Using Actual Killers As A Theme: Going Too Far

What is being referred to as a 'nursery rhyme' was also theoretically a jingle used to sell newspapers that reported on the horrific murders as well as being attributed to Mother Goose. It's is really odd when something so horrifying crosses over into urban legend territory and, finally, fictionalized to the point of being completely incorrect and even convicting someone of a crime. It's really a testimony to how popular the case was- not to mention popular opinion of the person in question.

I'm not exactly comfortable with it but it's not as if you can run down the street crying, "Too soon! Too soon!"

 

Over reaction. First off, the Lizzie Borden story is mostly made up anyway, much like the Elizabeth Bathory story. Even if they were real people, we have little to no facts they did anything. Second, history is awesome. And a lot of my favorite books are fictional stories based off historical killers. It's not like creating a doll in a killers image is hurting anyone's family, and I don't think it's in bad taste at all. Ecspecially if you're a gore fan. I think it's a creative idea and that it is unfair to judge.

 

Absolutely not, it in no way offends me at all. regardless of fact or fiction, and as has been said you can always just hit the back button and not look again.
After all most of the Grimm fairytales were exactly that..Grimm ..we live in a society that to some extent embraces the macabre and violent whether true or not.

 

It's tasteless and I'm really kind of offended by it!

 

Honestly, when I saw this topic, my first thought was "oh, god, did some company put out a Ted Bundy doll?!" This would offend me. As would a Dahmer, Richard Ramirez or Gacy doll. There's just something wrong about turning serial killers into money-makers that way. It neither explains why they did what they did nor makes an effort to say "these people were evil." I feel the same way about people who collect serial killer memorabilia. (Different levels to this though. Buying Ed Gein's car disturbs me, though not as much as the thought of someone buying one of Bundy's VWs.) Sellers of it bother me even more, as it's only about the profit to them.

Doing a line of Victorian-inspired clothes with the name of a Victorian era killer (okay, aquitted, alleged killer) is dark and yes, a little disturbing to me, but it doesn't outright offend me either. There's something about it that sort of works. The Victorian era was pretty creepy in itself, after all. We are talking about a time period that gave us death photos of children. Which sell pretty well and at a price, btw.

And if someone wanted to base one of their own dolls on a serial killer, while it would disturb me and make me wonder about that person, it wouldn't offend me. They're not making money on it. They've got a reason for it and I've got a "back" button. The only way it would offend me is if the owner was constantly shoving it into everyone's face for pure shock value. Seriously Not Cool.

I think there's a fine line between fascination and exploitation. I have a huge collection of true-crime novels. I love Criminal Minds and the movie Zodiac. I'm interested in the whys and the "how was this allowed to go on for so long?" aspects. I'm also interested in how they were caught (or not, in Zodiac's case) and what law enforcement can learn from them. I'm interested in what would-be victims can learn in order to protect themselves. I'm not interested in turning them into celebrities, like Manson has become.

There are certain crimes that have basically become legends, and Lizzie Borden is one of them. So's Jack the Ripper. I think that comes from their crimes being publicized and romanticized when they happened. They've become iconic. Maybe that's not right, but it's happened. But I don't have to buy the doll.

 

I'm not offended by it at all. Mostly because we see all of this so often in our society that it would be foolish to think that it wouldn't creep into the doll hobby. I personally am not to big into crime shows, books, you name it, but I won't be offended by people who are. Even if they base characters around it. Would I base my characters off of these people? Probably not, but only because I don't know much about them in the first place.
I guess in my opinion it's just like most debatable things, such as magic, etc. Some people choose not to watch, read, learn about it, others thrive on it, it just all depends on the person.

 

Seriously? I agree with much of what Kimber Rose said.

It's also a double standard and I own that, but female serial killers that aren't recent don't really creep me out like the male ones do.

 

I'm just sitting here laughing my ass off because this is exactly the opposite of everything I've been told in art college. XD Every single teacher I've had dismisses simple "pretty" art as merely decorative and almost a waste of time. The art world hasn't been going down the "art should be pretty" road in almost a century. I'm just trying to imagine my Non-Trad Drawing teacher's face if someone said such a thing to her. Art isn't supposed to provide people with an escape from the world, art now days is supposed to confront the viewer with the nastier side of the world and make them think about it and, perhaps, change it.

I suppose non-artists just don't get that high art is supposed to be meaningful too.




Anyway, on the subject of this thread - I think using a modern serial killer would be utterly tasteless and horrible, but to use a killer from 100+ years ago is fine. I don't know why I feel like that, but I guess it's because the victims' families may still be around to be hurt by it and I don't think exploiting the sensation around a recent serial killer is okay.

 

I wouldn't be offended, per se. Put off a little, yes, because the first thing that would come to mind - before I even saw anything - would be "How could they pull this off?" It would be uncomfortable having a doll modeled after a serial killer. Going by Mouser26's lists, I think the reason why we're more wary, at least, of the more "recent" killers is because they're recent. I'm sure many doll owners have lived to see cases tried against some of these people because they weren't too long ago.

But, you look at the other individuals who have done similar things, and we might not feel the same "connection" with these people because we didn't live in that time period. We never experienced the torment brought on Elizabeth Bathory, or Vlad the Impaler, first hand; we can never really know what it was like living in fear under these people. We can only read about them in books. I think that these people probably bring on a more fictional air than those who are more recent, which is why people are more likely to base a character or a style off of them.

 

I am someone who happened to be in the library during the Columbine shooting. Needless to say, I would be less than thrilled if someone went and got dolls made of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Wouldn't be surprised, and it's the owner's prerogative of course, but still, a bit tasteless IMHO.

 

There is no proof Lizzie killed her parents, but her parents WERE murdered. It wasn't that long ago, the trial transcripts are available and there are crime scene photos and everything. The police photo of her father's body when it was found is well known. So they are real people who existed and it really did happen. The only unknown factors is WHO killed them and WHY.

All one has to do is check on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_Borden

Just saying.

 

I do believe I heard that some forensics team went in again to examine this case either this month or last month. They're now saying that they DO believe she did the murders... but who knows? Maybe five, ten years later, we have another team going in, saying "No, she didn't do it, because..."?

 

Simple, if you don't like the theme, move on, no need to look back.
It's only a theme, I think most people will buy the outfits because of the designs.

 

It was 1892 -- that's pretty far removed for most people, yes they had photography during that time, and yes the murders did actually happen. However, it has been rather unclear as to whether she was guilty or innocent -- even though they had crime scene photos, they didn't have the technology that we do now to fully investigate a murder case. I think whether she did it or not is perhaps less of an issue than how far removed the events are in time. There's nobody alive today that would have been alive then, and that does make a big difference to how people relate to what happened.

 

Ah, yes. I know. I think it's more the idea that someone would say that it was all mostly "made up" and saying that there's little to no facts that anything happened that ruffled my feathers, since there is undeniable proof that those murders did happen and all the people involved existed. I personally don't mind people using the nursery rhyme for their clothes line. I live in MA and have grown up knowing the rhyme.

 

I personally am not offended by it, but like most others have stated, I can see how someone could be. I myself am fascinated by serial killers and what makes them tick...I love researching them, both modern and not-so-modern. So the name of the outfit doesn't bother me at all, especially since it has nothing to do with the subject matter, other than the time-period. I agree that they were probably just going forward with their nursery rhyme theme, and had no idea that it was based on fact. Also, I would think the fact that it's just a period outfit, and not an entire doll based on a serial killer, does help it to be less offensive.

That said, I love the girl outfit and I'd buy it in a heartbeat if I had a doll that could wear it, and wasn't so offended by the pricetag, lol.

 

The only way it would bother me would be if a doll was named after a modern killer where the victims family could be hurt by it.
I think it would be in bad taste then.

 

Cause I wasnt a stuido art major and studied in fashion design in an international art institue...those non-art people are so uninformed and I so agree should have no opinion on what art is and is not. *hard-core eye roll*

Art is subjective.

That being said... to me, no violence is not art.

Side note: I am a member on another site (mostly male hobbiest) and a similar topic came up. The OP was ripped a new one by countless forum members (he thought it was a cool idea to base action figures on RL killers). I think its interesting in comparing the two forums where men are more oppossed to the concept than a forum of mostly women...the subject of violence came up and the overwhelming concensus was that it should not have a place in a market that was meant for enjoyment and pass time fun. Again, really interesting that the male action figure community is like WTF and the female doll community is so excepting of it in the "name of art"...wonder why...

 

That they do...

The OP on the other forum was talking about making his own line (truth or wishful thinking whose to say)..

I have to say Todd McFarlane's toy line has covered a broad spectrum of themes. His twisted fairy tales line I, believe it or not, found artful. It's when we take factual killings and make them into toys...into collectors items that, IMHO, stops being art.

It's a sad reality, IMO, that some people find it fun to collect these items.

Let me take this a step further...OH LORD...LOL

A poster of these figures said that Albert Fish was being made into a figure and there was a debate over his acssesories...namely his "dinner"...now I have no clue about this guy or his "dinner" it's discussed further and this sick freak ate children and a toy company is seriously thinking about making childrens body parts of an actual serial killer into a toy!!!!

I cannot imagine the pain of loosing a child. To loose a child in such a horrific way and then have it made into a toy...

Why is that relevant to this topic...to me...people say no big deal, then something else comes along and since its no big deal the first time its no big deal the second time and the third, etc. etc. until we have murdered children body parts being made into toys. This is horrific and truly hurts my heart and soul to think that people say..."I'm expressing myself"...instead of taking that time and energy into perhaps protecting children in some way...