http://th03.deviantart.net/fs40/PRE/..._by_JPRart.jpg
Printable View
I knew you'd come through with that, but I had already seen it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
I actually remember some of the stories of Baba Yaga from my childhood.
No, Brad Jones is the source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witis
Apparently the depiction of attractive women in art is somehow offensive. Not his fault as he has to enforce the rules according to public taste as dictated by the culture of America. Maybe they won't find the depiction of strapping men in tight outfits so offensive which is perplexing to me but it is what it is. America is the weirdest place on Earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Looks like its time for me to unsubscribe.
dday9: POST RACE
Somebody said something about the art you were posting?
By that, do you mean strapping along the lines of "strapping it down"? Those guys are just as improbable as the women, though in the opposite direction. It's all kind of weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Brad and Steve. Something about the "objectification of women" whatever that means. I got the sense that women or any depiction of women in art makes people uncomfortable. I don't really get it but I do know that America's culture has puritan roots which views sex and anything that has the potential to arouse sexual desire as inherently evil. Its no surprise that some of that thinking has survived to this day. That's my thinking anyway. Outside of that context of puritan thinking, I cannot see anything wrong with the depiction of a scantily clad woman holding a spear but Brad decided it was unacceptable. So that's that I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by dday9
Well.....its art....of course it gonna be weird ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
SESSHOMARU!!!
http://th07.deviantart.net/fs9/PRE/i...shomaru_90.jpg
The US has an interesting variation on this theme, but it's universal to one extent or another. So many cultures have the repression of either women or sexualtiy, or both, as a core part of their values. What's really interesting about the US is both the fact that we are highly sexualized while being highly nutty about sexuality, and at the same time we are so utterly permissive about violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Niya
Oh come on, you know what it means:rolleyes:.Quote:
Something about the "objectification of women" whatever that means.
Now don't get me wrong, I like a pair bouncing boobies as much as the next man but comic book and fantasy art has always had a tendency to, shall we say, exaggerate somewhat. To be fair, it exaggerates it's male form as much as it's female form but the bits of the male form it tends to exaggerate aren't as explicitly sexual as the bits of the female form it chooses to. I'm sure you'll be able to find exceptions in both directions but, lets be honest, they will be exceptions.
Of course, it all speaks to a wider debate about whether sexuality is something we should celebrate or feel uncomfortable about but until I see someone release a comic book where all the female protagonists are fully clad and have average, if athletic, physiques while all the male protagonists wear nothing but tight leather shorts and sport massive man-packets and have that comic sell in large numbers I'll struggle to accept that there isn't a certain amount of hypocrisy in your argument.
I'll avoid making any puns because that would be udderly inappropriate... Damnit!
Well its like I said, America is one of the weirdest places on Earth. So many contradicting cultural norms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yes I know how its defined but what does it really mean. I know the meanings of the words but all together what does it mean to "objectify a woman". This makes absolutely no sense to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Understand that where I'm from you will never hear people talk about this. While people may have heard the term, they wouldn't understand it any more than I do. This is some strange nuance of American culture. What is it and why is it so offensive ?
Objectify means to see as an object - that could not be any more clear. The SUBJECT - the person that is real - is lost to an OBJECTIVE view.
But a person is an object. Like a ball or a glass of water, a person has a mass, a height, a weight, texture, a colour etc. Is there some deeper meaning I'm failing to grasp here ?Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
You guys may think I'm joking or trolling here but I honestly do not comprehend this concept. I can understand if we were talking about slavery in which a person is considered a commodity without any rights attributed to a sentient being but how this applies to provocative imagery is beyond my me.
If women were being forced into providing such visual stimulation, it would certainly make more sense but the feminine form has been a subject of fine art since forever. I can imagine some women even being honored to be featured in someone's art piece. Even today, a lot of magazines feature such displays of feminine beauty on their covers. Is there something sinister about this that I'm failing to see ?
There is a depersonalization occurring - the OBJECT gets big better "woman" "facets" then the original SUBJECT ever had. The SUBJECT is lost - the artist has OBJECTIFIED the SUBJECT.
If you can take a photograph and portray something about the subject then you have a real work of art.
This is another nuance of American culture that I don't get. How can most the population of the most advanced nation on Earth misunderstand so completely the basic nature of human sexuality.Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
Men above all are attracted to female looks. A woman with nice perky breasts, a small waist and wider hips is generally attractive to a man. This is what drives the lust of men. A fine looking female body and face. Nothing more. It is not the same with a woman. While a woman can appreciate a finely sculpted male, it is confidence and a winning attitude that is attractive to women, far more so than a man's looks.
An extremely good looking man will attract female attention no doubt but if she discovers that he is meek, lacks self-confidence and is socially inept, he will not be able to inspire even the tiniest bit of attraction or lust. An ugly guy with a larger than life attitude and bold disposition would win out every time. In contrast, an extremely attractive women could have a laundry list of personality problems but there will be no shortage of men trying to bed her. Obviously, if the men in question were considering long term companionship, they would take more into account than just her looks but looks is primary for men. Personality is primary for women.
Now apply this to what you said and it should be obvious the why the female protagonists of the comics are scantily clad. This is what men respond to. Now take a character that's popular with women like Wolverine, in particular, his portrayal by Hugh Jackman in the movies. It doesn't matter what he has on. He could be fully clothed from head to toe or fully naked, women would still love him. Why ? The attitude. Women respond more to attitude than to looks. A bold, no-nonsense, take the bull by the horns attitude is what attracts women. Good looks is only a small bonus.
Then by that definition the entire movie industry is based on objectification. They change things about real people all the time. Ever seen a picture of Megan Fox without all the Hollywood wizardry of the make-up departments ? She's not that good looking. They took the real thing and made it better. The subject in this case is lost too. If you really want to get ridiculous, we can say that Hugh Jackman doesn't have metal claws embedded in his arms. Billy Boyd(Lord of the Rings) is not really a midget. Hollywood has been objectifying real people for years so my question is, if objectification is as you've just defined it, why hasn't the movie industry been banned yet ?Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Well - they are actors. These people create a "personality" from nothing - at least the good ones do. They are not trying to be real.
That is the purpose of a movie - to suspend reality. If that is a goal then enhancing objects to make an actor be more of that "perfect" fit of the role is acceptable - encouraged to a point (otherwise you become too "camp").
And here we arrive at the point. Why is this good for movies but bad for my images ? A lot of the images I posted were created by artists from nothing but their imaginations, hence it doesn't objectify anyone because it was created essentially from nothing. There's no one to objectify.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Neither are the artists behind my images hence just as a movie maker can enhance a man by giving him metal claws or make an actress appear more attractive than she really is, so can the artist enhance certain qualities of the women they create in their art. Its the same thing. It speaks to creativity more so than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
Do you see why I'm having trouble understanding this ? I'm seeing contradictions here.