Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:The 40k fluff definitely glorifies war. I'd think it would be beyond dispute.

And our Western culture does likewise, you can also buy toy guns and toy soldiers for children, you cannot buy rape dolls for them.

Comparing 'the horror of war/violence' with rape in this case and arguing that allowing one and not the other belies a hypocrisy may hold merit, but the hypocrisy is one held by the morality of our entire culture and one we all accept and live with, presumably as we're all here because we collect war toys.

Sure, sure. Violence is tolerated in the popular conscience as useful, necessary, even fun--because the the leaders of the state have a need for police and soldiers to coercively assert their authority. But no one chooses to play 40k or any other wargame because war and violence are socially tolerable. Similarly, no one plays 40k or engages in the modelling hobby in order to trivialize war. I think asserting otherwise is tissue-thin nonesense, the equivalent of North Korea charging that the US has children play Call of Duty to indoctrinate them as killers. In the case of this diorama, I don't think the artist set out to convince people that rape was okay or even that it is less serious than it's currently taken. I think the reason the piece works is becuase the viewer takes rape very seriously both before and after seeing it. Yes, there is an OTT quality about the piece which makes it identifiably 40k rather than something merely historical but I do not agree that the diorama is in poor taste.

MeanGreenStompa said:
You could have set it up with transformer toys or Barbie being raped by Buzz Lightyear and Woody and you'd have only marginally increased the trivialisation of the subject matter more.

I think this is really a bit harsh. While miniatures and miniature painting have not received the same status as an art medium as oil paintings, they are definitely far more usable and used for artistic purposes than your average Buzz Lightyear toy.

Space GI Joes all gathering around to rape a space elf lady.

That's the subject matter. It's a trivialisation. Given the very broad age range of gamers and painters of 40k and the active encouragement of younger gamers into the hobby, I am personally not amused at the use of these figures in this scene. If the painter had indeed used realistic pieces and recreated a photographed scene from Nanking or the Russian advance into Germany, painted with the obvious skill he or she possesses, then I'd have applauded it. But I cannot shake how this feels 'wrong' and that it is an intrusion of very serious subject matter into a pulp scifi setting. It can certainly be argued that such matter exists in the fiction written for the setting, but I feel that allusion remains a powerful mark of artistry and the thing could have been hinted at with far more subtly than 'oooh, space elf tits!'

It can certainly be argued that the sexual abuse of minors by members of the ecclesiarchy 'exists' in the vastness of of this fictional universe and you could go entirely over the top with the representation of a Slaaneshi renegade army's depredations on a civilian population and remain 'in fluff' and I still wouldn't want to see it and I'd still regard you oddly for making it in the first place.

How about everyone who doesn't think this is offensive show it to their wives and ask them what they think.

spireland wrote:How about everyone who doesn't think this is offensive show it to their wives and ask them what they think.

Er...no. I don't need my wife giving me THE LOOK.

THE LOOK: So terrifying that even TBone the Terrible, 8lb weiner dog of rage, runs in fear*

*If by run we mean ambles over to the sofa and burrows under a blanket, shortly to start snoring later.

Why did you pick Eldar as the violated Xenos and not Tyranids though? That would have been way more interesting. Actually all stupidness aside I think that is very good, and yeah, very disturbing, which is kind of what makes it good. It would have been sleazy or kinky if it was some Dark Eldar figs in place of IG, but as it is, it isn't like a wierd rape fantasy it's like a seriously yucky scenario. It reminds me of Vietnam war movies, or English soldiers in American Revolution movies (or rob roy, or braveheart, or really any of the 'English are evil' period films), or American Civil war atrocities versus blacks sort of scenes. Its yucky. Such an innocent sci-fi fantasy game can become so disturbing and brutal in a real way, its far more scary than a big throne made out of skulls or a bat-winged demon thing ripping the head off of an armored giant. This is like.. real.

@spireland: Frankly, mate, if I cared what the missus thought about my hobbies I wouldn't be on Dakka at all.

Manchu wrote:@spireland: Frankly, mate, if I cared what the missus thought about my hobbies I wouldn't be on Dakka at all.

My point is that you have to look at how the model appears to others not just yourself. Put yourself in someone elses shoes (a females persepective) and how they would perceive it. This hobby does nothing to appeal to the female crowd as it is. Showing all female models as having their boobs spilling out of uniforms is bad enough, but this kind of thing is just bad taste.

If you wouldn't show this to your Mom, Wife, Daugther then you need to think about if its in bad taste.

With all respect to them, I'm not sure that my mother, (hypothetical) daughter, or wife has any capacity to judge the merits--whether technical, aesthetic, or moral--of a 40k miniatures diorama. Their opinions on the subject are not really pertinent in the same sense that my own opinion wouldn't be pertinent about something I had little to no interest in or understanding of. Although I will concede that it is possible, however overwhelmingly implausible, that this diorama could affect the demographics of who participates in the hobby, I don't believe that such consideration is material in any sense to what the hobbyist/artist chooses to produce. In fact, I think such consideration is inimical to the exercise of talent.

Yeah, I wouldn't promote the hobby of Wh40k with this diorama, I agree on that. I showed it to my exgirlfriend, and while she was not outraged or greatly repulsed, she stated that this is definitely worse than Khornates ripping people's heads off, because the scene doesn't show intent of killing, but intent of torturing and tormenting someone. (And I would agree that enjoying the pain and suffering of another sentient being can (!) be more abhorrent that just the wish to see something dead.)

Again, it's the realism that, I guess, makes this scene so intense and repulsing.

On a related note, I sometimes showed my mother some of my painted minis, just because she was interested. She enormously disliked my Imperial Guardsmen...defenders of mankind...while she was excited about Tyranids...the living horror that cares for nothing but consuming all life in the galaxy. Why? Because Tyranids are crazy space bugs and so far off reality that it's really just fantasy, a game. IG though? The Guard is so close to the armies, wars and war crimes of the 20th century and today, that scenes and stories about the Imperial Guard can be far less tongue-in-cheek than the rest of the over-the-top Warhammer Universe. Choosing IG for this diorama and not more crazy space thingies adds a lot to the impact of this scene.

I'm still not sold about if I like this diorama or not. I definitely see arguments for and against it.

Manchu wrote:With all respect to them, I'm not sure that my mother, (hypothetical) daughter, or wife has any capacity to judge the merits--whether technical, aesthetic, or moral--of a 40k miniatures diorama.

And you do? What art school for miniatures did you graduate from again?

I don't go out of my way to show any of my plastic "dolls" as my wife calls them, to my wife or mom.

I also certainly don't go out of my way to show anything even remotely sexual to my mother or daughter. I don't think that reflects poorly on the material necessarily.

Whether a certain medium is art or not is a question of eternal debate and is most certainly an individual decision.
The Rape of Lucretia and other classic artworks have also addressed the subject matter without the artists being condemned as perverts (at least not by most people).

Manchu wrote:With all respect to them, I'm not sure that my mother, (hypothetical) daughter, or wife has any capacity to judge the merits--whether technical, aesthetic, or moral--of a 40k miniatures diorama. Their opinions on the subject are not really pertinent in the same sense that my own opinion wouldn't be pertinent about something I had little to no interest in or understanding of. Although I will concede that it is possible, however overwhelmingly implausible, that this diorama could affect the demographics of who participates in the hobby, I don't believe that such consideration is material in any sense to what the hobbyist/artist chooses to produce. In fact, I think such consideration is inimical to the exercise of talent.

If we are judging this model only on it's aestic qualities then I would agree with your above statement. But we are not. They can judge it on it's moral implications based on the fact that they are alive and have opinions. I was trying to make the point that if you have reservations of sharing this picture with them then maybe it is offensive. Would you have an issue showing any other models to females?

This model is patently offensive to most members of the opposite sex, and should be so to all. The OP is trying to get a reaction out of people by this model. Is this the reaction that we as 40k players want? Do you want people to think of 40k as the kind of hobby where a model represents rape and everyone just comments about how the blending has been done really well?

Frazzled wrote:And you do? What art school for miniatures did you graduate from again?

The same one you did; in other words, actually caring about and participating in the hobby.

@spireland: So, do you think the oil paintings mentioned and shown before in this thread are also (and meant to be) offensive to women? Or is it just the medium of miniatures that makes it so?

And, while I understand that you're thinking about which effect this diorama might have on non-40k players and their opinion about the hobby, I wouldn't necessarily agree that this should prohibit a 40k player from commending the author on his work. Not everything has to be politically correct 100% to be good. I guess you also wouldn't show Khorne daemons standing over the freshly cleaved skulls of 43 guardsmen to your mother to "promote" the hobby, aye?

spireland wrote:They can judge it on it's moral implications based on the fact that they are alive and have opinions.

The notion that a pulse is the only requirement for having worthwile views on morality is a problem far beyond the scope of this thread.

Manchu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And you do? What art school for miniatures did you graduate from again?

The same one you did; in other words, actually caring about and participating in the hobby.

See that wouldn't work on my end as She Who Must Be Obeyed comes from an arty family that actually went to art school/does art for a living (not her). My toy soldiers aren't viewed as real art by them. The laughter I'd get if I showed that to them would not be good.

Well.. I did it.. I took the dreaded task of showing this diorama to my fiancé, gave her a quick walkthrough of 6 pages of what the fuzz is all about, where as she gave me the "One heaved eyebrow" look and asked "That's it? You guys fretting about the morality and whatnot about a plastic toy diorama that is supposed to have "Rape" as a subject? Seriously, you guys need to harden up. Show me a diorama of a REAL rape in progress, THEN we can talk."

There you have it.. even girls aren't offended by the diorama. And I'm slightly awestruck by the response of my soon to be wife.. didn't see that one coming, to be honest..

Manchu wrote:The 40k fluff definitely glorifies war. I'd think it would be beyond dispute.

Manchu wrote:@spireland: Frankly, mate, if I cared what the missus thought about my hobbies I wouldn't be on Dakka at all.

Manchu wrote:

spireland wrote:They can judge it on it's moral implications based on the fact that they are alive and have opinions.

The notion that a pulse is the only requirement for having worthwile views on morality is a problem far beyond the scope of this thread.

This is some brilliant posting right here. QFT.

________________________________________________________________________________________

OT:

I think the fact that this diorama has caused this much debate makes it officially successful as art. This hobby is enjoyed by people of all ages, so I don't see why someone should have to limit their painting and modeling to a PG-13 if they don't want to.

I still don't see how the scene depicted this is worse than working the population of Armageddon to death, and why there isn't outcry about myriad other things that are at least as bad the possible rape of Eldar.

Manchu wrote:

spireland wrote:They can judge it on it's moral implications based on the fact that they are alive and have opinions.

The notion that a pulse is the only requirement for having worthwile views on morality is a problem far beyond the scope of this thread.

My point was that being a member of the female sex allows them to have an opinion. I'll bite, what would allow them to judge it's moral implications?

spireland wrote:

Manchu wrote:

spireland wrote:They can judge it on it's moral implications based on the fact that they are alive and have opinions.

The notion that a pulse is the only requirement for having worthwile views on morality is a problem far beyond the scope of this thread.

My point was that being a member of the female sex allows them to have an opinion. I'll bite, what would allow them to judge it's moral implications?

Huh? So because im male i cant have an opinion? also I beleive "The notion that a pulse is the only requirement for having worthwile views on morality is a problem far beyond the scope of this thread" is refering to a philosophical debate.

So You can either argue that depicting this is bad in all art forms, or that 40k dioramas are not art.

Or option C: I can argue both.

Frazzled wrote:Or option C: I can argue both.

True both of which are completely subjective arguments......

Not really.

There's plenty of classic pieces of art on the subject matter in question. To say that it has no place in art is flatly wrong.

Monster Rain wrote:Not really.

There's plenty of classic pieces of art on the subject matter in question. To say that it has no place in art is flatly wrong.

Subjective as in personal opinion, but i agree with you.

I'm not comfortable with the subject matter, but I'm not going to moralize here. But the piece is very successful in telling a story, which is the hallmark of an successful diorama IMHO. The technical painting is incredible as well. Colour is used well to make her the focal point of the piece.

I don't think it celebrates what is about to happen, and does a good job of making the viewer face some unpleasant concepts of war, and why it shouldn't be celebrated. I think that's a good thing, even if I don't agree with everyone's conclusions.

Gentlemen, we play with toy soldiers. And were are trying to depict war. War isn't all about killing. Its the lowest humanity can get. I like the diorama, as I have said, because its not the normal fighting and gunfire. Its something different. An enemy combatant has been captured. What do you do with said enemy? My 2 cents, that this is war, and war is hell. The diorama depicts that well.

Gibbsey's on the money. Without getting into that debate: People have all sorts of opinions and few seem shy about airing them. It's up to you to decide whose opinion you value regarding what subjects. As for me: I'm simply not interested in what non-hobbyists think of the merits of this piece (even if they're female) and I don't think that the opinions of non-hobbyists should have much if any influence on what a hobbyist decides to portray. To put a fine point on it, I don't think we should only model what will make 40k sell better to a wider audience.

A daring piece that might've worked better with showing less of her boobs (like a smaller hole in her chest that shows just a tiny bit of skin instead of blantantly showing those rather huge melons for an eldar) but still, despite this little criticism (I'm a "less is more" guy) from my way, this is completely astounding. The paintjobs are great - some of the expressions are simply perfect. And the idea, to show what would happen if 40k was more akin to real life, is a glorious and artistic one. I like it very much and I'm usually not into nudity on minis (not as long as there are sexy photos and porn as an alternative at least, lol). Great job!