You are on the end of not understanding the right of free speech, at least.
The Proper Use of Nudity in FRPG Art
You are on the end of not understanding the right of free speech, at least.
I mentionned free speech (ie: "artists, do whatever you want according to your creative impulse, not caring for how it is received and potentially containing offensive elements like nudity (among others), if it fits your own creative vision" so that more products are created, resulting hopefully in everyone finding art they like, possibly in different products), not right of free speech (which would imply a state is regulating what they can or can't publish, which I never claimed). The latter isn't really the topic of this discussion.
Last edited:
If artists ought not to care how their creations are received, they also ought not complain about how their creations are received.
(FWIW, that’s my personal approach. Someone liking or disliking my stuff is on them, not me, and their opinions generally don’t affect my future output.)
(FWIW, that’s my personal approach. Someone liking or disliking my stuff is on them, not me, and their opinions generally don’t affect my future output.)
If you’re offended by art, it probably IS attacking you.
The real questions are, is that attack justified? Is it intentional?
Voadam
Legend
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.
MGibster
Legend
I think any person brave enough to put their work out there for the world to see has got to have a thick skin when it comes to criticisms both legitimate and unfounded. (This is not to imply that any artists should be subject to abuse. There's a difference between being critical and being abusive.) But I don't know of many artists who literally don't care how their creations are received. I think I heard Iggy Pop once say about criticisms of sellouts, "I don't know anybody who gets up on stage in the hopes that nobody listens to them."
Eh, the Avalanche Press cover art certainly offended me, but I'm not sure I was the one who was attacked. Though if we want to get all deep into it, I suppose they attacked my sensibilities.
And now we get to the "What is art, and what is it for?" portion of our discussion.
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?
Yeah, I mean, I don't care about what people think of my singing, when I do it in my kitchen while cooking supper - other than my wife, that is, as she has to put up with hearing it, but she's a forgiving audience.
Er? How does that follow at all? People take offense at all kinds of things, whether or not that thing was intended to target them.
"The real questions are, is that attack justified? Is it intentional?"
No, not at all. And on the latter point, what even is an "unintentional attack"?
Sometimes I really do think people are inhabiting two different thought-worlds now.
There's systemic bias, for example, that shows up in loads of media, but often isn't an intentional slight.
Similar Threads
