The Importance of an Image

[Vena]

What do you think about the image represented in media today? About everything - women, men, gender roles, product placement, children, race, etc.

If it's drawn does it take those stereotypes away?

Is it ok for someone to use a representation of a person because it is drawn, not real?

Do you know when you objectify/stereotype a person? Are you uncomfortable with it, or do you accept it?

Is it ok to represent something questionable, because it already has a large amount of exposure?

I think this is a really important issue in art, to be honest. Because it is all about exposure of imagery, of characters, of viewpoints. When you draw a character, do you think about what influence they would make on a viewer?  

[Zero Fail]

Pornography is what you make of it. Mapplethorpe's images of children nude were seen as child pornography by some people. (Titled: Rosie)

If what I wrote before wasn't enough of a warning as to it being partially nude, then here is a slightly more obvious warning.

I think at least in terms of sexuality, more people are thinking about it in places where sexuality doesn't exist. The image in the mainstream media objectifies, is racist, etc but that's how it has been.

Stereotypes are going to exist no matter what, it's just a matter of being true to yourself.

Did this person you speak of say "child porn?"  

[Vena]

when I joined the conversation, it had started to argue whether drawn child porn had a 'use', though originally it was about whether loli/shota could be considered pornographic. I don't want to detract to that from the other questions, so I'll remove that.

Anyways,

I think you are right, there is this perpetual notion that the body is always a sexual tool. Though what I find questionable is that, especially in the culture I am now in, the idea of sexuality is something that people are so uncomfortable with that it becomes a conflict. When I look at the picture you link by Mapplethorpe, all I see is a child. But I know there are people who can't handle the idea of nudity, and equate it to being pornographic. We are taught that everything needs to be covered up, hidden, and I think it projects the idea that our personal sexuality is completely projected onto our body.

Just going to interject with, I don't think we should be ripping it off and giving it up. Where we see nudity though, is where it is selling. We don't see nudity in any other situation with mass use, except for some well known paintings, but I mean the average person is much more aware of nudity or sexuality that is being sold to them, than nudity or sexuality that is just a representation of the human body.

I think it has convoluted our self awareness, and as a result Mapplethorpe's image would get lumped in with pornography, despite the complete lack of sexuality in the picture.

Sally Mann also got a bad rap for photographing her children nude, also questioned as child pornography, though for the most part she was just photographing them conveniently, since they were nude when they swam.

I think deciding what is pornographic vs erotic vs a representation can get pretty grey lined in some instances but I think sometimes it is also fairly obvious. I think it has to do a lot with objectifying the subject, and though artist's intent can be argued forever, I think the intent for the use of the image is a big contributing factor.  

[Syrella]

It's a really hard topic in general and something that folks have probably written college theses about. razz

The two issues you seem to be addressing are:
* The morality of depicting children or young people in deliberately sexually provocative ways vs tasteful n***s (where do you draw the line, what qualifies as sexually provocative, etc)
* Whether drawing pornography or other potentially offensive material makes it any better or worse (no actual children as models, but the images of the body are still easily recognizable)

I guess it all depends on what you view as pornographic, and also how strongly you think media and representations of the world effect people and their outlooks on life. Some folks would argue pretty vehemently that media has no effect on them. I'd guess that it has some influence, but it really depends on the situation.

I dunno... Reminds me of an article I read awhile about game art, particularly in regards to WoW:
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2007/05/sexual_dimorphi/
http://theirisnetwork.org/2007/05/26/idealizing-fantasy-bodies/

Art to me has the capability of supporting or contradicting stereotypes, but it also relies heavily on them all the same. That and every image is potentially "political"... but no need to go into a philosophical debate.

Anyhow.. I am kinda jet lagged right now. If I didn't make any sense, I'm sorry. XD I tried.  

[Sazarac]

I think it's pretty screwed up, at least in America. I wouldn't know about the rest of the world.
Examples :
http://fashionrules.com/tag/ralph-lauren/
http://blindie.com/category/fashion/
http://www.dove.us/#/features/videos/default.aspx[cp-documentid=7049579]/

Vena

What do you think about the image represented in media today? About everything - women, men, gender roles, product placement, children, race, etc.

No. Caricature and political cartooning are perfect examples.

Vena

If it's drawn does it take those stereotypes away?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.
Do you mean if you have a paying job?
If you are doing a piece of artwork for yourself, what would the problem be? If you are not comfortable, then why are you doing it?

Vena

Is it ok for someone to use a representation of a person because it is drawn, not real?

I would hope so. Why would I be uncomfortable with it if I have chosen to do it?

Vena

Do you know when you objectify/stereotype a person? Are you uncomfortable with it, or do you accept it?

Who is deciding what is "questionable?

Vena

Is it ok to represent something questionable, because it already has a large amount of exposure?

Art is form of communication, so yes, this is very important.

Vena

I think this is a really important issue in art, to be honest. Because it is all about exposure of imagery, of characters, of viewpoints. When you draw a character, do you think about what influence they would make on a viewer?

 

[Errol McGillivray]

Stereotypes and cliche are the backbone of storytelling and characterization. You have to start somewhere that people can relate to. (Kind of sucks, but that's how it goes. Most story premises start with a really lame cliche and you work it to something unique.)

I think the imagery we put into media is damn important. It's due to media imagery that people accept things that were never acceptable before. That can be a good thing, like accepting the differences between people or the intelligence and strength of a woman, for example and bad for how easily people accept sexualized images of children because it's cartoons.

For those of you that remember the 90s, you may recall that people not exposed to black americans assumed we're all thugs, running the streets with gangs and live in the ghetto. Children also mimic the images they see. Girls get more and more scantily clad trying to mimic older girls to the point where there are thongs and booty shorts that say "Juicy" on the a** for 11 year olds. People STILL glorify the drug dealer life style, even though that went out in the 90s. Rappers don't freakin' come from that situation in most cases anymore. A lot of it is fantasy, but kids don't know that.

Look at advertising. The rogaine commercials that tell men "your woman will leave you if you lose your hair". The cleaning product commercials that show the modernization of woman from the 1950s, but the b***h is still at home in the middle of the day, pushing a mop. But she's wearing a business suit, so it's okay. *rolls eyes*

The media has a big responsibility in creating imagery.  

[Vena]

That's really what I am trying to get at Errol (my questions were not very concise), that there is a huge amount of power behind the image, where the image is showing up, how it is being presented. I find the biggest defense behind it are things like, well it's just an image, or if you don't like it don't look at it, etc. Nobody would want to admit that they are influenced by something that seems silly in retrospect, but our whole development as people is dependent on our reactions to the world around us, and image is a huge part of that.

If I hop over to Japan as an example, there is a huge amount of wariness for foreigners over there, the way americans are portrayed is usually dumb and headstrong, and of course there are people who know enough that not all americans are like that, but for someone who has never had any world experience, what do they know besides what is shown in the media? I would parallel it to how Middle Easterns are portrayed in North America, and the even more unfortunate tying in of this Middle Eastern stereotype with Muslim faith.

I can actually say that at a point I passively believed that stereotype, when I was in high school my family moved to Bangladesh, which is a primarily Muslim country. I became aware at that point that it is practiced all over Asia, and I had created these judgements based on the little knowledge I had, mostly from representation instead of real life experience or research.

The reason that it has spurned me into talking is that I don't think I should ignore it. It's not about a matter of not liking the subject, I think it is a matter of misrepresentation. It's a matter of being lazy and slapping on a stereotype to a character that lacks dimension to give the illusion of having any. I'm not saying that characters can't have stereotypes or cliche, I think the cliche exists everywhere, but it's the responsibility of the designer to develop it further and make it less black and white.  

[Syrella]

Yeah... you are correct, Vena. Artists have a responsibility for how they portray their characters.

I've lived in Japan for a bit so I can also verify your statement about foreigners. Essentially, they are given special status, in all of the good and bad connotations for the word. Some view foreigners are cool or novel, others view them as a nuisance or even as a potential criminal. wink It's dependent on how much they've heard from people around them, what they've seen on TV, or in general, how many foreigners they've been exposed to and what kinds (being from a city vs a small town also makes a huge difference).

One thing I will mention is that stereotypes, though, just as Errol mentioned, are essential in life. It's a survival mechanism and also a way of simplifying the world around us. You're never gonna escape it, especially not in art. But one thing you an do is be aware of it (be it racism, sexism, religious discrimination etc). And, of course, when you see injustices or people being lax about it, speak up. The worst crime is often the one of silence. Sad, but true.

Basically, it's important to stay open to new points of view and behaviors. I guess that's the take home message... XD Which is what you already know.  

[Sazarac]

And some images seem to be trying to convey one thing, but unfortunately, miss the mark completely or, maybe intentionally! I ran across these just today.

http://www.cracked.com/article/229_12-sexy-ads-that-will-give-you-nightmares/
Dolce and Gabbana have come under fire and been banned, yet continue these ads. What are they attempting to sell here? And who are they targeting? question
The Playstation ad is just plain wrong! (ugh)

http://www.lilsugar.com/1002033#comments
Does this actually raise "awareness"? I'm confused...

http://fashioncopious.typepad.com/fashioncopious/2009/02/italybrazil-crisis-over-relishs-thelma-louise-like-ad-campaign.html
How exactly would this sell clothes? Or traveling?

I suppose in this instance the question might be, at what point has the artist, whether photographer, art director or traditional artist, gone to far in attempting to sell a product, message or artwork?  

[Syrella]

There's nothing quite as bad as failed ad campaigns. neutral My personal favorites are still the drug commercials, though.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9571484

The depression ones are the "best", though, as most of the symptoms could be applied to anyone. wink  

[Sazarac]

Oh I agree! What was that one with the egg or rock? I always thought it was a rock, but either way it makes no sense! A sad rock?! WTF?

I wonder sometimes how the guys that design some of those ads sleep at night. OH right, their bed is lined with money... confused

syrella

There's nothing quite as bad as failed ad campaigns. neutral My personal favorites are still the drug commercials, though.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9571484

The depression ones are the "best", though, as most of the symptoms could be applied to anyone. wink