--
<sub>Fiona

StockART Gallery Director


Get a tesseract!</sub>

--
Resources Gallery Director
_{Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark.
And a large group of professionals built the Titanic.}

--
Click for a free trip to Wonderland

Understating my feelings, a lot, I was never a big fan of the formation of a nude category itself, especially not by that exact name/term. Stock is about the creation of art and what I would call "appropriate nudity" in that context and process is not especially relevant and may not necessitate a special category (we didn't have one until relatively recently and I thought it was okay as it was before). That said, at least offering an additional definition of "formal classical" gives an impression to the searcher of what they might find there (and should give an impression to the contributor of what to provide there, should they take the time to consider it).

If there's no use for "playful/suggestive", but all means get rid of it. Nothing would make me happier than to think that such a category was unneeded and unused. But, if that is to be done, I STRONGLY oppose doing it without serious clarifications and at least renaming the category currently called "nude", as that is simply too broad and too subject to potential misuse.

--
Ben.

My work now available to artists at [link]

P.S. I almost never wear undewear or swimwear, so does that mean I'm good?

--
Ben.

My work now available to artists at [link]