elsevilla In reply to Stygma [2014-11-30 02:51:50 +0000 UTC]

Thank you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

elsevilla In reply to mistermoster [2014-11-19 18:09:15 +0000 UTC]

muchas gracias.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

NemesisBlack In reply to catz537 [2014-11-11 01:53:13 +0000 UTC]

As much as I understand where you're coming from with your comment, I have to point out some facts. First of all, sex sells. I know that comment has been way over used but it's true. A person does whatever he/she needs to to do market their idea, or themselves. Being mad at human nature is just silly. Sexuality is part of human nature just like breathing and eating.

You also don't need to just look at sexual art today either. Famous artists from the past also had plenty of provocative Art works too. It doesn't mean those very pieces made them. There are a ton of artists on this site and elsewhere who illustrate sexual content, but you don't see them being awarded for that. This person got awarded because they truly mastered their style. It doesn't matter what the content is, it's still good. If I drew a stick figures in provocative poses I wouldn't be chosen even if I had thousands of people fallowing me.

What I'm trying to say is, appreciate the art. Don't judge someone just because they embrace what's already part of human nature. Remember the human body is a work of Art. Just appreciate that, and the talent will speak for itself.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to NemesisBlack [2014-11-11 17:33:03 +0000 UTC]

While I agree that sexuality is a part of human nature, I wasn't, as you say, necessarily "mad" that this is so. What upsets me is how often it is portrayed, especially in the media, that females must be sexual and attractive, must advertise their bodies, must be "perfect," and because of this, they are more often than not portrayed this way in  artwork. A female should always be worth more than her body, and artists should embrace "ugly" females as well as "perfect" ones (I use the terms ugly and perfect in accordance with society's, or the media's, definitions). But this is not the case. And regarding your comment that many other artists, in the past and present, have created artwork including sexuality, but were not chosen to be recognized as this artist was, is irrelevant. Obviously, we cannot reward every single artist as worth of the "Celebrating Deviousness" award, because, duh - it's supposed to be rewarded to one person. The point, here, is that the person who was awarded with it, has an overwhelming amount of artwork involving female sexuality. Thus, my point still stands that it may have had an influence on dA's decision to award this particular artist. That is what infuriates me.  

👍: 0 ⏩: 3

NemesisBlack In reply to catz537 [2014-11-18 01:27:42 +0000 UTC]

I'm sorry but your point doesn't stand. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying about female sexuality being twisted into something that's unrealistic, but that has nothing to do with his skill level. The Artist clearly shows a lot of talent, and mastery in his style. That alone is the reason he won the award. He has other pieces that aren't sexual that are just as good if not better then the sexual illustrations. Based on your logic, he shouldn't have got the award because he had sexual illustrations without taking into consideration the fact that he is actually a master artist. That's not fair to him. What he chooses to illustrate and his skill level shouldn't be intermingled when it comes to judging his skill. 

Your point would make more sense as a whole. Mass media sexualizes everything because it's what man AND woman like to see. It's about what aesthetically pleasing to people. A normal person won't mind it and will know REAL people are not exactly like that. There's no need in getting angry at what essentially would be perfection. Remember that's the popular taste and we can't do anything about that. I'll give you another example. I work with music and run a recording studio, and I hate all pop music. Everyone seems to love it but I think it's a bunch of crap. I can't do anything about it but let things go the way they are and realize everyone has their own tastes. There's no need to get worked up about it. I'd understand if the person had completely no skill and they were chosen only because of their sexual content, but this person wasn't chosen because of that.

One last point I'd like to make is don't worry what others find beautiful. Just be happy with yourself. Everyone is different and the moment people start accepting that and realizing when they're unhealthy and try to fix that for health reasons and not just for looks people as a whole will be a lot happier. 
   

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to NemesisBlack [2014-11-18 02:32:02 +0000 UTC]

But how do you know that he was only awarded based on his skill level? You said it yourself: over-sexualizing females is a very popular thing, and I just don't know how it wouldn't have had any influence on the decision to award him. I find it hard to believe that the people who chose him didn't think about it at least to some degree; also, haven't you noticed that in the post, all of the art the judges decided to include involves some sort of naked/half naked female? Is that really just a coincidence? I'm sorry, but it does bother me that this sort of thing is popular and that people lose sight of what's really important because of it. I understand that everyone has their own ideas of beauty, but the media basically has the same idea of what beauty is, and the media is a powerful thing... It would be nice if we could eliminate all of those ideas that people have to have perfect looks in order to be worth anything. I don't really want to argue with you; you seem like an intelligent person...I just can't help thinking that sexualization had something to do with the judges choosing him.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

IronNarwhal In reply to catz537 [2014-11-13 23:29:31 +0000 UTC]

It we want to level the playing field we need to accept that bodies unlike elsevilla's women need to be handled differently. People look at those bodies and think, "That's really popular. And most bodies don't look like that. I don't know why, but it needs to stop." And that's it. Is there not much breaking down of artistic preference? I mean, yeah, it's not simple expanding artistic understanding when we're surrounded by a very specific and refined thing, but if we understand why such a thing is so appealing we may learn how to make unpopular stuff more of a norm.

Maybe there's the problem: people aren't exploring this situation with enough curiosity and depth. There's so much to explore like geometry and how we're attracted to it; how primitive preferences affect social ones (i.e. fit bodies to sustain a species); and how we convince ourselves that something is acceptable based on what we see around us. I mean, you see this stuff in the professional field so much because they have it down to science. And when you're competing against decades+ of solid, proven research justifying these trends, there's a lot to think about.

...

Brain science is cool, by the way.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to IronNarwhal [2014-11-14 01:03:11 +0000 UTC]

I'm aware of these things... But my point still stands that this is ridiculous, and we have the power to change this if we try.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

notengousername In reply to catz537 [2014-11-13 05:30:09 +0000 UTC]

You might want to read the response written on page three. It was written by a staff member. Her name is Moonbeam13.  
Sorry, bad english.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to notengousername [2014-11-14 01:11:08 +0000 UTC]

All that Moonbeam13 provided us with is examples of both overly sexualized females AND oversexualized men, which to me only makes the situation worse. Men aren't all perfect either...So, seeing "perfect" men will bring real men's egos down too.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Warstub In reply to catz537 [2014-11-11 00:07:25 +0000 UTC]

I agree with you. ...on all counts.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

catz537 In reply to Warstub [2014-11-11 17:25:14 +0000 UTC]

Thank you

👍: 0 ⏩: 0