What do you see?

Fairportfan · Post by **Fairportfan** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:36 pm

WRONG!

Click here to see what it really is.

Jabberwonky · Post by **Jabberwonky** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:39 pm

It really should be a stereo-gram.

chibichibi01 · Post by **chibichibi01** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:18 am

I see a butt!

lake_wrangler · Post by **lake_wrangler** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:34 am

What, exactly, is the point of that?
(Not you, Fairportfan, but whoever came up with the idea to do that in the first place...)

DinkyInky · Post by **DinkyInky** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:36 am

The outline of the model is obvious, but it is a rather remarkable airbrush/body paint combo.

I rather like the Pink Floyd album covers by the poolpic.

Some people don't see these kinds of things as art, and that is their loss.

lake_wrangler · Post by **lake_wrangler** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:43 am

DinkyInky wrote:The outline of the model is obvious, but it is a rather remarkable airbrush/body paint combo.

I rather like the Pink Floyd album covers by the poolpic.

Some people don't see these kinds of things as art, and that is their loss.

Oh, of course it is art. And much talent obviously went into making it. I am not denying that.

It also pushes, in my opinion, the borders of decency... Art for the sake of art can only go so far...

DinkyInky · Post by **DinkyInky** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:54 am

lake_wrangler wrote:Oh, of course it is art. And much talent obviously went into making it. I am not denying that.

It also pushes, in my opinion, the borders of decency... Art for the sake of art can only go so far...

Why is it here that decency(nudity and such) is a push-button topic? I don't want to derail this thread, so here you go.

Julie · Post by **Julie** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:56 am

lake_wrangler wrote:Oh, of course it is art. And much talent obviously went into making it. I am not denying that.

It also pushes, in my opinion, the borders of decency... Art for the sake of art can only go so far...

I don't think it's in the least bit indecent. Heck...paintings and sculptures of nudity have long been considered fine art and not indecent (excepting the addition of fig leaves to some statues during a period of time waaaay back). Why is painting a nude body like this any more indecent? You actually end up seeing less of the "nudity" and more of the art this way.

Fairportfan · Post by **Fairportfan** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:05 pm

Julie wrote:
lake_wrangler wrote:Oh, of course it is art. And much talent obviously went into making it. I am not denying that.

It also pushes, in my opinion, the borders of decency... Art for the sake of art can only go so far...
I don't think it's in the least bit indecent. Heck...paintings and sculptures of nudity have long been considered fine art and not indecent (excepting the addition of fig leaves to some statues during a period of time waaaay back). Why is painting a nude body like this any more indecent? You actually end up seeing less of the "nudity" and more of the art this way.

And Justice's boobs during the W Administration...

Wapsi Square Forum

What do you see?

What do you see?

Re: What do you see?

Re: What do you see?

Re: What do you see?

Re: What do you see?

Re: What do you see?

Re: What do you see?

Re: What do you see?

Re: What do you see?