HOME | DD
ArtOriginal — hips curve
Published: 2010-09-05 11:07:37 +0000 UTC; Views: 62642; Favourites: 1262; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
thank you for the lovely drawing
All images are Copyright © 2007-2011 ArtOriginal
Do not edit, copy, reproduce, modify, manimpulate or use my work without my direct written permission.
This is not stock photo! All rights reserved. Thank you.
Related content
Comments: 392
damn... that watermark just ruined it for me. what a shame.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I really like this one. Good quality and composition + the texture of the top looks cool.
Oh, and I like the freckle she has on her tummy! ^^
Well done. Your have an interesting and fresh gallery. Keep it up!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
is there a picture around where we can take a look at the hip-girl's lats/shoulders... her back? you made me curious about her figure
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I can see this being a great reference for many an artist, and for that, I salute you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
While this artist does have talent (I have visited the user's gallery on previous occasions after viewing what I would consider a better submission), I would say that this picture is lazy.
Portions of the photograph are blurry near center of the photograph, which is a no-no. Portions near the belt buckle are over-exposed, particularly on the decorative elements in the belt buckle. While I can appreciate the difficulty of setting a mask that would accommodate both the reflective aspects of the top and the buckle simultaneously, a little masking would more than suffice to fix the problem.
Compositionally, the focal point is roughly at the navel. However, I can't find any meaning in the positioning. The blanket is the most colorful aspect and is therefore distracting. The lighting doesn't appear to have a sense of purpose; there is no definition and in fact makes the work seem more flat rather than the opposite.
The model has a lovely body. That is obvious enough. The composition is weak, however, and the popularity of this photograph is apparent when the details are broken down: It's a picture of an attractive female body. Catering to male hormones is the driving factor in this picture's popularity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
the comments are more interesting than the pic.lol
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You know what; I don't have a stomach like that (not anymore). Although I am not; what most people would define as 'fat', I do have some podge on me; but not a lot.
(apparently my weight is average for my size...Only found that out last week lol)
I also have stretch marks across my stomach from where I bore two children, and you know; I like them. I like my podge; I like my hips; I like my stretch marks and my scars, because its what makes me; me. Plus; those stretch marks are more of a sign of my 'child rearing womanliness' then the size of my hips.
Yes it's a 'nice shot' of someone's stomach... but sorry; I see these images everywhere nowadays; and sorry to say; but for me it's just boring and repetitive now.
Like Da Vinci I have more interest in people with odd forms; because it's unique, and it differentiates them from the same old images we see everywhere nowadays.
Anyways; as I said; nice image... But it's just too plain for me now.
And if anyone says "aaargh but you clicked on it blah blah blah", yeah I did click on it to see if there was an artists comment explaining their motive for this image... But all I see is another stomach image with pants...?
Nothing wrong with displaying the human form; I'm all for it... But I think something different would be more appealing instead of the same old stuff.
Why not be daring and display the human form in different shapes and sizes; the way it actually is? Then you'll really be showing what humanity is, and that the differences in our society is what makes it so fresh and revitalizing
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Fantastic comment.
I like my slightly un-flattened tummy, too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
beautiful shape c: i like your belt as wel btw haha
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Haw Haw Haw. Eidelic got ripped to shit over what he said. This looks yummy, by the way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Really? NOBODY finds meaning in this photo?
Notice how the focal point of this image is on the woman's waist and hips. Bare, well-toned midriffs are sexually evocative because they hold fundamental reproductive promise - that is, a healthy, fertile woman who can bring forth healthy offspring. The lack of the woman's face, or other parts that would meaningfully differentiate her from other women, offers a brilliant visual representation of the conflicting societal expectations of modern female sexuality and the conundrum of post-modern feminism.
You see, unlike the generations of women who came before her, she is free to demonstrate that she is a sexual creature. She is the prototypical modern, independent woman that was much celebrated in late 20th century media (see Spiceworld, 1997); in fact, some might say that she is the pinnacle of feminist success. However, in spite of how different she looks from her foremothers, society still values her primarily in the context of reproductive capacity - this picture, fundamentally, is a picture of a womb that is obscured by skin. It is her womb and its potential contents cause some certain social problems to be defined solely as "women's issues" that (overwhelmingly male) politicians and (overwhelming male) religious "leaders" spend no small amount of time hotly debating. She has no "face" because, even in our "enlightened" times, she is still an object.
But, there's more! While the picture of the woman is static, observer reactions in an internet comment board for the image serve to further accentuate her objectification. Although her image does not violate dA's TOS, her blatant sexuality inspires a division of opinion that is reminiscent of the Madonna/whore dichotomy. She is either a pure representation of light-hearted female sexuality ("durherr, shes hawt an hs a vegena b00b3is!!1!") or a dark symbol of corruption and exploitation of wanton sexuality for profit ("This alleged "photo" has both female skin and pageviews! OMG dA is ruined FOREVAR!"). The photographer, in a way that only a true genius can, has deftly manipulated the viewer into adopting the role as the objectifier.
And people say that thought-provoking art doesn't exist anymore...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Wow, you're really reaching there. I'm usually the first to defend photos of a sexual/sensual nature, but you're pulling stuff out of thin air. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but let's take a look here: It's poorly-focused, plain and simple. An amateur snapshot at best. The lighting is even worse, clearly the result of someone taking a table lamp and sticking it down by her knees creating harsh, tacky shadows with overblown highlights. Your extrapolations are pretty contrived, I feel. True genius? Please. Why, because this totally mediocre photograph inspired a bunch of teenage trolls and repressed prudes to argue with each other? Lay of the thesaurus and cut back on the post-pre-post-pre-post-feminist manifestos... konbanwa sweetheart.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I had hoped that the tongue-in-cheek nature of the post would have been obvious as soon as I included an in-text citation of the Spice Girls movie. Then again, text is a difficult medium for subtle humor, and I'm certainly not a writing genius - my apologies for the confusion. Also, thank you for reading.
To be clear, I don't think anybody thinks that this photo was taken with any deep message in mind. I can't comment on the specifics related to photography since my knowledge of the subject is limited to cell phone cameras, but I would not be surprised if this shot is neither technically sophisticated nor particularly well-thought out. In short, this image is completely unremarkable in both its content and its execution.
However, as I read the responses to it, the degree of pretentiousness shown by a number of people who posted here is absolutely laughable. Would this have been ****ART**** (note the sparkles) if it had been painted or painstakingly sketched? Or if a fat man was the subject? What if the lighting was "better"? Maybe she's just lacking some fake blood or an edgy bit of socially subversive text - quick, get her a gothy-looking rosary!
Rhetorical snark aside, when someone starts a sentence with "This thing is not ****ART****", the unspoken ending of the sentence is invariably "...because I said so". So, in response to those who seem to think that dA is the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, my post was created.
Besides, have you taken any art theory/feminist studies/literary anthropology (not kidding on the last one) courses? My bit of fun up there doesn't even come close to some of the ridiculousness that has been written in earnest...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
or maybe some dude was like "hey lets take a sexy photo of that girls hips"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
you have to love that curve!!! it's like to see a pear!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
i am envious of this bod, 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>