Blender Nude and Erotic Art

General discussion about the development of the open source Blender

Moderators: jesterKing, stiv

GreyBeard
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 5:49 am

Post by GreyBeard » Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:16 pm

You know, it's not so much the nude part that bothers people as the erotic part.
You mean that bothers you. You have no right to speak for other people. The man just posted a link fully describing what was there.

If it is against your convictions why did you click the link to this thread and possibly his site? You were under no compulsion to do so, you had a choice, to click or not to click. Since you had a choice there can be only one reason you wish to have his post removed and that is to try to impose your convictions on others. I agree that if he had posted the material directly, it should be removed, you wouldn't have had the ability to choose.
So please, discuss this somewhere else.
Again, no one was forcing you to participate in the discussion -- Why not walk away rather than impose your will on others? Does the mere existence of the topic header disturb you or is it the fact that other people might have access bother you?
While nudity is generally accepted in an artistic community, "erotic" art is not.
NaeTG, when was the last time you went to an art gallery? The above statement is utter rubbish. Through out history there has been erotic art. Greek statues, Renaissance nudes galore. What about movies? Don't you consider them an art form?

I have 3 children (8 - 12 years old) and frankly after visiting the above site I'm far more likely to censor them from some of the violent Saturday morning cartoons.
In my opinion he hasn't violated the terms of use but ultimately it is for the moderators to decide.

GreyBeard

UglyMike
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 9:34 am

Post by UglyMike » Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:54 pm

The moment I saw the title of the post, I knew Philo was in for a verbal bashing. I'm glad this hasn't yet decended in a shouting match....

Too bad he used the word 'erotic'. This really is a red flag to those who have trouble with sexuality. Has he just used 'nude', this would probably have gone by without problem because, even if the anti- league would have followed the link, they would just have seen tastfull nudes, equivalent to the nude art one gets when art students draw nude models.

Have a look at the web site. By god, if anyone is offfended by THAT, we better close shop (and maybe shoot the MakeHuman team, just in case).

Philo notified us of the type of content.
The front page of the site warns about the nature of the content, tame as it is.
The artwork itself really is nice, not lewd. (Haha, the 'naughty nurse' clip is more politically incorrect that this!)

Having seen before what philo can do with a couple of metaballs, makes me interested in having a look at the .blends themselves and learning.

The only negative thing one could mention is indeed it's relevance in a developer-oriented site. But is this enough to block or delete it? Not for me it isn't.

I'd go along with changing the title. Nude is enough because that isall that it is! Erotic is just something in the mind that gets awakened by nude pictures. One comes from the other (not exclusively maybe, but you get my drift.)
However specifying 'nude and erotic' in the title tends to give exaggerated ideas on the content. Some might (and obviously will) object.

This is a storm in a tea-cup (or is that a B-cup?)

halibut
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:02 pm
Contact:

Post by halibut » Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:55 pm

GreyBeard wrote: I have 3 children (8 - 12 years old) and frankly after visiting the above site I'm far more likely to censor them from some of the violent Saturday morning cartoons.
Agreed - There is nothing wrong with this topic as far as I'm concerned, violence on the other hand,

Antares
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 4:04 pm

Post by Antares » Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:40 pm

philovivero

why are you showing your stuff on blenderman, and here but not on
http://www.elysiun.com/forum ?

like already pointed out artwork and sharing models doesnt belong to this kind of board.

joeedh
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:30 pm
Contact:

Post by joeedh » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:27 pm

GreyBeard wrote:
You know, it's not so much the nude part that bothers people as the erotic part.
You mean that bothers you. You have no right to speak for other people. The man just posted a link fully describing what was there.

If it is against your convictions why did you click the link to this thread and possibly his site?
I didn't click on his site.
You were under no compulsion to do so, you had a choice, to click or not to click. Since you had a choice there can be only one reason you wish to have his post removed and that is to try to impose your convictions on others. I agree that if he had posted the material directly, it should be removed, you wouldn't have had the ability to choose.
I clicked because I knew there would only be a link. As such, I decided that I would try to get rid of the thread.
So please, discuss this somewhere else.
Again, no one was forcing you to participate in the discussion -- Why not walk away rather than impose your will on others? Does the mere existence of the topic header disturb you or is it the fact that other people might have access bother you?
Hm. I guess I'm thinking of porno--which has been proven to be sickening , harmful and utterly destructive. So what, is this not the same thing?
While nudity is generally accepted in an artistic community, "erotic" art is not.
NaeTG, when was the last time you went to an art gallery? The above statement is utter rubbish. Through out history there has been erotic art. Greek statues, Renaissance nudes galore. What about movies? Don't you consider them an art form?
Heh heh. . .I havn't been in an art gallery in a long time. . .although I know that there is a difference in drawing something because it has symmetrically interesting forms, then drawing it because you find it sexually fun. Nudity is not necassarily erotic, which is something that some people can't seem to grasp.
I have 3 children (8 - 12 years old) and frankly after visiting the above site I'm far more likely to censor them from some of the violent Saturday morning cartoons.
In my opinion he hasn't violated the terms of use but ultimately it is for the moderators to decide.

GreyBeard
Maybe that site wasn't pornography. If not then I'm sorry, but frankly the meaning of the word "erotic" to my understanding means porno, so I'm not going to visit it.

joeedh

joeedh
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:30 pm
Contact:

Post by joeedh » Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:35 pm

UglyMike wrote:The moment I saw the title of the post, I knew Philo was in for a verbal bashing. I'm glad this hasn't yet decended in a shouting match....

Too bad he used the word 'erotic'. This really is a red flag to those who have trouble with sexuality. Has he just used 'nude', this would probably have gone by without problem because, even if the anti- league would have followed the link, they would just have seen tastfull nudes, equivalent to the nude art one gets when art students draw nude models.

Have a look at the web site. By god, if anyone is offfended by THAT, we better close shop (and maybe shoot the MakeHuman team, just in case).

Philo notified us of the type of content.
The front page of the site warns about the nature of the content, tame as it is.
The artwork itself really is nice, not lewd. (Haha, the 'naughty nurse' clip is more politically incorrect that this!)
WHAT, you mean I went on this crusade and it wasn't actually erotic art? Just normal non-erotic non-pornish artwork?

I feel like such an idiot. Sorry Philo if that's true! I have nothing agaisnt normal artisic nudity, so long as it isn't pornographic.

joeedh

M@dcow
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 12:50 pm

Post by M@dcow » Tue Oct 26, 2004 1:36 am

joeedh wrote:Hm. I guess I'm thinking of porno--which has been proven to be sickening , harmful and utterly destructive.
I'm sorry, I have to regard this as a joke....proven by whom exactly? The bible bashers of middle america?

1) show me this proof that you speak of -- From a scientific viewpoint please, not from some opinionated conservative who has no idea what empirical evidence means.

2) How can sex be sickening? How did you get here? And how can natures most natural act be offensive to anyone?

3) Utterly destructive? to who?.....please.....Im fascinated as to the insights you will provide on this matter. I've watched plenty of porno in my time, so how has this been "utterly destructive" to me?

joeedh
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:30 pm
Contact:

Post by joeedh » Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:07 am

M@dcow wrote:
joeedh wrote:Hm. I guess I'm thinking of porno--which has been proven to be sickening , harmful and utterly destructive.
I'm sorry, I have to regard this as a joke....proven by whom exactly? The bible bashers of middle america?

1) show me this proof that you speak of -- From a scientific viewpoint please, not from some opinionated conservative who has no idea what empirical evidence means.

2) How can sex be sickening? How did you get here? And how can natures most natural act be offensive to anyone?

3) Utterly destructive? to who?.....please.....Im fascinated as to the insights you will provide on this matter. I've watched plenty of porno in my time, so how has this been "utterly destructive" to me?
I'm not going to answer you. There IS evidence, it's called "Sexual Addiction" and you can find books on it everywhere.

joeedh

Zarf
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 3:54 am

Post by Zarf » Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:32 am

joeedh wrote: Maybe that site wasn't pornography. If not then I'm sorry, but frankly the meaning of the word "erotic" to my understanding means porno, so I'm not going to visit it.

joeedh
Setting aside for the moment that 'erotic' is an adjetive and 'pornography' is a noun and therefore cannot mean the same thing....


From dictionary.com

1. Of or concerning sexual love and desire; amatory.

2. Tending to arouse sexual desire.

3. Dominated by sexual love or desire

Obviously something that is erotic always has to do with sex (which I suppose is dirty or something...), but not all erotic material is therefore pornography.

How one makes such a mammoth logical misstep as that is beyond me...

Zarf

Zarf
Posts: 46
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 3:54 am

Post by Zarf » Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:34 am

joeedh wrote: I'm not going to answer you. There IS evidence, it's called "Sexual Addiction" and you can find books on it everywhere.

joeedh
Thats a clever way to 'opt out' of the argument and still maintain (from your point of view at least) an illusion of high moral ground.

Its also kind of strange how you claim that pornography has been 'proven' to be sickening (among other things). How can you prove something that is a matter of subjective taste?

I can point you to mountains of books written on various subjects that make very bold claims and present what seems like strong evidence but in the end are all complete rubbish. Don't believe everything that you read.

Zarf

joeedh
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:30 pm
Contact:

Post by joeedh » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:19 am

Zarf wrote:
joeedh wrote: I'm not going to answer you. There IS evidence, it's called "Sexual Addiction" and you can find books on it everywhere.

joeedh
Thats a clever way to 'opt out' of the argument and still maintain (from your point of view at least) an illusion of high moral ground.

Its also kind of strange how you claim that pornography has been 'proven' to be sickening (among other things). How can you prove something that is a matter of subjective taste?

I can point you to mountains of books written on various subjects that make very bold claims and present what seems like strong evidence but in the end are all complete rubbish. Don't believe everything that you read.

Zarf
Please. It's obvious. I know that people like you enjoy your fantasy world, where sex never hurts anyone, STDs do not exist except for the rare ones like AIDs which you probably won't get, where pleasure in any form is never harmful, and where there is no such thing as addiction.

SO, GET OVER IT

joeedh

joeedh
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:30 pm
Contact:

Post by joeedh » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:24 am

Zarf wrote:
joeedh wrote: Maybe that site wasn't pornography. If not then I'm sorry, but frankly the meaning of the word "erotic" to my understanding means porno, so I'm not going to visit it.

joeedh
Setting aside for the moment that 'erotic' is an adjetive and 'pornography' is a noun and therefore cannot mean the same thing....


From dictionary.com

1. Of or concerning sexual love and desire; amatory.

2. Tending to arouse sexual desire.

3. Dominated by sexual love or desire

Obviously something that is erotic always has to do with sex (which I suppose is dirty or something...), but not all erotic material is therefore pornography.

How one makes such a mammoth logical misstep as that is beyond me...

Zarf
I've always understood "erotic" to mean "between soft and hard pornography" but since it's a adjective. . .oh my gosh, I'm so wrong. . .

And I am NOT saying that sex is bad! I am saying that sex is a private thing between people who have some kind of binding contract to discourage one of them from cheating on the other. I'm saying that playing with your sexuality like it's a freakin toy is a good way to mental hell, and that a person who is IN mental hell will usually inflict that hell on others, sometimes deliberately and sometimes unconsiously.

joeedh

joeedh
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 10:30 pm
Contact:

Post by joeedh » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:25 am

And since that link appanenrly WASN'T porno (maybe I should check it out. . .ehh, no, perhaps not) there isn't any point in discussing it!

joeedh

Usagi
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 8:26 pm

Post by Usagi » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:29 am

joeedh wrote:And since that link appanenrly WASN'T porno (maybe I should check it out. . .ehh, no, perhaps not) there isn't any point in discussing it!
It is always wise to check something out before saying something about it. You can easily expose yourself to ridicule if you talk about something you have no idea of. :wink:

jazzroy
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 9:39 am

Post by jazzroy » Tue Oct 26, 2004 12:00 pm

We can solve the entire matter easily:
here are the links to truly declared erotic art:

Henri de Toulouse-Latrec. Oil paint on cardboard: figure of a prostitute

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~xylon/li ... latrec.htm

Francisco Goya, La maya desnuda

http://www.griseldaonline.it/percorsi/3checcoli_1a.htm

Henri Matisse, Odalisca con le magnolie
http://www.griseldaonline.it/percorsi/3checcoli_1g.htm

Now the topic has to be banned!
If you want to see these outrageous erotic arts please go to such hell places as the National Prado Museum in Madrid!

Post Reply