Kari Franklin 09 Feb 2005

Looks fine to me Scott, all the "Ooooh scary naughty bits" covered, nothing sticking out or peering in, tastefully rendered...

::shrug:: Maybe it got tagged simply for being a nude in general because there's not a little line across the hip somewhere suggesting thong panties?

Such a Shame :-( its a beautiful work.

sher richardson 09 Feb 2005

I agree...its wonderful, and a top 10 number 1 work *or should have been...

As to why its removed i see no parts of the human anatomy exposed... and i would ask for it to be allowed...

Thankyou...!

Andrew Liberto 09 Feb 2005

Wholy Golly Gosh!

It doesn't offend me in the least. It's quite beautiful and a great rendering of the female form. But, in the 'puritan' world of AW, who the hell knows. They'll probably say it's because she is touching her breasts and that may be construed as suggestive. It's ok to put little black squares over them though?? Go figure... I quit trying to worry about it, and just put my 'other' stuff here.

Christina Toews 09 Feb 2005

I had commented and rated this work, I thougth it was lovely. This does NOT go against any of their guidelines. You should fight to have this re-posted. :) You've got my support!

ghada zoughby 09 Feb 2005

this is very beautiful Scott,but I think AW saw it provocative...

I don't see it aggressive,I like tooooooo much!

Dawn Schmidt 09 Feb 2005

I agree that it is an absolutely gorgeous piece of work. Nicely done!

Somebody probably just got their granny undies in an uproar because she is *gasp* touching herself, and complained to AW.

So sorry this was taken down. Give it a few weeks and repost it in the middle of the night...maybe it will slip by them. ;)

Gary Glass 09 Feb 2005

I see no reason why this image should not be allowed. It falls well within the guidelines of covering up. It is a beautiful image with lighting and composition, (Sounds like a critque LOL) I say here to Andy, this should be allowed to stay on the portfolio. There is nothing wrong with this image..It suggest but does not show.. Plus it is almost to the point of being a abstract with the way Scott has compose this shot.It is a lot better than putting black bars on it.. And you have allowed that. Good luck to you Scott. You have my vote...

Jude 09 Feb 2005

Its beautiful! Maybe they can explain why it was removed.

sher richardson 09 Feb 2005

I'm going to give another 2 cents to AW...

This is the kind of non intrusive nude and artwork that will keep your site on top... Tastefully done.. an artist with masterful talent and the work would NOT insult anyones morals...

You have to understand that to keep the BEST on this site you are going to have to be a bit more ART friendly...

Please update your thinking and censors... theres not anything in that work to even put black boxes over! : )

eileen martin 09 Feb 2005

that is definitely beautiful, perhaps it is because she is lying down, thats quite suggestive you know..lol...

WESTERN ARTWORK By Denny Karchner 09 Feb 2005

I came from Scott's open Friday night and Leigh and I saw this stunning piece from four feet away and even then there is nothing that is showing that would be sticking out from behind a "bathing suit." By the way this painting is large...what is it Scott? Three by four feet overall? The jpg does not do it justice.

AW this piece should be re-posted.

Fantastic work of art...as always my friend.--Denny ;{

09 Feb 2005

scott spillman 09 Feb 2005

I want to thank all of you for you support and I will try to upload the image again if I don't hear from Andy within a couple days.........By the way Denny the painting is 48" x 36".

Thanks again, -Scott

Volunteer of America 09 Feb 2005

Welcome to Salt Lake City....please turn your watches back 75 years.

Clearwater Beach, hmmmm...

Alexis Baranek 09 Feb 2005

It is amazing to me that this was removed yet there is some very disgusting to look at, violent and offensive to many, work that has remained and was posted by one who has at times lowballed members and made rude and insulting comments about their work.

RQ Trietsch 09 Feb 2005

Sure looks like my ex. But I have better pictures. Of course I'm kidding..this is absurd AW.

What a way to lose members, where's my vail...oh that's right only females wear them.

Sheezz, and I don't wonder why I don't subscribe

eileen martin 09 Feb 2005

go to this page of the top ten, is Scott's image more nude than this one?? i don't think so, the whole problem with this censorship, is its hit and miss, not consistant at all!

http://www.artwanted.com/topten.cfm?TopGallery=4&TopReport=TopImageHits&TopTime=Month

joan warburton 09 Feb 2005

That one's been up for months and months, LOL!

ArtWanted.com Staff 09 Feb 2005

We quote from the image policies that everyone has agreed to...

Prohibited Artwork
Artwork that is not permitted on our website includes, but is not limited to: Any artwork containing full or frontal nudity, genitals, female nipples, naked butts or butt cracks, sex/erotic/pornographic artwork of any kind, extreme gore or any other artwork that may be considered adult/mature/offensive in nature. Borderline subject material that is not specifically mentioned above, may also be removed. Our site moderators will review the artwork posted to our site and remove the artwork and the artist's account if needed. We reserve the right to modify/delete any artwork posted to our website.

Is this woman nude? ok, nuf said, image removed.

Now everyone can continue to complain about our image policies on this thread and say the same things that have been said every few weeks for the last 6 years. Carry on... :-)

Aaron Wisdom 09 Feb 2005

But as the link showed above there are images that have more nudity than that piece had.

Christian Gobbells "Succubus" Uplaoded 12/22/04

I understand it is your policy (I dont agree with it) But that is your choice.

But why was this piece allowed (Oh I see nipple) and the one in question here wasn't?