gallery for the kind of art I like to see. Art that looks like the person who did it cared enough to take the time to put some heart and soul into what it was they did (and some naked vickies in the temple fall into this category). This is the kind of art I like, it doesn't have to be great but it does have to show signs that the artist who made it cared enough to do as good a job on it as they could.

Well, just my two-cents for whatever that is worth.

I'm always happy when someone likes an image I've done or finds it inspirational, or moving, or whatever, I'd venture to say that most of the artists that post are ... but it really wouldn't matter to me whether I got any comments or not ... I'm still gonna' post what I want to, whether anyone likes it or looks at it. I've done nudes, I think the human form is very beautiful and quite artistic ... I've done a few elves, a few faeries ... it's what I wanted to do at the time, and I'll probably do more if the mood strikes me. If someone is not interested in looking at it, so be it. But one thing I wish I saw more of is feedback. If you're tired of all the bland nude Vickies, then give some feedback for gosh sakes. That's actually why I ever started posting images here in the first place when I joined, but never really got much at all, so I quit posting at all for a long time. Everyone is at a different level of their abilities and artistic expression ... but no matter what level someone is on, shouldn't be hampered by what someone else wants to see or not see.

Turtle, that image is so funny! Some of the images I've seen have nudity for no reason at all. It does nothing for the image. Some of these fantasy outfits for Vicky I just won't buy. Like armour suits for Vicky. Get real! When would a woman have worn something like this? And DAZ seems to have overkilled the fairy wing thing lately. Who in the hell buys this stuff? I'd prefer a nice set of angel wings if I wanted wings.

"It's a pyrrhic victory to be "right" but branded a pornographer, particularly a child pornographer, yes? " This may apply to you, or it may not. But for anyone calling every nude PT/PS render 'kiddie porn', I got news for you... You are more than welcome to view my gallery... I use the PT Milgirl mesh a LOT (I find it more flexible and useable than Vicky), and quite a few of the images are nude. Now, if you can point out any actual pornography with aqny PT/PS milgirl mesh (as in, genital contact, masturbation, sexual acts with anything/anyone, or sexually suggestive poses), I'll be more than happy to publicly eat a plate full of horse manure at the time and place of your choosing. Fair enough? IMO, the only ones doing the aforementioned branding are the ignorant, and those who have or are harboring (IM-not-so-HO) repressed paedophilic fantasies of their own. I suspect the latter can't stand the sight of a nude PT/PS mesh, lest they get a hard-on or some noise. (and no, I'm not picking on SamTherapy here, but I did want to address the point itself.) Now, since I have none of these chains upon my soul, and since I find nothing but beauty and joy in creating and viewing an innocent image of fae folk or any other folk no matter what their age, old or young (be they nude or not), I have no problems with posting nudes in either Vicky or PT/PS Milgirl meshes. If at some time I feel like working on the geriatric end of Vicky's lifespan, I'll prolly post nudes of that too (which gives me an idear... stay tuned :) .) So - is it art? I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck if it is or not; I enjoy making 'em, and if folks enjoy seeing 'em, then so much the better. Art isn't a definition, which is why it defies all attempts at reducing it to one (or two, or three...) As for 'nekkid vickies' in general, I could care not either way. I don't count clothes, I look at execution and technique. Early on, I did the 'stare into space' thing, but as time progressed, I got (I hope) better. Everyone else will as well, more or less. HTH a little, /P

Hmmm...pretty in depth arguments considering we're just talking about computer pictures of naked women. I'm afraid I'm in the "is it really worth all this discussion?" category...but I like Turtle's Fairy! I'm going to have to make me a few of those!

"You may be tried of naked Vicky but my only bitch is Naked Micheal, Gee whats pretty or creative about his thing showing." So, what's so pretty about Vicky showing her thing and tits! At least Mike has SOMETHING to show, all Vicky has is a fur ball. At least Mike is anotomically correct in that area. Maybe by the time vicky 16 comes out (and still not correct)people will finally get sick of looking at her, fur ball and all. Now, you scroll through the gallery and you see many naked Vicky pics with 100's of hits and a piece of really good work with very few hits, makes you wonder what type of clientele Rosity is attracting. Just how many of those 1000, 1500, 2000 people on Rosity at any given time are here for the content and help or just here to view naked pics.

Dang, Peng. I actually don't disagree with you. Somebody feel my forehead...

did ya'll see Legume's temple/sword/gorilla image? that said it all.

Missed this one: "Hiram: Here! Here! Most of the art of the Renaissance - paintings, frescos, mosaics, murals, architecture, music - was commisioned by some wealthy businessman, royalty, or the church. JS Bach, DaVinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael, Donatello (and other Ninja Turtles!) were all handsomely paid for their work." Mozart died young and destitute; Rembrandt was deep in debt when he died; Van Gogh was driven mad by rejection and sold only one painting in his lifetime (to his brother); Emily Dickinson lived in an attic and wrote hundreds of poems, none of which were published before her death. Aesthetic success does not equal monetary success; just as often, the opposite is true.

And I could go on and on about the schlockmeisters who've made sacks of money peoducing utter crap--Rockwell comes to mind, and that creepy what's his name, the so-called "painter of light," and that South American guy who paints those hideous round people. Yech.

So where do you fit in?

cherokee69= "You may be tried of naked Vicky but my only bitch is Naked Micheal, Gee whats pretty or creative about his thing showing." Excuse Me, but I'm an old woman and only had Sisters. I have never got over calling it (male organ) THE THING! :O). As for all"" Vicky has is a fur ball.""" Well we called that "IT"! A Thing and a It. Our Parents protected us girls, and using the proper words was not done way back then. Anyway a lot of this is just bullshit and we all know it. But it has been fun. Thanks to all who liked Punky Fairy.

I'd like to say thanks to Dreamspinner, all my female friends enjoy male nudes, glad to find a woman here that likes to work with and look at them as well.

"So where do you fit in?" Smoky bars, big cars and tattooed, tequila-drinkin' women.