Well first when you refer to Rodin you effectively answered it by never having to say it was artificial in it's ideals. Sure it's nude eople and some pieces can be seen as having some form of sexuality, but many are even while nude not done as sexualized pieces and Rodin was quite varied in the body types he would depict from young adults to old even in the nude.
Even his stylized depictions of female forms with angelic aspects weren't unnaturally lithe or lacking in detail like muscle tone that is often avoided in more sexual depictions.
It is like previously stated a very different intent and it is apparent in the way art is composed versus porn. The emphasis on detail in the form, motion, or scene rather than a focus on the assets.
So to answer your question, I effectively repeat what I have said multiple times previously.
2) yay repeating things as if there's a point
So then some of his pieces are acceptable and some aren't? You seem to have this idea that art is some sort of "pure" thing and that if it only depicts the subject matter within a rather narrow parameter.
You have this idea that all art is "ART". There is quite a lot of art out there that is meant to be erotic for the sake of being erotic. That does depict very stylized subjects.
Getting back to Rodin , what about the Eros Paintings? Sure they deptict a fleshier model but they are about the model. They are about depicting women in a certain way. They are about "being erotic".
What about his sclupture "Iris"?
But as far as art goes, it's not unheard of any artist to sytlize their models.
So if an artist was to stylize his model in any way other than a certain parameter that is bad? So sure, you say that depicting a person in a certain way that isn't "naturally healthy" is bad but that puts a huge damper on what a a subject can be.
Also, there is this western idea that art is something that is hung in a museum or has a special place in a park with a fountain coming out of its belly. But art can be a part of the every day as well.
It can be utilitarian. And if the artist wants to depict his subject in a way taht he/she deems fitting then thats' the right of the artist.
As I've said, I've seen paintings in MoMA that could be construed as a type of porn.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
You already answered a large chunk of your own questions with your first sentence.
And artists may stylize a very large degree. Even those somethimes bizarre cartoon characters, looney toons, etc, use a fundamental in understanding real anatomy that is then played with, bent, and in some cases intentionally broken. The problem again is with intent. Not sure how frequently that must be said. If someone only draws a finite number of bodytypes then they are either a bad artist or catering to a very specific ideal.
Take the fact that many cater to a single body type and it rather deconstructs your stance that rejecting that bodytype narrows choice. It's the fact that that option is too focused on that is the problem, that so many things strive for it that it's capable of causing people to harm themselves to fulfill that ideal.
You can babble about your opinion of art all you want. It does not change what my original comment was. When intent is apparent there is a knowable difference. 'It is what it is.' If the main purpose of the art piece is to objectify the body, then it is porn. If the main purpose is to respect that's a very different mindset, one not bent on hammering everything in the need to procreate.
Whether you build it to be a fountain or something else does not change that fact.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
You already answered a large chunk of your own questions with your first sentence.
And artists may stylize a very large degree. Even those somethimes bizarre cartoon characters, looney toons, etc, use a fundamental in understanding real anatomy that is then played with, bent, and in some cases intentionally broken. The problem again is with intent. Not sure how frequently that must be said. If someone only draws a finite number of bodytypes then they are either a bad artist or catering to a very specific ideal.
Take the fact that many cater to a single body type and it rather deconstructs your stance that rejecting that bodytype narrows choice. It's the fact that that option is too focused on that is the problem, that so many things strive for it that it's capable of causing people to harm themselves to fulfill that ideal.
You can babble about your opinion of art all you want. It does not change what my original comment was. When intent is apparent there is a knowable difference. 'It is what it is.' If the main purpose of the art piece is to objectify the body, then it is porn. If the main purpose is to respect that's a very different mindset, one not bent on hammering everything in the need to procreate.
Whether you build it to be a fountain or something else does not change that fact.
Except the real answer to my first sentence was "they all are acceptable". that is where we are at an impasse.
And you can babble all you want about your opinion of "intent" and how it harms people and I wil say the same thing as i've been saying: It's up to people to take their own bodies/health into their own hands and it's up to parents and educators to make sure that children are educated on "being healthy" both emotionally and physically. It's up to ourselves to be make decisions on how we view content.
but any attempt to alter how any artist, whether they are using their work commercially or not (though I don't know of any artist who doesn't want their work to make them at least some money) presents his work/subjects just comes down to censorship in my book. Regardless of its intent.
It's not he responsibility of any person or organization to toe some party line as far as how their products or how their "art" is presented. It is only the responsibility of the viewer to say "yay or nay" and that's about it.
But this is a slow evolution but it is an evolution. As I believe you have pointed out, some magazines have made a stance and will show people of varying body types. But that was their own decision. Just like any company has a decision on what they should be portraying.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Oh ye gods. You are again railing on something I never even took issue with.
Do I have to repeat myself on the same exact matters again?
EDIT: Really. How many times can I say the same thing you just said and you somehow come up with an argument for it just to turn around and say that?
I've said before People are to think what they will or do what they will. I've never once said that anything should stop existing. I don't even get why you keep writing things like I have.
What I have said, multiple times, is effectively what yuou just said with the addendum that it's valuable to press people on taking action after considering tha value of an activity rather than just accepting that "it's in their nature".
It's like I already said in a previous comment again, you certainly are an intelligent person, but at this point I don't even know what the hell it is you keep debating on because your last post for the most part outright agrees with my previous posts.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
is that supposed to be armor or is it a plate bikini? I can't tell. I mean....wearing plate in the water seems kind of counterintuitive. On the other hand, there's not near enough covered to consider that to be armor......
Then what the bloody hell is your point if you aren't even making an argument?
EDIT: I really do want to know. Because I look back at the first few posts I made and I look at the things they were associated with as well as one's you previously responded to and I see the same trend.
Like with Foomerang, he even goes so far as to have to clarify.
Originally posted by Foomerang
I'm not telling you how to think. I never said Trion was evil. I never said I was speaking for anyone. In fact, most of the things I'm talking about doesn't have anything to do with you, personally, or anyone in specific for that matter. Im commenting on our social structure. It is something to think about, not indoctrinate.
And if you go back and read his posts that really is the case. He wasn't telling people that they need to stop doing X, Y, or Z. He was giving short history and social lessons.
And similarly the core tenant I have been advocating since my first post in this thread with topic context (second post).
Originally posted by Deivos
You want freedom of choice for people to make and play games they want. Fine. Not one person has argued against that.
But don't try and pretend it's more or less than what it is.
Did I say for someone to stop doing something? No.
Later commentary I made was either a correction or expansion of information and more advocacy of that initial remark of 'admitting things for what they are' and owning up to these aspects and bettering ourselves.
Did I say people need to stop making any particular kind of media? No.
Did I say people need to be much more aware of what and how things both internal and external influences them and make decisions more independent from impulse, so they spend less time justifying an action and more time considering them? Yes.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by Deivos Then what the bloody hell is your point if you aren't even making an argument?
Deivos, calm down.
We are having a nice internet discussion.
We are trying to have a discussion over multiple posts over a span of time that would be unnatural for a regular conversation and trying to juggle strains of thought that make sense through the entire discussion. I have a tendency to address a post but then think over the myriad other posts and trains of thought and sort of come up with a sort of mega argument/position, sometimes adding things that I feel might make a supporting argument or that hopefully adds to the post.
To me this is a disscussion not an argument. There are no winner or losers but just friendly discourse. I'm not trying to "prove you wrong" or put words in your mouth or assert that ultimately I"m right as I can always learn something from another. Sometimes I think I'm right but all the time I know that I can also be wrong. With this type of discourse it tests what I know and beleive and forces me to think and rethink it.
If I "added' extra to my post it was because it popped into my head as I was writing it and I was having an internal debate during the writing, all the time juggling the entire thread.
Thnk no more of it than that.
So this is a discourse.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
t's not a nice discussion when everything I say id handwaved only to later be turned around and used as if I myself hadn't said tha same damn stuff in a different context. It's an insult to my intelligence.
At this point is is an argument for me because it lost any chance of merit. It feels like very little account for the whole or even original purpose of the discussion because what you've done isn't even a shifting mark, but a roundabout loop that ended up just parroting words that not only I but Foomerang, another you had 'debated with' had previously stated and has been present as part of most our comments.
As I said, by intent or not, it's become somewhat insulting as a result. We aren't learning anything from this, we aren't gaining insight, we are just getting an amalgam of text.
EDIT: Point in case. The addendum you making effectively being a repeat of Foomerang and mine own early posts.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
t's not a nice discussion when everything I say id handwaved only to later be turned around and used as if I myself hadn't said tha same damn stuff in a different context. It's an insult to my intelligence.
At this point is is an argument for me because it lost any chance of merit. It feels like very little account for the whole or even original purpose of the discussion because what you've done isn't even a shifting mark, but a roundabout loop that ended up just parroting words that not only I but Foomerang, another you had 'debated with' had previously stated and has been present as part of most our comments.
As I said, by intent or not, it's become somewhat insulting as a result. We aren't learning anything from this, we aren't gaining insight, we are just getting an amalgam of text.
EDIT: Point in case. The addendum you making effectively being a repeat of Foomerang and mine own early posts.
Except now I have to go bakc through your posts and foomerang's posts and then extract what I take issue with. or at least how you presented them. Big hread. will do so tomorrow as I'm leaving for my Friday night revels.
Maybe what the issue is how you both are saying thigns as they smakc of you saying or presenting something else.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Except now I have to go bakc through your posts and foomerang's posts and then extract what I take issue with. or at least how you presented them. Big hread. will do so tomorrow as I'm leaving for my Friday night revels.
Maybe what the issue is how you both are saying thigns as they smakc of you saying or presenting something else.
If you take issue with other aspects, then debate those aspects in the first place.
EDIT: -snip-
EDIT2: Fark it, I wanna see what tangent you got off to and why it lead to this annoying loss of point.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Originally posted by gaeanprayer While I can understand the arguments and anger behind over-sexualization of women in fictional medium, it's really not as wide-spread as people think. Some of it is actually driven by women. Did my thesis on the shift in depiction of women in American Art and it lead me to places I hadn't expected, namely that there are as many feminists for the sexualization ("freedom of expression" vs. the more Victorian era prudishness in regards to women) as there are against it. Both sides have some good points.
Bit of a segue there but, yeah, this is not just a male thing even if the gaming market is (for now) dominated by men. People offended by this should really consider what it is they're offended by, the actual depiction or the so-called "principle" behind it. Personally, I don't mind it. What I do mind is when people throw a fit when the same thing is done to men; remember the MMORPG.com fuss from that MMO advertisement with the pirate dude and the low-rider pants? Equal nudity for all, I say!
What you're describing is called economic whoredom. Women embrace and often profit from willfully objectifying themselves. They even claim that it empowers them. The problem is that they are only empowered within a patriarchy that allows them to be objectified in exchange for a sense of power and control within this system.
During your thesis, did you you read any books by Bell Hooks or other noted feminists? Most of them feel the opposite of what you are referring to.
i am okay with it as long as they promise me to sell this girl :P
Except now I have to go bakc through your posts and foomerang's posts and then extract what I take issue with. or at least how you presented them. Big hread. will do so tomorrow as I'm leaving for my Friday night revels.
Maybe what the issue is how you both are saying thigns as they smakc of you saying or presenting something else.
If you take issue with other aspects, then debate those aspects in the first place.
I will be very careful and pull out specific things you both said that seem like you are "sayign something else".
There are sentences you both have made that strike me to be "about something else' " or saying something else". I thought that I had addressed them besides my regular arguments. They will be very pointed, I promise.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Ok, my plans were pushed back so I'll give this as my last post for teh night.
The problem isn't the existence, it's the purpose.
Some one wants to call nudity artistic and natural?
Then it has to be displayed in a natural way. Not an overt or engineered way. There is a difference between art and porn and it is in the display as well as intent behind it's existence.
You want freedom of choice for people to make and play games they want. Fine. Not one person has argued against that.
But don't try and pretend it's more or less than what it is.
That seems to be more the point than anything else in Foomerang's rhetoric.
There is a difference between art and porn. But I would argue that difference is intent and not necessarily the display. Again, look at Iris. It's essentially a woman in a provacative pose. If no explanation was given and it was shown to the average person who had no knowledge of the work I bet two to one they would call it porn. It is very much a simliar pose as one would find in some skin mags. If i was to show it to to some groups they might downright denounce it as porn and humiliating to women.
But yet it's art. It is presented as art that might tantalize or tease or excite.
did Rodin know that it was erotic? yes. Did Rodin know that it was taking a woman and objectifying her? Probably given where he wants the audience to look. Is it Porn? I don't think so But yet there are going to be groups of people who think that it's horrible and objectifying women.
"But dont' try to pretend that its' more or less what it is"
And I believe that is where my issue lies. I'm not saying that penthouse is "art". I might ponit to a particualr photographer and indicate that photographer had an artistic eye but clearly penthouse pics are for titillation.
But if i was to take one of those penthouse poses, perhaps change the background in some way, add things to the photo that are meant to suggest satire or something else, but kept the exact pose, maybe even the exact model, even though my intent is that it's Art, someone is going to point out that it's porn and objectifying women. I can explain all I want but someoen, yourself perhaps, is going to say "dont' pretend it's anyting other than it is". Even though I present it and have added to it to "make it art".
And that's part of the crux of my issue wiht the discussion. someone is always going to look at a photo or painting and see what they think are artistic merits and someone is going to look at it as porn. And then I would say "who is to say", especially if it occupies some sort of gray area. Read "not specifically presented as porn".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
And like the rest of this I had addressed those aspects in some of my previous posts as well. Like when you tried using the burlesque group as a point of debate.
As for your art comment I fidn it a bit incoherent because due to your own previous commentary you proclaim at least as much that sex is natural. So if sex is natural, can it not be presented in a natural way?
In fact is that not what Rodin did with some of his couples sculptures? Sure it displays sex, but it's not a forced action or pose in most any case.
Andf that's a fundamental difference. You almost even touched on this when you admitted there being unnatural extremes to fetishes, there is a threshold for what is natural and what is forced from things such as nudity and activities had therein.
That's fundamentally it. Don't pretend something is more or less that what it is. What is the purpose of any given media. How are they presenting it and what does that do to correlate.
As for things "not specifically presented as porn" that again falls back on a previous statement. If the main purpose behind the existence of something is because 'sex sells' then again, it is what it is.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
And like the rest of this I had addressed those aspects in some of my previous posts as well. Like when you tried using the burlesque group as a point of debate.
As for your art comment I fidn it a bit incoherent because due to your own previous commentary you proclaim at least as much that sex is natural. So if sex is natural, can it not be presented in a natural way?
In fact is that not what Rodin did with some of his couples sculptures? Sure it displays sex, but it's not a forced action or pose in most any case.
Andf that's a fundamental difference. You almost even touched on this when you admitted there being unnatural extremes to fetishes, there is a threshold for what is natural and what is forced from things such as nudity and activities had therein.
That's fundamentally it. Don't pretend something is more or less that what it is. What is the purpose of any given media. How are they presenting it and what does that do to correlate.
As for things "not specifically presented as porn" that again falls back on a previous statement. If the main purpose behind the existence of something is because 'sex sells' then again, it is what it is.
I think where the issue, at least here, is that I do say sex is natural. But I never claimed that fetishes were unnatural. As I've said, because of our intellect we have evolved so that these things ARE natural. This is our natural state. So to speak.
The whole reason I brought up the burlesque is because of the statement that (paraphrasing) things are porn or not and that one shouldn't fool themselves into thinking it's anyting other than what it is.
But someone is always going to think something is porn regardless of how it is intended. With the addition of the burlesque.
So sure, with Rodin's "Iris" you indicated that "didn't he present it in a natural state and therefore not porn". But someone is going to point to it and say "the artist wants you to look at the subject's genitals, therefore it's objectifying the subject.
However, the one thing I've been thinking about this weekend is the "Rift Photo" and the comments that it's not "natural" and that it esentially creates an image that is not "realistic".
Yet some people might find it attractive and the artist clearly created it to be attractive. Yet there was a study done some years back that indicated the preferences for attractive women didn't quite fall into what was being presented by the media. That when asked, at least in the U.S., the subjects that men found attractive really fell more into the "average girl next door" image. And of course measurments were given etc.
And if that were the case why does media present men and women in a certain way unless people actually do find them attractive? I have no answer. In any case, I think at this point I'm tired of this discussion. Thanks for your time and for being a decent poster.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Being tied up and spanked is not procreating, I'll give you that. Or any other proclivities that humanity has added to its sexual repertoire.
Yes, you did say it was unnatural. At least to the extent it had no natural purpose nor played to to real purpose aside from one's own developed interests. That is rather what unnatural is. It does not benefit the activity, does not increase chances of procreation or personal wellbeing, and in quite a decent subsection introduces many unique health risks or means that decrease chances of reproduction. It's pushed well past just being for reproduction or even something recreational to do with someone you love at home.
Also why I only said you 'almost even'.
Also, you keep railing on perception. I haven't cared about addressing that mostly because I'd assume one can make the distinction and understand that it is also the point of looking for the reason behind something. As I have repeated plenty. I can say the flipside and note that plenty of people can think some art piece is porn. That doesn't change the actual nature of the piece, the intent behind it.
As for the matter of why marketing makes piscures like this rather than the girl next door. It's actually kinda simple. People lie.
Like I mentioned , again, before. There are certain visual aspects that will present themselves in almost any condition. For using the female form one such aspect is hip ratio. Why? Because external to anyone expressing their preferences, there have been multiple tests showing that mentally males respond more positively to a visually more apparent hip ratio. They can say anything they want about their preferences, but their brain chemistry doesn't lie. It's a legacy hardcoded in their noggin because it's a trait that is beneficial technically to the health of females as well as to the ability to procreate.
The second step is public perception. The media uses what is most prevalent. People that have grown up getting fed these perceptions of women in art have developed an internal standard that, while they may not jump to it as what they will call their 'preference', it does exist as something they consider idealized. I mentioned this as a problem before when you brought up pulp fiction. When people grow up with those kind of depictions as a standard it's develops into a passive thing to relate other people and depictions against. It also leads to a spiraling effect as people push to make their depictions more extreme in some way to stand out better or appeal more. Is it all bad? No, but as is our tendency people will polarize on something and push one thing about it until it's out of control.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Dissappointing, but unsurprising. Then again I am not the target audience. Problem is, people are already so desensitized by all porn and sexualized imagery, how's this gonna help improve sales anyway? I think it just makes the game come off as cheap if anything.
Comments
So then some of his pieces are acceptable and some aren't? You seem to have this idea that art is some sort of "pure" thing and that if it only depicts the subject matter within a rather narrow parameter.
You have this idea that all art is "ART". There is quite a lot of art out there that is meant to be erotic for the sake of being erotic. That does depict very stylized subjects.
Getting back to Rodin , what about the Eros Paintings? Sure they deptict a fleshier model but they are about the model. They are about depicting women in a certain way. They are about "being erotic".
What about his sclupture "Iris"?
But as far as art goes, it's not unheard of any artist to sytlize their models.
So if an artist was to stylize his model in any way other than a certain parameter that is bad? So sure, you say that depicting a person in a certain way that isn't "naturally healthy" is bad but that puts a huge damper on what a a subject can be.
Also, there is this western idea that art is something that is hung in a museum or has a special place in a park with a fountain coming out of its belly. But art can be a part of the every day as well.
It can be utilitarian. And if the artist wants to depict his subject in a way taht he/she deems fitting then thats' the right of the artist.
As I've said, I've seen paintings in MoMA that could be construed as a type of porn.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
You already answered a large chunk of your own questions with your first sentence.
And artists may stylize a very large degree. Even those somethimes bizarre cartoon characters, looney toons, etc, use a fundamental in understanding real anatomy that is then played with, bent, and in some cases intentionally broken. The problem again is with intent. Not sure how frequently that must be said. If someone only draws a finite number of bodytypes then they are either a bad artist or catering to a very specific ideal.
Take the fact that many cater to a single body type and it rather deconstructs your stance that rejecting that bodytype narrows choice. It's the fact that that option is too focused on that is the problem, that so many things strive for it that it's capable of causing people to harm themselves to fulfill that ideal.
You can babble about your opinion of art all you want. It does not change what my original comment was. When intent is apparent there is a knowable difference. 'It is what it is.' If the main purpose of the art piece is to objectify the body, then it is porn. If the main purpose is to respect that's a very different mindset, one not bent on hammering everything in the need to procreate.
Whether you build it to be a fountain or something else does not change that fact.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Except the real answer to my first sentence was "they all are acceptable". that is where we are at an impasse.
And you can babble all you want about your opinion of "intent" and how it harms people and I wil say the same thing as i've been saying: It's up to people to take their own bodies/health into their own hands and it's up to parents and educators to make sure that children are educated on "being healthy" both emotionally and physically. It's up to ourselves to be make decisions on how we view content.
but any attempt to alter how any artist, whether they are using their work commercially or not (though I don't know of any artist who doesn't want their work to make them at least some money) presents his work/subjects just comes down to censorship in my book. Regardless of its intent.
It's not he responsibility of any person or organization to toe some party line as far as how their products or how their "art" is presented. It is only the responsibility of the viewer to say "yay or nay" and that's about it.
But this is a slow evolution but it is an evolution. As I believe you have pointed out, some magazines have made a stance and will show people of varying body types. But that was their own decision. Just like any company has a decision on what they should be portraying.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Oh ye gods. You are again railing on something I never even took issue with.
Do I have to repeat myself on the same exact matters again?
EDIT: Really. How many times can I say the same thing you just said and you somehow come up with an argument for it just to turn around and say that?
I've said before People are to think what they will or do what they will. I've never once said that anything should stop existing. I don't even get why you keep writing things like I have.
What I have said, multiple times, is effectively what yuou just said with the addendum that it's valuable to press people on taking action after considering tha value of an activity rather than just accepting that "it's in their nature".
It's like I already said in a previous comment again, you certainly are an intelligent person, but at this point I don't even know what the hell it is you keep debating on because your last post for the most part outright agrees with my previous posts.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Regarding the OP.....
is that supposed to be armor or is it a plate bikini? I can't tell. I mean....wearing plate in the water seems kind of counterintuitive. On the other hand, there's not near enough covered to consider that to be armor......
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
I'm just adding to my point, I'm not saying you took issue with it, you can relax.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Then what the bloody hell is your point if you aren't even making an argument?
EDIT: I really do want to know. Because I look back at the first few posts I made and I look at the things they were associated with as well as one's you previously responded to and I see the same trend.
Like with Foomerang, he even goes so far as to have to clarify.
And if you go back and read his posts that really is the case. He wasn't telling people that they need to stop doing X, Y, or Z. He was giving short history and social lessons.And similarly the core tenant I have been advocating since my first post in this thread with topic context (second post).
Did I say for someone to stop doing something? No.
Later commentary I made was either a correction or expansion of information and more advocacy of that initial remark of 'admitting things for what they are' and owning up to these aspects and bettering ourselves.
Did I say people need to stop making any particular kind of media? No.
Did I say people need to be much more aware of what and how things both internal and external influences them and make decisions more independent from impulse, so they spend less time justifying an action and more time considering them? Yes.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Deivos, calm down.
We are having a nice internet discussion.
We are trying to have a discussion over multiple posts over a span of time that would be unnatural for a regular conversation and trying to juggle strains of thought that make sense through the entire discussion. I have a tendency to address a post but then think over the myriad other posts and trains of thought and sort of come up with a sort of mega argument/position, sometimes adding things that I feel might make a supporting argument or that hopefully adds to the post.
To me this is a disscussion not an argument. There are no winner or losers but just friendly discourse. I'm not trying to "prove you wrong" or put words in your mouth or assert that ultimately I"m right as I can always learn something from another. Sometimes I think I'm right but all the time I know that I can also be wrong. With this type of discourse it tests what I know and beleive and forces me to think and rethink it.
If I "added' extra to my post it was because it popped into my head as I was writing it and I was having an internal debate during the writing, all the time juggling the entire thread.
Thnk no more of it than that.
So this is a discourse.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Read my edit.
t's not a nice discussion when everything I say id handwaved only to later be turned around and used as if I myself hadn't said tha same damn stuff in a different context. It's an insult to my intelligence.
At this point is is an argument for me because it lost any chance of merit. It feels like very little account for the whole or even original purpose of the discussion because what you've done isn't even a shifting mark, but a roundabout loop that ended up just parroting words that not only I but Foomerang, another you had 'debated with' had previously stated and has been present as part of most our comments.
As I said, by intent or not, it's become somewhat insulting as a result. We aren't learning anything from this, we aren't gaining insight, we are just getting an amalgam of text.
EDIT: Point in case. The addendum you making effectively being a repeat of Foomerang and mine own early posts.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Except now I have to go bakc through your posts and foomerang's posts and then extract what I take issue with. or at least how you presented them. Big hread. will do so tomorrow as I'm leaving for my Friday night revels.
Maybe what the issue is how you both are saying thigns as they smakc of you saying or presenting something else.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If you take issue with other aspects, then debate those aspects in the first place.
EDIT: -snip-
EDIT2: Fark it, I wanna see what tangent you got off to and why it lead to this annoying loss of point.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
i am okay with it as long as they promise me to sell this girl :P
I will be very careful and pull out specific things you both said that seem like you are "sayign something else".
There are sentences you both have made that strike me to be "about something else' " or saying something else". I thought that I had addressed them besides my regular arguments. They will be very pointed, I promise.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I care for women aswell.... Mostly when im drunk.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Ok, my plans were pushed back so I'll give this as my last post for teh night.
The problem isn't the existence, it's the purpose.
Some one wants to call nudity artistic and natural?
Then it has to be displayed in a natural way. Not an overt or engineered way. There is a difference between art and porn and it is in the display as well as intent behind it's existence.
You want freedom of choice for people to make and play games they want. Fine. Not one person has argued against that.
But don't try and pretend it's more or less than what it is.
That seems to be more the point than anything else in Foomerang's rhetoric.
There is a difference between art and porn. But I would argue that difference is intent and not necessarily the display. Again, look at Iris. It's essentially a woman in a provacative pose. If no explanation was given and it was shown to the average person who had no knowledge of the work I bet two to one they would call it porn. It is very much a simliar pose as one would find in some skin mags. If i was to show it to to some groups they might downright denounce it as porn and humiliating to women.
But yet it's art. It is presented as art that might tantalize or tease or excite.
did Rodin know that it was erotic? yes. Did Rodin know that it was taking a woman and objectifying her? Probably given where he wants the audience to look. Is it Porn? I don't think so But yet there are going to be groups of people who think that it's horrible and objectifying women.
"But dont' try to pretend that its' more or less what it is"
And I believe that is where my issue lies. I'm not saying that penthouse is "art". I might ponit to a particualr photographer and indicate that photographer had an artistic eye but clearly penthouse pics are for titillation.
But if i was to take one of those penthouse poses, perhaps change the background in some way, add things to the photo that are meant to suggest satire or something else, but kept the exact pose, maybe even the exact model, even though my intent is that it's Art, someone is going to point out that it's porn and objectifying women. I can explain all I want but someoen, yourself perhaps, is going to say "dont' pretend it's anyting other than it is". Even though I present it and have added to it to "make it art".
And that's part of the crux of my issue wiht the discussion. someone is always going to look at a photo or painting and see what they think are artistic merits and someone is going to look at it as porn. And then I would say "who is to say", especially if it occupies some sort of gray area. Read "not specifically presented as porn".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
And like the rest of this I had addressed those aspects in some of my previous posts as well. Like when you tried using the burlesque group as a point of debate.
As for your art comment I fidn it a bit incoherent because due to your own previous commentary you proclaim at least as much that sex is natural. So if sex is natural, can it not be presented in a natural way?
In fact is that not what Rodin did with some of his couples sculptures? Sure it displays sex, but it's not a forced action or pose in most any case.
Andf that's a fundamental difference. You almost even touched on this when you admitted there being unnatural extremes to fetishes, there is a threshold for what is natural and what is forced from things such as nudity and activities had therein.
That's fundamentally it. Don't pretend something is more or less that what it is. What is the purpose of any given media. How are they presenting it and what does that do to correlate.
As for things "not specifically presented as porn" that again falls back on a previous statement. If the main purpose behind the existence of something is because 'sex sells' then again, it is what it is.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
I think where the issue, at least here, is that I do say sex is natural. But I never claimed that fetishes were unnatural. As I've said, because of our intellect we have evolved so that these things ARE natural. This is our natural state. So to speak.
The whole reason I brought up the burlesque is because of the statement that (paraphrasing) things are porn or not and that one shouldn't fool themselves into thinking it's anyting other than what it is.
But someone is always going to think something is porn regardless of how it is intended. With the addition of the burlesque.
So sure, with Rodin's "Iris" you indicated that "didn't he present it in a natural state and therefore not porn". But someone is going to point to it and say "the artist wants you to look at the subject's genitals, therefore it's objectifying the subject.
However, the one thing I've been thinking about this weekend is the "Rift Photo" and the comments that it's not "natural" and that it esentially creates an image that is not "realistic".
Yet some people might find it attractive and the artist clearly created it to be attractive. Yet there was a study done some years back that indicated the preferences for attractive women didn't quite fall into what was being presented by the media. That when asked, at least in the U.S., the subjects that men found attractive really fell more into the "average girl next door" image. And of course measurments were given etc.
And if that were the case why does media present men and women in a certain way unless people actually do find them attractive? I have no answer. In any case, I think at this point I'm tired of this discussion. Thanks for your time and for being a decent poster.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Yes, you did say it was unnatural. At least to the extent it had no natural purpose nor played to to real purpose aside from one's own developed interests. That is rather what unnatural is. It does not benefit the activity, does not increase chances of procreation or personal wellbeing, and in quite a decent subsection introduces many unique health risks or means that decrease chances of reproduction. It's pushed well past just being for reproduction or even something recreational to do with someone you love at home.
Also why I only said you 'almost even'.
Also, you keep railing on perception. I haven't cared about addressing that mostly because I'd assume one can make the distinction and understand that it is also the point of looking for the reason behind something. As I have repeated plenty. I can say the flipside and note that plenty of people can think some art piece is porn. That doesn't change the actual nature of the piece, the intent behind it.
As for the matter of why marketing makes piscures like this rather than the girl next door. It's actually kinda simple. People lie.
Like I mentioned , again, before. There are certain visual aspects that will present themselves in almost any condition. For using the female form one such aspect is hip ratio. Why? Because external to anyone expressing their preferences, there have been multiple tests showing that mentally males respond more positively to a visually more apparent hip ratio. They can say anything they want about their preferences, but their brain chemistry doesn't lie. It's a legacy hardcoded in their noggin because it's a trait that is beneficial technically to the health of females as well as to the ability to procreate.
The second step is public perception. The media uses what is most prevalent. People that have grown up getting fed these perceptions of women in art have developed an internal standard that, while they may not jump to it as what they will call their 'preference', it does exist as something they consider idealized. I mentioned this as a problem before when you brought up pulp fiction. When people grow up with those kind of depictions as a standard it's develops into a passive thing to relate other people and depictions against. It also leads to a spiraling effect as people push to make their depictions more extreme in some way to stand out better or appeal more. Is it all bad? No, but as is our tendency people will polarize on something and push one thing about it until it's out of control.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin