Seedfeeder

Upon his retirement, Seedfeeder illustrated a woman blowing a kiss.[3]

Seedfeeder's images received media coverage in numerous languages and publications.[6] In 2014, Gawker's Andy Cush published an article about Seedfeeder's "frank, graphic" illustrations,[6] and a companion gallery called "The Best of Seedfeeder, Wikipedia's Greatest Sex Illustrator", which he described as a collection of the artist's "greatest works".[3] In his Gawker piece, Cush called Seedfeeder "Wikipedia's greatest artist of sex acts" and his work "unmistakable" and "nearly as striking as [the] subject matter".[3] Cyriaque Lamar of Cracked.com called the images "goddamn hilarious" and also compared them to airline safety pamphlets. Lamar acknowledged their educational value but criticized them for being too pornographic for pedagogical purposes.[7] The Cracked.com article included a gallery of the six "most terrifying sex illustrations on Wikipedia".[7]

HuffPost's Andres Jauregui said the illustrations were "anything but shy" and that "by rendering intense acts of coupling in a sterile, almost instructional manner, Seedfeeder's drawings have a normalizing effect on bedroom play that some might consider taboo".[6] He wrote that the sexual acts Seedfeeder illustrates "aren't weird, but the plastic, detached style in which they're rendered is bizarrely matter-of-fact, like the airline safety pamphlets that the illustrator says inspired them". Furthermore, he said: "Some wouldn't consider it art, but it's not porn, either. The drawings are educational, but they serve a purpose beyond illustration."[6] Artnet columnist Paddy Johnson listed Seedfeeder's work as one of the "Top 10 Digital Artworks of 2014".[8]

Seedfeeder's drawings were also met with controversy. Some Wikipedia contributors perceived racist and sexist undertones, resulting in the removal of some images from English-language Wikimedia projects.[3] A depiction of a facial featuring a black man ejaculating onto a white woman prompted criticism, with some users claiming that the image was racist and promoted violence against women.[2]

Seedfeeder responded to those who argued that descriptions of sex acts without accompanying images would be best by saying: "I come from a philosophical viewpoint that every Wikipedia article should have all forms of media available associated with it. Images, audio, and video. All articles, without exception. So any argument predicated on 'an image isn't necessary' is one that carries absolutely zero weight. None."[6] In an interview with NaTemat.pl, sexologist Andrzej Depko defended the images, saying that images of sexual activity are nothing new and that people should not be offended by sex.[2]

Seedfeeder also responded to criticism that children could discover his illustrations by writing, "if your children are actively searching for these kind of topics... it's because they already have a slight idea of them... and they feel ready to know more."[6]