Nathan Kopp wrote:
> Also, I think a lot of people usually keep their rants about nudity in the
> IRTC to themselves, too.  I, for one, would rather have had Gilles clothe
> the subjects in his art (at least with a bathrobe or towel or something).  I
> think nudity (even artistic nudity) is inappropriate for some people to
> view, which means that the audience for IRTC is now limited.  (I should note
> that I consider Gilles work to be tasteful art, not pornography.  Yet it is
> still not appropriate for all audiences.)
> 
> Personally, I think it would be a good idea to have a disclaimer or
> something on the front page letting people know that computer-generated (yet
> lifelike) nudity is visible on the site.  Also, I would love it if the IRTC
> could provide a filtered version of the site which does not contain
> thumbnails of or links to the images that show nudity.
> 
> -Nathan

I agree with theses sentiments wholeheartedly.

On another note, hasn't anyone picked up on the fact that the man is
clothed and the woman isn't?  That sounds like a contrast to me!

-- 
Francois Labreque | And a four year old carelessly banging on a toy
    flabreque     | piano is not only 'music', it's probably the last
        @         | moment of 'artistic purity' they'll ever enjoy
   videotron.ca   | before outside influences start corrupting their
                  | expression.    - Chris R.

Post a reply to this message