Using Actual Killers As A Theme: Going Too Far

Harlequin-Elle: Thank you so much for your thoughts. I agree it is important to be respectful when talking about these kinds of things. No one knows what some else has or had gone through. I really like that people are trying to be respectful.

Taco: I think you are absolutely right. Violence does not always beget violence. We all handle pain differently. Gallows humor is very cathartic. It can even be therapeutic when used appropriately.

I guess that I am saying that the world isn't in a protective bubble. We want to believe that there is all rainbows and sunshine but reality is that its not. Now as individuals we have the ability to cope differently and respectfully. I like lovely things but I also see the bitterness and sadness of tragedy in a different light too now. It has its own beauty, one just needs a different light to see it through.

 

MichaelMichael, Re:"I again state it is far easier to say...no it's fine until something horrific happens to you or a loved one.

It's far easier to say "that's just how the world works" until it works on you and is knocking on your door. I, truly, pray none of you ever find your self ina situiation were you begin to realize what is being said.

Perhaps it would be better for more people to get involved in real world causes vs. playing with a doll to better understand a situation."

OK, let's tackle your assertions head on. You seem to be making a rather contrite and sweeping statement that you think anyone who does not shrink away from depictions of violence or who addresses them in their art is obviously some dilettante who just plays around with notions they have no experience of. Wrong. I dare say there are many people on this board who have been the subject of violent and traumatic acts. In my mid twenties and living alone in London I was attacked by a knife wielding schizophrenic who had broken into my flat. My first reaction, after the event, was to bury my head in the sand, sing "lalalalal" and pretend nothing had happened - that approach made me very ill. As a result I underwent years of therapy for PTSD and found through my own first hand experience that, for me at least, confronting the darker side of life head on is very theraputic.

It made me understand why years earlier when I was at art college, a mature student who had been badly disfigured in an IRA bomb blast spent all his time creating vast canvases of mutilated and hideously deformed faces. He had been through years of very painful surgery to rebuild his face and was understandably obsessed by notions of beauty and ugliness. He was also a very sane, well rounded and interesting man who accepted his lot in life and had found a way to come to terms with this event through his art.

You seem to be making the mistake of accusing others of making sweeping statements while making even more far reaching generalizations and assumptions yourself. I would be tempted to say you need more life experience yourself but that would be falling into the same trap.

Some people shy away from horror and violence and protect themselves from harsh realities, that is their way of coping. It is fine to be offended by Dollhearts Lizzie Borden outfit but it isn't fine to suggest the rest of us are sick or insensitive for not being offended.

 

Michaelmichael: I've written previously in this thread that so far in my knowledge of DOA, no member has been so offensive that I've actually felt the need to "ignore" them. I now revoke that statement. Your posts are so patronising, self-absorbed and insensitive that they are actually rather nauseating. A kinder person than me would say that this is because of your inarticulacy. But, like others have mentioned before me, I feel it's actually due to your lack of life experience. Also your recent addition to your signature has increased its annoyingness by 150% which is quite impressive. Why does ugly need to be fought? What makes you think you are pretty? More importantly, why are you so determined in your mission to make yourself look silly?

Needless to say I disagree with every point you make. First of all: you do NOT have the right to judge how anyone makes themselves feel better after a traumatic incident. Therapy does NOT always work. Who on earth do you think you are, prescribing treatments you know nothing about? If creating a doll based on murder, violence, sickness, etc makes a victim feel better then I say fair play to them. If you don't like it, don't look at it. It's not your place to accuse that person of being sick or insensitive for creating it. Why? Because you don't understand them or their experiences and have no right to judge them for it.

Second of all: I do not believe "true art" is purely about rainbows and butterflies; neither does anyone else who knows anything about art. Look at the hundreds of thousands of peices of incredible art based upon suffering, war, cruelty and death. They do not perpetuate those themes themselves- they help people to come to terms with them. Even in some cases they can change the course of history and the viewpoints of society. Artists do not create art with the intention of causing harm or violence to people. In my opinion, art communicates emotions and experiences across cultures and generations. Art holds out its hand and says "I know how you feel". Art consisting of happy sugary rainbows and butterflies cannot do this in the same way. If all artists felt the same way as you do, they would not be artists. In fact I can't think of any artist- painter, writer, musician, anything- whose work does not contain elements of darkness.

As someone who has experienced traumatic things and illnesses, let me tell you that I for one do not find happy, cheerful art helpful at all. The opposite, in fact; I find it irritating because it doesn't understand me and I don't understand it. When you're incredibly depressed, the last thing you want is happy sunshine and smiles around you. It makes you feel more lonely. What you want, when you're miserable, is art that is also miserable, because it abates the alienation and loneliness, and THAT is what really makes art "true art" for me. Perhaps if you had experienced these things, you would be more sensitive to this kind of need yourself.
Here is one of my all-time favourite pieces of art, The Scream by Edvard Munch:


It is not a pretty, happy picture. There is not one butterfly or puppy in sight. The colours are lurid and scary, the figure is not prancing around and smiling. And yet it's one of the most powerful pieces of art out there, in my opinion. And one of the most soothing. Why? Because I understand it. I understand how that figure feels, I understand why the painter used those colours and shapes, I understand the meaning of the painting. And therefore, I feel the painting and the painter understand me. And understanding is key to healing. That is the crucial point which you seem so oblivious to. It is difficult to explain in terms that you will understand. And even then I doubt you would be able to understand or even willing to. It is safe for you in your bubble of rainbows and sugar and unicorns and self-absorption. Just try to see that there is a darker world out there, and people deal with it in ways that you simply don't understand because you don't know enough about them and their own experiences.
Lastly, I'll put this in bold and speak simply because this is the part you need to pay attention to: You do not have the right to judge anyone for what they create, because you do not understand the reasons behind it.

And now I'm going to make use of this helpful ignore button, and leave you to burden the other readers of this thread.

 

Bravo Harlequin. I the Scream.

Anyone who doubts the existence/efficacy of dollplay-as-therapy-- and, anybody who's even interested in it-- should watch this film:
http://www.marwencol.com/film2/

Guy's story is amazing. Nice guy from upstate New York, very talented artist, alcoholic. One night mentions to some other drunks in a bar that he sometimes likes to cross-dress. Out in the parking lot, thugs kick his head in so far that he gets total amnesia & loses his whole former life. No more alcoholism, but no memory, mad brain damage, can't draw anymore. Guy creates a complete 1:6 scale model of a WWII Belgian village in his backyard, and populates it with throngs of 1:6 doll figures who live in his whole imaginary world. And then makes the most incredible photostories of it. His photos are incredible, his attention to detail is incredible, his story & survival are incredible.

The SS dolls are his inner demons always demanding a drink; and they're also the thugs who beat him. His own doll of himself (sorta the ultimate Gary Stu) is rescued by the women of the village. Sometimes there's pastoral fun, and sometimes the stories are as gore-soaked as any war film. The details-- blood in the snow, agonized faces, twisted postures, executions, the scratches on the barrel of a gun-- are all mercilessly spot-on. It's very affecting stuff, but not for the fainthearted.

Our shaky healthcare system means this guy's living on disability insurance, which means he can't afford sufficient professional therapy, nowhere near the amount he needs. So he is still working through his problems in his dollhouse. Which I think is incredibly inspiring. He's trying to find peace, but there are no rainbows or unicorns on the path to putting himself back together.

So, walk a mile in someone's boots before you go trying to dictate what kind of art he should be making.

 

Harlequin-Elle: Thank you so much for your comments. I completely agree with you and if I could be more articulate I would have said almost the same thing you just did. I guess sometimes I too am too nice and don't want to say what you were able to. So Kudos to you for saying what you needed to say.

As to other comments made and more geared to general need to say:
I have stated before that if you haven't had a traumatic event happen in your life which I hope that you haven't you don't know what will help heal you. It took me almost three/four years before I could even watch movies about mass shootings and now I can sometimes, they bother me but I no longer can't watch or won't watch them. In fact if they are well done I find solace in them (meaning it makes me realize I am not alone). It took me years to even consider doing a memorial for my friend in doll form or any form that would honor her. But the point I am trying to make is that we are all different in how we heal from something traumatic and I feel like we need to respect each others preferences in that process even if you don't understand it or agree with how they do it.

I love the comment that Harlequin-Elle said: that none of us has the right to judge other people for what they create, even if that means we don't understand it. Again the world is not full of sunshine and rainbows. Its not in a protective bubble where nothing bad happens. But it is a place where people from all walks of life can create meaning out of horror and travesty and heal by whatever means they feel is the way they need to.

 

So the only way to take a stand against violent action is to remove all depictions of violence? Have you really sat down and thought about what that means? What we will be left with. What will be destroyed? Have you been to an art museum recently and actually looked around you (and that's only visual art -- there is also literature and the performing arts). You keep harping on this one idea, yet it doesn't seem particularly well thought out.

That is actually more than opinion -- that is fact. Portrayals of violence do exist in art. Having a violent theme does not make something not art. While people argue all the time about the boundaries of art, you are going to have a hard time finding people who actually agree with such a very very very narrow interpratation of what is permissable.

Now you are contradicting things you have said before since you've been repeatedly saying that violence should not be subject matter for 'true' art.

You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right? Can it be educational or not? Make up your mind.

When I was in highschool (this was like geeze, 16? years ago now) we watched an animated film in one of our classes. It was Japanese (I wish I could remember the name -- maybe someone here knows it?) and there is no dialogue. It was about the bombing of Hiroshima and showed quite plainly what happens to people when you drop a nuclear weapon in their vicinity. It was quite disturbing, but also very powerful. It definitely made an effective case against nuclear weapons. It was artistic, moving, yet very disturbing. That is something that art does -- it makes people think, and that is an incredibly powerful thing that cuts across all mediums and cultures. To not see this is to completely and totally not understand what art is and can be. It also suggests that you don't understand how people learn, educate each other, and cope. What you strive for is some highly sanitized art that is devoid of much of it's power and potential. That to me is a scary thing.

You can choose to continue disagreeing with everyone here, but I really think it would behoove you to come down off your high horse and start listening to what we are all saying and really start questioning some of your own beliefs, because what you believe is so far out of line with the reality of the situation.

BTW -- expressing anything well whether it be anger, violence, or any other theme or emotion is not particularly easy. Doing things well generally isn't, because it takes a certain amount of skill to really reach your audience. The reason those things are so prolific, is because people are responding to the world around them as well as their own inner struggles.

As another aside, Art Therapy is a recognized theraputic technique (and yes, you can go to school for it). So the whole idea that art as a coping mechanism or therapy is weird or wrong, is quite incorrect.

Again, you really need to start thinking about what you are saying.

 

Taco: could you be thinking of Grave of the Fireflies? It does have dialogue, but is an older anime film about two orphaned children in Hiroshima after the bomb and their struggles (most of which are brought on by the callous disregard for them from other survivors).

 

Nope -- not it. This had no dialogue, and it didn't have an in depth story about any one person. It was showing the physical effect of the bomb on the people in the area.

 

@Taco - Was it Barefoot Gen?

 

It's a sad fact that there is no way to completely divorce violence from the human condition. We may be intelligent and capable of mercy, compassion, and even sainthood, but at the end of the day, it is my belief (and I apologize that it might be a little controversial) that humans evolved to be the dominate species on this planet. In order to do so, we had to evolve a tendency and threshold for violence not found in any other species on this planet.

We humans are genetically geared to violence. In the modern day, this is done with depictions to help sate our appetite.


On a "lighter" note, using depictions of violence (paintings, novels, dolls, etc.) are actually incredibly useful in therapy. If someone in therapy begins to draw, write, or create something violent, it is encouraged by the therapist. It is a healthy expression of pain, grief, anger, and all the other emotions that stem from a traumatic event. What is NOT healthy is to act on these emotions in a violent manner, or in a way that hurts you or someone else.


All of that being said, everyone has a right to be offended. I have a right to be offended by some of the comments made on this thread, just as someone else has the right to be offended by what I have said in my comment. I, personally, will choose to continue to be offended by the liberal use of glitter in this world, and suffer my phobia in my basement, surrounded by resin dust and doll parts.

 

As someone that gets a twisted kick out of reading about serial killers I can say that there's a line for this one.

If you have a line named after a 'killer' from centuries ago there's not much call to be up in arms about it
examples
- Vlad the Impaler
-Ghangis Khan
- Elizabeth Bathory
- Lizzie Borden
- Rasputin
- Jack the Ripper
- Marquis de Sade (while not a killer his exploits are considered overwhelmingly violent)

Cause honestly while we know what they did or were alleged to have done the truth is so muddled by time no one is sure anymore what is fact and what is fable. You may as well be offended by a doll/outfit named for the Grand Dutchess Anastasia who may or may not have been a brutalized victim (skipping that debate)

There is a slight grey area I will admit to if someone were to name something for say the "Zodiac Killer" or "The Black Dahlia" because while they are horrible stories they have taken on a bit of their own fame and fable being so 'mysterious and unsolved' as they are

On the other hand I will be the first to call "Fucked Up" if someone makes an outfit named for a more recent well documented killer (alleged or convicted)
Examples in this Case Include
- Ed Gein
- Jeffery Dahmer
- Albert Fish
- Robert Hansen
- MaryBeth Tinning
- Rosemary West

And on and on...

 

I saw this the other night! D:

I'm over it now, but my first thought was "Oh man...eeugh, no, why?!"

Still though, I don't think it's going /too/ far. Don't get me wrong though. The fact that they named it after someone as specific as Lizzie Borden is pretty creepy, if not mildly unnerving.

 

Anyone has the right to be offended, but nobody has the right to tell someone else that they should be offended. That being said, if you are offended, speak with your dollars and don't buy the clothing/doll that's offending you, and don't look at gallery threads that have that doll/clothing set in them. If you're offended you have the responsibility to not look no matter how much you may want to.

Anyway, I'm not too offended by this. This is from a nursery rhyme based off of what's more or less passed into folklore by now. I deal with death, mortality, and the nasty side of life in my own dolls, so I don't see why I should be offended by a clothing set.

But maybe I should be offended by the prices.

 

If you want violence to end, you have to stop feeling - Anyone seen Equilibrium? And that would do anyone any good:

I'm not offended by dolls made to look like serialkillers, but that again depends.
If someone was to make a doll of Breivik - the guy who shoot almost 100 kids in norway last summer - then I would have been offended, at the same stage that I wouldnt have liked someone to make a Hitler doll.

But that is so freesh in historiy, that it still hurts. The Lizzie Borden story is long past, and she only killed two people (?) So he isnt a serial killer either...
[h=1][/h]

 

I find it a bit creepy but if it was just an name and and i liked the sculpt i may change the charicter

 

I can completely understand where you are coming from, and why it would offend or disturb you. Your feelings make perfect sense to me. Whenever I first read this topic and clicked the links, I was like, "Really...?" I was certainly confused. I didn't really think there would be anything named after her.

In the end it does not "offend" me, nor would it keep me from buying the product... In all honesty, I actually kind of liked the outfits in the links that you put. However, if I had my own business, most likely I would not be naming any outfits something like that.

 

I get your point, but you have to realize that someone in another culture might not know the difference between a rhyme based on a famous crime story and something out of Mother Goose. Heck, I've met people from the States who don't know Lizzie Borden was a real person and not a fictional character.

 

Personally I am not offended. Real murderers are real people, yes, but they are known for being murderers. They are not known for being upstanding citizens and it is not like people look at them and look up to them. I understand people having interest in them, and those outfit names being interesting to them. I feel its almost like if someone made a dress Lady Gaga wore on stage and sold it under her name, it would be okay. The outfits are made to that theme... so really I think it is just a theme thing, despite whether it is named after a fictional or real person.

 

So i finally looked at the outfits actually being discussed, yeah go figure I threw my opinion in on the general matter rather than the specific.
What's funny? I am offended.
I'm not offended by name or the outfit. As a hard core reader and fairy tale lover I'm offended they are calling the clothing line "Mother Goose" since neither 'Lizzie Borden' nor ANY of the 'My Mother Has Killed Me' rhymes are from Mother Goose.

Ok so maybe I'm not really OFFENDED so much as being nit picky as hell.
But the point is in what you FOCUS on... I honestly had a hell of a time figuring out where it even SAID the rhymes on the given links and just went to the original Dollheart.net to see what the fuss was.