/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

Nice, followed.

>>3165666
Learn to paint and use muted colors. Krenz also has a similar style and is more prolific if you want to copy him as well

Loomis.

>>3165666
Become a God.

>>3165666

Follow Krenz tutorials and be a pedo.

>>3165666
ez i'll pm you the answer

how do i draw like as109 bros?

>>3165690
KEK

>>3165690
haha, this

>>3165690

seems about right

>>3165666
how is this shit even legal?

>>3165816
>drawings should be illegal (not the ones I make, though, only other people's)
>not even sexual

Kill yourself

>>3165820
Noit saying drawings shoiuld be illegal, but that pic is most defs sexual. Look at her posing, the artist too the time to render her "underboob" and a nipple, and look at the caption. The whole thing reaks of pedophilia.

>>3165816
>>3165828
FUCK OFF TO TUMBLR YOU DUMB UGLY WHALE. This is 4chan not your safe space.

>>3165828
I dont think i have seen such a normal fag infestation the likes of this magnitude ever.

>oh no! Someone stop them from drawing underboobs and nipples! It reeks of evil spoopy racist sexist nazi pedos out to hurt children!

The absolute state of /ic/ fuxking hell.

>>3165816
being stupid should be illegal

>>3165816
>>3165828
>"I would much rather have a pedo rape irl kids than fapping to drawings on paper"

>>3165828
>the artist too the time to render her "underboob" and a nipple

Does this mean that all detailed anatomy studies are sexual?

>>3165828
>but that pic is most defs sexual.
It's really not, quit projecting. Alphonse is lolicon as fuck but come on.

His beach series, however..

>>3165828
>the artist too the time to render her "underboob" and a nipple,
by that logic, anyone drawing genitalia in a life drawing class is either gay or lesbo

>>3165816
>>3165828
>girls don't have boobs until they're 18
How is it possible to be this retarded?

>>3165848
reminds of Leyendecker for some reason

>>3165853
He wraps his strokes along the form/follows the long axis of the forms with controlled, minimal brush strokes. Very close to Leyendecker.

Uninitiated here.
Who is alphonse?

>>3165855
lol no

>>3165828

babbys first time on the internet lol

>>3165872
ty for confirming to us you have no idea how to draw if you can't see this kind of things

>>3165666
>>3165848
>dem strokes
Wonder how long it takes him, feels very deliberate.

>>3165855
What a bunch of bullshit. You have no idea what you are taking about. Just stop it.

>>3165855
Not really

He mostly paints along the long axis of the form.
Look at the thighs and the foot.

I'm onto you OP
First Murata, now Alphonse. I think I know who is next and you better STOP making bait lest you lose all your drawing equipment

>>3165915
>I think I know who is next
who? asking for a friend

>>3165918
Probably Rustle or Takamichi

>>3165845
Dumb anon! Its best to have pedos repress their desires! They arent human and should be allowed NO virtual outlet! Including shitty anime art /s

>>3165937
>another western art cuck calling another artist bad simply because it's anime

>>3165910
Same
>>3165911
Yes, I said that.

Have some more anime pussy

>>3165965
Is it anime if it's not in motion?

>>3165968
Ain't that a real noggin' knocker.

>>3165968
yes and no.

>>3165977
What do you call these kinds of colors with random greens and purples?

>>3165979
It isn't random, it's just exaggerated color temperature. Relative to the lighting situation, you can exaggerate the hues as much as you'd like as long as the colors you select are the right temperature and the right value.

>>3165666
No you should only emulate his approach to rendering, ditch the anime style, anime and realism don't mix up well in general,??????? profit. (But if you draw CP, you might get censored a lot more though.)

>>3165979
pretension

>>3165996
She looks like a supervillain.

>>3165816

See? this is what happens when you crosspost from tumblr..

>>3165996
Yeah OP, remove the cuteness and make your little girls look like angry dudes, it will look better trust me.

>>3165937
>/s
Why does it seem like every /r/eddit fag is a pedo?

>>3165690
Thanks anon

>>3165996
>ditch anime style,anime and realism don‘t mix well
>>3166015
>she looks like a supervillain
>>3166050
>little girls look like angry dudes

I keked pretty good to this

>>3166050
Well may be I overdid on the eyebrow but you get the point.

Why does this guy get a pass but not shad. They are nearly the same content wise.

>>3165816
>>3165828
lol

>>3166087
thats creepy as hell

>>3166089
CP fan arts I guess.

>>3166087
You should learn how to draw cute girls, dude

>>3166089
This is done in a tasteful manner, you know? They're quite nice to just look at

>>3166095
Ye this one piece, sure but there's no doubt in my mind he hasn't done something much worse. Especially if he's already gone this far >>3165965

>>3166089
Shad doesn't get a pass due to his skill level and meming up of everything. I don't even understand the comparison.

>>3166089
>>3166099
Retard

>>3165950
I was being sarcastic , I love japanese art a lot more than western. And calling it shitty was like how weebs cuz themselves weebs.

>>3166099
It's not just this one piece. He's had some of his work in a gallery before.

>>3166089
>tfw nearly wrote a 10 sentence post in response to bait

Anyway, I really like Datura for his environment work. He does details and landscapes fucking effortlessly.

>>3166076
I personally dislike loli art, but I dont think we should stone others for liking it.

>>3166110
Datura? Send link, i cant find, his name is a flower .. also happens to be a name of a diff artist

>>3166114
He's got like four names desu
https://twitter.com/LiliumRa

>>3166095
That does not look cute to me, in the thumbnail may be, too flat like an Asian chick with blonde hair, i like puffy cheeks, that flat nose and ginormous eyes
doesn't conform to the phenotype of a girl of northern European descent, Although the rendering does give it some sort of depth, but ultimately make it look even more weird to look at.And don't get me started on the lips, I guess anime has really moved into a weird territory since the 80's where it was flat cartoony and whimsical, but then 3D came along, those anime retards start rendering the hell out of it,and try to make it more realistic than like the style is suited for like sakimichan.

>>3166114
Oh sorry, I'm referring to Alphonse. He's got other aliases like "White Datura" or RA across his personal website and Pixiv. Not sure if it's to separate his highly NSFW stuff or the rest of his portfolio.

>https://www.pixiv.net/member.php?id=21848
Sort of bugs me how he doesn't have a consistent name across his information, now.

>>3165672
I've wondered this myself too. Nice to see at least one serious response.

>>3166124
Thanks! That bugs me too... very confusing, but im glad i found him here
>>3166121 And I always believed you had to have one memorable username to get a bunch of follwers. Meanwhile this guy has four and is reaping the popularity. I guess pure skill has great effect. Then again, normal people get more likes on their sleezy selfies than he does on his art... what a shame.

>>3166100
But if he wasn't drawing edgy crap all the time no one would mind him not improving and memeing. If shad suddenly became as skilled as the artist in the op over night people would probably hate him more because his crap would be more detailed.

>>3166110
Not bait. I see weebs that are intro messed up crap but will still complain about shads subject choices.

>>3166135
>But if he wasn't drawing edgy crap all the time no one would mind him not improving and memeing.
>Not bait
You ain't from around these parts, pardner. Take a hike.

>>3166123
You just have shit taste t b h
It's drawn by a guy with his own idea of beauty or whatever, it's done pretty well and the rendering works okay so I don't know what you're going on about style and northern european descent for.

>>3166146
I'm not talking about /ic/. everyone that isn't an art God gets hate on /ic/.

>>3166135
Lolicon repulses me but Datura still has a lot of non-degenerate work I can look at and admire.

Most of the complaints I've seen against Shad are more towards his aesthetic choices than his subject matter (other than that the times he's drawn real life children, which also had legal ramifications). If Shad grew to have Datura's skill level tomorrow, he'd still have shitty taste.

Personally, his shoving of his tacky, outdated goth girl look onto every character as well as the weird bubble butts give me an axe to grind.

Link to Shad please?

>>3166099
He's done a loli getting fucked by MINOTAUR before

>>3166087
yeah, the point is you can't draw cute girls in a more realistic style.
stop making a fool of yourself, kek.

He's Chinese, just like Krenz lulz.

Solution??? Go to China.

>>3165979
daily dose

>>3166089

Please help. >>3166225

>>3165816
tumblr needs to die

>>3165979
Greens and purples are a secondary color complimentary color scheme (opposites on the pigment color wheel). It's a classic color scheme in nature-themed paintings.

tried rendering an arm in this style. it's easier than i thought.

>>3168178
Now do a whole figure

>>3168178
the strokes near the wrist tho

>>3168178
>in this style
all you did was add some purple.

>>3168178
>dunning kruger

>>3165666
Why do people put so much effort into drawing this pedo garbage? Jesus christ.

>>3168216
because they're pedos obviously.

>>3165828
>>sexual
Nah man, don't see it.
I think you're just seeing what you want to see or something.
To me, at least, a sexual pose would be something like, "hey everybody, look at my vagina," legs spread eagle camera up in the business. Might be a little desensitized though idk, lol.

>>3168216
>>3168221
roasties detected

>>3168216
>>Why do people like things that I don't like?

Seriously why tho...

>>3168224

Given the context that the same artists paint girls who appear to be the same age gangbanged, would you willing to accept that there might be some sexual undertones?

Study him until everything you make looks like his work. That's how literally everyone else does it when they want to draw like a specific artist.

>>3165666
Everyone should know that Alphonse posted this pic along with a nude version.

>>3168290
I fucking hate artists who only draw naked characters. If I want to render clothes, I have no one to reference.

>>3165666
>3165666

>base
>darks
>lights
>ao
>highlights
>sss
>blend edges

wow that was hard.

>>3166087
>>3165996
The dunning kruger is real.
I've never seen a good redline on /ic/

>>3168406
>I've never seen a good redline on /ic/
lurk more

>>3165828
Fuckoff normie

>>3168406
seconded about the dunning stuff
there are good people who redline though. someone who uses a pink line

>>3165816
>>3165828
jej

Anyone got a link to alphonses work?
Googles not giving me any results

>>3168485
>using (((google)))

>>3168485
its alphonse white datura

>>3166225
>>3167381
bump

>>3165666
checkin those trips
>burn 300GB candydoll into your memory
>observe ballet lessons
>observe nudists
>??? (redacted. you know it)
>become Loli God

>>3168485
>google
Try lolibooru or gelbooru.
You'll need premium on danbooru but it's not worth it since it's not really complete (boorus are just quality tagged catalogs)
Follow their twitter/enty whatever they're using (use boorus to know)

>>3168178
thats a broken ass hand anon, that might require surgery

>>3168485
Why won't you read the thread first
>>3166121
>>3166124

>>3168288
Given his previous work, there's probably something like that there, but it's kinda muted or downplayed here. It just doesn't strike me that titillation was the primary motivation for this piece, as I'm sure he could have done a lot worse in that department if it was.

And taken out of the context of his previous work, I suppose whether or not it's sexual again depends a lot on you and your values and what you think is sexual and not sexual. For me, and a lot of the people here it seems, it's not very sexual.

after looking though his nsfw pixiv I think he definitely enjoys cheese pizza but he has a lot of skill

Are the pedos now using proxies to create the illusion of more unique posters? what's with this uptick in pedophilia? It's sexual, at least be honest. No that would be too hard.

>>3170924
Normally, pedos are more likely to be extremelly opposed to this kind of stuff in public fotums in a vain attempt to hide their nature.
Kinda like you.

>>3166087
that is not a child

This is Loli. I agree with >>3165816 how is this legal

>>3171148
Faggot old men once came with the idea that freedom of expression is kinda important. Ree

>>3171148
>this is loli
No shit, Sherlock

>>3165816
Drawing loli =/= pedophilia. Here's why so your inverted penis having ass can fuck off right to hell. Get this, 2d children =/= 3d children. Isn't that something?

>>3165690
Halfway done already.

>>3171135
kek

>>3171177
So is faping to fictional traps actually not gay?

>>3165666
So where can I find more of this artist work?

>>3171199
A better example would be fapping to bara. Drawing something doesn't mean you have sexual feelings for it, though.

Many drawings labeled pedo actually depict young women (budding tits, hips & ass) approaching their sexual prime, and that irks me. Socially incorrect yes, illegal in some places yes, pedo no.

Anyway, why should pedos not be allowed to draw kids and fap to the pics? It's fine if private agents don't want to support it in any way, but people shouldn't have to face violence, fines or prison for drawings.

Something that is kind of unsettling is the advance of 3DCG. Within 5-20 years, people will probably be able to easily create completely photorealistic cheese pizza with their PCs. It will generate new legislation and social dilemmas.

It would be cool if a good, voluntary method of removing pedophilia was invented. With that said, being a pedo doesn't automatically mean you're going to hurt kids, so tracking down potential rapists and working toward a society where any kind of sexual assault is unlikely to happen sounds more wholesome. Sociopaths and rapists are the real issue imho

>>3171226
just type in alphonse on gelbooru

>>3170670
alphonse/whita datura is a woman

>>3165820
>>3165838
>>3165842
>>3165844
>>3165845
>>3165847
>>3165848
>>3165849
>>3165851
>>3165882
>>3165937
>>3166016
>>3168061
>>3168226
>>3168417
>>3168484
>>3171177

>hey guys look at me im on 4chan I can express my pedo tendencies because there are no rules here!

I hope when your countries police start investigating this site, they knock on your doors first. Disgusting

>>3171227
I never said anything about pedos being punished or not but liking lolis should count as being a pedo just like fapping to yaoi makes you gay.

>>3171248
I know you didn't, I just went off on a tangent.

>>3168443
ooh boy, I need to start redlining again

>>3171245
Shut up, faggot.

>>3165828
>shows a girl as anything other than an whimsical air headed caricature.

>Pedophilia

>>3168615

...is candydoll code for cp?

>>3165987
good luck enjoying this picture now, ya pedos

>>3171270

well this painting is definitely of a sexualized minor, lets not kid ourselves here. Keep enjoying your sexual children drawings, whatever gets your rocks off, but dont pretend its not why it is.

>>3165996
What about anime figures? They are real life objects in anime style.

It becomes weird when you try to add too many details like skin pores and imperfections for example.

>>3166089
Are you really comparing Alphonse to Shad?

Alphonse art is so much better that even those that dislike the theme need to agree it's nice art.

>>3171148
If you draw some fictional character being killed are you committing murder?

That's how silly it is to think that drawing a loli is a crime.

Link to Shad?

>>3171248
I don't think so. If you are not attracted to real 3d man, then you're not gay even if you fap to the most masculine anime characters. The same logic goes for guro, trap, loli and such.

>>3171358
Dude if you find her erotically enticing the pedo is you.

>RA
>suddenly muh Krenz
Is this new /ic/ meme?

>>3171617
Video sauce?

>>3171594
he's saying it's a sexualized depiction, which it clearly is, not that it turned him on. By your logic a photo of a real child getting straight up fucked isn't sexualized either as long as it doesn't arouse you as an observer. That's not how it works.

>>3171309
candydoll is barely legal child gravure models

>>3171350
THANKS /IC/ YOU HAVE TO RUIN EVERYTHING!

DIE! DIE! DIE!

>>3172043

>>3172043
>>3172070
yamero

>>3171697
So children doing sports is porn because it aroused you?

>>3171697
By your logic, literally any photo/drawing of a ballerina is sexualized.

>>3172043
Is that a robot?

>>3172703
google says lina merkalina, but recognizes the second picture as a trottla doll
I don't know wich one is more fucked up, the dolls, or their website design

>>3171135

>>3171232
It gives me nothing, it says check my blacklist but there's nothing there. What do i do wrong?

>>3172800
other anon was incorrect, the tag is actually alphonse_(white_datura)

spoonfeeding should be bannable in /ic/

>>3172701
I'm sure lying will gain you respect, and won't make people think you're trash.

>>3172702
Nope, this particular image is though. Especially because these loli artists like to draw the same "not sexualized"(tm) girl in an explicitly sexual context one pic later.

You come across as insincere.

>>3172849

>>3172869
This one looks a lot more normal. However if it was posted on a pedo board alongside sexualized images that would change the context and how it's interpreted.

>>3172873
>This one looks a lot more normal
Where? This is sexualized. And you don't know what will happen with her at the next photo.

>>3172875
It's a regular clothing photoshoot. Not a drawing made by a hentai breathing jap.

>>3172815
thanks
>>3172823
Being a faggot should be bannable on /ic/.

>>3172879
What if it was found out that the photographer was a pedo?

All memes aside, alphonse is one of my top tier artists I want to be as gud as.
I don't care for nsfw in general, but his drawings are just amazing.

>>3172909
That would change the context of these photos and prompt reevaluation. It would probably render them inappropriate. You see, there's A) the depiction itself and B) context. Op's picture is in both senses sexualized.

>>3172921
Anon you also have to think that just because a person does sexualize something doesn't mean anything related to that thing is sexualized to that person.
I'm assuming you're a straight man, you like women. You would want to fuck a beautiful woman.
Does this mean if you draw a beautiful woman or take her picture its immediately a sexualized picture of her? If you want do something with her is it automatically only about the sexualization?
Of course not.

>>3172921
I guess we're at a disagreement then. I think someone who typically sexualizes x can make a non-sexualized version of x.

>>3172923
>>3172924
Men taking photos of beautiful women in clothes that reveal a lot of skin are often sexually motivated to a degree. They find it alluring even if they don't jack off to it. See deviantart and flickr brimming with those kinds of photos. So it would put photos into question done by a pedo of children in ballet clothes. It would need to be investigated, not just assumed it's not sexual whatsoever, although yes it were possible that the photographer might not see nor intend his photography to be sexual. You need to be extra careful when it comes to children, and that's why people react so strongly.

The girl in OP's pic has a sexual expression and pose and is drawn by someone who draws a lot more sexualized imagery of the same subject. It seems likely to me he intended something sexual, and most people will interpret it that way. I think it's fair to hold this point of view. Maybe if you watch a ton of hentai this drawing might not appear sexual in comparison (which seems a bit absurd), but I assure you to most regular people it really appears sexual.

I don't mind so much if it's actually a sexualized drawing (people draw fucked up violent imagery without harming anybody), I just want people who consume and create it to be honest about it.

>>3172935
>I just want people who consume and create it to be honest about it.
My mom told me to not listen madmans like you

>it is pedo
>it isn't pedo
(it really isn't)
Decided to make my first webm instead debating you fucks. Critique?

>didn't have any video software, so sorry for the water mark

>>3172935
>The girl in OP's pic has a sexual expression and pose
I just don't see this at all, the expression is just run of the mill uguu and the pose is basic as fuck. It's a really simple and efficient shape for a really simple composition.
>and is drawn by someone who draws a lot more sexualized imagery of the same subject.
In my opinion when I see artists that draw both "normal" stuff and full-on pornography, it makes a stronger case for the argument of certain pieces being less sexual on the intent of the creator simply because you know for a fact they could've just drawn/painted some hardcore fucking if that's what they wanted to convey first and foremost. This leaves a lot of the interpretation for such pieces on the viewer, like you said, but that's art in general. If you choose to see it a certain way, that's all you. Obviously the dude is into loli at the root of it all, but find me an artist that doesn't wear their root interests (or even fetishes) on the sleeves of their work.

This whole "it's sexual/it's not sexual" discussion is low-IQ as fuck.

>>3174063
It's a run of the mill sexually alluring pose, stick out le butt & chest and look longingly.
You probably perceive it differently based on what you've consumed before. Meaning is malleable. Ask anyone who isn't into loli how they see it.

Loli lives from risque teasing. Otherwise it would just be regular art about children.

>>3174205
>It's a run of the mill sexually alluring pose, stick out le butt & chest and look longingly.
I could buy that if it were at a more exaggerated angle or the figure were contorted in a suggestive manner like you're saying, but it's really just static as fuck. Where you see a longing look, I just see the default expression most artists who draw single character illustrations settle with - looking off to the viewer, Alphonse sameface syndrome edition. His other sketches for OP's pic in particular are actually overtly sexual like you're suggesting, which makes me wonder why he settled with such a boring and safe final. There's even one in particular that has her presenting herself teasingly like you say, but again he settled with something incredibly vanilla.

The sexuality of this particular piece really is all on the viewer, in my opinion.

>>3174352
This one feels less sexual than the OP

>>3171623
>>3171617
would like to know of the video sauce too

>>3174722
magicleaders

>>3174352
>it's just a feeling and no one knows yet but just because they can't feel it too

ped confirmed

>>3172935
I've been seeing you post all over /ic/, it's hilarious. Everytime.
>if man does x with female subject that borders "lewd" from MY perspective, they must be perverted/pedophile. Bloody fucking kek, your feministic ways is just plain laughable. Fuck off back to Tumblr bitch.

A side note, being gay, trans, pedo, etc is perfectly fine, it's all human nature, hell animal nature really. It's a problem when it actually HARMS people, aka straights and children, is when it's bad. The ACT is bad, not the basis. People like you have been bringing humanity down for having opinions is more destructive than some pedo caring only for 2D representations of young humans and not their 3D counterpart, to fap and enjoy to themselves. Get a grip.

>>3172935
The thought police is real.

>>3174940
Did you read my post? When it comes to children you want to be extra careful to make sure they don't get harmed. You wouldn't investigate a known pedophile that does photo shoots with children to be sure they don't get harmed? I said drawing and consuming loli in itself isn't necessarily harming.

Just be real about it that loli has a sexual component. It's largely sexualizing fictitious children/child-like-beings. And be real about it that it makes some full on NAMBLA style pedophiles show up who have the potential for actually harming children. They need to know they're not welcome.

>>3165666
Use Loomis

>>3165666
Satan triples get.

>>3175106
pedophilia diagnosis doesn't include psychopatic traits: a non pedo is just as likely to harm someone as a pedo.

>>3175270
Who's more likely to have sex with a child, a pedophile or someone who's not? Sex is very intimate and can leave deep wounds in a child. Regular adults hurt each other all the time in their sexual activities with each other due to callousness (unprotected sex, cheating, abuse, ...). You don't want to inflict that upon a child. So lets be extra careful when someone's into children.

>>3174352
Nah, OP PIC looks like she's awkwardly hiding her crotch and gazing intensely at the one taking the photo or something, as of it was a sexual predator or something (anyway, the angle makes it seems like the eye level is taller than her, giving this dominating look). This one just looks like she's naturally stretching and looked bored, eye level is neutral.

>>3175363
Also, if I was a little girl and there's a weird old uncle staring at me intensely taking more than 10 seconds to take a pic I would also feel uncomfortable and would want to GTFO.

Protip to know if it's pedo or not: put yourself in the shoes of the subject (little girl in this case).

>>3175366
what if the artist is a handsome young man though

>>3175363
>>3175366
You've been looking the the picture way too long, dude. Please go and take a break.

>>3175372
We are talking about OP's pic, right? The thing is, the subject's gaze clearly indicates that she's UNCOMFORTABLE, and that's the matter we're discussing, right? It doesn't have to be a weird ass uncle for it to do the trick, personally I used that as a very obvious example but it all depends on the subject's context/personality/circumstances.

>>3175380
Is 15 seconds long? I just happened to see this thread a few days ago and just want to put an end to this conversation.

Americans today can never hope to become as good as Asians and Europeans. Feminism was a mistake

>>3175383
Nice try. Those things you pulled from your ass will do nothing but prolong the discussion

>>3175397
Whelp, at least I sincerely attempted. Your point is?

>>3175421
Not him. What I found creepy from your posts was how you put input into the character's "perspective". Problem. This character doesn't exist. So how can it express thought? It's an illusion. It could "portray" what looks like emotion, but it's not a real creature. It's in your imagination. And I don't see how this correlate to the artist here.

>>3175434
>This character doesn't exist. So how can it express thought?
Self-inserting of course. What do you expect from crazy shemale?

>>3175421
>awkwardly hiding her crotch
>gazing intensely at the one taking the photo or something, as of it was a sexual predator
>eye level is taller than her, giving this dominating look
These look like bait desu. The composition of the picture would be entirely different if this was actually what one would get from looking at it

From "my perspective" this is boy in leotard.

>>3175434
The same argument can be made for photos/films that have human(actors) conveying emotions. Yes, indeed everything is an illusion, but the artist have the power to convey the story they want to tell. Isn't storytelling one of the things we learn here? Understanding and analysing characters from a characters point of view isn't a new thing, writers do it all the time.

>>3175439
Lol. What makes you think of that? Should I explicitly state that I am female so it will be less creepy?


Either way it's just a fucking image, I just passed here to give my two cents about two different pictures of the same fictitious character since I thought that I could contribute 15 seconds of insight (seeing I did used to be a little girl and did took ballet classes I didn't felt that it would be weird to answer that question... not that anon-kun will believe it). Is speaking about little girls such a taboo that it triggered you out of your comfort zone (I thought 4chan was a haven for autists REEEEeee)? Not that little girls are uncommon, half of the world are/used to be little girls! Also I'm an autist so yes sorry for unable to fucking read the mood.

A few years ago at my catholic all girls mid-highschool (lol), we had a literary/filmography analysis of characters in a movie, technique used and screening their facial expressions. I just thought of putting that into use. Conversations about pedos wasn't that uncommon nor that taboo, we'll regularly get the nuns who march in and warn us 'signs of pedos'. Feeling less threatened now?

(And no I will not fuck off this board.)

>>3175464
Listen to this anon. I'm was just giving a 15 seconds of first sight insight (albeit jokingly, and possibly incorrect). You're all up in arm about nothing.

>>3174857
His hardcore loli hentai didn't tip you off? That's not what we're arguing in this thread

>>3174820
Which artist?

>>3175384
I Agree

>>3175380
Nigga, sometimes I look for 5 mins at the picture of a forklifter and I get disturbed when somebody enters the room without knocking. And that's because I look at every angle and curve and approximate how acute, obtuse, reflex or curved are, try to memorize it and so I get really focused. Angle by angle, one by one. And I do that with every object which can be observed with the eye.

If I get disturbed when somebody interrupts me while looking for a few min at at the body of a child does it mean I am a pedophile? At most I am an omniphile, even though I wouldn't misunderstand the interest of how something works or look with the desire to have sex with that something.

If you like to draw only what you like to have sex with, I guess I could see where you come from, but don't think everybody is the same as you.

>>3175481
bitch she fell on her bum and got a boo boo obviously she's frowning

>>3175481
>albeit jokingly, and possibly incorrect
Is that so? What happened to the sincere attempt at ending the conversation?

>>3175226
who did this

nvm fixed it :^)

>>3165666
>o.3165666▶>>3165672 >>3165684 >>3165690 >>3165697 >>3165816 >>3165905 >>3165996 >>3168216 >>3168386 >>3168398 >>3168615 >>3171226 >>3175208 >>3175226
yall a bunch of pedros

>>3172043
So this is the future of sex dolls, huh

>>3165996
TETSUUOOOOOOO

>>3165816
>>3165828

Why is pedophilia wrong and why should this picture be taken down on that basis. I don't care for your semantics. 'It should be taken down because pedophilia' is not a valid reason, and no it is not self-evident to me.

>>3175770
Nosebro if I had to take a guess

>>3177730
Nah, that is some brazilian guy. I think I saw him in another thread

>this is pedo because I want to be the little girl
This thread has hardcore loli and a creepy as fuck doll and still you manage to outcreep them.

>>3168406
old /ic/ was the shit

>>3178038
This might be the only araki-style attempt I've seen that doesn't look like garbage

>>3171503
then that makes you gay or pedo for fiction characters. it still counts towards being gay or pedophilic to certain things even if you don't like irl children.
>>3171493
https://livestreamfails.com/post/7657
>>3177709
it's not wrong by itself it just an attraction to children. lolicons just don't want to admit it when it's obvious that they at the very least like bodies that look like they belong to children.

>>3171245
Kill yourself. Policing art is the worst you can do. I say that as someone who isnt even a fucking pedo. I hate people who try to censore art.

I want all you SJW White Knights and other normalshit normalfaggot normies to off yourselves off /ic/ for good.

OP pic has a naked version too by the way :
https://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=56751142
click and get triggered faggots.

>>3178337
I think they don't want to admit it because if they do, people will think they're satan's right hand man and give them massive trouble.

>>3178398
Nice, nice

>>3178400
Ye but even people on 4 chan won't admit it even though everthing is anonymous here. Minus 8 came out as pedo but is still liked by most of his fans.
>>3178398
>OP pic has a naked version too by the way
So does that prove it had sexual intent or not?

>>3178398
There is nothing wrong with naked little boy.

>>3178418
"not sexual"

>>3178413
Anonymous isn't a magic, dude and there's always someone looking to start shit or just opposed to the idea too. You can greentext and spam smug anime girls all day but I think no one really enjoys being accosted because of something they like. It's simpler to just not say anything
>minus 8
Who?

>>3178454
How is it sexual? The clear focus is on the form of the individual and the artist does not attempt to veil the subject. Even her pose is natural and not in a way meant to display nor hint at her primary sexual characteristics. Also the piece is complete in and of itself, there is no suggestion that there is a hidden lover that the person looking at is supposed to self-identify as.

Fuck, I'm bored. I think I'm going to go read a book or something.

>>3178468
You're either stupid or dishonest. You would say the same shit if she got fucked by a tentacle monster.
>no anon it's about the shapes, the interplay of light and shadow

>>3178471
No you retard, do you even look at art besides dA anime pics and hentai? Go read up on aesthetics if you're too lazy even for that. The line between art and smut is thin, yes, but it's not non-existent.

>>3178472
It is literally clothes on, clothes off porn. His audience jacks off to that picture.

>>3178475
That's not a good point. Anybody can pretty much jack off to anything depending on their sexual imprinting. I don't see how it is pornographic.

>>3178413
>So does that prove it had sexual intent or not?

Yep. Denialfags BTFO, this is conclusively pedoshit.

>>3178478
8/10 of his audience members will have jacked off to it. 2 won't because they're more into his hardcore stuff.

>>3178482
But is that result of the artist or of the individual that consumes his art?

>drawing of nude boy is "sexual"
Gays are minorities.

>>3178491
we've reached peak dishonesty. lolifags proving themselves to be trash people.

>>3178486
as I said your arguments could be made about hardcore porn, which renders them moot.

>>3178499
No they can't. What I'm arguing is that the person in the painting is a "subject" rather than an "object." It is existing in itself unlike in pornography where the person is reduced to an object of sexual lust. You have yet to tell me how the person in that painting is just an object.

Just because someone can jerk off to it does not negate this fact. Right now, I can open an image of Botticelli's The Birth of Venus and bust a nut on my monitor. Does that mean that there is no difference between that and your run-of-the-mill tentacle hentai? I mean, she's naked and I jacked off to it.

>>3178482
>8/10 of his audience members will have jacked off to it.
>8/10
He has 18.1k followers in twitter, 57920 followers in weibu and a lot of them are well known artists with family and kids. So?

>>3178498
In my eyes he is a boy. What's wrong?

>>3178500
>blah blah blah liberal arts degree doubletalk

When the authorities find your porn stash, I hope someone leaks the transcript of you giving this speech to the judge.

>>3178506
It's a shame that you are unable to understand the difference between porn and art. But have fun in life and all that.

Defend this.

>>3178509
HOLY SHIT ONLY PEDOFAGS WILL DEFEND THIS

>>3178509
Or this
>n-not sexual!
Old Masters draw nude shotas and lolis 24/7. And this is Real Art from museums.

Look at this. Mod can't even delete this picture because of ART.

>>3178512
Nudity does not imply sexuality.

>>3178500
OP's loli drawings and hentai are made with an audience in mind that will jack off to it, it's made to cater to their desires. That can't be said about the birth of Venus. There's no dressed and undressed venus painting, and right to that one of her getting gangbanged.

school me if I'm wrong, but even you do, you come across as insincere.

>>3178508
>so you see, officer, these lolis are Jungian archetypes whose nudity plays off contemporary tropes about duality and metaphysics and ow ow ow stop with the baton ow those handcuffs are cold

>>3178515
I would not rule it out that it's entirely unsexual, and am open to a reevaluation. Especially taking into account the church's tendency to molest little boys.

>>3178516
>Nudity
Oh of course. When Old Master draw lolis it's always "nudity". Let's ignore their postures and face expression

>>3178509
>>3178512
>>3178515
>>3178526
MODS

MODDDSSS

GET OUT PEDOSHITTERS
GET OUT
GET OUUTT

>>3178526
You're the one though who's obsessed with all those paintings of little boys and girls.

>>3178519
Since I will come off as insincere at this point, let's explore this thought a little more... Right now, what you're telling me is that there is a difference in the context between the two. Would there be a difference if you were handed the nude painting by itself, not knowing there was a non-nude/gangbang version nor any of the author's other works? At this point, should art stand alone, or should it always be given context? Does the Birth of Venus changed when one finds out who Botticelli used it as her model?

>>3178521
You made me chuckle, I like it.

>>3178468
I'm with you but you can't really defend that second one, lad

>>3178521
lmao

>>3178533
You could always call it an "anatomy study" or something

>>3178529
What if you're masturbating on thick boys and girls right now?

>>3178532
Yes context matters. Things don't exist in a vacuum. The word "fuck" can have a million different meanings depending on the context.

>>3178539
So does art need to have context or should it be interpreted as a free-standing piece?

>>3178540
The answer is self evident.

>he put more efforts into little shota than into this bitch on right

>>3178545
point me to the tentacle porn that this artist has painted, then we can discuss.

>>3178541
And if that context is something doesn't morally align with the morals of the interpreter/interpreter's society, then should the piece be censored and considered pornography or smut? At this point, does context work as a filter or is it simply a means to control another's perception of a piece? Then, should context be desired or not?

>>3178546
Wait a sec. I will check his pixiv for personal sketches.

>>3178515
>>3178512
>>3178509
But do these old masters draw blatant pedo stuff like >>3165965 if they do then ye imo they are pedos idc if it's fictional it's still pedofilic.

>>3178547
Context is automatic. Each pixel is surrounded by context, other pixels. Your previous experiences shape your perception of the piece. Context is unavoidable. I desire context for the art I consume. True beauty is holistic.

OP's pic is considered porn and sexual not because of morals, but because someone drew it for his audience to jack off to and experience sexual sensations, which they do. Saying something is porn is not a moral statement. It becomes a moral concern because the subject matter is prepubescent children, who might be put into danger by communicating to people it's okay to think of them as something sexual.

>>3178550
>But do these old masters draw blatant pedo
We don't know. RA and LA has different accounts for his lewd drawings and normal one for example. Considering how church like fucking little boys in asses and how much pedo shit Old Master draw at daily basics, everything can be possible. Picrelated is page from Da Vinci sketchbook.

>>3178556
While I disagree about your stance on context, it is something best left to the individual and cannot be determined by society at large.

The nature of OP's picture is then in a grey area. If context is then individual, this picture could not be sexual. And to play devil's advocate, this picture is not sexual despite the artist's intent behind it. Yes, he may have very well used it to transfer the idea of "erotic sensualism," but is that its only message? Is it not the beauty of art that a piece can be interpreted in many different ways without one single one being right? iirc, this is where Jung's concept of the Collective Unconscious comes into play. Ultimately, we are arguing about a non-issue because we are separate individuals with different contexts in life.

Morals on the other hand are inherently societal as they determine/control the means and methods that an individual can reproduce. Something that was unacceptable now could very well have been acceptable 500 years ago. But at this point, we have to consider whether communication of ideas through art (which I might consider fantasy by nature) does or does not inspire someone to everything mundane in the light of the idealized in art.

Just as a statement, I do not find these types of pieces, nor the subject matter therein, to be sexually appealing.

>>3178556
>OP's pic is considered porn and sexual
It's not. Fuck off

My mom said OP pic is cute. Even nude version

>>3178561
>Dat bicycle

Is this considered porn and sexual /ic/?

>>3178588
Yep. Though pedoshitters will deny this undeniable truth.

>>3178593
>pedos see it as an innocent depiction of a girl
>normies view it as sexual and pornographic

hmm...

>>3178595
>Pedos see it as an innocent depiction of a girl they want to brutally rape and destroy

Kys yourself pedoshitter

>>3166087
FREEEZAAAAA!!!

>>3178574
Humanity is characterized by it's striving for increased awareness, understanding, and trust. Context is generally desired.

I am not saying that it's only about sex, I am saying sex is an important component of it. At it's core it is merely a 2D array of RGB vectors (though even that is an interpretation). You can interpret it to be result of an image with randomly selected pixels that just by pure chance ended up looking like loli. The most probable and relevant interpretation is one where it's a sexually charged depiction of a child, regardless of how arousing you specifically experience it to be. I still find it laughable to deny that this picture has some sexual components. Why would that be so bad to admit anyways?

Btw I did not propose the ban of loli. I propose you step of your conceptual horse where everything is relative and realize what loli is about.

>>3178596
This is hardcore projection

>>3178600
Ur mom lel

>>3178596
Is this considered porn and sexual?

>>3178603
Obviously. You think it doesn't?

>>3178603
Does this have a version where she's undressed?

Is this sexual /ic/?

>>3178588
Not porn but it is sexual.

In today's time, showing off the human body (nudity, revealing clothing, skintight, etc) will inevitably be seen as sexual or (as an attempt at showing something sexual) to some degree. The takeaway here is that if you draw stuff like that, the majority will not see it as completely 100% innocent so you would have to be more creative if you wanted to deliver a message that was closer 0% sexual (for at least a larger number of people).

>>3178608
MODS

>>3178608
HOLY SHIT ENJOY BEING V&

>>3178608

>>3178609
>but it is sexual.
I think you're just fucked in head.

>>3178609
> you would have to be more creative if you wanted to deliver a message that was closer 0% sexual
I love this. Make better art instead of complaining that people don't get you

>>3178561
Those church's are pedos. Having 2 accounts doesn't mean much when you draw in the same style, the old would masters would definitely get caught if they did the same. Duno what your pic of a random dick and a bill cypher looking triangle has to do with pedo crap.
>>3178598
Lol

>>3178609
>you wanted to deliver a message that was closer 0% sexual (for at least a larger number of people)
Like picrelated?
>draw hot babe
>years later people start seeing HIDDEN DEEP meaning and message
Personification of dead humanity my ass. If I draw something like this people will call me prevent

>>3178629
The old guy is straight up looking at her snatch. haha

How about this?

>>3165666
body is great: flat chest is aesthetic af. nude version looks even better

the real issue is the face. anime stylization can look great, but this particular one seems uninspired, bland and lazy imo

>>3178663
>imo
Well, eat shit imo

>>3178651
Artist's a pedo

>>3178654
Printed or painted?

>>3178699
Printed

>>3178651
Am I blind or is there something right with lower body?

>>3179053
There's not anything wrong but the fold in the clothes makes Iook strange

>>3178599
>Humanity is characterized by it's striving for increased awareness, understanding, and trust.
And then victorian england happens because people had too much say on other people's thoughts and feelings.
1984 was a warning, not a textbook.

>>3165987
whos the artist?

>>3179170
Same as the OP

>>3179074
1984 is a story about that raises awareness for potential future societal threats.

Having an honest discourse and reflection on what loli means isn't thought police.

>>3178654
What's the source for this?

>>3172043
her skintone makes her look dead

>>3171135
saved

>>3178038
this wasnt even that long ago?

>>3171350
even the colors on the guys shadow are inverted. Somehow there is more reflected light closer to the legs than further away.