Gorgonseye on 25/11/2006 at 01:36
This is totally out of hand, IMO (Which probably means relativley little) both sides took a relativley over the top position. (Dr. Sneak's rather intense remark that guys couldn't care less about this sort of thing and thus women shouldn't care, as well as Lady Taffer's complaint about the art being somewhat sexist.) But, now it's just blown even bigger, now with Dr. Sneak taking this like Lady Taffer went on an intense rant that all men were pigs and such, and well, Lady T, your not really SOOTHING the matter yourself. I'm going thus take the position of the snobby middle man and say that let's just drop it....
Or if you really want to, carry on....
Lady Taffer on 25/11/2006 at 02:10
Unless Dr. Sneak IS one of these "sexist pigs" he presumes I'm talking about, he'd have no need to get upset. :p
Anyway, I've pretty much said all I needed to say on the matter. I know flame wars don't solve anything and the most they do is make both parties adhere to their own beliefs even more strongly, so. . egh. .
Episkopos Stephanus on 25/11/2006 at 04:41
I think most people who object to the 'sexy' art style flipation used are actually unable to figure out just why they find it so distasteful. The most obvious reason seems to be that it's sexist men depicting women as sex objects. However, I don't believe this is necessarily true.
Quote Posted by Lady Taffer
something that looks like what a good 90% of ALL male artists mass-produce.
From what I've seen, the statistic is probably more like "90% of fantasy artists" - including females. Usually, these sexified characters are presented as being
powerful women (who probably use their own sex appeal to take advantage of men) rather than mere 'objects'.
It's modern sexual expression. People, both male and female, are culturally programmed to believe the 'ideal' woman must be 'sexy', and that in order to be 'sexy' a woman must look like an airbrushed magazine model, pop star, or rap video bimbo, or something. Make-up, exposed cleavage and thighs, waxed eyebrows, a shiny tan, and so forth. Personally, I find this 'ideal woman' exceedingly shallow, fake, and quite simply aesthetically displeasing.
The reason this isn't necessarily sexist is because there's a male equivalent. Look at underwear packaging: the hairless, muscular models do a really poor job of demonstrating how the underwear will fit the majority of the men who intend to buy it. The sexified-'ideal'-female does seem to be much more pervasive, though.
When this modern sexual expressiveness is put into the context of a medieval or pseudo-medieval setting such as Thief, it clashes quite strongly to people who already find it tacky and unsophisticated.
BrokenArts on 25/11/2006 at 16:05
Hey, here is a brilliant idea, why don't you all start a thread in comm chat, yes I said comm chat about sexism, and the lovely things that go along with sexism, and debate all you want over there. Or someone split the last few pages, and continue this tyrate over in comm chat.
For the love of god, keep this thread about art, and the pictures that are posted. There seems to be a cluttered mess on the last few pages.
Dr Sneak on 25/11/2006 at 16:24
Quote:
Hey, here is a brilliant idea, why don't you all start a thread in comm chat, yes I said comm chat about sexism, and the lovely things that go along with sexism, and debate all you want over there. Or someone split the last few pages, and continue this tyrate over in comm chat.
Yeah taking that in CommChat would be a great idea!:rolleyes: :laff: I've already abandoned talking about it myself.
Gingerbread Man on 25/11/2006 at 19:16
Jesus Christ, people. What's next? You all going to get hot under the collar because Cubism is too angular? Pin-Up art is Pin-Up art -- it's got definite rules of style as far as composition, content, and intent are concerned. It's a genre in its own right.
OH MY GOD THAT JACKSON POLLOCK WHY CAN'T HE DRAW THINGS THAT LOOK LIKE STUFF? WHY DOES REUBENS INSIST ON PAINTING FAT NEKKED GIRLS DANCING AROUND?
Seriously. Get grips. On both sides. This wouldn't have gone as far as it did without a certain "Doctor" fanning the flames, don't think I don't realise that.
BrokenArts on 25/11/2006 at 19:22
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
Cubism is too angular?
Why yes it is. :p /me runs for the hills.
Mortal Monkey on 25/11/2006 at 19:58
..U
Dr Sneak on 25/11/2006 at 20:25
Quote:
Jesus Christ, people. What's next? You all going to get hot under the collar because Cubism is too angular? Pin-Up art is Pin-Up art -- it's got definite rules of style as far as composition, content, and intent are concerned. It's a genre in its own right.
Indeed it does and most of us recognized it for that.
Quote:
This wouldn't have gone as far as it did without a certain "Doctor" fanning the flames, don't think I don't realise that.
I wasn't fanning anything GBM, I just dont like seeing artists that make good work get flamed, if you had created some good artwork and someone flipped out over it, I would have stuck up for you as well. I'm sure we'll never see anything from flipation again now. :(
Gingerbread Man on 25/11/2006 at 22:52
Regardless of anything, and I don't think I actually disagree with anything anyone's said -- not THAT much, anyway -- this isn't really the venue to discuss sexism in genre art. That really would be a topic for CommChat, and you might actually get some decent debate on the subject. Might. :erm:
Anyway, Dr Sneak's point is a valid one in that nowhere yet in this thread had anyone made anything even remotely resembling personal criticism. Hell, for the most part no one even made any technical criticism.
This is basically a thread to present art that you think people might like. Trust me when I say that if this had started as a critiquing thread, it would be a damned sight shorter than it is now and more than a few people would be crying. So let's try to continue doing what we've been doing for the past 18 pages or whatever. Well, 16 or so if you remove the stuff that's been getting really pointy.
