Even if it isn’t attacking your race in particular, that you are offended by it probably indicates it is attacking your friends, family or values.I can think of a bunch of situations where that is not the case.
You can easily be offended by racist art that does not attack your own race for instance.
You can feel that vulgarity is offensive without feeling that it is an attack on you.
Making money shouldn't be seen as the only drive to produce things.
Exactly what it sounds like- an attack that lands on a target you do not intend to hit.what even is an "unintentional attack"?
I'm going to try to lay out a different view on the matter...but it's easier to do so via subject matter rather than visuals because I can articulate so mething that is personal to me.A further thought.
To me, the fundamental question is; Is it better for the hobby to have more people playing?
Again, totally just speaking for myself, the answer is an unqualified yes. It makes the hobby more socially acceptable, it ensures that we still have a hobby in the future, it makes it easier to find players and DM's. It means that there's more money for creatives to bring out more goodies for me to enjoy. So, yeah, it is better for the hobby to have more people playing.
Which, alternatively, means that anything that results in less people playing is bad. Adding nudity to gaming art has not increased the number of gamers over the years - no one says, "Hey, yeah, I totally got into AD&D for that succubus picture." OTOH, removing cheesecake art from the game has coincided with huge growths in the hobby. Additionally, other companies, like Paizo, had moved down this road, pathfinding a route so to speak, even before WotC did it, so, there is a considerable precedence here.
So, in what way does the game or the hobby benefit from using this type of art?
Oh, and on a total side note - I too am a cis white dude creeping up very close to 50. Sigh. So, yeah, take from that what you will. And, I've got a stack of Heavy Metal magazines to prove that I'm hardly a prude when it comes to art. But, again, time and place. I love artists like Luis Royo. Fantastic stuff. Frazetta, Vajello, Julie Bell. All fantastic stuff. Love it to pieces. However, I don't think that they really have a place in D&D material. Or, at least, not without some set up first.
There’s no objective definition of art. It’s all subjective.And now we get to the "What is art, and what is it for?" portion of our discussion.
I was just addressing the creative freedom assertion above.This is simplified in this case, as we are talking about art for commercial reproduction and distribution. If you are trying to make money at art, and do not care how it is received, you are not going to be making much money. This is art as communication, and proper communication requires consideration of the audience as much as the speaker.
If artists and publishers really don't care what people think of the art, why isn't it in crayon scribbles by a 5-year-old?
Where I take issue with your blanket statements is that you are stipulating that some things are factually true ...
1. A majority of female players did not engage with DnD because of artwork contained in it's books.
2. The rise of female players is caused by (at least in part) better depictions of female characters in the artwork.
While both of those statements MAY be true, I don't think we have enough data to actually answer those questions factually. You may see the trends and assign art as a factor, but there very well may be many more female gamers who push past the content they don't enjoy (like I do with romance/sex) rather than treat it as a hard stop to using that material.
Yes…on one level.An example of art that actually is an attack on someone!
Strawman - I didn't say it was the only drive. So, what follows after this is not terribly relevant.
There’s no objective definition of art. It’s all subjective.
Art is what the artist says it is. See Duchamp’s Urinal, Mapplethorpe’s Piss Christ, stuff like Andre’s Equivalence VIII, or works by Christo, Pollack Mondrian, Warhol, Rothko, or Kostabi.
I was just addressing the creative freedom assertion above.
I feel it would be a mistake to conflate an attack upon someone I care about or my values as an attack upon myself.Even if it isn’t attacking your race in particular, that you are offended by it probably indicates it is attacking your friends, family or values.
Indirect though it may be, that’s still an attack on you.