The Proper Use of Nudity in FRPG Art

[Dannyalcatraz]

An example of art that actually is an attack on someone!

Yes…on one level.

But he was also using the piece to reveal- in an inflammatory manner that hid his other message- something artists have known for centuries. Namely, that uric acid was used to artificially patinate certain statuary, including religious ones.

Say your church’s statue of a saint was stolen or destroyed. You commission a replacement. In order to have it look more like the piece it will be replacing, you ask for it to be aged to resemble the other statues in the church.

By the time the church has its replacement installed, it has been subject to immersion in urine for quite some time.

…but it’s not like that fact was communicated to the patrons or public.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Made out of what? I have to draw the line at synthetic polymers.

Goat hair of course.

 

[S'mon]

Leaving aside Marxist dialectical framing, I do think people immersed in a particular culture may be unaware of 'attacks', because they are so ubiquitous ('systemic'). One that occurs to me is the very common anti-Catholicism in mainstream British Establishment culture; nowadays most frequently expressed through an Atheist lens, but really still owing a lot to traditional Protestant Reformation anti-Catholicism. I think because I was raised an atheist in an Ulster Protestant milieu, it's easier for me to see this than it is for many English people raised in a largely post-Christian milieu. I think this kind of subconscious ('systemic') stuff can also feature in racial depictions, and to a lesser extent in 'objectifying' depictions of women, the latter two much moreso in a US context than in other Anglo countries, just as Establishment anti-Catholicism is much more 'systemic' in a British context than in the modern USA (pre-WW2 USA was quite different). Visiting the US from the UK, and marrying an American, I know I was nearly as shocked by US Patriarchalism (sp?) as by the racial polarisation. I don't think Hollywood or the news media really inform at all about the cross-national cultural differences. And the Americans I know who've settled in the UK keep expecting to see US-style sexism and racism in everyday interactions ("That Yorkshireman called me Love!") while being oblivious to UK classism & sectarianism.

Edit: So I guess what I'm saying is, while it is hard for me to emotionally understand people who see eg a sleazy Avalanche Press cover, or old Mongoose Publishing stuff, as a sexist 'attack' on anyone, I do intellectually somewhat understand where this view is coming from.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Strawman - I didn't say it was the only drive. So, what follows after this is not terribly relevant.

Well, you wrote that "This is simplified in this case, as we are talking about art for commercial reproduction and distribution." and I countered your argument about "simplification" about art is by narrowing it to commercial art destined to the general audience, by pointing out that (a) some art was produced without commercial intent even in the context of TTRPG (b) being commercial doesn't mean it necessarily target the masses, two arguments that were extremely relevant to the simplification I thought you proposed. If you didn't intend to narrow the discussion to commercial art, then I didn't understand your point, and effectively what followed was irrelevant. Please do not assume I am arguing in bad faith when I fail to understand what was your point, the hostility doesn't make me want to discuss with you anymore.

 

[pemerton]

Leaving aside Marxist dialectical framing

Why would we do that?!

 

[Umbran]

There’s no objective definition of art. It’s all subjective.

Don't really need an objective one for this discussion - just a functional one, meaning, a definition of the function of art, as used in RPG products. Heck, we don't even need an explicit definition, but we ought to agree that there's some specific functions in mind. And, for RPG products, they mostly depend on the opinion of the person buying the product.

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.

Yes, but as you've effectively noted, if nobody else says it is, the artist has done something for themselves, and that's all. Art without communications is a solo practice, with an audience of the artist, and no others.

I was just addressing the creative freedom assertion above.

Yes, and I was trying to put that into a useful context for discussion on an RPG board, in which creative freedom is not the sole, or necessarily even the largest, consideration. This lofty "I am an ARTISTE!" stuff is largely immaterial when talking about selling RPGs, because there's that annoying bit about selling - which means making something that people want to buy.

 

[Umbran]

One that occurs to me is the very common anti-Catholicism in mainstream British Establishment culture;

Mod Note:
How about we not get into religion and politics, please and thank you.

 

[Weiley31]

In the end, I'm so we all can agree that ultimately no matter how you feel about this subject matter there is one certain fact that is unshakeable or true, especially here on Enworld. If your Pro then you are automatically seen as wrong for it and no thing will ever change that fact short of Orcs/Drows, Halflings with 20 STR, Paizo's announced/unexplained removal of redacted: your cat has been confiscated for heresy and other lockable topics.

 

[Weiley31]

tay away from silly "punk" or "goth" appearance to their look (that's so 90s and ugly.

Whoa , whoa, whoa there mate, I think that's the one part of that statement we can agree to disagree on. There is totally nothing wrong with those looks as well.

 

[Voadam]

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.

I feel it would be a mistake to conflate an attack upon someone I care about or my values as an attack upon myself.

I also feel it would be a mistake to conflate offense with an attack.

I would consider it an unnecessary escalation to treat something that offends my values as an attack upon me.

Ridicule and mocking and such can be an attack, but I think conflating offending and attacking is a mistake in such a discussion.