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.

Asterios wrote:
what would they say if they were nude males?

I could care less if there were nude males or if there were scantly clad males. Although the issue you'll find is that most 'scantly' men are considered a male power fantasy. My wife would love some nice looking sculpted men that didn't require it to be a demon, WWF wrestle body, beards and smoking a cigar. It is why some of the male miniatures we've designed tend to be more what she would find attractive.

One of my friends who is an artist draws Yaoi. I definitely am not a fan of it, but her artwork is fairly top notch. I am not so insecure in myself that I can't appreciate good artwork, whether it is to my taste or not. It isn't like there aren't games or things we don't like or strongly don't like in this hobby.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?

I know my sample size is too small to be considered a true measurement... but I'd like to say that out of the 3d sculptors I know that are female, most of them sculpt the majority of what we'd be discussing and labeled as sexiest. And these weren't sculpted because someone hired them to create "sexy version".

I also remember a few times on facebook someone mentioned about the size of the breasts and scantly clad sculpts that have been done by Grim Skull. The sculptor who was female commented on them saying there was nothing wrong with them in her opinion.

 Sqorgar wrote:
The ESRB is a censorship system masquerading as a rating system

It is no such thing. The ESRB can not prevent you from making and selling a game with whatever "objectionable" material you want to put in it. The fact that some stores may say "nope, we don't want to sell that" does not mean that you are being censored.

There used to be mixed gender swimming classes where girls had suits on and the boys swam naked (there's a 1941 issue of LIFE that included a picture of young boys naked in the locker room, to absolutely no angry response at all).

That is not relevant at all, nor are famous statues involving nudity. A picture of people naked in a locker room is non-sexual nudity. They aren't wearing clothes, but there's no focus on "sexy" parts of their bodies, posing to emphasize "sexy" features, etc. It's just some people who happen to not be wearing clothes. But with nudity in miniatures we're almost always talking about sexual nudity. These aren't artistic works done as a study of the colors of light and shadow on the form of a human body, they're blatant pornography. And that's a very different issue when it comes to talking about what is appropriate for children to see (or what adults want to see).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
The ESRB is a censorship system masquerading as a rating system

It is no such thing. The ESRB can not prevent you from making and selling a game with whatever "objectionable" material you want to put in it. The fact that some stores may say "nope, we don't want to sell that" does not mean that you are being censored.

There used to be mixed gender swimming classes where girls had suits on and the boys swam naked (there's a 1941 issue of LIFE that included a picture of young boys naked in the locker room, to absolutely no angry response at all).

That is not relevant at all, nor are famous statues involving nudity. A picture of people naked in a locker room is non-sexual nudity. They aren't wearing clothes, but there's no focus on "sexy" parts of their bodies, posing to emphasize "sexy" features, etc. It's just some people who happen to not be wearing clothes. But with nudity in miniatures we're almost always talking about sexual nudity. These aren't artistic works done as a study of the colors of light and shadow on the form of a human body, they're blatant pornography. And that's a very different issue when it comes to talking about what is appropriate for children to see (or what adults want to see).

I agree the ESRB has about as much power as the Comic Book Authority, none whatsoever, as to artistic miniatures there are some pretty dang good artistic miniatures out there, problem is many artists do do cheesecake style of art, but cheesecake style of art has been around a very long long time, even before the written word like the Earth Mother statuettes exaggerated features, but done that way to explain its a woman a mother and so forth. just like men with rippling muscles and well "packages" you make a miniature of a person crouched down with a relatively flat chest, you would think male, even though it might have been female. or an Amazon who decided to break tradition and chopped off both breasts instead of one. penises and breasts are there in art since time immortal to point out male and female.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Some of the topless female models GW made for Fantasy right before The End Times looked less like a 12 year-old boy's dirty doodles of a woman and more like actual women (I am thinking of the Lamia and some Dark Elves, can't be bothered to find pics at the moment, though). So, some progress. I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?

Their shirtless guys, however...

Off topic, but I would so pose these in the classical YMCA stance...

 Peregrine wrote:

It is no such thing. The ESRB can not prevent you from making and selling a game with whatever "objectionable" material you want to put in it. The fact that some stores may say "nope, we don't want to sell that" does not mean that you are being censored.

The ESRB was created under pressure from Congress due to what they perceived as influential violence in products meant for children. Congress said that if you don't start to reign it in yourselves, we'll do it for you. So out of fear of government regulation, the game industry collectively got together to create a rating system with the purpose of protecting their asses. Initially, there were regulations over how M-rated games could be marketed (when you could advertise them on TV, where you show them in stores, and those dumb ass age gates for trailers for M-rated games even if the trailers themselves didn't contain anything bad). There were also regulations on how and to whom you could sell M-rated games to. Businesses could get fined if they sold M-rated games to minors. Many of these regulations have been unenforced and relaxed in recent years.

And it wasn't "some" stores that don't sell AO games. It's ALL of them - digital and physical. The problem is that the ESRB regulations have rules for how an AO title can be advertised and sold. Some adult Japanese game sellers in the US also sell non-adult games, but they need two completely separate online stores, two completely separate website catalogs, to sell their adult games. The ESRB has also given out AO ratings for political reasons (like with Hatred), and has twice caused reratings of games (GTA:San Andreas after Hot Coffee, and Oblivion after a quest involving cannibalism was discovered) which meant that stores had to stop selling the game until the publishers recalled the game and either changed the game, or changed the packaging, at their own expense in the millions. Bethesda and Take Two could afford it, but can you imagine what it would do to an indie company?

The Chilling Effect is a real thing in free speech where the threat of lawsuit, fine, or other repercussion (such as social ostracization for misogyny) ends up retarding free speech through semi-voluntary (coerced) censorship. Would I make a PC game that I couldn't sell on Steam because Steam doesn't sell AO games? No, I'd be giving up the majority of my profits. If I wanted to make a game for a teenage audience that included a character smoking and drinking, that could potentially bump the game up to an M-rating, meaning that it would've only been displayed behind the counter and purchasers would be carded - so maybe I remove the smoking and drinking, as has happened in MANY games brought over from Japan.

Rating systems are like points in 40k. Instead of being something that explains how powerful your army it, they end up becoming the most important criteria in army creation, defining just about everything you can do with the game. Ratings systems are, at their heart, chilling effects on free speech by controlling the manner under which things are sold - and the ESRB was literally created expressly for this purpose.

That is not relevant at all, nor are famous statues involving nudity. A picture of people naked in a locker room is non-sexual nudity. They aren't wearing clothes, but there's no focus on "sexy" parts of their bodies, posing to emphasize "sexy" features, etc. It's just some people who happen to not be wearing clothes.

The OP said the figures were standing naked in boots and holding guns. He doesn't say they are explicit or bent over like a Penthouse centerfold. Why are you assuming that the models are sexy and not just naked?

But with nudity in miniatures we're almost always talking about sexual nudity.

We are talking about artistic nudity, maybe, but not sexual. It is still rather uncommon to see miniatures with molded labia or erections. Sticking your butt out a little isn't enough to go from artistic nudity to pornography. Are you now going to argue that the Sears catalog shouldn't have lingerie sections because you can spank to them in a pinch?

These aren't artistic works done as a study of the colors of light and shadow on the form of a human body, they're blatant pornography. And that's a very different issue when it comes to talking about what is appropriate for children to see (or what adults want to see).

I do not think that exposing children to simple nudity is particularly dangerous or likely to adversely affect their sexual development. Exposing them to explicit sexual behavior at a young age, however, can have repercussions - and that is what we, as a society, need to protect children from. But I've still never seen a miniature riding reverse cowgirl in the throws of ecstasy and I doubt very much I will ever see one during a game of Age of Sigmar.

The overly sexy scifi women isn't my thing, but there are a gakload of people at my LGS who would LOVE those minis. Do what you are comfortable with them. If there are kids at your shop, it might not be the best idea to play them every day.


ITT: nudity is artsy because art is subjective.

I would keep the minis on a display case, 4 pages of arguing about it should be enough evidence as to why. The people at my shop who love those models keep them at home, because there are usually some underage kids at our shop.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?

I know my sample size is too small to be considered a true measurement... but I'd like to say that out of the 3d sculptors I know that are female, most of them sculpt the majority of what we'd be discussing and labeled as sexiest. And these weren't sculpted because someone hired them to create "sexy version".

I also remember a few times on facebook someone mentioned about the size of the breasts and scantly clad sculpts that have been done by Grim Skull. The sculptor who was female commented on them saying there was nothing wrong with them in her opinion.

Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.

It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.

Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?

I know my sample size is too small to be considered a true measurement... but I'd like to say that out of the 3d sculptors I know that are female, most of them sculpt the majority of what we'd be discussing and labeled as sexiest. And these weren't sculpted because someone hired them to create "sexy version".

I also remember a few times on facebook someone mentioned about the size of the breasts and scantly clad sculpts that have been done by Grim Skull. The sculptor who was female commented on them saying there was nothing wrong with them in her opinion.

Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.

It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.

Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.

In spite of what the internet might make you think, there's a lot of women that find the female form appealing without even being lesbian/bi.

A lot of art of females (not just miniatures) that we would consider sexualised is done by female artists.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?

I know my sample size is too small to be considered a true measurement... but I'd like to say that out of the 3d sculptors I know that are female, most of them sculpt the majority of what we'd be discussing and labeled as sexiest. And these weren't sculpted because someone hired them to create "sexy version".

I also remember a few times on facebook someone mentioned about the size of the breasts and scantly clad sculpts that have been done by Grim Skull. The sculptor who was female commented on them saying there was nothing wrong with them in her opinion.

Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.

It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.

Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.

In spite of what the internet might make you think, there's a lot of women that find the female form appealing without even being lesbian/bi.

A lot of art of females (not just miniatures) that we would consider sexualised is done by female artists.

Where the feth did you get the lesbian/bi bit from my post above?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Where the feth did you get the lesbian/bi bit from my post above?

It is a male thing for the most part. I don't think anything negative was meant by the comment.

There is a very typical stereotype look that if a male admires a male body or physique, it would be considered gay. Not that it is a bad thing but that is the social belief of such a thing. Males don't normally sit around talking about other mens abs, butts or how handsome they look.

There will always be those that aren't typical but the majority is the social norm. I am not typical, but secure enough to be able to say "his butt looks good". I know what my wife and my women friends like in men. I have no issues pointing out someone or participating in the comments on someone's abs. The term that was phrased before it was main-streamed was that I was "metro-sexual".

Women in various cultures tend to, as a typical stereotype, will look and compare woman features. A woman admiring another woman isn't considered gay or that she is 'lusting' at the person, but simply admiring something that is beautiful. It is socially more acceptable for a woman to look at a male admire them, think they are beautiful and the same when looking at a female. Where if a male did the same thing, if they admired a woman it would be considered perverted or lusting and if it was admiring a male gay. It isn't just a US thing, but does depend on countries, culture (environment).

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.

It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.

Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.

For the most part sculptors in general don't have to deal with any double standards, male or female. They either sculpt something because they like it or are hired to sculpt something. Sometimes they are given concept art and create their own interpretation, while other times more free reign and given only a couple examples to go from. Half the time no one even bothers saying or thinking "X Sculptor is a perv"... those comments tend to either get directed at the customer/collector who purchased them or has them or the company as a whole.

The few times that comments are directed at the sculptor. Like in the case of Grim Skull, when they referred to her as a male. Until she came out and said she was a woman and that was how she liked them, thought they were done well, etc.

Renders tend to get more critique than the actual miniature. Renders are zoomed in, so the detail is exaggerated and although we are gamers know it is... there is still that part that goes, "Wow those are big". Just going over some of the other threads of these discussions, a lot of times people are like "Why are they all 34DD" but that is because they associate it with a size they think they know. Most of the time if you showed someone DD vs C they wouldn't have a clue... especially when you add accessories. Clothes make a huge difference in how a body is shaped and moreso in terms of 'support'.

Some people will sculpt what they are familiar with or what they have experience with. For example my wife is 34GG, they aren't fake as such I expect without support, certain shapes and forms. Those shapes and forms don't always translate well into a miniature when shrunk down. Miniatures tend to be representations of the best of the best, not the average or below average person. Just like models and ads in magazines tend to have someone who makes the outfit look good, not someone who would actually be wearing it. It is always frustrating to see a good looking outfit, purchase it but it never looks right, because the model that was based on wasn't 'real'.

Keep in mind that female sculptors don't choose to sculpt "sexist" models, they are creating art in their medium. They are in nature sexiest at all. It is the person who views such art, miniature and adds the label and determines if something is sexist. There is no discrimination or prejudice directed towards the miniatures at all, nor do miniatures of women reflect a prejudiced or discrimination against females. Those are all projections of the viewer coming to their own perceptions or misconceptions.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Where the feth did you get the lesbian/bi bit from my post above?

It is a male thing for the most part. I don't think anything negative was meant by the comment.

Really? It read pretty insultingly from my perspective.

In spite of what the internet might make you think, there's a lot of women that find the female form appealing without even being lesbian/bi

The implication being that I think women only find other women's bodies attractive for sexual reasons. That is flat out wrong and not something I ever even intimated. In fact I even accounted for the possibility by saying:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form

So at best AllSeeingSkink was pointing out something I already acknowledged or making a passive attack on how I view women. Do you see the problem?

 Dark Severance wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.

It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.

Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.

For the most part sculptors in general don't have to deal with any double standards, male or female. They either sculpt something because they like it or are hired to sculpt something. Sometimes they are given concept art and create their own interpretation, while other times more free reign and given only a couple examples to go from. Half the time no one even bothers saying or thinking "X Sculptor is a perv"... those comments tend to either get directed at the customer/collector who purchased them or has them or the company as a whole.

The few times that comments are directed at the sculptor. Like in the case of Grim Skull, when they referred to her as a male. Until she came out and said she was a woman and that was how she liked them, thought they were done well, etc.

So you are making my point that there is a double standard at play here. Grim Skull was a perv until it was revealed that she was a woman. I've seen posts making claims about Brother Vinni that would indicate people have a negative view of him based on his creations.

And my point was that a double standard exists for the people who own these models. The vast majority of which are men, who are held to a standard that women gamers aren't held to. I think that informs a lot of the responses we are seeing here and a lot of reservations the "anti-nude" camp has for nudity in war gaming. That is just personal opinion, but I think it is something to consider.

 Dark Severance wrote:
Keep in mind that female sculptors don't choose to sculpt "sexist" models, they are creating art in their medium.

Sure they do. The sculptor has agency in how a piece is presented. If the sculptor creates a model that ticks the boxes of what many would label a "sexist" model, the sculptor chose to create that piece. Sure, some of that choice may be on account of requests made by the entity commissioning the work, or it may be because the sculptor likes to sculpt in that fashion, but an artist is entirely responsible for the art they create.

 Dark Severance wrote:
Keep in mind that female sculptors don't choose to sculpt "sexist" models, they are creating art in their medium.

Sure they do. The sculptor has agency in how a piece is presented. If the sculptor creates a model that ticks the boxes of what many would label a "sexist" model, the sculptor chose to create that piece. Sure, some of that choice may be on account of requests made by the entity commissioning the work, or it may be because the sculptor likes to sculpt in that fashion, but an artist is entirely responsible for the art they create.

So you are suggesting that by creating sexy female miniatures, that female sculptors are willfully engaging in "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex?" That's a strange accusation for a man to make towards a woman.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:
Keep in mind that female sculptors don't choose to sculpt "sexist" models, they are creating art in their medium.

Sure they do. The sculptor has agency in how a piece is presented. If the sculptor creates a model that ticks the boxes of what many would label a "sexist" model, the sculptor chose to create that piece. Sure, some of that choice may be on account of requests made by the entity commissioning the work, or it may be because the sculptor likes to sculpt in that fashion, but an artist is entirely responsible for the art they create.

So you are suggesting that by creating sexy female miniatures, that female sculptors are willfully engaging in "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex?" That's a strange accusation for a man to make towards a woman.

No. Don't put words in my mouth. I am saying that an artist is responsible for the artwork they create. If they create art that is considered by many to be sexist, and by that I mean if that art follows the cues of other works that are regarded as sexist, then the artist willfully chose to adopt those elements in their work and should be held accountable for those choices.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
No. Don't put words in my mouth. I am saying that an artist is responsible for the artwork they create. If they create art that is considered by many to be sexist, and by that I mean if that art follows the cues of other works that are regarded as sexist, then the artist willfully chose to adopt those elements in their work and should be held accountable for those choices.

Bullploppies. As an artist, I can tell you right now that you have no control over, or responsibility to, whatever interpretations of your work that other people decide to make up. The only thing you have a responsibility to is your art, to create it with integrity and honesty, and whatever stupid gak some donkey-cave comes up with on the other side of the series of tubes is his problem.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
The implication being that I think women only find other women's bodies attractive for sexual reasons.

But this whole thread implies and is about men finding women's bodies (or rather miniatures) attractive for sexual reasons. There is a bit about art, about appreciating women and it not being sexual... but the thread devolved into the basic retort 'if female miniature is naked, it is because of sexual reasons/perv, etc.'. With that same token it would imply the same from a woman's perspective.

Although you do make a statement about them enjoying a sculpting an exaggerated form. The thread devolved into 'are they sexist or considered sexual' and thus "enjoying" can be taken as sexual or non-sexual. Since there is a society stigma/social aspect that men don't normally engage those types of activities unless sexual... it seemed valid to me. Could it have been said in a better way, sure.

Given that I don't know the poster, what their language or anything about them. I also haven't had a back and forth with them so I don't immediately go for the negative opinion. I always give people the benefit of the doubt, even if I don't agree with them or having a passionate discussion. That is just me. And given there wasn't enough context, that was simply how I had viewed it.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
So you are making my point that there is a double standard at play here. Grim Skull was a perv until it was revealed that she was a woman. I've seen posts making claims about Brother Vinni that would indicate people have a negative view of him based on his creations.

And my point was that a double standard exists for the people who own these models. The vast majority of which are men, who are held to a standard that women gamers aren't held to. I think that informs a lot of the responses we are seeing here and a lot of reservations the "anti-nude" camp has for nudity in war gaming. That is just personal opinion, but I think it is something to consider.

As much as society and we try to make a conscious effort to not have or create a double standard, it does exist and will always exist. In some instances it is conscious and while in others subconscious creation.

For example: As a project manager when I interview for a new position to hire someone because of how things are today, I have to re-examine every decision. If all the candidates were male, I simply choose based on the candidates who I felt fit into the work environment well... that includes not only work experience, work ethic but also how they present themselves. When a woman is thrown into the mix, if I don't feel she fits even if she didn't have the work experience. I still have to re-evaluate it again, look at outside factors of how many men/female we have, can she learn it, is she capable and then ultimately be able to "prove" she wasn't chosen because of strictly experience and not because she was a woman. It sounds easy but not so much. Consciously it takes twice as much time because of repercussions thus creating a double standard that isn't applied to the other sex.

Having a double standard doesn't necessarily mean it is a bad thing either. It can push us to hold things to a higher standard. It also does force us to exist outside the normal boundaries which can be beneficial.

Yes the sculptor was called a 'mouth breather' among some other comments, implying he (she) was a perv. Once she said was identified as a woman, suddenly she wasn't a perv. However people still objected to the shape of some of the breasts or lack of clothing but it wasn't done in a insulting fashion as it was before.

Yes you are correct, a double standard does exist for people who do own the miniatures as well. There is a social stigma and social expectation that 'nude' is sexual and perverted. When men are amongst their close group of friends, they wouldn't think twice (usually) about saying someone was hot looking or sexy. When in public, that tends to change and they aren't as vocal about it. Mix in the aspect that nerd/geek/gamers are socially inept people (that is starting to change but that is mostly with board gamers, less with miniatures) that when someone has something that could be considered "controversial" there is an outside influence in the game store to be embarrassed that someone brought in Y miniature. Keep in mind this is stereotyping not to be negative and there are exceptions but for the most part that is where some of it stems from.

Sexism itself is subjective. The sculptor doesn't necessarily sculpt a sexist model or miniature. Creating something that looks appealing or beautiful or even sexy, doesn't mean sexiest. The confusing part is that sexy means "provoking or intended to provoke sexual interest" but it also means "interesting, exciting, or trendy" or even "excitingly appealing (without implying sexual reasons)". When someone says "that brochure is sexy", they don't think that person thinks it is arousing. However when you apply that same statement to a car or even a miniature, the first connotation is the opposite because of how society, culture is programmed... skin, boobs=sex.

The same double standard above exists. When a man says "she/he is sexy", the first association is sexual (pervy) interest. When a woman says the same thing, the first impression isn't always sexual interest but more acceptable to be associated with "they enjoy" vs "sexual". Those impressions are impacted by the people around them in a concious and subconcious method, which is what makes discussions like this difficult.

 Dark Severance wrote:
Creating something that looks appealing or beautiful or even sexy, doesn't mean sexiest.

THAT. Right there. Exactly that.

All of this shame about naked miniatures comes from the appearance that it is sexist - not that it is vulgar. People don't complain about the Sisters of Battle's boob armor or chainmail bikinis because they are vulgar. They are terrified that it might be sexist. So they come up with all these shallow excuses for it to be wrong without saying it is sexist. Like, it isn't practical or historically realistic. Or they come up with shallow excuses that it isn't sexist (the men show as much skin, so equality! Yay!).

But the fact is, sexy isn't sexist. We are convinced that women are the victims of some sort of social injustice going back to the beginning of time, and that the only way to make up for thousands of years of oppression is to go as far as possible in the other direction to compensate. And somewhere in this giant discussion, someone decided that basic human sexuality is oppressive to women and now we can't have a two inch tall naked female miniature without someone trying to figure out exactly where it fits into the tradition of oppression (women will avoid game stores because of naked miniatures! They won't know true equality unless we hide them from sight!)

It's so stupid. I think I would have an easier argument trying to convince someone that vulgarity (Piss Jesus, anyone?) can be high art than convince someone that pornography can be.

Long ago I knew a sergeant who certainly made an art out of vulgarity...

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Spoiler:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?

I know my sample size is too small to be considered a true measurement... but I'd like to say that out of the 3d sculptors I know that are female, most of them sculpt the majority of what we'd be discussing and labeled as sexiest. And these weren't sculpted because someone hired them to create "sexy version".

I also remember a few times on facebook someone mentioned about the size of the breasts and scantly clad sculpts that have been done by Grim Skull. The sculptor who was female commented on them saying there was nothing wrong with them in her opinion.

Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.

It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.

Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.

In spite of what the internet might make you think, there's a lot of women that find the female form appealing without even being lesbian/bi.

A lot of art of females (not just miniatures) that we would consider sexualised is done by female artists.

Where the feth did you get the lesbian/bi bit from my post above?

I didn't, my apologies I meant a collective "you" when I said "you" and not "you" specifically, I can see how it would cause a misunderstanding.

Your post said "I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market." I was just pointing out that many women do find it appealing and it's not simply because they are trying to appeal to a perceived market, otherwise you wouldn't have amateur female artists also producing similar art because they have no financial stake in it.

So at best AllSeeingSkink was pointing out something I already acknowledged or making a passive attack on how I view women. Do you see the problem?

Don't be so defensive, I wasn't making an attack at all, I was just stating that it's often assumed it's creepy dudes making and/or enjoying these types of art when in reality it's often women who both create and enjoy it which makes it hard to consider it sexism. Of course then people will come back with terms like internalised misogyny.

But just because I was replying to your post doesn't mean I was attacking you personally.

No need to get your knickers all up in a twist.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
No. Don't put words in my mouth. I am saying that an artist is responsible for the artwork they create. If they create art that is considered by many to be sexist, and by that I mean if that art follows the cues of other works that are regarded as sexist, then the artist willfully chose to adopt those elements in their work and should be held accountable for those choices.

Bullploppies. As an artist, I can tell you right now that you have no control over, or responsibility to, whatever interpretations of your work that other people decide to make up. The only thing you have a responsibility to is your art, to create it with integrity and honesty, and whatever stupid gak some donkey-cave comes up with on the other side of the series of tubes is his problem.

I think you are missing my point. If an artist creates art and that art includes elements that others identify as sexist, then the artist bears responsibility for including those elements. The artist has every right to include those elements as it is their art, but the art doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you, as an artist, enjoy sculpting nude models with exaggerated features and or posed in an overtly sexual fashion, then those are conscious choices you made as an artist. Others can label it and you sexist for those choices, and unless you live under a rock and are unaware of the large social conversation going on about sexism, men's and women's bodies, and everything else that is packed into a "sexist" model, then the artist has no one to blame but themselves for any controversy their art creates.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Spoiler:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Dark Severance wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I wonder if the inclusion of more female sculptors in the industry is helping in that regard?

I know my sample size is too small to be considered a true measurement... but I'd like to say that out of the 3d sculptors I know that are female, most of them sculpt the majority of what we'd be discussing and labeled as sexiest. And these weren't sculpted because someone hired them to create "sexy version".

I also remember a few times on facebook someone mentioned about the size of the breasts and scantly clad sculpts that have been done by Grim Skull. The sculptor who was female commented on them saying there was nothing wrong with them in her opinion.

Now that is interesting. I was thinking size when I made that comment but also shape especially in regard to the comments made by some that OTT breasts are little more that giant balls attached to the figure's torso. I think the industry has improved greatly over the type of beach-ball-breasted models that were prevalent in the 80's and 90's.

It is interesting that some female sculptors choose to sculpt "sexist" models. I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market.

Either way, female sculptors don't have to deal with the double standard of being labeled skeevy pervs for having those models in their collections which is something males get saddled with (fair or not). That double standard informs a lot of the responses here, I think.

In spite of what the internet might make you think, there's a lot of women that find the female form appealing without even being lesbian/bi.

A lot of art of females (not just miniatures) that we would consider sexualised is done by female artists.

Where the feth did you get the lesbian/bi bit from my post above?

I didn't, my apologies I meant a collective "you" when I said "you" and not "you" specifically, I can see how it would cause a misunderstanding.

Your post said "I wonder if that is just because they enjoy sculpting an exaggerated female form, or if there is some conscious (or unconscious) desire to appeal to a perceived market." I was just pointing out that many women do find it appealing and it's not simply because they are trying to appeal to a perceived market, otherwise you wouldn't have amateur female artists also producing similar art because they have no financial stake in it.

So at best AllSeeingSkink was pointing out something I already acknowledged or making a passive attack on how I view women. Do you see the problem?

Don't be so defensive, I wasn't making an attack at all, I was just stating that it's often assumed it's creepy dudes making and/or enjoying these types of art when in reality it's often women who both create and enjoy it which makes it hard to consider it sexism. Of course then people will come back with terms like internalised misogyny.

But just because I was replying to your post doesn't mean I was attacking you personally.

No need to get your knickers all up in a twist.

This is great, you apologize in the first part of your post by admitting you phrased your response to me poorly in such a way that you can understand it causing a misinterpretation and then you end the post by making me out to be unreasonable.

My knickers are fine. Next time be more precise with your language.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I think you are missing my point. If an artist creates art and that art includes elements that others identify as sexist, then the artist bears responsibility for including those elements.

No, they don't. I'm telling you, you can not predict how other people will interpret your art - or if you can, you won't always agree with them. There are people out there who literally think everything is "problematic" and no matter what steps you take to minimize this, they'll find something, anything, to complain about. Some people are very myopic in their interpretations. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar and nothing you can say will convince them that it isn't phallic oppression.

And it's even worse when you simply disagree. You can make a statue of a naked woman as an expression of beauty, vulnerability, innocence, love - whatever - and they'll see it as pornography or patriarchal oppression of women by taking away agency and depersoning a women by focusing on their sexual parts as objects (or something equally stupid). You simply can not create art with integrity if you have to factor in the selfish opinions of stupid people. Bowing down to social peer pressure to create something you don't agree with is the opposite of integrity.

The artist has every right to include those elements as it is their art, but the art doesn't exist in a vacuum.

This is where we disagree the most, I think. Art transcends time. It outlives the artist and the audience - and it certainly outlives whatever moral panic fad is going on when it was created. History is filled with literature, art, science, and philosophy that was considered dangerous during its day, but that history has proven wrong. Socrates was put to death for espousing ideas that essentially form the backbone of thousands of years of Western civilization. Dungeons and Dragons and heavy metal encouraged satanic worship. Tales From the Crypt and Mad Magazine corrupted our youth. Elvis' rotating pelvis was too much for broadcast television. Women were burned as witches. Huck Finn was banned from libraries. Grand Theft Auto caused school shootings. Don't forget the Red Scare and blacklisting, not to mention a heliocentric model of the solar system.

As a society, we move from one moral panic to the next. It's always something. And we NEVER learn from. We are always convinced that this time, this moral panic is real! And artwork from those times ALL out survived the panic. We still have heavy metal and DnD, Elvis and Mad, Huck Finn and GTA. Art is a product of its time, but it exists outside of it.

If you, as an artist, enjoy sculpting nude models with exaggerated features and or posed in an overtly sexual fashion, then those are conscious choices you made as an artist. Others can label it and you sexist for those choices, and unless you live under a rock and are unaware of the large social conversation going on about sexism, men's and women's bodies, and everything else that is packed into a "sexist" model, then the artist has no one to blame but themselves for any controversy their art creates.

Again, bullploppies. The fear of misogyny is just the newest in a long line of stupid moral panics, and possibly the first to really be amplified by the echo chambers of social media. But we are already on the tail end of its stupidity, and its power to shame and control is rapidly diminishing. I promise you that any artist making "sexist" models will have their work remembered long after this moral panic has been replaced with the next one.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I think you are missing my point. If an artist creates art and that art includes elements that others identify as sexist, then the artist bears responsibility for including those elements. The artist has every right to include those elements as it is their art, but the art doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you, as an artist, enjoy sculpting nude models with exaggerated features and or posed in an overtly sexual fashion, then those are conscious choices you made as an artist. Others can label it and you sexist for those choices, and unless you live under a rock and are unaware of the large social conversation going on about sexism, men's and women's bodies, and everything else that is packed into a "sexist" model, then the artist has no one to blame but themselves for any controversy their art creates.

An artist will not be able to help what others identify with or as sexist. You could put them in a burlap sack and there are still people who would and could construe them as being sexiest.

We can break it down a bit further since I know others have already brought up, there is no prejudice or discrimination based on sex invovled thus not sexism. Sexism is a broad category but does have its genre fairly well categorized from gender steroytypes, language (use of masculine him as the default of an unknown character), occupational sexism, weight based sexism, advertising, pornography, jokes, gender discriminiation and objectification.

For the most part when someone says art or miniatures are considered sexist they are usually refering to objectification. It doesn't fall under media/advertising because it isn't used to draw an audience (ie: sex sells) to play a game. In most cases these miniatures are boutique and although popular, are a limited market which isn't the whole 'gaming community'. However they are aren't women, they are an actual object. They don't somehow underline feminity anymore than video games contribute to violence. They are subjective in that nature that it is the viewer who identifies and projects their own perceptions on it.

An artist can not bear full responsibility for what others will label or think of their art. To a degree they can effect it (ie: burlap sack) but they still can't control the response of someone else.

For example, let's take a look at a toy. There will be people who will have no idea what it is, some will know exactly what it is and then there is going to be a larger group that will identify it as something else entirely. The artist should then be completely responsible for determining how each of use see's this toy?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
My knickers are fine. Next time be more precise with your language.

Sorry couldn't help to chuckle at this mainly because I'm listening to Hamilton... and I read it in Alexander Hamilton's voice.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I'm telling you, you can not predict how other people will interpret your art - or if you can, you won't always agree with them.

We call them art critics. ^_^

 Sqorgar wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I think you are missing my point. If an artist creates art and that art includes elements that others identify as sexist, then the artist bears responsibility for including those elements.

No, they don't. I'm telling you, you can not predict how other people will interpret your art - or if you can, you won't always agree with them. There are people out there who literally think everything is "problematic" and no matter what steps you take to minimize this, they'll find something, anything, to complain about. Some people are very myopic in their interpretations. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar and nothing you can say will convince them that it isn't phallic oppression.

And it's even worse when you simply disagree. You can make a statue of a naked woman as an expression of beauty, vulnerability, innocence, love - whatever - and they'll see it as pornography or patriarchal oppression of women by taking away agency and depersoning a women by focusing on their sexual parts as objects (or something equally stupid). You simply can not create art with integrity if you have to factor in the selfish opinions of stupid people. Bowing down to social peer pressure to create something you don't agree with is the opposite of integrity.

Are we talking about artists changing their art to appeal to perceived audience interpretation or are we talking about artists engaging in themes which are known to be controversial and then claiming they can't be criticized for what they produced? I am talking about the later, you seem to be talking about the former.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
The artist has every right to include those elements as it is their art, but the art doesn't exist in a vacuum.

This is where we disagree the most, I think. Art transcends time. It outlives the artist and the audience - and it certainly outlives whatever moral panic fad is going on when it was created. History is filled with literature, art, science, and philosophy that was considered dangerous during its day, but that history has proven wrong. Socrates was put to death for espousing ideas that essentially form the backbone of thousands of years of Western civilization. Dungeons and Dragons and heavy metal encouraged satanic worship. Tales From the Crypt and Mad Magazine corrupted our youth. Elvis' rotating pelvis was too much for broadcast television. Women were burned as witches. Huck Finn was banned from libraries. Grand Theft Auto caused school shootings. Don't forget the Red Scare and blacklisting, not to mention a heliocentric model of the solar system.

As a society, we move from one moral panic to the next. It's always something. And we NEVER learn from. We are always convinced that this time, this moral panic is real! And artwork from those times ALL out survived the panic. We still have heavy metal and DnD, Elvis and Mad, Huck Finn and GTA. Art is a product of its time, but it exists outside of it.

Yes, and if you were an artist in the 80's painting Fantasy artwork with demons and other "Satanic" elements which played into the moral panic of the time then you as that artist should be prepared for any backlash you receive. It is your art, it is your prerogative for exploring themes you choose to explore for reasons that are your own, but it doesn't exempt you from judgement by others.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
If you, as an artist, enjoy sculpting nude models with exaggerated features and or posed in an overtly sexual fashion, then those are conscious choices you made as an artist. Others can label it and you sexist for those choices, and unless you live under a rock and are unaware of the large social conversation going on about sexism, men's and women's bodies, and everything else that is packed into a "sexist" model, then the artist has no one to blame but themselves for any controversy their art creates.

Again, bullploppies. The fear of misogyny is just the newest in a long line of stupid moral panics, and possibly the first to really be amplified by the echo chambers of social media. But we are already on the tail end of its stupidity, and its power to shame and control is rapidly diminishing. I promise you that any artist making "sexist" models will have their work remembered long after this moral panic has been replaced with the next one.

And again, I am not talking about artists changing their art to cater to the sensibilities of others, rather that the artist can't claim ignorance, or not expect labeling, when their artwork creates a response from an audience.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
are we talking about artists engaging in themes which are known to be controversial and then claiming they can't be criticized for what they produced?

I don't think anyone has said or claimed that artists "can't" be criticized. Being criticized, interpreting something differently than how the artist thinks is different than them being responsible.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Bullploppies. As an artist, I can tell you right now that you have no control over, or responsibility to, whatever interpretations of your work that other people decide to make up. The only thing you have a responsibility to is your art, to create it with integrity and honesty, and whatever stupid gak some donkey-cave comes up with on the other side of the series of tubes is his problem.

True to a point, that you do not have any control over what people will think. However, consider the work of a fine artist vs. a commercial artist. A fine artist will create whatever they want and to heck with what people think or like. To contrast, a commercial artist must please his audience and normally has a specific customer to make happy. The vast majority of (if not all) sculptors that are creating stuff to sell are essentially commercial artists, so the consideration and responsibility of creating something that will please people is of prime importance - even if that is a very small, niche group. Albeit, you still can't please everyone...

Well this is certainly a trainwreck. Well done.

For me, thematic appropriateness is key. It's a hard thing to quantify, being broader than simply paint scheme etc, but a lot of times, armies that include topless models or naked dudes do it in a fairly unsubtle manner, like splicing a pie throwing contest into "Shindler's List". If you want to have a squad of topless Marines, have the rest of your army in equally tongue-in-cheek style, is a good rule of thumb.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
My knickers are fine. Next time be more precise with your language.

You're on an international forum, I admitted my wording wasn't clear but it's always wise to assume people aren't attacking you personally otherwise the internet is going to be a very hard place for you. You raised the point of whether women enjoyed sculpting exaggerated female forms and I responded, even if it weren't for my ambiguous posting and took it word for word you sure did get yourself up in a tantrum about it.

MDSW wrote:
True to a point, that you do not have any control over what people will think. However, consider the work of a fine artist vs. a commercial artist. A fine artist will create whatever they want and to heck with what people think or like. To contrast, a commercial artist must please his audience and normally has a specific customer to make happy. The vast majority of (if not all) sculptors that are creating stuff to sell are essentially commercial artists, so the consideration and responsibility of creating something that will please people is of prime importance - even if that is a very small, niche group. Albeit, you still can't please everyone...

This is a favorite argument of people who wish for censorship. It's not Art. Art is protected free speech. It's commerce. And commerce answers to the customer. And the customers want this. I ought to know. I'm a customer. So I get to tell artists what to do. The customer is always right, after all. When you think about it, I'm their boss. I'm entitled.

There are several glaring problems with this, the biggest being that the audience is not of one singular mind and does not speak with one singular voice - nor, frankly, are they always aware of what they really want from something (if GW followed half the recommendations I see, it would not produce the game they think it would). The majority of your audience either enjoys it quietly or consumes it in quiet indifference, and those loud people decrying your work at the top of their lungs represent a vocal minority - a very vocal, VERY entitled minority. And often, they aren't your customers and changing your work for their benefit won't make them your customers.

The only responsibility an artist has is to make something worth existing. Everything else is negotiable.

O.o WOW

Want to fix it? Put a horses head on that woman and give her two more legs, problem solved, problem stays solved Hooah!

The conversation is way out of the ballpark and into someones windshield. Way to go!

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Are we talking about artists changing their art to appeal to perceived audience interpretation or are we talking about artists engaging in themes which are known to be controversial and then claiming they can't be criticized for what they produced? I am talking about the later, you seem to be talking about the former.

I didn't see this post when I responded earlier. Is Dakka having issues?

Anyway, I think they are both the same thing. The only reason to criticize an artist is to get him to either change his work or to no longer produce works using those themes - either way, the artist is changing his art to appeal to perceived audience interpretation. I mean, what's the point of criticizing an artist if you actively don't want him to change what he is doing?

Yes, and if you were an artist in the 80's painting Fantasy artwork with demons and other "Satanic" elements which played into the moral panic of the time then you as that artist should be prepared for any backlash you receive. It is your art, it is your prerogative for exploring themes you choose to explore for reasons that are your own, but it doesn't exempt you from judgement by others.

Have you ever been a famous person? Not like Brad Pitt famous, but famous enough that people who have never met you or read your work know your name and has an opinion on you as a person? Because you literally can not operate if you give a second thought to what those opinions might be. Threatening judgment is hardly a deterrent to someone who is judged every second of every day as it is. And legally, free speech protections mean that whatever judgment may come your way, a jail sentence will not. So yeah, I don't think a good artist is all that worried about what social errors strangers think he has committed in the process of creating art. They couldn't be a good artist if they did.

And again, I am not talking about artists changing their art to cater to the sensibilities of others, rather that the artist can't claim ignorance, or not expect labeling, when their artwork creates a response from an audience.

All artists expect labeling, but it is impossible to predict what that labeling could be. What may seem obvious and predictable in retrospect likely wasn't when the decision was being made. An artist is one person making decisions, but labels come from hundreds, thousands, and occasionally millions of people with different philosophies, life experiences, beliefs, and morals. You absolutely can't predict it, so while you can aim for praise, you don't really expect it, and damnation is always a surprise unless you are purposefully being insulting.

 Sqorgar wrote:

MDSW wrote:
True to a point, that you do not have any control over what people will think. However, consider the work of a fine artist vs. a commercial artist. A fine artist will create whatever they want and to heck with what people think or like. To contrast, a commercial artist must please his audience and normally has a specific customer to make happy. The vast majority of (if not all) sculptors that are creating stuff to sell are essentially commercial artists, so the consideration and responsibility of creating something that will please people is of prime importance - even if that is a very small, niche group. Albeit, you still can't please everyone...

This is a favorite argument of people who wish for censorship. It's not Art. Art is protected free speech. It's commerce. And commerce answers to the customer. And the customers want this. I ought to know. I'm a customer. So I get to tell artists what to do. The customer is always right, after all. When you think about it, I'm their boss. I'm entitled.

Yes you get to complain like any other customer in any similar situation and they get to decide what they want to do with your criticism (that is if they even know of it). Why would you want to restrict your rights to appease a company that is only after your money?

That's the difference between entertainment art and the art world (as in "capital a" Art), even then you probably have more freedom to create what you want if you depend on neither and create for yourself in your free time. Commerce doesn't just blindly answer to the customer (that's just a strange argument in itself, the whole "customer is king" idea that seems to be taken so seriously in the USA), the company (and the people working there) do what they think is best, from the CEO to the lowest sculptor. They can use whatever tools they want to make an informed decision and they can decide if they want to create a product with a more widespread appeal or aim for a smaller niche where they (hopefully) get to create something that is more to their own liking. Do you think they let the sculptors at Disney just "do their thing" and then sell whatever toys they come up with? Their art is a job first and self-fulfillment second (or third) and heavily regulated from the top to meet whatever specifications Disney needs. If they can't handle that they won't be employed for long.

GRRM, for example, created ASoIaF because he wanted to creates something that he was not able to do while writing TV shows (and was a bit fed up with that) and didn't even think it would be adapted for TV at the time (and when it happened he didn't have full control over the TV series because it was somebody else's project) while other writers create novels with the aim/hope of getting a TV deal. Some comics are made to look like storyboards (easier to adapt) and made as appealing as possible for TV/movie people because overall comic sales are not doing that great. If you think they are all aiming for the highest concentration of artistic expression and noting else in their work then the only word that comes to mind is: naive.

And why do these arguments about art/free speech in a heavily commercial context always make the creators out to be weak willed pushovers who for some reason can't be trusted to form their own opinion? If they can't handle criticism they are in the wrong business (they should have learned how do that way back in art school or in their creative writing classes). They are creating a commercial product and it's their choice what audience they want to target. They need to be ready to deal with criticism like adults. There are other field of employment where you don't have to deal with other people's opinions.

The truth is if it's art/Art and also a product/commerce then you have to decide what your priorities are. You live in a human/capitalistic society where your choices have consequences. If you want to to go full art and not care about the possible commercial ramifications then you are free to do that but if that decision results in low or unsustainable sales numbers then you have only yourself to blame for that. The customer doesn't owe you or your creation any attention, sales, or admiration just because you created something that you consider art. And if you turn heavily towards the commerce/product side then some people will make fun of your "art" for the ewoks or for the Michael Bay-ish senseless garbage movie (while you end up swimming in money).

There are several glaring problems with this, the biggest being that the audience is not of one singular mind and does not speak with one singular voice - nor, frankly, are they always aware of what they really want from something (if GW followed half the recommendations I see, it would not produce the game they think it would). The majority of your audience either enjoys it quietly or consumes it in quiet indifference, and those loud people decrying your work at the top of their lungs represent a vocal minority - a very vocal, VERY entitled minority. And often, they aren't your customers and changing your work for their benefit won't make them your customers.

Lets really take GW as an actual example: People (the loud minority) have been complaining about GW doing things the wrong way for (literary) decades and GW have (for the most part) just ignored that criticism. See how easy it was for them to just not do whatever people wanted from them for a very long time because it's their company and not ours. People complain about art all the time and companies ignore nearly as much. Just read the first line of this reply to see why.

The only responsibility an artist has is to make something worth existing. Everything else is negotiable.

That also means your art could end up not sellable so you will need to find another jobs and create your art in your free time. There is no guarantee that you will be able to make money with your art. You can't ignoring the commercial aspect of all of this in thread about toys just because you want to win an internet argument. Context matters.