Scott Hill wrote:
> 
>     Actually, I'm curious, those who where offended by the poser figure, are
> you also offended by statues, sculptures or paintings of scantily clad (or,
> shock, horror, nude) subjects ?

It puzzled me a bit, too. Not the image, but the remarks by Simen.
I only thought US-Americans were capable of being offended by
semi-nudity. 

And no, I don't think, she's too skinny.

;-)

Markus

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason <nospam@noemail> wrote:
: 'if you can't please everybody you might
: as well please yourself'.

  That's the right attitude! :)

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandluf9couk> wrote in message
news:3951e983$1@news.povray.org...
> "Philippe Debar" <phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:3951e103@news.povray.org...
> > What is the value of originality for originality's sake?
> >
>
> When you ask this question, you attack the very foundations of Western
> Civilisation and software upgrades. Commie.
>

Very seriously, I am not attacking anything. I am just asking a question.
And I do not have an answer.

but :-)


Philippe

Post a reply to this message

"Philippe Debar" <phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:39534e60@news.povray.org...
>
> "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandluf9couk> wrote in message
> news:3951e983$1@news.povray.org...
> > "Philippe Debar" <phi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> > news:3951e103@news.povray.org...
> > > What is the value of originality for originality's sake?
> > >
> >
> > When you ask this question, you attack the very foundations of Western
> > Civilisation and software upgrades. Commie.
> >
>
> Very seriously, I am not attacking anything. I am just asking a question.
> And I do not have an answer.
>
> but :-)
>

Sorry if I alarmed you (if I did) - it was meant as a joke (hence ;)).

IMHO originality cannot exist on its own - something cannot just be
"original"; it still generally has an intent beyond that. A good phrase is
"the shock of the new". Originality can force us out of complacency when
viewing art, for example. We cannot so easily bring assumptions and
pre-conceptions to something that is radically different from our previous
experience. Even if the theme is an old one, we are forced to rethink our
attitude to it. I guess that is a tentative thumbs up to originality for its
own sake, but with the proviso that originality is never just for it's own
sake - it is just another technique in the service of an idea.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly wrote:

> > > When you ask this question, you attack the very foundations of Western
> > > Civilisation and software upgrades. Commie.
> > >
> >
> > Very seriously, I am not attacking anything. I am just asking a question.
> > And I do not have an answer.
> >
> > but :-)
> >
> 
> Sorry if I alarmed you (if I did) - it was meant as a joke (hence ;)).

Hint: when Tom calls someone a Commie, he's kidding.

-Mark Gordon

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandluf9couk> wrote in message
news:39535433@news.povray.org...

> Sorry if I alarmed you (if I did) - it was meant as a joke (hence ;)).
and

"Mark Gordon" <mtg### [at] mailbagcom> wrote in message
news:39535704.62B72985@mailbag.com...
>
> Hint: when Tom calls someone a Commie, he's kidding.
>
> -Mark Gordon


Yes, yes, I got that... (hence my own "but :-)")
I just wanted to indicate that the question was a serious one, not that I
mind anyone making fun of it (I actually liked Tom's answer). It's just
that's its a question that has been bothering me for _years_ and I still
can't find a single quenching answer. When I am asked "Can't you do
something more original?", I ask "What for?"  - Not that I am asked that
question very often, "Can't you do things a bit more normally?" comes out
nine times out of ten :-)


Philosophically (????)

Philippe

Post a reply to this message