20813 réponses à ce sujet

[Mondo47]

I think in the hypothetical sans-nipple-halter version there'd be nothing even remotely pornographic about the image; it would simply amplify the sense of vulnerability, the sense of Jack being literally and figuratively naked to the threats of her world. I think to find any kind of titilation in an image of a naked, crying woman takes you into the dark end of fetish street.

I know some people take nudity in different ways, but particularly in art it has no meaning other than to depict the body until the art itself instills the body with meaning. The pose, the background, foreground, the palette of colours, all could potentially make a nude communicate a variety of implications to the viewer, but I think in this case unless you make straight for a negative reading there'd be no intent to leer at the subject, but to feel its vulnerability and fragility... to me at least, it would be even more tragic. I want to hug Jack all the time, but naked and bereft, she really would be more isolated and afraid than her inner being already is. While I wouldn't complain about complete nudity in this case, I think it would be a step too far; it'd be too painful. Then again... perhaps an image like this should hurt like a kick in the guts, because it's the real Jack.

And if it still seems too much like pandering to erotic fantasy, imagine her just like that under a desk... there's no desk there, but I can see one all the same.

Modifié par Mondo47, 29 avril 2010 - 05:40 .

[adriano_c]

In puritanical America, an exposed breast (regardless of context) = an affront to "common decency".

[Mondo47]

There is no decency in art, or indecency. It's up to the viewer to take that away from the art, and as to whether the artist wants to communicate that implication or how successfully they telepathically communicate a nipple being naughty. I know I have two of them, and they're only naughty sometimes... the rest of the time they're no more naughty than my teeth, my eyeballs or my lower intestine, which if presented in jars on a shelf would be incapable of naughtiness (unless of course you were a major league sicko). Sex organs - same deal. As Robert Mapplethorpe proved, you can take a photograph of an erect penis and it can be completely un-sexual, as the body has no sexual intent until you put it there yourself.

Common decency: successfully demonstrating puritanical folk have the dirtiest minds since time immemorial.

[adriano_c]

Mondo47 wrote...

There is no decency in art, or indecency.

I wouldn't go that far. I've seen some very questionable things categorized as "art" that, really, had no business being on display for anyone to look at, decent or otherwise.

As Robert Mapplethorpe proved, you can take a photograph of an erect penis and it can be completely un-sexual, as the body has no sexual intent until you put it there yourself.

Not sure about this one at all...the photograph itself, or the photo's subject matter? In this case, just when would that sort of subject matter be found in any scenario other than something sexual?

Common decency: successfully demonstrating puritanical folk have the dirtiest minds since time immemorial.

Take your burka and deal with it!!

[Mondo47]

Hey, feel free to disagree - art is one of those things where people can say whatever the hell they like about it and it's never wrong (which is what's great and absolutely terrible about it at the same time ).

Just to nod at Mapplethorpe though, I should have perhaps added that it comes down to focus too; if the artist wants to say that an image is supposed to get you hot, it'll be obvious as to how they're communicating it... cropping the image down to be just genitals, or genitals being touched, etc. - that's obviously communicating something specific. If there is more - a body, background, foreground, costume, situation - that all has to be read in too. Some things Mapplethorpe did (and I only use the guy as an example as he's the one most of my art tutors banged on about over the years in these kind of discussions) that are read as erotic, are completely unerotic save to a particular viewer, or perhaps to describe it better, a particular mindset. Mapplethorpe's pictures of flowers are always erotic, even though a lot of folk don't think they are, because even if a flower is clearly being photographed for its symbolic resemblance to female or male genitalia, some people will just see a flower. You show them the real deal, and they get all bent out of shape.

Horses for courses - that's the joy of the Arts! Just to steer us back to where we came in though, having Jack in that image naked... while I can read both sides of the argument thanks mainly to formal training, my personal viewpoint is, as I said, that the image couldn't be erotic because of the content, context and the presentation of the image.

[adriano_c]

I prefer keeping any sort of "interest" (and I use this very loosely) I might have in art at a purely aesthetic/superficial level. Easier that way!

[Mondo47]

yorkj86 wrote...

This whole debate involves so many relative factors, it's simply a fun exercise in futility.

That's the fun of it!

[axl99]

Nudity is all lines and shapes and tonal values to me. Draw enough naked people of different ages and body types and it doesn't matter anymore. Like what has been reiterated earlier, the audience is free to think what they like about artwork regardless of its content. On the other hand, those who have a trained eye [with a trained hand to go with it] may tend to be a little more critical or perhaps indifferently flippant in the way they look at artwork as well.

Like a flock of magicians watching each others' performances and noting all the tricks and techniques for every rabbit pulled out of the hat.

Modifié par axl99, 29 avril 2010 - 05:00 .

[iNixiRir]

Jackal904 wrote...
If she didn't have that belt bra on I would feel like I'm looking at porn versus a tasteful piece of art.

I disagree.
Let's keep it at that.

Still an amazing piece of work though.

[Jackal904]

Mondo47 wrote...

I think in the hypothetical sans-nipple-halter version there'd be nothing even remotely pornographic about the image; it would simply amplify the sense of vulnerability, the sense of Jack being literally and figuratively naked to the threats of her world. I think to find any kind of titilation in an image of a naked, crying woman takes you into the dark end of fetish street.

While that is great in theory. I think we all know 99% of viewers will end up on "the dark end of fetish street." I highly doubt many gamers would be mature enough to view a topless version of that picture as purely symbolic.

It already conveys a huge sense of vulnerability, and without being offensive or tasteless. Making her topless would open up the floodgates to comments like, "Alright! Jack porn!"

Modifié par Jackal904, 29 avril 2010 - 05:16 .

[adriano_c]

Jackal904 wrote...

If she didn't have that belt bra on I would feel like I'm looking at porn versus a tasteful piece of art.

Jackal904 wrote...

While that is great in theory. I think we all know 99% of viewers will end up on "the dark end of fetish street." I highly doubt many gamers would be mature enough to view a topless version of that picture as purely symbolic.

It already conveys a huge sense of vulnerability, and without being offensive or tasteless. Making her topless would open up the floodgates to comments like, "Alright! Jack porn!"

There's something funny here...

-edit. Formating for multi-quotes!!!!!!

Modifié par adriano_c, 29 avril 2010 - 05:34 .

[Jackal904]

adriano_c wrote...

Jackal904 wrote...

If she didn't have that belt bra on I would feel like I'm looking at porn versus a tasteful piece of art.

Jackal904 wrote...

While that is great in theory. I think we all know 99% of viewers will end up on "the dark end of fetish street." I highly doubt many gamers would be mature enough to view a topless version of that picture as purely symbolic.

It already conveys a huge sense of vulnerability, and without being offensive or tasteless. Making her topless would open up the floodgates to comments like, "Alright! Jack porn!"

There's something funny here...

-edit. Formating for multi-quotes!!!!!!

I myself could see the symbolism of a nude version of that picture. But I know that most would not, therefore I would be inclined to feel like I'm looking at a pornographic image versus a serious attempt at tastefully conveying vulnerability through nudity.

Modifié par Jackal904, 29 avril 2010 - 05:52 .

[Firmijn]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

I think what is considered as art is also up to interpretation.

sorry, it isnt:whistle:

my apologies

[Firmijn]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Firmijn wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...
I think what is considered as art is also up to interpretation.

sorry, it isnt:whistle:
my apologies

Apologies for stating something as fact, when it is actually opinion?

You are forgiven.

While I personally agree with you, I am still a part-time art student. As being one, my teachers try/are teaching me that art is not an opinion, art is a fact. But what defines something as art is difficult to explain. The most simple explanation of what is art, and what is not, is the following: (You are gonna hate me for it, but its not me, Im quoting my teacher)

Art is what is made by an artist.
Than the question arises: "Who is an artist?"
A: A person who makes art.
- Jaques Blommenstijn.

[Epantiras]

(hope we're not going too off topic here)

[Derumiel]

Hello fellow Jack fans!
I thought i'd show some support for Jack with a screenshot i've taken recently. It's one of my favorite scenes, in fact.

[Mondo47]

Epantiras wrote...

(hope we're not going too off topic here)

You're telling me! I created a monster!

So, about those Bears... Jack! I mean Jack!

Anyone have any requests for a scene, after the last one was received so well (and considering I'd probably have never thought of it without someone requesting it )?

Oh, and not discussing tattoos - I'm already toying with something like that already...

[Firmijn]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Firmijn wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Firmijn wrote...

JohnnyDollar wrote...
I think what is considered as art is also up to interpretation.

sorry, it isnt:whistle:
my apologies

Apologies for stating something as fact, when it is actually opinion?

You are forgiven.

While I personally agree with you, I am still a part-time art student. As being one, my teachers try/are teaching me that art is not an opinion, art is a fact. But what defines something as art is difficult to explain. The most simple explanation of what is art, and what is not, is the following: (You are gonna hate me for it, but its not me, Im quoting my teacher)

Art is what is made by an artist.
Than the question arises: "Who is an artist?"
A: A person who makes art.
- Jaques Blommenstijn.

Your statement actually reaffirms my original point IMO. 

Who is an artist?  What is art?  It is subjective, and up to interpretation IMO.

I wrote a really long post and it now just dissapeard. Im going to cry for a few minutes and than try it again...