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.

I wouldn't mind painting a 'nude' model. Never really thought about it though. Where does one acquire such novelties?

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'.

Eh, never mind. They're all boring fantasy-ish things. Forget that. I'll stick to CHAOS SPACE MARINES!!! HNNNGGGGGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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?

@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.

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.[/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'?

Tragic or hilarious, I'm not sure which.

Polonius wrote:

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'?

not right.

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.

EDIT: 4oursword: (NSFW, eldar rape scene below)

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.

hemingway wrote:

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.

The less realistic 40k is, the better, IMHO.

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.

TiB wrote:

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!



Cheers...

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?

hemingway wrote:

Polonius wrote:

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%.

hemingway wrote:

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