Comments: 80
goodgirl311 [2012-09-12 20:54:37 +0000 UTC]
ewwwwww
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
jackdornothing [2012-09-12 06:34:30 +0000 UTC]
Congrats for the DD!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
coolgonzo969 [2012-09-11 21:13:21 +0000 UTC]
Simply wonderful, congrats on the DD !
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
DyDiKing [2012-09-10 12:29:50 +0000 UTC]
Wow! Oo Beautifull!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ze-mane [2012-09-10 10:49:04 +0000 UTC]
very nice my comrad
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ernesin149 [2012-09-09 05:43:59 +0000 UTC]
lovely!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
thejamz [2012-09-09 04:37:36 +0000 UTC]
full of win
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
kingthethird [2012-09-09 04:30:09 +0000 UTC]
Classical beauty! So much better then nowadays beauty!!!!!!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
GothicRose92 [2012-09-09 03:44:43 +0000 UTC]
oooooooh sexy
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
SassyCassieArt [2012-09-09 03:41:53 +0000 UTC]
Reminds me of Lady Gaga~ Beautifully photo^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
shinragod [2012-09-09 03:15:19 +0000 UTC]
Ode to the still glamour goddess of pin ups: Betty Page!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
LeafyHeart [2012-09-09 03:09:17 +0000 UTC]
sexy!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oleander04 [2012-09-09 02:55:20 +0000 UTC]
Beautiful, I love her skin, so lovely and pale in contrast to the red lippy and black lace.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
sketchy208 [2012-09-09 02:13:28 +0000 UTC]
breathtaking!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
obcat [2012-09-09 01:32:29 +0000 UTC]
May I use this image for an acrylic or watercolor figure painting?
I need the practice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
hausdezigns [2012-09-09 01:11:51 +0000 UTC]
BEAUTIFUL!!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
84-29388498905029375 [2012-09-08 23:58:17 +0000 UTC]
Not exactly anything special.
How your generic 'naked woman with loose morals' sausage is made.
I suppose there's at least merit in seeing that a pair of nice tits still trumps real art.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
CreamPuffNinja25 [2012-09-08 23:54:06 +0000 UTC]
Stupid piece of crap that should have it's DD ripped off forever.
Idiots.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CreamPuffNinja25 In reply to Melonchu [2012-09-09 02:42:50 +0000 UTC]
Really? Why? Because she's pretty and is wearing almost nothing? Anyone could have done this. All they did was use a camera filter. There are many beautiful and original works on this site, and it's repulsive that something like this would get a DD instead.
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
ShesABromide In reply to CreamPuffNinja25 [2012-09-10 15:48:52 +0000 UTC]
This image did not get a DD instead of something else getting the DD, it got one as well as other beautiful and original images.
DD's are awarded to many different catagories each day. This means each day there will definitely be a certain amount of photographic, traditional, digital, and literary work.
This means if a photo gets a DD, it isn't taking the place of a traditional piece that might have been featured or anything, it's being featured as one of the photos for the day.
Anyways, good photography does take a level of skill such as understanding shutter speeds, ISO, aperature, as well as composition of images.
This image has fairly good technical skill; minimum grain, effective lighting and good clarity of details. My only critique is that it looks a little plain overall, but I appreciate that this image wasn't over edited to give the model an artificial plastic glow. It's a beautiful and fair representation of a pin-up model.
If you're offended by the fact that this woman is nearly nude, and believe that nudity is repulsive and not art, maybe you need to look up some of the classical artists' work (michelangelo, botticelli, da vinci, rubens, klimt, picasso) or even chapel paintings. Many contain full frontal nudity, shamelessly and proudly. Different medium, same subject.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CreamPuffNinja25 In reply to ShesABromide [2012-09-10 23:34:25 +0000 UTC]
I am not offended that she is wearing almost nothing. I am not offended by nudity IF you do something original. What makes me upset is that this of all pictures was featured, even though the woman is just standing there in her underwear. This couldn't possibly have taken more than 20 minutes to take.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ShesABromide In reply to CreamPuffNinja25 [2012-09-11 09:06:01 +0000 UTC]
That's an argument that can be made for the majority of photography; you see a moment and capture it. Sometimes it's spontaneous and takes less than 2 minutes to create. Sometimes it takes hours. The amount of time put into an image is not indicative of how good it is. I could spend hours crating a terrible piece whereas someone else could spend 10 minutes doing something lovely.
And there are very few "original" works these days. Give me a piece and I can find one almost identical in concept or execution. Just because it isn't the first of its kind does not mean we shouldn't acknowledge its merit.
&You have no problem with an original or creative nude piece, right? So in your opinion, what would have made this better or more original? A different pose, setting, wardrobe, model etc? If that's the case, say that. But your original comment was not in any way helpful.
This is an art site, so you don't have to like (or pretend to like) everything on it. But comments simply saying that something is a "stupid piece of crap" without elaborating on it are just as unhelpful as saying "this is excellent" without elaborating.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CreamPuffNinja25 In reply to ShesABromide [2012-09-11 19:52:43 +0000 UTC]
I didn't mean it had to be nothing like anything else, it just needed to have some sort of originality to it. Taking a picture of a woman standing in he underwear is not artistic to me. Anyone can take a picture of someone in their underwear and aply a filter to it. If you're going to do something like this, put some sort of artistic creativity into it. Examples would be to actually make the underwear she is wearing, make her do something interesting instead of just stand there (such as an acrobatic pose). This picture is dull and does not have enough rtistic elements in it for me to believe it's art. Right now, it's just a lady in her underwear in front of a plain white wall. I could do that. Each and every one of my friends could do that (whether they have any talent or not). My grandma can do that.
Hope this makes people understand more why I seriously dislike this photo.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Melonchu In reply to CreamPuffNinja25 [2012-09-09 03:29:50 +0000 UTC]
No. Not because the fact she's wearing almost nothing.
I like it because her fair skin, black underwear, and red lips, all add up to make a very classic photo.
Besides, it already got the daily deviation. There's no point hating about it in the comments, the photographer and model didn't control whether they got the DD, so there isn't a point in leaving a nasty comment to make them feel bad.
Many beautiful and original works? I'm sure there are. Go suggest them as DD's if you want shit to change instead of crying over this artist's success.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CreamPuffNinja25 In reply to Melonchu [2012-09-09 21:00:11 +0000 UTC]
Classic? Far from it.
Maybe I will. This is extremely frustrating and insulting.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Melonchu In reply to CreamPuffNinja25 [2012-09-09 21:56:02 +0000 UTC]
insulting? Are you serious?
HOW, in WHAT way. Does this offend you. Because you think it's not worthy of a DD?
oh.. poor baby.
of course, you're the victim here. Not the to the person's art you're bashing
get the hell over it. You don't choose who get's a daily deviation, and there's a reason why.
Grow the fuck up
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
CreamPuffNinja25 In reply to Melonchu [2012-09-09 23:10:53 +0000 UTC]
You know what? I'm done. I will never accept this as real art, and there's nothing you can say that will change my mind. Goodbye
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
HerMajestyVB [2012-09-08 20:59:24 +0000 UTC]
Beautiful!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
LukeMCFC141 [2012-09-08 20:58:27 +0000 UTC]
BOW CHICKA BOW WOW!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
anpix [2012-09-08 20:27:59 +0000 UTC]
Fine work!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>