Lance Birch wrote:
> 
> It can't even be considered perverse, after all, the two people in the image
> are LIVING TOGETHER. 

But maybe they're not married !  Sinners !

Well, I guess Gilles' gonna have a good laugh about it, at least...

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

I liked the image very much, and voted it to win.  But I thought it far from
innocent.

Fabien Mosen wrote:

> Lance Birch wrote:
> >
> > It can't even be considered perverse, after all, the two people in the image
> > are LIVING TOGETHER.
>
> But maybe they're not married !  Sinners !
>
> Well, I guess Gilles' gonna have a good laugh about it, at least...
>
> Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

I appreciate your concern for wanting the IRTC to have a standard of decency,
but most of us agree that it does have some standards. In the past there have
been entries containing nudity and even of one couple in bed, but usually
nudity on the IRTC is in purely artistic form, especially Gilles work. The work
on his site quite excellent, and once he did post a warning about full frontal
nudity in one of his adam and eve scenarios, and it was agreed by most everyone
that the warning was polite, but there was no pornographic content in the
image.

Josh

David wrote:

> I sent this to the IRTC people, now I "carbon copy" it to you:
>
>   Greetings,
>
>   I am very disturbed about the November-December 2000 stills winner. Quite
> frankly, I don't want to see pictures of naked women (or men, for that
> matter)! This picture should have been disqualified for inappropriate
> content. What right has anyone to post content which is almost universally
> considered evil on an innocent raytracing site!? This is not acceptable! I
> hope that the judges will have more sense and decency in the future.
> ______
> David McCabe
> dav### [at] maccom
> http://homepage.mac.com/davidmccabe/
> God is good!

--
Josh English -- Lexiphanic Lethomaniac
eng### [at] spiritonecom
The POV-Ray Cyclopedia http://www.spiritone.com/~english/cyclopedia/
"He who hebetates is last."

Post a reply to this message

First a disclaimer. I'm not joining in the bandwagon against Gilles.

Phil Clute wrote:

> Previous rounds have a
> witch and a severed head--nothing "evil" about that though huh?

Well, actually, yes, I thought it was, along with the whole idea for that
round. My serious comment from before (i.g.)  is reposted here:

> My best idea was a 12-year old kid working on plans
> to blow up his school. In his bedroom would be
> posters on the wall, images on his T-shirt, Nintendo
> games displaying, and nearby computers showing
> half-finished renderings of the following:
> :
> : monsters, disfigured humans,
> : atrocities against nature, blood, guts, dripping goo, moss hanging
> : from forbidding trees and slime covered rock walls, dungeons, tools
> : for torture, nooses, guillotines, headless horsemen, Frankenstien
> : monsters, mummies, vampires, vehicles smashing together with body
> : parts flying everywhere, worms crawling out of eye sockets and bugs
> : from gapping bloody gashes in human flesh, dripping oozing boils on
> : pretty young faces, death and destruction in every single pixel of
> : the image, and you know just plain scary, frightening, horror related
> : imagery.
>

Post a reply to this message

> Are you saying that paintings of nude women from the Renaissance period
are
> also all pornographic because they involve nudity?
        That's very true.  Nudity has been considered an art form for MANY
years, and I don't see why the IRTC should be any different.

> It can't even be considered perverse, after all, the two people in the
image
> are LIVING TOGETHER.  He is not stalking her or spying on her.  I don't
know
> how many people mustn't have picked this up, but the two rooms are JOINED
by
> an opening in the wall at the back.  You can see that light flows in from
> the TV in the left to the room on the right, casting a green-blue haze on
> the toilet and the far wall, and the ceiling, and also if you brighten the
> image a bit, you'll notice that the room on the right casts a pale
yellowish
> shadow on the far wall and ceiling of the left room.
        I don't think your point here is very well represented.  The problem
with nudity in images lies not in the relationships of the characters to
each other, but our relationship with the image as voyeurs.  It obviously
isn't a problem for him to see her naked, but perhaps it is wrong for US to
see her naked.
        That said, I thought that this was a very nice piece of artwork, and
unless the IRTC decides to change it's policies regarding nudity it should
stay right where it is.  At any rate, I respect your opinion, David, and I'm
glad you had the guts to start a conversation of this nature.

Stephen Bell
http://students.oc.edu/stephen.bell

Post a reply to this message

> I'm not joining in the bandwagon against Gilles.

I think the bandwagon is with Gilles not against him.

>> nothing "evil" about that though huh?
> Well, actually, yes, I thought it was, along with the whole idea for that
> round.

That's my point, it *is* evil. I was being sarcastic.

-- 
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.

Post a reply to this message

Once more I say, I'm not trying to start a flame war. I didn't even try
to "start a conversation of this nature"! I'm not on a "bandwagon against
Gilles". I just made a comment about nudity.
______
David McCabe
mcc### [at] yahoocom
http://homepage.mac.com/davidmccabe/
Jesus loves you!

Post a reply to this message

> Once more I say, I'm not trying to start a flame war. 

Good neither am I.

> I didn't even try
> to "start a conversation of this nature"!

I think you might have had a different reaction had you asked
what poeple thought instead of associating Gilles work with
evil. Constructive criticism as opposed to imposing opinion
may have been more effective.

> I'm not on a "bandwagon against Gilles". I just made a
> comment about nudity.

To clarify, I was replying to Greg. I was simply pointing out
that if there is indeed a "bandwagon" then it is largely in support
of Gilles and not against him.


-- 
Phil
...coffee?...yes please! extra sugar,extra cream...Thank you.

Post a reply to this message

David <mcc### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
:   I am very disturbed about the November-December 2000 stills winner. Quite
: frankly, I don't want to see pictures of naked women (or men, for that
: matter)!

  Quite frankly, I think that's your problem. No offence intended. Seriously.

: This picture should have been disqualified for inappropriate content.

  I don't see any inappropriate content in this image and thus see no reason
to disqualify it.
  Have you ever been in an art museum? Have you ever seen nudity in there?
Would you say that they should ban those paintings or statues because they
have nudity (even though many of them are just priceless)?

: What right has anyone to post content which is almost universally
: considered evil on an innocent raytracing site!?

  Universally? This is the first time I hear anyone say that nudity as art
is evil. And I have been here for quite many years.
  I wouldn't use the word "universally".

: God is good! 

  I don't think God hates nudity.

  It may be that I live in a more liberal country (we have saunas and all
that here in Finland), but I think that it's quite globally accepted that
nudity in art can perfectly be decent and acceptable.
  Of course pornography is another story. However, we are not dealing with
pornography here.
  If you have problems with nudity, perhaps you should revise your attitude.

  Just think about a similar case: The fact that some people really hate
religious pictures doesn't mean that they should be banned or even that those
people should rant about them (they usually don't because they respect
other people's views).

-- 
char*i="b[7FK@`3NB6>B:b3O6>:B:b3O6><`3:;8:6f733:>::b?7B>:>^B>C73;S1";
main(_,c,m){for(m=32;c=*i++-49;c&m?puts(""):m)for(_=(
c/4)&7;putchar(m),_--?m:(_=(1<<(c&3))-1,(m^=3)&3););}    /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

David wrote:

> What right has anyone to post content which is almost universally
> considered evil on an innocent raytracing site!? This is not acceptable!

Everyone's half right!

1) David is correct that anything that makes one lust in one's heart is
considered sin in the bible, from Job 31 to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.  Sin
can get you into __________.

2) Everyone else is right that it's not porn by any legal definition.  The
problem is that pictures of Madeline Albright or even news quotes about Ariel
Sharon liking Condeleeza Rice's legs can offer the same titilation, let alone
Michelangelo's David or nude women in the Vatican, etc.................

Post a reply to this message