I have to ask you the same thing. There are two types of porn, softcore and hardcore. Softcore can depict a female in a bathing suit doing vacuum cleaning for example. Or even a female showing her boobs with a seductive look on her face in greenhouse rooftop, very much akin to this piece of pornography. Hardcore can graphically depict intercourse. Pornography = porn. You're just mad because I call something you like for porn. And I just outsmarted you. Btw, do you know if this'll get me banned? I'll give up if I get banned.
You are beyond retarded and I shouldn't even respond to you.
You sir, do NOT know the meaning of Modeling, Artistic Nude, Hardcore Porn, Softcore Porn, or women in general. In fact, I'd be sure to call you a straight out faggot because of your ignorance and moronic sense of judgement.
Actually, I AM a straight out faggot. I don't know why THAT'S got anything to do with it?
Anyway, to be more professional, I actually think a piece like this doesn't quite qualify as art. "Sexy seductress taking off her panties". I have seen plenty of nudes that I think qualify as art, so it's really not about the nude thing. IMO, there has to be some kind of story to it, or at least show some kind of mastery, or be provocative. Anyone can hire a sexy girl and buy a nice camera and take photos like this. This just doesn't cut it for me as art. I could excuse this as an experiment by the photographer to test out the lighting, but then it surely shouldn't make it to the front page?
The reason why I posted this comment was because I wanted to provoke, and I surely did. I thought it was very typical for a piece like this to get to the front page. Anyway, you ever wonder why male nudes never make it to the front page? The female nudes aren't any better than the male ones, they're just in bigger demand. The straight men like to watch the naked women.
Ok, I admit I was a bit childish, but here on the net, those things are allowed, right? I'm sorry, I apologize. Now for a different approach; why do YOU think this piece cuts it as art?
I tried my best to think up a witty retort to you idiocy, but I cannot for the life of me do it. I just can't. I just can't see how someone could possibly see this as porn. A modeled woman in a fine lighted environment. A striking seductive look that gives the viewer a sense of wonder about what she's thinking, why she's giving this face. ...hmm, perhaps that's why I think it's art. Because I can SEE the art in it. Not just a nude woman. I bet if she had a bra on you'd still say this is porn, wouldn't you? Cause if you didn't, that would be hypocritical and redundant.
Porn: Explicit content meant to entertain the audience by erotic, sexual acts. (Gives you the want and material to jack off.)
Hardcore porn: The above description, but to be more precise, the showing of sexual acts by showing the genitals in the act of penetration and other explicit acts involving the acts of sex.
Softcore porn: The above, however much less explicit. The genitals are not shown, nor is there actual penetration, it is more sensual than erotic.
Erotica: Modeling in explicit acts or ways.
Artistic Nude: What you see in the picture on this page.
What does being gay have to do with it? Hahahahaha!!! Oh wow. A lot actually. The very fact that some homosexual men find women to be lingering pieces of meat. I have gay friends, a few of them are douchebags when it comes to women. There's a difference between a faggot and a gay man.
This picture is not "provocative" in any way.
"Anyone can hire a sexy girl and buy a nice camera and take photos like this."
This comment was asinine, and disrespectful towards all photographers. This isn't a simple Pose; Snap; "Art", most photography isn't. There was work put in this and lighting is everything when it comes to mood setting, and a GOOD picture. Focus is another, timing is another. Inspiration is HARD to come by as a photographer. Something of which people like you do not understand.
"his just doesn't cut it for me as art. I could excuse this as an experiment by the photographer to test out the lighting, but then it surely shouldn't make it to the front page?"
If it doesn't "cut it" for you, then stop being a cunt and posting rediculous comments pinning the "OH NO, SHE'S NAKED, IT MUST BE PORN" tab on things. And why is it on the front page? Because it was posted at the time you seen it. dA's front page are the MOST RECENT deviations submitted. The reason why this picture may show up in the MOST POPULAR ones submitted durring the last few hours is because there are more perverts on dA than artistic judges.
"The reason why I posted this comment was because I wanted to provoke, and I surely did. I thought it was very typical for a piece like this to get to the front page. Anyway, you ever wonder why male nudes never make it to the front page? The female nudes aren't any better than the male ones, they're just in bigger demand. The straight men like to watch the naked women."
This is where your faggotry takes a spin for the worst. It has been proven that, whether gay or straight or whatever, most Artistic Nude photographers photograph WOMEN far more than men. The female body is far more beautiful than the mans body, this has been said by many, and it is true for myself and I am Bisexual, so I'm not one sided on this matter. And you dare ask what being gay has to do with it? What foolish words you speak.
And to provoke? You mean troll? You've failed at trolling because you responded to my retort with upmost seriousness. If this is your goal, to post just to provoke, maybe you should take your moronic sense of judgement and "fun" and get the fuck off dA. People like you are not needed.
Now, I feel I've said all I can say, my point has been said. Bring your bias to somewhere else. Matter of fact: gb2/b/.