Often while browsing CMON I see nude female miniatures that people paint. It doesn't offend me at all, I just don't get it. For example I saw two today, the first was a female commissar wearing only a trench coat and pants and boots. Breasts exposed as well as her whole upper torso all the way down nearly to her crotch. Why in the world would a female commissar be naked? What is the value of that model? I would think people in this hobby would rather see a really well sculpted legitimate female commissar in full uniform appropriate for gameplay. The second example I saw was a diorama basically depicting the rape of an Eldar female captured by some guardsmen. One had her breastplate in his hands and she was topless on the ground while another guardsmen had his pants unbuttoned and others were watching in amusement. It was really well painted and put together, but what is the motivation to depict a rape scene when it could have just been the same scene minus the rape and nudity? I think in MOST cases it cheapens the time and effort put into creating it, What do you think?
Thare1774 wrote:Often while browsing CMON I see nude female miniatures that people paint. It doesn't offend me at all, I just don't get it. For example I saw two today, the first was a female commissar wearing only a trench coat and pants and boots. Breasts exposed as well as her whole upper torso all the way down nearly to her crotch. Why in the world would a female commissar be naked? What is the value of that model? I would think people in this hobby would rather see a really well sculpted legitimate female commissar in full uniform appropriate for gameplay. The second example I saw was a diorama basically depicting the rape of an Eldar female captured by some guardsmen. One had her breastplate in his hands and she was topless on the ground while another guardsmen had his pants unbuttoned and others were watching in amusement. It was really well painted and put together, but what is the motivation to depict a rape scene when it could have just been the same scene minus the rape and nudity? I think in MOST cases it cheapens the time and effort put into creating it, What do you think?
Not really a fan of all of the nudity in the modeling community, but I have seen the diorama depicting the whole Eldar thing, it was meant to depict a crueler, more dark, harsh war-time environment (the kind of cruelties that inevitability occur in war). In that particular diorama it's meant to be offensive and a bit gross. As far as the rest of the nudity, sex sells, nuff said.
While I did get what he was trying to portray, i still don't see why it would be chosen as a theme for a diorama over a million other creative options. Sex does sell, but with minis I get excited over intricately detailed uniforms, armor, and other small things that the sculptor dreams up. There's plenty of nude pictures and videos on the web that I don't think its necessary to bring it into wargaming. Fine art is a totally different monster and nudity is usually done tastefully or for truly artistic reasons. But when looking at as nude commissar I don't get the feeling it was done for artistic reasons, its kitsch.
Lots of people like admiring the nude human form. Whether for its "higher" aesthetic beauty or for simple titillation.
A lot of these nude minis are done purely to cash in on the latter factor, and are junk.
There are plenty of nude figures out there, however, which are nice little works of art and make sense in their context. Whether nude Celtic berserkers, or the old Juan Diaz metal Daemonettes, or some Frazetta or Boris Vallejo-inspired barbarian warriors, savage maidens, or Greek gods and goddesses.
The Eldar diorama was the subject of a great deal of debate and discussion. Most people appreciated the great skill and technique used. Many people thought it was inappropriate within the context of the game. Many others thought it made a trenchant observation about the nature of war and about the less-pleasant sides of it that we gloss over. Some thought the execution was clumsy, and the female figure's figure overemphasized, unpleasantly blurring the line between artistic commentary and dumb titillation.
What's comfortable, appropriate, and enjoyable for one person may be ugly, nasty, sad, boring, tame, passe, or trivial to another. We all have different tastes.
@Mannahnin- I totally agree that there are nude/semi nude minis that are done well and make sense. I'm speaking of the ones that are done for purely sexual reasons. I as m not a prude and none of it offends me, I just don't see value in it a lot of the time.
Thare1774 wrote:@Mannahnin- I totally agree that there are nude/semi nude minis that are done well and make sense. I'm speaking of the ones that are done for purely sexual reasons. I as m not a prude and none of it offends me, I just don't see value in it a lot of the time.
There's no real value besides the people willing to spend money on it, it's like miniature, expensive, metal smut that beyond sitting on a shelf doesn't offer anything to anyone.
Completely agree with what you have said. I have +200 Juan Diaz Daemonettes (including 60 mounted ones). They are really beautiful when painted up(only 60% are painted now) and in mass. My sweety loves the artistic aspects of the hobby and I'm slowly getting her into it.
Like you have said we all have different tastes. I consider the Diaz Daemonettes Artwork and have never seen anyone, male or female be offended by what I place down on the table to game at my Local GW store.
Adam, that may be because those types of models are supposed to have cleavage, a nude commissar girl... That seems a bit OTT, as the model it is based off of is both male and clothed.
Now, I'm not saying go around sticking penises on your Slaanesh Soul Grinder, I'm saying if it's tasteful, and doesn't make a fanboy want to whip it out, go for it.
Chowderhead wrote:Adam, that may be because those types of models are supposed to have cleavage, a nude commissar girl... That seems a bit OTT, as the model it is based off of is both male and clothed.
Now, I'm not saying go around sticking penises on your Slaanesh Soul Grinder, I'm saying if it's tasteful, and doesn't make a fanboy want to whip it out, go for it.
There IS actually a scantily clad female commissar distributed by GW at a Games-day event from a while back, I considered adding it to my army before considering it a joke.
Chowderhead wrote:Adam, that may be because those types of models are supposed to have cleavage, a nude commissar girl... That seems a bit OTT, as the model it is based off of is both male and clothed.
Now, I'm not saying go around sticking penises on your Slaanesh Soul Grinder, I'm saying if it's tasteful, and doesn't make a fanboy want to whip it out, go for it.
There IS actually a scantily clad female commissar distributed by GW at a Games-day event from a while back, I considered adding it to my army before considering it a joke.
Spoiler:
Yes, this may have been made by GW, but I still don't like inappropriate nudity,
Now, something like this: [NSFW]
Spoiler:
I find appropriate. It's for the Savlar Chem Dogs, a penal legion army. It's also the best freehanding I've seen in a good while.
Thare1774 wrote:I just don't get why nearly every female commissar sculpt looks like something you'd see at a nerdy bachelor party.
Because anyone willing to buy it wants to have her at their bachelor party, there simply isn't a marriage in their future.
I thinks there's a mathematical equation to show how sex appeal affects sales:
Spoiler:
More boobs=More money
The makers of the products know (or at least think that they know) their target demographic.
That savlar chem-dogs flag is among the coolest things I've seen since I started up in the hobby!
Chowderhead wrote:
Now, something like this: [NSFW]
Spoiler:
I find appropriate. It's for the Savlar Chem Dogs, a penal legion army. It's also the best freehanding I've seen in a good while.
That's one thing. Savlar Chem Dogs are scummy, ruddy, dirty bastards, and their flag reflects that. It's also reminiscent of a pin-up painted on the side of a tank or plane, and that's fine. It makes sense from a fluff standpoint, and looks good. That particular one is also, as you said, extremely well done.
The fascination with painting models of naked women and the like just seems to be geeks being geeks. I don't really get the fascination; same with folks like Dr. Thunder and his infamous female Marine army. It's one of those things that oversteps a boundary and goes from a sane idea (I'll include a few women in my IG army!) and turns into something ridiculous (I'm going to make an all-female IG army, and they'll all be in bikinis and wearing ballgags!) and not many people stay anywhere near the line, unfortunately.
chromedog wrote:It's not just those without gamer wives.
It's those without ANY female companionship at all.
The socially insular and maladroit.
Hey, I'm socially insular and...*goes to dictionary.com*...maladroit, too, and I don't really like gratuitous nudity, either.
Nudity itself doesn't offend me, nor should it really offend anyone. Simple nudity is not "pornographic" or something to be ashamed of (unless you look like me, lol), and it pisses me off when people suggest as much. That said there is a line that exists between beautiful and tasteless, but most of the time it's pretty easy to tell when someone's crossed it. It all depends on context, bare breasts or genitals may be perfectly acceptable in some cases, but for miniatures, especially ones that are meant to represent characters on the field of battle, a topless female commissar is inappropriate, because there's no reason for her to be naked in this scenario. On the other hand, something resembling a daemon (though in most cases daemons aren't really depicted with genitals...since they don't really need them and they're not natural beings anyway) could probably get away with it, hence why few people are offended by daemonettes: it makes sense for them to be partially or even fully nude on the battlefield, they serve an evil god of hedonism and debauchery, and make a hobby out of seducing weak-willed mortals, or cutting them down with relative ease while dancing gracefully for the pleasure of their dark master. What the feth is a commissar doing with her tits out? "Inspiring" the men to fight on, is that the idea? Commissars "inspire" by executing people who disobey orders. It's stupid, unjustified, pointless nudity done for the sake of it.
And then there's people who sculpt erect dicks or open vaginas on soul grinders for lulz. It needs no explanation.
Bakerofish wrote:everyone has their kinks. If you dont know yours or if you think you dont have any...im afraid to say you just dont know yourself very well.
Or you're a liar.
Mannahnin wrote:Lots of people like admiring the nude human form. Whether for its "higher" aesthetic beauty or for simple titillation.
I think you have to take WH40K quite serious to be offended by nude figures, which in itself is quite worrying really.
To be offended by a bare breast, or an exposed thigh, and yet not blink an eye at a Ravaging Green Ork, or an emaciated Dark Eldar running into battle bare foot is just hillarious.
I'm married and have obviously enjoyed the company of a women, as my 5 month old son will bear witness, and I love seeing well sculpted female forms in both Statue form or large scale miniature form (I collect 54mm and up, and also collect Sideshow Premium Format Statues). I think the female form is great, and everytime I get a chubby looking at a female Marvel comic character, I get the pleasure of knowing everything in the plumbing department is working A-OK, and that my mental chip is still firing on optimum!
All of that said, I was not offended by the Eldar rape scene, quite the opposite, I found it absolutely fascinating. It was a side of WH40K that is not explored because it will offend the kiddies (like severed heads, and the destruction of entire planets is somehow more acceptible?!?).
Regarding the part naked Commissar, well, ok, there I draw the line. Not because it depicts a naked woman, no, that part I like....it's more because it depicts an idiot! Any woman going into combat without torso protection, I don't care how good a warrior you are, is either going to end up dead or taking part in the Eldar rape scene....as the Eldar!
As people have said, sex sells and pervs buy. It's that simple and unfortunate. And to the Eldar rape scene thing - I just think that's over the top. I don't really care for the whole "depicting the true harshness of war" argument. I think that's a politically correct excuse for what is really just an offensive display that someone got a kick out of making. There are plenty of ways to depict the harshness of war without bringing the abuse of females into the picture.
It is sometimes a bit over the top and out of place. Id have no problem with naked or semi naked dark elf witches or some other models where nudity would actually fit.
Actually a squad of dark elf witches, naked apart from tattoos over their bodies drawn in blood would be pretty cool
snake wrote:As people have said, sex sells and pervs buy. It's that simple and unfortunate. And to the Eldar rape scene thing - I just think that's over the top. I don't really care for the whole "depicting the true harshness of war" argument. I think that's a politically correct excuse for what is really just an offensive display that someone got a kick out of making. There are plenty of ways to depict the harshness of war without bringing the abuse of females into the picture.
Would you have problems if it was deamonets of slaanesh raping imperial gaurdesman than cutting their heads off?
snake wrote:As people have said, sex sells and pervs buy. It's that simple and unfortunate. And to the Eldar rape scene thing - I just think that's over the top. I don't really care for the whole "depicting the true harshness of war" argument. I think that's a politically correct excuse for what is really just an offensive display that someone got a kick out of making. There are plenty of ways to depict the harshness of war without bringing the abuse of females into the picture.
Would you have problems if it was deamonets of slaanesh raping imperial gaurdesman than cutting their heads off?
Yes, wouldn't you? Aside from acts of sexual abuse being outside the spectrum of wargaming, I think there is an issue with someone wanting to glorify acts of sexual abuse via miniature modeling.
I agree I am just saying that one fits fluff wise the other is just a pulling abstraction from typical soldier behavior in wars. I don't know why anyone would make a dirama of it but then I want to strangle the person who let a dog starve to death in the name of art.....
Thought on the scantily clad Commissar: This is a universe where "field" type armour exists. In theory, one could wear whatever one liked, and be as protected by a field of some sort as when wearing the latest in physical armour. (From a fluff perspective. I have no idea if Commissars can still purchase fields 'in game'.)
Wow this really caught fire, I just want to clarify my stance. None of it offends me or upsets me. What brought me to posting this question was my curiosity. I wanted to know why people did it because I myself don't get it all. But I'm not against other peoples desires to paint nude models. Thanks for all the replies.
Erotic art is very common. People enjoy it, and quite often those involved in the erotica business are the ones getting plenty. Western culture sill has this sleazy attitude to nudity and erotica. Shame they couldn't have the same attitude to war and violence which does a lot more to harm people than nudity ever will.
There are a lot more models made depicting blood and gore. While a naked Commissar may not fit into any fluff I don't see how it should be less acceptable than a decapitated Space Marine.
Erotic art is very common. People enjoy it, and quite often those involved in the erotica business are the ones getting plenty. Western culture sill has this sleazy attitude to nudity and erotica. Shame they couldn't have the same attitude to war and violence which does a lot more to harm people than nudity ever will.
There are a lot more models made depicting blood and gore. While a naked Commissar may not fit into any fluff I don't see how it should be less acceptable than a decapitated Space Marine.
While I do agree that the "lonely gamer" thing is overly used, I can say from experience that there is a higher number of single dudes with no prospects of ever finding a woman in the wargaming community. It's not that they play, its that they're just weird to begin with. This hobby attracts those people because its something you can do the bulk of alone at your pad. I don't think nude models are specific to that group anyways. Comparing the pointless nudity on a female commissar to a headless SM makes no sense. It is a wargame, therefore it involves war. While a decapitated space marine makes sense in the game a naked female commissar doesn't. It adds nothing to the game at all, unless were speaking of models like deamonettes who are supposed to be naked.
So, is anyone tempted to do a follow up scenario, where "our" half naked Commissar comes along and shoots all the guardsmen for defiling their humanity by raping xenos filth?
I think it would make a nice point, counterpoint...
What pisses me off, is that whilst I know the scantily clad females will always be a part of this hobby (some of them REALLY badly sculpted I might add!), I don't see why we have so few well sculpted and fully clothed/armored females as well.
I remember making a female KotBS in WAR, she looked fething amazing, like if The Empire had Joan of Arc, with a SOB bob and gothic fullplate with zweihander. Now where are miniatures like that?
Let me tell you what I think, I think the sculptors get lazy and rely on putting massive breasts and bare midriff on a female model, no matter how appropriate, because it's far easier than managing to put a decent looking female face and shape to a model. "oh just slap a couple of tatters on it and it's a girl, make em bare and we can sell em by the boatload" - doesn't matter that 'she's' got a face like a robber's dog, as long as it's got bare or nearly bare dumplings, it doesn't matter that's entirely stupid for a Commissar or Knight.
I think it can often allude to a lack of skill and laziness.
I personally don't feel that nudity belongs in the hobby either. I'm no prude by any means, but when it comes to army men, I feel like it just doesn't belong. Fine art oil painting is one thing, and so is sculpting big statues, but whenever I see a nekkid miniature, no matter how good the paint job is, the only thing that really comes to mind when I see it is "Wow, this kid has no life at all..." .. weather that's really the case or not, it's just the first thing that I think of, pretty much every single time.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:What pisses me off, is that whilst I know the scantily clad females will always be a part of this hobby (some of them REALLY badly sculpted I might add!), I don't see why we have so few well sculpted and fully clothed/armored females as well.
I remember making a female KotBS in WAR, she looked fething amazing, like if The Empire had Joan of Arc, with a SOB bob and gothic fullplate with zweihander. Now where are miniatures like that?
Let me tell you what I think, I think the sculptors get lazy and rely on putting massive breasts and bare midriff on a female model, no matter how appropriate, because it's far easier than managing to put a decent looking female face and shape to a model. "oh just slap a couple of tatters on it and it's a girl, make em bare and we can sell em by the boatload" - doesn't matter that 'she's' got a face like a robber's dog, as long as it's got bare or nearly bare dumplings, it doesn't matter that's entirely stupid for a Commissar or Knight.
I think it can often allude to a lack of skill and laziness.
I completely agree, like I said earlier in this thread I would much rather see a well done female commissar. With an ornate functional uniform, a uniform that looks like it would be worn. Hair pulled back into a bun like female soldiers of today, not lookin like she just came from the salon. She's supposed to be a warrior and i just dont see that in most female guard models. I want to see a badass female commissar who would strike fear into enemies and guardsmen alike, not give em boners.
I know a couple people who are happily married and love to paint nude females. To each their own, really, unless you enjoy only painting lots of muscular, often shirtless men
ITT: People who aren't getting any accusing others of not getting any.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:What pisses me off, is that whilst I know the scantily clad females will always be a part of this hobby (some of them REALLY badly sculpted I might add!), I don't see why we have so few well sculpted and fully clothed/armored females as well.
I remember making a female KotBS in WAR, she looked fething amazing, like if The Empire had Joan of Arc, with a SOB bob and gothic fullplate with zweihander. Now where are miniatures like that?
Let me tell you what I think, I think the sculptors get lazy and rely on putting massive breasts and bare midriff on a female model, no matter how appropriate, because it's far easier than managing to put a decent looking female face and shape to a model. "oh just slap a couple of tatters on it and it's a girl, make em bare and we can sell em by the boatload" - doesn't matter that 'she's' got a face like a robber's dog, as long as it's got bare or nearly bare dumplings, it doesn't matter that's entirely stupid for a Commissar or Knight.
I think it can often allude to a lack of skill and laziness.
I completely agree, like I said earlier in this thread I would much rather see a well done female commissar. With an ornate functional uniform, a uniform that looks like it would be worn. Hair pulled back into a bun like female soldiers of today, not lookin like she just came from the salon. She's supposed to be a warrior and i just dont see that in most female guard models. I want to see a badass female commissar who would strike fear into enemies and guardsmen alike, not give em boners.
Problem is to make a quality female model, it will be very hard to tell it is a female because if you look at current US soldiers for the most part the face structure and hair are about all that looks different from male and female uniform. To have a form fitting uniform would be out of place for IGimo. I know there is a bare midrif model but I don't think it fits. I would rather just green stuff a bit of hair and leave the models unisex for the most part.
some nudity/sex can be flaverful and even in the case of a slaneshi army apropiate but a fully naked female commissar...well unless your doing a slaneshi themed traitor army then thats OTT
as a note rule #36 there is porn for everything-yes this does include small minis
MeanGreenStompa wrote:What pisses me off, is that whilst I know the scantily clad females will always be a part of this hobby (some of them REALLY badly sculpted I might add!), I don't see why we have so few well sculpted and fully clothed/armored females as well.
I remember making a female KotBS in WAR, she looked fething amazing, like if The Empire had Joan of Arc, with a SOB bob and gothic fullplate with zweihander. Now where are miniatures like that?
Let me tell you what I think, I think the sculptors get lazy and rely on putting massive breasts and bare midriff on a female model, no matter how appropriate, because it's far easier than managing to put a decent looking female face and shape to a model. "oh just slap a couple of tatters on it and it's a girl, make em bare and we can sell em by the boatload" - doesn't matter that 'she's' got a face like a robber's dog, as long as it's got bare or nearly bare dumplings, it doesn't matter that's entirely stupid for a Commissar or Knight.
I think it can often allude to a lack of skill and laziness.
I completely agree, like I said earlier in this thread I would much rather see a well done female commissar. With an ornate functional uniform, a uniform that looks like it would be worn. Hair pulled back into a bun like female soldiers of today, not lookin like she just came from the salon. She's supposed to be a warrior and i just dont see that in most female guard models. I want to see a badass female commissar who would strike fear into enemies and guardsmen alike, not give em boners.
Problem is to make a quality female model, it will be very hard to tell it is a female because if you look at current US soldiers for the most part the face structure and hair are about all that looks different from male and female uniform. To have a form fitting uniform would be out of place for IGimo. I know there is a bare midrif model but I don't think it fits. I would rather just green stuff a bit of hair and leave the models unisex for the most part.
I agree, i was talking more about special characters like commissars. You can make them appear feminine while still keeping the warrior feel. A small height and weight difference I think would help it be distinguishabled. Just minor things that make people see that it is a female.
snake wrote:And to the Eldar rape scene thing [...] is really just an offensive display that someone got a kick out of making.
Isn't that all there is to a hobby?
Seriously though, I don't want to make this a cultural debate, but most Americans seem to have booby allergy.
The nudist commissar isn't to my taste because it is rather silly, but I don't find it any more offensive than someone painting their army all metallic pink. They payed for the minis, so they can just do with them whatever floats their boat.
To all the people on their high horses: art is rather subjective but the vast, vast, vast majority of miniature work is not art. Just because someone spent 200 hours painting a tiny face does not art make. It's a hobby.
For example, I like to compare my black library books to the candlelight novellas my girlfriend sometimes reads. "Lord something whispered in her ear as she could feel his manhood quivering against her thigh" is to her what "Sergeant something deftly parried the blow and emptied his bolt pistol in the traitor marine's head" is to me. No art, but I still like reading it.
Seriously though, I don't want to make this a cultural debate, but most Americans seem to have booby allergy.
The nudist commissar isn't to my taste because it is rather silly, but I don't find it any more offensive than someone painting their army all metallic pink.
I won't speak for ALL americans as you seem to want to do, but I will say personally that I often find these types of models facepalm inducing because of the comments and types of people they encourage.
The model itslf isn't the issue, it is the creepy/school boy vibe that it sometimes stirs up in some of the people attracted to it.
And it is THESE types (the creepers/giggling school boys who saw boobies) that insure the reinforcement of that "lonely gamer" stereotype...
Let's be clear here, I've nothing against the skimpy costumes in. for example, a secret agent in a 'bond' style setting or something. I've also nothing against ensuring the female form is visible in a costume or uniform, after all, it's a 28mm high mini, you need to make things clear.
But what I'm saying is sticking tats on a crap mini and shamelessly marketing it for titillation is miles away from producing a really good female sculpt in a feminine pose.
I don't think most people are offended by it or have a "booby allergy" as you put it. What were saying is that a lot of these nude female minis are strange, and usually the motivation for painting them is also strange. Also, whether spending 200 hours on a mini or an oil painting it is art. You are way off on what you believe is or isn't art. There are models that I look at and they couldn't be anything but art. I've seen some paintings that look like crap compared to some golden demon winning minis. It is most definitely art, some bad some good.
Thare1774 wrote:Often while browsing CMON I see nude female miniatures that people paint. It doesn't offend me at all, I just don't get it. For example I saw two today, the first was a female commissar wearing only a trench coat and pants and boots. Breasts exposed as well as her whole upper torso all the way down nearly to her crotch. Why in the world would a female commissar be naked? What is the value of that model? I would think people in this hobby would rather see a really well sculpted legitimate female commissar in full uniform appropriate for gameplay. The second example I saw was a diorama basically depicting the rape of an Eldar female captured by some guardsmen. One had her breastplate in his hands and she was topless on the ground while another guardsmen had his pants unbuttoned and others were watching in amusement. It was really well painted and put together, but what is the motivation to depict a rape scene when it could have just been the same scene minus the rape and nudity? I think in MOST cases it cheapens the time and effort put into creating it, What do you think?
I don't know the commissar model, but I do know the rape scene diorama. I think it is very wrong to put them into the same category or ascribe the same motivation to the modelers of each just because they contain nudity.
I strongly support the diorama. It is beautifully painted and though I have a couple of minor criticisms of the modeling it is an excellent piece. It does something that I find rare in 40K modeling, it tells a story through the medium of miniatures. You might disagree with the quality of the work and you might be uncomfortable with the subject matter, but I would say the fact that you are uncomfortable with it is proof that the artist achieved exactly the effect he was going for. You should be uncomfortable with it. Being uncomfortable with it doesn't make it a bad model. And taking out the rape and nudity would have completely changed the story of the model- it wouldn't have had nearly the power to affect you emotionally.
Now contrast this with the naked commissar. Like I said, I don't know the model in question. But judging by your reaction to it there are some assumptions about it I feel comfortable making. If you can't understand why the commissar is naked, then that means that the miniature failed to tell a coherent narrative to you. It didn't provoke an emotional reaction to you, it just caused confusion.
This is akin to the difference between the artistic nude and pornography. One is a celebration of the human form in a context that gives it emotional relevance, the other is a cheap thrill. I love that occasionally our hobby dips ever so slightly into the world of art, but unfortunately more often it dips into pornography. You are welcome to have any opinion you want about how well-executed any of these pieces are, and you are welcome to say you would prefer that your toy soldiers not attempt to be serious and artistic. But let's not confuse the two just because both may have boobs. To ascribe pornographer motivations to the artist as some people in the thread have, that suggests to me an immaturity and discomfort with the human body and the real world.
Also, the distinction here is akin to the argument of strongly-characterized women versus "strong women". The Eldar diorama reflect an uncomfortable reality of war (and we should never presume that just because it is depicted that the intention is to glorify it). The Eldar woman is strongly characterized. When this diorama was first posted on the board, we had several pages of argument about it but I remember people having very strong notions of what the Eldar woman was going to do next. A 30mm hunk of plastic and putty was invested with enough characterization that without even a line of dialog or the slightest bit of motion, people were willing to invest themselves in this frozen moment of time and imagine who the people were and what they were all about. That's really an amazing achievement. Now contrast this with the thousands and thousands of generic battle-armor bikinied women this hobby churns out every year. Like the commissar, they might be depicted as "strong", but they are not strongly-depicted. They are paper-thin stereotypes that exist purely to put a woman's sexual characteristics on display. Now rape scenes can be exploitative and I accept it can be open for argument if the Eldar rape diorama is exploitative (personally I think not enough is known to make a decision one way or the other), but surely we can all agree that a model that depicts a "strong woman" in such a way that displaying her sex characteristics takes prominence over displaying evidence of her strength is far, far more exploitative.
I like that in this hobby there are thoughtful people trying to push the envelope of artistry and try new things. This means we're not all going to be comfortable with every miniature we see. We don't have to all agree that a chick in a chainmail bikini, a rape diorama, a boob monster, an anotomically correct minotaur, or any of the other controversial depictions of anatomy that we see are good works. But let's show a little respect to the artists who make them.
Also, it's a pre-rape scene, the act is not actually in progress. It's a scene that is perhaps a bit disturbing, given that for all its alleged 'grimdark', 40K really restricts itself to 'safe' depictions of violence - but I can't see it as gratuitous in any way.
I'd like to say...me and my girlfriend (Whose 116lb..without sharing a photo thats close-as-I-can-get without upsetting her) lead highly sexual, life-style M/s lives. We also both happen to love Warhammer 40k. Including the Rule 34 of it.
Nudity and sexualism is not wrong or "bad" if done appropriately. IE: Salvar Chemdogs would be more likely to be sexualy oriented in theme/banners/outfits than Cadians. (For Feth's sake, look at Space Marine. Cadians have ZERO sexual fashion sense! Her breasts were not even displayed in armor design!!!) That doesn't mean Cadians don't have sex...and does not mean they don't have porn...nor does it mean rape does not happen. Rape happens. Deal with it. Humans rape everything from rocks to dogs to other humans. I could easily accept rape of an Eldar or even a demon if one could find a way...
I also accept that doing such a thing is heresy. Even to heretics and civillians. Look at the Gaunts Ghosts books with their whole legal-issue brought up at some point I won't spoil. Guard DO have liability. Rape is not permitted to other humans...and likely doing Xenos is heresy, not just a felony.
Fluff wise, you need to justify it.
If it is an art piece? I have NO issues with ANYTHING. Social standards out the window. I do not have to respect your beliefs, favorites, politics, agendas, or otherwise if it is an art piece.
If you don't like it, don't look at it.
Let me give an example; If I put my girl into fetish wear, on a leash, in my FLGS...so long as she is "PG" and the store OKs it, you can't do anything about it. If you complain it is offensive to your views of women...well, to bad. I have permission. My girl likes living life in a collar as a pet. I love her and would turn the world around for her...but our life style, our tastes, do not have to conform with yours. Same goes for models being nude/sexual/otherwise.
Also, Eldar rape is a total turn on as is that diorama...have you seen the sequel? Dark Eldar getting their hands on the rapists. Pay back to them for doing that
A lot has already been said about that eldar rape scene, it's amazingly painted and well modeled. I just don't want a rape scene in my 40k. Now some argue strongly that it's 'realistic' and that's certainly a valid argument (although it's got a space elf maiden in it... so I'm not sure about how much argument for realism can be made about 40k) but then there are lots of things about the real horrors of war that I just have no interest in seeing lovingly recreated into a 28mm fantastical wargaming diorama. I would also not like to see the Emperor's Children re-enacting the atrocities of Nanking on Tau civilians nor the burning little Imperial children, running down a road chased by a napalm dropping ork fighta-bomber imitating Vietnam. Just because it happened in real life, doesn't mean I want it in my fantastical wargame.
And it is because it is rape, and not some other atrocity, that makes me even more leery of it's reason for being and it's verbal support here and elsewhere in the hobby.
snake wrote: As people have said, sex sells and pervs buy. It's that simple and unfortunate.
I think this is a very blinkered view of the "issue". Calling a person a "perv" because they find pleasure in the form of the opposite sex is bordeline insanity. Something as natural as finding the opposite gender attractive and arousing is actually what keeps the human race going, society has created this dichotomy where something so needed for it's continuation is also something depicted as nasty / negative......sex sells and theres nothing wrong with it in the slightest. Someone acting in a perverse manner would be someone going against the flow of "what is considerd normal".....in this case, nature.
snake wrote: And to the Eldar rape scene thing - I just think that's over the top. I don't really care for the whole "depicting the true harshness of war" argument. I think that's a politically correct excuse for what is really just an offensive display that someone got a kick out of making. There are plenty of ways to depict the harshness of war without bringing the abuse of females into the picture.
Only the artist himself (assuming it's a "him") can say for sure why he created the Eldar piece, and we have to assume he's not lying about the reasons......given the reaction, there would be significant reason to lie!!.
That said, what-ever his reasons, the reaction that people have had is actually quite interesting, and like you have stated there is an arguement about the piece depicting the harshness of war. What's interesting for me, are people like yourself who don't care to consider that argument as valid. Certain aspects of war are acceptable to people like yourself, and certain others are not......however, consider a person who is really unfortunate enough to have been exposed to a war scenario....Bosnia, Vietnam, Africa, etc etc.....do you suppose they got to chose which aspects of war they would be exposed to?
I take on board the fact that you are playing a wargame, and as such are sheltered from the true horrors of war, and that your ideas of war are akin to walk in Disneyland, where men are really men and women are helpless damsels waiting for their knights in shining armour.....yeah, I get that. However, just because you lack the experience of a real war-zone you shouldn't presume to lecture others on what is appropriate or not. You do the artist a diservice, and also, you do a diservice to those who were not as fortunate as yourself to be able to simply turn away from said horrors and sulkingly deny that they really happen.
In war there is no respect for gender, a man or a woman are potentially going to be pawns in the depraved games of the "victors". It's no more sick showing a female about to be raped as to show a man being beheaded or ambushed and murdered.....if you doubt me, ask the family members of those Blackwater Operatives who were ambushed and killed in Fallujah. Ask them if they would rather see the Eldar scene played out on your next tabletop wargame or just a bunch of IG in a convoy getting ambushed.....I wonder what they would say....which one would be more tasteful in their eyes?
I have seen both, and the paint job was well done on the diorama and should be commended, however the subject matter was not to my taste. I know what he was going for and understand it, I just dont care for it. In the real world I know this kind of thing happens (not with elves of course), however when in my fake world of toy soldiers I don't want to be reminded that much of the real world. As for the commisar with the bare breasts, it does not make alot of sense without the context, questions come up like, why does she not have her top on, did she just get up and threw the coat on, or whatnot? Here is the link to her for those who have not seen her http://www.brother-vinni.com/gallery/28mm/m28agirl04.htm the face not so good, however a good choice on the hair style for a soldier. I do wonder how her coat stays tight on her waist and shoulder? . If you wanted a ornate female commisar, and are willing to spend the coin http://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/complete-collection/products/kapitan-ivanka-kurganova-28mm but you are going to want to add some seams for pants under those boots. So there are some good ones out there if you just want a female commisar, that said, when it comes to the nudity I think when our wargaming comes to play we really dont mind it if it makes sense, in Brother Vinni's example and offering it does not make sense.
I was simply stating my and my woman don't mind these things. Many women are not offended by sexual connotations in their hobbies. Which is one of the things I think a lot of internet white knights crusade about... in my FLGS I've had a few do that, to try and win the favor of various women in the store by showing how "pro woman equality no sexual display!" they are. I just don't think that such things should matter from a social POV...making it an issue is more of an issue than the items themselves.
Thare1774 wrote:You are way off on what you believe is or isn't art. There are models that I look at and they couldn't be anything but art. I've seen some paintings that look like crap compared to some golden demon winning minis.
Perhaps I should have elaborated my point on this matter.
It is not that I think paint on canvas is art and paint on a mini isn't, that would be mad. I think (visual) art has to convey or evoke meaning, have a message that lies beneath the visible. Art is completely detached from aestetic. Aestetic can support the message of a work and lift it to a higher plane, but it is not inherent to it.
( It can be slightly confusing having this discussion in the english world because of the different meanings of the word 'art', but hopefully we're all on the same page here.)
Some minis fall into this category, I would personally consider the eldar rape scene art, as it takes the minis of what is viewed as a kids' game and morphs the fluff to evoke a (shocked) reaction from the viewers and making them think about why we think violence is so normal in kids' games.
The aestetic (the nice painting and modelling) helps this piece being viewed as art, because it helps it being taken seriously. I think the meaning could be even stronger if the paintwork was deliberately dirtied up and sloppier (see Paul McCarthy) but then the point would be lost as then everyone would just see it as the fruit of a lonely nerd living out his fantasy.
What I don't consider art, and what most minis (even GD winners) fall under is the 'look at my mad skills' category. Whether it is in minis or other forms of art. I know plenty of painters that make amazing looking paintings without meaning, but to me they're decorators, not artists (in 'that' sense of the word). Decorators aren't any less than Artists, but it's different nonetheless.
What do you want to say by painting the millionth Ultramarine army? Nothing, you just want an Ultra army. But that's all right, because you don't have to say anything with your armies. Just do stuff because it is cool. It's decoration, not art.
The diorama pretty definitely crosses the boundary into bad taste, however well-executed it is.
However to complain about the topless commissar - and indeed the general trend towards women in sci-fi and fantasy art going to war in their underwear - is to ignore Warhammer 40,000's well-established debt to Metal Hurlant-type art, in which large-chested women routinely wander about ruined cityscapes, carrying huge weapons and wearing little clothing.
Example spoilered since it might be considered vaguely NSFW.
Thare1774 wrote:You are way off on what you believe is or isn't art. There are models that I look at and they couldn't be anything but art. I've seen some paintings that look like crap compared to some golden demon winning minis.
Perhaps I should have elaborated my point on this matter.
It is not that I think paint on canvas is art and paint on a mini isn't, that would be mad. I think (visual) art has to convey or evoke meaning, have a message that lies beneath the visible. Art is completely detached from aestetic. Aestetic can support the message of a work and lift it to a higher plane, but it is not inherent to it.
( It can be slightly confusing having this discussion in the english world because of the different meanings of the word 'art', but hopefully we're all on the same page here.)
Some minis fall into this category, I would personally consider the eldar rape scene art, as it takes the minis of what is viewed as a kids' game and morphs the fluff to evoke a (shocked) reaction from the viewers and making them think about why we think violence is so normal in kids' games.
The aestetic (the nice painting and modelling) helps this piece being viewed as art, because it helps it being taken seriously. I think the meaning could be even stronger if the paintwork was deliberately dirtied up and sloppier (see Paul McCarthy) but then the point would be lost as then everyone would just see it as the fruit of a lonely nerd living out his fantasy.
What I don't consider art, and what most minis (even GD winners) fall under is the 'look at my mad skills' category. Whether it is in minis or other forms of art. I know plenty of painters that make amazing looking paintings without meaning, but to me they're decorators, not artists (in 'that' sense of the word). Decorators aren't any less than Artists, but it's different nonetheless.
What do you want to say by painting the millionth Ultramarine army? Nothing, you just want an Ultra army. But that's all right, because you don't have to say anything with your armies. Just do stuff because it is cool. It's decoration, not art.
I wish to tell you, that you probably best explained art in your post in all of the internet. Your way of viewing and describing it to us in english was without a doubt very worth while read. One of my college professors was Greek, he explained often how "Art" is such an ambiguous word...that many languages do not support "art" as a word, and have more complex expressions of what "artists" and "art" are. You, sir, did an excellent job in this.
Thare1774 wrote:You are way off on what you believe is or isn't art. There are models that I look at and they couldn't be anything but art. I've seen some paintings that look like crap compared to some golden demon winning minis.
Perhaps I should have elaborated my point on this matter.
It is not that I think paint on canvas is art and paint on a mini isn't, that would be mad. I think (visual) art has to convey or evoke meaning, have a message that lies beneath the visible. Art is completely detached from aestetic. Aestetic can support the message of a work and lift it to a higher plane, but it is not inherent to it.
( It can be slightly confusing having this discussion in the english world because of the different meanings of the word 'art', but hopefully we're all on the same page here.)
Some minis fall into this category, I would personally consider the eldar rape scene art, as it takes the minis of what is viewed as a kids' game and morphs the fluff to evoke a (shocked) reaction from the viewers and making them think about why we think violence is so normal in kids' games.
The aestetic (the nice painting and modelling) helps this piece being viewed as art, because it helps it being taken seriously. I think the meaning could be even stronger if the paintwork was deliberately dirtied up and sloppier (see Paul McCarthy) but then the point would be lost as then everyone would just see it as the fruit of a lonely nerd living out his fantasy.
What I don't consider art, and what most minis (even GD winners) fall under is the 'look at my mad skills' category. Whether it is in minis or other forms of art. I know plenty of painters that make amazing looking paintings without meaning, but to me they're decorators, not artists (in 'that' sense of the word). Decorators aren't any less than Artists, but it's different nonetheless.
What do you want to say by painting the millionth Ultramarine army? Nothing, you just want an Ultra army. But that's all right, because you don't have to say anything with your armies. Just do stuff because it is cool. It's decoration, not art.
The diorama pretty definitely crosses the boundary into bad taste, however well-executed it is.
However to complain about the topless commissar - and indeed the general trend towards women in sci-fi and fantasy art going to war in their underwear - is to ignore Warhammer 40,000's well-established debt to Metal Hurlant-type art, in which large-chested women routinely wander about ruined cityscapes, carrying huge weapons and wearing little clothing.
What's bizarre about this (common) point of view is that it says a serious scene that provokes a profound emotional response is 'bad taste' yet something deliberately exploitative - mere titillation - is 'fair game'.
Traditionally, drawing/painting a nude model is considered essential to proper technique training. It's actually pretty challenging.
I know I've painted a few scantily clad figures, and even some nudes, and they've been challenges. You really learn how to work with flesh tones!
As with anythin else, quality and context go a long way. One of my favorite modesl (and a reason I've been starting deamons) is the Ultraforge Pleasuredemon:
Delephont wrote:I think this is a very blinkered view of the "issue". Calling a person a "perv" because they find pleasure in the form of the opposite sex is bordeline insanity. Something as natural as finding the opposite gender attractive and arousing is actually what keeps the human race going, society has created this dichotomy where something so needed for it's continuation is also something depicted as nasty / negative......sex sells and theres nothing wrong with it in the slightest. Someone acting in a perverse manner would be someone going against the flow of "what is considerd normal".....in this case, nature.
I'm not calling anyone a perv for finding natural attraction to and pleasure in the opposite sex. I am calling them a perv for carrying it to aspects of their life where it doesn't fit. A naked commissar on a battlefield? Give me a break. That has nothing to do with the role of sexuality in fostering the continuation of the human race. It is rather a perversion of that natural attraction between humans into something objectifying the female party alone for nothing more than male pleasure, no different than an "adult" video or magazine.
Delephont wrote: Only the artist himself (assuming it's a "him") can say for sure why he created the Eldar piece, and we have to assume he's not lying about the reasons......given the reaction, there would be significant reason to lie!!.
I think it would be difficult to assume that it was other than a "him" that made this diorama. Could you imagine a woman immortalizing the display of female abuse that the scene depicts? I certainly find it hard to. That alone should draw some attention to how offensive it is.
As far as the artist having significant reason to lie about the intention behind the piece, I agree. There is plenty of reason to represent that piece as something more appropriate like a piece of "art". Doing so attempts to mitigate the objective, flagrant obscenity that the diorama showcases. Now I don't why the modeller made that diorama. I can't say whether or not he intended it as a piece of inspiring, eye opening art for all of us naive citizens uneducated about the horrors of war, or if it was just some idea he thought would be killer to put to plastic. So, you're right, I can't criticize the artist per se. What I was getting at is that I don't put any stock in other viewers' justifications for it as "art".
Delephont wrote:
Spoiler:
That said, what-ever his reasons, the reaction that people have had is actually quite interesting, and like you have stated there is an arguement about the piece depicting the harshness of war. What's interesting for me, are people like yourself who don't care to consider that argument as valid. Certain aspects of war are acceptable to people like yourself, and certain others are not......however, consider a person who is really unfortunate enough to have been exposed to a war scenario....Bosnia, Vietnam, Africa, etc etc.....do you suppose they got to chose which aspects of war they would be exposed to?
I take on board the fact that you are playing a wargame, and as such are sheltered from the true horrors of war, and that your ideas of war are akin to walk in Disneyland, where men are really men and women are helpless damsels waiting for their knights in shining armour.....yeah, I get that. However, just because you lack the experience of a real war-zone you shouldn't presume to lecture others on what is appropriate or not. You do the artist a diservice, and also, you do a diservice to those who were not as fortunate as yourself to be able to simply turn away from said horrors and sulkingly deny that they really happen.
In war there is no respect for gender, a man or a woman are potentially going to be pawns in the depraved games of the "victors". It's no more sick showing a female about to be raped as to show a man being beheaded or ambushed and murdered.....if you doubt me, ask the family members of those Blackwater Operatives who were ambushed and killed in Fallujah. Ask them if they would rather see the Eldar scene played out on your next tabletop wargame or just a bunch of IG in a convoy getting ambushed.....I wonder what they would say....which one would be more tasteful in their eyes?
Wrong. It is not that certain aspects of war are acceptable/unacceptable to me, nor that I am unaware of what goes on in war. I don' think there are many educated adults who are not aware of the realities of war, even if they have not experienced them firsthand. To suggest that is the case is just ludicrous. What is unacceptable to me is why anyone would promote these most severe "horrors of war", straight from the experience of a "real war-zone' in what is supposed to be game aimed at escaping reality. There are no Eldar or IG in the real world, which makes it acceptable to play a game based on strategy and warfare between the two. If you can't realize that the depiction of a rape (or a beheading, or mutilation, and so on) is taking that GAME too far, then I can't help you.
You say its a disservice to veterans to not allow models of realistic horrors of war. I say its a disservice to veterans to diminute those horrors by making them an arts and crafts project in our little world of make believe space warfare. That and the unacceptability of the offensive objectification of the female in nude models is my bottom line.
snake wrote:Could you imagine a woman immortalizing the display of female abuse that the scene depicts? I certainly find it hard to. That alone should draw some attention to how offensive it is.
Um... yeah...depends on the woman. My girlfriend? Fantasies about rape vans, branding, sexual slavery, etc. As does her friend. Again, as I said, you can't push your personal views upon others.. I accept many may not like it, but that doesn't mean you have to say women would never enjoy such a piece.
I'm not advocating real rape - but "realized reality" pieces like that? Fantasies for sexual deliverance? No issues here.
This is exactly what I mean - I wish people would quit trying to force their views of how women, men, and society should be. I'm not saying it should be my way either, I'm just saying, step back and stop making definitive statements about the entirety of a gender.
There is a diference however between displaying it as a intelligent piece...and nudity for the sake of nudity. Example, nude cadian female commissar for the sake of nudity? Tasteless. Daemonettes running about topless? Acceptable. It is in context. Appropriate. A nude "commissar" female that is just a poster girl to inspire the troops? Not a combatant? That is not tasteless. Its justified.
Pinup girls existed in WW2. Painting a nude-ish woman down the side of a marauder is acceptable too... objectification of some women? Yes. Women who want to be recognized for their beauty.
There are no Eldar or IG in the real world, which makes it acceptable to play a game based on strategy and warfare between the two.
Um...so you are against modern warfare games? Future-war games between existing societies?
There's nothing 'offensive' (a ridiculous affectation to take with art, but that's a rant for another day) about the guardsman diorama. It's amazing.
Outside of it being spectacularly painted and modeled with great craft, I found this diorama really interesting, it reads to me like an articulation of the natural urge for an individual to humanize things that are alien (no pun intended), such as the sexless 40k universe. The concept of a universe of constant war between humanoids that doesn't even allude to rape or any kind of natural sexuality, where sexual urges are either absent due to a) characters being superhuman puritanical zealots (Marines, Grey Knights), asexual reproducers (Orks), or inhuman xenos (Tyranids, Tau); b) conspicuously absent in their sexuality (Imperial Guard, Eldar); c) carrying sexuality but it being a weapon or a mark of their depravity (Demons, Dark Eldar) is in itself an interesting construction.
The fact that this modeler brings a very human element to a fictional universe that typically ignores a fundamental aspect of being human is perfectly acceptable as art and the fact that people are having knee-jerk reactions like some of what I've read above speaks in itself to the truth of this. It wasn't tastelessly done, there's no grotesqely sculpted wangs, it's not overly sexualized, and either it doesn't try to titilate (because I wasn't titilated) or it fails at titilation.
Rather, it's modelled and painted so effectively it has a sort of casual malice that is far more grim than the usual endless decapitations and rivers of cartoony blood that make up the usual 40k schema.
While some people may be offended by nudity and other such themes in 40k art, I think more people find the work "inappropriate" rather than offensive.
And works are appropriate based entirely on the audience, acutal or hypothetical. Lots of people could look at the eldar rape scene and not find it personally offensive (I think it's a big hamfisted and cartoony, but not offensive), but would find it inappropriate for any audience where kids were expected.
I think a third group (After those genuinely offended and those worried about offending others) are those that dont' like the idea that a person viewing the hobby from outside would see such work, and decide that it's representative of the hobby as a whole. This is one of those things that I kind of agree with: it'd be easy for a non-gamer to assume we're all wierdos that play a satanic game. Toss in gratuitous nudity and it doesn't help.
hemingway wrote:There's nothing 'offensive' (a ridiculous affectation to take with art, but that's a rant for another day) about the guardsman diorama. It's amazing.
Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.
People find things offensive according to circumstance, experience and environment. It can be strongly argued that putting this scene into the context of scifi toy soldiers is belittling and highly insulting to the subject matter.
Whilst some will claim that there should be no distinction to other unpleasantness of warfare, I would remind you all that our western culture allows small children to play with toy guns and 'shoot' at each other, our culture does not endorse the same of sexual violence. Certain acts are more taboo than others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:
I think a third group (After those genuinely offended and those worried about offending others) are those that dont' like the idea that a person viewing the hobby from outside would see such work, and decide that it's representative of the hobby as a whole. This is one of those things that I kind of agree with: it'd be easy for a non-gamer to assume we're all wierdos that play a satanic game. Toss in gratuitous nudity and it doesn't help.
It certainly hasn't helped my wife's interest in the hobby or her friends' perception of it and who plays it. It certainly doesn't help me explaining to others that what we do isn't weird or degenerate. It holds the hobby back, reinforces stereotypes and turns off female interest in gaming and painting. For all I stand up and tell people that what I do is cool, a simple google search undoes all that.
It can be strongly argued that putting this scene into the context of scifi toy soldiers is belittling and highly insulting to the subject matter.
And equally strongly that it does not. There is absolutely nothing titillating about that scene (unless one finds the mere presence of naked breasts regardless of context titillating). To me it's far more acceptable than the gratuitous semi-clad 'dark eldar captives', or indeed the topless comissaress.
I hate to say it, but the culture and opinions are so diverse that any one opinion is correct to the beholder and his situation.
Example, I live and socialize in a highly sexual group where this is nothing.
Others posting here are in very conservative places where such things are unacceptable to even put into art.
I think- and I hate to say it- that this topic is to touchy for a wargaming forum. I'm no mod... but, I kinda feel like we're all just going down hill here into a fight. It begins as social discussion but none of us will be changing our opinions and we are increasingly pointing fingers.
It can be strongly argued that putting this scene into the context of scifi toy soldiers is belittling and highly insulting to the subject matter.
And equally strongly that it does not. There is absolutely nothing titillating about that scene (unless one finds the mere presence of naked breasts regardless of context titillating).
You're not even remotely serious, are you? Have you met the audience yet?
@MGS: I agree with you that simply showing a serious topic is not enough to sheild art from offending a party.
I mean, the concept of rape, on it's own, isn't exactly taboo. Sublime even had a minor hit with the song "Date Rape." OTOH, that song was both funny and had a moral message: date rape is a crime. The eldar piece, if it had a message at all, basically only said "rape happens in 40k."
As to your second point, while I'm sympathetic to the view that we, as a hobby, are judged by our worst aspects (and I agree), I feel that that isn't enough to really shut down creativity. I mean, there are more creepy pictures of Disney characters violating each other than I'd care to estimate. Isolated pieces or a few nude miniatures are by far the expections, not the rule.
At the end of the day, some people like nude miniatures (I'm one), some simply don't, most are ambivilent. Very few feel strongly about the subject, and fewer still probably find any actual sexual gratification in them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Artemo wrote:
It can be strongly argued that putting this scene into the context of scifi toy soldiers is belittling and highly insulting to the subject matter.
And equally strongly that it does not. There is absolutely nothing titillating about that scene (unless one finds the mere presence of naked breasts regardless of context titillating).
You're not even remotely serious, are you? Have you met the audience yet?
I think you're both dramatically overstating points.
I think that massive, exposed breasts turn a grim scene into something more exploitative.
I think few, if any, people really find that overly titilatting. 20 years ago? Maybe. Now every 12 year old with a smart phone can find HD porno showing acts that were physicall impossible when I was 12.
People are turned on by all kinds of weird stuff. It's not horribly wierd to see a seen of coerced sex and feel aroused. It should not be denied that it's possible. It should not also be seen as the primary motive of the piece.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.
So, your position is to take a wildly hypothetical situation: find a victim of gang rape and force them to look at science fiction miniatures, then ask them how they feel about it? How is that in any way germane to what I've said? What does this have to do with art? Art is exempt from moral scrutiny. Sorry, it just is. Wilde taught us that over one hundred years ago. Someone being raped is a crime. Someone modeling figurines depicting a crime is not a crime. It's free expression.
People find things offensive according to circumstance, experience and environment.
People labor under this idiotic ideal that being offended (read: seeing something you don't like) grants you certain rights, namely, the right to oppress other people who you think have offended you, or to silence, censure, or otherwise censor them. "Offended" is the worst kind of subjective modern puritanism and has nothing at all to do with the creation and expression of art. But in reality, nothing is going to happen if someone gets offended. Freedom of expression means that occasionally things might happen you don't like. And guess what, nobody is making you look at eldar rape dioramas! Welcome to being an adult in a complex world!
It can be strongly argued that putting this scene into the context of scifi toy soldiers is belittling and highly insulting to the subject matter
So what? The 40k universe is suddenly exempt from criticism or examination? People spend all day on this forum insulting GW, the GW universe, the fluff, the designers, the modelers, the author of recent codixes (mentioning no names). I don't see the models complaining, so how can the subject matter be insulted
hemingway wrote:People labor under this idiotic ideal that being offended (read: seeing something you don't like) grants you certain rights, namely, the right to oppress other people who you think have offended you, or to silence, censure, or otherwise censor them. "Offended" is the worst kind of subjective modern puritanism and has nothing at all to do with the creation and expression of art. But in reality, nothing is going to happen if someone gets offended. Freedom of expression means that occasionally things might happen you don't like. And guess what, nobody is making you look at eldar rape dioramas! Welcome to being an adult in a complex world!
It's still neither noble nor useful to offend others. I don't think anybody is saying that eldar rape diorammas shouldn't be allowed to exist, I think we're saying that we wouldn't want them on display at the FLGS or prominently here on Dakka.
A big part of "being an adult in a complex world" is also acting responsibly to those around you.
People labor under this idiotic ideal that being offended (read: seeing something you don't like) grants you certain rights, namely, the right to oppress other people who you think have offended you, or to silence, censure, or otherwise censor them.[/youtube]
Lets keep some perspective:
1. Nobody is being censured/oppressed, especially here on Dakka where these sorts of miniatures are shown all the time and a certain segement of posters express support for them.
2. When people post things for comment/review/reaction they have to accept and expect that not all of it will be supportive/positive.
If you don't want people to say they don''t like your "art", then don't post it in public forum in which people are able to offer opinion. Or do so and accept that it will not all be glowing praise...
hemingway wrote:
So, your position is to take a wildly hypothetical situation: find a victim of gang rape and force them to look at science fiction miniatures, then ask them how they feel about it? How is that in any way germane to what I've said? What does this have to do with art? Art is exempt from moral scrutiny. Sorry, it just is. Wilde taught us that over one hundred years ago. Someone being raped is a crime. Someone modeling figurines depicting a crime is not a crime. It's free expression.
People find things offensive according to circumstance, experience and environment.
People labor under this idiotic ideal that being offended (read: seeing something you don't like) grants you certain rights, namely, the right to oppress other people who you think have offended you, or to silence, censure, or otherwise censor them. "Offended" is the worst kind of subjective modern puritanism and has nothing at all to do with the creation and expression of art. But in reality, nothing is going to happen if someone gets offended. Freedom of expression means that occasionally things might happen you don't like. And guess what, nobody is making you look at eldar rape dioramas! Welcome to being an adult in a complex world!
It can be strongly argued that putting this scene into the context of scifi toy soldiers is belittling and highly insulting to the subject matter
So what? The 40k universe is suddenly exempt from criticism or examination? People spend all day on this forum insulting GW, the GW universe, the fluff, the designers, the modelers, the author of recent codixes (mentioning no names). I don't see the models complaining, so how can the subject matter be insulted
I typed a long counter argument to what you said, then I realised I can't be bothered, the point you're missing, the hypocritical enormity of your statements is so numbing I just can't summon the energy to continue to converse with you.
So, 'art' must never be oppressed or subjected to moral scrutiny, but personal opinion should be silenced if it questions or dislikes said 'art'?
It's still neither noble nor useful to offend others. I don't think anybody is saying that eldar rape diorammas shouldn't be allowed to exist, I think we're saying that we wouldn't want them on display at the FLGS or prominently here on Dakka.
A big part of "being an adult in a complex world" is also acting responsibly to those around you.
Sometimes showing people an uncomfortable truth or have them examine something they'd rather not see is one of the best ways to help them grow and overcome personal obstacles. There's some forms of therapy that revolve around that, I'm sure. That said, I agree that there's usually no cause to be a dick for the sake of it.
CT GAMER wrote:
1. Nobody is being censured/oppressed, especially here on Dakka where these sorts of miniatures are shown all the time and a certain segement of posters express support for them.
Really? What happens when you type a swear on this forum? I'm being glib, but I also never made the claim that the artist was being censured or oppressed, I'm speaking more to this trend of 'offense' that people try to use as a yardstick of moral valuation.
CT GAMER wrote:2. When people post things for comment/review/reaction they have to accept and expect that not all of it will be supportive/positive.
Of course not. That's part of putting it out there. My claim is that to censure a work based on perceived offense is absurd.
CT GAMER wrote:If you don't want people to say they don''t like your "art", then don't post it in public forum in which people are able to offer opinion. Or do so and accept that it will not all be glowing praise...
Be clear: This diorama is not my piece.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, 'art' must never be oppressed or subjected to moral scrutiny,
right.
but personal opinion should be silenced if it questions or dislikes said 'art'?
I've never seen this diorama, but would like to contribute to this in a meaningful way. Could someone PM me a link?
I don't think it's any more inappropriate to have rape in a diorama than it is to have it in fiction. Anyone read Hannibal? Extremely graphic (at times) descriptions.
Polonius wrote:The eldar piece, if it had a message at all, basically only said "rape happens in 40k."
As I stated before, I find it a very engaging piece just because of the juxtaposition toy soldiers > rape scene and the uneasiness it evokes in a lot of people. The realisation that we are numbed to all the violence prevalent in every form of entertainment these days. My train of thought seeing that rape scene for the first time went like this:
"Oh wow, that's heavy"
"Why do I find this heavy? I see way more violent pieces every day."
"Maybe I should be asking myself why I find those pieces normal."
It got me thinking, which is what I like in my art. It may be that the creator of the piece had no intention of putting all that in, for all I know he or she just recreated a sexual fantasy, but that is what it communicates, which is all that matters.
(As a side note, this relates to a personal peeve of mine, where people admire works nobody gets because it's 'so deep'. To me that just means it doesn't communicate = bad art)
MeanGreenStompa wrote:You're not even remotely serious, are you? Have you met the audience yet?
MGS, I notice that whichever discussion you take part in, you always fly straight into it with a certain 'vigor'. You may just be an enthusiastic person, but it may come over as kind of hostile. We're all smart people here, trying to have an interesting discussion with valid points on both sides. This kind of language devalues that discussion and only serves to incite flaming once both sides get into it.
Thank you. Now that is an extremely well done diorama. It's not overly graphic, and it's at least well modeled. That tank commander in the Centaur is an excellent choice of model.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.
So, your position is to take a wildly hypothetical situation: find a victim of gang rape and force them to look at science fiction miniatures, then ask them how they feel about it? How is that in any way germane to what I've said? What does this have to do with art? Art is exempt from moral scrutiny. Sorry, it just is. Wilde taught us that over one hundred years ago. Someone being raped is a crime. Someone modeling figurines depicting a crime is not a crime. It's free expression.
People find things offensive according to circumstance, experience and environment.
People labor under this idiotic ideal that being offended (read: seeing something you don't like) grants you certain rights, namely, the right to oppress other people who you think have offended you, or to silence, censure, or otherwise censor them. "Offended" is the worst kind of subjective modern puritanism and has nothing at all to do with the creation and expression of art. But in reality, nothing is going to happen if someone gets offended. Freedom of expression means that occasionally things might happen you don't like. And guess what, nobody is making you look at eldar rape dioramas! Welcome to being an adult in a complex world!
It can be strongly argued that putting this scene into the context of scifi toy soldiers is belittling and highly insulting to the subject matter
So what? The 40k universe is suddenly exempt from criticism or examination? People spend all day on this forum insulting GW, the GW universe, the fluff, the designers, the modelers, the author of recent codixes (mentioning no names). I don't see the models complaining, so how can the subject matter be insulted
I'll agree with you... to a point. However, creating art and displaying it DOES open you up to critique and commentary. No one can tell you not to do it, but if you've offended someone, they have just as much right of expression as you do.
JoeyFox wrote:Um... yeah...depends on the woman. My girlfriend? Fantasies about rape vans, branding, sexual slavery, etc. As does her friend. Again, as I said, you can't push your personal views upon others.. I accept many may not like it, but that doesn't mean you have to say women would never enjoy such a piece.
I'm not advocating real rape - but "realized reality" pieces like that? Fantasies for sexual deliverance? No issues here.
Guess what, that "realized reality" piece portrays violent rape. Regardless of whatever artistic merits someone may consider it to have, the subject matter still showcases something that has no place being glorified through any medium. I find it hard to believe that any person who fantasized about this, or similar events, would continue to do so after actually experiencing violent rape, slavery, etc., firsthand in reality, much less advocate their portrayal for the modeller's personal gratification.
JoeyFox wrote:This is exactly what I mean - I wish people would quit trying to force their views of how women, men, and society should be. I'm not saying it should be my way either, I'm just saying, step back and stop making definitive statements about the entirety of a gender.
I may have referenced female sensitivity in particular, but really disgust for rape is a trait of humankind. What's the alternative? The suggestion that we should instead live in a society where rape or sexual abuse is acceptable? Do you disagree that it would be better for our society to be based around respect for all genders? When it comes down to it, rape, sexual slavery, etc., is a violation of human dignity and purpose, even if our minds have been twisted enough to consider them acceptable or even desirable in some circumstances. Look at accounts from survivors of sexual slavery, etc. from places where female sexual abuse and objectification is the norm. You'll find a pretty unanimous trend that it is destructive and undesired despite whatever conceptions other people have the luxury of ruminating over. Theoretically respect for all currents of thought sounds great. But in the real world, some dispositions don't sit as well when you see how they violate the dignity of real human beings.
JoeyFox wrote:There is a diference however between displaying it as a intelligent piece...and nudity for the sake of nudity. Example, nude cadian female commissar for the sake of nudity? Tasteless. Daemonettes running about topless? Acceptable. It is in context. Appropriate. A nude "commissar" female that is just a poster girl to inspire the troops? Not a combatant? That is not tasteless. Its justified.
Pinup girls existed in WW2. Painting a nude-ish woman down the side of a marauder is acceptable too... objectification of some women? Yes. Women who want to be recognized for their beauty.
Unfortunately, people who objectify women in such a manner are not recognizing the true beauty of the female. They are instead focusing solely on the female as a tool for sexual gratification. The base satisfaction of physical desire. If that's what you think women deserve to be glorified for, then I suppose my argument is moot.
JoeyFox wrote:Um...so you are against modern warfare games? Future-war games between existing societies?
No. The reference to Eldar and IG was in the context of the specific discussion. "Modern warfare" games may involve "real" countries, but again occur in the context of a fantasy world and scenario. They therefore similarly suspend total realism. The point stands that there is a line in the sand when playing a warGAME and some things inappropriately cross that line. The representation of the unfortunate realities of rape, sexual abuse, and the glorification of women as sexual tools to "inspire" and satisfy men cross that line in showcasing violation of human dignity and respect for gender if nothing else.
I think part of the problem is that people want to use this hobby as an escape from the real world, but when something that portrays one of the darker sides of humanity, like the Eldar rape scene, is created, it throws them back into the harsh reality.
I'm not offended by the diorama at all, but because it's a reminder of the cruelty of man, I don't like it.
And I'm not just talking about the sexual depictions; anything that represents any of the horrific things in human history would be offensive to a lot of people.
snake wrote:Guess what, that "realized reality" piece portrays violent rape. Regardless of whatever artistic merits someone may consider it to have, the subject matter still showcases something that has no place being glorified through any medium.
Depiction != glorification
You're welcome to your opinion of the quality and tastefulness of the scene in question, but dishonestly representing it's content serves no purpose.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:You're not even remotely serious, are you? Have you met the audience yet?
MGS, I notice that whichever discussion you take part in, you always fly straight into it with a certain 'vigor'. You may just be an enthusiastic person, but it may come over as kind of hostile. We're all smart people here, trying to have an interesting discussion with valid points on both sides. This kind of language devalues that discussion and only serves to incite flaming once both sides get into it.
It was a light-hearted comment, it should read as humorous.
Also...
Hey man, don't censure me, sure I'm passionate, but if others find that offensive, that's their problem man! Being vigorous in discussions is like, my art man. All'a y'all cats need to dig my 'tude!
snake wrote:Guess what, that "realized reality" piece portrays violent rape. Regardless of whatever artistic merits someone may consider it to have, the subject matter still showcases something that has no place being glorified through any medium.
So you object equally to films and books depicting such things?
It's still neither noble nor useful to offend others. I don't think anybody is saying that eldar rape diorammas shouldn't be allowed to exist, I think we're saying that we wouldn't want them on display at the FLGS or prominently here on Dakka.
A big part of "being an adult in a complex world" is also acting responsibly to those around you.
Sometimes showing people an uncomfortable truth or have them examine something they'd rather not see is one of the best ways to help them grow and overcome personal obstacles. There's some forms of therapy that revolve around that, I'm sure. That said, I agree that there's usually no cause to be a dick for the sake of it.
I'd agree, if you're a person's close friend, clergyman, or medical professional. For example, my girlfriend's brother killed himself. I'm sure a therapist would want to really explore that. I'm still careful about making suicide jokes around her, and cringe a bit when others do. Know your audience an all that.
And yes, there is a proud history of shocking images to raise awareness of an issue. The images of police brutality during the civil rights movement were shocking, but showed what was actually happening. This lead to changing viewpoints on the nature of the movement.
For something in the 40 milleu, what's the possible outcome? That the 40k universe is bad and we shouldn't enjoy it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tim the Biovore wrote:I think part of the problem is that people want to use this hobby as an escape from the real world, but when something that portrays one of the darker sides of humanity, like the Eldar rape scene, is created, it throws them back into the harsh reality.
I'm not offended by the diorama at all, but because it's a reminder of the cruelty of man, I don't like it.
And I'm not just talking about the sexual depictions; anything that represents any of the horrific things in human history would be offensive to a lot of people.
The less realistic 40k is, the better, IMHO.
This post sums up my thoughts very nicely. I agree 100%.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, 'art' must never be oppressed or subjected to moral scrutiny,
right.
but personal opinion should be silenced if it questions or dislikes said 'art'?
not right.
You understand you've just made two contradictory statements here?
Or do you need me to explain that a personal opinion could be a moral scrutiny of the piece according to the ethos of the individual? That if the piece openly defies/opposes or insults that person's ethos or morality, that the person will take an adversarial stance to it?
Where is it stated that art is above repercussion for it's message? If the 'art' is a racist message or advocacy of child molestation, you should not challenge or be offended by it? Why does calling something 'art' elevate it above the criticism or anger of personal insult?
I've seen the diorama, and my reaction to it is pretty much the same (but to a lesser extent) as I have to Kingdom Death models; I don't get it. I don't get Citadel's ancient "naked ladies in torture chamber" models either, or extremely graphic "gore" models or dioramas. Every time I visit JoeyFox' "sexualized" website (aka The Arsehole of the Internet, aka 4chan ) I walk away with the same feeling as well...
That being said, considering how grim the 40k universe is, I am sure the rape scene in the diorama is a pretty mild example of sexualized violence in it...if it was real. Which it of course is not. And because it is not, we don't get to see Tyranid organisms gnawing children's faces off either (except at 4chan, of course).
It would be a splendid irony if someone decided to cencor this post because i wrote "Arse" above
snake]The point stands that there is a line in the sand when playing a warGAME and some things inappropriately cross that line. The representation of the unfortunate realities of rape, sexual abuse, and the glorification of women as sexual tools to "inspire" and satisfy men cross that line in showcasing violation of human dignity and respect for gender if nothing else.
Could you elaborate on why you find this crossing a line while torture and murder apparently remains "a warGAME" as you put it?
I find more and more people having this point of view. My storyteller for Vampire:the Requiem also told us at the beginning of our campaign: "anything goes, but no rape.
As if rape were the worst crime imaginable (which the penal system of just about every civilised country seems to disagree with) I honestly think it's the numbing effect the prevalence of violence in entertainment and popular culture has, while sexual violence is still rather taboo in these areas.
snake wrote:
Guess what, that "realized reality" piece portrays violent rape. Regardless of whatever artistic merits someone may consider it to have, the subject matter still showcases something that has no place being glorified through any medium.
Who's glorifying rape? How many people do you think are looking at that diorama and thinking "Sweet! Rape is awesome!" I know I'm not. Sounds to me like your'e the only one in the thread who sees this as a glorification. You should explore that.
There is no "Regardless of whatever artistic merits..." That's like saying "Regardless of Mars being a planet, it's still a star." Something has artistic merit or it doesn't. Without putting too fine a point on it, I bet you'd be hard pressed to say Judith Beheading Holofernes glorifies murder or shouldn't be painted because decapitating people in their sleep is wrong. To wit: you're drawing parallels that don't exist.
I find it hard to believe that any person who fantasized about this, or similar events, would continue to do so after actually experiencing violent rape, slavery, etc., firsthand in reality, much less advocate their portrayal for the modeller's personal gratification.
Not only are you falsly assuming a direct link between rape fantasies and real rape, you're assuming a direct link between the diorama and real rape. You're also employing the Intentional Fallacy and not only assuming (possibly incorrectly) what the artist's motives were in making the piece, but also what they intended by it.
The rape taboo is a pretty strong one in Western cultures, and probably exists for a lot of reasons.
One of those reasons is the fact that very, very few people will every murder another person. Or torture them. Or burn a building down. Or commit treason against the state/crown. Or even physically assault another person, outside of self defense.
But there are a lot of rapists out there. Not violent rapists, but date rapists, child molestors, people that use power or influence to coerce others into sex, etc.
By the same token, few of us will be murdered, assaulted, or tortured. But stats show that a sizable minority of women are sexually attacked in some way.
We also know that sexual crimes are often covered up. They also can be very psychologically harmful.
So you have something that's actually pretty common, occuring to and by "normal" people, that is horrible.
It's just uncomfrotable to really make light of for a lot of people.
Hmm I may have to change my stance on that dirama since I have seen it. It is done in good taste. I personally have no problem with big titties hanging all over the place on the table if that is how someone did their models. I think nude models could be fine for some chaos armies. I think it looks silly for IG for reasons stated in my previous posts about what IG commisars would really wear.
The person/s who made the display are pretty good at what they do.
Its something that likely has happened in the 40K universe
The 40K universe has Slaanesh and Dark Eldar in it - they do unspeakable things to each other and anything they can get their hands on.
it will offend some people
rape in art is not something new - right or wrong - I work with peices of art dating back hundreds of years - a couple of which - acknoweldged masterpieces depictict pretty much the same scene in antiquity. Plenty of such images in major galleries etc across the world
Should it be on display in your local GW store - probably not...... on display witha warning seems fair enough for those who want to look at it.
On the subject of naked figures - Is looking at and painting models of naked women (or men) worse than scupting scenes of graphic violence?
Ascalam wrote:People with no lives, and who aren't getting any...
I agree with this.
Also imagine some kid walking up to your "artwork" and then you having to explain what its all about.
My minis are always on display and im proud of them, I wouldnt want to be questioned on my desire to build an "eldar rape scene" to a new girlfriend who came over for the first time. If I was a girl and a guy MADE something like that and proudly displayed it, I would be out of there in a second.
Polonius wrote:One of those reasons is the fact that very, very few people will every murder another person. Or torture them. Or burn a building down. Or commit treason against the state/crown. Or even physically assault another person, outside of self defense.
But there are a lot of rapists out there. Not violent rapists, but date rapists, child molestors, people that use power or influence to coerce others into sex, etc.
Wow, that's a rather bold statement. Have you got hard numbers on that?
I find it very hard to believe that there are more (potential) sexual offenders out there than people who would engage in casual violence.
In fact, these are the numbers I found (for the Netherlands, but I'd think it would broadly go for each civilised country) over 2010.
sexual offences: 4.519 / 10000 people
assault: 37.431 / 10000 people
So assault (I didn't even add the numbers for murder, armed robbery and other violent crimes) is committed more than 8 times as much as all sexual offences (rape, sexual assault, incest, but also possession of child pornography).
Granted, sexual crimes are often not reported to the police, but even accounting for that I think the violence figures would be much higher than the figures for sex crimes.
What exactly is your definition of sexual violence? Because the way I read it in your post I may even be a sex offender. Isn't standing in a bar trying to act extra cool and giving the whole: "Yeah I'm an artist, deep and brooding and all that." to this girl with the thought that that might result in sexual intercourse "coercing others into sex"?
VanHammer wrote:
Ascalam wrote:who aren't getting any...
I wouldnt want to be questioned on my desire to build an "eldar rape scene" to a new girlfriend who came over for the first time.
Then it's fortunate the world doesn't revolve around the odds of 'getting any' for everyone.
Polonius wrote:One of those reasons is the fact that very, very few people will every murder another person. Or torture them. Or burn a building down. Or commit treason against the state/crown. Or even physically assault another person, outside of self defense.
But there are a lot of rapists out there. Not violent rapists, but date rapists, child molestors, people that use power or influence to coerce others into sex, etc.
Wow, that's a rather bold statement. Have you got hard numbers on that?
I find it very hard to believe that there are more (potential) sexual offenders out there than people who would engage in casual violence.
In fact, these are the numbers I found (for the Netherlands, but I'd think it would broadly go for each civilised country) over 2010.
sexual offences: 4.519 / 10000 people
assault: 37.431 / 10000 people
So assault (I didn't even add the numbers for murder, armed robbery and other violent crimes) is committed more than 8 times as much as all sexual offences (rape, sexual assault, incest, but also possession of child pornography).
Granted, sexual crimes are often not reported to the police, but even accounting for that I think the violence figures would be much higher than the figures for sex crimes.
What exactly is your definition of sexual violence? Because the way I read it in your post I may even be a sex offender. Isn't standing in a bar trying to act extra cool and giving the whole: "Yeah I'm an artist, deep and brooding and all that." to this girl with the thought that that might result in sexual intercourse "coercing others into sex"?
There's a pretty in depth discussion of the topic here:
dogma wrote:Personally, I find it stranger that people still assume those who appreciate nude, female miniatures lack sexual companionship.
I find it odd too, because a lot of erotic and nude painting and modelling is done by people who are in relationships. All those artists and sculptors are not sad lonely people living in their parent's basements. As long as there's a fun element I quite like nude and semi-nude figures, and so does my wife.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:A lot has already been said about that eldar rape scene, it's amazingly painted and well modeled. I just don't want a rape scene in my 40k. Now some argue strongly that it's 'realistic' and that's certainly a valid argument (although it's got a space elf maiden in it... so I'm not sure about how much argument for realism can be made about 40k) but then there are lots of things about the real horrors of war that I just have no interest in seeing lovingly recreated into a 28mm fantastical wargaming diorama. I would also not like to see the Emperor's Children re-enacting the atrocities of Nanking on Tau civilians nor the burning little Imperial children, running down a road chased by a napalm dropping ork fighta-bomber imitating Vietnam. Just because it happened in real life, doesn't mean I want it in my fantastical wargame.
I think I agree with this. I've seen the diorama, it's well modelled but the subject matter is very distasteful IMO. Some people will say "well you're okay with people being killed in wargames" but the difference is that it's mostly a fantasy, and most people do not have to face being killed by a daemon in their life. Although death is something everyone has to face.
Rape is a horrible act that affects a lot of people and is highly emotionally charged for the numerous affected. I'd be surprised if many rape victims or their friends/relatives would cheer this model on for being 'realistic'. I gain no pleasure from seeing this scene regardless of how well modelled it is. It's not greatly profound when trying to be shocking, it's not 'offensive' to me, I just think it's nasty.
snake wrote:Guess what, that "realized reality" piece portrays violent rape. Regardless of whatever artistic merits someone may consider it to have, the subject matter still showcases something that has no place being glorified through any medium.
Depiction != glorification
You're welcome to your opinion of the quality and tastefulness of the scene in question, but dishonestly representing it's content serves no purpose.
I use glorification loosely. Admittedly it is probably too strong of a word. The creation and presentation of a diorama for public display involves the investment of a certain amount of pride and seeking of approval (not in a pejorative sense) on behalf of the modeller. This piece for public appreciation showcases a rape scene. While the rape itself may be criticized apart from the painting and modelling skills, the subject matter is still placed in the spotlight as part of a piece for praise. Even if intended to depict rape negatively, using such subject matter places it dangerously close to being extolled, especially for the impressionable. Moreover, using rape - however it is meant to be portrayed - as the vehicle for a piece for public appreciation suggests that it is ok to use such matters as a means of personal gratification. This mitigates the grotesque severity of the reality of rape.
snake wrote: I'm not calling anyone a perv for finding natural attraction to and pleasure in the opposite sex. I am calling them a perv for carrying it to aspects of their life where it doesn't fit. A naked commissar on a battlefield? Give me a break. That has nothing to do with the role of sexuality in fostering the continuation of the human race. It is rather a perversion of that natural attraction between humans into something objectifying the female party alone for nothing more than male pleasure, no different than an "adult" video or magazine.
Point taken, I agree.
snake wrote: What is unacceptable to me is why anyone would promote these most severe "horrors of war", straight from the experience of a "real war-zone' in what is supposed to be game aimed at escaping reality
Again, my point was that you can't cast certain war actions "MOST" severe and others as not. That's madness, I mean how do you justify this?, would you take a woman hostage, declare to her that she's your prisoner and then offer her the option of being raped, beheaded, dismembered and pinned to the side of a land raider, or caught in a round of viral bombardment from your orbiting battle barge? Hmmm....yeah, well rapes of the menu because that's too offensive, so take your pick of the rest....and be happy about it?!?
snake wrote:There are no Eldar or IG in the real world, which makes it acceptable to play a game based on strategy and warfare between the two.
Well raping one is going to matter too much either is it? I mean, I'm sure there wouldn't be this much buzz about a miniature scenario about a group of men raping a cloud, or a puff of fresh air.....and that's pretty much what an Eldar amounts to....in the real world.
snake wrote: If you can't realize that the depiction of a rape (or a beheading, or mutilation, and so on) is taking that GAME too far, then I can't help you.
Well, your point would hold some water if most of the artwork created by GW and most of the miniatures created for the game didn't have severed heads hanging from belts or stuck on poles.....I mean, seriously, the only logical ay for those heads to get up on that pole, or hangig from that belt is if someone (probably the owner of the pole or the guy wearing the belt) removed it from someones body.....they probably still had a need for it, and guess what...that's called beheading!!
So again, why is one more acceptable to your moral compass than another....surely all of these things should cause you to shy away from this hobby.....my guess is, it doesn't.
My closing point on this. I would understand your point wholly if this were a game about the Carebears, or the Smurfs (no, not the Ultramarines).....but it's not. GW make a big thing about their GrimDark universe, and showers of Blood (Blood for the Blood God anyone). They parade their skull thrones and cloaks made of human skin, they glory in the destruction of worlds and the mass enslavement of global populations to be sacrificed for mad Gods......they do all of this, and the fans take it all in laughing happily and bearing no shame at being associated with it.....until a scene depicting rape shows up.....suddenly the gaming society is split, and the same people that were happily painting blood dripping from the axes of their Orks, and getting just the right hue of dead flesh for the heads hanging from belts, suddenly find a moral platform to shout foul
People labor under this idiotic ideal that being offended (read: seeing something you don't like) grants you certain rights, namely, the right to oppress other people who you think have offended you, or to silence, censure, or otherwise censor them. "Offended" is the worst kind of subjective modern puritanism and has nothing at all to do with the creation and expression of art. But in reality, nothing is going to happen if someone gets offended. Freedom of expression means that occasionally things might happen you don't like. And guess what, nobody is making you look at eldar rape dioramas! Welcome to being an adult in a complex world!
Agree.
Saw the diorama, and it's bittersweet. Such fantastic modelling and painting, yet the subject matter is rather disturbing. The guy whipping it out is really well done, but again, it's disturbing. I don't think that it's a realistic situation, as I would tend to believe the guy pointing the gun at her would have shot her (what with guardsmen being no exception to the gigantic Xenophobia in 40k)
GW used to sell chained half naked women on the Dark Eldar Raider model for Vect - not sure if they are still n mail order.
There is a definate implicaiton as to what he does with them, which is not much different ot his model. Granted he is not unzipping his trousers but the sub text is not much different?
dogma wrote:Personally, I find it stranger that people still assume those who appreciate nude, female miniatures lack sexual companionship.
I find it odd too, because a lot of erotic and nude painting and modelling is done by people who are in relationships. All those artists and sculptors are not sad lonely people living in their parent's basements. As long as there's a fun element I quite like nude and semi-nude figures, and so does my wife.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:A lot has already been said about that eldar rape scene, it's amazingly painted and well modeled. I just don't want a rape scene in my 40k. Now some argue strongly that it's 'realistic' and that's certainly a valid argument (although it's got a space elf maiden in it... so I'm not sure about how much argument for realism can be made about 40k) but then there are lots of things about the real horrors of war that I just have no interest in seeing lovingly recreated into a 28mm fantastical wargaming diorama. I would also not like to see the Emperor's Children re-enacting the atrocities of Nanking on Tau civilians nor the burning little Imperial children, running down a road chased by a napalm dropping ork fighta-bomber imitating Vietnam. Just because it happened in real life, doesn't mean I want it in my fantastical wargame.
I think I agree with this. I've seen the diorama, it's well modelled but the subject matter is very distasteful IMO. Some people will say "well you're okay with people being killed in wargames" but the difference is that it's mostly a fantasy, and most people do not have to face being killed by a daemon in their life. Although death is something everyone has to face.
Rape is a horrible act that affects a lot of people and is highly emotionally charged for the numerous affected. I'd be surprised if many rape victims or their friends/relatives would cheer this model on for being 'realistic'. I gain no pleasure from seeing this scene regardless of how well modelled it is. It's not greatly profound when trying to be shocking, it's not 'offensive' to me, I just think it's nasty.
I see your point, but I honestly fail to see how it can do that much harm. Sure, rape is a horrible thing, but so is war in general, and if you spend all your time modelling little dudes that tear out each others guts, you shouldnt complain about a pair of boobs.
But then again, being chopped to bitz by an Ork isnt really something anyone is likely to suffer in real live, and i understand people being opposed to dioramas that picture scenes that are actually happening to people on this planet.
I guess it depends on the case. The eldar diorama isnt really tasteless, and i think it fits well into the world of 40k. It doesnt show the grisly details, and is very well done.
But showing nude models that are NOT being victim to rape, but rather just standing around in the adam-and-eve costume, is totally accepable imho, if it isn out of place (comissar). I'd never complain about a SoB berserk whos not wearing any clothing, or a demonette. Rreally, what harm does that do?
i remember a story in the old blood angels codex about assault marines and it featured a marine ripping the spinal column out of some guy. This was written in a detailed fashion and didn't pull any punches.
Its funny how that level of extreme violence is perfectly fine, but as soon as sex is mentioned people get so offended.
As for that rape diorama. It is horrific, just as the model maker intended it to be. It shows what happens in wars now and will continue to happen in the far future. If you dont like it, good! Thats the whole point, its meant to make you uncomfortable and make a statement.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.
I actually find this part of your post quite funny. Here let me try:
What if we showed a victim of Hiroshima a bat rep where the gamers call in an orbital bombardment.
Or what if we showed any number of civilians subjected to "prison camps" the fluff for the Dark Eldar!
Or what about actual soldiers who themselves or close friends were caught in bomb blasts the part where you launch a frag missile at your opponents.......
I wonder if they'd be like, "oh, that's really cool, you actually have a game that details everything I went through and struggle to come to terms with every waking hour of my life"......yeah, the gang rape victim really gets the lions share of offense when it comes to wargaming
Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.
Just because it is art doesn't mean it can't be offensive. Art can be just as offensive as the next thing. Offense is relative. The diorama itself told a story in just a small frame. Just because you were offended doesn't mean it didn't convey its meaning. In fact, it did just the opposite - it conveyed its meaning so well that it illicited a response from you.
We've come to this place in our society when we think we have the right to not be offended, when I think it is just the opposite. People have died for the right for others to express themselves in ways that might offend you. If that diorama made you feel uncomfortable, then that is probably good. Offended is probably a normal reaction too. If you found yourself being excited or aroused by the diorama, then maybe you should think twice.
Platoon and Full Metal Jacket may seem offensive, but it doesn't stop them from being great movies.
MrMerlin wrote:
I think I agree with this. I've seen the diorama, it's well modelled but the subject matter is very distasteful IMO.
While the subject matter was distasteful, it was presented tastefully. It could have very easily have been presented in a far more explicit manner, and in a way that was far more demeaning to to the female subject.
As I noted earlier, this is the internet, if you want to see something that endorses rape and the objectification of women there are certain words that Google would be happen to expound on.
dogma wrote:While the subject matter was distasteful, it was presented tastefully. It could have very easily have been presented in a far more explicit manner, and in a way that was far more demeaning to to the female subject.
This is the greatest reason why I think this diorama was made by someone who fully realised what he or she was making and what it communicates. As you say, a horny fanboy would make this a whole lot more explicit and focus on the ladyparts. As it is, the focus is on the menacing air of the guardsmen. The creator is obviously familiar with the well known illustration rule of thumb: the most interesting moment to depict takes place just before or just after the event.
That said, I think I would find the diorama a lot stronger if the eldar was still wearing her breastplate.
As it is now, the attention still goes to the boobies first. It would be better if one would just see the guardian lying down looking cornered and only then seeing the one guardsman unbuttoning his pants. That would be strong and subtle.
Mr Morden wrote:GW used to sell chained half naked women on the Dark Eldar Raider model for Vect - not sure if they are still n mail order.
There is a definate implicaiton as to what he does with them, which is not much different ot his model. Granted he is not unzipping his trousers but the sub text is not much different?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.
I actually find this part of your post quite funny.
And that speaks volumes...
No, it doesn't. What it means is I find it amusing that you use so obvious a tactic to illicit support for your negativity for this piece. I find it interesting that you extract that part of my post but fail to comment on the rest of the post, probably because it trampled all over your argument and took you to a place where you have to face your hypocrisy regarding what should or should not be offensive in wargaming.
The bottom line in my post (and you know it), is if you show anyone any form of violence that they have had the misfortune to be subjected to, it will be a cause of offense for them....who knew? That your heart bleeds for rape victims, but somehow you manage to not bat an eyelid at every other victim of violence that happens to be glorified in your hobby....really speaks volumes about you sir.
That Diorama was borderline brilliant,but in the context of a gaming venue would probibly be designated Adults Only.Maybe you forgot the funny little diddy in the GK codex about the GreyKnights first date with the sisters of battle? How did that end again?
To take it to this sort of browbeating over a ten minute " Oh, wow, thats kina.... wierd." that happened the last time we saw that diorama.
40k is a dangerous game. always has been. they started back in the old days, put on the kid gloves in 2d edition, slipped back to the darkside with the introduction of the Dark Eldar, and continued to go south through the consecutive editions.
As much as I've seen in ten years?
Rape, mutilation, slavery, defilement and anything else that you could pull out doesn't impress me anymore.
To the OP? Go read Heavy Metal, Old WD's, Old School D and D, or look over some Frank Franzetta, Antonio Vargas, Olivia De Berardinis, Rob Zombie, H.R. Gieger, Hieronymus Bosch, etc, etc, etc...
Fantasy Pin Up is part in parcel of the scifi/ fantasy hobbies, either in pin up,feminine empowerment, exploitation, " Grind house" or any other sub genere that we get out of the humanities aspect of "The Hobby". Remember, 90-100% of the scifi fantasy is reworked, or a variation on a theme. Some games come from movies, some from stories, some still others are works with lives of thier own that come in all different mediums.
It doesn't really have much to do with nekked ladies, but more to the topic of pushing boundaries, and entering new ground- where ever, and whatever that leads the viewer.
We're talking a fantasy- IE not real. Your mind pushes the envelope, and the artistic takes over.
It is what it is.
Some people monkey spank off on it, others, just take it as a conversation, still others get a rise out of it and beat thier chests in indignation.
People bitch and moan about saying oh it can't be considered art because it's nudity/rape. I got news for you fellas, take a tour of any notable art museum and you are bound to find nudity and even scenes depicting rape that people don't seem to have a problem with taking and showing their kids to show them what it means to be "refined."
If it's well done and not utterly ridiculous, hell do what you want. That Eldar rape scene was very well done and I will agree that the disturbing feeling it gives some of you is very appropriate as this is a real life issue in all militaries. Hell, could be worse, could be post rape and cutting off her breasts which has and does happen most notably in conflict ravaged Africa.
I don't really get nude models either, but I also don't get smart cars, Joe Biden, pet rocks or why people would smoke. Maybe I'm just a nutter.
As for that eldar rape diorama, obviously it was very well painted, but the only reason I could imagine someone would actually spend a lot of time making something like that would be to troll the wargaming universe, which he has indeed done. Good for him. Bravo.
Seconded. Some of the very first Citadel miniatures depicted a torture chamber full of nude women. Game value zero but collectability/value is way up.
I use a Reaper Egyptian priestess to represent Khalida in my TK army. Topless. Every opponent who has seen it so far has picked it up for closer examination with a big grin on their face while doing so.
As far as the diorama is concerned, I think there are better topics to build dioramas of but this one could have been much worse.
Tim the Biovore wrote:I think part of the problem is that people want to use this hobby as an escape from the real world, but when something that portrays one of the darker sides of humanity, like the Eldar rape scene, is created, it throws them back into the harsh reality.
I'm not offended by the diorama at all, but because it's a reminder of the cruelty of man, I don't like it.
And I'm not just talking about the sexual depictions; anything that represents any of the horrific things in human history would be offensive to a lot of people.
The less realistic 40k is, the better, IMHO.
Polonius wrote:This post sums up my thoughts very nicely. I agree 100%.
QFT x2
I have been extrememely impressed by the quality of the discussion, here, and commend all. Bravo, seriously, on the mature and thoughtful discussion so far. May it remain so.
OK, so that said, please may we stay focused on the topic. Imma jump in.
The Eldar rape scene bothers me technically because the female is too clean and bright, yet static. Makes it really seem more like a fantasy porno than an attempt at true depiction of the brutalities of war. And that, to me, is the difference.
The visual is broken because of the contrast- she is just too damn clean. The gun holder, the only real physical threat/restraint, is too far away... We all know IG Flashlights are harmless. That is just a spotlight so she glows (JOKE! OK back to srs bsns, but still, if you were about to be raped wouldn't you run if that were all holding you back?). There is no real restraint on her fleeing or fighting back.
It would actually show the brutalities of war and rape if she were held down by the gang, bruised, bloody, broken, as her assailant casually unbuckles his pants. I would absolutely defend that as the dark side, you wanna think about a world of endless war, it means this, too. It is not pretty. It is not sexy. It is horrific. THIS is not that. The clean shining female demurely fluttering her hand to nearly , but ooooh, not quite, cover her breasts, is fantasy- in a bad way. And silly. All this leads it to conclusion it is porn, i.e. rape fantasy, not commentary on horror or reality.
So I guess I'm dismayed at the those who call it a depiction of wartime horrors when it is obviously fantasy - and this statement is true on so many levels; i.e. 40k vs. real world war, clean vs. dirty, alien vs. human, sex vs. rape, etc. Goes back to my QFTx2 above - no real need for it, this is not real war.
Anyway, back to the discussion prior. Rape fantasy has its place, as does any sort of consensual behavior where both enjoy or voluntarily engage, no judgement at all. But it is completely inappropriate to equate rape fantasy and sex games with real world rape- which is about power and subjugation, not sex. You just can't justify rape fantasy as real world depiction of rape. It is like discussing the difference between cold and flu, or manslaughter and homicide, gorram mindblank there are probably a million other similes I cant think of right now.
I honestly am not trying to offend anyone, and am not attacking, I hope is clear. I just really want to clarify what I see. All depictions of rape are not valid as illustrative of the horror of the ultimate loss of power and agency, humiliation, and degradation that rape is for women (or any victim for that matter). I do not think it should be censored, but simply understood for what it is: A different, naughty, potential rape fantasy. It is NOT a depiction of the horrors of rape or war. Think about it...
If it were a clean, shining male Eldar with bare bum, or hey, lets say half nude little boy or girl, would it still be defended as depiction of the horrors of war and rape as well? Would it be more or less offensive? Why? Why is it different when it is an adult female?
Yes, I can absolutely appreciate the work and storytelling involved in the piece. Is it technically astounding, yes no doubt. Is it different? Absolutely. But I think attributing more to it than an attempt to shock and titillate is stretching. I applaud it for telling a different side, as well as execution. But it is a soft porn, Playboy letters to the editor, no more. In no way does it depict the brutalities of war or rape or anything else except a "What if" scenario... Bow chicka wow wow.
anyway, OT, LOL... I have several nude to nearly nude minis. Why? Because of the challenge and the beautiful sculpting is inspiring. A tastefully executed nearly nude figure is pleasing to behold. that is why we paint these things, right? Attributing moral and ethical attributes to something interesting is inappropriate. Does it please me to look upon? Yes. Shall I attempt to make it more pleasing by painting it? Yes. Does it get me off or say anything about anything? No.
I'm not really a massive fan of it, it certainly doesn't offend me, I just don't like how it trying to take something I regard as a fun hobby and taking it too seriously. Its hardly something new, anyone a Nirvana fan? I wonder how many of you pulled out you pitch folks when they released In Utreo?
Thing is I can go on google and find find far more disturbing things than that in a couple of seconds, I choose not to just as most people can choose not to look at the scene.
Polonius wrote:While some people may be offended by nudity and other such themes in 40k art, I think more people find the work "inappropriate" rather than offensive.
And works are appropriate based entirely on the audience, acutal or hypothetical. Lots of people could look at the eldar rape scene and not find it personally offensive (I think it's a big hamfisted and cartoony, but not offensive), but would find it inappropriate for any audience where kids were expected.
I think a third group (After those genuinely offended and those worried about offending others) are those that dont' like the idea that a person viewing the hobby from outside would see such work, and decide that it's representative of the hobby as a whole. This is one of those things that I kind of agree with: it'd be easy for a non-gamer to assume we're all wierdos that play a satanic game. Toss in gratuitous nudity and it doesn't help.
The problem, of course, is that all of this evaluation of what is and is not "gratuitous" is in the eye of the beholder. Which is the case with all art.
Is this gratuitous?
The Rape of Lucretia, attributed to Felice Ficherelli. Since he died in 1660, this painting is at least 350 years old.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.
Shall we show the Lego Concentration camp to a Holocaust survivor and ask if it's offensive? Too late, it's already been on display at the Jewish Museum. There is passing chance it was seen by such...
Oscar Wilde observed that all art is useless, and art that inspires no discussion, evokes no emotion, provokes no feeling... that is doubly useless, for it becomes a waste of time, both for the artist and the audience.
Is a diorama depicting a horror of war more offensive then, say, the Rape of the Sabine Women?
Chowderhead wrote:Adam, that may be because those types of models are supposed to have cleavage, a nude commissar girl... That seems a bit OTT, as the model it is based off of is both male and clothed.
Now, I'm not saying go around sticking penises on your Slaanesh Soul Grinder, I'm saying if it's tasteful, and doesn't make a fanboy want to whip it out, go for it.
Agreed, however their has to be a differentiation between what is artwork and what is smut. That is what I am referring too.
Edited: WOW I did not look at the whole entire page when I made my previous post. I was only 1 page yesterday and 5 as I make this second posting. My previous post is mostly Mute as it has been completely thought out by people posting in the previously pages.
I think it is fine as long as it artistically fits in with the background/image you are trying to convey. I really like the diorama for example. Its cruel, dark and it really shines a light on the terrible things that happens in wars. The fact that it was done with miniatures really gives it another layer of depth. Does it need to be a part of the 40k universe? No not really, but it is a beautiful diorama and I think it was done fairly tasteful considering what it is depicting.
As for the demonettes, barbarians and chem dogs standard I think they all fit well into the fiction behind it all, especially the banner. It is absolutely stunning.
My closing point on this. I would understand your point wholly if this were a game about the Carebears, or the Smurfs (no, not the Ultramarines).....but it's not. GW make a big thing about their GrimDark universe, and showers of Blood (Blood for the Blood God anyone). They parade their skull thrones and cloaks made of human skin, they glory in the destruction of worlds and the mass enslavement of global populations to be sacrificed for mad Gods......they do all of this, and the fans take it all in laughing happily and bearing no shame at being associated with it.....until a scene depicting rape shows up.....suddenly the gaming society is split, and the same people that were happily painting blood dripping from the axes of their Orks, and getting just the right hue of dead flesh for the heads hanging from belts, suddenly find a moral platform to shout foul
And mine, this: The whole rape/nudity representation, what have you creates an unnecessary representation of sexual abuse and objectification. I accept that rape and abuse is unfortunately a part of reality and war. However, I don't find it an acceptable part of reality, including in the context of war. Hence my negative opinion towards things like a naked commissar or rape scene that showcase it in this context or any other. Later.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:I typed a long counter argument to what you said, then I realised I can't be bothered, the point you're missing, the hypocritical enormity of your statements is so numbing I just can't summon the energy to continue to converse with you.
I've done that like three times now, myself. So much I have to say, and yet I can't actually find the power to say it. lol
Thare1774 wrote:Often while browsing CMON I see nude female miniatures that people paint. It doesn't offend me at all, I just don't get it. For example I saw two today, the first was a female commissar wearing only a trench coat and pants and boots. Breasts exposed as well as her whole upper torso all the way down nearly to her crotch. Why in the world would a female commissar be naked? What is the value of that model? I would think people in this hobby would rather see a really well sculpted legitimate female commissar in full uniform appropriate for gameplay. The second example I saw was a diorama basically depicting the rape of an Eldar female captured by some guardsmen. One had her breastplate in his hands and she was topless on the ground while another guardsmen had his pants unbuttoned and others were watching in amusement. It was really well painted and put together, but what is the motivation to depict a rape scene when it could have just been the same scene minus the rape and nudity? I think in MOST cases it cheapens the time and effort put into creating it, What do you think?
Not really a fan of all of the nudity in the modeling community, but I have seen the diorama depicting the whole Eldar thing, it was meant to depict a crueler, more dark, harsh war-time environment (the kind of cruelties that inevitability occur in war). In that particular diorama it's meant to be offensive and a bit gross. As far as the rest of the nudity, sex sells, nuff said.
TiB wrote:
That said, I think I would find the diorama a lot stronger if the eldar was still wearing her breastplate.
As it is now, the attention still goes to the boobies first. It would be better if one would just see the guardian lying down looking cornered and only then seeing the one guardsman unbuttoning his pants. That would be strong and subtle.
I agree with that, though my first thought wasn't that the boobies were distracting, but that it seemed odd that the guy holding her breastplate was not really involved in the scene.
I will also say that a fellow guardsman turning, or walking away in disgust would have helped set the tone of "War is hell."
Nudity itself doesn't offend me, nor should it really offend anyone. Simple nudity is not "pornographic" or something to be ashamed of (unless you look like me, lol), and it pisses me off when people suggest as much. That said there is a line that exists between beautiful and tasteless, but most of the time it's pretty easy to tell when someone's crossed it. It all depends on context, bare breasts or genitals may be perfectly acceptable in some cases, but for miniatures, especially ones that are meant to represent characters on the field of battle, a topless female commissar is inappropriate, because there's no reason for her to be naked in this scenario. On the other hand, something resembling a daemon (though in most cases daemons aren't really depicted with genitals...since they don't really need them and they're not natural beings anyway) could probably get away with it, hence why few people are offended by daemonettes: it makes sense for them to be partially or even fully nude on the battlefield, they serve an evil god of hedonism and debauchery, and make a hobby out of seducing weak-willed mortals, or cutting them down with relative ease while dancing gracefully for the pleasure of their dark master. What the feth is a commissar doing with her tits out? "Inspiring" the men to fight on, is that the idea? Commissars "inspire" by executing people who disobey orders. It's stupid, unjustified, pointless nudity done for the sake of it.
Actually, there is. An attacker could stagger the female commissar/guardsman/etc and then grab them (by the shirt collar in this instance) and throw them down (and ripping said item of clothing) so as to capitalize on the prone form of their opponent
What I don't understand is why people are saying it a rape scene. Where is the rape? Where is the sex? All it is is a female being held at gunpoint and a guy zipping down his pants. Who knows what might happen next? How do we know a eldar pathfiner doesn't have him in his cross hairs? How do we know a commissar doesn't come around the corner and blow everyone away? Why did alot of people jump into this as a rape depection? Why doesn't he have her bent over the IFV ? Why isn't she bound ? It's not like hes made a rape scenero game.
The female commissar is just pandering to the lowest common denominator, sex sells. Show boobies and some people lap it up. I personally think it's just 'lawlz boobz' just like most of the other female models on brother vinnies site. The sculpts are nice just not my cup of tea. Does that mean that he shouldn't make them? Not in the least he's got the right to make a living anyway he see's fit as long as he's not breaking any laws in the process. If he can sell them to people all the power to him. Will I buy one? not a chance.
I think this get's across the hell that war is. That both sides do dirty nasty things to eachother. War isn't pretty, war isn't neat and tidy. If you are playing a game based on fighting expect some people to want to show off the dark side. Do you have to like it, no. Do you have to look at it, no. Should this be front and center of a GW, I don't think they would ever allow this into a store because it might offend little timmys mommy and daddy and that's who's paying for little timmy's GW stuff.
I've seen people who play WWII games that have scenero's based on German Concentration camps. The Allies have to assault and capture the Germans before then can burn all the evidence and paperwork. They also have to rescue as many people as they can. Is that offensive? Why is it offensive? I think it's a creative way to depict what has happened in the past. People we have to remember what has happened in our past so it's not forgotten.
I personally think there are better things to complain about then a diorama of space elves and space solders where nothing happens.
What I don't understand is why people are saying it a rape scene. Where is the rape? Where is the sex? All it is is a female being held at gunpoint and a guy zipping down his pants. Who knows what might happen next?
Nudity itself doesn't offend me, nor should it really offend anyone. Simple nudity is not "pornographic" or something to be ashamed of (unless you look like me, lol), and it pisses me off when people suggest as much. That said there is a line that exists between beautiful and tasteless, but most of the time it's pretty easy to tell when someone's crossed it. It all depends on context, bare breasts or genitals may be perfectly acceptable in some cases, but for miniatures, especially ones that are meant to represent characters on the field of battle, a topless female commissar is inappropriate, because there's no reason for her to be naked in this scenario. On the other hand, something resembling a daemon (though in most cases daemons aren't really depicted with genitals...since they don't really need them and they're not natural beings anyway) could probably get away with it, hence why few people are offended by daemonettes: it makes sense for them to be partially or even fully nude on the battlefield, they serve an evil god of hedonism and debauchery, and make a hobby out of seducing weak-willed mortals, or cutting them down with relative ease while dancing gracefully for the pleasure of their dark master. What the feth is a commissar doing with her tits out? "Inspiring" the men to fight on, is that the idea? Commissars "inspire" by executing people who disobey orders. It's stupid, unjustified, pointless nudity done for the sake of it.
Actually, there is. An attacker could stagger the female commissar/guardsman/etc and then grab them (by the shirt collar in this instance) and throw them down (and ripping said item of clothing) so as to capitalize on the prone form of their opponent
But they make shirts without collars. And why would an attacker need to grab them anyway when a simple shove could be enough to knock them prone?
I see what you're trying to say, but it really feels like you're pulling stuff out of your ass here in an effort to try and explain the practicality of a female officer being nude on the battlefield. No matter how you try to spin it, it just isn't that practical.
I think this get's across the hell that war is.
Which is a point that doesn't need to be made, anyone old enough to play 40k will understand that war, rape, etc. is not good. And considering that it's gotten into the news several times over the past decade, people ought to understand by now that rape happens in war time, too, and that it happens even in our own military shockingly enough (female soldiers being raped by their male peers). This is what bothers me so much about the diorama, it's not the content, it's the fact that the artist and his supporters think this is necessary, that the rest of us are all fething stupid and need to be "educated" about the true horror of war, since we're playing 40k and managing to have fun despite the dark, violent world that serves as the game's backdrop.
Sidstyler wrote:
But they make shirts without collars. And why would an attacker need to grab them anyway when a simple shove could be enough to knock them prone?
Sidstyler wrote:
Which is a point that doesn't need to be made, anyone old enough to play 40k will understand that war, rape, etc. is not good.
If you really believe this, then you have never been in a GW shop.
Sidstyler wrote:
This is what bothers me so much about the diorama, it's not the content, it's the fact that the artist and his supporters think this is necessary, that the rest of us are all fething stupid and need to be "educated" about the true horror of war, since we're playing 40k and managing to have fun despite the dark, violent world that serves as the game's backdrop.
Personally, what bothers me is that we object to rape, but not servitors, or conscripts, or Space Marines, or Dark Eldar, or Inquisitors, or Necrons, or the entire game.
So, I have a serious question for all of those people that are offended by the implied rape of the Eldar.
What aspects of war violence do you consider appropriate for your wargaming and miniature modelling?
Why do you think those aspects of violence are more acceptable than others?
And, we've established that rape is a taboo for the wargaming society, however, what other violence should never be depicted in a miniatures scenario or wargame?
Buzzsaw wrote:Or if we are to speak of games, how about the Konzentrationslager?
Wow, that's nice. Didn't know that one.
Meaningwise it is exactly the same as the rape scene. A dark aspect of humanity displayed in toys.
In one way it is stronger than the rape scene because (in my opinion) the holocaust is worse than rape (and more taboo when it comes to jokes) and lego is more iconic a toy than warhams.
On the other hand the rape scene has the added layer in that warhammer is normally used to play a very violent wargame and that when the abuse of a female comes into the picture it suddenly becomes distasteful.
Tim the Biovore wrote:I think part of the problem is that people want to use this hobby as an escape from the real world, but when something that portrays one of the darker sides of humanity, like the Eldar rape scene, is created, it throws them back into the harsh reality.
I'm not offended by the diorama at all, but because it's a reminder of the cruelty of man, I don't like it.
And I'm not just talking about the sexual depictions; anything that represents any of the horrific things in human history would be offensive to a lot of people.
The less realistic 40k is, the better, IMHO.
That's just silly.
You can close your eyes all you want and pretend the game is really about shooting rainbows and kisses at each other, but it just isn't. It's a wargame. It's an abstraction of a very violent, nasty part of life.
It doesn't just disappear when you choose not to see it.
Delephont wrote:Why do you think those aspects of violence are more acceptable than others?
Who says I do? Do I have to like what the background says the Dark Eldar do in Comorragh in order to like collecting the models and playing the game with them? Does being a Dark Eldar player mean I have to be okay with someone who put an insane amount of effort into creating a diorama of a haemonculus brutally torturing a prisoner on a table, because the background says they're master torturers and this is what they do in their off-time? Do I have to like war and violence in order to enjoy playing a wargame that's about as far removed from real war as you can get, where the most "violent" thing you do is roll a die and pull a model off the table? Why can't I just enjoy the tactical aspect of the game and roll the fething dice without being accused of having a "booby allergy" or being a hypocrite because I don't accept rape when clearly I accept violence in all its other forms?
How about this, it's ALL horrible fething gak. I'm just as opposed to graphic dioramas that depict soldiers having their brains blown out, with lovingly crafted blood trails leaving the back of their skulls, or dioramas depicting a squad of IG getting ripped apart by a Tyranid lictor, with blood, gore, and limbs everywhere, as I am to a scene depicting the pre- or post-gang rape of a vulnerable female soldier. Obviously the idea of Exterminatus is horrifying and several magnitudes worse than the closest comparison we can draw to it from real life, and I don't think anyone in their right mind seriously isn't bothered by the thought of an entire planet's population being wiped out in a single act for any reason. A lot of the army fluff is really disturbing if you sit and think about it...does anyone really like what the Dark Eldar do? Or the Inquisition and it's habit of murdering countless innocents in the name of God? From what I saw from the last Ward hate thread about Grey Knights I think it's safe to say a lot of people aren't okay with it.
Anyway, to answer your question: "What aspects of war violence do you consider appropriate for your wargaming and miniature modelling?", how about "Anything you would be comfortable showing a 12-year-old?", since that's the minimum age 40k is targeted at. But even that's a stupid fething thing to say, because I know some people in here are going to be totally cool with showing 12-year-old kids anything from extreme graphic violence, to rape, to hardcore pornography, and call me a backwards-ass American with a booby allergy if I disagree with them.
TiB wrote:
That's just silly.
You can close your eyes all you want and pretend the game is really about shooting rainbows and kisses at each other, but it just isn't. It's a wargame. It's an abstraction of a very violent, nasty part of life.
It doesn't just disappear when you choose not to see it.
So I have to condone violence in order to play 40k? That's what it comes down to?
dogma wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
But they make shirts without collars. And why would an attacker need to grab them anyway when a simple shove could be enough to knock them prone?
Fine, whatever, you fething win. Nude commissars make perfect sense. Hell, I'm gonna buy three of them myself when GW releases them in Finecast. "The finest resin tits in the world."
dogma wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
Which is a point that doesn't need to be made, anyone old enough to play 40k will understand that war, rape, etc. is not good.
If you really believe this, then you have never been in a GW shop.
I concede here too since no, I haven't, and from what I've heard I wouldn't want to. I'm not too tolerant of used car salesmen and GW employees are many times worse. (The only store in my state was a Bunker in St. Louis which has long since been closed.)
dogma wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
This is what bothers me so much about the diorama, it's not the content, it's the fact that the artist and his supporters think this is necessary, that the rest of us are all fething stupid and need to be "educated" about the true horror of war, since we're playing 40k and managing to have fun despite the dark, violent world that serves as the game's backdrop.
Personally, what bothers me is that we object to rape, but not servitors, or conscripts, or Space Marines, or Dark Eldar, or Inquisitors, or Necrons, or the entire game.
Would it make you feel better if we all accepted rape as easily, too? Hell, I think after spending the last four hours reading this topic I'm about to go rape something. Either that or put a bullet in my fething brain, and then craft an intricate diorama depicting the act using my own blood for added realism.
God damn it, lol. As Shuma would say "This thread is bad and you should all feel bad."
hemingway wrote:There's nothing 'offensive' (a ridiculous affectation to take with art, but that's a rant for another day) about the guardsman diorama. It's amazing.
Show it and explain it to a victim of gang rape. Tell her it's art and it's not offensive.
Take your extremely well painted and based Flames of War Nazi German army and show it to a jewish person whose grandparents were killed in a concentration camp.
Show a diorama of a guardsman being ripped to pieces by an explosion and show it to a Purple Heart recipient.
Insert any other "take an aritistic depiction of real events and tell a story and show it to somebody who suffered from the same event" scenario...
Sidstyler wrote:
Who says I do? Do I have to like what the background says the Dark Eldar do in Comorragh in order to like collecting the models and playing the game with them? Does being a Dark Eldar player mean I have to be okay with someone who put an insane amount of effort into creating a diorama of a haemonculus brutally torturing a prisoner on a table, because the background says they're master torturers and this is what they do in their off-time? Do I have to like war and violence in order to enjoy playing a wargame that's about as far removed from real war as you can get, where the most "violent" thing you do is roll a die and pull a model off the table? Why can't I just enjoy the tactical aspect of the game and roll the fething dice without being accused of having a "booby allergy" or being a hypocrite because I don't accept rape when clearly I accept violence in all its other forms?
How about this, it's ALL horrible fething gak. I'm just as opposed to graphic dioramas that depict soldiers having their brains blown out, with lovingly crafted blood trails leaving the back of their skulls, or dioramas depicting a squad of IG getting ripped apart by a Tyranid lictor, with blood, gore, and limbs everywhere, as I am to a scene depicting the pre- or post-gang rape of a vulnerable female soldier. Obviously the idea of Exterminatus is horrifying and several magnitudes worse than the closest comparison we can draw to it from real life, and I don't think anyone in their right mind seriously isn't bothered by the thought of an entire planet's population being wiped out in a single act for any reason. A lot of the army fluff is really disturbing if you sit and think about it...does anyone really like what the Dark Eldar do? Or the Inquisition and it's habit of murdering countless innocents in the name of God? From what I saw from the last Ward hate thread about Grey Knights I think it's safe to say a lot of people aren't okay with it.
Anyway, to answer your question: "What aspects of war violence do you consider appropriate for your wargaming and miniature modelling?", how about "Anything you would be comfortable showing a 12-year-old?", since that's the minimum age 40k is targeted at. But even that's a stupid fething thing to say, because I know some people in here are going to be totally cool with showing 12-year-old kids anything from extreme graphic violence, to rape, to hardcore pornography, and call me a backwards-ass American with a booby allergy if I disagree with them.
On the surface a reasonable response. However, I think you're skating around the real point. Let me put it to you like this. One day a guy walks up to you, and declares that he hates pornography, thinks it's disgusting and is appalled by it, however, really enjoys sitting down in the evening watching a good graphic prono flick whenever he gets the chance.
Kinda weird, and yet, that's exactly what you're stating above. Why play WH40K or any wargame where the background fluff offends you? Hell, if you want strategy play chess....or Abalone, why does everyone equate strategy to war? People play WH40K, collect the armies and paint them based on the armies fluff in 99% of the cases.....are you going to deny this point? People read the Black Library books because?
To state that you play the game whilst being offended by the fluff is just idiocy...I'm sorry, theres no other way to put it. No one forces you to play (and endorse) a game the glorfies violence, you make that choice out of the myriad pastimes you could choose from.
Heck, according to fluff I could make a diorama with everybody having sex with everybody and everything, while having the Emperors Children running through the crowd stomping on people's heads and slaughtering them mid-orgasm.
Basically create a diorama out of a scene from an official Black Library novel.
But I guess the only acceptable grimdark setting is a happy grimdark setting...
Sidstyler wrote:So I have to condone violence in order to play 40k? That's what it comes down to?
I'm not saying that at all. Just that you can't deny it's there.
Sidstyler wrote:How about this, it's ALL horrible fething gak.
Sidstyler wrote:Do I have to like war and violence in order to enjoy playing a wargame that's about as far removed from real war as you can get, where the most "violent" thing you do is roll a die and pull a model off the table? Why can't I just enjoy the tactical aspect of the game and roll the fething dice
No need to be 'holier than thou'.
You very likely got drawn into the game for the same reason we all do: the models look cool and it's cool to pretend to command an army of supersoldiers killing in the name of the emperor (or whatever faction(s) you play).
You may like the 'tactical aspect' about it, but it is not what pulled you in and it's not enough to keep you in the game were the background not there.
The (violent) background is what makes 40k a juicy game. If it were just:
"I compare stat A of 4 points of my game counter against your stat B of 3 points of your game counter. I now have to roll a 3+ to remove your counter"
instead of
"My marine shoots your ork in the face, 3+ to wound"
it would just be a ponderous and crappy game and there would be hundreds of infinitely better games to play.
Oh, and please watch your blood pressure. Once things start to heat up (like you're obviously doing in your last post) intelligent discussion will be the first thing to go out the window.
So why do you play 40k then, Delephont? Or why did you used to, since I remember you stating you were done with GW during the last price increase. Do you like violence? Are you a violent person?
I play 40k because I can easily tell the difference between fantasy and reality. I play Halo, TF2, etc. because I know when I shoot the guy on the screen he comes back 5 seconds later. I enjoy the game because it plays out more like fething paintball than a real war, where the focus is more on encouraging team play and working together to achieve an objective, usually something silly like grabbing a flag and bringing it back to your base. I'm okay with the violence in these games because it's not meant to mimic real life, in fact it's almost comical when you shoot a guy with your laser rifle and gallons of gakky-looking red textures come out. The feeling I get from playing these games is more like playing a competitive game of football than life or fething death.
And like Halo, where depicting the "horror of war" isn't really necessary in the context of your average multiplayer match, I don't think 40k really needs to be this fething deep. In my opinion, you, the artist, and every other one of his supporters are simply taking your toy soldier hobby too seriously. Take a step back for a minute and ask yourself if it really is me that's missing the point here.
TiB wrote:You very likely got drawn into the game for the same reason we all do: the models look cool and it's cool to pretend to command an army of supersoldiers killing in the name of the emperor (or whatever faction(s) you play).
No, I picked Tau, and am currently building Dark Eldar. Which of course means that deep down I'm a psychotic murderer who captures, tortures, and kills people for the fun of it. Why else would I have been interested in them? lol
And personally I think intelligent discussion goes out the window when you imply that your opponent is stupid for believing what he does. I really don't give a feth anymore. I'm literally being told that I have to be a violent donkey-cave at heart or I'm not allowed to play 40k, or any other game in my fething Steam library it would seem. And that I have to accept depictions of rape and graphic violence because I play a game where this stuff supposedly happens in the background behind the scenes.
Sidstyler wrote: So why do you play 40k then, Delephont? Or why did you used to, since I remember you stating you were done with GW during the last price increase. Do you like violence? Are you a violent person?.
Correct, I don't play WH40K or any GW products anymore. I now play MERCS and Infinity. Do I like violence, yes. I openly admit that there is a side to my nature which is drawn towards violence....there must be otherise I wouldn't find any interest in wargames, violent computer games, action films and action novels. Does it make me a violent person? perhaps, however, I have been socially trained as to what is acceptable and unacceptable, and restrain my more base instincts. I would imagine my statement above would go for anyone involved in anything like a wargame, however people are scared to see that they have a dark side. The only difference between myself and a mass murderer is that I fear the consequences of my actions.....that's it. People want to believe that they are somehow different from the "monsters" that inhabit our society, they want to believe that there is something more than chance that directs the socially constrained person down a different path to the mass murdering, child molestering, rapists that stalk our shadows......
Sidstyler wrote: I play 40k because I can easily tell the difference between fantasy and reality. I play Halo, TF2, etc. because I know when I shoot the guy on the screen he comes back 5 seconds later. I enjoy the game because it plays out more like fething paintball than a real war, where the focus is more on encouraging team play and working together to achieve an objective, usually something silly like grabbing a flag and bringing it back to your base. I'm okay with the violence in these games because it's not meant to mimic real life, in fact it's almost comical when you shoot a guy with your laser rifle and gallons of gakky-looking red textures come out. The feeling I get from playing these games is more like playing a competitive game of football than life or fething death.
And like Halo, where depicting the "horror of war" isn't really necessary in the context of your average multiplayer match, I don't think 40k really needs to be this fething deep. In my opinion, you, the artist, and every other one of his supporters are simply taking your toy soldier hobby too seriously. Take a step back for a minute and ask yourself if it really is me that's missing the point here.
TiB wrote:You very likely got drawn into the game for the same reason we all do: the models look cool and it's cool to pretend to command an army of supersoldiers killing in the name of the emperor (or whatever faction(s) you play).
No, I picked Tau, and am currently building Dark Eldar. Which of course means that deep down I'm a psychotic murderer who captures, tortures, and kills people for the fun of it. Why else would I have been interested in them? lol
And personally I think intelligent discussion goes out the window when you imply that your opponent is stupid for believing what he does. I really don't give a feth anymore. I'm literally being told that I have to be a violent donkey-cave at heart or I'm not allowed to play 40k, or any other game in my fething Steam library it would seem.
Again, noone is saying you have to be anything, you make that choice. I wouldn't class someone who religiously played racing games a violent person, where would be the grounds, however to deny that on some level violence attracts you when you obviously enjoy games who basis is conflict and violence (no matter how comical) seems like the statement of a person very much out of touch with themselves.
However, you go on living your double standards and shaking your fist at the rest of the world that can clearly see what you can't. While you're at it, take a look in your Steam library, how many games in there have nothing at all to do with violence? if you find even one, please let us know the ratio of violent to non violent games in your collection......then seek out a good shrink.
On a separate note in regards to nude or shapely female models. I think that Infinity does a great job when it comes to having good looking female models. Good proportions, still wearing functional armor, maybe a tad bit on the "sexy" side, but for the most part nothing "slutty".
Most of the debate has centered around whether or not nude models are appropriate. I would like to add another dimension, the consequences of creating such artwork. In 1987 Peggy Hettrick was murdered and sexually mutilated in Fort Collins CO. The main suspect was a teenager named Tim Masters. There was no physical evidence that he committed the crime and no witnesses. He was hounded by police but no further evidence turned up. About a decade later he was charged with her murder. Central to the prosecution's case was testimony by a psychologist who interpreted graphic drawings that Tim made as a teenager. Tim was convicted of murder and spent close to a decade in prison. This case would certainly make me think twice before making a rape diorama, even if I thought that it was art.
spaceelf wrote:Most of the debate has centered around whether or not nude models are appropriate. I would like to add another dimension, the consequences of creating such artwork. In 1987 Peggy Hettrick was murdered and sexually mutilated in Fort Collins CO. The main suspect was a teenager named Tim Masters. There was no physical evidence that he committed the crime and no witnesses. He was hounded by police but no further evidence turned up. About a decade later he was charged with her murder. Central to the prosecution's case was testimony by a psychologist who interpreted graphic drawings that Tim made as a teenager. Tim was convicted of murder and spent close to a decade in prison. This case would certainly make me think twice before making a rape diorama, even if I thought that it was art.
.....surely there was more to the story than that! I mean, why was this particular person considered a suspect to begin with. If it were based on his "graphic drawings" alone, half the wargaming society, everyone on 4Chan and most likely Anne Rice would be doing time for that crime as well.
Sidstyler wrote:currently building Dark Eldar. Which of course means that deep down I'm a psychotic murderer who captures, tortures, and kills people for the fun of it. Why else would I have been interested in them?
Sidstyler wrote:I think intelligent discussion goes out the window when you imply that your opponent is stupid for believing what he does. I really don't give a feth anymore. I'm literally being told that I have to be a violent donkey-cave at heart or I'm not allowed to play 40k, or any other game in my fething Steam library it would seem.
I'm not saying anything like that, and I don't think anyone else here is either. To do so would be kind of hypocritical.
I myself happen to like 40k, that's why I'm here on these forums. I like it for the models and the background first, game second. In my opinion the game is flawed and if I want to challenge my tactical thinking I'll go play something else. (but let's leave it at that, this is no rules discussion)
Does this make me a 'violent donkey-cave'? No, and I don't believe you are either. I have no violent tendencies and haven't been in an (unconsensual) fight in my life.
As you stated, it is important to make a difference between real life and cartoon violence. My point is just that that is just what it is. Cartoon violence. No need to call the beast a different name by likening it to paintball or something (so one war abstraction is more like another war abstraction than real war?)
I just think it's interesting that almost every game ("or any other game in my fething Steam library") that comes out these days has to have a link to violence.
Once again to make it clear I'm not necessarily against violent games. I love shooting people in the face with missile launchers. It's just that violence apparently sells even more than sex.
edit: Delephont, why you always replysniping me I mostly agree with you, but this comment
Delephont wrote:The only difference between myself and a mass murderer is that I fear the consequences of my actions.....that's it.
is kinda disturbing...
I want to chalk it up to you exaggerating a little to make your point come across, but do you really mean it is only because of the watchful eye of the police that you aren't a rampaging, murdering maniac? Because that is what you are saying and if it is I don't want to be on the same side of the discussion as you anymore.
spaceelf wrote:Most of the debate has centered around whether or not nude models are appropriate. I would like to add another dimension, the consequences of creating such artwork. In 1987 Peggy Hettrick was murdered and sexually mutilated in Fort Collins CO. The main suspect was a teenager named Tim Masters. There was no physical evidence that he committed the crime and no witnesses. He was hounded by police but no further evidence turned up. About a decade later he was charged with her murder. Central to the prosecution's case was testimony by a psychologist who interpreted graphic drawings that Tim made as a teenager. Tim was convicted of murder and spent close to a decade in prison. This case would certainly make me think twice before making a rape diorama, even if I thought that it was art.
.....surely there was more to the story than that! I mean, why was this particular person considered a suspect to begin with. If it were based on his "graphic drawings" alone, half the wargaming society, everyone on 4Chan and most likely Anne Rice would be doing time for that crime as well.
My knowledge of the case is based on a TV documentary called 48 Hours Mystery. Here is a link
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-6025618/drawn-to-murder/?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea.0 He was a suspect because the body was found in a field next to his house. His mother had also passed away a few years earlier. Although there may have been more to the case, they certainly do not describe it in their program.
TiB wrote:I mostly agree with you, but this comment
Delephont wrote:The only difference between myself and a mass murderer is that I fear the consequences of my actions.....that's it.
is kinda disturbing...
I want to chalk it up to you exaggerating a little to make your point come across, but do you really mean it is only because of the watchful eye of the police that you aren't a rampaging, murdering maniac? Because that is what you are saying and if it is I don't want to be on the same side of the discussion as you anymore.
It's a deep one, and probably not something to be discussed on a a gaming forum. Basically, given the right environment and exposure, any one of us could be the "Monsters" we see every day on the news. Have you ever been driving your car and someone pulls out on you, endangering you and your passengers? Once the shock passes, you may find yourself angry, and wish to harm the careless person who put you and your loved ones in danger (even more so if the other driver is unrepentant in their actions).....at this point someone who is fearful of the consequences of their actions will content themselves with loud swearing and a good thump on the horn, someone less caring will engage in road rage, and may end up killing the other driver......the other question you have to ask yourself is, what would it take to make you cross the line?.....all of these things prove one thing, we are all capable of violent acts, and it's what restrains us from committing those acts (whether it be the Police or some other agency) that seperates us from the others.
You're not on my side of the discussion, you're on your side of the discussion, debating an aspect you believe in. I don't think anyone is here to take sides, we're simply here to debate a point, that your angle of debate may in some degrees parallel my own does not make us of a like mind in all things.
We are all around 72 hours away from becoming these monsters, IMO.
Put an average family man in a situation where he has to provide food and security for his family in a natural disaster where he is cut off from the rest of society and he will become the person that will do whatever it takes to protect his own, no matter how violent his actions would be.
I need to get away from this topic for a while, it's starting to take a rather dark turn and I've spent way too much god-damned time on it as it is. You can believe what you want, but I'm not touching this gak right now.
And TiB, that'd be Dakka censoring me, I'm not literally typing "donkey-cave", just so you know.
Basically, given the right environment and exposure, any one of us could be the "Monsters" we see every day on the news.
d-usa wrote:We are all around 72 hours away from becoming these monsters, IMO.
Fair enough. I still find it a bit harsh but at least it sounds reasonable compared to the "I could go for strangling some little girls right about now, and if it weren't for those meddling police officers I'd have gotten away with it" vibe the last comment was giving off .
Delaphont wrote:You're not on my side of the discussion, you're on your side of the discussion, debating an aspect you believe in. I don't think anyone is here to take sides, we're simply here to debate a point, that your angle of debate may in some degrees parallel my own does not make us of a like mind in all things.
True. withdrawn. I was just dividing the 'pro-eldar rape scene' and 'contra-eldar rape scene' camps for simplicity's sake.
(funny btw, that this thread started as one about nude models and ended up in this interesting discussion. Tits have long stopped to be the issue anymore. If the diorama was just one of an eldar sunbathing topless there would be a lot less of a hassle about it.)
Delephont wrote:I think you have to take WH40K quite serious to be offended by nude figures, which in itself is quite worrying really.
To be offended by a bare breast, or an exposed thigh, and yet not blink an eye at a Ravaging Green Ork, or an emaciated Dark Eldar running into battle bare foot is just hillarious.
I'm married and have obviously enjoyed the company of a women, as my 5 month old son will bear witness, and I love seeing well sculpted female forms in both Statue form or large scale miniature form (I collect 54mm and up, and also collect Sideshow Premium Format Statues). I think the female form is great, and everytime I get a chubby looking at a female Marvel comic character, I get the pleasure of knowing everything in the plumbing department is working A-OK, and that my mental chip is still firing on optimum!
All of that said, I was not offended by the Eldar rape scene, quite the opposite, I found it absolutely fascinating. It was a side of WH40K that is not explored because it will offend the kiddies (like severed heads, and the destruction of entire planets is somehow more acceptible?!?).
Regarding the part naked Commissar, well, ok, there I draw the line. Not because it depicts a naked woman, no, that part I like....it's more because it depicts an idiot! Any woman going into combat without torso protection, I don't care how good a warrior you are, is either going to end up dead or taking part in the Eldar rape scene....as the Eldar!
pretty much everything here.
I don't think nudity is the problem, its the practicality.
A naked commissar isn't bad because she is naked, it is bad because it doesn't make sense. People like things that somewhat make sense in regards to entertainment and such. A good scifi show or movie isn't 'hoaky'. Its believable within that setting's paradigms. A naked commissar on the battlefield? Not so believable. Guardsmen raping and humanoid female on the battlefield, pretty believable with quite a strong message.
spaceelf wrote:Most of the debate has centered around whether or not nude models are appropriate. I would like to add another dimension, the consequences of creating such artwork. In 1987 Peggy Hettrick was murdered and sexually mutilated in Fort Collins CO. The main suspect was a teenager named Tim Masters. There was no physical evidence that he committed the crime and no witnesses. He was hounded by police but no further evidence turned up. About a decade later he was charged with her murder. Central to the prosecution's case was testimony by a psychologist who interpreted graphic drawings that Tim made as a teenager. Tim was convicted of murder and spent close to a decade in prison. This case would certainly make me think twice before making a rape diorama, even if I thought that it was art.
Well Tim obviously had some serious issues well before committing the act, he would have committed them even if he hadn't made those drawings, it my models I like lots of blood and gore on my Khorne models, I have no desire to run round with a massive axe cutting people into tinny bits, sometimes people just have ideas and what to see how it plays out, like with the eldar rape thing I think Its a mixture of being original and shock effect, I don't think we need to start making more of this than need be. To the original subject of nude models, who really cares, if it isn't something you like then no amount of explaining is going to change you mind, its abit like trying to explain the hobby to a chav, no matter what you say they will never see past the fact its adults playing with toys, I don't own any nude models, if thats how AoW decide to make some witch elf count as then I will.
spaceelf wrote:Most of the debate has centered around whether or not nude models are appropriate. I would like to add another dimension, the consequences of creating such artwork. In 1987 Peggy Hettrick was murdered and sexually mutilated in Fort Collins CO. The main suspect was a teenager named Tim Masters. There was no physical evidence that he committed the crime and no witnesses. He was hounded by police but no further evidence turned up. About a decade later he was charged with her murder. Central to the prosecution's case was testimony by a psychologist who interpreted graphic drawings that Tim made as a teenager. Tim was convicted of murder and spent close to a decade in prison. This case would certainly make me think twice before making a rape diorama, even if I thought that it was art.
Well Tim obviously had some serious issues well before committing the act, he would have committed them even if he hadn't made those drawings, it my models I like lots of blood and gore on my Khorne models, I have no desire to run round with a massive axe cutting people into tinny bits, sometimes people just have ideas and what to see how it plays out, like with the eldar rape thing I think Its a mixture of being original and shock effect, I don't think we need to start making more of this than need be. To the original subject of nude models, who really cares, if it isn't something you like then no amount of explaining is going to change you mind, its abit like trying to explain the hobby to a chav, no matter what you say they will never see past the fact its adults playing with toys, I don't own any nude models, if thats how AoW decide to make some witch elf count as then I will.
Just to make sure that noone gets the wrong idea from my original post. Although Tim was convicted of murder and put in prison for almost a decade, it is my understanding that he was granted a new trial and the charges were dropped. He was released from prison and is no longer a suspect in the case.
In summary they put the wrong guy behind bars because he created some disturbing drawings.
As to the OP, so long as the figure is well done, I don't have a problem. The trouble is so many of these figures are just bad - akin to the Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies. In part this is why I like the Dark Eldar, because they look like female warriors and not Jordon with sword.
As to the rape diorama - yes it is very well modelled, and rather distrubing, but I suspect that the fate of the female eldar is going to be something rather worse than rape - in the conventional sense.
But then I find it odd how quickly the discussion moved from female nudity to rape.
This has attracted an insane amount of responses in a short time, wow. When I started this thread I gave the examples not to single them out specifically. I was mainly talking about nudity in general on models where its just stupid. I do agree that nudity on some models makes complete sense and is acceptable. The nudity in general on any model is not offensive to me, I just find it stupid and less interesting than the clothing or armor that usually covers those parts. The exception of course being demonettes and other models with a reason to be nude. I do like where this thread went though, I had a good time reading through it and I think it made a lot of people think. Many great responses, I guess this topic is on many more minds than I originally assumed. This matter will never be agreed upon one way or another because it is based on peoples opinions, but its cool we could all come on here and have a good time discussing it with each other! Cheers!
Love it or hate it, one thing is for certain: The eldar rape scene diorama is a success as a piece of art. This thread proves it. It has provoked strong repsonses and thoughtful discussion.
I'm fine with sensible, artistic nose art on valkyries and bits of armor partially torn off by a vicious salvo of gunfire or explosions, revealing the female wearer's legs a little bit. However, when people cross the line into highly offensive and inappropriate depictions that would be removed by moderators if it were a real image of people actually doing whatever is being displayed, I find it offensive and discomforting. That kind of crap is made by people with perverse minds who have ben truly corrupted by the demon of Slaneesh. The body is to be respected universally, not abused graphically in any way.
killykavekommando wrote: That kind of crap is made by people with perverse minds who have ben truly corrupted by the demon of Slaneesh. The body is to be respected universally, not abused graphically in any way.
killykavekommando wrote: That kind of crap is made by people with perverse minds who have ben truly corrupted by the demon of Slaneesh. The body is to be respected universally, not abused graphically in any way.
That's my conservative view of the day, folks.
Are you being serious?
For the most part, me being Catholic (here comes another argument!), minus the Slaneesh part. I truly think that many models are way over the top and I consider them sexist in that they regard females as toys to play with.
killykavekommando wrote: That kind of crap is made by people with perverse minds who have ben truly corrupted by the demon of Slaneesh. The body is to be respected universally, not abused graphically in any way.
That's my conservative view of the day, folks.
Are you being serious?
For the most part, me being Catholic (here comes another argument!), minus the Slaneesh part. I truly think that many models are way over the top and I consider them sexist in that they regard females as toys to play with.
All miniatures are toys to play with.
They have guys without shirts, nipple armor, rippling muscles, and plenty of models with dangly bits. I feel that this is sexist towards men and clearly made to attract a female crowd. I feel it is pretty balanced. To be offended by nudity is to be offended by human nature.
Besides, most models depict a different setting. Their social paradigms on nudity will probably be a lot different then our own.
I don't like forced sexual stuff in my 40k. This is something I do to relax. The last thing I wanna be wondering is, 'Are those veternas gonna sodomize Eldrad when we're done here?' because, frankly, I know too many victims of rape and sexual abuse. It's something that makes me angry and bitter. It's not what I wanna deal with when doing a hobby to calm me down.
Frankly, it has no greater place in the game than politics. Politics in 40k must be a nightmare. But no one proposes that we have rules where half there army can't use a gun because planetary budget cuts mean they have no ammo. Probably because you can't make models of politicians that look good (with some exceptions...Bionic Churchill would kick ass) and there's a lot less fascination with legislation than boobs. But, frankly, I don't really want to deal with either during my average game, and especially not something as vile as forced sex.
Then again, I also strongly disagree with the idea that anything can be art. Kiddy porn is never going to be art, not to any rational human being anyway. Stuff like this is more subjective...but I don't especially like it.
killykavekommando wrote: I truly think that many models are way over the top and I consider them sexist in that they regard females as toys to play with.
I agree with you on this.
Equally wierd is why the male genetals are almost always 'airbrushed'. Even on animals and the like.
And when they are depicted, as in the case of Celtic berzerkers, they are in proportion to real life.... *cue jokes*
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jon Garrett wrote:I don't like forced sexual stuff in my 40k. This is something I do to relax. The last thing I wanna be wondering is, 'Are those veternas gonna sodomize Eldrad when we're done here?' because, frankly, I know too many victims of rape and sexual abuse. It's something that makes me angry and bitter. It's not what I wanna deal with when doing a hobby to calm me down.
Indeed, but then it is also offensive the current parlance in which such and such a unit 'rapes' another unit, or 'I bent over and lubed up' to take the assault etc. Perhaps it is the weird way in which some people confuse sex and violence, and pass it off as bravado.
Jon Garrett wrote:I don't like forced sexual stuff in my 40k. This is something I do to relax. The last thing I wanna be wondering is, 'Are those veternas gonna sodomize Eldrad when we're done here?' because, frankly, I know too many victims of rape and sexual abuse. It's something that makes me angry and bitter. It's not what I wanna deal with when doing a hobby to calm me down.
Frankly, it has no greater place in the game than politics. Politics in 40k must be a nightmare. But no one proposes that we have rules where half there army can't use a gun because planetary budget cuts mean they have no ammo. Probably because you can't make models of politicians that look good (with some exceptions...Bionic Churchill would kick ass) and there's a lot less fascination with legislation than boobs. But, frankly, I don't really want to deal with either during my average game, and especially not something as vile as forced sex.
Then again, I also strongly disagree with the idea that anything can be art. Kiddy porn is never going to be art, not to any rational human being anyway. Stuff like this is more subjective...but I don't especially like it.
All opinions are valid. THAT is why art and the humanities are ours to study and either rip up and beat our chests about, or enjoy and discuss with a good cigar, a bottle of good scotch, and a couple of opinions.
NO opinion in the matter is wrong. They are all equally valed.
I can accept your stance, as well, but if you go back to the beginnings of the old school game, Rogue Trader, D and D, Frank Franzetta's works, Conan the Barbarian, Gamma World, Aftermath, Car Wars, AD 2000, scifi from the 70's and 80's, and Heavy Metal, as well as other comic book janras, THAT is the birthplace of the hows and whys...
There is honestly no, "Getting it." It is art for arts sake. in a true "Do what thou whilst" spirit.
The fact that the stuff gets as strong a rise out of Sidster, as it does NOT get a rise out of Delephont is the obvious key as to WHY the piece was made. THAT is the brilliance of the thing.
On my own admission, I am an artist. I collect art for arts sake. I paint the miniatures, I like Pin up art, I like Gieger, Rodan, Bosh, Pellente, Vargas, etc. etc.etc.( I absolutely LOVE Helmut Newton.The sheer shock value, along with the inspiration and discussions that thier works provide is excellent( Much as this one has been.)
What I can honestly agree with is the point taken by the Sidster on the point of the audience, though. He's not a donkey cave for not liking it, getting a rise out of it, and he is entitled to his opinion.
The Audience of the work is part in parcel of the discussion, but there are so many factors, that to go into here and nit pick ,( I would be the donkey cave to go on and on about.)
His point of "The 12 year olds not being the crowd that should be able to honestly be viewing this" is a valid point. One that should be the main direction of that graphic portayal in miniature.
Some say " oh, it isn't... THAT bad." I have to digress back to point 1 here being- YOU might not, but you are not those 12 year olds parents, nor are you in a position to be making decisions for someone elses kids. The fact that it is out there is enough. The kids parents can go up in arms over it, while you sit there, scratching your head trying to figure out what they are going on about. ( Both opinions are valid.)
Well out there alongside the "Modanna portrayed in feces, Tank Girl, Vamperella, Lady Death, The works of Soloman Rushdi, Betty Page, Pin up art from the 20's- present, body modification, models for high classed advertising agencies, and any and all portrayals of the human form from times past to present. The artists make it to get a reaction... You like it, hate it, give a meh....The portrayal of females,males, animals, and aliens is open to the artist and the audience.
"Oh, this is art- thats not art..." is an ever changing opinion. One in which you do not get the luxury of being right or wrong in, because it is one that is an internal decision, crafted by your personal opinions and tastes.
Fantasy kitch, from which the scifi games, miniatures, and art were born from is basicly a sideshow.
Much like bondage art, tattoos, anime, cartoons, porn, etc.etc.etc.... It boils down to a matter of the way in which it is done, portrayed, and interprited by the artist and viewer. So in that, as an example.... A guy/girl reads AD 2000, (in which Judge Dredd is famous) then the guy/girl, a graphic artist, or designer decided to branch out, and to gain noteriety, draw a fantastic picture in ink and pencil. Then someone else sees it, maybe a minis designer and his pal, a cartoonist or graphic designer come up with a couple of minis designes because they loved the suits.... They make a mini, someone else sees that mini, takes the work, adds in a female form, with a ripped up shirt and a lawgiver, adds in a pin up pose, maybe has a muti on the right.....
as is the commisar, as is the diorama, as is the suckling demon midwives, etc.etc.etc....
( I wrote the last part here as a basic example of the hows and whys of the Inspiration process of someone who would make up a nude mini of say.. a Judge Hershey, or Anderson. The same process is done by anyone else for any other model, and in other ways for other games.)
It is an ever growing way in which the graphic nature of art, miniatures, and the gaming goes. THIS is the essence of the "Understanding why people make the nude minis, art, etc. and why do people like it."
If the old school art masters could have done minis, how far do you think they would have pushed the envelope?
Great discussion, by and by. Here's Churchill for you, too.
Mewiththeface wrote:A naked commissar isn't bad because she is naked, it is bad because it doesn't make sense.
That's my take on it as well. Whereas the Eldar rape scene tells a fascinating (if dark and often not depicted in 40K) story, with each of the perpetrators having their own little story within the diorama (exactly what a diorama is meant to do).
I think that many people do obscene stuff in their dioramas and minis because they:
Alpha: Can't get a girl.
Bravo: Love the shock value. Many modern artists and photographers are like this.
Charlie: Are perverse and regard women as inferior. This is the kind of people that I have the beef with. These are the scum of the universe. PURGE THE UNCLEAN!!!!
Delta: For artistic value that they don't understand. True art doesn't need this kind of stuff in it.
killykavekommando wrote:I think that many people do obscene stuff in their dioramas and minis because they:
Alpha: Can't get a girl.
Bravo: Love the shock value. Many modern artists and photographers are like this.
Charlie: Are perverse and regard women as inferior. This is the kind of people that I have the beef with. These are the scum of the universe. PURGE THE UNCLEAN!!!!
Delta: For artistic value that they don't understand. True art doesn't need this kind of stuff in it.
To counter your opinion with my opinion, I think you are right and wrong because:
Alpha: Even some of the most perverse people are in happy relationships.
Bravo: There is a difference between "I will shock you" and "I want people to think about this". Just because it provokes thought and discussion does not mean it is done for shock value.
Charlie: Usual "I don't like what you did so I will judge you" comment
Delta: There is no such thing as true art. Art is art because the artist says so.
i love the rape scene model.........instantly it reminded me of platoon and the lessons on how brutal war truly is..........it brings out the worst in people and how quickly we forget this is another being who is truly not that much different than us
killykavekommando wrote:I think that many people do obscene stuff in their dioramas and minis because they:
Alpha: Can't get a girl.
Bravo: Love the shock value. Many modern artists and photographers are like this.
Charlie: Are perverse and regard women as inferior. This is the kind of people that I have the beef with. These are the scum of the universe. PURGE THE UNCLEAN!!!!
Delta: For artistic value that they don't understand. True art doesn't need this kind of stuff in it.
To counter your opinion with my opinion, I think you are right and wrong because:
Alpha: Even some of the most perverse people are in happy relationships.
Bravo: There is a difference between "I will shock you" and "I want people to think about this". Just because it provokes thought and discussion does not mean it is done for shock value.
Charlie: Usual "I don't like what you did so I will judge you" comment
Delta: There is no such thing as true art. Art is art because the artist says so.
You make quite valid points, and I admit that I am quite narrow-minded at times. However, I meant the truly obscene stuff, such as extreme Hentai 40k version, not moderate inappropriateness. I'm targeting truly perverse stuff, not airplane nose art. I actually appreciate the historically accurate nose art on valkyries, if painted well.
I don't care for either myself. I find it tasteless and offensive. I also don't agree with the o it's just art so I can paint or display whatever I want for shock value.
I know that such things happen in real life but I don't believe it's necessary to depict them in a game setting for amusement. Especially one the young children participate in.
I don't like to read Steve Ericksen's novels for the same reason. There is a certain level of realisem and violence that I'm willing to tolerate and then there's just giving me to much info. I find it distasteful.
I found the rape diorama thought provoking and superbly executed. The fact that it was done with minitures just changes the canvas. That is all.
How many NCIS episodes have some girl telling about the gang rape she endured. How many movies have depicted a brutal and violent rape scene? How many times has such a scene been depicted in charcoal, photography (mock or not), pencil, etc.
The diorama was just a snap shot, a frozen frame as it were of the above movie. It was just done in a different medium. Would there be this same outcry if the models were Nepolionic historicals? The sinerio is the same, just the uniforms have changed. Is the real issue that the models being used are traditionally used in a "kids game"? I think this is probably the bigger issue of where the real outcry is coming from.
As for naked bodies. The naked form has been depicted ever since the cave man first put rock to stone wall. Its not perverse, its not weird, its nothing to be ashamed about. Hell the the male species didn't find the female species visually alluring the human species as a whole wouldn't have made it very far. I sure as hell didn't find myself attracted to my wife because of her breath.
Now having said all that, yeah there is some stuff out there that just doesn't make any sense, has no real world application, nor does it even have any educational value.
To you.
Different strokes for different folk. We each have to decide for ourselves what we find offensive or necessary. What has value and what is a waste of material. But there is nothing ever that says one way is right or one way is wrong when it comes to art (any kind of art). After all (for example) photography is a form of art. And there are some really disturbing pictures out there of real world events that will evoke a powerful emotion. Its what you do with that emotion that each of us must decide for ourselves and we must realize that it is impossible for everyone to share the same option as you.
wowsmash wrote:I know that such things happen in real life but I don't believe it's necessary to depict them in a game setting for amusement. Especially one the young children participate in.
Well, in regards to the rape diorama I think we should also consider the event it was created for.
If somebody is playing at his or her FLGS and just sets down his rape diorama for display or uses it as a huge objective marker, then I will even agree that it is over the top and just plain weird.
But this diorama looks like it was created as a Golden Deamon entry. In my mind, Golden Deamon is about as far removed from the "game" as you can be. Golden Deamon is not "playing 40K with very well painted models and conversions", instead it is an actual artistic competition that just happens to use the GW models as a starting point, and the fluff of 40K as an inspiration.
I just got done reading Fulgrim, an official Black Library 40K novel. While not a Codex or a rulebook, I think that Black Library novels can be considered a solid part of the fluff. That novel alone included a scene where an woman is riding some random guy cowgirl style, and at the moment of their climax staps him in the throat and enjoys him dying while feeling "his warmth" inside of her. It also includes two scenes of giant orgies, the second of which is an orgy where Space Marines get their kicks killing people in mid-orgasmic bliss. It also makes it clear that during their fall to Chaos they cover their ship in all manner of Pornography.
Thats not some perverted fanfic or fanboy interpretation of events, that is 100% official GW fluff. And if somebody is looking for inspiration for a "true to fluff" diorama for a 100% artistic competition it would be perfectly legit to use any of these scenes.
You have to remember that Golden Deamon is not about playing the game, it is an artistic competition using the fluff of the game.
The eldar rape diorama is just as silly as the female commissar. Everyone knows doing the dirty with zenos scum is extra heretical, and those who even think about it are in line for bolt based re-education.
Necroshea wrote:The eldar rape diorama is just as silly as the female commissar. Everyone knows doing the dirty with zenos scum is extra heretical, and those who even think about it are in line for bolt based re-education.
Perfectly put, Necroshea.
@wowsmash: I agree with you also. Kids play this game, whether we choose to realize it or not. Whoever Steve Ericksen is, there is probably a reason why I don't read his stories.
Thare1774 wrote:Often while browsing CMON I see nude female miniatures that people paint. It doesn't offend me at all, I just don't get it. For example I saw two today, the first was a female commissar wearing only a trench coat and pants and boots. Breasts exposed as well as her whole upper torso all the way down nearly to her crotch. Why in the world would a female commissar be naked? What is the value of that model? I would think people in this hobby would rather see a really well sculpted legitimate female commissar in full uniform appropriate for gameplay. The second example I saw was a diorama basically depicting the rape of an Eldar female captured by some guardsmen. One had her breastplate in his hands and she was topless on the ground while another guardsmen had his pants unbuttoned and others were watching in amusement. It was really well painted and put together, but what is the motivation to depict a rape scene when it could have just been the same scene minus the rape and nudity? I think in MOST cases it cheapens the time and effort put into creating it, What do you think?
So first the original question. I don't see a problem with nude models. If someone wants to use them it's their choice. I can think two reason why nude models shouldn't be a wargame: a) kids and b) realism.
(a) For kids I think that graphic representation of violence needs to be removed as well. Sure parents can decide how much to allow which (violence and nudity). Unfortunately our cultures seem to think that nudity is a lot worse than violence. I don't really agree with that. So in that sense I think that tasteful nude models are fine as mild depiction of violence is fine as well. Then again if these models are used in 14 / 18 (depending on individuals) or up situations then this argument vanishes of course.
(b) While this is a valid reason, I don't really agree with it in this case. More detailed answer below.
ZacktheChaosChild wrote:Sometimes nudity makes sense. Do you think a greater daemon of Khorne or something would care to cove up his dingly bits?
Why would a Khorne Greater Demon have dingly bits? Slaanesh ... sure ... can figure out, but not the rest really.
Mewiththeface wrote:
Delephont wrote:Regarding the part naked Commissar, well, ok, there I draw the line. Not because it depicts a naked woman, no, that part I like....it's more because it depicts an idiot! Any woman going into combat without torso protection, I don't care how good a warrior you are, is either going to end up dead or taking part in the Eldar rape scene....as the Eldar!
pretty much everything here.
I don't think nudity is the problem, its the practicality.
A naked commissar isn't bad because she is naked, it is bad because it doesn't make sense. People like things that somewhat make sense in regards to entertainment and such. A good scifi show or movie isn't 'hoaky'. Its believable within that setting's paradigms. A naked commissar on the battlefield? Not so believable. Guardsmen raping and humanoid female on the battlefield, pretty believable with quite a strong message.
While I'd agree to this, in case of 40k I don't. That game has so many completely pointless things which break this rule that nothing new in this sense really matters. From the top of my head of which 1st was specifically selected for this point.
1. Battle sisters. I really would like to see someone explain why they don't then wear proper armour. Hint to those who might argue that they do, real combat gear are same for men and women.
2. Super heavies and Titans. Weight and reality doesn't really meet here.
3. Swords and other cc gear. How many modern soldier carries a sword?
All opinions are valid. THAT is why art and the humanities are ours to study and either rip up and beat our chests about, or enjoy and discuss with a good cigar, a bottle of good scotch, and a couple of opinions.
NO opinion in the matter is wrong. They are all equally valed.
I can accept your stance, as well, but if you go back to the beginnings of the old school game, Rogue Trader, D and D, Frank Franzetta's works, Conan the Barbarian, Gamma World, Aftermath, Car Wars, AD 2000, scifi from the 70's and 80's, and Heavy Metal, as well as other comic book janras, THAT is the birthplace of the hows and whys...
There is honestly no, "Getting it." It is art for arts sake. in a true "Do what thou whilst" spirit.
I can agree that art can depict anything; I have a friend whose back is covered in a tattoo of a naked Japanese woman involved in bondage. It's a beautiful piece of work by an incredibly skilled person. On the other hand, some places aren't acceptable to show it off - he can't go to a public swimming pool or beach now because that thing will cause offence to anyone with small children. I'd say the same goes to to a wargame that, at least now, has a rating of...what? 8 and up? Which isn't to say the guy can't or shouldn't do it - as with my friend it's a well done, well executed piece, but it's not something I like and certainly not something I'd wanna see in any shop I visit.
I know in the olden days, one of the races in Warhammer use to reproduce via rape. That race got retconned out of existence. I know there are still some models that have exposed breasts, but I will say there's quite a large jump between 'Breasts on a demon of lust' and a rape scene.
I'd also say that while art can depict anything, not anything can be art. Again, using the extreme example, a snapshot of a child being sexually abused will never be art - just sick, twisted and vile. Some thing do need censoring, even in our age of free speech and free expression. You could, possibly, get away with the same thing drawn or painted, since at least no child was actually harmed, but a lot of people would still wanna set fire to it, myself included.
Grot 6 wrote:The fact that the stuff gets as strong a rise out of Sidster, as it does NOT get a rise out of Delephont is the obvious key as to WHY the piece was made. THAT is the brilliance of the thing.
On my own admission, I am an artist. I collect art for arts sake. I paint the miniatures, I like Pin up art, I like Gieger, Rodan, Bosh, Pellente, Vargas, etc. etc.etc.( I absolutely LOVE Helmut Newton.The sheer shock value, along with the inspiration and discussions that thier works provide is excellent( Much as this one has been.)
What I can honestly agree with is the point taken by the Sidster on the point of the audience, though. He's not a donkey cave for not liking it, getting a rise out of it, and he is entitled to his opinion.
The Audience of the work is part in parcel of the discussion, but there are so many factors, that to go into here and nit pick ,( I would be the donkey cave to go on and on about.)
His point of "The 12 year olds not being the crowd that should be able to honestly be viewing this" is a valid point. One that should be the main direction of that graphic portayal in miniature.
I think part of the issue is the medium. With enough time, I guess you could do exactly the same thing with lego, albeit not in the same detail. But that's so clearly a kids medium and toy that it would be fething creepy. It's sorta the same here. 'So 12 years olds shouldn't be looking at models for armies they may well collect because the artist has done something perverse?'
Grot 6 wrote:Some say " oh, it isn't... THAT bad." I have to digress back to point 1 here being- YOU might not, but you are not those 12 year olds parents, nor are you in a position to be making decisions for someone elses kids. The fact that it is out there is enough. The kids parents can go up in arms over it, while you sit there, scratching your head trying to figure out what they are going on about. ( Both opinions are valid.)
Well out there alongside the "Modanna portrayed in feces, Tank Girl, Vamperella, Lady Death, The works of Soloman Rushdi, Betty Page, Pin up art from the 20's- present, body modification, models for high classed advertising agencies, and any and all portrayals of the human form from times past to present. The artists make it to get a reaction... You like it, hate it, give a meh....The portrayal of females,males, animals, and aliens is open to the artist and the audience.
"Oh, this is art- thats not art..." is an ever changing opinion. One in which you do not get the luxury of being right or wrong in, because it is one that is an internal decision, crafted by your personal opinions and tastes.
Fantasy kitch, from which the scifi games, miniatures, and art were born from is basicly a sideshow.
Much like bondage art, tattoos, anime, cartoons, porn, etc.etc.etc.... It boils down to a matter of the way in which it is done, portrayed, and interprited by the artist and viewer. So in that, as an example.... A guy/girl reads AD 2000, (in which Judge Dredd is famous) then the guy/girl, a graphic artist, or designer decided to branch out, and to gain noteriety, draw a fantastic picture in ink and pencil. Then someone else sees it, maybe a minis designer and his pal, a cartoonist or graphic designer come up with a couple of minis designes because they loved the suits.... They make a mini, someone else sees that mini, takes the work, adds in a female form, with a ripped up shirt and a lawgiver, adds in a pin up pose, maybe has a muti on the right.....
as is the commisar, as is the diorama, as is the suckling demon midwives, etc.etc.etc....
( I wrote the last part here as a basic example of the hows and whys of the Inspiration process of someone who would make up a nude mini of say.. a Judge Hershey, or Anderson. The same process is done by anyone else for any other model, and in other ways for other games.)
It is an ever growing way in which the graphic nature of art, miniatures, and the gaming goes. THIS is the essence of the "Understanding why people make the nude minis, art, etc. and why do people like it."
If the old school art masters could have done minis, how far do you think they would have pushed the envelope?
I think there's a big difference between something meant for younger people to do, and something meant for adults in a similar medium. Take comic books. There are plenty for younger people to read. Then, on the flip side, you have something like Crossed - one of the most violent and sexually graphic things I've ever seen in any medium. But despite being a comic book, it was never meant to be for anyone under 18 (or 21 in some countries!) where as this wasn't. I also don't like rule 34 pictures of disney princesses getting gangbanged and murdered for much the same reason. Plus I can't help but imagine the heart break my own daughter would go through seeing a female character they like being treated that way.
If there was an adult table top game with a fluff of rape and rules to sodomize, I wouldn't have an issue with it. Wouldn't play it, but wouldn't care. Those elements have been dropped from Fantasy and 40k, which I personally prefer.
Grot 6 wrote:Great discussion, by and by. Here's Churchill for you, too.
I see you one zombie Churchill, and raise you bionic Churchill.
I agree in that violence is worse than nudity. I find the kneejerk 'won't somebody please think of the children' reaction some people get when boobs come into play exaggerated. Hardcore pornography sure, that's very confusing to a small child and probably not good for him, but just boobs?
killykavekommando (kkk?) wrote: Love the shock value.
wowsmash wrote:o it's just art so I can paint or display whatever I want for shock value.
I believe it goes a little deeper than mere shock value. This thread proves it. It sure incites discussion (and an interesting one at that).
I also don't think that saying 'it's art' should get you a free pass to say and do everything. But I do think every person is entitled to his opinion and freedom of expression.
Jayden63 wrote:The fact that it was done with minitures just changes the canvas.
[...]
Is the real issue that the models being used are traditionally used in a "kids game"? I think this is probably the bigger issue of where the real outcry is coming from.
I've said it before and you yourself also say it later in your post. But it's not 'just changing the canvas'. The piece communicates radically different because of it. It has way more effect on the end result than just choosing cotton or linen for my painting.
Necroshea wrote:The eldar rape diorama is just as silly as the female commissar. Everyone knows doing the dirty with zenos scum is extra heretical, and those who even think about it are in line for bolt based re-education.
It's not like rape or Abu Ghraib-like occurences are exaclty in the field manual today either. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
TiB wrote:I agree in that violence is worse than nudity. I find the kneejerk 'won't somebody please think of the children' reaction some people get when boobs come into play exaggerated. Hardcore pornography sure, that's very confusing to a small child and probably not good for him, but just boobs?
It's not like rape or Abu Ghraib-like occurences are exaclty in the field manual today either. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It is just boobs but also it comes down to the people who come into where you play and how appropriate it is......
When it comes to the rape diorama.......thats not something that is gonna be out for the younger members of this game to be seen......like a member posted that was made for Golden Demon or some other award based program............but what the adults should take away from it is.........the realities of the game we play.........we minimalize it to a set of miniatures and a sci fi scenario but forget the horrors that war creates..........very thought provoking piece
While I have been arguing for the validity of the Eldar rape scene, I think one point has escaped me, and maybe a few others.....no, I'm not doing a 180 degree spin on my view point, just simply coming at it from another direction.
People in this thread have continously stated that Wh40K is a fantasy game, emphasis on fantasy, and as such we have Green Orks, Space Elves, and everything else that has become associated with that fantasy setting.
If such things are acceptable, then I suppose there is also an argument that certain levels of violence have also become acceptable, and other forms of violence have no place in this agreed setting.
So for example, rape is no more acceptable in WH40K then a Lascannon would be acceptable in Warhammer Fantasy battle....it's all fantasy, but even within the fantasy there are still some "unspoken universal rules".
When approaching the point from this angle I completely understand peoples misgivings. They come to this fantasy to enjoy it for what it has become, and don't necessarily want a real world war history lesson.
In that sense, suggesting someone has a liking for violence if they play WH40K is like suggesting the same of someone who watches an episode of Tom & Jerry (very violent cartoon )
Perhaps the artist could have made the same piece but using historical miniatures rather then fantasy miniatures from a game people hold in high regard. In the same way that certain individuals choose to pervert Disney characters for porn, I believe this is what has been done with this WH40K diorama.
The way I see it the piece works just because it doesn't belong in the universe.
It's the same thing as the lego concentration camp by Zbigniew Libera posted earlier in this thread; the juxtaposition between the fantasy setting with 'cartoon' warfare and real life atrocities of war.
If it were done using historicals I would raise an eyebrow in a 'what are you trying to say?' fashion.
TiB wrote:The way I see it the piece works just because it doesn't belong in the universe.
It's the same thing as the lego concentration camp by Zbigniew Libera posted earlier in this thread; the juxtaposition between the fantasy setting with 'cartoon' warfare and real life atrocities of war.
If it were done using historicals I would raise an eyebrow in a 'what are you trying to say?' fashion.
Really? Perhaps you're right. Although, when I say historial miniatures I mean taken specifically from a certain era, for example Vietnam. I think if the artist had picked a specific era and put the same effort into the piece it would look like he was trying to educate as opposed to titilate (as some have suggested).....there would be no less horror, or shock, but at least people would recognise it for what it was.....almost like War artists who pianted pictures of mass graves being filled, or the photographer who captures the photo of civilian executions. You wouldn't call these people perverse simply because they bring you images that the governments don't want you to see. In some ways this is exactly what historial miniature painting and diorama are all about, capturing a point in time and telling the story of that event.
Where this artist has used WH40K miniatures, in retrospec I believe that was the wrong way to deliver his message, and perhaps also to the wrong crowd.
TiB wrote:The way I see it the piece works just because it doesn't belong in the universe.
It's the same thing as the lego concentration camp by Zbigniew Libera posted earlier in this thread; the juxtaposition between the fantasy setting with 'cartoon' warfare and real life atrocities of war.
If it were done using historicals I would raise an eyebrow in a 'what are you trying to say?' fashion.
Really? Perhaps you're right. Although, when I say historial miniatures I mean taken specifically from a certain era, for example Vietnam. I think if the artist had picked a specific era and put the same effort into the piece it would look like he was trying to educate as opposed to titilate (as some have suggested).....there would be no less horror, or shock, but at least people would recognise it for what it was.....almost like War artists who pianted pictures of mass graves being filled, or the photographer who captures the photo of civilian executions. You wouldn't call these people perverse simply because they bring you images that the governments don't want you to see. In some ways this is exactly what historial miniature painting and diorama are all about, capturing a point in time and telling the story of that event.
Where this artist has used WH40K miniatures, in retrospec I believe that was the wrong way to deliver his message, and perhaps also to the wrong crowd.
sometimes we need our fantasy to remind us of reality
I went and looked up both minis on CMON and I can appreciate the Eldar rape scene because it puts a bit of reality into the fantasy of the game-rape happens. It's a horrible, terrible thing, don't get me wrong, but going 38,000 years into the future, rape isn't going to disappear, and this artist wanted to convey that. I think the piece does a great job of suggesting reality inside of a fantasy realm. However, the nude commissar was pathetic. Boobs are great-pointless boobs, just to have them, are not. And that is what this model is-pointless. A commander going into battle topless and with her pants pulled down a bit so she can't even walk? There is no thought to even be conveyed in this-other than somebody wanted to show boobs on a model.
So to sum up...Eldar rape scene-cruel, but based in reality and definitely art
Nude commissar...pointless and really not art at all-just pointless sex thrown into the game for sex's sake.
I could never have a problem with boobs on a mini. Boobs are awesome. Boobs on a mini? Why not? Maybe we should separate the hobby (the GW hobby and wargaming) from the miniatures. Andrea Miniatures, for example, is a brand that except for their latest steps into the fantasy, has always focused their market on historical miniatures. For adult painters. So they have a full line of Pin-Up minis. I can't see the problem with it. They are not meant to be painted by 10 year old kids.
I remember that rape diorama from the first time it's author posted it here on Dakka. At the first moment I was shocked, because it appeals a disgusting scene. Then I read his point. And changed my mind. He had done a great job shocking us. Just... show it to the proper audiences, and that's all.
This is kinda like parents complaining about the violence in videogames. If the game has a 18+ label on it, don't buy it for your children! Porn has 18+ labels too, and I'm pretty sure they won't buy it for their children... this sould be the same.
I'm a bit upset this days, because I've realized that CMON put on sale the busty female barbarian Natalya Melkink painted on her DVD. And I didn't realize on time, now it's out of stock, so I won't be able to buy it. I was eager to buy that mini. It might be a bit strange, because while I'm a Red Sonja fan (and proud of Esteban Maroto being Spanish!) I don't use to like the artwork where they go over the top and oversize everything. This mini was oversized, yeah. But most of other female barbarians and no-Red Sonja minis ara usually poor sculpts.
Not allowing the painter to make that rape scene is like trying to forbid Spielberg to make Schindler's List, Roberto Begnini La vita è bella and Art Spiegelmann Maus. Because they are about tho Holocaust and Holocaust was awful. Sometimes we need a reminder of what we shouldn't do, or where mankind should not get.
Delephont wrote:In that sense, suggesting someone has a liking for violence if they play WH40K is like suggesting the same of someone who watches an episode of Tom & Jerry (very violent cartoon )
Another interesting point: Tom and Jerry, despite being a violent cartoon, doesn't show any blood (or the original cartoons don't anyway). Even when Tom gets sliced into ribbons, his insides are still blue like his fur.
...it seemed like a good point to make but I guess it's just further proof that nothing we do really makes any fething sense.
LakotaWolf wrote:sometimes we need our fantasy to remind us of reality
timetowaste85 wrote:it puts a bit of reality into the fantasy of the game
But why? Why does the fantasy game need to have reality injected into it? What's the issue here, that by ignoring the issue of fake rape in the fake world that we're offending all the fake victims of that fake rape that inhabit the fake world? Or is it the opposite, that ignoring rape in the fantasy world somehow equates to ignoring rape in the real one?
It doesn't make any sense. You know when people play 40k and say they want to "forget" about that stuff for a while, they aren't literally wiping their minds of all memory of it, right? When I'm done playing 40k I still know that rape exists.
Except he was not playing 40k, that was not what the rape diorama was made for. It was made as an entry to an arts competition, not a way to introduce rape into your Friday night game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To clarify: I think that when it comes to things like the diorama people need to learn to separate the act of playing the game of 40K from the setting and fluff of 40K.
40K fluff is the inspiration for both. Playing the game is one way to express the fluff, the diorama is another. They draw from the same source and inspiration, but they are not really related to each other.
For the diorama I won't comment on it's artistic value without having actually asked the artist to explain the piece first.
This is for the simple reason that if the artist had carefully thought out exactly what they wanted to portray and the message they were trying to put across then I would consider it an interesting piece of art.
If they'd just decided to make a shocking model for the sake of shocking people and to show off their skills then I would consider it a tasteless piece of exploitation.
Also, a lot of people in this thread have seemed to say that art is above criticism in any form. I would disagree and say that all art is ideal for criticism. If you cannot defend the piece of art from the criticism of others then it is not worth defending.
Delephont wrote:While I have been arguing for the validity of the Eldar rape scene, I think one point has escaped me, and maybe a few others.....no, I'm not doing a 180 degree spin on my view point, just simply coming at it from another direction.
People in this thread have continously stated that Wh40K is a fantasy game, emphasis on fantasy, and as such we have Green Orks, Space Elves, and everything else that has become associated with that fantasy setting.
If such things are acceptable, then I suppose there is also an argument that certain levels of violence have also become acceptable, and other forms of violence have no place in this agreed setting.
So for example, rape is no more acceptable in WH40K then a Lascannon would be acceptable in Warhammer Fantasy battle....it's all fantasy, but even within the fantasy there are still some "unspoken universal rules".
I'm not buying this argument.
Fantasy is all about willing suspension of disbelief. It's not about realism, it's about believability. There is no way to get anyone seriously interested in the background of Warhammer Fantasy to willingly susped their disbelief of a lascannon in an army where everyone else uses swords.
Now the problem is that how we define suspension of disbelief and believability is going to vary from person to person. Personally, I think the rape scene is more believable than many other dioramas I've seen (the Eldar woman's odd lack of underwear and weightless breastplate aside). But then I come at 40K from a different place than maybe some other players do- I come at it from a perspective that war is not a glorious thing, it's a destructive waste of resources where the worst is brought out in its participants. Likewise, I reject 40K's sterile depiction of warfare, where the terrain of each battle almost never shows evidence that people used to live in that area. I reject the cartoony super-villainy, I reject the pompous self-righteousness of the so-called "good guys", and I reject nearly everything that has anything to do with a space marine.
Now someone who comes at 40K with a different set of opinions is not going to suspend their disbelief in the same way. As some people have said on this thread, being reminded of things like rape is a jarring distraction from their approach to the 40K fantasy.
So how to reconcile it? Well, I don't care much for that latter approach to 40K, obviously. But I don't need to insult the person who approaches that way. Likewise, I don't need to play a rape diorama on the tabletop of a game. But if someone spends their own money and their own time to make their own diorama, show some respect. You might disagree with their choice and you are welcome to voice that disagreement (though in my experience critiquing an artist's intent is nearly always useless. It's far more effective to give criticism of their ability to achieve their intent) but there is absolutely no need to insult the artist's motivation or personal life.
Delephont wrote:While I have been arguing for the validity of the Eldar rape scene, I think one point has escaped me, and maybe a few others.....no, I'm not doing a 180 degree spin on my view point, just simply coming at it from another direction.
People in this thread have continously stated that Wh40K is a fantasy game, emphasis on fantasy, and as such we have Green Orks, Space Elves, and everything else that has become associated with that fantasy setting.
If such things are acceptable, then I suppose there is also an argument that certain levels of violence have also become acceptable, and other forms of violence have no place in this agreed setting.
So for example, rape is no more acceptable in WH40K then a Lascannon would be acceptable in Warhammer Fantasy battle....it's all fantasy, but even within the fantasy there are still some "unspoken universal rules".
I'm not buying this argument.
Fantasy is all about willing suspension of disbelief. It's not about realism, it's about believability. There is no way to get anyone seriously interested in the background of Warhammer Fantasy to willingly susped their disbelief of a lascannon in an army where everyone else uses swords.
Now the problem is that how we define suspension of disbelief and believability is going to vary from person to person. Personally, I think the rape scene is more believable than many other dioramas I've seen (the Eldar woman's odd lack of underwear and weightless breastplate aside). But then I come at 40K from a different place than maybe some other players do- I come at it from a perspective that war is not a glorious thing, it's a destructive waste of resources where the worst is brought out in its participants. Likewise, I reject 40K's sterile depiction of warfare, where the terrain of each battle almost never shows evidence that people used to live in that area. I reject the cartoony super-villainy, I reject the pompous self-righteousness of the so-called "good guys", and I reject nearly everything that has anything to do with a space marine.
Now someone who comes at 40K with a different set of opinions is not going to suspend their disbelief in the same way. As some people have said on this thread, being reminded of things like rape is a jarring distraction from their approach to the 40K fantasy.
So how to reconcile it? Well, I don't care much for that latter approach to 40K, obviously. But I don't need to insult the person who approaches that way. Likewise, I don't need to play a rape diorama on the tabletop of a game. But if someone spends their own money and their own time to make their own diorama, show some respect. You might disagree with their choice and you are welcome to voice that disagreement (though in my experience critiquing an artist's intent is nearly always useless. It's far more effective to give criticism of their ability to achieve their intent) but there is absolutely no need to insult the artist's motivation or personal life.
I'd like to respond to the bold text items first, and then to the whole message. I think if you look back at my posts on this thread, I haven't once shown anything but respect for the artist, and I don' think I have ever made a statement, positive or negative in relation to the artists personal life. Please check and highlight where you feel I'm wrong. Of course I have mused on his motivations, I mean that is part and parcel of appraising the piece of work, but I don't think I've done that in a negative or spiteful way.
In regards to your whole post. Firstly, I have been a strong supporter of the piece of art. However, in the name of true honest debate, I thought it was fair to look at it from the opposing view-point. While you don't buy my counter argument, I would counter by saying I don't necessarily buy yours. There is an old saying, "if youre going to talk to a dog, you have to bark"......basically meaning, if you have a message to pass onto someone it needs to be in a language or form they understand, and by undestanding of course we also mean - relate to.
I agree that there are many ways to approach settings like WH40K, and I don't disagree with your approach, in fact, I think it's very healthy. That said, I'd be willing to bet your appraoch is that of a minority group, with the vast majority of WH40K players taking the game at face value, sterile warzones and cartoon super villany et al. To suddenly thrust something like this into a group which, on the whole, are not geared up for it, is going to have a myriad or responses, probably very few being positive ones.
We all live in a joint society, which by it's very nature puts boundaries on what is or is not acceptable. Everyone has a social responsibility to consider their fellow man, he who fails to do so must live with the consequences. Just because the artist decided to make this piece with his own time and money does not therefore give him the right to thrust it upon society and expect to not be appraised for it. Now, if he made this piece and kept it in his own home environment, for his own pleasure....different point, that's his free choice.
A Town Called Maius wrote:For the diorama I won't comment on it's artistic value without having actually asked the artist to explain the piece first.
You shouldn't have to. A good piece of art should be able to communicate by itself.
It's silly that depending on what the artist says it's either an interesting piece of art or tasteless smut.
Kinda weird, and yet, that's exactly what you're stating above. Why play WH40K or any wargame where the background fluff offends you? Hell, if you want strategy play chess....or Abalone, why does everyone equate strategy to war? People play WH40K, collect the armies and paint them based on the armies fluff in 99% of the cases.....are you going to deny this point? People read the Black Library books because?
To state that you play the game whilst being offended by the fluff is just idiocy...I'm sorry, theres no other way to put it. No one forces you to play (and endorse) a game the glorfies violence, you make that choice out of the myriad pastimes you could choose from.
It is very much possible to play the game and collect the models without paying much attention to the fluff. In fact to some people 40K IS chess (or a statistical exercise), etc. That is evidenced daily here on Dakka...
Personally I havent read any of the codex fluff of any codex released since I bought my Ork codex back when it was released.
TBH I could care less about a lot of the fluff, because it keeps changing, getting retconned, and generally dilluted. And despite this fact I can still play and enjoy the game.
The fluff has very little impact on gameplay. It has a marginally greter impact on some people's army design and painting, etc.
Many people don't adhere to fluff in army building, game play or hobby aspects (painting, etc.).
99%? For every "fluffy" army you see, you see scores more that are min/maxed net-deck armies painted in some wacky scheme removed from the fluff. Most players pay lip service to fluff when it is convienant, but ignore it otherwise, and one only has to spend some time in the painting/modelling section or the batreps/tournament discussion/army lists sections of dakka to see that your "99%" statement is a figment of your imagination...
CT GAMER wrote:It is very much possible to play the game and collect the models without paying much attention to the fluff. In fact to some people 40K IS chess (or a statistical exercise), etc. That is evidenced daily here on Dakka...
Personally I havent read any of the codex fluff of any codex released since I bought my Ork codex back when it was released.
TBH I could care less about a lot of the fluff, because it keeps changing, getting retconned, and generally dilluted. And despite this fact I can still play and enjoy the game.
The fluff has very little impact on gameplay. It has a marginally greter impact on some people's army design and painting, etc.
Many people don't adhere to fluff in army building, game play or hobby aspects (painting, etc.).
99%? For every "fluffy" army you see, you see scores more that are min/maxed net-deck armies painted in some wacky scheme removed from the fluff. Most players pay lip service to fluff when it is convienant, but ignore it otherwise, and one only has to spend some time in the painting/modelling section or the batreps/tournament discussion/army lists sections of dakka to see that your "99%" statement is a figment of your imagination...
Of course it's possible to play the game without caring about the fluff. The 99% that I pulled out of nowhere was simply to illustrate that MOST people don't do that. Whether you adhere to the fluff or not is irrelevant, the point is that people do care about it. If you think fluff isn't that important.....try announcing the fact that you're starting a Femal Space Marine army, then we'll see who cares about fluff or not.
Of course it's possible to play the game without caring about the fluff. The 99% that I pulled out of nowhere was simply to illustrate that MOST people don't do that. Whether you adhere to the fluff or not is irrelevant, the point is that people do care about it. If you think fluff isn't that important.....try announcing the fact that you're starting a Femal Space Marine army, then we'll see who cares about fluff or not.
If I did that at any of the FLG I go to, I get that be cool.
Online I get a bunch of people crying about fluff.
Funny how different opinion are on the internet.
I know its different for every place, but I'm wondering where the young children are that are supposed to be effected by this. I know of no one (save my own son who is 7 but he just pushes the models around instead of actually playing the game) who plays this game that is younger than 20. If I go into any of my FLGS and look at who is either playing or painting on the tables there are no kids.
Maybe its just different in my area, but there is no nudity that could possibly be scuplted onto a mini that hasn't been seen by all of us 10 times before in a different medium.
Jayden63 wrote:I'm wondering where the young children are that are supposed to be effected by this.
There are plenty of younguns who buy AoBR and a battleforce, dunk it in house paint and lose interest. You're right in that it's not generally (there are always exceptions) the demographic visiting cmon and gd's and the like.
Delephont wrote:I'd like to respond to the bold text items first, and then to the whole message. I think if you look back at my posts on this thread, I haven't once shown anything but respect for the artist, and I don' think I have ever made a statement, positive or negative in relation to the artists personal life. Please check and highlight where you feel I'm wrong. Of course I have mused on his motivations, I mean that is part and parcel of appraising the piece of work, but I don't think I've done that in a negative or spiteful way.
Ah, my mistake. My use of "you" was meant to refer to the general audience of this thread, not you in particular.
LakotaWolf wrote:sometimes we need our fantasy to remind us of reality
timetowaste85 wrote:it puts a bit of reality into the fantasy of the game
But why? Why does the fantasy game need to have reality injected into it? What's the issue here, that by ignoring the issue of fake rape in the fake world that we're offending all the fake victims of that fake rape that inhabit the fake world? Or is it the opposite, that ignoring rape in the fantasy world somehow equates to ignoring rape in the real one?
It doesn't make any sense. You know when people play 40k and say they want to "forget" about that stuff for a while, they aren't literally wiping their minds of all memory of it, right? When I'm done playing 40k I still know that rape exists.
It sets as a reminder to us of the horrors of war.......look at the atrocities that happen during wartime.....no matter where you are from we are all taught to be supportive of our country and its troops...........but sadly we forget these people are human beings and are being put in a situation that brings the worst out of people..........they become desensitized and forget the people they are fighting are people
when I saw that diorama I instantly remebered the lessens learned from "Platoon", "Casualties Of War", and "All Quiet On The Western Front"
My impression of the diorama was that it felt like a scene right out of platoon or full metal jacket. A lot of people were deeply shaken/offended by those two movies as it depicted the gritty side of war. War is terrible and people need to realize that, you can't have war and expect it to be clean, moral and romantic. The only part about it that seemed off to me was the pristine color that the eldar was done with, she came out of a blown up tank and is in dirt and grim yet her armor is perfectly unblemished. Her clothes are also far more intact than what they'd realistically be. Although I think the level that the piece was done at is fine as you don't need to go into graphic detail to convey the intent of what is transpiring. It makes the viewer think and is evocative which is the objective of sucessful art.
The half naked guard officer makes little sense to me, it'd be like having a marine dressed in short hot pants and a chippendales bow tie. If that's your fantasy by all means indulge but it's just weird to me. There's no practical sense for chain mail bkini's yet it's common place in fantasy minis because for some reason it gets gamer dude's rocks off. Personally I'd rather be looking at actual boobs in a playboy spread, but for some guys the concept of a real woman is intimidating and miniatures and furries are what get them going.
LakotaWolf wrote:sometimes we need our fantasy to remind us of reality
timetowaste85 wrote:it puts a bit of reality into the fantasy of the game
But why? Why does the fantasy game need to have reality injected into it? What's the issue here, that by ignoring the issue of fake rape in the fake world that we're offending all the fake victims of that fake rape that inhabit the fake world? Or is it the opposite, that ignoring rape in the fantasy world somehow equates to ignoring rape in the real one?
It doesn't make any sense. You know when people play 40k and say they want to "forget" about that stuff for a while, they aren't literally wiping their minds of all memory of it, right? When I'm done playing 40k I still know that rape exists.
It sets as a reminder to us of the horrors of war.......look at the atrocities that happen during wartime.....no matter where you are from we are all taught to be supportive of our country and its troops...........but sadly we forget these people are human beings and are being put in a situation that brings the worst out of people..........they become desensitized and forget the people they are fighting are people
when I saw that diorama I instantly remebered the lessens learned from "Platoon", "Casualties Of War", and "All Quiet On The Western Front"
that diorama is a powerful piece of art
I could also argue that if that was the diorama's true purpose then it was completely unnecessary, since clearly we have plenty of other reminders in other media already if you were able to list three of them without much trouble. Granted a lot of the younger generation probably wouldn't have movies like Platoon to draw memories from, but then again the younger generation clearly wasn't who this was targeted at in the first place, so...
Considering the small niche audience that wargames have in the first place I just don't see the point. Most of you probably already know this stuff, and those that wouldn't are too young for it anyway. Film is different because it's made for a much wider audience: everyone watches movies, so it's a much more effective media to "teach" with than models. You very well could be showing people something they never would have known about otherwise, and making them think. There's also the point that this is bringing to our attention something evil that happens in a fictional world, with a fictional alien race being portrayed as the victim. Granted it's a horrible crime that happens in the real world, too, but I think a case can be made that by using toys portraying aliens and space men with laser guns, it kinda loses some of the impact it would have otherwise had, and makes it hard for me to take seriously.
I think it would have been more "powerful" if, say, the diorama was made with historical miniatures depicting the atrocities of the Vietnam war: a child with a bomb strapped to him running toward a group of soldiers, or soldiers using napalm. Or how about trying to draw attention to an issue that most people in America have tried really hard to forget about: Japanese internment camps during WW2. That happened, in America no less. We're always real quick to point out how evil the Nazis were because of what they did to the Jews, but halfway across the world in the "land of the free", people of Japanese descent were being rounded up into camps, most of which were American citizens, all because of racial prejudice and hysteria.
Yeah I know, what happened to the Jews was way worse, America wasn't slaughtering the Japanese interned in those camps, but it doesn't change the fact that it's something you wouldn't think we would do. When I first learned about it I was shocked, anyway. I'd spent my whole life being told and believing that we were the "good guys", that we were all about freedom and democracy for everyone. Who the hell could justify that? True, we issued an apology decades later and paid reparations, but this is still a huge issue and one I don't think we should ever really forget. Especially since our government could care less about "freedom" and is trying constantly to pull bs over on us and get away with it, all the while cutting funding to education and doing everything they can to keep the middle and lower classes dirt poor, trying to make us stupider and more subservient as time goes on, telling us not to question them because it's un-American and everything they're doing is purely for our own good.
...anyway...I've wasted an unholy amount of time these past two days just reading this topic alone, trying to think of good ways to respond and giving up before I can hit "Submit". I'm thankful at least that Delephont did try to see where I was coming from, because I had to admit I was a little upset at the insinuation that I was crazy and needed a shrink (after posting his own Joker-esque thoughts about the nature of man, no less), and seemingly dismissing everything I've said as stupid hypocritical bs.
Maybe you're right after all, who knows. Maybe I really am more violent than I think and I'm just lying to myself. Personally I'd rather not find out, and if I never get put into a situation where I have to kill another human being or risk being killed myself it'll be too soon.
Also, just to reiterate: don't have a problem with nudity, so long as it "makes sense". Naked commissar no make sense, so no like. Wouldn't object to playing a game with someone who was playing with a nude commissar but I'm not going to accept any of your attempts to rationalize or explain it, just tell me "I wanted one" and let's get on with it.
In terms of nude models as a whole, I approve of them if they are done tastefully and can be quite a challenge to paint.
However that whole half naked commissar was insulting, on the other hand, that rape scene diorama was more thought provoking than anything, setting a scene and actually telling a story of war that has happened all too often in real-world conflicts was quite meaningful, and wasn't done for feths and giggles to 'shew bewbs in mah minis'.
Like I said, it must be done tastefully or for a specific purpose, such as provoking thoughtful discussion on the atrocities of war as in the case of that diorama.
paulson games wrote:The half naked guard officer makes little sense to me, it'd be like having a marine dressed in short hot pants and a chippendales bow tie. If that's your fantasy by all means indulge but it's just weird to me.
Just out of curiosity. How well you like the Catachans as they are depicted?
It's hard to say really. In both sense it's foul but it is expressing some thought of artistic point of view. I guess a naked 12 year old was classed as art, so why can't plastic models be art, I guess?
As far as argument's sake, couldn't we just agree that in order to avoid heated discussion people should just try to keep their models toned down on the raunchy scale.
killykavekommando wrote:As far as argument's sake, couldn't we just agree that in order to avoid heated discussion people should just try to keep their models toned down on the raunchy scale.
This is the internet. And you're suggesting we agree on something?
killykavekommando wrote:As far as argument's sake, couldn't we just agree that in order to avoid heated discussion people should just try to keep their models toned down on the raunchy scale.
This is the internet. And you're suggesting we agree on something?
True that, just because I believe something, another guy has to disagree, and vice versa.
As far as argument's sake, couldn't we just agree that in order to avoid heated discussion people should just try to keep their models toned down on the raunchy scale.
No, and the reason is, people put their own money into purchasing models. They have every right and reason to have their models however they want, raunchy or not. At the end of the day the miniatures are there for the owner's pleasure and entertainment, not anyone else's.
Couldn't we just agree that in order to avoid heated discussion, people should try to grow up and be more mature and tolerant of trivial things?
-----
As a direct answer to the OP question, what motivation do people have to have "nude" miniatures?
Well the answer is simple. It is very easy to paint something "nude." Its just flesh color with a few highlights here and there.
Painting clothes fashionably and stylishly well requires both good fashion sense and color co-ordination. Most modelers fail at this part because if they didn't they'd be editors for vogue.
killykavekommando wrote:As far as argument's sake, couldn't we just agree that in order to avoid heated discussion people should just try to keep their models toned down on the raunchy scale.
That would be very difficult, as everyone has different levels of tolerance....the only person who could ultimately decide on what is acceptable or not would be the Forum owner, and even then that could lead to some serious backlash if the owners own ideology on "raunchyness" (is that a word?) conflicted with the "majority" of forum members......
Perhaps we have to simply agree to decide for ourselves what is acceptable or not, and choose to look away when things exceed our limits. Freedom of expression, is a dangerous but totally legitimate requirement for creativity and art to flourish.
killykavekommando wrote:As far as argument's sake, couldn't we just agree that in order to avoid heated discussion people should just try to keep their models toned down on the raunchy scale.
No, people shouldn't censor themselves because you get offended. They have every right to offend you and you have every right to be offended.
Sidstyler wrote:
Would it make you feel better if we all accepted rape as easily, too?
It would at least be consistent, considering that turning people into cybernetic automatons is far more invasive than rape, and could easily be considered in a similar light given that it not only deprives people of agency, but does so permanently.
Sidstyler wrote:
Hell, I think after spending the last four hours reading this topic I'm about to go rape something. Either that or put a bullet in my fething brain, and then craft an intricate diorama depicting the act using my own blood for added realism.
See, there's your problem. You cannot distinguish between depictions of reality, and reality itself.
killykavekommando wrote:As far as argument's sake, couldn't we just agree that in order to avoid heated discussion people should not do things I don't like.
Kouzuki wrote:What is the right of free speech/expression without the right to offend? Nothing.
Well, there is no "right to offend". There is a right to free speech with protection from censorship by those who are offended. Large difference, even if we are splitting hairs.
As for the OP, personally, if have no issues with nude or sexually graphic models. Though I do play games against my kids from time to time so probably not something I am going to field anytime soon. I do see the artistic value though.
Edited out innapropriate content - Your post was a blatant violation of Rule #1 - Be Polite. Please familiarize yourself with the rules before posting again. You say below you are a school teacher, it would serve you well to comport yourself similarly here as you would in class. Thank you. MT11
tyrannosaurus wrote:All of those saying that nude models are 'bad' come across as self-righteous virgins, which you probably are - seeing boobies reminds you of the fact that you have never been laid and probably won't for a long time until you come across a girl as socially inept and insular as you are - as a healthy, hetro-sexual, sexually active adult male I would like to ask wtf is wrong with nude models, hentai, porn, in fact anything which interests me on a sexual level? I draw the line at anything underage but apart from that it's game on. And to pretend that you don't look at pornography or find boobs at least interesting is blatant hipocrisy. More models bent over in skimpy clothes with big boobs please.
EDIT - Oh, and just remember, you're all here because your parents had sex, you came out butt naked from your mum's vagina and you sucked on her titties for at least a year so PLEASE get over your issues with nudity.
And you list your occupation as "teacher"? Classy.
Lt. Coldfire wrote:
And you list your occupation as "teacher"? Classy.
I'm on school holidays, remember? Don't worry, as soon as I walk through the school gates I stop being human and start becoming a pious hypocrite, lecturing children to "Do as I say, not what I do". Thanks for the constructive critique though.
d-usa wrote:I don't really see anything in his statement that would have any affect on him being a teacher...
Well, he does display a remarkable failure to read the actual discussion.
If he corrects tests the same way...
And to add "something" to this discussion:
If I see nude models I either appreciate the work that went into it or I shake my head, slightly sad. I appreciate the sculpts of the Diaz (is it Diaz?) Daemonettes, although personally I think that the current ones fit the role better and are of a better technical standard (better sculpting and casting tech, more details). They are utterly ruined by the posing, though. I'm convinced that many of the people that hate them would actually like them if they'd be posed properly.
I can appreciate a masterly sculpted and painted nude model like any other model. However, many, many female nude sculpts are bad cheesecake art at best, and often downright bad. To take two GW examples:
I recently saw a gorgeous metal Daemonette into BSB conversion. Great sculpt, great paintjob, great conversion.
I also saw somebody painting up the Vect Slave Girls as nude, just for the hell of it. It didn't add anything to the miniature they were part of, and it didn't look particularly good either. It was simply done for the "OMG boobs"-Value.
This becomes especially glaring with many Slaanesh (and sometimes Dark Eldar) armies, especially when an effort is made to use only female models. Then I shake my head at the poor sod and move on.
The rape scene is another thing altogether. It crosses my line. Yes, I'm fine with the All Grimdark Violence in 40k. But this crosses my line. I don't have to be rational about that, I don't want to give explanations or justifications, and I don't want to hear any explanations or justifications from the guy who did it or anybody else. I can see it's not bad from a technical standpoint. I would still smash it without a second thought, if I'd be given the chance.
tyrannosaurus wrote:All of those saying that nude models are 'bad' come across as self-righteous virgins, which you probably are - seeing boobies reminds you of the fact that you have never been laid and probably won't for a long time until you come across a girl as socially inept and insular as you are - as a healthy, hetro-sexual, sexually active adult male I would like to ask wtf is wrong with nude models, hentai, porn, in fact anything which interests me on a sexual level? I draw the line at anything underage but apart from that it's game on. And to pretend that you don't look at pornography or find boobs at least interesting is blatant hipocrisy. More models bent over in skimpy clothes with big boobs please.
EDIT - Oh, and just remember, you're all here because your parents had sex, you came out butt naked from your mum's vagina and you sucked on her titties for at least a year so PLEASE get over your issues with nudity.
The discussion isn't about being offended by nudity in general, or even being offended by nude models just because they're nude. I think you either didn't read through the posts or missed the reason for my post. You've contributed nothing to this discussion. Really I think all you've achieved is making yourself sound foolish with your oddly aggressive response. You seem unable to process the opinions of the people you so willingly insult, similar to a child.
tyrannosaurus wrote:All of those saying that nude models are 'bad' come across as self-righteous virgins, which you probably are - seeing boobies reminds you of the fact that you have never been laid and probably won't for a long time until you come across a girl as socially inept and insular as you are - as a healthy, hetro-sexual, sexually active adult male I would like to ask wtf is wrong with nude models, hentai, porn, in fact anything which interests me on a sexual level? I draw the line at anything underage but apart from that it's game on. And to pretend that you don't look at pornography or find boobs at least interesting is blatant hipocrisy. More models bent over in skimpy clothes with big boobs please.
EDIT - Oh, and just remember, you're all here because your parents had sex, you came out butt naked from your mum's vagina and you sucked on her titties for at least a year so PLEASE get over your issues with nudity.
The discussion isn't about being offended by nudity in general, or even being offended by nude models just because they're nude. I think you either didn't read through the posts or missed the reason for my post. You've contributed nothing to this discussion. Really I think all you've achieved is making yourself sound foolish with your oddly aggressive response. You seem unable to process the opinions of the people you so willingly insult, similar to a child.
+1 I was wondering the same thing and was going to type something out, but you beat me to it.
i find it odd that Nakatan's piece is still being refered to as the Eldar rape diorama...
the Eldar is not being raped, her pants are not down, and the soldier doesn't have his bits out...
the diorama has been highly polarizing, even over on CMON where it was posted first, which has generated a lot of commentary from both sides...
when i first say all of the negative reactions, i felt the same way i do now reading through this thread...
my reaction to the diorama is that the Eldar is very much still in the fight...
i think she will let the soldiers close in, grab the knife out of the mud, and fight her way free...
Eldar are depicted as super-humanly fast, and quite deadly...
in short, i'm not seeing her getting raped...
on top of that, the conversions and painting are top-notch...
the scene could have been dirtied up a bit more, but i'm such a fan of Nakatan's beautiful, clean, style that i can forgive the lack of weathering...
i can understand if some people are offended by the Eldar's boobs, as most people are raised with very puritanical views about sex and nudity, and pass the same values on to their children today...
fair enough, even if i do think it is silly that some people get riled up about something as natural as breast feeding in public...
i still don't see why the diorama is being called a rape scene when nobody is being raped, or even naked...
as to Brother Vinnie's new Commissar, it's just poorly sculpted, in my opinion...
i don't mind a well sculpted naked mini...
poor sculpting is not going to get me to spend my money, and hours of painting just because she has her boobs out...
the naked Artemis from Hasslefree on the other hand is beautifully sculpted, and had me making an order as soon as she was released...
she has sat in a box for a few years now, since i have not had a chance to paint her...
it's not as if i have her sat on my desk, displaying all her naked glory, and giving me a chubby everytime i see her, but i am happy that i own a copy of this beautifully sculpted, limited edition, resin piece...
same goes for any of the other rare nudes i own, such as the original Allan C. large scale Demonette that GW squashed, and the unreleased topless Vect slaves that Chris Fitzpatrick sculpted...
they sit in a box, waiting for paint one day, making me happy that i own such rare pieces...
they don't get whipped out to put me in the mood for sex...
my girlfriend does that perfectly well on her own, even with clothes on...
i find it sad that so many people seem to have the torches and pitchforks out over Nakatan's diorama, which is called Alien Contact by the way...
i think some severe conclusions have been jumped to, and will be defended to the death (so to speak) by the conservative side of the fence...
i can't say it enough, nobody is being raped, and the Eldar seems to still have a chance to get to the knife in the mud, and fight her way free...
killykavekommando wrote:As far as argument's sake, couldn't we just agree that in order to avoid heated discussion people should not do things I don't like.
Fixed that for you.
Touche, touche. I wish that that was how things worked, though. In all seriousness, I browsed CMON today, and I saw some models that were offensively bare, or artistically revealed. It really depended on how things were posed and executed. I guess what I am getting at is that if things are done tastefully, it can be nice although I prefer heavy armor and gear.
Really, nothing better to do at this time than comment on a thread about miniature boobs?
jah-joshua wrote:my reaction to the diorama is that the Eldar is very much still in the fight...
i think she will let the soldiers close in, grab the knife out of the mud, and fight her way free...
Eldar are depicted as super-humanly fast, and quite deadly...
in short, i'm not seeing her getting raped...
We've been over this. It's not about whether or not she may eventually get raped, it's about that rape is being suggested in the 40k universe.
You can say that's not what was intended by the maker and that the eldar was just being taken prisoner while one of the guardsmen had to take a leak, but it is what's being communicated.
There are the people who say that the piece is a valid commentary on war and all it's dark aspects and others that say that either rape doesn't belong in the fantasy world that is 40k or that they just don't like seeing it being depicted at all.
jah-joshua wrote:
i find it odd that Nakatan's piece is still being refered to as the Eldar rape diorama...
the Eldar is not being raped, her pants are not down, and the soldier doesn't have his bits out...
Oh come on! It is a diorama about rape, just because hes not actually, physically raping her at that very moment doesn't make it any less about rape.
Really, nothing better to do at this time than comment on a thread about miniature boobs?
Well, if you would be interested enough to investigate my posting history you would find that most of my posts are between 8pm and 8am. I work nightshift so that's just when I am awake. I promise I'm not looking at miniature model porn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
TiB wrote:
d-usa wrote:posted on: 2012/01/01 00:35:06
Really, nothing better to do at this time than comment on a thread about miniature boobs?
Well, if you would be interested enough to investigate my posting history you would find that most of my posts are between 8pm and 8am. I work nightshift so that's just when I am awake. I promise I'm not looking at miniature model porn.
Thare1774 wrote:Often while browsing CMON I see nude female miniatures that people paint. It doesn't offend me at all, I just don't get it. For example I saw two today, the first was a female commissar wearing only a trench coat and pants and boots. Breasts exposed as well as her whole upper torso all the way down nearly to her crotch. Why in the world would a female commissar be naked? What is the value of that model? I would think people in this hobby would rather see a really well sculpted legitimate female commissar in full uniform appropriate for gameplay. The second example I saw was a diorama basically depicting the rape of an Eldar female captured by some guardsmen. One had her breastplate in his hands and she was topless on the ground while another guardsmen had his pants unbuttoned and others were watching in amusement. It was really well painted and put together, but what is the motivation to depict a rape scene when it could have just been the same scene minus the rape and nudity? I think in MOST cases it cheapens the time and effort put into creating it, What do you think?
at the end of the day, if, like me, your only into the modelling side of WH40K, and not the gaming side (all my miniatures and vehicles are for display, or for diorama's and not gaming, as i havn't the first clue how to play the game, nor any real interest in doing so) then the depiction of the horror of war makes that scene contextual, IF thats the sort of thing you wish to portray. E.G. if you were showing the sacking or a seized town/villiage/city etc by a barbaric army, its context is correct, however, on a field of battle, these scenes make no sense.
I personally, try to depict a battlefield/settlement as i have seen/experienced them, but, in the context of the game, those sort of depictions are not needed, as im sure they make no difference to the outcome of a game whatsoever.
I suppose the long and the short of it is this : the context and appropriateness is given by what the maker is trying to depict in the scene, and what else is going on around, in that scene.
EDIT - Oh, and just remember, you're all here because your parents had sex, you came out butt naked from your mum's vagina and you sucked on her titties for at least a year so PLEASE get over your issues with nudity.
I was C-section born and bottle fed, I don't doubt that sex was needed in my creation....or at least that's what I'm told.......
My friend from time to time spots nude figures that are really...odd. Most of the time it's just some nude girl chained up or wearing some sort of slave outfit, but ever so often I'll stumble upon a girl with a tit guillotine about to be used on her, or some other naked female with a torture device.
A Town Called Maius wrote:For the diorama I won't comment on it's artistic value without having actually asked the artist to explain the piece first.
You shouldn't have to. A good piece of art should be able to communicate by itself.
It's silly that depending on what the artist says it's either an interesting piece of art or tasteless smut.
Indeed but it I often find that getting the person to explain their piece gives you an insight into their actual motivations and perspective, which you cannot achieve just by looking at the piece itself. It provides another angle to view it by, which may alter your own perception of the piece. You could find that the beautiful painting of the crucifixion of Christ was painted to celebrate the execution by an insane satanist (unlikely but a nicely ridiculous and exaggerated example).
Looking at the diorama all I see is a depiction of events which may be leading to rape using little models as the medium. There is no communication on whether the artist believes this scenario to be appalling or a natural occurrence in the fantasy setting. I could point out that the fact that none of the guardsman seem uncomfortable with what is going on or are making any attempt to stop it is possibly an indication that the artist does not consider this to be an appalling act. This would of course be wild speculation.
The guard holding the breastplate seems shocked at something but it cannot be identified whether it is the act of rape which is seemingly to come or the other guardsman aiming the gun at the Eldar. If it were the act of rape then it raises the question of why he is holding the Eldar's armour in the first place. Maybe the guardsman aiming the gun is appalled by the actions of his comrades and so will save the Eldar the torture of rape by shooting her, an act which the breastplate guardsman finds incomprehensible, leading to his shocked expression. These are all points which cannot be answered unconditionally by looking at the piece alone, we can all come up with different answers. The artists answer to this question would reveal a lot about the motivation to create this piece and that is why I would have liked to ask them about it.
It can make sense though, the aforementioned (by Necroshea) naked torture models wouldn't look too out of place in a highly converted Slannesh or Dark Elves/Eldar army, in fact nudity from slaves in such armies (or for that matter, troops with the Slannesh) isn't too weird and fits with the theme of the armies. For example you look at the slave girls on Asurbel Vect or whatever his name was' ship in the Dark Eldar range and it makes sense to have nearly naked girls on his ship.
And on occasion naked or nearly naked girls are sculpted really well and make good additions to whatever, for example I have Artemis from the Hasslefree Miniatures range as a Greek Statue in my scenery box, and as a model, it's a good one, there are a lot of naked statues in art so I think that's ok. But if you look at their model of 'Mary' from the same range you just ask yourself why
Another one is barbarians, if your doing a Celtic army, and have naked models it obviously makes sense, or if your ever doing slaves
But I agree most of the time it ends up being the company adding tits for the sake of adding tits
Polonius wrote:Traditionally, drawing/painting a nude model is considered essential to proper technique training. It's actually pretty challenging.
I know I've painted a few scantily clad figures, and even some nudes, and they've been challenges. You really learn how to work with flesh tones!
As with anythin else, quality and context go a long way. One of my favorite modesl (and a reason I've been starting deamons) is the Ultraforge Pleasuredemon:
My wife likes that mini. As a matter of fact she likes most of the succubus type minis...along with the other demon-ish types. Nudity doesnt bother her either.
Sorry for throwing a wrench in the "its only teens and people who arent getting any" theories.
I think to be honest it's possible to draw a line between something 'tasteful' in terms of nudity, and something that isn't (like perhaps the Eldar/IG diorama). I don't think that many people actually have a problem with the nudity itself, but when it is done in a fashion, like in that diorama, there are all sorts of connotations attached to it that people will find distasteful and unacceptable. That someone might use such a device (as is commonplace in art) to raise awareness of issues - in this case rape or mistreatment of prisoners by the military - is another matter entirely.
There was another diorama (I think perhaps by the same chap), that has a bunch of IG down a hole, being flamed alive by some orks. I notice that no-one has brought that particular diorama up, but for me I find that to be far more repulsive (and certainly not something I would be happy with being on display in a shop window for instance) than something like the naked demon above, or one of the other less perverse nude minis.
Mewiththeface wrote:I'm surprised no one has brought up the wet nurse model yet. Whether or not that is excessive nudity could be quite an interesting topic.
The answer is yes. Most of those models are pretty tasteless and gross, but well sculpted. I love naked women as much as any red blooded male, but I don't need to have a monster that looks like a shaved testicle covered in tits, linked to other pregnant women who have umbilical cords coming out of theirs. I don't understand the appeal of that what so frakking ever, and the fact that it's sold out confounds me. What do you even do with it?
Spoiler:
I'm assuming it involves hand lotion and loneliness
I love how the big argument in this thread seems to be from people thinking that folks who don't like nudity in their miniatures are a bunch of prudes. I think most of the time it's unnecessary and just an attempt to sell toys to nerds using sex appeal, same as anime girl statues or whatever. It's something that, on a gaming level, is all based around context. This came up in the "should I paint my IG like Nazis?" thread and my answer is the same here. It's all about context. If you've got an army of daemonettes, succubi, or whatever, then yeah, sure, go for it. They're evil naked daemons, whatever. If your Zulu or Pict army doesn't have loincloths and is just a bunch of guys waving their swords around while they wave their swords around (so to speak) then go for it, there's historical precedent. If you want to personally sculpt 200 torsos for your Imperial Guard replete with naked breasts, pregnant bellies, and skank stamps showing, then while I commend your effort there's no precedent for it. Why wouldn't your Guard be wearing shirts? Don't tell me they're from Amazonia XII or whatever, even the Imperial Guard knows to wear a flak jacket. However, if your Chaos priestess doesn't wear a shirt while she bathes in the blood of innocents or whatever Chaos folks do, whatever.
Basically it comes down to context and not being a creep about it. If you can justify it, really justify it, then do it. If it's just because you want to force your sexual tastes on others, then you might want to take a step back from the green stuff.
Brother SRM wrote:If you want to personally sculpt 200 torsos for your Imperial Guard replete with naked breasts, pregnant bellies, and skank stamps showing, then while I commend your effort there's no precedent for it. Why wouldn't your Guard be wearing shirts? Don't tell me they're from Amazonia XII or whatever, even the Imperial Guard knows to wear a flak jacket.
However they exist in 40k already and are called Catachans. In this case it would just be a female regiment. Actually it might be pretty interesting if you could find sufficiently large amount of female bodybuilder models somewhere.
Brother SRM wrote:If you want to personally sculpt 200 torsos for your Imperial Guard replete with naked breasts, pregnant bellies, and skank stamps showing, then while I commend your effort there's no precedent for it. Why wouldn't your Guard be wearing shirts? Don't tell me they're from Amazonia XII or whatever, even the Imperial Guard knows to wear a flak jacket.
However they exist in 40k already and are called Catachans. In this case it would just be a female regiment. Actually it might be pretty interesting if you could find sufficiently large amount of female bodybuilder models somewhere.
And I have never seen a female bodybuilder with boobs, so there will be nothing to offend people .
Brother SRM wrote:If you want to personally sculpt 200 torsos for your Imperial Guard replete with naked breasts, pregnant bellies, and skank stamps showing, then while I commend your effort there's no precedent for it. Why wouldn't your Guard be wearing shirts? Don't tell me they're from Amazonia XII or whatever, even the Imperial Guard knows to wear a flak jacket.
However they exist in 40k already and are called Catachans. In this case it would just be a female regiment. Actually it might be pretty interesting if you could find sufficiently large amount of female bodybuilder models somewhere.
Catachans exist specifically because of Vietnam movies. They had one female model who was wearing a tank top and had a grenade launcher, which is fine. Also, the model goes for stupid crazy money on eBay because people are that desperate to have a pair of non-man-boobs in their army.
Mewiththeface wrote:I'm surprised no one has brought up the wet nurse model yet. Whether or not that is excessive nudity could be quite an interesting topic.
The answer is yes. Most of those models are pretty tasteless and gross, but well sculpted. I love naked women as much as any red blooded male, but I don't need to have a monster that looks like a shaved testicle covered in tits, linked to other pregnant women who have umbilical cords coming out of theirs. I don't understand the appeal of that what so frakking ever, and the fact that it's sold out confounds me. What do you even do with it?
Spoiler:
I'm assuming it involves hand lotion and loneliness
I love how the big argument in this thread seems to be from people thinking that folks who don't like nudity in their miniatures are a bunch of prudes.
I love how you made that comment right after making an insulting assumption about everyone that likes a model you don't.
If it's just because you want to force your sexual tastes on others, then you might want to take a step back from the green stuff.
I have been in this hobby a long time, and not once have I encountered anyone "forcing their sexual tastes" on me through their miniatures...
...except on this board where people have called for miniatures to be censored because they personally dislike them. The wet nurse, the anatomically correct Maelstrom monsters...
After reading too many posts on this matter I feel a need to participate.
A) I applaude the maker of the diorama, I think it was done with skill and was in no means overly graphic... it does not even depict rape, although there is the obvious hint of something sinister on its way
I think its superb... and no, it did not make me hard
B) There are a lot of people who claim they do not want boobies, rape and nudity to become a part of their "average game"... is there someone who feels this is actually happening? where does the fear of this happening coming from?
Yes, people do a lot of stupid stuff... nude wargaming models for the sake of boobies is something I categorize as dumb stuff. Models made for shock value is also something that I dont quite understand. But stuff like that dosent seem to be a big part of our hobby and I dont see it becoming one.
To each his own... to me, a hello kitty army is something I dislike much more than a superbly done diorama hinting of rape.
Brother SRM wrote:If you want to personally sculpt 200 torsos for your Imperial Guard replete with naked breasts, pregnant bellies, and skank stamps showing, then while I commend your effort there's no precedent for it. Why wouldn't your Guard be wearing shirts? Don't tell me they're from Amazonia XII or whatever, even the Imperial Guard knows to wear a flak jacket.
However they exist in 40k already and are called Catachans. In this case it would just be a female regiment. Actually it might be pretty interesting if you could find sufficiently large amount of female bodybuilder models somewhere.
Catachans exist specifically because of Vietnam movies. They had one female model who was wearing a tank top and had a grenade launcher, which is fine. Also, the model goes for stupid crazy money on eBay because people are that desperate to have a pair of non-man-boobs in their army.
Quite so. However it doesn't still change the fact that they do not wear flak jackets, which is silly. Also several models are without shirts / jackets of any kind. So the argument that the commissar makes no sense because she doesn't wear armour is dubious as Catachans already are depicted in similar manner in the game.
Btw, I do also think the rape diorama is very nicely done. Though adding a bruises on the eldar would have made sense.
Brother SRM wrote:If you want to personally sculpt 200 torsos for your Imperial Guard replete with naked breasts, pregnant bellies, and skank stamps showing, then while I commend your effort there's no precedent for it. Why wouldn't your Guard be wearing shirts? Don't tell me they're from Amazonia XII or whatever, even the Imperial Guard knows to wear a flak jacket.
However they exist in 40k already and are called Catachans. In this case it would just be a female regiment. Actually it might be pretty interesting if you could find sufficiently large amount of female bodybuilder models somewhere.
Catachans exist specifically because of Vietnam movies. They had one female model who was wearing a tank top and had a grenade launcher, which is fine. Also, the model goes for stupid crazy money on eBay because people are that desperate to have a pair of non-man-boobs in their army.
Quite so. However it doesn't still change the fact that they do not wear flak jackets, which is silly. Also several models are without shirts / jackets of any kind. So the argument that the commissar makes no sense because she doesn't wear armour is dubious as Catachans already are depicted in similar manner in the game.
It's not that she isn't wearing armour. I thought the original point was that she was wearing basically nothing but her trench coat? I always imagined that a female commissar would wear clothing almost identical to her male counterparts (i.e black coat, shirt, trousers, boots, red commissar sash). The commissariat does not change it's uniform depending on which regiment it is fighting with, the whole point is that the commissar is immediately recognisable and the black uniform goes a long way to making that work.
Maybe it's just me being old beyond my years, but I've seen a couple of basically nude female commisars and Inquisitors, and they just make me cringe. I see these models on the table, always done by someone around my age, who invariably takes the game far too seriously and can't take criticism if you just ask why they made these models. And always the people who seem to gather round these models, gazing with approving, loving and longing looks, are around 14-17, with pubescent beards and pornographic wallpapers on their phones. It just makes me despair, I find it needless and impractical, but hey, that's just me, I don't find them artistic or clever.
Though, saying all this, the old Daemonette models were fantastic, they captured Slaanesh's essence perfectly, in my opinion anyway. They weren't naked for the sake of "OMFG BOOBIEZ!" they were artfully done. But then again, maybe that's just because I hate all the newer daemons.
Have to say that in those past days that I used to paint, a nude, topless or clevege model, was a painting challenge. To get the skin paint job right was what made the model. Subtle shading to make the model look "real", not simply sticking a dark brwon inl line between the boobs. I did a Syntha model once and painted as the artwork showed her, so naked except for som cladding in the crotch. Was very impressed with the finished job in the end.
Just an obversation, but if the boobs on a female 28mm figure were small, would you really see that the model is female? Wouldn't a female Cadian model look no different to a male model? 52mm or 1:35 is a different matter and you will see that in models of that size. You will still get big boobs, but there are a lot more models with more natural looking proportions. Off the top of my head weren't the two Inquisitor death cult assassins' on the svelt side?
Wolfstan wrote:Just an obversation, but if the boobs on a female 28mm figure were small, would you really see that the model is female? Wouldn't a female Cadian model look no different to a male model? 52mm or 1:35 is a different matter and you will see that in models of that size. You will still get big boobs, but there are a lot more models with more natural looking proportions. Off the top of my head weren't the two Inquisitor death cult assassins' on the svelt side?
I would say that if you get a good face modelled and slightly lower the bulk of the overall frame of the model (just a bit, she's still a soldier after all) then it should be recognisable as a female even without breasts which when upscaled would make most porn stars cry.
Careful modelling should be able to overcome the restrictions of the scale. It's just easier to stick massive chest pillows on it and call it done.
That's the main thing isn't it. If you look at the figures made by Wyrd Miniatures, their female figures at 28mm are very impressive, same as the female pirate figures by Black Scorpion. As you say, it's simpler to stick some globes on the front and be done with it
But sure the imperium are xenophobic, so they would never try to have sex with aliens... thus the scene is incorrect and shoudl be destroyed by GW for not using the correct fluff.
If anything the guard should be poking her with sticks no pun intended.
Why is there so much hate towards nude models, if you look at an array of art there has always been a use of the nude body as a form of artwork. Yet people here seem to just dispose of nude minatures as just people will no lives or wife? Come on now, there are legit reasons for someone to want to paint nude models, actually most art colleges require their students to learn to draw and paint using real nude models, so why should there be anything against people wanting to paint nude models.
I can understand why it wouldn't be to someone's taste, and to be honest most of the nude model sculpts I have seen are not usually very good or interesting, but there has been some nude models I have seen that really have an artistic aesthetic value to me and I feel like that alone should allow for some people to at least respect the concept of it, even if it isn't something they particularly enjoy.
and yes nude female warriors make almost no logical sense in terms of combat haha
Automatically Appended Next Post: again, I should mention I am not referring to models (that as ATCM mentioned above) have just clay pushed on them to give them breasts that are outrageous, but to people who take it as a serious way to create an interesting model.
Brother SRM wrote:
That's one thing. Savlar Chem Dogs are scummy, ruddy, dirty bastards, and their flag reflects that. It's also reminiscent of a pin-up painted on the side of a tank or plane, and that's fine. It makes sense from a fluff standpoint, and looks good. That particular one is also, as you said, extremely well done.
The fascination with painting models of naked women and the like just seems to be geeks being geeks. I don't really get the fascination; same with folks like Dr. Thunder and his infamous female Marine army. It's one of those things that oversteps a boundary and goes from a sane idea (I'll include a few women in my IG army!) and turns into something ridiculous (I'm going to make an all-female IG army, and they'll all be in bikinis and wearing ballgags!) and not many people stay anywhere near the line, unfortunately.
That's about the stupidest line of logic I've ever seen regarding nudity. Nothing personal but let's break it down.
Your first paragraph basically says only skilled painters should paint nudity; which is dumb because who are any of us to tell people not to better their abilities by trying or continuing to practice said ability.
And you go on to label Geeks as the only ones to take nudity seriously. This is again bullsh*t; I stopped painting models through most of High School and College; instead I started collecting porn and while in College wasting tuition funds on booze at parties where other students includin' lots of girls had the same idea ((guess what, college drunk girls LOVE sex! Who knew!? )) mild humor aside it has nothing to do with being a Geek to enjoy nudity. Walk into any old Garage shop, what you find? Posters of scantly clad women and pin-up girls everywhere. Naughty Calenders are a huge business, strip clubs make killings EVERY night over girls baring their chests for ALL to see (and boy let me tell you, its a lot of fun to look at em from pervert row).
The fascination is simple; its called instinct. You're instinct be you man or woman is to feth like rabbits, why? Because it feels great! And then there's the natural source code written into your DNA to reproduce. If you weren't you wouldn't have the organs for it.
Nudity is but one form of art that is everywhere; tell me what is the difference between that guy over there building an all bikini clad female army and a guy that paints large oil nudes? In my opinion there is nothing different as both have found an outlet for several urges including that which is to lust over the human form.
You know what I don't get? How people are offended by little miniature models based on a universe that has so many races that are completely built on fluff that involves mass murder, rape and pillaging? The Dark Eldar wouldn't think twice about skull f*cking your baby while you get rammed in the rear with a pineapple, and its going in leaf first! Chaos has Nurgle which is nothing but sex and pleasure. Even Tzeetch plays on that with lulling people in with false images of "pleasure" before turnin' them into bunny rabbits with the super aids, sorry I meant super rabies, screw it this is Tzeetch... BOTH the super aids AND super rabies.
And coming back to the pic of the Eldar woman warrior being advanced on by men. When has man ever proved itself to be completely above this? Not to mention that with simple application of fluff, traitor guard would do this fast!
My question would be, if painting a model of an eldar woman with her tits out makes that modeler a "rapist" in the head; does that mean me building mass armies so that I can roll dice to murder your army entirely make me Hitler? Or Stalin? Cause you know, you're army is CLEARLY not the chosen people and must die! So says the Dice Gods!
Sageheart wrote:and yes nude female warriors make almost no logical sense in terms of combat haha
Have you ever tried wearing armor? Let alone swinging a sword in it? F*ck that I'll take the ability to move and go with out the heavy plates.
I don't care much either way about nude models.. my issue is that most nude models are functionally useless as they have no purpose for any game
Collecting? Sure.. I guess if you wanna show people your creepy collection of nude pewter models you paint and keep on your shelf. It's sorta like the guy who keeps a bunch of naked statues in his house
@Dracheous
I just said it was painted very well, I never said that only skilled painters should try it. Don't label me as an elitist. What about only geeks taking nudity seriously? Then you talk about buying porn and stripclubs? So you insult my logic then give a bunch of barely related, borderline non-sequitur anecdotes. Great.
The only point I'm seeing in your post is most of the way down is that you don't care about context, or know what it is. Artistic nudity is different. Pin ups are different. Painting a pin up on the side of your Valkyrie gunship, B-42, or whatever, is fine. It makes sense and can look really good.
My question would be, if painting a model of an eldar woman with her tits out makes that modeler a "rapist" in the head; does that mean me building mass armies so that I can roll dice to murder your army entirely make me Hitler? Or Stalin? Cause you know, you're army is CLEARLY not the chosen people and must die! So says the Dice Gods
Where are you even getting this from? Nobody's saying the dude who painted that diorama is a rapist because it implies rape is going to happen. There's no correlation between building a horde army and being fething Hitler, and you're just pulling things out of your ass. This isn't even a strawman argument, you're just pulling talking points out of thin air.
Brother SRM wrote:@Dracheous
I just said it was painted very well, I never said that only skilled painters should try it. Don't label me as an elitist. What about only geeks taking nudity seriously? Then you talk about buying porn and stripclubs? So you insult my logic then give a bunch of barely related, borderline non-sequitur anecdotes. Great.
The only point I'm seeing in your post is most of the way down is that you don't care about context, or know what it is. Artistic nudity is different. Pin ups are different. Painting a pin up on the side of your Valkyrie gunship, B-42, or whatever, is fine. It makes sense and can look really good.
My question would be, if painting a model of an eldar woman with her tits out makes that modeler a "rapist" in the head; does that mean me building mass armies so that I can roll dice to murder your army entirely make me Hitler? Or Stalin? Cause you know, you're army is CLEARLY not the chosen people and must die! So says the Dice Gods
Where are you even getting this from? Nobody's saying the dude who painted that diorama is a rapist because it implies rape is going to happen. There's no correlation between building a horde army and being fething Hitler, and you're just pulling things out of your ass. This isn't even a strawman argument, you're just pulling talking points out of thin air.
See now you're falling back on "not what I said", but it is. What you said is that only good painters should paint nudity because only "well done" art is "art".
You also said that only Geeks have a fascination with nudity; that's also completely untrue. As I tried to show you many other examples of people enjoying nudity.
And now you're just attacking me instead of the argument. As I said, it was not my intention to attack you, but only the statement of the one post and it was ridiculous. As is the claim that no where in this thread has anyone claimed the whole "rapist" thing. It's constantly being "implied" if that's the word you prefer, since the model "implied" rape. Who knows, maybe the guardsmen were just being nice and returning the plate to her while still keeping her alive long enough for the Inquisitor to show up ((which when he does EVERYONE including the woman in that model are dead)).
Outrage over the implied rape of a fictional character who is of a fictional race in a fictional game seems a bit much..
We must be really desensitized to be okay with the regular depiction of severe brutality and death to not even blink when there is a dioarama regarding that yet are up in arms over a rape that never occured in reality
I'm falling back on "not what I said" because it isn't what I said. You're putting words in my mouth.
Everyone has a fascination with nudity, we're human. We don't all choose to put it in the forefront in situations where it doesn't apply. A lot of the stranger people in this and other geeky hobbies (not specifically these hobbies, but just for this case) don't know where things are appropriate. If I'm playing against a 13 year old kid (or hell, anyone) at my local game store and my army is full of titmonster tentacle rape or whatever, that's completely inappropriate. It's also not intrinsic to the setting of almost any game, and doesn't belong in it. If I played some game where that was the norm with a group of people who wanted to play, then sure. But in a game of 40k, it has no place.
And that piece is implying rape really, really obviously. There's a dude unbuckling his belt and they're trying to take the armor off the Guardian so they can have her way with her. It's implied really, really heavily, the modeling just isn't showing it since that's well beyond the limits of good taste.
Kirasu wrote:Outrage over the implied rape of a fictional character who is of a fictional race in a fictional game seems a bit much..
We must be really desensitized to be okay with the regular depiction of severe brutality and death to not even blink when there is a dioarama regarding that yet are up in arms over a rape that never occured in reality
The ridiculous cartoon violence factor is appropriate to 40k. That's the game we're playing; it's a Saturday morning cartoon cranked up to 11. The background has always been full of big battles, bloody massacres, daemonic rituals, and what have you. Rape doesn't really get touched on because it doesn't need to be. Contextually, there's a huge difference between a soldier dying doing his job and someone being held down and raped, and the latter is entirely more horrifying.
Kirasu wrote:Outrage over the implied rape of a fictional character who is of a fictional race in a fictional game seems a bit much..
We must be really desensitized to be okay with the regular depiction of severe brutality and death to not even blink when there is a dioarama regarding that yet are up in arms over a rape that never occured in reality
I think it is obvious that the diorama is an attempt to tell a story. I have zero issue with it. It is also not a gaming fig, so it isn't going to be put down on a gaming table as a playing piece regardless. Thus I see the piece as a non-issue.
I more take exception to the "Hurr, look at the big exposed breasts I sculpted on all my models" types who express severe stunted immaturity or a desire to offend/make other people uncomfortable. And to be clear I have no problem with the imagery itself, its the behavior of some of those attracted to this sort of display that I find sad/embarrassing. Sometimes it is the people associated that i would like to see removed, not the models themselves...
who cares if boobs are showing? You really think gamer guys with no girls make models with boobs just cuz there not getting any? they've got porn to look at which is a million times more graphic than an inch tall badly painted naked elf.
Wow... Personally I really enjoy female and male "sensual" models... sensuality and war are a good fascinating couple in a FICTIONAL setting. Come on... it's sci-fi not historical wargaming.
The concept of beauty and sex as a weapon to subdue the enemy is a fascinating one and it can be very interesting (read Heretics of Dune).
As a side note I would like to point out that the idea of "someone who like cheesecake models=perv nerd" is dumb and hide, IMHO, a necessity of avoiding the shame of being a Nerd (...oooh... I'm not a loser that play with little sex toys... My models are SERIOUS) ... Well... I'm proudly a Nerd and, even if I don't own such a model (I play DA and Orks... no boobs here) I see nothing wrong in it...
punkow wrote:Wow... Personally I really enjoy female and male "sensual" models... sensuality and war are a good fascinating couple in a FICTIONAL setting. Come on... it's sci-fi not historical wargaming.
The concept of beauty and sex as a weapon to subdue the enemy is a fascinating one and it can be very interesting (read Heretics of Dune).
As a side note I would like to point out that the idea of "someone who like cheesecake models=perv nerd" is dumb and hide, IMHO, a necessity of avoiding the shame of being a Nerd (...oooh... I'm not a loser that play with little sex toys... My models are SERIOUS) ... Well... I'm proudly a Nerd and, even if I don't own such a model (I play DA and Orks... no boobs here) I see nothing wrong in it...
QFT
on another note I personally like boobs. And Hell, I like looking at them. And so what i like seeing them on miniatures?!
Having now seen the models in question i revise my opinions. Whilst they probanly wouldnt let you play a naked female commissar in my FLGSGW they are actualy very tasteful and i may even try to get the commissar. as it is ive converted several guards men in my IG army to guards women.
Dracheous wrote:Nudity is but one form of art that is everywhere; tell me what is the difference between that guy over there building an all bikini clad female army and a guy that paints large oil nudes? In my opinion there is nothing different as both have found an outlet for several urges including that which is to lust over the human form.
FYI, most serious painters do not paint nudes to 'lust over the human form'. I've you've got to involve lust into it it's 'lust for form'. It is aestetics that's the focus, not tits.
When sketching or painting a nude model there is no sexual connotation whatsoever. Sorry if I dispelled an illusion.
Dracheous wrote:Have you ever tried wearing armor? Let alone swinging a sword in it? F*ck that I'll take the ability to move and go with out the heavy plates.
Have you? There is a reason european armour evolved the way it did.
Sry, have't read the whole thread but I'd like to say that the nudity itself is irrelevant. Its the one-sidedness of how and when its depicted that bothers me. To decide what's appropriate or inappropriate nudity is a lost cause since its merely a matter of opinion.
What is less a matter of opinion is the how women and men consistently are depicted by different standards. This is something you could break down into figures if you would have to be anal about it, the opinion is whether its good or not. I say its not. I would be OK with the pin-up miniatures if there were an equal amount of male and female pin ups. I see two general "roles" (gender roles if you wish) for female miniatures, the dominatrix and the passive object of desire. While male minis have a much wider range of roles to "choose" from. Sure there are more to it than this but I would say that its a viable claim in most cases.
When will we see muscular female killing-machines en masse without gigantic breasts with nothing but murder and slaughter in their eyes? I would like to see some diversity, I'm not saying "don't do this and don't do that" but can someone please think outside the box for once! Female soldiers that say "I'm here to wage war" and not "I'm here to make your miniature collection more sexy (in an hetero-normative sense)"!
I love commissars (as people were discussing in the beginning of this thread) and it would be cool to see a female commissar that does not show any more skin than her male colleagues that doesn't wear a corset or wear high heels (who came up with that ridiculous idea, female soldiers wearing high heels!?) that got the same aura of respect as its male counterparts. And I wouldn't just want to see one (just to be political correct), I would like to see several! It would also be refreshing to see a new cadian and catachan box with female minis just like eldar and dark eldar boxes already do (and no, the cadian women wouldn't need breast bumps on their flak jacket, look at an combat-equipped real-life female soldier, you won't see much tits).
I would like to see a miniature range where the male physique (a quite fit one I might add) isn't necessarily the "golden standard" from which everything else is a deviation! I would like to see more diverse miniature ranges where all kinds of people, fiends an what not is represented!
Well... If you're saying that some GW ranges lacks female minis well... QFT ...
It's sad to see that Cadians or catachans do not have any female... Btw some races have good female models: Eldars have a lot of Non-cheesecake females, while DE well...they have to be BDSM style !!! And SoBs ? they're all female and surely they do not let you think "ooooh Hot" (well... there are repentias but seriously... some naked skin do not make a mini sensual...)
Automatically Appended Next Post: About the rape scene... meh... I appreciate the fact that someone want to show the disturbing horrific side of war... but WH40Kis not sociological or hard sci-fi (I would really like if it was but it simply isn't...). it's a space opera! so maybe the rape diorama is somewhat unnecessary
I love DE, I don't find their bdsm-theme very sexist, they all have these outfits, males and females alike. Eldar is another good example of a fairly equal army.
But with SoB, I'm not so sure, they are (not fluffwise but i suppose its the general idea) female space marines (power armor, bolters, ten man squads etc.) and as such are weaker and hate themselves (well kind of) and are served in some bdsm suite which I find somewhat inappropriate in this case. I mean, what's up with the corsets and high heels! And for an (almost) all female army its kind of typical that we find males amongst the HQ-choices. Do we see any females among SM or IGHQ-choices? Anyone? I believe IG does, fluffwise, but we don't see much of those do we?
But again, nakedness doesn't bother me, its the way male and female bodies are depicted differently on a regular basis along normative prejudice. And the general lack of female minis en masse.
Brother SRM wrote:
The ridiculous cartoon violence factor is appropriate to 40k. That's the game we're playing; it's a Saturday morning cartoon cranked up to 11. The background has always been full of big battles, bloody massacres, daemonic rituals, and what have you. Rape doesn't really get touched on because it doesn't need to be. Contextually, there's a huge difference between a soldier dying doing his job and someone being held down and raped, and the latter is entirely more horrifying.
When it come down to it, there are any number, events that are probably happening everyday in the 40k universe, that "doesn't needed to be". We don't get much in the way of the vision of the endless work of lobotmized servitors, or how they got that way... We dont hear the thoughts as innocents who just hapened to have psysic potential are killed by inches in the astrinomicon. Given that we in the core materials, a race dedicated to torture as,the means of prolonging their existance, and a god of excess, it's a bit abusurdist to claim that this sort of thing shouldn't pop up now and then.... Warhammer universe isn't a saturday morning cartoon, turned up to 11' - it's Heavy Metal, with the rock soundtrack replaced with gregorian chants...
I really don't care about any of that topic. Glorifying rape is not something I can support...
I can agree it happens, but really there is zero need to depict it, and it is utterly tasteless to do so outside of fetish porn (where it's still tasteless, but it's porn so it doesn't matter).
You know what I don't get? How people are offended by little miniature models based on a universe that has so many races that are completely built on fluff that involves mass murder, rape and pillaging? The Dark Eldar wouldn't think twice about skull f*cking your baby while you get rammed in the rear with a pineapple, and its going in leaf first! Chaos has Nurgle which is nothing but sex and pleasure. Even Tzeetch plays on that with lulling people in with false images of "pleasure" before turnin' them into bunny rabbits with the super aids, sorry I meant super rabies, screw it this is Tzeetch... BOTH the super aids AND super rabies.
And coming back to the pic of the Eldar woman warrior being advanced on by men. When has man ever proved itself to be completely above this? Not to mention that with simple application of fluff, traitor guard would do this fast!
My question would be, if painting a model of an eldar woman with her tits out makes that modeler a "rapist" in the head; does that mean me building mass armies so that I can roll dice to murder your army entirely make me Hitler? Or Stalin? Cause you know, you're army is CLEARLY not the chosen people and must die! So says the Dice Gods! .
true this!
Dracheous wrote:
Sageheart wrote:and yes nude female warriors make almost no logical sense in terms of combat haha
Have you ever tried wearing armor? Let alone swinging a sword in it? F*ck that I'll take the ability to move and go with out the heavy plates.
hahaha i have actual wore armor, it sucks haha, but a beautiful body wont stop a lasgun round..well maybe it wouldnt
As for wearing armor-- armor in 40k is actually remarkably light. Full Imperial Guard body armor, including armored boots, greaves, breast/backplate, pauldrons, gauntlets/bracers, and helmet all weigh less than a modern body armor vest. Dunno about other sci-fi miniatures, but with power armor especially there's no reason to have this sort of stupid sexualization as the armor itself enhances your ability to use the armor.
As for wearing armor-- armor in 40k is actually remarkably light. Full Imperial Guard body armor, including armored boots, greaves, breast/backplate, pauldrons, gauntlets/bracers, and helmet all weigh less than a modern body armor vest. Dunno about other sci-fi miniatures, but with power armor especially there's no reason to have this sort of stupid sexualization as the armor itself enhances your ability to use the armor.
There is no reason not to as well.
This is a fantasy setting, stuff doesn' have to be realistic, if you don't like it then don't play with it and don't buy it, just don't try to enforce your "morals" on other people.
PhantomViper wrote:There is no reason not to as well.
Aside from trying to actually make the models look good, no.
PhantomViper wrote:This is a fantasy setting, stuff doesn' have to be realistic
Dunno if you actually bothered to read my post (you didn't), but I'm not arguing for realism.
As for "morals"? I don't give a damn. Also, shut up. I'm not "enforcing my morals" on anyone. I'm expressing my distaste in the models, not claiming others shouldn't produce them.
Just because you can do what you wish with your models doesn't mean I am obligated to like it or approve of it.
I don't know, I guess my issue is that whenever i hear people hating on nude models people usually (in my experience) lower them as unable to have any aesthetic value and as just the creations of undersexed kids that deserves to be tossed to the side. I think that nude models are just another way in which people can choose to express themselves, whether this is done in a mature way or not depends on the creator, but by devaluing nude models as all junk, that is not allowing that forum for possible beauty/interest/etc. to be used.
personally you may not like the models, i personally hate the current gw beastman models, it doesn't mean I should devalue all attempts to use those models for an artistic endevor.
Again Melissia, I'll repeat myself, Iim not saying all people are saying that, if you read what i wrote, i was stating that if we devalue nude models as junk then we are inculding all the good and the bad of this section. If you look at the first page or two of this discussion you should be able to notice quite a few people talking in this way, and I am going against that.
If you don't like the models, that's all good, you are not obligated to like it, but people shouldn't (in my honest humble opinion) just devalue and ignore the entire field since they have some belief that nudity isn't something that should be seen in models. That is only limiting people.
i think the Sisters' power armor looks great, but i'm not a fan of the Repentia...
by the logic of this thread, i should be into the Repentia, who are showing some skin, but i think they are ugly sculpts...
same goes for Vinnie's Commissar chick, i should be into her boobs, but i think it's an ugly sculpt...
on the other hand, i like the Raging Heroes version, as well as the Warforge version...
sure they are dressed a little sexier than a male version, but a corset makes more sense than nothing at all...
i do own the Chris Fitzpatrick GW version, just because it is rare, but even i have to admit it's a ugly sculpt...
there are unreleased topless versions of the Vect slave girls (which i do own) and Witch Elves (which i would like to own)...
in this case, it seems GW though that releasing these minis would have been crossing the line seeing as how they targets kids as their main audience...
these minis have been on my want list not simple because they are topless, but because they are well sculpted, with anatomy similar to the Juan Diaz Demonettes...
it seems that the general concencus is that the Diaz Demonettes are lovely, and never should have gone away...
i suspect that GW felt they were a bit risque for the kiddies, and toned down the new ones with corsets and the odd boob showing, instead of six...
Fitzpatrick continued with the same style when he did his Aegyptus line...
the Basti range has loads of wonderfully sculpted topless cat-ladies, with realistic slim proportions...
i have never heard an uproar about how he is exploiting women, or pandering to the 40 year old virgin, furry lover, crowd...
Andrea has a gorgeous line of large scale pin-ups...
most quite tame in their presentation...
yes, there are some horrible nude sculpts out there that don't make much sense in their game setting, and a few that do scream pandering to male fantasy, but it in no way equates to 99%+ as Melissia claims...
a lot of very tasteful, appropriate, nude or semi-nude minis have been sculpted by some very talented, hard working, sculptors...
those their work makes me say wow, and appreciate a well painted version by Pepa (who is a woman by the way), it does not make me reach for my wallet just so i can have boobs on my shelf...
skin is my least favorite thing to paint...
i would rather paint a beat up, heavily armed, Space Marine any day...
the point is that those of us who can appreciate a nude/semi-nude mini are not necessarily spending our hard earned to support the trend, and to say the nudity is never appropriate (see celtic historicals), or that there is not a large selection of wonderfully sculpted nude minis on the market, is just not true...
this topics title never made the seperation between nudes in miniature, and nudes in a tabletop wargame...
because, really, there are very few instances where nudity and sex appeal fit the setting of a tabletop wargame...
for the painter and collector there is really no restriction...
personally i'm not into kinky sculpts, or toplessness for it's own sake, but i have seen very few minis where the nudity didn't make any sense at all...
the Kabuki Bughunter is one of those though, a beautiful Aliens inspired woman with heavy leg armor, a big gun, and no shirt?!?
i so wanted to like the mini, but just can't...
some body armour would have made it such a better sculpt...
i would venture to guess that most of the pro-nude camp are about as moderate as me in their view of this topic, yet the naysayers seem to be full of hate and judgement...
it 's been said plenty of times, if you don't like something, don't buy it...
simple...
it is ridiculous to judge people who are cool with naked minis, or Nakatan's diorama, to be hairy-palmed perverts living in dingy basements, or future rapists...
jah-joshua wrote:i would venture to guess that most of the pro-nude camp are about as moderate as me in their view of this topic, yet the naysayers seem to be full of hate and judgement...
That's because you have n't actually bothered to read a goddamned thing.
Hell the "pro-nude" people are the ones tossing the most insults around, such as "prude" and "immature".
I enjoy nudity, I don't get any sexual gratification looking at nude models. But am enthralled by the female form, it's beautiful! Women get to enjoy the physique of "perfect" male form any time on public TV why can't I enjoy the same?(the models need to be done in good work, it's art!)
My hats off to the guy who came up with the rape scene, that's MODELING! Thinking outside the wargaming models typical appearance!
If the nude models in question were a crappy paint job, would everyone still be upset?
jah-joshua wrote:i would venture to guess that most of the pro-nude camp are about as moderate as me in their view of this topic, yet the naysayers seem to be full of hate and judgement...
That's because you have n't actually bothered to read a goddamned thing.
Hell the "pro-nude" people are the ones tossing the most insults around, such as "prude" and "immature".
I think my problem isn't that nude models exists. I enjoy them just fine.
My problem is rather with that group of people that seem offended that people might be offended. And I suppose trying to argue with a person that either puts principles over sense or is simply anti-social is a waste of time.
Nudity is ok as long as it is kept clean and not OTT. I think that nude human or human-like figures should be more novelty miniatures like a one-off you would paint nicely collectors item, but not game with. I am not keen with nude minis on the table top unless maybe if it were a historical game with Celts or some feral tribe, but I doubt you would see a guy or gal running out in a modern/sci-fi warzone with no clothes on. ALTHOUGH I may be forgiving for monsters and beasts if they were more animal-like than semi intelligent because animals don't cover up their bitz.
The Eldar rape scene is really well put together, and really reflects the Imperial Guard of what they really are like, because after reading fluff and Horus Heresy books they are actually quite violent and sexually driven s'pose they are humans though...
