Certain entries in the LPL Season 10

[Hawkeye]

Hello all,

I originally wrote this as a reply to the thread in the LPL with Michi's latest entry, "S Slaves," but decided that while I really believe that it needs to be discussed, it didn't seem fair to derail voting and so on by posting there. So instead, I'm posting this here.

I don't mean to stir up a hornet's nest, and I want to preface everything by saying that I've always been envious of Michi's ability to paint flesh-tones (something I've always been bad at), but two entries in a row depicting naked and chained women as slaves or powerless subordinates feels excessive to me, and in both cases the audience outside the fence in these scenes seems to heighten the sense of objectification. Perhaps I'm the only one who's being made uncomfortable by it, but I felt I needed to say something. I've always loved the LPL, and the forum in general, and I realize that some might find it hypocritical to single out a particular kind of entry, when a lot of the hobby depicts violence in different ways, and maybe some will even feel I'm trying to put Michi on the spot, which is not at all my intention, but...I really feel that in almost any other context, this sort of depiction of women simply wouldn't be accepted without some sort of discussion or questioning of it. I think I also need to point out that it's not the nudity - or, at least, it's not just the nudity. I have no real problems with miniatures of female warriors in chainmail bikinis, for example, other than the fact that such armour simply doesn't seem very realist. Here, the nudity is just one part of a larger depiction of the subordination, disempowerment, and objectification of women which, I feel, simply isn't acceptable.

[Sterling Moose]

I personally am pretty neutral about the content but the artistry was totally lost on me.  A group of poorly painted nudes in the same setting as the Round One entry.  I didn't dwell on the subjectivity of it, I just voted for the other guy and moved on.

[Malebolgia]

Poorly painted? Right...

Personally I don't care that much. You can often find stuff at museums which is even weirder and that's accepted. Don't see much difference with Michi's work. And I think the [NSFW] tag does the trick to warn everybody before clicking on the topic.

[Hawkeye]

No, that's not the point, Malebolgia. It's not a question of "weirdness" - in fact, I never mentioned the word in my post. I also don't have a problem with nudes in art. There's a long history of it which is not guilty of what I'm discussing. What I have a problem with is demeaning and objectifying women by depicting them naked, in chains, on auction as slaves. And before anybody says "Well, there are historical precedents," it's worth remembering that just because humans used to do something does not mean that we have to continue to do it. For example, certain cultures historically used to leave handicapped infants exposed on hilltops to die - it doesn't mean that we should still do it, or think that it's acceptable.

[Elbows]

I have to say I fall on the other side of the argument.  My personal opinions about naked female miniatures set aside, I feel 100% comfortable with people posting what it is they want to post.

If the site owners/moderators are uncomfortable with it, it would be removed.

It's ultimately your decision as to whether the content offends you or not.  Women and men both objectify the other and themselves (more often than not).  To not do/paint/depict what one wants because it may offend somebody is always the worst road to go down.  What we see on this site is fantasy/fiction/alternate worlds.  I fully support people embracing that in any way they choose.

The old adage of "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it" applies here.  Just my opinion.

[FionaWhite]

I have to say I fall on the other side of the argument.  My personal opinions about naked female miniatures set aside, I feel 100% comfortable with people posting what it is they want to post.

If the site owners/moderators are uncomfortable with it, it would be removed.

It's ultimately your decision as to whether the content offends you or not.  Women and men both objectify the other and themselves (more often than not).  To not do/paint/depict what one wants because it may offend somebody is always the worst road to go down.  What we see on this site is fantasy/fiction/alternate worlds.  I fully support people embracing that in any way they choose.

The old adage of "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it" applies here.  Just my opinion.

I was going to write up a lengthy post to this thread, but realized I'd likely end up breaking the gentlemanly/ladylike atmosphere of LAF so I'm going to settle to agreeing with Elbows here says, mostly. 

Just one thing, not meant as an attack or insult:

For example, certain cultures historically used to leave handicapped infants exposed on hilltops to die - it doesn't mean that we should still do it, or think that it's acceptable.

Be careful what you wish for - if every depiction and mention of what you mention here would be censored from our history books, do you believe we'd be better off? Such censorship, once started, could easily run rampant.
Parts of it are certainly rough, but I prefer the real history of the world over one where no-one ever did any evil nor did anyone suffer.

Far as I know we don't leave handicapped children to the mercy of the wilds anymore nor do we consider it nice and Michi's not (hopefully) engaging in human trafficking either, he's just put together a scene that could just as easily be part of a game wherein SWAT (or some other force) barges in on a shady underworld gathering to rescue the kidnapped victims, so the comparison you've put up isn't really very fair in my eyes.

I personally am pretty neutral about the content but the artistry was totally lost on me.  A group of poorly painted nudes in the same setting as the Round One entry.  I didn't dwell on the subjectivity of it, I just voted for the other guy and moved on.

I had to actually go re-check the entry and boy howdy, you've some high standards for paintjobs. 


.. crikey, I ended up making a lengthy post anyway. 

[Hawkeye]

Well, a couple of things.

Elbows  - being offended by something is not a decision. Also, as far as you being comfortable with people posting whatever people want to post is concerned, the simple fact of it is that this is simply not true of the forum. There are, for example, very strict rules about the posting of certain symbols on the site that seem to be at odds with the idea you're expressing. Furthermore, simply because an individual might be comfortable with somebody posting - for example - racist images does not mean that the forum, or indeed society at large, should be. And just to nip this in the bud, I'm not, of course, suggesting that Michi's pictures are racist. I'm just trying to point out what I feel is a problem with the argument that people should post whatever they want. And just to be clear, I'm not talking about censorship (see my point below). I'm talking about being considerate, and thinking about others.

FionaWhite - at no point did I talk about censoring anything. I did not, as you seem to suggest, say that references to disagreeable social practices should be censored. When I teach Huck Finn, I would never teach the "sanitized" version of the novel that removes the "N-word," for example. As you rightly point out, that sort of white-washing of history is problematic, so I'd be grateful if you didn't put words in my mouth. What I did say, however, was that there are certain things that humans have done historically which we would not accept today, and nor should we. An entirely different point to the one that you claim I made. To be more on-topic about the two LPL entries that I'm discussing, what I said is that they depict women as slaves and they sexualize and objectify women. I'm not blaming Michi for what I'm about to point out - let's just get that out of the way - but in general the sort of depictions of women that I'm referring to are connected to sexual violence against women. This victimization of women - even in "civilized" societies  - is abhorrent, and my argument is that therefore depictions of that victimization which have no other purpose than to perpetuate those images, are also abhorrent.

In short, what I'm saying is that perhaps people should think twice about posting these sorts of images. Does that seem unreasonable?

[FionaWhite]

Fair enough and I do apologize for my mistake, in addition to having some serious seconds thoughts about posting at around 4AM.

Personally the entry doesn't make me feel anything other than a seriously inadequate painter, but then I'm rather thick in the head so I can easily understand others not being fine with stuff I am not bothered over.

[Hawkeye]

Thanks, FionaWhite, it's good of you to apologize. I was choosing my words carefully, so it bothered me to be misunderstood/misquoted. I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

[zorg]

Half-nude women, presented as rewards or something to be fought over, have a pretty strong tradition in Fantasy and SciFi: Conan ankle-clingers, Martian princesses, Heavy Metal CD covers, etc. This is not an excuse or even an argument one way or the other, but an explanation, and something to keep in mind.

Personally, I'm not much interested in minis of nude women. I just don't see much gaming use in them, which is after all the reason I'm into minis in the first place. Considering the strong tradition of nude women in our hobby, these minis aren't exactly, how shall I put it, revolting or unsettling to me. I just don't see the point.

[baldlea]

To be more on-topic about the two LPL entries that I'm discussing, what I said is that they depict women as slaves and they sexualize and objectify women. I'm not blaming Michi for what I'm about to point out - let's just get that out of the way - but in general the sort of depictions of women that I'm referring to are connected to sexual violence against women. This victimization of women - even in "civilized" societies  - is abhorrent, and my argument is that therefore depictions of that victimization which have no other purpose than to perpetuate those images, are also abhorrent.

In short, what I'm saying is that perhaps people should think twice about posting these sorts of images. Does that seem unreasonable?

Yes, it is unreasonable. Painting figures and posting images of them is not the same as promoting or carrying out the atrocities they depict.

As you said yourself, we paint depictions of much worse actions in this hobby. I despise guns; it doesn't mean I shouldn't paint them or question other people who do.

You are accusing the poster of having painted those figures to deliberately and only to perpetuate deplorable images. That is unfair at a personal level. Finally, like it or not, it sounds like censorship.

[Elbows]

Hawkeye,

I am comfortable with people posting whatever they wish - it is up to the owners of the forum to decide what they wish to allow on their website.  Not you, nor I.  You do have the right to express your opinion (and thusly people have the right to respond to it).  If they are uncomfortable with the subject matter they may express that after the submission or indeed before the posts/competition.

A poster could indeed post a completely racist image...and that would be the responsibility of the poster.  Again, if the owners of the site/community found it lay outside their comfort level for the website they could remove it, etc.

Speaking of being considerate to others, the "NSFW" tag was posted on the picture/post.  This indicates it is something graphic.  You were not required to view the post or cast a vote.  If you have an issue with the content, you could always contact a moderator directly and provide some constructive criticism of the post/content.

I understand you're offended by the content and you think it represents something you oppose.  Understood, but that's as far as the discussion needs to go.

[Daeothar]

I've seen several discussions on this topic on LAF over the years, and they never end well...

I must say I had my eyebrows raised a bit, when in the second round, there was an almost identical setup again.

The minis don't do it for me, the setup is certainly questionable (he could easily have created a scene that would have been less provocative, like, say, a sauna or harem), but the paintjob is really well done.

In the end, I'm pretty meh on the whole subject, because as Zorg already posted; the imagery is everywhere in Fantasy, whether you like it or not. Nudity in itself however is quite normal to me, and I certainly  have no issues with that in the right setting (the aforementioned sauna for instance).

Would I expose my little girl to this kind of depictions? I don't think so; when she's of an age she can decide for herself, she's free to choose, but till then, it does not quite gel with how I want to bring her up (and I would feel the same, had she been a boy btw...). But there was the NSFW warning, which is ample advice for screening such images beforehand.

Then again; miniatures are hardly the only medium that perpetuates this kind of depictions. Try your average rap video, fashion magazine or (especially) porn site, and you'll see this is (still) everywhere. I feel though, that this imagery might not just be a sign of the times or recurring mysogyny, but has a more deeply rooted origin within the human psyche, both male and female. but that's a whole other can of worms...

...There are, for example, very strict rules about the posting of certain symbols on the site that seem to be at odds with the idea you're expressing...

I think you'll find that this is not a decision of the site owner(s), but rather because of the local (read: German) laws on the depiction of Nazi imagery...

In the end though, I would like to make the old comparisson again, of sexually loaded imagery versus war related imagery. How is it that we continuously get uppity about showing female exploitation, but not about the depiction of soldiers (and I use that term very losely here) killing and plundering (I'm leaving out the usual middle activity). Surely depicting SS units rampaging through Russian villages or African Warlords leading machette armed mobs in ethnic cleansing is infinitely more objectional?

[Malebolgia]

No, that's not the point, Malebolgia. It's not a question of "weirdness" - in fact, I never mentioned the word in my post. I also don't have a problem with nudes in art. There's a long history of it which is not guilty of what I'm discussing. What I have a problem with is demeaning and objectifying women by depicting them naked, in chains, on auction as slaves. And before anybody says "Well, there are historical precedents," it's worth remembering that just because humans used to do something does not mean that we have to continue to do it. For example, certain cultures historically used to leave handicapped infants exposed on hilltops to die - it doesn't mean that we should still do it, or think that it's acceptable.

Okay, maybe I didn't type my answer clear enough ("weirdness" being my summary for it, which clearly was off), but what I was trying to say is that the things you mention are depicted in art and these can be found in museums.

[shandy]

[...] in general the sort of depictions of women that I'm referring to are connected to sexual violence against women. This victimization of women - even in "civilized" societies  - is abhorrent, and my argument is that therefore depictions of that victimization which have no other purpose than to perpetuate those images, are also abhorrent.

Thanks for putting it so eloquently, Hawkeye, this also sums up my own discomfort pretty well.