When porn is being uploaded to deviant art

http://x-muse.deviantart.com/art/ON-No-You-Did-Not-99416059

wow what a disgrace. Guess you can call it art, but Im having trouble distinguishing it between that and just straight softcore porn... *sigh*

Needs more filters, then it's art. *Giggles*

ITT Cloaked just discovers what artistic nudity is.

Quote from: SnakeClock;1414791ITT Cloaked just discovers what artistic nudity is.

Honestly i feel like i'm talking to a five year old when somebody starts going LOL ARTISTIC NUDITY = FREEPORN 4 TEH MASSEZ!!!

I think that theres a little difference between artistic nudity and lesbo porn... right?

Welcome to deviantart!

i'm not signing up just to see nude art

ConceptArt > DA by about six life-times.

Quote from: Cloaked;1414800I think that theres a little difference between artistic nudity and lesbo porn... right?

Yes, and that's not "lesbo porn". Their sex organs are out of view, for one thing, and disrobing isn't "porn".



HEY GUYS LOOK ANCIENT ROMAN GAY PORN OH MAN THIS MAKES HISTORY SO MUCH MORE SCANDALOUS

Quote from: SnakeClock;1414821HEY GUYS LOOK ANCIENT ROMAN GAY PORN OH MAN THIS MAKES HISTORY SO MUCH MORE SCANDALOUS

OH MAN  IM SO HORNY NOW!

Quote from: Cloaked;1414800I think that theres a little difference between artistic nudity and lesbo porn... right?

Yeah, well it seems like it's less artistic and more nudity. I don't see any kind of message in that image, any point, any moving idea that could generate any kind of reaction other than a heated argument between your pants and cock.

I mean, what the fuck is the artistic message there, huh? The "artist" isn't putting down objectification of women, nor is he using the feminine physique to express grace, beauty, strength, resound, or any of the other great qualities that should be looked at through artistic nudity in a woman. No, this is just a showboat to get reactions from 12-17 year olds who lie about their age to look at "artistic nudity". They critisize the art with how fast they cum.

Unless you can prove my assessment wrong, I'm pretty much set.

Also:

Quote from: SnakeClock;1414821

This piece does not equal "Oh No you didn't" BS. This piece has a clear message of deliberate conflict, struggle, and triumph. What message does X-Muse's piece have?

Quote from: Forget that Lump fella;1414826Yeah, well it seems like it's less artistic and more nudity. I don't see any kind of message in that image, any point, any moving idea that could generate any kind of reaction other than a heated argument between your pants and cock.

I mean, what the fuck is the artistic message there, huh? The "artist" isn't putting down objectification of women, nor is he using the feminine physique to express grace, beauty, strength, resound, or any of the other great qualities that should be looked at through artistic nudity in a woman. No, this is just a showboat to get reactions from 12-17 year olds who lie about their age to look at "artistic nudity". They critisize the art with how fast they cum.

Unless you can prove my assessment wrong, I'm pretty much set.

I think that was Cloaked's point. But I'm more inclined to call it "bad, pandering art" than "lesbian porn". She has two people that apparently only the photographer is familiar with, and puts them in what amounts to a crumby inside joke, and lets us see in the hopes that we give a crap.

If you want porn, go find your damn porn. Don't look at two semi-nude women in compromising positions on a DeviantArt page and think it's porn for the under-18s.

It's apparently categorized as a "fetish portrait", which is as much an artistic subject as anything else. This is a really crude and patronizing example, but nevertheless.

Quote from: Forget that Lump fella;1414826This piece does not equal "Oh No you didn't" BS. This piece has a clear message of deliberate conflict, struggle, and triumph. What message does X-Muse's piece have?

I posted that to show Cloaked's immature views of nudity. He'd probably look at it and go "Christ, that's gay."

Quote from: SnakeClock;1414829I think that was Cloaked's point. But I'm more inclined to call it "bad, pandering art" than "lesbian porn". She has two people that apparently only the photographer is familiar with, and puts them in what amounts to a crumby inside joke, and lets us see in the hopes that we give a crap.

If you want porn, go find your damn porn. Don't look at two semi-nude women in compromising positions on a DeviantArt page and think it's porn for the under-18s.

It's apparently categorized as a "fetish portrait", which is as much an artistic subject as anything else. This is a really crude and patronizing example, but nevertheless.

I see your point and understand it as well, which brings me to believe that if the photographer is actually any kind of artist then they were lazy and made no outright attempt at a message. Hell, if it was a lesbian shot with them making a better feint at passion it would be art. This is really low and shallow.

The photographer is just playing to desires of themself and those who would consider this "a good piece" and nothing more I guess, which is why this image is slotted away into the fetish catagory. boo

Quote from: SnakeClock;1414829I posted that to show Cloaked's immature views of nudity. He'd probably look at it and go "Christ, that's gay."

'
Got it.

EDIT: also, I think I should just clear myself up here, but I am in no way irritated or angry at Cloaked for the image. I am mad that the artist made no attempt at actual art.

Quote from: Forget that Lump fella;1414832I see your point and understand it as well, which brings me to believe that if the photographer is actually any kind of artist then they were lazy and made no outright attempt at a message. Hell, if it was a lesbian shot with them making a better feint at passion it would be art. This is really low and shallow.

The photographer is just playing to desires of themself and those who would consider this "a good piece" and nothing more I guess, which is why this image is slotted away into the fetish catagory. boo

I looked through the rest of his gallery to see if he really is that pandering and untalented. Some of his works are actually fairly evocative (if simplistic); it's mostly pictures with those two models that seem to just be made in the interest of cultural advancement of wank:

http://fc73.deviantart.com/fs31/i/2008/215/e/7/Homage_II_by_x_muse.jpg

One of them is named "Minx". When you just have one name, you're not allowed to be a relevant artistic model.

Quote from: SnakeClock;1414836I looked through the rest of his gallery to see if he really is that pandering and untalented. Some of his works are actually fairly evocative (if simplistic); it's mostly pictures with those two models that seem to just be made in the interest of cultural advancement of wank:

http://fc73.deviantart.com/fs31/i/2008/215/e/7/Homage_II_by_x_muse.jpg

One of them is named "Minx". When you just have one name, you're not allowed to be a relevant artistic model.

It's funny and a bit of creepy coincidence, because I refreshed the page to see your responce after I got done looking through the rest of the artists gallery myself.

I agree with you. I was rather dissapointed when I found that he was just being lazy. Hopefully my comment will get him/her to think about what they make...

Also, I hope I'm not being too self-righteous about all this.  :wiebl:

EDIT: FUKN NO WIEBL FACE?!?!!? What madness is this?!

link me more of his porn I can't view it because I don't have an account!

Quote from: Cut Forme Rotom;1414802i'm not signing up just to see nude art

Quote from: SnakeClock;1414821

I GOT U DOWN, MY NIG

Quote from: Forget that Lump fella;1414841EDIT: FUKN NO WIEBL FACE?!?!!? What madness is this?!

You spelled it wrong. It's spelled "wiebel".

can someone strangle cloaked for me

just this once