Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
×




Details

Submitted on
March 5, 2011
Image Size
17.0 KB
Resolution
99×56
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
43,691 (2 today)
Favourites
5,873 (who?)
Comments
2,170
Downloads
577
×
is not art stamp by shilin is not art stamp by shilin
ok while I keep a lot of my opinions to myself I'm just sick of this shit so I'm going to be really opinionated here and not care about offending certain groups of people. know that I'm only targeting one specific type of people

I am sick of seeing random tits and vaginas in all their speckled webcam glory on the front page when I browse, and I'm sick of hearing those people defend themselves by saying what art means differs from one person to the next. I'm sick of not being able to report these deviations because there is clearly no thought put into them, not even an amateur nude photographer can take pics as bad as those, and I'm sick to be told to just turn my mature content on because some of the other nude stuff here are actually eye pleasing and well thought out.

[edit] and are you kidding, "don't like, don't look"? do you have any idea why certain things are not allowed to be posted here? I mean while stuff like inflation art and other odd fetishes are not my cup of tea, at least they DREW them and I have no place to say anything about them. keep abusing grey areas, bathe in narcissism and disregard everything else [/edit]

And I'm going to disable comments because whatever argument or trouble I will get into for losing my composure will be pointless
nm reenabling comments because people comment on my front page/note me instead anyways!

and as someone has already mentioned very soon after I posted this there's engrish on this stamp, but I didn't save the original so it'll just have to be wrong forever ):
Add a Comment:
 
:icondestatidreamxiii:
DestatiDreamXIII Featured By Owner Oct 29, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
I completely agree. Just taking a low-quality pic of your body for the sake of showing off is definitely not art, subjective or not. There is a difference between putting thought into your work, or just being an attention seeker. There is a difference between well-thought-out nudes with a meaning, or just taking a pic of your private areas just for the sake of it. There is a difference between posting something with the intention of conveying a message/portraying an artistic theme/etc, or just being like "oh hey I took this low-quality pic of my privates, gimme comments!1!!". There is a difference, and it is MAJOR.
Reply
:iconjedi-one:
jedi-one Featured By Owner Aug 25, 2014
I don't want to see someone's genitals or nipples either, but can someone explain why we're being so sex-negative here?
Reply
:iconmltsyx:
MlTSYx Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
Agreed :/ Art can be good or bad, so long as it has creativity and people try it. It's also not only about themselves. People who take pictures of their shitty tits is showing off for 'popularity' (They need to realize their popularity will only come from sluts, though). Real artists and art are only made and create for fun, and for other people's entertainment, doing it for a fun activity and accepting not everyone will like it. Art is drawing, sport, pictures (such as pictures of two friends together NOT looking like sluts), and such, not a shitty picture of someone's tits clearly showing off. Their body should be kept to themselves, and the fact it that they should think how it affects others.
Reply
:iconchameleon-veil:
Chameleon-Veil Featured By Owner May 20, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I completely agree. Sing the truth louder, sister.
Reply
:iconcrookedalley:
crookedalley Featured By Owner May 3, 2014
Sorry about the double-post. Somehow a hyperlink found its way into my comment as I was typing it, and it fucked my shit all up when I finally posted it. 
Reply
:iconcrookedalley:
crookedalley Featured By Owner May 3, 2014
But art IS subjective. You yourself don't even try to contest this, you just sort of...whine about it. 

I've used webcams and old cellphone cameras in a lot of my old photography artwork, both because of budget constraints (a $15 webcam or a $5 cellphone is sometimes your only option when you're literally a starving artist, and you can't afford to sink over a thousand dollars into fancy equipment to take some pictures that almost nobody's going to care about anyway) and because the grainy appearance was necessary to the aesthetic and/or the message I was trying to convey (one series of old photos and short films that I did, called The Stark Life, was shot with a crappy old cellphone camera in black and white because that was the easiest way to achieve the feeling of filth and despair that I was looking to portray). Such reasons might also be behind these pictures that you are complaining about, and you will never know for sure. 

For example, say an attractive young woman wants to do a feminist piece about the paradoxical sexualization/condemnation of female breasts in a male-dominated society, the idea that women's bodies are seen as simultaneously "lust objects" and "filthy parts". She has a webcam that takes grainy photos, so she takes a picture with it of herself, nude and holding her breasts suggestively, her face cropped out to push forth the idea of dehumanization within the viewer's mind. The grainy, low-quality look establishes a feeling of "wrongness" and "dirtiness", which contrasts sharply with image of a beautiful woman displaying her beauty for the viewer's enjoyment. Thus, a state of cognitive dissonance within the collective psyche is made obviously apparent to all who view the picture, inspiring intense thought, discussion, and maybe even action. 

See why people say art is subjective? 

You have the right to your opinion, and I condemn ANYONE who would try to deny you that right, but I also have the right to disagree with your opinion and explain why.
Reply
:iconcrookedalley:
crookedalley Featured By Owner May 3, 2014
But art IS subjective. You yourself don't even try to contest<img src="cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/…" style="background-color: transparent !important; border: none !important; display: inline-block !important; float: none !important; font-style: normal !important; font-variant: normal !important; font-weight: normal !important; font-size: 12px !important; line-height: normal !important; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif !important; height: 10px !important; margin: 0px 0px 0px 3px !important; min-height: 0px !important; min-width: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important; vertical-align: super !important; width: 10px !important; background-position: initial initial !important; background-repeat: initial initial !important;"> this, you just sort of...whine about it. 

I've used webcams and old cellphone cameras in a lot of my old photography artwork, both because of budget constraints (a $15 webcam or a $5 cellphone is sometimes your only option when you're literally a starving artist, and you can't afford to sink over a thousand dollars into fancy equipment to take some pictures that almost nobody's going to care about anyway) and because the grainy appearance was necessary to the aesthetic and/or the message I was trying to convey (one series of old photos and short films that I did, called The Stark Life, was shot with a crappy old cellphone camera in black and white because that was the easiest way to achieve the feeling of filth and despair that I was looking to portray). Such reasons might also be behind these pictures that you are complaining about, and you will never know for sure. 

For example, say an attractive young woman wants to do a feminist piece about the paradoxical sexualization/condemnation of female breasts in a male-dominated society, the idea that women's bodies are seen as simultaneously "lust objects" and "filthy parts". She has a webcam that takes grainy photos, so she takes a picture with it of herself, nude and holding her breasts suggestively, her face cropped out to push forth the idea of dehumanization within the viewer's mind. The grainy, low-quality look establishes a feeling of "wrongness" and "dirtiness", which contrasts sharply with image of a beautiful woman displaying her beauty for the viewer's enjoyment. Thus, a state of cognitive dissonance within the collective psyche is made obviously apparent to all who view the picture, inspiring intense thought, discussion, and maybe even action. 

See why people say art is subjective? 

You have the right to your opinion, and I condemn ANYONE who would try to deny you that right, but I also have the right to disagree with your opinion and explain why.
Reply
:iconrobotic-mind:
Robotic-Mind Featured By Owner Apr 18, 2014
And I really hate how people pull the "DUN LIKE DUN LOOK LOLOLOLOL" card. Seriously, things like this are AGAINST THE DA RULES.
Reply
:iconrobotic-mind:
Robotic-Mind Featured By Owner Apr 16, 2014
Crap like this does not deserve to be in the front page.
fdshjfksdhjfkashkjfashkjflas
Reply
:iconyorunokatana:
YoruNoKatana Featured By Owner Apr 6, 2014  Hobbyist Artist
agreed.
Reply
Add a Comment: