|7 Jan 2006|| Gemila 'princessterribel' Sultan|
What a bunch of ridiculous commenters you ahve here. Certainly, as we have seen time and time again any picture involving nudity is bound to arouse interest (no pun intended). I for one feel that these comments have little to do with the actual picture at hand so I would like to comment on the light of the moon, your talent with coloured pencil and your ability to shade fabrics.
You excel in these areas
And for everone else, incase you didn't notice there is more to be appreciated in this pic than a solitary nude figure. Moreover I believe that all matters concerning religion are private. I will say no more on the matter, people can beleive and interpret how they like, its called free will.You know how it is. The internet is the best place to annonymously heap abuse on people. I'm always flattered when people come to my defense, though
|25 Feb 2006|| Anonymous|
You're obviously not married, or else you wouldn't draw this stuff. Brian Keith Cooke
replies: "That's pretty humorous. I needed a laugh this morning "
|9 Aug 2006|| Kristin Lewis|
Gorgeous. She has such a realistic, beautiful body, and I love how natural she looks nude. I love the contrast between the green and red, and I love the moon in the background, and the story to the picture.
I totally disagree with the others, for this is far from pornographic. It is natural and tasteful, because nudity is a natural thing. Our bodies were originally made to be nude, but society has come to believe that being naked is wrong because it is in intent to seduce someone. Doesn't it say in the Bible that God made woman for man, that they became one flesh, and that they saw they were naked, and were not ashamed? To be quite honest, Brian, I think people are making such a fuss over this picture, not only to get a rise out of you, but because it is online and not hanging in a museum; a lot of people have this mindset that if you can find it online, it's porn. BS, if you ask me. And no young child would probably have the ability to "stumble" across your work on the net, which is so vast anyway. Plus, if the child did use the internet, the parents would probably have one of those spam and porn blockers that makes it safe for children to surf the net by themselves. Even if a child did find the picture somehow, the parents should have already talked to their child about the concept of sex in the first place, because the younger you learn, the better choices you make in the future. Unplanned pregnancies happen more often when there is a lack of education. Well, I've ranted long enough, I think. I love your work, and I am glad that those spammers did not discourage you from any way. Keep up the beautiful work, always.
-Kristin E. Brian Keith Cooke
replies: "Probably one of the more well-thought-out and respectful comments I've gotten, thanks They keep trying to get my goat, without realizing that I don't have one anymore "
|13 Aug 2006|| Anonymous|
I am a Christian and I can see both sides of the debate. I can see the beauty of the art of it, but it may offend some people. I think she is very beautiful and the picture is well done.I think we're too willing to throw up blockades in front of ideas we're not comfortable with. It's too easy to hide behind labels, and then to condemn people from there. (Not saying you are, just pointing it out.) I'm sure that it might make some people uncomfortable, but then, the title clearly says "warning: nudity". If nudity offends you, and you choose to view a link that's clearly labled "nudity", then the problem is yours, not the artist's. I would much prefer that people like yourself, with an open mind, would make up the majority of my visitors, but that's part of the price we pay for posting on the internet. Thanks for stopping by
|26 Aug 2006|| Crazgirl184|
I can also see that this is porny.Hmmm, I missed this comment somehow. I thought you'd gone. Maybe to buy a dictionary. Or a copy of the "Janemba Times", whatever that means.
|12 Oct 2006|| Sscreen|
I was doing a search on nudity to show a (lesser-informed) friend that not all nudity is porn. Elfwood has many wonderful examples of this, and this particular piece caught my eye.
Not being familiar with druids, I wondered what the symbol on her tummy means...? But I love this pic, the whole mood of it is really great.
As for crazgirl184, she seems to have done the same search with the intent to post as many bad comments disparaging the artwork with no actual comment on the artwork itself as she can. Very childish, in my book. You are not the only artist to be slammed by her immature behaviour.
Keep up the awesome work and ignore all the stupid people.
You know who they are.Celtic life-spiral. Which, oddly enough, is I believe also a symbol of fertility (I'd have to research it again.) Oh, no! Does that mean I unwittingly created pornography, because I added a fertility symbol to a nude figure?? Heaven forfend!
|22 Nov 2006|| Tyler|
I think a lot of people are exposing themselves as ignorant hacks...
This is, first and foremost, a very beautiful drawing. I enjoy the background as much as the centerpiece character; the symbols on the stones, there arrangement, the moon, the trees... It's an exceptional piece of art.
As far as considering this pornography, I can't comprehend why people continue to look upon nudity as pornography.
First, there is the whole historical precedent where an incredibly large portion of all art ever done in the history of mankind (paintings, sculptures, art on pots, etc) features human forms in the nude. This extends back as far as you'll find art, except cave-wall renditions of hunts and so forth.
Second, ignoramuses such as crazgirl184 and others should recognize this:
The American Heritage dictionary defines 'pornography' as "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."
This image is not intended to cause arousal, it is a contextually relevant image relating to the act the woman is about to undergo. It is founded in historical precedent; druidic rituals were often undertaken while in the nude and this is not a unique or isolated element of human culture.
To call it 'pornographic' is ignorant and is in fact an insult to cultures that pre-date our own.
Why can't people just respect and appreciate the art for what it is? If you don't have something constructive to say, don't say it, just still your tongue...
Again, I want to comment on how impressed I am with not only the technical drawing but the composition. This is a fantastic piece.Maybe it did arouse them, and that's why they think it's nudity? That would be giving myself far too much artistic credit, wouldn't it?
Thanks for stopping by!Edit: Or that's why they think it's "pornography" is what I should have said. Obviously, it's nudity
|25 Jan 2007|| Anonymous|
Actually, Eloheim is Jesus' father, and Jesus' spirit was known as Jehovah who is the God of the Old Testament. One he had been born, he was named Jesus Christ
|7 Jul 2007|| Jamesha Catherine Walker|
I see this as art. This is a very tasteful piece. No vioation of the female nude here. Brian Keith Cooke
replies: ""Violation" sort of indicates a different kind of picture altogether. I don’t really do that kind of pic at all..."
|19 Sep 2007|| 81stleader|
I think you did female nudity justice. I have seen plenty in my day, and this is by far the best, anatomy wise...Good job!and keep it up Brian Keith Cooke
replies: "Dunno if it’s the best, but I like it Thanks!"
|Page:  2 3 4 5 6 7 |