HOME | DD
brigham β Translucence
[NSFW]
Published: 2009-12-12 18:55:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 158317; Favourites: 3615; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Go to and join to see what Kat does with a clear glass toy at the end of this photo set. The photos and HD Video are absolutely mind-blowing!!! Art or porn? decide for yourself....Thank you for supporting our work!
Sending smiles.
Colette & Brigham
Related content
Comments: 75
Beautiful woman, beautiful photo--especially her imperious expression. Please leave that ugly, meaningless word "porn" out of the discussion!
π: 0 β©: 0
On here it's art. On the site I'd imagine it's porn with excellent lighting.
Man, I wish I could join. *goes to bug her hubby for the credit card*
π: 0 β©: 0
Artistic Porn? Pornographic Art? Either way, I'm a fan!
π: 0 β©: 0
Some porn can be art. And art can be pornographic.
Unfortunately this falls well short of both.
No doubt a lovely girl but somewhat violated by the lack of subtlety. Sorry if my opinion is out of step with those who have already commented. -Don't get me wrong; I'm no prude. But this is not art.
I'm rather surprised to find it here as it just looks like an advert for a low quality, quick fix site.
π: 0 β©: 0
I could look at this all day. Absolutely stunning!
π: 0 β©: 0
Hmmm...her ears aren't pierced.
weird.
Rock on
://Thomas.
π: 0 β©: 0
Holy shit those are some dilated pupils!
Sexy shot
π: 0 β©: 0
Search for perfect and most beautiful women????
I found it all at your account and I must say your female dreamgirls are simply the best.
Thank you for your lovely models and pictures
π: 0 β©: 0
even monkeys paint.. some people call that art. This is fabulous....
π: 0 β©: 0
art of porn.. great concept!
and this is awesome!
π: 0 β©: 0
Not sure how a naked girl sitting on a chair is Porn, I mean that's what someone looks like naked sitting on a chair. There is no porn in this picture.
As for art, I'd say so, the use of the clear chair, getting her all shinny to reflect the light, wonderful contrast of skin tone and background, if it's not art, I don't know what is......
π: 0 β©: 1
You miss the point - their account and submissions are made to promote their porn website here on dA.
π: 0 β©: 1
No I donβt think I missed the point, I am very much aware of the website promoted. But from my perspective this particular photo is art, my perspective is only in relation to my own reality and experiences.
Just because you donβt agree with my opinion, does not give you the right to dictate what you think I have doneβ¦..like miss the point or something, you donβt know me at all, In fact Iβm not really sure why you replied to me in the first place. My comment was the person asking if itβs porn or art, not you, and who are you anyway, some guy that takes pictures of buildings and thingsβ¦β¦β¦β¦.hmmmm
π: 0 β©: 1
Wow, a little over-reaction to the simple comment "You miss the point - their account and submissions are made to promote their porn website here on dA."
I point out to you - I made no statement at all as to whether or not I agree or disagree with your opinion 
I also point out that if anyone had the right to dictate what I thought, it would be I that had the right to dictate what I thought (or perhaps someone I've hired to take dictation) 
Lastly I'll also point out to you that what someone uploads to ONE account on dA is not always indicative of everything the individual may be doing/capable of as a photographer/artist
Try not to be so melodramatic over one TINY little comment and drop-it while you still have some face.
π: 0 β©: 2
"drop-it while you still have some face." Nice try, but he had you way before you even thought of it. The irony of your rant about overreacting is amazing.
Their account and submissions being a promotional item for their Adult oriented site has nothing to do with what you were trying to prove and nothing to do with whether this particular deviation deserves some artistic merit or not. It is artistic and yes while the context of the whole shoot might be the intention of arousal, thus making it "pornography", it is still artistic and the fact that it is being used as a promotional item makes it more of an advertisement with the intention of generate traffic, rather then arouse, unless you consider masturbating to commercials healthy.
Anyway, there isn't really a point in trying to explain much of this to you but I just hate when people not only go crazy trying to defend a lost cause and especially when that is the porn/art debate.
Take care.
π: 0 β©: 0
Now YOU are missing the point of what I was saying, I wonβt bother explaining....that would be pointless
and I like your last little comment about saving some face while I still can by just dropping it, it was clever, and you almost had me. I would like to re-direct you last sentence right back to you
π: 0 β©: 0
Porn of-course... The context of the picture was lead by the knowledge of what happened beyond this pic. It would be more difficult if we hadn't of known what she is to do next.
I also don't care for the obvious promotion of porn site as well.
But she is damn hot and it can excite some feelings while me and my wife take a shower! ha ha ha
π: 0 β©: 0
Very fabulous work. The difference as in all things is in the eyte of the beholder. I see it as set until sold as porn. The creator chooses.
π: 0 β©: 0
Porn.
But dA doesn't give a shit.
If this were a man with an erection it'd be banned in ten minutes.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah why is that? In a very clinical sense you can tell she is aroused the same way an erection would denote sexual excitement in a guy. Does anyone know why DA deems an erect penis inappropriate but not the equivilant for females?
π: 0 β©: 1
Because dA is very misogynist, sadly.
π: 0 β©: 2
Seemingly. Does anyone know if there is a committee that decides these things or is it a single person? As you point out, the discrimination based on sex is blatant and simply not in keeping with the modern world.
π: 0 β©: 0
because alot less people on DA want to look at a bloke holding his cock
if she had a fucking dildo stuffed up her clunge it would be a differnet matter
π: 0 β©: 1
Um, what? So because it would involve a male, it's automatically not art? You sir, are an idiot.
π: 0 β©: 1
First of all, how dare you cast aspersions on me, you have no right to judge me or my mental ability. Art is my hobby and I choose my right to freedom of speech.
I have no problem with male art nudes, I will look at those too. However the line between porn and art is alot finer for images involving men than those that involve women. The problem with art nudes is the number of people (Men and Women) who post nudes of themselves to DA becuase they get off on vouyerism. I can guarentee that at any given time of day you will find grainy ametuer closup posts of men holding thier erect penis' These are merely posted on DA for self gratification....
It's also unfortunate that female genitals are alot more pretty than male ones. So yeah, I stand by my original comment, if she had her fingers inserted or even in proximity then i would class this as pornography, but at the end of the day this is just another photo of an attractive naked girl.
Why dont you post us a picture of your penis so we can all admire your art?
π: 0 β©: 1
lol post my penis, I would if I could sweetie. Despite what macros tell you there are women on the internet.
If you have a right to spew your nonsense, I can judge you all I want. You're really toeing the line to presenting a rather misogynistic argument.
There is nowhere where I'm talking about voyeurs, and you're mangling the point with assumptions that men would all be photoing themselves in an ugly voyeuristic manner and showing us their ugly penises. Here's a fun idea, penises are no more ugly or beautiful than any other piece of the body. And it's not your place to judge art simply based on gender bias.
This all boils down to an extremely simple fact: works posted here depicting women constantly pushes the boundary of what is porn and what isn't, and often gets away with it. Any work involving a penis is under danger of deletion and a swift ban, regardless of the talent involved in making the work.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think your missing the point also darling!
The genuine art on DA that involves male art nudes is not under danger of deletion, male nudes can be very tasteful.....this image, the one that sparked this debate is very very close to borderline porn I agree, open leg shots generally are a bit near the knuckle. However I do think DA do a good job of cutting the line on most occasions.
We can argue this point forever...I believe your are correct to some extent however....I would very much appreciate it if you would refrain for calling me an idiot for having an opinion
π: 0 β©: 1
I didn't call you an idiot for having an opinion, it was for making a sweeping, generalizing assumption that the majority of people on dA wouldn't want to see a penis and would rather see this. That isn't an opinion.
And yes, male art nudes are in danger of deletion, I've seen quite a number of harmless nonerotic male nude works get mass-deleted while this stays up despite outright breaking several rules.
π: 0 β©: 1
Even I find that image vulgar!
π: 0 β©: 0
... that is... so stunning, it's even a little bit mean
π: 0 β©: 0
This girl is high as a feckin kite! Look at her pupils.
π: 0 β©: 1
Or a dark studio.... Hmmm... What would be more likely...???
π: 0 β©: 2
with these lights? just with like... 15 minutes of expositure. flash would appear too much if was a dark studio.
π: 0 β©: 1
To my eyes, it's clear to see two spots where used (see her left boob) and available light would have caused (a little) motion in the shot...
π: 0 β©: 0
dark studio, the pupils are not able to contract fast enough to compensate for the flash bulb, thats why you get that demon person effect on happy snaps of people in clubs and bars etc
for the record if she was on R then she wouldnt look so pretty! more like Mick Jagger
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>