Going too far in general - Artistic vision vs offensive content

'Too far' for me is the act of someone looking desperately for something to be offended about. I think a lot of people go out of their way actively seeking things to be offended about and kvetching on-line about what a big bad world we live in ad-nauseum. Facebook comes to mind and I find it so incredibly tiresome. Art means freedom of expression in your chosen medium(s). PC be damned!

 

Honestly the only act I'd find distasteful is modifying costly Limited Editions. As an artist, I tend to look on both sides of the spectrum. These dolls are already works of art, so think about it: you're taking another artist's work and changing it. Again I only see modding costly LEs as distasteful because there is always someone out there willing to pay that price to leave it as it is. As far as basic sculpts go, do whatever the heck you want to it, there's always more. Everything aside, it's not my business to tell people what they can and can't do with their dolls.

 

That's part of why I stopped caring about what my friends were doing on Facebook.

That and all the vague, song lyric posts...

 

But the same counts for basic sculpts too? I don't really understand this line of thinking to be honest :/ Why shouldn't someone modify a LE doll, if they bought it and think it's perfect except for one little detail? Suppose a LE doll is perfect for shelling a character except that its nose is a little too pointy... why not sand the nose? As for "you're taking another artist's work and changing it"... well, dolls are MEANT to be modified, and all dolls are the work of artists, so that kind of disproves that one right away. I can understand if someone buys a doll that's a basic with a LE faceup and then scrubs off the faceup, because really you might as well buy a basic for that. But if a certain sculpt is only available as a LE and the owner wants to mod it, all power to them, in my opinion.

 

I'm a decently old fart. I've seen things in person that made me fight back my natural urges to vomit. Online as well (if not more so).

And basically, what I've come to understand through my age and experience is that there is an audience for literally ANYTHING. There is no "going to far", because if there were, the internet would be a VERY boring place.

And in this argument there will always be two liable parties: The Artist and The Audience.

The Artist has the freedom to express themselves in basically any way that isn't breaking the law. By that same token, the artist is ALSO responsible for warning The Audience of what they are about to witness. IE: The"Bodies" Exhibit. A great many see it as gorgeous research and ingenious artwork not letting go to waste bodies that would have otherwise been allowed to rot and decay, and instead giving them new life and infamy, whereas there are other who see it as a degradation of the human body. (I saw it, it was awesome!)

The Audience must freely make the decision to choose what content they wish to see, and acknowledge any warnings given henceforth. It is only when material deigned for certain audiences is put in the wrong place, when their grievances of inappropriate content are valid. IE: Pornography is appropriate in an Adult Book Store, but not in a Toy Store. If a person is against pornography, they should avoid entering Adult Book Stores.

Simple as that, really.

 

You are a freak, if you think you are a freak.
Honestly, as far as blushing genitals. I dunno how many perfectionists their are in DoA site,
but I know I am very precise on things. If you have everything colored and blushed, and the only
thing missing is the naughty bits. I bet it would drive someone wild with the same mind set. Not
that there is ill intention on it but it wouldn't look right when they are naked. It would make the
doll more awkward in my opinion.

Also, if it offensive to someone, I'd say to possibly link your photo and write ( proceed with caution ) or the like. Blood and gore is another big part to artistic liberties that I don't think should be hidden. I was scared sh*t less of dolls of any sort. I didn't want them around at all because they creeped me out ( my grand ma in law ) took things to the extreme thinking of it as a child. She had dolls painted like us and clothed in our babies clothes. That is disturbing but for her, its holding a very cherished memory.

So it depends on who is looking honestly.
Now that I am older and can honestly say that Im still a little creeped out but not as much because I understand her way of thinking. To the offensive side, people might take offense to even that.. I know I did when I was younger.

Nut that didn't matter because she was still gunna do it whether I liked it or not. We have the right to, but I also think we should be considerate with those around us and not flash it like its the american flag or anything out of respect. I think that has a lot to do with it..

 

I think the offense is shouldered on the offended. People will have opinions and they will differ. With any artistic endeavor there's bound to be someone who doesn't like it and also there is probably someone who will be offended by it. Some will herald it as genius while others condemn the artist as a mad man. Will that stop an artist from creating his or her vision? Nope. As an artist I have to employ a level of 'so what' to the critical eye but it doesn't stop me. Does it hurt some times, yeah, but I don't let it stop me.

Some are talking about shock. Shock is subjective. And sometimes that is the response the artist wants to elicit from his or her audience. Art doesn't need to be pretty, it's not all sunshine and daisies. The world is not. If pretty is what you seek, I'm sure the Rococo movement is up your alley. Kandinsky, Picasso, Dali--shocking for their time. To be honest, I'd rather have a piece of shocking art than pretty art. I love the emotion it renders where as just pretty can be written off quickly. It's a matter of perception. Art pushes the boundaries; it's suppose to open the eyes to new ideas and constructs. You should feel art. It's culturally important and it can change a person's view. Is this true in dolls? Yeah, I think so.

 

THIS. SO. MUCH. Thank you Wendalynne, that's pretty much exactly how I feel and now I don't have to type it out.

 

The only thing I would find offensive is if artists do not warn about content that can be considered offensive by others.

For me, it doesn't really matter. At some point, I just learnt to stomach everything, and starting from the age of thirteen and continuing still, I have not yet found anything that can actually affect me strongly in a negative way. However, I have younger siblings who can choke and almost vomit at things I've come to consider "common encounters" on the web or in any sort of media. And for the sake of all people who are like that, I do find warnings to be appropriate.

Everyone has different levels of tolerance, and what some may consider "going to far", others will consider artistic. And that's why we have warnings. Say, if you're warned "Material only suitable for 18+ ahead, strong violence and gore", or anything like that, you have no right to complain if you ignore the warning and then find the material to be offensive. It was your choice to ignore the warning the artist so thoughtfully had placed there for your sake.
However, if you click into, say, a web-page with the same potentially offensive material, and no warning of the material is given, I do find that to be offensive in a way, because it can cause such a strong reaction in some people. I, for example, know a person who ended up vomiting and feeling sick for days just because she encountered a bad, slightly blurred screenshot from "Human Centipede".

 

My whole view on this is; if no living thing is being harmed, and if you don't like it, don't look at it. I do find it a bit rude if someone doesn't put up the proper warnings about the content.
People just look for things to be offended about.

 

You know. . . while I'm all for warnings, especially the NSW ones, I have to wonder, where does it end? At some point, because anyone can be offended at anything, are we going to be putting disclaimers on everything?

I watched "Australia" the other night, and it had a warning at the beginning, saying that Aboriginal peoples might find it disturbing. That makes sense, given the Mission Island part, but at the same time it made me think. . . I don't remember "Quigley Down Under" having a disclaimer, when the Aborigines were treated *much* worse in that movie (and part of history). And does that mean "Dances With Wolves" should have a disclaimer for Native Americans and members of PETA? Should "Titanic" have a disclaimer for the Irish? Should "It" come with a warning about clowns? Should Harry Potter have a warning about snakes and spiders? Should the pre-school down the street warn me that at any time, I might see a child having green eggs and ham?

While I agree that exhibitions should give clear warnings whether they're adult-themed or not, and I agree that threads in the forum should state whether or not something involves nudity or gore. . . shouldn't it also be up to the audience to do their own research? When you click on a link online, you're pretty much going in blind, but in the real world, you can read reviews, ask friends, etc. Artists shouldn't be hobbled by disclaimers to the point that they become spoilers or deterrants.

When we can be offended by anything and everything to the point of slapping advisories and disclaimers on everything, maybe we should just start handing out the blindfolds and earplugs.


EDIT: Just for the record: I AM FOR warnings in the gallery, in threads, etc. Because clicking links is a leap of faith and you're going in blind. I was talking about reviews and advice for in the REAL world, and even there I approve (to a point) of ratings and viewer discretion warnings. The question is "Where does it end?"

Of course, you're still depending on the artist/poster/whoever to tell the truth. So really, it's still on the viewer to choose.

 

Kimber Rose, that's a very good point.
What I meant when I said offensive, is actually limited to very heavy material that may make people really queasy or nauseatic, like heavy gore or very strong sexual content. But of course, given that offensive is a subjective term, it is a bit hard to label.

 

I think that what you're coming up against here is "trigger warnings", that is to say, warnings before an article that allow people to avoid content which is specifically distressing to them (They're usually used in the context of addressing PTSD and similar). Saying that people should "Do their own research", if you're talking about forum threads, is basically saying "Get someone else to read the thread for you first". Which isn't always practical. "Nudity" and "Gore" are great starting points for a general warning, but they're very broad fields. For example, a scene of a man getting out of the bath would contain nudity, but so would a sex scene, so would a gynecological exam and so would a rape. I know people who would be triggered by one of these situations but not the others, or a combination, or all four. Warnings and disclaimers are first and formost about minimising harm.

Also, please don't trivialise people's experiences by comparing warnings about common triggers with a warning that you "might see a child having green eggs and ham." Probably, for someone somewhere, green eggs and ham are a terrible trigger that remind them acutely of a traumatic experience, but the number of people who get flashbacks and other serious symptoms from viewing extremely violent scenes isn't trivial. Yes, trigger warnings are a deterrant - They'll let people who really don't want to experience the content of a story not be forced to experience it. Saying "Well, stop reading then" is fine enough, but sometimes the point where the reader realises that they should stop reading is too late, and they're already triggered.

A quick analogy: http://f---yeahtriggerwarnings.tumblr.com/post/11483930528/an-easy-analogy-for-triggering [replace the dashes with "uck" to form the link. TW - Strong language, descriptions of being triggered]

I'm pretty firmly on the side of "Write/photograph/draw what you want, but label it properly".

 

Really? People get angry if you body blush tinies? Why? I'm far more disturbed that they see a sexual connotation to a doll that is to be treated as if it were really a child; My tinies are not ACTUALLY children who are going to be scarred by the four seconds that a brush would be passing over their bits, you know.

Then again, I probably don't have much foothold in "morality of dolls," considering two of my boys are questionably incestuous brothers. Still, I believe there should never be any restrictions to art; art that shocks and offends people is all the more glorious and effective, especially if it makes them think. Taking people out of their comfort zone is something important to me.

Why is Guernica so famous? Because it's tame, politically correct, and relates to the whole family? Hardly.

 

I have to agree. You can't expect someone to do research on a link or a thread, especially if it has no views/reviews yet. It's difficult - maybe impossible - to trigger warn over everything, so that's why people usually put triggers warnings up for things that MOST people might take issue with - rape, gore, violence... Especially when people try to get creative with their titles, no one is really going to know if a common trigger is there unless you say so. Unless you put that scene in the very beginning, people are going to read your story completely unaware their day is going to get messed up.

No one wants to be going about their internet browsing, only to be confronted with something that reminds them of a time they'd rather forget. I have my own triggers, but they aren't common, and I don't expect people to make note of them when posting stories or anything. I think people who don't have common triggers understand that, too. But it's a courtesy to other people to put in a warning about violence or gore or rape because that sets a lot of people off.

 

First of all, we're not talking about triggers, we're talking about offensive content, but I'll get to that in a minute.

Apparently you didn't read the part where I said I AM FOR warnings in the gallery, in threads, etc. Because clicking links is a leap of faith and you're going in blind. I was talking about reviews and advice for in the REAL world.

I purposely mentioned green eggs and ham because I personally dislike Dr. Seuss books, especially that one. Therefore, if we're going to start labeling everything, I should be able to have the right to demand warnings anywhere I might see Dr. Seuss. The very rediculousness is WHY I brought it up, because the fact is, I don't have the right to demand everyone cater to my opinion.

I am also fully aware of what triggers and trigger warnings are. Though quite honestly, I'm getting tired of everything being labeled as a trigger too. THAT trivializes real trauma. Having flashbacks to Vietnam after watching "Apocalypse Now" is a trigger. Getting offended by it is not, and no one seems to know the difference anymore. My list was regarding things people are offended by or dislike to the point of demanding disclaimers. If I had been talking about triggers, I would have 1, said so, or 2, not posted at all as this thread is about offending, not triggering. Your assumption just strengthens my personal opinion that no one can tell the difference.

As far as your "stop reading" solution, again, that goes to why there should be warnings on the INTERNET. An author of a book that you hold in your hands, a book that has a description on the back, that has reviews posted online and in papers, that you can ask the librarian or bookseller about, is not responsible for anyone's trauma or sensibilities. Because chances are, if you're reading a book on war, there's going to be some violent nastiness. If you're reading a romance, there's probably going to be some sex. Take some responsibility and stop demanding that everything be labeled.

Not to mention, it's pretty easy to lie on the internet and say something is safe when it's definitely not. So you're still taking a leap of faith. (Those sort of people suck, but let's face it, it happens all the time.) The back of a book is a lot more reliable.

As far as the link goes. . . my opinion on that is really far too off-topic, but frankly. . . DO YOUR RESEARCH is the short of it. No one is responsible for you but yourself. I've got allergies. Even food ones. It's up to me, not anyone else, to make sure that I'm not eating a brownie with walnuts in it. This world is seriously lacking in personal accountability and responsibility. Having a problem doesn't excuse it, no matter how large or how small. Or maybe it really is time for the blindfolds to come out.

(Also, I believe the link (the name itself) is against DoA's rules as we're not supposed to drop the f-bomb.)

 

I do know the difference between triggering and being offended, but I don't think it's my place to tell someone when they've been triggered and when they've just been offended. Yes, people do say "I've been triggered" when they've just been profoundly annoyed, but (and this is key) nobody but the person feeling triggered/irritated really knows whether they've been triggered or irritated.

I'm sorry that you hate green eggs and ham, but I hope that you can bring yourself to see that although your own preferences are so niche that they can't reliably be labelled for (Not enough people know you to know that they should label for "warning - green eggs and ham", enough people know survivors of rape, violence, coercion, racism that they can be labelled for. I'm strongly triggered by the smell of a fairly common red hair dye, so I know how it feels to have to avoid something outright, and how frustrating it is to have to avoid situations that would otherwise be a lot of fun just to avoid exposure. Similarly, dodging the seizure-inducing camera flashes is a nightmare in this hobby! Please consider that just because you have to suffer, it doesn't mean that you should wish the same suffering on others.

I did read the part of your post where you said that outside of the internet things shouldn't be labelled, because research is so easy, so I'd like to pose a situation to you, based on what you've said with regards to food allergies; I assume that since you oppose putting content warnings on things, you oppose the idea of putting "Warning - contains nuts" on things which do. So say you're allergic to walnuts, and you go into a coffee shop where they've not written "contains nuts" on things. And you order a lemon cake. You ask if it contains nuts (doing your research), but the server has no idea (Why would they know? they didn't make it). That's the full extent of the research that you can do. So, do you just avoid the cake on the off-chance (Walnuts are a pretty common flavouring, really, tons of stuff uses walnut powder to add moisture and texture) and thus miss out on what might be an awesome cake, or do you eat it and risk having a reaction?

The same analogy carries over well to books - If I'm in a bookshop and pick up a fantasy novel, there's no way of knowing whether it's going to be full of triggering stuff, or just a good old fashioned swords-and-sorcery romp. Unless it's a big-name title, I've got no way of finding out in the bookshop what kind of content is going to be in it, and by the time I've gone home and looked it up, I'll probably be too exhausted to come back out to the bookshop and buy it (See - spoons).

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree and I'm going to have to put my blindfold on, in your world.

Also - Thanks for pointing out my link, I'll go and edit that.

 

I have to agree with this. It sucks when you have a disorder, and having PTSD, or being traumatized isn't your (general) fault, but it still is your responsibility to deal with it. You can't expect everyone to protect you from triggers; you should be able to expect that from family and friends up unto a certain point, but not a random stranger. When you browse the internet, watch tv, take a walk on the street, there's always a chance that you might be triggered. It's the responsibility of the one suffering from PTSD to recognize the symptoms and to act upon them, before they are sucked back into a flashback. No one else can do this for you, but you.

I have chronic PTSD myself and personally I'm insulted by the pampering trigger warnings everywhere. As if I can't think for myself and need someone to hold my hand to guide me through the big, bad world. I'm not stupid. When I'm reading a book I never heard of before and the story's leading to a topic I don't want to deal with, I'm able to read the signs and put the book away, before I come to the point where I'm being triggered. I have a choice to stop reading, turn the tv/computer off, or take a different road home. No one is forcing me to continue.

Yes, it's a choice that you'll have to make and a risk that you'll have to decide if you want to take. That's what's taking responsibility for your disorder/handicap/allergy means, I think.

 

I don't mind artists using distressing themes in their work at all, even if they don't warn you beforehand, but what I do mind is people throwing in a bit of what they see as "drama" or "angst" just to add some gravitas or theatricals to a situation, when in fact it is a very serious issue that, in my view, shouldn't be treated lightly. Especially in comedic works, I think. I'm all for "galgenhumor" and black comedy, but there are certain things that are going to be very painful for certain segments of society. I'm not saying all art or entertainment should be censored to avoid offence; not at all. But I don't wholeheartedly agree with the idea that suffering people should take responsibility for their own triggers. It's great that you're in a place where you can control yourself so well and I applaud you, but for someone whose scars are very new- why should they be confronted with something very traumatic to them? I'm not talking about very niche triggers like phobias, for example, but issues like rape, suicide, abortion, etc: things that many people find intensely difficult to cope with, especially at first. You can't expect to be protected from triggers, but I believe people should expect to be warned of them so they can make their own informed decisions.

And, sorry to derail the interesting path this thread is going down, but I have to ask: what are green eggs?!

 

@Harlequin-Elle: I'm not by a long shot dealing with it as well as you make it sound, I've just started treatment. What I was trying to say is that (at least, this has been my experience), when some topics are triggering to you, you have these special spider senses that tell you when it's time to back away. It's why I always take time to skim through a topic, or book first, before I start reading, because it gives me an idea where it is heading. For example: I didn't need a warning when I came across the movie 'Boys Don't Cry'. The tagline alone was enough for me to see that this wasn't the type of film I wanted to see and it didn't really say all that much (at least, the Dutch version didn't). But the fact that it was about a girl pretending to be a boy and that when her friends discovered this, they weren't all too happy about it... I didn't need more to fill in the blanks.

We already have symbols for strong language, sexual content etc etc. Why do we need more? And where would it end? Because there are many topics that are traumatic to a lot of people. Soon we need the entire back cover for all the disclaimers.