Okay, so has anyone else noticed the alarmingly increasing numbers of p0rn! on the dA in general & very front page?
Nevermind, rhetorical question. Of course you have, since they shove it in your freaking face every day. Now, I am not a person offended by nudes or erotic art... the keyword being art.
Compare these two to get my point: bound2.deviantart.com/art/bubb… and fav.me/d30pzf2 . See the difference? Both can be found under "artistic nudes".
Wide-spread legs arranged in a mediocre composition to draw as much attention to the reproductive organs of the photographed subject are generally considered to be a content for a very different type of a web page, correct?
Don't view it, put mature filter on, you say? As I said, I have absolutely nothing against erotic art - on the contrary, as a matter of fact - but I have no interest in viewing people's genitalia in compositions that are less than tasteless, concept-less and shot merely for the sake of explicitness.
That girl who looks 16, with legs apart and a fuck-me look (and not featured in this journal) really did a good job with pushing me over the edge of my tolerance, which is fairly vast - concerning the arts (I do love Schiele). And if it's meant to be about the shock quality, it got old before you even started thinking of doing it.
So I have come to the following conclusion: getting a digital SLR, taking a shot of your girlfriend's crotch & doing some massive post-processing in the PS makes a good nude photographer. Consider me a wiser woman.
Well, now I want to hear what you have to say about the matter.