I put this pic in the gallery. it was not meant to offend ..should i take it off? http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=453464&Start=1&Artist=Georgous&ByArtist=Yes

I've got no problems with it... But I think the swastika on the sleeve is image mirrored :)

Well, I had a look and it doesn't offend me. But then again, I'm not German. I have a sort of feeling that Germans, Poles, Austrians, French or anyone else who lived through the Nazi period, or has personal reasons to want to forget it, may find it offensive. I don't have much time for over-zealous political correctness. I think it goes beyond a joke at times. But personally, I'd be dubious about putting that sort of image in the gallery. I think it conjures up too many hurtful images for some people. And that's not something I would knowingly do, PC or not. Just my 2 cents. mac

image mirrored? I dont understand what you mean by that..itsjust a texture...

He means the swastika is reversed. The 'arms' of a German swastika point to the right, not the left. mac

PS Is that my eyepatch prop? mac

no its from the pirate pak by Daz

Ah, I have a similar one in 3d commune Freestuff. mac

3d commune? whats that

Okay, this isn't meant to be trolling, but if you don't mind a little gut-honest criticsm, read on. If not, ignore the post, okay? As an image, it's kind of a yawner. Standard pretty girl, standing stock still, no environment for context, just a swastika for a little controversy and eye patch for decoration and, natch, a lot of cleavage. If she were doing something or if we had something else in the image to relate to, it might be a little more intruiging. But as it stands, well, "So what?" is the first thought that comes to mind. Just my two cents, friend. Take it for what it's worth, if anything.

Attached Link: http://www.3dcommune.com/

right on Joey yer right....im not really happy with it anyway,I was making a military pak and wanted to see what kind of critisism i could get to see if there would be any interest in that sorta thing. Btw i see you have no gallery here you gonna put something up?

well as a historical piece ... uh ... not accurate I think... I don't believe that there were females in the Nazi army, but I might be entirely wrong. At any rate they'd probably wear a bit more. As a fetish piece? adequate character study, but perhaps this isn't the best place to post it. This subject matter weill upset people.. doubly so if placed in a sexual context (as implied by the cleavage and the garters)

Thanks Mac ill take a look

Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS. nice likeness. really cheezy b-movie, but the dialogue is hilarious.

Yes, the swastika on her armband is reversed, the ones on her epaulettes are correct. The lightning flashes on her lapels don't look quite right for some reason. AFAIK the German army did not have females although there were female warders in the camps. The image as it stands - yes it could be offensive to about half the world I think. I would suggest posting it at Renderotica.com instead, as you've got a strong sexual/fetish theme coming through there.

Well, no officer in the Wehrmacht wore this kind of costume for sure. Women were active in the Wehrmacht, but only in non-combat positions. No officer of the Wehrmacht wore this amount of Swastikas. The arm-patch was reserved for SS-Uniforms only and for Party-Meetings of the NSDAP. No unit had Swastikas on their shoulder-flaps and only a pin was worn on the revers - by very fanatical NSDAP-Members. Soldiers uniforms had no Swastikas on their buttons. The hat is halfway correct for an Waffen-SS-Officer. From a historical point of view, the picture has not much to offer. Maybe for a fetishist, but most fetishists prefer correct uniforms. Why should I be offended? I am German, I am in the army - but I don't see why this picture should offend me.

This is more a fantasy pic than anything else. I've got a buddy who'd just love it. But then, he loves, uh, shall we say, forceful women. The uniform isn't correct, but then, I don't think it needs to be. This is just a pic of a big busomed lady in another kind of kinky outfit. I like her skin tones, and her body morphs and the fit of the costume is ver nice. I think She'd be more interesting with a bot of a sense of motion... maybe a whip at ready with a foot moved forward... something to give it more oomph. You could post it at the 'rotica, but it isn't really that out there. There are so many NVIAT here that this is actually pretty tame. And the Germans I know would just roll their eyes at it, as a fetish pic, not because of some historical slight. No big deal.

Ok well since none of the feedback has been good ive deleted the pic...Glad i asked..i like to feel the waters of this community. as I said it was not meant to offend anyone. Thanks.. From a historical point of view ill try to make it more correct.... Peace...

Btw i see you have no gallery here you gonna put something up? Nah. My stuff isn't worth taking up the bandwidth.

Yes, but JoeyAristophanes who write very unique refreshing posts. I've only read the two in this thread. Well done.

Im German,the first one of my family to be raised in The U.S. My grandfather was in the German cavaley on the Russian front in WW II. I dont have any problem with swatikas, what really gets to me are the neo nazi skin heads, they have no idea what it was really all about. All white people are not arayan.

I'm Jewish, I probably wouldn't have been offended at all, but I never got to see it. Guess a girl can't help her cleavage can she? Love Esther

you took it off, didn't you... -Hanz

I did ..I appreciate all of your comments.I can see that noone was really offended...but still when i make the corrections that ive seen here i might post it again..As i said it was more of a character study.

I have not seen the picture, so my comments are based on the descriptions in this tread. I am a German with some Jewish ancestors who died in a KZ and have strong feelings about this subjects. From the description, I think I would not be offended by the picture, but just find the content a little bit meaningless. But just for the record: It would be illegal to publish such a picture in Germany. In Germany it is only legal to use nazi symbols in a educational, historical context. I myself are not sure how much sense this law makes, but I think this my be of interest. Stefan

shame you removed the pic Georgous, also the swastika was originally a hindu symbol of light which the Nazis reversed to use for their own purposes.

So much for freedom of speech and artistic freedom. Will we (I saw "we" though I really have no interest in doing so myself) EVER be able to show a swastika again? That was nearly 60 years ago. Should we wait 100 years before we can use it again? Probably more since a white person born today will have to bear the shame of something done by white people over 100 years ago. So, 200 years? One thing I DO know...never ask if something offends someone. You can bet your life it will ALWAYS offend someone!

C1rcle is right. Its called the Sathiyu (sp?) and is still used widely in the Hindu community even now I believe it is a Sun symbol and pre-dates Christianity in its use. Although I'm often asked why I'm wearing a Swastika for that is what the symbol represents to most people. I did see the image but didn't have time to post a reply then, sorry. I wasn't offended. Just thought I'd mention it.

I'm going to say something here that may get me flamed, but so be it... In response to ChuckEvans comment "Probably more since a white person born today will have to bear the shame of something done by white people over 100 years ago. So, 200 years?" Yah, people have Looooong memories... I know some white people who still view blacks as if they should be slaves (I'm in the US of course), and I also know some black people who think they are owed something and deserve certain things just because over two hundred years ago, something really terrible and inhumane to their great-great-grandfather. And my father is 1/8 Cherokee, shouldn't he be getting some of that money and land and tax-freeness? Hmm, he doesn't seem to think so... he thinks he's "just American" and makes his own way in life, doesn't look for handouts, just because of the accident of ancestry... (Lhiannan is getting off subject and a little angry, so she will be leaving now)

I was in South Dakota recently and passed by something called the Corn Palace, in Mitchell SD. It's a building used for an annual agriculture exhibition, and sometime around 1900 they decided to annually decorate the outside using nothing but corn of varying colors. It's a pretty cool place, but in the exhibition hall, there's an image of the Corn Palace decoration in 1903, and prominently placed all over the building are these huge swastikas -- which were also Native symbols of fertility (I think -- maybe just good fortune). The curator had to post this huge notice that said, 'Look, this is a photo from 1903. This has nothing to do with Nazis. We're not Aryan supremists.' Real shame when things get taken that way.

Attached Link: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/4965/swastika.html

Excellent site, enjoyed reading that. I'm interested to see that my experiences of people misinterpreting what for me is a cultural/relegious symbol is talked about there. But I guess this is a little off key now.

I'm a Brit, I live in Germany, and one of the strange things you notice is that Germans think the Nazi's were somebody else, "they weren't us" sort of thing. It seems to be only the old people that have opinion on the matter at all. I always find it odd that there are so few examples of war movies from the "other side" and that Germans will happily buy things like "return to castle wolfenstien" etc. where the "enemy" are Nazis/Germans. But "don't mention the war.." and all that. later jb

Re the image - The image wasn't offensive at all in it's intent. In other words, it didn't set out to offend. It was just a large-breasted girl in a semi nazi-type uniform. More of a kinky look than a military one. In fact, without the swastika, I don't think there would have been grounds for complaint by anyone. But.... you can bet your horse and wagon that if Georgous had left it there, SOMEONE would have complained. Re Chuck's comment 'So much for freedom of speech and artistic freedom' - I understand what you're saying, but I don't think this is just about artistic freedom. It's more a question of manners and not willingly offending people. There are many symbols that we don't use, mainly out of good taste. Is an image of an upside-down crucifixion satanic or does it represent artistic freedom? I don't know. It may represent the artist's right to express him/herself, but it's also pretty crass. This is a whole other topic, (and no comment on Georgous's image), but there seems to be an idea floating around that artists should be exempt from the rules of society, good manners or taste. And, God forbid that we should express disgust at their work, because it's ART. Well, that may be OK up to a point. But just ask yourself this. If a paedophile claims that the pictures he/she looks at are art, where the hell does that leave us? Sorry about the rant. I just like to let off steam now and again. mac PS Chuck - No offence - I do actually agree with you... mostly.

mit123: The swastika symbol is a symbol of the "wheel of life".. of the constant cycles that never end. I believe it did, also serve a purpose as a sun symbol at some given time. It was used by the greeks, and the Hindus, as you mentioned. The fact is, it wasn't until the Nazi regime adopted it, tilted it slightly, and made it their emblem that it got it's bad reputation. Before that, it was actually something positive! Ironically, the cross, before Christians adopted it, almost represented the same thing. Well, that and an ancient equivalent to the electric chair. I mean, it was the device used to kill people.

"Re Chuck's comment 'So much for freedom of speech and artistic freedom' - I understand what you're saying, but I don't think this is just about artistic freedom. It's more a question of manners and not willingly offending people. There are many symbols that we don't use, mainly out of good taste. Is an image of an upside-down crucifixion satanic or does it represent artistic freedom? I don't know. It may represent the artist's right to express him/herself, but it's also pretty crass." Oh, I'm not upset but... IF this is just a case of bad taste (I mean displaying the swastika somehow...not necessarily the pic in question) and artists shouldn't do it because it has the potential of offending a lot of people... IF we can't show an upside crucifix because it might offend another group of people... IF we (I should say, artists) begin to question whether or not a controversial piece of art will offend someone, is in good taste, etc., then we will no longer have controversial pieces of art. If you think about it, artists have for too may years been the single group of people who have graphically shown human shortcomings, man's inhumanity to humanity, all the things we'd like to keep locked away in a closet and censored, etc. As always, I may not agree with or like everything I see, but I think they should have a right to let their expression flow. As to the pedophile? Child pornography, IMHO, and in the opinion of various studies, isn't just a matter of offending someone. It sometimes leads to far worse things than offense. But that whole discussion is worthy of its own thread. I was trying to keep my comments to the worries of an artist when deciding to show his/er work...that if one must always cater to the opinion that someone might get upset, we'd have nothing but pictures of flowers and puppy dogs (well, actually, that might upset cat lovers...hehe).

Appears someone 'got bent' since the pic is gone as of 5:30 eastern time.

Chuck, Yes, I do (kind of) agree. I'd hate to see nothing but sentimental doggy and kitty images too. What I'm saying is that picking an offensive subject or symbol for it's shock value does not, to me, constitute art. It's possible to create shocking art without offending people. Damien Hirst, being a good example of original, inventive art which makes you look at things in a new way, but doesn't rely on tackiness or bad taste for it's impact. I would never, ever agree with any kind of censorship for artists. But I've seen a lot of stuff that is in questionable taste, and the artists attitude is "How dare you criticize me. I'm an artist and I can do what I like" Ah well, it's a big and complex subject and everyone sees it their own way. I just don't think an artist should be excused his/her vulgarity under the guise of art. pax mac PS CharlieT - Georgous removed the pic himself. Not because of any complaints. See posts above.

Mac, First of all, it's nice to discuss something without it turning into some sort of flame war (smile). So... "It's possible to create shocking art without offending people." I don't think so. I think someone will ALWAYS be offended. Here is an artist who offended a lot of people with his shocking art but one who art critics have praised: (copied and pasted from http://www-tech.mit.edu/V110/N31/mapple.31a.html) "Controversy over publicly funded art will neither begin nor end with Mapplethorpe's homoerotic photographs. In mid-1989, there was an uproar over the work of another photographer, Andres Serrano, whose "Piss Christ" -- a murky, moody photograph of the crucified Christ submerged in the artist's urine -- had been partially funded by a $15,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. Suddenly the search for other publicly funded, "inappropriate" art was on, and Robert Mapplethorpe's work became the next target. Mapplethorpe's earliest efforts were his most controversial. He first achieved notoriety for his work celebrating and documenting New York's gay community in the late 1970s. Often the photographs explicitly depicted sexual organs and bondage equipment. Yet Mapplethorpe's art always revealed the humanity and emotions of his subjects behind their leather, spikes, and chains. These graphic depictions of a subsection of the homosexual community later aroused the ire of the Rev. Donald Wildmon's conservative American Family Association, and subsequently that of Helms." Even Damien Hirst had his critics and people who were (I'm reading between the lines...grin) offended. That was 1955, though and now his work isn't so shocking as it was nearly 50 years ago. (copied and pasted from http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/H/hirst/attack.html) "In 1995 Hirst won the Turner Prize and it was at this time that establishment hostility reached its peak. The Daily Telegraph denounced his work as 'an odious and disgusting scandal'. Perhaps this establishment hostility is based upon its own failure to raise consciousness, and to address the social issues and taboo subjects that are the concerns of the [Young British Artists]." So, to my original statement...what is barely shocking to some is overwhelmingly shocking to others (and therefore, unacceptable). I've read about elephant shit in the middle of floors, Christ's figure fashioned out of human shit...etc. I fail to see any "meaning" behind that kind of art and I don't really appreciate it but I'd never go to a rally (or whatnot) to try to censor someone who did it. So, back to a pinup-type piece of work with a swastika in various locations. What was the artist trying to do? Shock Jewish people? Evoke shame in Germans? I don't know. Didn't get to see it. It's possible (again, grabbing at air since the item in question didn't get discussed a lot) that the artist wanted to make a sexy female type pinup and to also show that she was angry or hostile or harbored some sort of beliefs, used the most recent and popular idea of what a swastika stands for. Assuming that sort of idea behind the picture, is it art? I know you have been around long enough to know that THAT question is usually worth a big-ass thread itself....grin.

Chuck, Yes, it is nice to discuss something without arguing about it. As I said, this is a complex topic and probably never-ending as far as POVs go. I know all about Mapplethorpe (I'm a fashion photographer), and although I don't find his work particularly attractive, I certainly wouldn't deny him his right to do it. But in the end, he's still using our prejudices and sensibilities to add 'impact' to his images. Actually, technically speaking, he's an excellent photographer, and being gay, he obviously has a point to make. I have no problem with that. But personally, I find more 'art' in landscapes by Ansel Adams or portraits by Richard Avedon. The difference being that these photographers take everyday things like mountains or people and turn them into something beautiful. They have no need to use 'shock value' to provoke a reaction. Hmmm.... I said 'I find more art in....' That's not strictly true. Mapplethorpe could be considered every bit as artistic as Avedon. Which one you prefer is down to personal taste. Re the image by Georgous, I doubt if he was trying to shock. I think he just liked the look of a female in uniform. Nothing wrong with that. It's a common enough slant on pinups and women in general. Is it art? Well, I won't answer that one. I'm smart enough to know that there is no answer. My own personal view of art is that it should be original, well-executed and deeply felt. Not that any of that guarantees art, but they're all necessary ingredients for starting out. Mind you, being in the business of creating imagery myself, I'm slightly cynical about the whole 'art' thing. Especially nowadays when the value of many pieces of art is decided by the market and the art dealers. I've been told I'm 'so artistic', when most of the time, I'm just churning out stuff for clients. LOL. mac