Not welcoming
category: offtopic [glöplog]
i dont think anyone is hating on BREASTS specifically.
I personally like to think of breasts as attached to and owned by people.
yolo, those breasts are very fine indeed, let us just get rid of the lactating thing, k?
well, besides, women have sometimes problems with their breasts, you know....that would be a great example
i mean fine, healthy bust, maybe
I wonder what you guys could interpret from this logo:
you gotta love semotics :-)
you gotta love semotics :-)
FFS smartphone crap keyboard... SEMIOTICS!!!
maytz: It looks like a red pepper in black lederhosen with a shoulder-strap. And some weird shit on top. Its probably a synth-fan who secretly likes maracas.
it has a cute little button nose!
okay.
You people are going to think I'm retarded, but I just spent a few hours grabbing all pics from 2012 off of artcity, and then made a note of ALL pics that have a girl / woman in them, regardless of whether the pic has sexual content at all.
According to ArtCity's tags there were 1127 pics released in 2012. Out of those, 137 pictures featured women in some way.
I also made a note of following things:
* Pics containing sexual content of some kind: 64 in total. That is 5,6% of all 2012 compo pics found on Artcity. (bonus info: of these 64, at least 12 were made by women.)
The 64 pics were flagged based on the following criteria:
* boobs/cleavage (52 occurences)
* nipples showing (15 occurences)
* shows sexual organs (5 occurences)
* shows the woman's rear quarters (7 occurences)
* partial nudity apart from the above (21 occurences)
* suggestive / sexy look (3 occurences)
these criteria above are *cumulative*.. a pic with nipples is typically also flagged as having cleavage, etc.
--
I have been quite strict in my selection - any pic that features even so much as a pair of full lips have been included in the 137 images.
if you're in the least interested, here are the files:
http://sentient.skjoldbroder.dk/void/girls
--
What conclusion, if any, can be drawn from this? - well at this point, none, really. But it would be interesting to gather up statistics like this, based on release year. Maybe we could start from 1995, which was the year "Space Tits" was released, and which many people have referenced in this thread. Somewhat unfairly, if you ask me, since that was 18 years ago. Hence I thought it would be interesting to get an overview of pics released last year, for a more up-to-date view of what scene graphics are like.
You people are going to think I'm retarded, but I just spent a few hours grabbing all pics from 2012 off of artcity, and then made a note of ALL pics that have a girl / woman in them, regardless of whether the pic has sexual content at all.
According to ArtCity's tags there were 1127 pics released in 2012. Out of those, 137 pictures featured women in some way.
I also made a note of following things:
* Pics containing sexual content of some kind: 64 in total. That is 5,6% of all 2012 compo pics found on Artcity. (bonus info: of these 64, at least 12 were made by women.)
The 64 pics were flagged based on the following criteria:
* boobs/cleavage (52 occurences)
* nipples showing (15 occurences)
* shows sexual organs (5 occurences)
* shows the woman's rear quarters (7 occurences)
* partial nudity apart from the above (21 occurences)
* suggestive / sexy look (3 occurences)
these criteria above are *cumulative*.. a pic with nipples is typically also flagged as having cleavage, etc.
--
I have been quite strict in my selection - any pic that features even so much as a pair of full lips have been included in the 137 images.
if you're in the least interested, here are the files:
http://sentient.skjoldbroder.dk/void/girls
--
What conclusion, if any, can be drawn from this? - well at this point, none, really. But it would be interesting to gather up statistics like this, based on release year. Maybe we could start from 1995, which was the year "Space Tits" was released, and which many people have referenced in this thread. Somewhat unfairly, if you ask me, since that was 18 years ago. Hence I thought it would be interesting to get an overview of pics released last year, for a more up-to-date view of what scene graphics are like.
Kudos plaf.
Not "retarded". Data gathering is not a bad thing. Also curious what the nonsexual portrayals of women are, i.e. what kinds of roles they are fulfilling. Also worth considering is whether women are making sexual pictures of women because that kind of thing may win compos. Do you have data on placing for any of those pictures? I would get more involved, but I can't right now, because @party is in a month and I am coming up against a deadline for one of the two graphics I have to deliver, and it is crunch time at work.
Also see:
Guerilla Girls, 2012
http://www.guerrillagirls.com/posters/images/venice/Women%20Venice%20Fine%20Print%20web.jpg
Jim Hines, 2012
http://www.jimchines.com/2012/01/striking-a-pose/
And similar posts about comic book and game art are legion. But the Jim Hines one is pretty awesome.
Guerilla Girls has also done statistics about how few female film directors there are in Hollywood.
Cold comfort, but the demoscene is hardly unusual in the fields of art and culture, or in the field of electronic media. These kinds of discussions have been going on in many subcultures over the past five to ten years or so. It was time.
plaf: Thanks for the PDF, a lot of awesome pics yet to be voted! =)
I LOVE data-gathering, kudos plaf. I have a feeling that your data will show what you suspect, namely a strong and enduring interest in female bodies. Maybe with a sharp dip as soon as people stops copying Vallejo.
Since I am furiously opposed to being labelled as "against images of naked women", I would like to stress that I completely and absolutely love the feminine shape and form in all ways. I think curves are more beautiful than straight lines, I see the aesthetic qualities in all women, or to put it more bluntly: "I like big butts and I cannot lie" (Ray, 1992).
With that in mind, I was trying to get at whether we could move especially our party behaviour from drooling teen -> frat boy -> grown man. I'd say we are in the dying moments of frat boys, but frat boys only attracts other frat boys, and to be honest - with a few notable exceptions, there arent that many computer-interested frat boys left :) It makes me sad as hell when someone like Jenni says that she knows she has to accept people behaving like animals. I can understand why someone, drunk and foolish, would wade up to a wonderful specimen of the fairer gender like Jenni, and introduce himself, maybe even strut about a bit. Were I not otherwise occupied, I would be practicing my strut right now.
But please, lets keep the ass-groping hidden somewhere in the past, and lets try to keep a lid on the fratboy behaviour. That includes shouting FISSE!!! (cunts!! [editor]) five times an hour when at a party. This is unrelated to "freedom of speech" and similar notions - I am not asking for your compliance, I am appealing to your sensibility and empathy as non-idiots. I consider the demoscene-idiot ratio very low compared to society in general. So that should be doable. And by all means: I dont care about the logo as such, it was a funny logo, and I'd love to draw a giant cock and put it in the header (SFW issues notwithstanding). But we need to be welcoming to new and old people in the demoscene, and I believe that is one of our strongest suits. We welcome the geeks, the angsty people, the downtrodden, the nerds, the fatties, the ones with poor eyesight. The outcasts. We are not all of us outcasts, but we welcome them, if they contribute and have fun, and dont act like dicks (and lets be fair, you can get away with pretty dickish behaviour even so). Lets try and keep it that way.
Since I am furiously opposed to being labelled as "against images of naked women", I would like to stress that I completely and absolutely love the feminine shape and form in all ways. I think curves are more beautiful than straight lines, I see the aesthetic qualities in all women, or to put it more bluntly: "I like big butts and I cannot lie" (Ray, 1992).
With that in mind, I was trying to get at whether we could move especially our party behaviour from drooling teen -> frat boy -> grown man. I'd say we are in the dying moments of frat boys, but frat boys only attracts other frat boys, and to be honest - with a few notable exceptions, there arent that many computer-interested frat boys left :) It makes me sad as hell when someone like Jenni says that she knows she has to accept people behaving like animals. I can understand why someone, drunk and foolish, would wade up to a wonderful specimen of the fairer gender like Jenni, and introduce himself, maybe even strut about a bit. Were I not otherwise occupied, I would be practicing my strut right now.
But please, lets keep the ass-groping hidden somewhere in the past, and lets try to keep a lid on the fratboy behaviour. That includes shouting FISSE!!! (cunts!! [editor]) five times an hour when at a party. This is unrelated to "freedom of speech" and similar notions - I am not asking for your compliance, I am appealing to your sensibility and empathy as non-idiots. I consider the demoscene-idiot ratio very low compared to society in general. So that should be doable. And by all means: I dont care about the logo as such, it was a funny logo, and I'd love to draw a giant cock and put it in the header (SFW issues notwithstanding). But we need to be welcoming to new and old people in the demoscene, and I believe that is one of our strongest suits. We welcome the geeks, the angsty people, the downtrodden, the nerds, the fatties, the ones with poor eyesight. The outcasts. We are not all of us outcasts, but we welcome them, if they contribute and have fun, and dont act like dicks (and lets be fair, you can get away with pretty dickish behaviour even so). Lets try and keep it that way.
I thought the numbers showed something decent, actually =)
~12.1% of 2012 pics contained women
~5.6% of 2012 pics contained boobs or light nudity
~1.3% of 2012 pics contained explicit nudity, i.e. total nudity, nipples and/or lady parts.
This doesn't worry me THAT much. In fact, I would be surprised if I didn't find more lizards or Darth Vaders than vaginas across all 2012 pics. As a tentative "this is my hunch" conclusion, I think that things are looking "not actually so bad" - from the point of view of "what are scene graphics like these days", which obviously doesn't include what people are like when they interact with each other at parties. - and which is not meant as a blanket statement about the scene as a whole.
anywho... have a good Sunday evening, all :) Mine is going to consist of a little c64 painting practice, and yes, there will in fact be a woman in what I intend to paint. There won't be boobs, though, since the reason I'm using women is that they are difficult to "get right" when painting.
~12.1% of 2012 pics contained women
~5.6% of 2012 pics contained boobs or light nudity
~1.3% of 2012 pics contained explicit nudity, i.e. total nudity, nipples and/or lady parts.
This doesn't worry me THAT much. In fact, I would be surprised if I didn't find more lizards or Darth Vaders than vaginas across all 2012 pics. As a tentative "this is my hunch" conclusion, I think that things are looking "not actually so bad" - from the point of view of "what are scene graphics like these days", which obviously doesn't include what people are like when they interact with each other at parties. - and which is not meant as a blanket statement about the scene as a whole.
anywho... have a good Sunday evening, all :) Mine is going to consist of a little c64 painting practice, and yes, there will in fact be a woman in what I intend to paint. There won't be boobs, though, since the reason I'm using women is that they are difficult to "get right" when painting.
I agree with what you just said - and woman are after all the main subject of a lot of art throughout history, since they are a beautiful and challenging subject. By all means, do keep painting them :) I think the numbers sound reasonable.
I was after the other issue, so I agree that the logo in question was not very much in relation to that :)
I was after the other issue, so I agree that the logo in question was not very much in relation to that :)
Unfortunately I can't delete the logo myself :)
The reason so much art contains nude women is probably because its the thing humans are genetically designed to find the most beautiful, not because of some dark desire to objectify. Its the same reason a lot of art features country landscapes - we are genetically predisposed to like that shit. And that's probably why women painters also paint women.
there's a huge huge difference between sexual objectification and marginalisation and women not owning their bodies etc, and the stuff artists draw to produce a visually beautiful image that strikes chords with people.
there's a huge huge difference between sexual objectification and marginalisation and women not owning their bodies etc, and the stuff artists draw to produce a visually beautiful image that strikes chords with people.
Quote:
The reason so much art contains nude women is probably because its the thing humans are genetically designed to find the most beautiful, not because of some dark desire to objectify.
indeed. there is NOTHING bad about nakkid women either. whoever thinks nakkid women is discriminating in whatever way is the one who has the problem, not the one drawing it.
i demand more nakkid women in demos specifically. and dragons.
I could projectile regurgitate reams of art history and cultural theory all over people who I am very disappointed to be losing respect for who are making flawed arguments, or I could just say that The David says to kiss his ass. LAZY MONKEY SAYS YES!
A breakthrough in this thread: demoscene scientists have discovered the Boris Vallejo-gene.
usually women who complain about female nude art probably are too ugly too look at, they should seek professional help in accepting themselves instead of bitching at artworks. :)
Quote:
Maali>
I'm ok with female nudity it's just when it is contaminated with your standards of beauty it become objectifying. I'm ok with female nudity when it's not through the lens of the male gaze.
I'm ok with female nudity it's just when it is contaminated with your standards of beauty it become objectifying. I'm ok with female nudity when it's not through the lens of the male gaze.
Quote:
The reason so much art contains nude women is probably because its the thing humans are genetically designed to find the most beautiful, not because of some dark desire to objectify. Its the same reason a lot of art features country landscapes - we are genetically predisposed to like that shit. And that's probably why women painters also paint women.
there's a huge huge difference between sexual objectification and marginalisation and women not owning their bodies etc, and the stuff artists draw to produce a visually beautiful image that strikes chords with people.
Sure, but we're talking about a pair of disembodied tits with lipstick marks squirting milk. Surely, we're not in the "beautiful" range yet, are we?
