Ben Chambers <bdc### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
: Does that make it acceptable?

  I consider raytracing to be more "pure art" than commercial adds, so in
my opinion nudity as art in raytracing is even more acceptable than nudity
in commercial adds.

  My point wasn't whether it is or it isn't acceptable from the point of view
of some people. My point was that since it's widely regarded as acceptable,
the best thing you can do is to live with that. If you don't like that kind
of pictures, then just don't watch them.

  Of course this is also a cultural thing. In some countries nudity is more
normal than in others.
  However, most art is considered universal, and nudity is an essential part
of art.

-- 
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

Warp wrote:
> 
> Ben Chambers <bdc### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> : Does that make it acceptable?
> 
>   I consider raytracing to be more "pure art" than commercial adds, so in
> my opinion nudity as art in raytracing is even more acceptable than nudity
> in commercial adds.

That depends on the context in both cases.

A woman wearing only underwear in Victoria's secrets ads is fine with me
since this is what the company is selling; however the Doritos ad where
a fully-clothed, but very sexy gal walks into a library and is sooo hot
that the sprinkler system starts is wrong by my standards.

The same goes for art.  The nudes in Gilles' pictures are usually in a
context where one might expect some flesh, whereas most sci-fi or
Dungeon & Dragon-type pics have the very nasty tendencies of showing
female characters wearing only chain-mail bikinis and similar apparels
which do not make much sense, in my opinion.

-- 
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

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote...
>
>   My point wasn't whether it is or it isn't acceptable from the point of
view
> of some people. My point was that since it's widely regarded as
acceptable,
> the best thing you can do is to live with that.

I disagree.  If we take that approach, we would never stick up for anything.
If I truly think something should be changed, I should take some sort of
reasonable action.  If that doesn't work, then it might be a good idea to
"live with it."  But why give up before at least trying.  There are any
number of examples of ideas that were widely accepted, but are not so widely
accepted anymore because somebody said something about it.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

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

>  If one is looking to the outside world to
> protect oneself from sinful thoughts, you're in trouble.

That is very true.

My point was not that we should expect others to protect our eyes and minds.
My point was that I hope to protect my friends and family from "sinful
thoughts," which means that I probably won't tell certain people to go look
at the IRTC website.  For most people it's not an issue.  For others it is,
and if I know that it would be an issue for a person, I will not willfully
lead that person in a direction that could cause them problems.

I'm not upset about that or anything... that's just the approach that I
choose to take right now unless we get a "no-nudity" version of the website.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque wrote:
> 
> The same goes for art.  The nudes in Gilles' pictures are usually in a
> context where one might expect some flesh, whereas most sci-fi or
> Dungeon & Dragon-type pics have the very nasty tendencies of showing
> female characters wearing only chain-mail bikinis and similar apparels
> which do not make much sense, in my opinion.

The problem with D&D and sci-fi "art" is that one generally
only knows the most popular ones, and they are popular partly
because they sell to young males with flesh on the cover.
This, for me, is an example of "bad use of flesh", just like
what you see in too much ads.

There are however other fantasy and sci-fi arts that are
more serious, or more ambitious, in that they are much
more realistic, and show nudity where it's expected to be
(not on a battlefield, nor in a royal court). Of course these
sell less, and are harder to find.

You can consider illustrations by Alan Lee or Ted Nasmith
about "The Lord of the Rings" as examples of such good
illustrations (and those are rather well known, besides).

I also know about some (less-popular) role-playing games
that tried to create sci-fi and fantasy universes in a more
"realistic" way. Of course, they are often played by a
more mature audience.

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
: most sci-fi or
: Dungeon & Dragon-type pics have the very nasty tendencies of showing
: female characters wearing only chain-mail bikinis and similar apparels
: which do not make much sense, in my opinion.

  Why not? That's a perfect battle armor. ;)

-- 
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

Warp wrote:

> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> : most sci-fi or
> : Dungeon & Dragon-type pics have the very nasty tendencies of showing
> : female characters wearing only chain-mail bikinis and similar apparels
> : which do not make much sense, in my opinion.
>
>   Why not? That's a perfect battle armor. ;)

There was one where the woman was naked in a jail cell, the implication
being that she was kept around for repeated rape: yes, an evil image.

Post a reply to this message

"Greg M. Johnson" <gre### [at] my-dejanewscom> wrote in message
news:3AA3AC0B.134E2E81@my-dejanews.com...
> Warp wrote:
>
> > Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> > : most sci-fi or
> > : Dungeon & Dragon-type pics have the very nasty tendencies of showing
> > : female characters wearing only chain-mail bikinis and similar apparels
> > : which do not make much sense, in my opinion.
> >
> >   Why not? That's a perfect battle armor. ;)
>
> There was one where the woman was naked in a jail cell, the implication
> being that she was kept around for repeated rape: yes, an evil image.


    Can an image, per se, be 'evil' (or 'good') ? An image that shows an
evil act is, surely, not in and of itself 'evil', no ?

--
Scott Hill

Post a reply to this message

"Scott Hill" <sco### [at] ncgraphicsnet> wrote in message
news:3aa5040e$1@news.povray.org...
>
>     Can an image, per se, be 'evil' (or 'good') ? An image that shows an
> evil act is, surely, not in and of itself 'evil', no ?
>

I would agree - however, I suspect that it's a question of semantics. In
this context, "evil" would seem to mean "glorifying an evil act"

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3aa5056f@news.povray.org...
> "Scott Hill" <sco### [at] ncgraphicsnet> wrote in message
> news:3aa5040e$1@news.povray.org...
> >
> >     Can an image, per se, be 'evil' (or 'good') ? An image that shows an
> > evil act is, surely, not in and of itself 'evil', no ?
> >
>
> I would agree - however, I suspect that it's a question of semantics. In
> this context, "evil" would seem to mean "glorifying an evil act"
>


    Ok then, does an image showing an evil act necissarily 'glorify' that
act ?

--
Scott Hill

Post a reply to this message