Going too far in general - Artistic vision vs offensive content

Drug abusing dolls are permitted; they just want you to keep the actual abuse on the vague side, and not show it directly. There's an entire thread about them somewhere. Also, as far as I know, most abuse scenes aren't permitted at all, though any kind of abuse, I think, needs to also be pretty vague.

I once made art that had people thinking I was severely depressed. I made it in my school's art class (maybe a decade ago), and many people loved it. I think it's the most 'artsy' thing I will ever make... but it also got me sent to the guidance counselor's office to see if I was 'OK'.

 

We can have dolls drinking & smoking tobacco (drug abuse....) but not weed... ~sigh~
Anyway, I agree that I don't care what people create w/their dolls - but the disclaimers are important. I mean, some of the insane things touted as art nowadays (I refer to the trash exhibit thrown out by the janitor - even if a meme, it has some roots in reality) - do whatever. Your own thing, in the lexicon of my youth.
I will decide if I like it & if I don't I won't pay attention to it (except, as mentioned, Twilight ...)

 

The membership requirements for this site is 13+ so there is not a lot of ground for pushing the envelope, so I believe things for the most part should be appropriate.

There's a time and place for everything, some topics just don't belong on this forum even if they would be things that would be highly interesting and though provoking. People want to express themselves but you have to find the appropriate place to do it.

 

No. No matter WHAT you write, draw, paint, or do SOMEONE will wind up being offended.
Even over the simplest things that aren't hurting anything... I think some people actually go out of their way to FIND the things that offend them, so they can rant about them.

I once saw someone on the interwebs ask a question about coma patients, and their treatment. It was research for a story they were writing, and a woman responded, demanding this individual take their question down... because her husband was in a coma, and this is not a "plot twist", and she found it highly offensive.... The question really wasn't. If anything, it was less offensive because they were trying to actually research the subject matter, and present a realistic scenario, and not poorly written drabble based little on facts... But, obviously, this matter was particularly touchy for this woman, and one can see why, and understand that... But the writer did nothing wrong.

So, in short, my point is.... No, I do not think an artist can go "too far"... Perhaps "too far" for the location that they are displaying their art, like, don't post smutty doll pics on DoA, but that's it.
There is no "too far", it's art... And dang it, body blushing on a child doll is not sexual in any way, shape, or form.

Edit: Also... DoA's rules are why I don't go into detail on my dolls. I don't want to push the content limited here, but I don't really care if such content is limited here... Because isn't this site more for the dolls themselves, than it is doll back stories/RP/writing?

 

I think a lot of writers, who want to delve into areas that they don't know a lot about, may be afraid of doing the proper research because they might run into someone like that. That writer did nothing wrong, and if that woman was hurting (which she probably was), she should have just tried to ignore the question.

The whole point of why writers and artists do research is to show respect to the issue/item/time period in question. I'm not going to throw a bunch of perceived symptoms together and call it a day. I would be really angry if someone threw a bunch of symptoms together and called it anything; I get annoyed when people confuse bi-polar with DID or borderline personality or when people use antisocial when they really mean asocial. I can only fathom how someone WITH one of those would feel.

Through research, I get symptoms, experiences, and even differences between males and females. It's about giving respect to those who have it, those who know someone who does, and not portraying them in a poorly thought out manner or stereotypical fashion.

 

The one that gets me is when people confuse schizophrenia with DID, or multiple personality disorder as it used to be known. It's understandable, as "schiz" does mean split, but DID is about multiple personalities, not split ones. The confusion isn't as prevalent as it was, but you used to hear even highly educated and intelligent people confusing them. It makes me roll my eyes in exasperation!

As someone with mental illnesses I don't mind artists researching them or depicting them in the least. Plenty of artists have mental illnesses and many of them actually use their art as a way of overcoming them, or at least dealing with them, so I don't see how art depicting mental illnesses could be seen as offensive. In fact, I don't mind anyone at all asking questions about mental illnesses - it's far better than staying ignorant, and if everyone is better educated, then mentally ill people won't be so stigmatized and the shame attached to having depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, etc, will be alleviated.

The only thing that gets me is when people treat mental illness in a shameful way, or think of the mentally ill as freaks. My cousin is guilty of this. Whenever anyone acts a bit eccentric, he says things like "So you're going back to the asylum?" and "Have you taken your medication?" in a jokey way, as if only real freaks have to take medication or can be hospitalized. I find it dehumanizing. He's a nice guy and doesn't do it to hurt anyone, which makes it worse in a way - it's proof that this way of thinking is so normal that it doesn't even need to be considered.

So yes - ingrained assumptions about mental illness should stop, and the only way to stop them is for people to become educated about it. So, in my view, everyone should be allowed to do as much research as they like!

 

I think it has to do with the term "mentally ill". I think when people hear someone is mentally ill, they think someone who needs to be institutionalized. Many people who are mentally ill are not institutionalized, and they aren't because they don't fit one or more of the 3 basic requirements: can't take care of themselves, harmful to self, harmful to others.

There are millions of depressed, anxious, paranoid, and schizophrenic people, and they're all classified as having a mental illness. Most of those people don't get institutionalized because they simply don't need to be.

What really gets me is when people decide they're armchair psychologists or psychiatrists, and start classifying people as things that don't make sense. Like you said, this style of thinking is so run-of-the-mill. We're tossing terms around without knowing what they mean, reacting how we shouldn't be reacting, and causing people to freak out when they hear they might have a disorder.

 

Everybody is offended by something, and everything has the potential to offend someone, somewhere, somehow. A lot of it has to do with personal taste, social conditioning, and the circumstances in which the potentially offensive content is presented to the potentially offended observer.

In short, not everyone is going to like it, and no one likes everything.

When it comes to dolls, or any other kind of art, the only trouble I have with shocking/disturbing content is when the creator deliberately sets out to offend others--not to make them think, or to alert them to a particular social issue, but just to squick people out. It's the artistic equivalent of putting a dead mouse in someone's shoe, and it's about as pointless and immature. Other than that, I don't find "outre" mods particularly bothersome, even if they're not to my personal taste.

 

Ah the age old argument.

"There is no right or wrong if it's Art. That makes any level of moral depravity okay, because I'm expressing myself. I'm not physically harming anyone so whatever I do is okay."

That approach will certainly guarantee that others understand what the Artist is like inside, yes.

You are indeed free to choose where you draw the lines, people, but you definitely succed in "Expressing Yourself" by where you choose to draw them.

 

Well... I don't agree with that, actually, and neither would Oscar Wilde, who wrote "There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well-written or badly written. That is all." I don't agree with Oscar Wilde in lots of ways, and I don't think The Picture of Dorian Gray (which had that quote in the prologue) is a particularly wonderful book, but I do agree with him in this. As for the idea that "others will understand what the artist is like inside" from their work... well no, not really. Are you saying that all artists who choose to discuss difficult issues somehow become those issues? In Oscar Wilde's trial, the prosecutors read out bits from Dorian Gray as a means of "proving" that Wilde was gay. They simply had no notion of an artist distancing himself from his work at all, or creating a fiction that wasn't related to his own personal world. Surely only gay people would write about gay issues, was the basis of their prosecution. Unfortunately, in those days, that way of thinking was more prevalent than today and poor Wilde was sentenced to prison. The modern-day equivalent would be imprisoning the creator of the "V For Vendetta" comics for terrorism. So, personally, I don't believe in morally policing another person's creative endeavours. Sure, you can be offended by certain things and that's fine: you have a right to be offended. But if you attempt to censor artworks for "moral depravity" then you may as well erase the last sixty years of freedom of speech in art. (I'm rather curious to know what you think of books such as Lady Chatterly's Lover or A Clockwork Orange, both brilliant books that at the time of their publishing caused outrage by being "morally depraved").

 

/nods in agreement

There will always be someone who finds something offensive. The role of the artist is to take an idea, a concept, and realize it to the fullest of his/her abilities without fear of prejudice and condemnation.

That said, there are limits to avenues by which one's work of art are exhibited. In the case of DoA, it is to protect the underaged members into unwittingly viewing heavy content. That does not imply that DoA finds such topics offensive.

It is this execution = exhibition where most of the debate comes from. It is the right of an artist to create, but it is also the right of an audience not to be forced to view. Some artists say "I am free to display my work wherever I wish. If it offends you, look away!". Some people say "You have no right to engage in such offensive and depraved concepts!" Both, to me, are self-conceited and myopic.

 

"Moral depravity" (such a funny ol' McCarthy-Witch-Trials-y expression) depends on the layout of one's moral compass-- and not everybody's compass has North in the same place. I personally think it's depraved to let one's 9-year-old daughter wear skanky clothes & makeup, but you see that on the streets all the time. Unless we're talking about stuff that's actually illegal, these days 'depravity' is pretty much all in the eye of the beholder.

 

I only think "art" goes to far when it victimizes those who are not willing participants. People can label the implementation and documentation of terrible things as art, when in reality is nothing more than the abuse of humans ( of course these are often illegal acts in themselves). As for dolls, I do not tend to judge others on if they have gone to far as the dolls themselves cannot be victims. However, I will say that it could be indicative of deeper issues.

 

I have to agree, that hurting a person's sensibilities doen't make something less art or less meaningful. But I absolutely draw the line at physically hurting living things and calling it art, whether it's a person or animal. I am still horrified by that guy in South America who had the gall to starve a dog and call it "art." A painting of the same thing may be disurbing and hurtful, but it isn't hurting a real dog.

I think things can be taken too far, even if they originally started as legitimate art, or if not art, then. . . something of worth, at least. For example, I find the first "Saw" movie to be disturbing, yes, but there was a plot. There was something deeper behind the blood and gore and it made it worth watching to me. The sequels and the bunch of copycats it spawned? I can't see much meaning in those, because the art had given way to one-upmanship. Even when/if there was a plot, it was overshadowed by the shock value.

Even our "classic" horror movies, whether we're talking black and white Bela Lugosi or the original "Halloween," the ones that are art, even if it's only to horror fans, are the ones that were original, the first of their kind. Then the glut of simliar movies and sequels becomes. . . boring. I think that's why the movies that "reinvent the genre" are really so rare. They manage to deliver fantastic scares in a NEW way, and make us think about horror in a completely new way. Sometimes there's gore involved, but sometimes not at all. The storytelling is the art, not who has better effects. (I could go on about the original "Star War"s and "Indiana Jones" in that way too, but that's entirely too long and OT!)

As a doll owner, I'll admit, that I find myself wondering if I've gone too far with something every so often. Azri has a Cradle of Filth shirt, for example. The infamous "Jesus is a. . ." one. I love that shirt, and I love that he has one, but I'm not sure if I feel comfortable having him wear it, even in the privacy of my own home. It's certainly not something I would take him out in public with, nor post pictures of on DoA, but I actually feel weird that he has it. That I made it for him. I never expected that, which makes me think, maybe all of the talk about limits and such is a hypothecial thing to begin with. Maybe we don't know our own limits until actually presented with something that bothers us, and it might be something we never expected.

I feel the need to add: it's the SECOND time they've performed it.

 

It doesn't matter what I think of them, my point is that if all Art is Expression, then you definitely express a lot about yourself by where you choose to draw your lines in art.
I did not say that writing about people who are gay makes you gay, or that writing about rapists makes you a rapist, and so on. That's a very literal misinterpretation of my post.
I said, in essence, that people ought to try to define for each of them exactly how far they want to go, and try to apply some kind of moral standard. Humanity in general agrees on some pretty broad points.

I used the words Moral Depravity merely because I've had a pretty archaic and pedantic vocabulary since I was kid, and in this modern age anyone using any term describing morality is gonna get thrown up against the wall as a McCarthyist, I realize. Oh the irony.

I'm not saying everyone should have their Compass in the same line, that's impossible. But they should attempt to have one. Everyone has their own ideas of right and wrong but pretending there's no such thing at all and that at least some things might be sacred while others might not be so is naive, in my opinion.
My point I was trying to make is that Art unguided by any kind of human ethic at all is hardly art worth anyone's time.

As I mentioned, Humanity in general agrees on broad points. We have different ideas about what makes a Marriage, for example, but everybody can agree that any people who love each other getting torn apart or tormented for love, for example, is a sad and tragic thing. We have differing ideas as to what constitutes incest (fourth cousins or just first cousins?), but in most societies, it's agreed that's pretty squicky. We have differing ideas about a just reason to kill someone, or if there is one, but as humans we generally agree killing is not a good thing. We have differing ideas about what should make up a family, but we all generally agree on people forming and loving their own families.

There's art and then there's just trying for shock value. One is meant to examine an idea, and one is meant to piss people off or just to be puerile. Intent reveals. *shrug*

 

Actually it doesn't.... Unless you know the artist personally, or have read the artist's published statement about the artwork in question, you have no IDEA what their intent was. Something that you assume is merely puerile and purposeless might actually be trying to get past your prejudices & tell you something. (And vice versa, of course. Fact is you don't know & can't assume.)

 

But I'm still curious.

But WHY? You're making these very broad and sweeping statements, but you're not providing anything to back them up with. Why should a piece of art attempt to show a moral compass at all? Is morality necessary to creating beautiful, meaningful art? I disagree and so do many others. To do so would be to risk the artwork becoming didactic. Perhaps art "unguided by any kind of human ethic" is making an interesting point in and of itself, and so is worthwhile just as it is. As for your certainty that there is definitely such a thing as "right and wrong"... perhaps you're familiar with the famous line "Nothing is good or bad, but thinking makes it so". Certain philosophers have posited that there really is no such thing as right or wrong, and that it's merely a societally-created construct to keep us in a state of conformity. "That at least some things might be sacred while others might not be so is naive"... what do you mean by this? It seems to contradict what you just said.

Again, I disagree. All the statements you have made here can be refuted. Have you read any homophobic internet rants lately? Those people certainly don't believe that "any people who love each other getting torn apart or tormented for love, for example, is a sad and tragic thing". Not to mention the fact that homosexual people can still be put to death in the Middle East. So, certainly, it's untrue that "everyone can agree" about this. There is almost nothing that "everyone can agree" on, especially to do with sexuality. There are several cultures around the world that don't view incest as squicky, and in fact I was recently reading about one culture where all twins were automatically married to each other because it was presumed they'd had sex in the womb. That was considered just fine and dandy in that society. First cousins can legally marry in many places, so obviously it's not always considered incest. Charles Darwin's wife, for example, was his first cousin, and so was Edgar Allan Poe's. They both had very happy marriages. Likewise, there exist many cultures where killing is seen as a positive thing, a sort of rite of passage, whether it's slaughtering animals for kicks or invading an enemy's territory and killing people there. Of course there are also honour killings, where it's seen as desirable or honourable to kill your own daughter if she goes against your personal beliefs. And as for families, there are tribes where they generally live as in Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World, with everyone belonging to everyone else, and no concepts of parents or offspring.

So as you see, humanity often does not agree on "broad points"! Therefore art cannot truly express moral values, because they change over time and distance. Simply the existence of psychopaths proves that having a moral compass is not some sort of inbuilt instinctive thing: morals are formed through relations with the world around us, and as that world around us changes rapidly and can be very different according to culture and society, it's futile to try to impose societally moral values on a piece of art, which is often meant to be transcendental and timeless.

 

I don't think any art is wrong unless it's either breaking the law (though some cases are debatable) or most importantly, involves forcing other people to do something, for example snuff films.

So in that vein, there's not really much people can do with their dolls that would bother me. If they can justify something that may be seen as 'offensive' with a purpose or an artistic vision, I think it should be fine. Afterall, everyone has their own moral compass. It's not something that's set in stone and varies widely from culture to culture and person to person. I don't think something can really be inherently offensive.

...Basically I agree with what Harlequin said above me.

 

This is a slippery slope. I go far out of my way to be respectful and not offend people. That being said - the one thing I will not do is censor my belief system for others. My dolls characters are the same religion as I am. And though I would not rub that in someone's face if it bothered them, I would also not act like it didn't exist or change them in any way.

 

People have the right to express themselves the way they see/feel it, I have the right to judge. If I think the stuff is bull$%^&, I will say if asked. They show their opinion - I'm saying mine. If they are offended - I don't see how it's related to me.