Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=759832&Start=217&Sectionid=0&filter_genre_id=0&Whats

I protest!

Message edited on: 09/09/2004 23:03

It said the pictures were used with permission, and the pictures of the dead soldiers have probably been seen elsewhere before this picture was made.

Pictures of dead people are an effective propaganda weapon, they are used by every political formation. The american government does it, if it fits their agenda (just think of the display of the dead Hussein brothers).
If you think this gross, then protest against the killing and non only against the display of the dead.

As a relative of a serviceman who is currently in Iraq, I find nothing wrong with this picture. I think that anything showing people that the deaths in Iraq are real is a good thing.

I agree with rowan crisp. My son served over a year in Iraq and is getting ready to go back for a second tour. These are real people with real families and we must not forget that.

Now that I'm somewhat less sleepy...

Some of the most necessary art is that which abuses the sensibilities, insults the viewer or listener, inspires disgust, rage, humor, debate, and thought.

When I get pissed off about a piece of art, I ask why. I contemplate the reason behind my reaction. If someone designed the image to propagate a falsehood (like some monuments do), then I tend to decide the art isn't really worth my time.

Question: Is the art in question - "1000 Deaths" - offensive?

Answer: How is it any more offensive than waving the pictures of the dead Uday and Qusay Hussein? I actually find it less offensive, since the point is not to celebrate another human being's death, but to make we-the-viewer realize that the people dying are real, and not some score on an international Playstation.

Violet, hate to say this, but if it were one of my children in that picture, I'd find out what his/her motivation was beforehand in making the picture - and then protest, if the sole purpose was to dance on my child's grave.

This image was not made for celebration.

This image is mourning, just as we all should, for all the human death that this war has caused.

A simple suggestion-> don't look....although many may not agree with the statement it still has a right to be said...whether we like it or not this site is a community and in a community there are different opinions and since the beginning of time art has been used to make political statements and art offends its just a fact in life if you don't like what you are looking at you are always free to turn away or maybe be creative yourself and address your own political views in an artistic manner...also a combo of photos is generally called a collage and if arranged in an original and creative way with the intent to make a statement by the poster or with permission of the original artist it is not copyright infringement and to suggest so is just wrong in all senses of the word...copyright infringement is a serious thing among artist and it's just not professional or nice to bandy the word around without anything to back it up...I'm just saying it the way I see it...if anyone is offended I apologize for your hurt feelings but not for my words because that is how people like me feel...Jenn

Message edited on: 09/10/2004 10:06

Jenai21 - sound advice. Maybe I'll just take my art elsewhere, as this is NOT a graphics site after all. My mistake.

Well said Jenai21 :) Art is speech. Do you have anything to say VividViolet, or do you just want to live in a flaming fairy filled fantasy forest. When others use speech you can not expect anyone else to say only what YOU want said. Why-- thats outright un-American!!!!

No. This is a graphics site. It's also a place for expression. I occasionally find myself offended by some of the sentiments expressed in artwork here. However, if it's so bad that it causes me active distress, I stop viewing it. I decided a while back that my right to not be offended does not outweigh others' right to self-expression. If you are so offended by the expression of one's beliefs that you want to take your toys and leave the sandbox, well... Good luck - and may you have all the freedom to express yourself elsewhere that you would deny people here.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?ByArtist=Yes&Artist=VividViolet

Art is meant to convey an emotion. I'd say it worked. If you choose to invalidate the entire site based on a very small portion of the galleries that's your loss. It's really easy to avoid the political genre.

I don't look at propaganda posts myself, but it sounds like a case for enabling a "political" button in the user's prefs, so people can avoid those automatically. Of course, it would become an enforcement nightmare, since rabble-rousers would probably fail to check the new "political" category, unless pummelled repeatedly.

I'm with you...I honestly don't look at propoganda post regardless of which side of the argument they are on...I come to have fun and be entertained as well entertain others if I wanted to be depressed I'd watch the news and lament the onesided views but I think a political button is a little overkill...most people label the genres of their images and so if a person didn't want to see images in that genre they could simply avoid it...World Events/Politics is always going to be controversial so if you can't take the heat don't click on the Poser & World Events/Politics or 2D & World Events/Politics, etc. images.

Ditto Jenai21...sames as nudity...just DON'T look!!!! I don't go there either for the same reasons as Jenai21

Sometimes a person gets "baited" into it, and that isn't fair. Looks like we lost another talented artist because of the assinine actions of a few. Her gallery was there yesterday, and now it's gone. That's about the sixth person I see leave Renderosity for reasons of intolerance on so-called "free speech." Yet, when someone says something against outrageous posts, they are the ones that get sniped. It is NOT unAmerican to be kind, and thoughtful towards others. I am so tired of people jumping on someone because they question the value. Isn't that under "free speech" too?

Her opinion of the image is SerenityBlue- Her opinion of the genera isn't. The value of intolerance and censorship deserves to be jumped on. Like everything else in life- you'd better develope a thick skin- sometimes your going to see a boob, butt- or a political idea you disagree with, so F--king what!!!!! If you play in a public sandbox- expect to occasionally find a cat turd. If it so upsetting to you, go start your own sandbox. Free speech resides right next to the right of free movement- so move. One without the other makes you not free and captive, you are neither.

Sometimes a person gets "baited" into it, and that isn't fair. Looks like we lost another talented artist because of the assinine actions of a few.

Can you point out where the baiting was? The picture was provocative, not bait.

Her gallery was there yesterday, and now it's gone. That's about the sixth person I see leave Renderosity for reasons of intolerance on so-called "free speech."

I remember something about her objection to another's free speech on the basis of it's offensiveness.

Yet, when someone says something against outrageous posts, they are the ones that get sniped. It is NOT unAmerican to be kind, and thoughtful towards others. I am so tired of people jumping on someone because they question the value. Isn't that under "free speech" too?

This is the part that always makes me lose friends. ^_^

Here is the nature of the First Amendment: People have the right (and sometimes the duty) to go against norms and accepted behavior so long as they do not harm anyone physically or make the threat to do so.

Nowhere does the Constitution state that I have the right to not be offended. Nowhere does it say that the world has to remain fluffy bunnies and pink candy floss.

It is American to piss off your neighbors with your beliefs. It's American to have a hissy fit and stomp off because people won't kowtow to your personal aesthetic, unfortunately.

It's not American, in my ever so humble opinion, to demand that others' free expression be curtailed because you are not adult enough to exercise the freedom to look away.

No one "sniped" at her for objecting, but pointed out she had the right to look away. I recall the only snide post being after she stomped her wee feet, took her toys and went home because we're all stinkmeanies.

R'osity has it's own guidelines. Since the picture is still up after this little fest o' fun, I'm assuming it didn't violate them.

There are plenty of places on the 'net for artists. I'm certain she'll find one that will not challenge her sense of propriety. That will allow her to remain in her happy place, and those of us to remain in our relatively un-curtailed space of creative expression.

Is this unfortunate? Yes. Is the departure of the OP something I'm going to lose sleep over? No. Not really. I want to share spaces on the net with people who are not afraid to express themselves for fear of offending others.

Not to rank the picture in question among the greats, but artists have been offending people since the beginning of tribalism, and using their mediums to provoke thought, dissent, and discussion. Purposeful art is necessary, even if you disagree with it's purpose. It ain't just about making pretties.

Finally, for your enjoyment, some Thomas Paine:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."

RC

errr "baited"....HUH???? The ONLY baiting I've ever seen is someone posting a thumb with huge hooters & then the pic being NOT a nude just to get more views. I don't look at nudes, not that I'm a prude or anything of the sort..I personally just find it all boring...you've seen 1 set of knockers you've seen them all and considering I'm a woman..I have ZERO interest in looking at tits. :P Baiting...puleeeeezzzeeeeeeeeee.

Well I guess if Picasso had posted `Guernica' here, someone would have moaned about propaganda spoiling their day. If we're having buttons, could we have ones for "Soppy Sentimentality" to blank the "faeries", and "No Balloon Animals" to blank those unfeasibly large, spherical plastic breasts? Best of all, let's have a "My Stuff Only" button, which would suit everyone. Mick :)

"Best of all, let's have a "My Stuff Only" button, which would suit everyone." Hee!

LOL at my stuff only!!!!! ~Must go clean monitor~

Pssst...this is a reminder to refrain from any personal attacks. Simply put...play nice in here and keep it civil.

The image in question was deemed to be within the TOS guidelines.

However, we understand and support differing views and opinions about what each individual may personally be comfortable with. One should not get slammed for liking or not liking a particular sentiment or artist expression.

It is not good, or bad...it is just a matter of art. And "art" will always remain up to the interpretation of the beholder.

Thanks,
LillianH
Renderosity Admin.

Message edited on: 09/10/2004 19:54

I see several people totally missed the message of my post. I was speaking in general terms of things I have seen on Renderosity, and you people clobbered me about this one thing? Give me a break, and open your eyes. I didn't say this person "baited" anyone. I just was stating I have seen that done. I am lamenting the actions of a few seem to have managed to chase off some artists. By the way, I have some death shots myself up on a Web site from WWII. I'm not against that at all, just the way in which it is handled. If it is not handled with sensitivity to the DEAD and their families, you have lost humanity along the way. Call it freedom of speech, but that is NOT what freedom of speech is about. Having a little consideration for the families is commendable. One can speak freely without being such an offensive way as to appear being an idiot. It appears to me the person in question on this particular incident is putting in his anti-Americanism in the soup. There is NO respect for the dead here. Just post it and wag the tongue against Americans. Perhaps he is trying to control the U. S. elections. Okay, freedom of speech, but terribly offensive to some people. It is the manner in which is done, not the pictures themselves. The faces should have been covered, at least.

I'm probably gonna get some hate mail on this, but, IMHO, the real question here is:

Is it art or is it just a political statement. The two are not always mutually inclusive. Once could certainly say it's creative to some degree, but is creativity all that qualifies something as art?

A 2 year old dips it's fingers in paint and swirls them around on a page...the child is being creative, but is the result art?

An elephant at a well known zoo holds a brush in it's trunk and splashes paint across a canvas. The paintings sell for thousands of dollars. Is it creative or just a learned response to a command from it's trainer and is the result art?

So, my real point in all this is, if this image is really only a political statement (which in my humble opinion is all it is), does it really belong in the galleries, which are there presumably to display art. If in fact it is not art and is only a political statement...it is irrelevant whether or not it is offensive, and what is relevant is whether it ought to be in the galleries at all. Perhaps the appropriate place for an image that is simply a political statement is as an image attached to a post in The DEN.

I agree with Grey_Tower completely. It is not art, it is nothing more than a very offensive way to get attention for his political statement. Freedom of speech goes way overboard this time.

"A 2 year old dips it's fingers in paint and swirls them around on a page...the child is being creative, but is the result art?"

If the childs intent is to be creative, then yes.

"So, my real point in all this is, if this image is really only a political statement (which in my humble opinion is all it is), does it really belong in the galleries, which are there presumably to display art. If in fact it is not art and is only a political statement...it is irrelevant whether or not it is offensive, and what is relevant is whether it ought to be in the galleries at all."

I think the point is that there are several little galleries and not just one big one. That fact seems to go over heads in discussions like this. Only if you view all galleries will you see every image. You can choose to avoid the pin-up gallery or the political gallery or the fantasy gallery.

If they start to outlaw anything that makes a political statement then they might as well do the same for any art that makes a religious statement. Making a statement is part of art.

I support the "artists" right to post the image.

I also claim my own right to label the image as a piece of ghoulish leftist propaganda.

Funny how the left-wing propagandists never show us pictures of the insides of Saddam's prisons back in the good old days -- before the monstrous Americans, Brits, Aussies, and numbers of other allies put an end to Saddam's red-flesh concert of human misery, rape as an official policy, and desert sands fertilized with an ocean of the blood of his own people.

He wouldn't have stopped outside of the operation of force.

Yes, I support the right of "free speech".

I also assert the right to speak back.

If people would stop kneejerking, and read the thread in it's entirety, they would notice that the right to speak back wasn't challenged. It was the OP's seeming demand to have it removed that was challenged, as well as her(?) claim that there were copyright violations.

What renders this "un-art"? Your reaction to it? It's (apparent or interpreted) sentiments?

I hold to Scott McCloud's definition of art - anything pursued that is not directly intrinsic to survival or reproduction.

Look, I could say that taking snapshots of flowers isn't "art". Plenty of people have told me that I do not do anything resembling art because I use Poser (as well as other programs). It does not make it true. If you do it as self-expression, then it is art, and worthy of defense as self-expression, as is ANYTHING done on here. If you thought it should be done with more class, well, I do too - but it is still a matter of personal expression, and abides by the R'osity TOS.

I reserve the right to post things that might offend someone, as do you. Welcome to the US.

(And by the way - did you expect everyone in the Politics gallery to AGREE with you?)

and read the thread in it's entirety, they would notice that the right to speak back wasn't challenged.

Where was it stated that such a right had been challanged?

But someone did assert that they would issue their own challange -- addressed directly to the subject matter of the image in question. Not over the right to post the image in the first place.

I reserve the right to post things that might offend someone, as do you.

Within the limits of the TOS.

(And by the way - did you expect everyone in the Politics gallery to AGREE with you?)

Uh......of course.

(mild sarcasm intended)

I really should know better than to leave my specific comments unspecified. That was addressed to Grey Tower and SerenityBlue.

"a piece of ghoulish leftist propaganda." Propaganda of what???, those dead peoples are not Iraqis, Afghans, Palestines, Arabs, Muslins, etc. The dead people are AMERICANS!!!!, so propaganda of WHAT??????????

Just to clarify, I did not say the image was offensive, I questioned whether the image was art or a political statement.

What renders this "un-art"? Your reaction to it? It's (apparent or interpreted) sentiments?

I had no reaction to it, other than somebody lined up someone else's photos in 2 rows on a white background, overlaid a quote by Rumsfeld and threw on some text. It's sentiments did not have to be interpreted, they were stated on the image in black text over a white background.

I personally have no problem with it's sentiments, I have a problem with the fact that IMHO it's a political statement and not art. It's not even as creative as some of the propaganda posters from WW1.

If the childs intent is to be creative, then yes.

There is art...and there is ART. While a 2 year olds finger painting may be art as creativity, it has as much to do with ART as a McDonalds hamburger has to do with haute cuisine. According to Richard Wollheim "children do not make art. They make pictures, drawings, paintings, collages"

I hold to Scott McCloud's definition of art - anything pursued that is not directly intrinsic to survival or reproduction.

I am not so broad-minded. By MCloud's definition, the painting made by the elephant qualifies as art...I am not willing to include that in the same category as works by Michaelangelo or ToxicAngel or even Chuck Jones.

You can choose to avoid the pin-up gallery or the political gallery or the fantasy gallery.

There is no way to eliminate a gallery when viewing "What's New". To avoid any gallery you would have to view 1 gallery/genre at a time...a tedious and daunting task. That makes it extremely difficult to choose to avoid a gallery.

If you do it as self-expression, then it is art...

Expressing one's self does not equate to art. While all art might be self-expression, not all self-expression qualifies as art. Andres Serrano's crucifix in a bottle of his own urine certainly is clearly self-expression of his feelings about religion...that hardly makes it art, and those that think it does are operating under a delusion.

A large part of the problem with ART, is that we have grown complacent in what is accepted as art. Like those that wish to tout "political correctness", there are those that define ART so loosely as to include everything that anyone creates to avoid hurting anyone's "feelings".

A picture is still a picture, and not every picture is ART, and we need to stop being afraid to separate the two.

1. It may abuse sensibilites but this is not copyright infringements by Jenai21 on 9/10/04 10:03 A simple suggestion-> don't look....although many may not agree with the statement it still has a right to be said...whether we like it or not this site is a community and in a community there are different opinions and since the beginning of time art has been used to make political statements and art offends its just a fact in life if you don't like what you are looking at you are always free to turn away or maybe be creative yourself and address your own political views in an artistic manner...also a combo of photos is generally called a collage and if arranged in an original and creative way with the intent to make a statement by the poster or with permission of the original artist it is not copyright infringement and to suggest so is just wrong in all senses of the word...copyright infringement is a serious thing among artist and it's just not professional or nice to bandy the word around without anything to back it up...I'm just saying it the way I see it...if anyone is offended I apologize for your hurt feelings but not for my words because that is how people like me feel...Jenn Message edited on: 09/10/2004 10:06 If this is the case here, then please tell me why some are banned and "warned" for what they say here. After all if someone else does not like it, they can choose not to read it. Right? Its hypocritical to say we will warn and ban people for things they post here, yet turn around and then say, "oh its free speech and if you dont like it dont look at it."

"If this is the case here, then please tell me why some are banned and "warned" for what they say here.

After all if someone else does not like it, they can choose not to read it. Right?"

This is not a site run by Jenai21...it's a site run by Renderosity and because of that my John Mills' approach to freedom of speech doesn't apply. But as long as an image and/or comments abides by Rendo rules then it shouldn't be banned or warned and as LillianH has already said Rendo has been no problem with the image in question and so those here who don't want to see it have the right not to look at it. A lot of people don't like nudes...so they have the option of not looking at them or commenting on them...and if you do comment with your opinion as long as it's expressed in an intelligent non-troll like manner I can't see Rendo warning or banning the person.

I think rendo values different opinions as long as they don't become personal attacks, which often the people who are banned or warned launch into. (I'm not speaking for Rendo but from what I've observed) There have been many forum messages that have started as actual intellectual debate on controversial topics and has been turn into, "you suck, your mama sucks, I hate you" which is childish and sad because the thread gets locked before someone can steer the thread back to it's original topic. I personally prefer to ignore stuff like that and continue the original discussion because "it's free speech and if I don't like it then I don't look at it." But that's not how Rendo handles it. As long as people choose to act like 3 year olds I think Rendo will treat them that way and give everyone involved a "timeout".

Jenn

Message edited on: 09/11/2004 11:58

I don't mind political art, I might not agree with it, but that is something else. I just think putting photos of dead persons from whatever political spectrum, race or sex is disrespectful towards the dead (you didn't get their permission, did you?). Picasso's Guernica was a painting, not a photograph of a real person. There is a law I think that you need the permission of the people IN the photograph in order to publish it (especially when children involved). Why does this not apply to dead people as well?

Ok..I'll play devils advocate here. evil grin Just how would one get permission from a dead person, Elsina? smile

Exactly my point Helen. So how can one announce "Used with permission"?

It's usually not necessary to get a signed release from a person to use photos for news or informational purposes. Presumedly what "used by permission" means that it was obtained from the photographer or from the newspaper/magazine who contracted the photos to be taken.

All for a political statement. It is totally offensive. What if this was one of your sons up there?

All the more reason to put it up. If my son were killed in a war, you can BET I would want to make a political statement about it.

This is war. War is not pretty. War kills people, including people we love. If it were my son or daughter, I would WANT people to see the photos ... as they are worth MORE than a thousand words to portray just how violent and senseless and ugly war is.

Message edited on: 09/11/2004 22:16

Then why were (and not to yank em into this conversation) wizardtim's images pulled?

The problem I have is that I think it is
hardly fair or an equal application of the TOS to yank down images of his that some felt "questionable" and complained about, and then turn around and allow these images even after some have complained about them also. Especially given that the content of the images were nearly identical just from differing political perspectives. Unless of course there is some political position that Renderosity itself is attempting too push. Wich the site should not be doing given the diverse political opinions amongst the community members here.

Message edited on: 09/11/2004 23:04

The problem I have is that I think it is hardly fair or an equal application of the TOS to yank down images of his that some felt "questionable" and then turn around and allow these. Especially given that the content of the images were nearly identical. True.

Moderators can't help but be influenced to some degree by their own inclinations. We're only human. But I believe that this site is usually fair. Sure -- they fall down sometimes. It's not a reason to kick them. At least not in my book.

There are so many bad-mouthed people placing horrid political statements for all to see, and with only the reason to be hate-mongers, anti-American, anti-Bush, and anti-everything! They do not stop to think that it was American soldiers that bought them that very freedom to say those things. So why do they so disrespect our war dead?

There are so many bad-mouthed people placing horrid political statements for all to see, and with only the reason to be hate-mongers, anti-American, anti-Bush, and anti-everything!

Hi VictorianVelvet :)

Well, some people have legitimate gripes but most are just lemmings following the path of some hate mongering anti-whatever. After all, do we really know who we are conversing with here on the internet? And what a clever way to promote the hatred, by blending in and persuading others to hate also. So dont let these bad-mouthed people with their horrid political statements become a thing of stress in your life, because it only seems to be just another form of terrorism, but without the crashing planes, bombs on trains or schools full of dead children.

Well anyway, back on the thread topic, I have no real opinion of the artist and whatever artistic expression they were trying to convey.

"Just how would one get permission from a dead person," It is easy, you need a round table, put a white blanket on it, if you wish you can put a crystal ball in the middle but is not necessary, you need a person with certain qualifications, is not difficult to find one, sit around the table, don't use strong lights, concentrate and wait.....

LOL kawecki

The real problem is that humans have nothing better to do than post images like this one. And other humans have nothing better to do than look at them. It's really a non-isuse. The image's subject matter doesn't warrant creation. And doesn't deserve the effort of debate. The fact that you humans keep focusing on the trivial outcomings of stupid scenarios that shouldn't exist in the first place. Then debate about it (As if it really matters)instead of taking action to prevent them from occurring in the first place. Shows how un-enlightened you are as a species. Yet another case of crap in the pool, then show it to everyone so you can debate about weather or not its chunky enough. Either learn to get along as a species. Or blow yourselves up already. -ScottA

And another humans have nothing better to do than to produce the required material for another humans to post the resultant images for another humans to look at the images. Don't forget the another humans that create the reasons for those humans......

"So dont let these bad-mouthed people with their horrid political statements become a thing of stress in your life, because it only seems to be just another form of terrorism, but without the crashing planes, bombs on trains or schools full of dead children." So that would be terrorism without the actual terror? Do you want to lock up people who make `horrid' political statements in Guantanamo? m.

Do you want to lock up people who make `horrid' political statements in Guantanamo?

lol Oh dear me, no. Just imagine the overcrowding. It would be prudent to keep a squinty eye on them though. ;)