Female figure on curved up background (not suited for work)

Jackson

With all due respect, I firmly disagree. If Christ's renders would have been pornographic, then you'd have a valid point. But are they pornographic? In my opinion: no. They merely show a naked body. Nothing wrong with that: the nude has been an artistic genre for centuries.

Maybe it's because I studied art, but these images seem fairly 'common' to me. They're just your average tasteful, even bourgeois nudes. (Not meaning to insult you here, Christ.)

I also studied at art school for 7 years so I'm by no means prudish when it comes to artistic nudes. Please note my criticism was directed at only two of the images: the ones that are centred predominately on the genital area of the figure. If you were to analyse these images from an artistic standpoint, the choice of "camera" angle is vital in interpreting them, so my criticism is valid IMO. Maybe I'm being more critical than others as I used to frequent the Renderosity forums a lot for Vue tips and was frustrated by the overwhelming number of renders there of nude and lingerie-clad female Poser figures (usually unrealistically skinny, with enormous breasts and practically teenage faces ). There is no doubt in my mind that the renders on Renderosity are soft porn and frankly made what was otherwise a very good CG forum feel somewhat tacky and creepy. I'm not saying that Christ's renders fall into that category, but judging by Renderosity it's a fine line when nude renders start being posted before they start flooding in and their content becomes more questionable.

@kwistenbiebel said:

Personally I had it with the negative comments from the moderators.
Too much nude, not enough Sketchup...
Anything else?
You're pushing me away here.
Christ, I don't know what to say other than what's wrong with a bit of negative criticism, whether it's from moderators or not? You can hardly say we're being unfair as we've praised your other work plenty of times. Coen's criticism of posting images of purely imported geometry is valid- this is an SU site, so geometry created solely in other software is not really relevant here. Of course we all import and export stuff, floor plans, topography, figures, etc, but when the entire featured geometry wasn't in any way modelled in SU then this isn't really the place for it.

Like "Stinkie" you seem to have misread my post and assumed I have some issue with "too much nude"- it's nothing to do with "too much nude"; if I must spell it out I felt there was too much focus on the perineum in the 1st image and on the vulva in that 4th to be tasteful.

@kwistenbiebel said:

if people would find this last image to be offensive I'll kindly remove it. (I hope not though).
So why the threat of "You're pushing me away here." when I post some criticism of it? I didn't even ask you to remove it!

Seriously, this shouldn't turn into a big deal, it's simply a minor reminder from one moderator that posted work should be SU based and a criticism from me (in a non-moderator role) regarding the camera angle in a couple of renders.

Stinkie

"Please note my criticism was directed at only two of the images: the ones that are centred predominately on the genital area of the figure. If you were to analyse these images from an artistic standpoint, the choice of "camera" angle is vital in interpreting them, so my criticism is valid IMO."

I have no problem with a render centering on the vulva. That certainly has to do with all the nude drawing I had to do in highschool and at the academy. To me, a drawing, painting or render of a vulva is no different from one of, say, a shoulder. This may sound strange to some, but I'm serious.

"Maybe I'm being more critical than others as I used to frequent the Renderosity forums a lot for Vue tips and was frustrated by the overwhelming number of renders there of nude and lingerie-clad female Poser figures (usually unrealistically skinny, with enormous breasts and practically teenage faces ). There is no doubt in my mind that the renders on Renderosity are soft porn and frankly made what was otherwise a very good CG forum feel somewhat tacky and creepy. I'm not saying that Christ's renders fall into that category, but judging by Renderosity it's a fine line when nude renders start being posted before they start flooding in and their content becomes more questionable."

I see your point. I even agree. It is a fine line. But, as you've probably guessed, I don't think Christ crossed it. I may be some sort of deviant, but when I looked at the images, I didn't go "oooh, ssssexyyy!". No, I was genuinely surprised by the quality of the render. What distuingishes Christ's image from porn, IMO, is a certain ... tenderness.

"Like "Stinkie" you seem to have misread my post and assumed I have some issue with "too much nude"- it's nothing to do with "too much nude"; if I must spell it out I felt there was too much focus on the perineum in the 1st image and on the vulva in that 4th to be tasteful."

I didn't misread. I know exactly what you meant. Again, the vulva is just another part of the body, ready to be srutinized by the artist. I don't mean this as a derogatory remark, but I find it quite strange to lump parts of the human anatomy into moral categories. This one's tasteful, that one's not. Seems a bit primitive to me. (I know this sounds a bit rude. I apologise for that: if this were a Dutch forum, I'd probably be able to bring my point across in a much more subtle way.) Magical thinking, you know?

Jackson

@unknownuser said:

I didn't misread. I know exactly what you meant. Again, the vulva is just another part of the body, ready to be srutinized by the artist. I don't mean this as a derogatory remark, but I find it quite strange to lump parts of the human anatomy into moral categories. This one's tasteful, that one's not. Seems a bit primitive to me. (I know this sounds a bit rude. I apologise for that: if this were a Dutch forum, I'd probably be able to bring my point across in a much more subtle way.) Magical thinking, you know?
You put your point across extremely well actually; your username belies your intellect! Regarding "I find it quite strange to lump parts of the human anatomy into moral categories", I couldn't agree more however you obviously understand that all art must be analysed contextually. If a female artist creates images or sculptures of female genitalia it would be highly unlikely that she is doing so with an intent to degrade or objectify women. If a male artist created identical artwork we have to analyse it differently (or do we? Discuss! ) as there is an entirely different implication in the context of the male gender traditionally having dominated and objectified the female gender.

I would suggest that even the greatest artists (and their patrons) tend towards objectification (i.e. lumping parts of the human anatomy into moral categories)- how many of Michaelango, Canova or Rodin's sculptures feature elderly figures, or flat-chested females, or short men? There is a massive imbalance towards young, large-breasted females (although Michaelangelo personally may have tended towards male figures for obvious reasons). Looking at the endlessly repetitive and unrealistically proportioned renders over at Renderosity it is clearly implied being old or having small breasts for example is somehow un-feminine- a notion which should be offensive to everyone. All I'm saying is if we shouldn't interpret body parts as having distinct meanings then why are so many nude images focussed on the breasts, backside or genitalia and the female rather than male body? There's very clearly an intent there, one which I find a little tasteless unless it's intellectually justified.

kwistenbiebel

"There's very clearly an intent there, one which I find a little tasteless unless it's intellectually justified."

Well Jackson,
I am not going to say that the things I do are always intellectually justified.
It probably isn't all of the time.

Here's a mockup of a playboy magazine I did some months ago.
It was meant humorous....and to celebrate the Podium community at that time for becoming a lively bunch of people.

kwistenbiebel

@jackson said:

All I'm saying is if we shouldn't interpret certain body parts as being distinct then why are so many images deemed to be non-pornographic focussed on the breasts, backside or genitalia and the female rather than male body?

Just for you Jackson! (Did this one several months ago).

Y...M...C....A

Stinkie

“If a male artist created identical artwork we have to analyse it differently (or do we? Discuss! ) as there is an entirely different implication in the context of the male gender traditionally having dominated and objectified the female gender.”

Again, I see your point. But this time I disagree. I think it’s quite possible for a male artist to, for instance, work on a female nude without other than artistic thoughts coming into play. After a while, that is. I did my first nude when I was fourteen. First thing I thought was: yay, titties!. That lasted for about ten minutes. After that, it was just work. We had both male and female models, by the way. Made no difference to me. (Well, there was one little difference: men were easier to do.)

Concerning intellectual justification: as far as art is concerned, there’s no need for that, I believe. Besides it’s own means, art doesn’t need anything. Paint, marble: they don’t need meaning or justification. In other words: art can do without crutches.

But is Biebel’s render art? No, and he knows that. He’s a smart guy. Did I nevertheless enjoy looking at it? Yes, I did. For a minute there, I thought it was a photo. I took great pleasure in it’s technical er ... whatever the word is. You get my point.

Are his images porn? No. This I know for a fact: as I looked at them, no blood was being transported rapidly to my nether regions. Sometimes reason falls short, and you have to rely on other means of understanding the world. Did you feel blood rushing, Jackson? I’m guessing: no. So: not porn. And therefore just another ‘normal’ nude.

kwistenbiebel

Yep, Stinkie really is a smart and witty guy.

I must admit I am having fun in seeing people react 'funny' when they see nude,yet harmless, images.

Still waiting for a moderator to jump in and say:
"Keep on moving people,...nothing to see here"

Stinkie

lol! Not smart enough to figure out how V-Ray works, however.

Oh yes, before I forget. I’ve read through the posts on imported geometry. First of all: relax, everybody.

And second: SU is much more than a tool to create ‘native’ SU geometry. For many of us, it’s also a tool for modifying stuff that was made with other modeling apps.

Take me. I like to use a high poly model every now and then. I couldn’t possibly alter (scale, texture ...) such a model in any other app than SU.

My point? The very fact that people use SU to modify geometry created in other apps is a good argument for SU’s usability and versatility.

Gaieus

@unknownuser said:

Still waiting for a moderator to jump in and say:
"Keep on moving people,...nothing to see here"

Why? I kind of enjoy reading all different thoughts, opinions and ideas about art - as long as it is in a manner that everyone respects other's opinions...

I have deliberately not posted in this thread so far because I did not want to be seen as a modposting. And I don't even want to post under an "alias". Too bad that mods are often not taken for also just "members" who can share their ideas without being "badged" and weighed as expressing some "official" standpoint of the forums.

CraigD

Beautiful renders, and artfully done. Provocative art is what art is all about IMO. I was raised by an Artist (still life, oil on canvas, medium to large format) and my mom would always ask me what thoughts a piece would provoke. ...if it did not provoke any thought or emotion, then it's not very good.

I respect this forum, its contributers and its moderators very much. The ability to share provocative art, discuss it professionally, and have the moderators paying keen attention with thoughts of inclusion versus misinterpretation is the balance of life. No risks, no rewards. A sheltered life, is not a life.

I only wish the moderators were given a bit more freedom for being human as well as working to make sure there is balance here. Please, let's give them all the freedom to take risks as well, and lets keep this place a safe place to make mistakes and push boundaries. It's the spice of life I think!

Keep up the good work; artistically, emotionally, intellectually, and professionally!

Thanks for sharing!

- CraigD

P.S. That being said, if I could render like that, I'd never leave the house! ...that's a joke guys...

tomsdesk

@gaieus said:

Too bad that mods are often not taken for also just "members" who can share their ideas without being "badged" and weighed as expressing some "official" standpoint of the forums.

I too think this a bad thing...I have grown to respect and value the thoughts and opinions of most of the mods here, and wish/want their involvement in threads could/would be as "lively" as they (the ones I respect, at least :`) choose.

But the truth of the matter is with the power to invoke change comes the possible presumption of an implied "scold" or evocative threat. Unfair, but true.

There must be a way for you guys to "put-down" that lerking fear before it grabs the minds of us commoners...? I do hope you find and implement it soon, I really would like to hear more of/from some of you!