01-12-2012, 04:29 PM
Oh, this thread is interesting because... Well, I've seen your fics, Grakor, and I have no shame in some of the things I draw.
As someone who works in a field where we have to deal with censorship either due to our own choices or executive meddling, it's very interesting to see how people handle nudity, as well as having introspective moments with myself of coming from being unable to look at nudes, to being completely unfazed by non-sexual nudes.
What I always note is how people perceive things; in the end, that is what determines how a work will be received no matter what the artist originally intended. I can write pages about this very topic and cite a world of examples, but I'll keep it simple and sexy.
As a feminist, I'm more bothered by when sexuality is put into places where it shouldn't be- to sell a product, as opposed to being in places where it should be - media exclusively designed to titillate or illustrate some sex appeal that's contextual. When I see people who make pinup art, I either enjoy it, or, if it's just not appealing to me, I move on. Pinup is an artform that's designed to titillate. I don't get the idea that the pinup artists- we have a few in our community, myself included- are trying to be anything else; they're drawing sexy stuff. WoW itself is full of sexisim in it's gender dimorphism with the races alone; a joke but also a hot issue of such things within the multimedia/game dev community. But enough about sexism. We're just discussing sexuality, right?
I get bothered more by people who create overtly sexual things and do the whole porn =/= art argument about their work. They think that art is clean, deep, and meaningful that you can share with everyone, that it is nice and friendly, that it is created using hours and hours of blood, sweat, and tears...
...They clearly didn't do their homework.
Links contain what one would consider "Artistic Nudes:"
These classical works, which would be considered "tasteful nudes" weren't create to hang in the living room like they would be now. Oh no, god no. Wealthy men often commissioned these for the rooms in their houses that were "men only" or private chambers. If not them, high class prostitutes and brothels wanted these. Aside from the church, these clients usually kept the Old Masters in work. There was a healthy enough attitude towards nudity when they were commissioned, but the comely nature of the figures in the paintings makes it pretty obvious what it's for.
Now, one might argue because of their figures or because of the 'artistic quality' that this is fine and not at all sexist and realistic in depiction, even though their commissioners wanted to purchase a (picture of a) female for their private chambers, and that the ideal female body at the time of the Romance, Renaissance, and Baroque was that of a well-fed fifteen year old girl.
Where am I getting at with all this? Well, I'm not saying "don't get offended by sexualised art." The best part of art is the reaction and seeing what people interpret from it. But, it makes me wonder if, in 1,000 years provided the sacred supervolcano hasn't wiped us humans all out, people will be delicately preserving those skanky resin catgirl statues they unearthed in some factory in Japan and trying to make out all what it means. Who's to say Venus of Willendorf wasn't abducted by the local pervert between rituals for a good and creepy time out back?
Edit: Saw the, uh, heated things. Just wanted to note I'm not trying to call anyone out or anything, just trying to add to a healthy discussion.
As someone who works in a field where we have to deal with censorship either due to our own choices or executive meddling, it's very interesting to see how people handle nudity, as well as having introspective moments with myself of coming from being unable to look at nudes, to being completely unfazed by non-sexual nudes.
What I always note is how people perceive things; in the end, that is what determines how a work will be received no matter what the artist originally intended. I can write pages about this very topic and cite a world of examples, but I'll keep it simple and sexy.
As a feminist, I'm more bothered by when sexuality is put into places where it shouldn't be- to sell a product, as opposed to being in places where it should be - media exclusively designed to titillate or illustrate some sex appeal that's contextual. When I see people who make pinup art, I either enjoy it, or, if it's just not appealing to me, I move on. Pinup is an artform that's designed to titillate. I don't get the idea that the pinup artists- we have a few in our community, myself included- are trying to be anything else; they're drawing sexy stuff. WoW itself is full of sexisim in it's gender dimorphism with the races alone; a joke but also a hot issue of such things within the multimedia/game dev community. But enough about sexism. We're just discussing sexuality, right?
I get bothered more by people who create overtly sexual things and do the whole porn =/= art argument about their work. They think that art is clean, deep, and meaningful that you can share with everyone, that it is nice and friendly, that it is created using hours and hours of blood, sweat, and tears...
...They clearly didn't do their homework.
Links contain what one would consider "Artistic Nudes:"
Spoiler:
These classical works, which would be considered "tasteful nudes" weren't create to hang in the living room like they would be now. Oh no, god no. Wealthy men often commissioned these for the rooms in their houses that were "men only" or private chambers. If not them, high class prostitutes and brothels wanted these. Aside from the church, these clients usually kept the Old Masters in work. There was a healthy enough attitude towards nudity when they were commissioned, but the comely nature of the figures in the paintings makes it pretty obvious what it's for.
Now, one might argue because of their figures or because of the 'artistic quality' that this is fine and not at all sexist and realistic in depiction, even though their commissioners wanted to purchase a (picture of a) female for their private chambers, and that the ideal female body at the time of the Romance, Renaissance, and Baroque was that of a well-fed fifteen year old girl.
Where am I getting at with all this? Well, I'm not saying "don't get offended by sexualised art." The best part of art is the reaction and seeing what people interpret from it. But, it makes me wonder if, in 1,000 years provided the sacred supervolcano hasn't wiped us humans all out, people will be delicately preserving those skanky resin catgirl statues they unearthed in some factory in Japan and trying to make out all what it means. Who's to say Venus of Willendorf wasn't abducted by the local pervert between rituals for a good and creepy time out back?
Edit: Saw the, uh, heated things. Just wanted to note I'm not trying to call anyone out or anything, just trying to add to a healthy discussion.