HOME | DD

sexypolygons In reply to augenweide [2013-07-05 10:09:58 +0000 UTC]

wow,thank you so much !

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

augenweide In reply to sexypolygons [2013-07-05 17:22:37 +0000 UTC]

welcome Piotr...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sexypolygons In reply to mbinz [2013-05-17 13:20:36 +0000 UTC]

Thx for comment!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

sexypolygons In reply to TimberClipse [2013-04-23 12:08:39 +0000 UTC]

Thank you, this is honor for me!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Disembowell In reply to ParadigmFallen [2013-04-03 19:50:43 +0000 UTC]

She's clearly not in a combat setting - who knows what manner of combat suit she might wear on a hit?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ParadigmFallen In reply to Disembowell [2013-04-03 20:26:04 +0000 UTC]

So when alone she prefers wearing lingerie? And she's in a cyberpunk setting and a hitwoman, that's a very hazardous job -- it pays to be prepared and aware.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Disembowell In reply to ParadigmFallen [2013-04-03 20:43:23 +0000 UTC]

This isn't lingerie - for all we know it could be an ultra-durable superskin she wears that's 500x tougher than modern Kevlar and weighs nothing. It could be a cyborg body, which makes sense from the looks of the target. Why is he topless and ripped? Why does she have make-up on? Who knows? Who cares?!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ParadigmFallen In reply to Disembowell [2013-04-04 00:04:49 +0000 UTC]

I care, because it sends a message I'm not too keen on. One can dress however they want so long as it isn't going to hurt somebody (lets face it, someone's gonna lose an eye from one of Lady Gaga's dresses at some point), but this is just straight up sexualization for the sake of sexualization. It's disappointing, because it has nothing to do with anything else in the image, at least from where I am standing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Disembowell In reply to ParadigmFallen [2013-04-04 07:15:21 +0000 UTC]

Let's just say this would be the perfect hitwoman to take you out because you'd be too busy complaining she has mammaries and an actual body to see the gun aimed at your face!

You must be a nightmare to be with when watching the Olympics, all those women not wearing heavy fleeces or trousers

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ParadigmFallen In reply to Disembowell [2013-04-04 20:59:32 +0000 UTC]

At the Olympics, they've got a reason, and I'm fine with a woman having a figure -- that's not in question here. You're basing your entire judgement on me and why I'm talking about this on a stereotype, and that is where you are wrong. A woman can be sexy, she can be beautiful, she can even be lustful, but there's got to be a reason, it's got to be her decision, and that doesn't mean that any artist can just take a perfectly good image, turn it into a pin-up, and then say "no, it's just supposed to be that way because it is". Without purpose, without reason, art and life are meaningless. So if she's, say, going to be slipping into a strip joint or maybe she's planning on seducing her target in order to get at him -- then it makes sense. However, none of that context or reason is given, so we're left with a questionable depiction of a female character. And to stop the next cliche argument -- I'd argue the exact same thing for a male character. Gender doesn't mean anything, that is completely meaningless in this argument. I would think someone who, based on your favorites list, likes Bayonetta, you'd understand the matter of context, message, and intention in representing a character.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Disembowell In reply to ParadigmFallen [2013-04-06 03:33:14 +0000 UTC]

I think you're just jealous, Paradigm. I have better things to do than contend with stalkers so i'm going to have to be the better man, teach you a worthwhile lesson and simply say good day to you, sir

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Aonasis In reply to ParadigmFallen [2013-04-04 01:16:59 +0000 UTC]

I kind of agree with you in the sexualization point. Nobody denies that the artist has skills and that his work is beautiful, the character seems interesting, but the suit breaks the image of a capable strong assassin.
It feels like a reminder; she might be a killer, but she's female so let's get her in a skin-tight suit, you know, cuz she's got boobs.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

PrettiPanda In reply to Aonasis [2013-04-04 04:00:50 +0000 UTC]

First, let me say that this is a beautiful piece; I especially love how the light reflects off her helmet (it hints tantalizingly that there is so much more around her that we just can't see), and way the smoke drifts from the lower corner, permeates the central background, and curls around her head. The female form is painstakingly detailed (notice the shoulders and collarbone, the shadows just under the ribcage), and her face is at once feminine and unique. This is rich in detail: I love how the somber tones contribute to the picture's dark mood, how her transparent clothing is implied by a a few seams and wrinkles in the fabric, the sharp relief of the foreground which holds the viewer's attention, as if to keep one's focus on what's important. Moving on: although the way that her body is displayed does bring up the interesting point of sexualization as mentioned by some other fellow Deviants, I'm not sure I agree with that assessment. Judging by the artist's other works, which primarily feature nude women, I'm given the impression that his choice of subject matter has more to do with aesthetic preference than sexualization. After all, we tend to focus on that which interests us. Granted, his female subjects are definitely very sensual, but I'm not convinced that equates to female objectification and valuation of women on the basis their sexual merit. Also, the artist stated on his profile that his profession "consisted mainly of modelling characters" and though I'm no expert, I beleive that artists often create the basic, naked form of the character before adding such details as hair and clothes. So yes, he creates a lot of naked women. And he does it very, very well.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aonasis In reply to PrettiPanda [2013-04-04 08:44:59 +0000 UTC]

I think nobody questions the artist's ability, the work s indeed beautifully made, it's the concept that is a bit problematic.
Aesthetics are very important, the way an image, a concept, is portrayed is very important, and though I don't believe that the artist wanted to create a objectified image he saddly did.
We see this in many media, but take advertisment: many ads feature "beautiful women", as you put it, and while the image might be pleasant to look at that doesn't mean that its lesss objectifiying or sexualizing.
My basic point is that, while beautifully made, the image is still objectifying women, the artist probably didn't intend to do so, but the aesthetic is geared toward this, towards portraying the body of a woman as an object of desire and nothing more.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ParadigmFallen In reply to Aonasis [2013-04-04 02:17:18 +0000 UTC]

Exactly! Ty!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

L4D2girl613 In reply to spikdsktchrt911 [2013-04-04 01:16:04 +0000 UTC]

This is 3D. c: Unless you already know that,I believe this is a self made model.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0