HOME | DD
ArtOriginal β jeansless
Published: 2010-03-10 07:53:24 +0000 UTC; Views: 17126; Favourites: 289; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
..Related content
Comments: 73
Please, kindly put a mature tag on this image...young ones --17 and under-- who happen to browse deviant art should not be able to see this kind of stuff and without the mature tag they can. Please, fix it or I will have no choice but to report it.
π: 0 β©: 0
Sorry but I have to agree with the NOT art theory. If you look at the gallery so many of the same images, this person had a butt fascination and decided to pick up a camera. A couple of images have nice lighting but so much pointless ass indulgence in this gallery...dosen't deserve to be on the front pages at all.
π: 0 β©: 0
I have to agree with all the deviants who call this photo smut and show no creativity what so ever. This looks more like a rape scene then anything else. XP
π: 0 β©: 0
To me this looks more like an experiment with tone and lighting. There's contrast and texture and is more of experimental shot. All in all I still think black and white is used to much and is credited as art. It's a good picture but not exactly professionally done.
π: 0 β©: 1
I have to agree with you for the most part.
Black and White photos are debatable.
Although, I see Black and White as not having a focal point.
Thus, seeing the entire picture and not just one element at a time.
I like to think of B&W's as art for the layperson.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well if this isn't art then why is every Avatar, Japanime tracing, new moon and now Alice in wonderland copy considered art?! Go hug a tree you bastardized Christians.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't like to butt in, but these are comments I just can't ignore....
"Those who point out 'smut' already have dirty minds."
No, actually. Those who point out smut are those who have seeing eyes, and therefore are able to determine if something is provocative or obviously sexual in a way that does not seem artistic. A child could look at an adult magazine and know that it is sexual; not because the child has a dirty mind, but just because it's blatantly obvious. 
"Go hug a tree you bastardized Christians."
Well, then! That just completely killed the validity of anything else you just said. 
π: 0 β©: 3
Amen! (and not in the christian sense 
π: 0 β©: 1
Here is some fuel. Have a blast burning downs others hopes, dreams and desired to become an artist.
π: 0 β©: 1
.....Haha, I'm sorry, but did you actually read a word of what I wrote?
π: 0 β©: 1
It's not like we are talking child pornography, and if anyone looked through the rest of this person's gallery they can see that there are several other photos portraying the same style.
Plus he has been a member of DA for 2 years with almost 1000 Deviation.
If ArtOriginal was posting inappropriate articles I think he would have been banned or at least told about it by the admins of DA.
Further more. and I don't know if you are aware of the dictionary's term for the word DEVIANT so let me post if for you here.
deΒ·viΒ·ant
β β/ΛdiviΙnt/[dee-vee-uhnt]
βadjective
1.
deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
Thus. Coming to a site with the word Deviant in the title and expecting to find "Normal-Wholesome" articles just stats that you lack the capacity for common sense.
It would be like going to a website with "PORN" or "NUDES" in the title. You know what you will/might find on such sites.
My statement still stands as far as you people seeing sexual inappropriate content in everything.
You are the kind of people that if your own child would say "Mommy, can I go over and play with Jimmy?" you would think he is asking something of a sexual nature.
Get over yourselves and get your own damn minds out of the gutter.
π: 0 β©: 1
I did not look at his gallery. It's none of my concern how long he has been a member of this site or what his usual style is. My opinion of this particular photo not being very impressive is nothing against the photographer himself. π: 0 β©: 0
Yes, thank you, I am already very well aware of the definition of the word 'deviant.' 
Thus. Coming to a site with the word Deviant in the title and expecting to find "Normal-Wholesome" articles just stats that you lack the capacity for common sense.
May I ask why you are aiming this at me personally? I am quite capable of common sense, and I don't understand why disliking this particular picture would deem me as incompetent in your eyes. 
If this is a photographer just trying to branch out and practice their style, then my lack of appreciation for this picture shouldn't be taken as anything except a sign that they still have much room left for improvement.
To be honest, I'm not sure why you think you have the grounds to make such an audacious claim. I myself am actually admittedly very innocent for my age in matters of sex, and no actually, I would not assume anything of a sexual nature from your given scenario. My mind does not have to be in the gutter to know that a girl's exposed butt on a bed with a barely visible thong is something of a suggestive nature. Though I must wonder why you are so ardently accusing those who don't like this picture of having perverted minds. Just because they don't agree with your opinon doesn't mean they have dirty thoughts.
I'm sorry in my eyes this is just smut. This isnt myspace or bebo and things like this certainly need an adult filter.
π: 0 β©: 2
Those who point out 'smut' already have dirty minds. Your minds are constantly in the gutter because everything you look at or hear instantly turns sexual.
π: 0 β©: 1
And you know me since when? I'm allowed to express my opinion on things without being judged thank you, comments were allowed, doesnt mean they are all positive. dA is not a site for porn and people who class this as art obviously have bad taste, but what you hang in your livingroom is up to you.
π: 0 β©: 1
I want to see you people picket the porn industry. You won't get anywhere. So since you think this photo is pretty much the same as some kind of smut/porn it's ok for you to bash the little guy. Get your fucking priorities straight!
π: 0 β©: 1
If this needs to have a filter, then any image of a woman wearing a bikini or revealing top needs to have one as well. In fact, they do more so.
Sure, this isn't as 'artistic' as some other nudes/semi-nudes you'll find here on dA, but that could be because this photographer isn't as experienced. And just because this is a little amateur doesn't mean it's smut. For all you know this is a budding photographer trying to learn how to catch those brilliant shots of the human body - which, by the way, in its unclothed form can be a truly beautiful thing.
π: 0 β©: 3
I agree that the unclothed form can be beautiful, but I dont see this as art sorry. Why is it when I comment truffully people insist on commenting me and not the 'art'?
π: 0 β©: 1
I still think it can be considered art, just not particularly good art. lol
π: 0 β©: 1
Lol
π: 0 β©: 0
yes... well why don't you take a look at the rest of her gallery, see the "subject matter" she photographed FAR too many times to be an amateur, and the kind of attention all her pieces get, and then tell me that you can still stand behind what you've said.
π: 0 β©: 1
Then I was wrong, whatever. Still a nice ass shot.
π: 0 β©: 1
haha yeah
π: 0 β©: 0
A fair composition; good in a erotic way.As for the deeper criticism part, judging the merits of this piece as a mere viewer, I'd say this is not art.I'd say this piece could have been art some centuries ago; perhaps in a few centuries to go this will be art.Today it's just vulgar.The conception of art continuously change.
Nice butt by the way. :3
π: 0 β©: 0
Okay, I'm agreeing and disagreeing with the comments written. I don't think this is what people would deem "Art". To me, it isn't, but i suppose many people would put it as such. In my opinion, I don't think there is composition in it (this is from someone who -has- studied photography and its technicalities) but i do like the subtleness between light and darkness. However, I would change the crudeness in the subject, as well as their posing, if you get what I mean.
π: 0 β©: 0
Art or not - it's a nice composition, fairly nice tone, and great shape.
π: 0 β©: 0
she fell asleep and a dear friend is helping her get into her pj's...
π: 0 β©: 0
Eh...yeah why not...I'd still hit that. Naw just kidding with ya, I'm not the crude! Its hard to say that its art...but it is something.
π: 0 β©: 2
Well, compared to your Team Fortress 2 screenshots ('art'), this is a Picasso.
But seriously, it may be a simple shot, but the model totally makes up for it. What a shape.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey I'm not knocking anything...I agree the body is hawt!
π: 0 β©: 0
Right there with ya bro!
π: 0 β©: 0
Nice picture, brilliant title, thumbs up!
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm sorry, but in my opinion this is not art.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm going to have to agree. It's just a girl with her pants down . . . no pose, no direction. It doesn't speak to me in any way. If this was meant to be art, they have a long way to go. I saw the rest of the gallery too, it's a lot of the same . . .
π: 0 β©: 4
And things like this make it to the front page.. >.< gah.
π: 0 β©: 0
Then you sir, clearly have no appreciation for the finer things in life. (By things, I clearly mean posteriors)
I can see where you're coming from, but it is a marvellous picture, is it not?
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>