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

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote...
>   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).

Actually, I got a couple of private rants from a Christian-themed image I
submitted to the IRTC a few years ago.

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

Post a reply to this message

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

Nathan Kopp <nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
: 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.

  Or perhaps some "censored" versions could be used as an option. By censored
I mean that some critical parts of the image are blurred or a mosaic filter
(with rather big tiles) is applied, as it's done in some television programs.

  (I'm not too serious about this proposition; just an idea :) )

-- 
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

Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:
: 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 __________.

  In the current world it's very difficult to not to see nudity or even
half-nudity almost everywhere. Commercial adds in television, magazines, etc.
are the most obvious example.
  If seeing nudity is a problem for oneself, usually you learn to just skip
those type of images.
  I don't think the IRTC is so different from those. Nudity as art is extremely
common in artistic works, so one should expect to sometimes see it. If it's
a problem, then one has to just skip those images.
  Starting to rant about them in a loud voice is like going to an art museum
and start to yell that all those nude statues and paintings should be banned.

-- 
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

Nathan Kopp wrote:

>  I, for one, would rather have had Gilles clothe
> the subjects in his art (at least with a bathrobe or towel or something).

In a strict biblical sense, images of a woman in a bathrobe might engender just
as much sinful lust (Job 31, Matt 5 ) in piquing the imagination as a nude
figure.  As I said before, even Condoleeza Rice's professional attire inspired
mind-numbing lust in Ariel Sharon.  If one is looking to the outside world to
protect oneself from sinful thoughts, you're in trouble.

Post a reply to this message

I don't think I started "a rant"! You seem to be talking more then I am!
______
David McCabe
mcc### [at] yahoocom
http://homepage.mac.com/davidmccabe/
Jesus loves you! 


> Starting to rant about them in a loud voice is like going to an art museum
> and start to yell that all those nude statues and paintings should be banned.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

> Nathan Kopp <nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
> : 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.

>   Or perhaps some "censored" versions could be used as an option. By censored
> I mean that some critical parts of the image are blurred or a mosaic filter
> (with rather big tiles) is applied, as it's done in some television programs.

>   (I'm not too serious about this proposition; just an idea :) )

Well, thankfullly (if you think viewing naked robots is sinful), Jon Van
Sickles did so already for his one Rusty Animation. ;)

Geoff

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3a9cf5c8@news.povray.org...
> Greg M. Johnson <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote:
>   In the current world it's very difficult to not to see nudity or even
> half-nudity almost everywhere. Commercial adds in television, magazines,
etc.
> are the most obvious example.

Does that make it acceptable?

I don't mean to come across as an ultra-conservative freak, I'm just
questioning your logic here.  Does the fact that something is prevalent in
our society make it _right_?  From a personal point of view, I disagree with
nudity in art (and I think clothing, even a bathrobe, would have made the
picture perfectly acceptable), though I do agree that this particular image
is art and not pornography (and better done than most uses of nudity).  Just
because I disagree with the author does not mean I don't believe it's art, I
just think that I would prefer the image in a slightly different form.  Of
course, that's my personal opinion, and everyone else is under no obligation
to accept it.

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message