Rules

[brkurt]

First I was a bit distracted and had to take a closer look. My question at this point is: Would I discuss this scene with my students? With my daughters? Yes I would. There is a message that can be read. And the best thing art can do is making people using their brain. This is much more than just being a decoration. And when, after reflecting what you see, you can say: Yes, I can share this, everything is good.

I'll show you another sculpture with a similar composition and some similar details. It's from an exhibition some years ago, is called "Triad", made by Bonnie Collura. Without knowing the context (analogy to water and rivers) you will not understand the symbols. But pornography is intended here and religious symbols might be offending some people. It was a public sculpture and discussing this with my students was indeed a problem for me...

I like the way this contest is going, and I don't know if it is really necessary to vote?

Good points on the educational value of digital art. I created 'Bad Punchline' not as a photo-realistic scene, but as a working tool for my Psychology students (I teach Introductory Neuroscience).

My original point is that there is a price tag for success, even in open-source culture. It would certainly be nice if the dev team were financially reimbursed for all their hard work, and that's where the problem with grinsegold's submission begins. I doubt that the dev team is going to post grinsegold's submission as an example of some of the fine work done in MH, and that's too bad, because technically, it's easily the best of the submissions.

[learning]

is it art or pornography?

I'd say neither. Good social satire though.

[grinsegold]

I'd say neither.

There is no third option. If the purpose of an image is of intellectual nature, then it's art. If its purpose is of sexual or any other nature, then it's not. I think this is indisputable. But of course you are free to call this as you please. The point is that it may violate this contest's rules. So let's just sit and wait. Or better: just live on

[joepal]

The other day facebook banned a swedish art museum for posting images of paintings by Zorn (an early 1900s painter, wikipedia's description: "Zorn was a prolific artist. He became an international success as one of the most acclaimed portrait painters of his era. His sitters included three American Presidents, nobility, the Swedish king and queen and numerous members of high society.").

If you scroll down a bit here (to "paintings") :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Zorn

... you can see what facebook considers hard-core porn which is so crude that it merits banning of a government-funded art institute.

So... porn or art?

[grinsegold]

... you can see what facebook considers hard-core porn which is so crude that it merits banning of a government-funded art institute.

So... porn or art?

I just can't stop shaking my head. How do these people stand having nudity under their own cloth?

[learning]

I'd say neither.

There is no third option. If the purpose of an image is of intellectual nature, then it's art. If its purpose is of sexual or any other nature, then it's not. I think this is indisputable. But of course you are free to call this as you please. The point is that it may violate this contest's rules. So let's just sit and wait. Or better: just live on

I don't think there are only two options, nor that the two you've listed are mutually exclusive. But that's all terminology, of course. Arguing about definitions is usually pointless, especially about art — which is, as everybody who ever studied any philosophy knows, one of the most difficult things to define. The point is, I really like your work, both in terms of technical execution (I wish someday I'll learn to make renders like that!) and the message. It also demonstrates the abilities of the software quite well. Would totally show it to any investor, friend, family or business partner. I do not make the rules of the contest, but I would plea common sense that it should be allowed.

[learning]

The other day facebook banned a swedish art museum for posting images of paintings by Zorn (an early 1900s painter, wikipedia's description: "Zorn was a prolific artist. He became an international success as one of the most acclaimed portrait painters of his era. His sitters included three American Presidents, nobility, the Swedish king and queen and numerous members of high society.").

If you scroll down a bit here (to "paintings") :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Zorn

... you can see what facebook considers hard-core porn which is so crude that it merits banning of a government-funded art institute.

So... porn or art?

I think the first person to make a social network without any nudity, copyright or other kind of censorship rules is doomed to become a billionaire.

[joepal]

I think the first person to make a social network without any nudity, copyright or other kind of censorship rules is doomed to become a billionaire.

It's called 4chan

[learning]

Seriously, though, 4chan does have (self-)censorship.

[joepal]

Related art: http://cheezburger.com/5824545024