Going too far in general - Artistic vision vs offensive content

I think it all depends on what the artist is trying to portray.
To each their own, you know?
But they should be open to other's beliefs and morals, and to try not to stir too much up.

 

I agree with Trinity. For me, it get's rather deep. It is the INTENT not just the audiences' perceptions. Although the "artist" might not be telling the audience what his intent is, people do see nuances that will either make them like it or hate it. This reaction though goes past the image/work and directs itself to the maker. They might think ill of him/her depending on their beliefs and preferences.
Like that thread with that rant about girl dolls not having a very detailed vagina. That was a weird one~ Some would say, "This guy is a total pervert!" When told of detailed vagina on a doll, many think the lifesized kind. If you look at DA there are occasional nudes that you could really consider as soft-porn.

Some Europeans find it funny that Americans can stand seeing blood all over the place but not so much nude people. People there don't really care much about seeing melons, sticks, and crack.
XD In a Cambodian village, girls are encouraged to have sex at an early age and have multiple bf's. They do this to find a suitable husband. It's quite innocent and rather progressive. They choose the guy if he is industrious and the get along well. The girls are rather wise and knows when a guy is watching porn. All that media can corrupt the mind with excessive lust and other perversions.

I say, if the artist's intent is perverted and it shows on the work, then it is rightfully called offensive. Although many will be more complacent about these things and might no longer call it offensive, it will still be perverted.
But let's not be quick to judge. The artist might be showing a problem we should really look into and make us think. Under all that light effects and mods, what is the artist really telling us or having us think? If it's just for shock value, then pfft. TAT Back to Andy Warhol and the like~

And I think more people get disturbed or disgusted rather than offended. Offended is an emotion you get when you feel judged (personal attack). Oh, the weirdness of language.

 

Actually, I am mildly allergic to walnuts, so yes, it is up to me. I've never had a serious reaction, and I don't like them enough to tempt fate, so if someone didn't know, I'd choose to pass it up. And if I chose to have a brownie with walnuts because I just couldn't resist and that's the one time I go into anaphylatic shock, well, that's my own fault because I knew better.

I do think ingredients should be listed, but it's up to me to read them. It's not up to anyone else to shout them out.

And since you're determined to misunderstand me, yes, I think we'll agree to disagree.

 

Pffft, trigger warnings, life can't be warned-against enough. ALL of network & cable TV sets off every trigger I have, every time I turn it on... how many ways can women be abused, ridiculed, and exploited for lulz over a spread of some 600 channels, anyway? But I have never seen ONE single warning on any show or movie that says "Warning: Contains unrealistically negative depictions and gratuitous abuse of women, which may retraumatize some of you, but we don't really care, because we need to give straight men hard-ons so that we can keep our advertising money flowing. Have a nice day." Truth. You'd have to blanket all of Hollywood with trigger warnings for pretty much every film and TV show ever made (except, of course, Mary Poppins, which comes with a certified Christian halo).

Simple solution: I don't watch network or cable TV. xD

What it really depends on is what the viewer brings to the viewing. The artist's intent may be completely missed, because the viewer will only ever see that artwork through the lens of their own history, experience, prejudices, & preferences. It doesn't matter how earnest that artist may be, trying hard to tell the viewer something by way of strong imagery.... if the viewer comes pre-blocked by the "oh, it's just shock value, how puerile" prejudice, the artist's intent will never get through.

Remember that lady who photographed her baby while it was dressed as famous dictators of world history? She got widely slammed for that, and royally bitched-on for Going Too Far.... even though entire project was actually trying to say something about the nature of evil. The project had a lot to say about it... but that artist just didn't bargain on the power of Knee-Jerk.

 

I agree with JennyNemesis. Real life, never mind the internet, is full of some pretty grim things, and there aren't always going to be warnings.

We are (mostly) adults, and so we have to be prepared, sometimes, to encounter stuff that we dislike, when looking at art or images online (and in a doll forum).

I am concerned about the level of censorship already prevalent in the UK (I know it's different in the States). This is though I'm squeamish about (some) explicit sexual stuff.

On 1970, when I was 10, my sister and I visited the Museum of Modern Art in Amsterdam, where there was an exhibition by a contemporary Japanese artist. It showed life-size scenes, but instead of human beings there were malformed body parts, all depicted in a hyper-realistic way.

I found it intensely disturbing at the time and so did my sister, who was a young adult. There were no 'health-warnings', but I'm not convinced there should have been.*

Also...different people find different things offensive, according to their religious and cultural background. It's a tricky one, but I think that it's mainly up to us to avoid things that may distress us.

*Other things I found upsetting as a child: Walt Disney's Fantasia; Bambi; Tales from Europe on the BBC; Tintin books; Scooby Doo; Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain; Dr Who, especially the Cybermen; war photographs in Sunday newspaper colour supplements; satirical plays; a medieval play showing the Passion of Jesus; the operetta Lilac Time; Great Expectations by Charles Dickens; Tom and Jerry cartoons; Laurel and Hardy short films; The Sound of Music; and so forth.

 

I feel that artistic freedom should not to limited. As long as it isn't hurting living beings. Artists should be able to express themselves in anyway. If people are offended by the piece it could have been the whole purpose of the piece.
That said, I have to say there are enough creative results with BJD or dolls in general that throws me off and makes me not want to look at it. But I don't have to like what other people create. And other people don't have to like, what I create.
There are so many different opinions to as where is the line that can be crossed, if an artist has to respect that constantly, it will limit his/her freedom to work.
So I would say...if you don't like it, just don't look at it.

 

Artistically, I don't think there is a line where this art is okay, but that art isn't, so long as living beings are not being harmed in order to create or display the artwork. I do think that those creating and sharing art need to be courteous about where and how they choose to share it, meaning warnings if it is very likely that a large number of people will find it offensive or disturbing.

However, and for me, this does not apply to random people on the internet, because I don't know them, or have anything but their web presence to go on, but if there were someone I knew personally who was constantly making artworks depicting sexual abuse, severe violence, mutilation, etc, especially depicting children, I might be concerned for their mental health in the same way you might be concerned about the mental health of someone who was torturing animals. Sometimes these things are a warning sign that something worse is coming if the underlying issue isn't addressed. Someone who is only making very violent artwork, might move on to harming animals or people. It could also be a sign that they have suffered some kind of abuse that needs to be addressed.

 

I paint burlesque performers and this question goes through my head everytime I raise my brush.
If you want to sell art, make it easy. If you want to be true to yorself, then you must make your art from the heart, be that a zombie vampire bloodthirsty heart!

Saying that, I cannot commend art that expoits the young or the weak in any way.

 

Hmm, my personal point of view is that things that are obvious triggers - such as rape, violence and sexual nudity - should have a warning.

I watched a movie the other day with some of my male friends that had a rape scene and it was distinctly uncomfortable, I would have been fine if it had had a warning or something, but it just said "Nudity" on the box.

I believe there are times and places for art too. There ARE some doll things I find - awful - for instance on DeviantArt I was looking up bjds and found a pukifee(? One of the baby ones, anyway) touching herself in a very obviously sexual way, and the comments talked about how sexy she was, and yes, I found that disturbing. Not because it was a doll, but because I can't think of something that looks like a child as being "Sexual" but this is just my opinion.

People can do what they like with their dolls, it is their doll, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

This is just my opinion, by the way. Nobody else has to share it.

 

Like many others in this thread, I think that artistic freedom doesn't exactly have a line -- If the doll or art in question is distinctively perverted or made for shock value, then I am more on the fence. Maybe, if it had good reason or a strong element behind it that was more than just 'overly detailed vagina' or 'doll with half it's head blown off', it could slightly be more acceptable.

Though really, it seems a lot of the people in the doll community (or really any creative community) have a love for the dark, macabre, gore, so that is to be expected here. Not saying that all of us would have zombie customizations on our dolls or purposefully gore-mod them, but there are a good amount of people here who seem to overlook the ~shock value~ dolls quite well.

Of course, I'm speaking from a perspective where nothing really shocks or grosses me out anymore, rather so intrigues me.

 

Without actually naming the company, I am starting to think there is something odd about manufactured dolls that are extreme gore or of bloody themes. I like vampires, fantasy creatures, and so on in general. But what I am talking about is a manufactured doll with either a chain saw, mutilated parts, or now, zombification including internal exposed organs.

Maybe it is the popular culture prevelent today but I think, for myself, a purchased doll with exposed rotten body parts and internal organs is a little outside the bounds of good taste. If I want to mod it like that it is one thing. But I question why there is a market for something so graphic from something that started out as positively ethereal.

 

Are you talking about Ringdoll? XD That's one of my favourite companies, in terms of vision, originality and creativity. I don't own any of their horror dolls because I like to be more hands-on when creating my hideous little resin creatures, but let's just say it's an aesthetic I admire.

But taste is an interesting thing here. It could be that taste is actually more important than offence. I agree that rotten body parts and exposed internal organs are bad taste. But I LOVE bad taste, and so do lots of other people (sometimes without realising that it's bad taste), which is why there's a market for it. Horror is a part of life. Death is a part of life, for that matter, so why not explore it in a harmless, creative way with dolls? And done in the right way, with an insightful, perceptive and intellectual slant on what may be seen by others to be gratuitous horror, it stops being pure bad taste and becomes, to me, an exciting exercise in originality and psychology.

 

Of course you can go too far. You can claim that it's artistic vision, but that doesn't change the fact that you are doing it to shock people. It's like the artist that decided to kill a dog as an "art" project. He thought it was fine because he considered it art. That doesn't mean the rest of the world will agree with him.

 

In my opinion, you go too far with any art if you start hurting people (or really any living creature), which I don't see how you can really do with dolls. Well, okay, I suppose it's possible, but anyway. Then when it comes to posting your art on the internet, I do think you should always put up a warning on it if you think it may offend people - especially if it's a forum where children might see.
But this is all subjective, of course, as I've noticed reading through some of these answers..

 

"Shock Value" is art, plain and simple, in fact it is the root of art's evolution and it's eventual modernizing into the varied styles, and subjects we see today. In our day, Picasso is a renowned and respected artist across the world, but in his time, his art was considered somewhat grotesque and ill-natured because it's lack of realism and focus. At at time it was shocking for people to see artistic genius of his calibre because there wasn't really any precedence for it up until that point.

That being said, yes he created his art, not in the hopes of shock value, but rather to express a deep desire to be understood and to help himself (and possibly others) come to answer THE question for all human kind "Who am I?", but you cannot say that those who create simply for shock value are not truly making art, but rather doing what art often does better than any medium: taking a subject that is inherent in all people's psyches' and amplifying it to pull out those emotions associated with said subject. Art is for arts sake, and some believe only for that sake. To expound upon that, those companies who create grotesque or otherwise overly detailed works in the subjects of sex, death, and the like, are not only delving into the niche factors of our communities, but also literally giving the brain and subconcious exactly what they want: deeply rooted human experiences. That is not to say you want to see zombies or sexual interaction, but rather that the human mind is subconsciously, and for those who more greatly accept their subconcious as a pleasurable state of mind, deriving some kind of pleasure, whether that be in gasping shock at first sight, or an unknown reason as to why you can't stop hiking about those images and then perhaps posting about them somewhere after returning to see them a time or two.

Unfortunately for more innocently minded, or those who wish to abstain from such distractions, and focus on what is pleasing to the eye, these subjects above are indeed deeply rooted in the human mind, as their artistic expression in any form is amplification of those subjects to draw the mind and eye, ultimately to create memories (whether conscious or not) and in this case to sell dolls, or at the very least make a brand as recognizable as say...one whom everyone knows without even saying the name of it? All in all, is shock value art? I think so, yes. Is it in good taste? Not necessarily, but tastes vary and ultimately some of the worlds greatest art wasn't in good taste in its time. Should we as people deny the right of others to make and enjoy such ideas? No I think not, I would say that culture and knowledge, as well as wisdom, can guide all of society to help understand one another on a level beyond the common place, and let live outside the "normal" parameters of what is considered good taste, realizing that people are indeed human, and have needs and desires that range greatly from individual to individual.


I should add as a post script, that these writings are an expression of ideas based on the subject of dolls, and not explicitly dealing with anything to do with animal sacrifice, or otherwise more literal translations of the subjects we are discussing here. Those things are up to more specified individual likes or dislikes, and often delve into the religious and inherently moral nature of human beings and their relationship to the world around them.

 

I believe that as property, any owner has a right to do whatever they choose with their doll. Dismember limited monthlies, butcher faceups, mod a rare sculpt: they paid for it, and it is their right to do what they want with it. They just can't expect anyone to like it. Nobody has an obligation to like anyone else's production.

With that, BJDs aren't an invisible hobby. Once you make your property visible and post it online or display it in public, people have their own right to approve/disapprove of it, to comment or critique as they want.

I've come to my own conclusions about shock art based on my school studies, and in the end, I believe that nothing should be created solely to shock; the value of aesthetic and statement are just as important, if not more so, than the gut reaction of the audience. Art is meant to transcend, to mimic life and draw attention to it so that the viewer becomes aware of reality. There's nothing wrong with a statement doll- for example, one with a carefully over-the-top faceup designed to call attention to unnoticed trends or common beginner errors. It's interesting, it's sort of funny, we all know what it's like. But there's a difference between making a viewer self-aware and making them regret seeing the piece.

There's nothing saying they can't do it, other than the laws of what forum they display their creation in. And while you don't have an obligation to your audience as an artist, there is making an uncomfortable statement and then there is being a nasty person. Where is the line between statement art and trolling? Hard to say, but in my opinion, a shocking piece of art should be made to call attention to something the viewer might not have noticed or considered in a certain light. There's a difference between that and making people uncomfortable and offended just to make them uncomfortable and offended.

 

Very thoughful and thought provoking answers to my own thoughts. I have enjoyed the inputs from so many points of view. As an artist myself, I understand having ones own vision and agree completely. This new style of manufactured gore is a trend I believe and not the same as the owner modding their own doll into a vision of their own. To me and to me only, it smacks of pandering for shock value.

I DO NOT agree with killing any living thing in and of itself as an art project. I have had firsthand experience with that and it is disgusting and horrifying in my opinion. A local high school girl killed and did unbelievably cruel things with a cat then posted it on her fb page as "art". The whole community was in shock. As a member of animal rescue agencies it was awful and traumatizing. She was protected under freedom of speech laws. However, she did not escape animal cruelty charges. That is the type who grows up to be the next serial killer.

But as I said....my opinion only.

 

Everyone has there own view on things. People cant expect the rest of the world to see the way they do. So if they fin it offensive thats there own problem.

 

The problem is that "going too far" is different for everyone.

If we try not to offend anyone, no one would be allowed to do anything.

Personally, I'm against censorship. As long as no one was injured in creating your image, I think it's OK. People can choose not to look at it if they may be offended, after all. No one is being forced to see things!

I don't mind if people request warnings be put up before the image is viewed. That's fair enough. But beyond that, I think anything goes.

I know that there is a LOT of stuff I'd rather not look at... but that doesn't mean that my views should restrict someone else.

You know that there are people out there who think that images of the human figure (like photos of dolls) are evil and wrong. What if they ruled the world and said you couldn't post doll photos? Or worse yet--outlawed the making and owning of dolls? If you are going to draw a line somewhere, where would you draw it? They might draw it at no dolls whatsoever. You might draw it at only some dolls. Another might say it was all dolls but not doing this or that... No one can really agree. I think it is best to not censor at all, because setting the line is always something that can be argued over.

 

In my own response, I was thinking of (my hated nemesis) Damien Hirst, famous for having made millions by displaying dissected animals in formaldehyde. He combines two things that offend me, which I've taken to heart in my opinions on dolls as well as art: cruelty to animals, and plagiarizing another person's art.

Harm to others (and others' property) is going too far. If we can't all agree on that, I don't know what we could agree on.