Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Graphic Stuff
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
Of course, you are all right in your own way, but this is the point. Freedom! I don’t want this or any other site to become bogged down in distasteful art if, and I say if, it is bombarded with images that you can only normally get if you press the search button on your keyboard. Now, this is an everyday freedom we exercise. You do not have to look at something if you don’t want to. Many people have died in the not to distant past to protect our freedom, and, in essence, I don’t agree with what you say but I accept that you have the right to do so. Please don’t banish this right. You can say in a liberal tone that, in you're view, is wrong. Incidentally, I love this site, but I don’t want to be dictated too, and so quash my inspiration. To put it all in context, I found an artist on the internet, without dictating the search, now he had painted little boys, that, from a distance looked like girls, but what’s more, they were naked with their legs open. I found it absolutely disgusting, although in my mind, once in a blue moon, I think, there is not much difference between male and female, the younger you get. The pictures were good, great even. Been trying to fathom the artists mind ever since. There is a point to consider always, and that point, bad, or good for that matter, must be preserved at all costs
Posted
Oh, incidentally, they were great pictures, gratuitous, but great, but, again, I wouldn’t want to attract more to do this work, like on other sites. For the site, I found the picture offensive and was frightened that sort of art would spread on here.
I found the picture of the lady with enormous breasts very cringy, more so than the one everyone else thought bad.
On the whole, great pictures, wrong place, that’s why I didn’t comment! The fact they were deleted by the artist speaks volumes for him. Well done for staying on here, but don’t bring us down…. I think that’s a record, ha
Posted
The definition of salacious is 'having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters'. Hardly a definitive definition but one which inevitably means different things to different people. In the end it all gets decided, if we are lucky by the majority, if we are unlucky, by the loudest. I was with Robert on the issue of Eric's post, I did think 'undue' was an appropriate term to use. I did not comment, because in these cases, and there have been others on this site, I am sure some people who post take delight in causing arguments. With Eric's posting, I do think that it was the case, but simply one of a different interpretation of 'undue or inappropriate'. If it had not have been Eric's posting I doubt I would have clicked on it at all, as ignoring such things is the best way to frustrate less than honourable intentions. Eric is to be applauded, he made (in my view) the honourable decision to take the post down voluntarily, even though it had, undoubtedly, artistic skill and merit.
Posted
Nothing can be resolved online….too many different ‘languages’ spoken, too many nuances that not everyone picks up. I would say that everyone on this site is for ‘ freedom’, but it should come with consideration and respect. Nothing wrong with nudity either - here we get into ‘nuances’. It wasn’t because of nudity that this whole thing erupted…..However, Eric has shown consideration so let’s move on.
Posted
Sylvia, I have two larger pieces of art, yes, with nakedness, but non sexual…Drug affected men and women. It’s called, one of them, Just Say Yes. But no, I now feel it is inappropriate for here. Gaunt and pale, shimmery skin, as if deflated balloons in the drizzle, just a garden wall away from the hullabaloo of nose to nose traffic, and two stops on a big red bus headed for the crematorium , where children in the playing fields with electronic frisbees, breath the holocaustic cyanide of burning flesh in a tolerated drug war.
Please don’t make judgement on a man that thinks creatively
Edited
by Martin Shaw
Posted
Just hoping you don’t think that I haven’t done any life drawing? I’m okay with that anyway. Can’t force you to think otherwise as I don’t know you. But I have done a good few life drawings, went to one class recently, and others are from home. I work, so timescale is a problem. In my experience, it’s almost the same as a good quality photo, only the photo normally has better light.
Posted
Life drawing is way harder than working from a photo. A photo is once removed, it’s been translated to 2D. With life drawing you are directly translating to 2 D. And with that comes all the distractions of possible changing light. It’s a great experience though even with all the problem solving.