[POLL] Vile or not?

[The Sigil]

I would guess so. What is there to be insulted about? It is beautiful and just a little bit scary, the way the creature ought to be. I thought it was a very classy well done illustration, maybe one of the best in the book. It is clearly tied very closely to the greek statuary roots that inspired the monster, and is properly equiped and attired as a divinity respectfully ought to be. Whoever painted it did a proper ammount of research and studying statues before undertaking the work. The only thing I have against it is that real greek statues were not only dressed but painted in a lifelike fashion, but as a painting itself I understand why it was necessary to leave the arms, torso, face, and feet with an overemphasised stone texture just so everyone will 'get it'. You might also get a little miffed that the statue is not designed to be a load bearing member of a structure, but since this creature is meant to be mobile I don't see how that can bother you much.

Given the tone of the original post, I think everyone has missed Frank's point.

He's offended because the statue is "clothed" rather than naked.

I don't know if he would be offended if the clothes hadn't been painted a different color or not (i.e., if they were supposedly part of the statue).

I don't know enough about Greek culture to confirm nor deny the assertion that "real" statues were in fact painted and/or clothed. If that is the case, perhaps Frank is miffed because he subscribes to a false archetype of Greek statuary... the naked statue.

IIRC, most "naked" statues are products of the late middle ages to renaissance (sp?) periods - they are not "classical" statues but rather "neo-classical" statues. If this is supposed to represent a Greek work, fine and good. If it's supposed to represent stuff contemporary with Michaelangelo's David, I can see where Frank might be upset.

As is, the image suggests a nude statue that someone put clothes on. Frank appears to be outraged that someone felt the need to "clothe" a statue.

Am I insulted/offended by the image? No. Would I be insulted/offended by the image if it were "topless?" Probably not. Would I be insulted/offended by the image if the crotch area was detailed nude? Probably.

Different strokes for different folks.

Frank is insulted that the image is "cleaned up" in a manner he feels is unneccessary (I think).

I found it kind of cool, myself... not because "hey look, it's censored," but because, "hey, look - they made an effort to break up the monotony of the stone color."

So count me as "not offended" but "able to understand why you are," Frank.

--The Sigil

 

[kenjib]

Given the tone of the original post, I think everyone has missed Frank's point.

I understood his point completely. His post suggests that clothing a nude neo-classical statue has something to do with restricting vile content. My point was that, as far as I'm concerned, whether or not the statue has clothing on it has nothing to do with being vile.

I'm fine with a nude neo-classical statue, but I don't like vile material.

My challenge to him is: "What does the clothed or nude status of this illustration have to do with whether or not people want to see vile content?" I don't see the connection he is trying to draw.

Perhaps my wording was unclear.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh, ok. It was kinda hard to tell. If you are right, I think he is being quite presumptious to assume that the artist did not want to experiment with color or the texture of the cloth or did not clothe the statue as the result of research or some other deep reason of his own.

And even if the artist was 'bowing to censorship', the result is I think (for reasons outlined below) better than had he done the obvious thing and left the statue naked. Certainly the artist has every right to be proud of this work.

You are correct to assert that much of what we think of as 'classicism' is 'neo-classicism'.

Far be it from me to suggest that the ancient Greeks ascribed to anything like modern notion of morality and pornography. The Greeks would have found nothing particularly unusual about columns shaped like erect male sexual organs, much less naked women. However, in the case of statuary it is true that the statues would have been clothed as would have been deemed appropriate, painted to be as life like as possible, and crowned and given weapons and other articles befitting thier station. It is difficult for a modern person to understand the degree with which idols were identified with the divinities that they represent. A Greek worshiper would have not seen the statue as the image of a goddess, but as the goddess living among them. One need only think of the many Greek myths regarding the way the various Greek goddesses defended thier virtue from peeping Toms to understand that a statue of Artemis would never be publically unclothed by anyone but her celebrants. There were complex yearly rituals and fests associated with the changing of the garments of the gods and goddesses.

So I don't find it at all unusual that the statue clothed. I for one think - much as the Greek celebrants must have - that it makes the latent 'animation' of the statue that much more tangible. The threat of the sword is that much more real because the sword is real. I think it is a pretty scary picture personally, and might not have been had it been unclothed with a sword of stone.

And if it serves the purpose of reducing a couple of peoples worries about pornography, so much the better.

 

[Celebrim]

"My point was that, as far as I'm concerned, whether or not the statue has clothing on it has nothing to do with being vile.

I'm fine with a nude neo-classical statue, but I don't like vile material."

And I'm totally with that on all points.

I'll go further. If wanting that statue to be naked is an example of wanting vile material, then what is wanted in general isn't mature material at all but prurience and juvenelia. When did shock become the same as thought, taste become the same as quality, lack of discretion become the same as maturity, and dissidence become the same as intelligence? If our parents created such nonsense, can we at least rebel a little against the status quo and suggest perhaps that not every societal standard needs overthrowing? What's with this unreflective and reflexive bashing of anything that might possibly be motivated by decency? Why does covering up breasts ruin the art? Heck, why even suggest that the primary motivation of this artist was covering up breasts? I liked the effect of the clothed statue at the very least because it was an unconvential way to portray a statue.

I _liked_ the painting.

 

[Agamon]

Darn, I thought this thread was going to show us a picture, and then we vote whether it's Vile or Not...

 

[kenjib]

Ooooo! New website:

http://www.amivileornot.com

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

The image?
I thought it was a woman who had been hit with something that caused a flesh to stone effect.
That's what it meant to me.

 

[William Ronald]

I would say yes, allowing people the choice to chose or not to chose to purchase any given product.

I do agree that some topics that are often in the news, need to be treated with some degree of sensitivity. So, no to FATAL and yes to better works. (Then again, form what I have learned about FATAL, I think almost anything is better. )

In the end, I prefer to see gamers have more options.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Looks like the pro-viles have it!

Of course, not all of the pro-viles said they would buy such products, but this would seem to explain WoTC wanting to publish this stuff. Carry on!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Huzzah!