I can see how you see it that way… I honestly don’t.
Fascination with the female form still has some play left in it, I’d say. Personally, I don’t have any trouble recognising this as incredibly successful and worthwhile art.
2 Likes
I seriously wonder at people who can’t understand why consent makes a moral difference. I don’t particularly want to hang around someone who thinks being a willing model is the equivalent of getting creeped on at a convention by some piece of shit ambushing cosplayers. Consent matters.
Regarding the vegan snark, none of the vegans I’ve known have been judgmental. On the rare occasions one has proffered unsolicited advice, they’ve dropped it when I politely let them know I’m not interested.
4 Likes
My brain’s still trying to wrap itself around the “Bwuh, HOW?!”.
I’d love to see a video describing how it’s all planned and executed.
Astonishing stuff.
I dunno. Xeni’s: “Vegans, pretend its soy”? has a bit of a patronizing sound to it.
“Ha, ha, those fragile, self-important, smug vegans can’t even LOOK at milk!”
Are all philosophies fair game to be trivialized in the same kind of “gentle” ribbing? How about if it had read: “Feminists, pretend it’s a man.” in the main post? That’s ok, right? Silly uptight feminists! It’s a JOKE!
BTW, the only time I hear about my vegan acquaintances’ veganism is when they are looking at a menu. Or I ask.
2 Likes
Good point, especially with the convincing analogy. And I agree about your past point too – I’ve never even met a preachy vegan.
The photos in one of the links essentially show him in the shot pouring milk while she stands in a pan. He’s basically creating ten shots and then blending them all in Photoshop. It sounds like the part with the models is the easy bit, too much post-production for most people.
I’m from Vega, and I resent that slur.
4 Likes
Tell me I’m not the only one who thinks that bottom middle one is farting.
These look heavily photoshopped to me.
6 Likes
What, no chocolate milk or strawberry Quik? I thought it was a faux pas to wear white milk after Labor Day.
2 Likes
You can tell my the mixels.
2 Likes
Since when does the issue of female objectification primarily revolve around “consent” in the paid models vs women at comic book conventions sense?
While I’m not saying that the rude “photographers” at Comic-Con aren’t being disrespectful, I’m pretty sure that fashion/lingerie/nudie models and “sexy” dancers/singers/actresses are generally are considered to be “objectified,” even if they give their consent and are paid for their work.
Forgive me if I’m making generalizations, but I wanted to be concise, and didn’t want to write a treatise on feminism.
And for the record, I think these pics are both super hot and artistically super awesome.
Well, just my own personal opinion, but I’d say the primary difference is that while the models are objectified, yeah, it’s not to the same degree as a woman getting catcalled on the floor of a convention because a bunch of socially-awkward dorks can’t think of a better way to compliment a woman on her costume other than to tell her she has nice tits.
And I know (I think) I’m in a minority here, but I still think of the other models as human beings (as opposed to objects). A childhood friend of my wife was in Playboy. It was tastefully done, sure, but it was obviously, in Playboy’s tame way, intended to be titilating, arousing, whatever words you’d like to use. And yet, I didn’t shift to thinking of her as a set of tits and an ass. She’s still a talented human being; a wonderful combination of smart, and funny. The only difference is that we all got to see a lot more of her body than we’d all seen before. I daresay I have a higher respect of her as a human being, despite that nude appearance, than most corporate bosses have of their employees (certainly higher than most Human Resource managers.)
Sorry if that seems confrontational, because it’s totally not supposed to be, and sorry about being long-winded.
1 Like
For me, the difference here is that the models are being consciously objectified, with direct reference to the objectification of 50’s pinup art. So while it’s provocative beyond doubt, its not because of its casual compliance with the patriarchy. It’s because it wants to ask those questions. I also feel that when the work is this well executed and the clarity of vision so clear, it can command a different level of respect with regard to its intentions and effect on the status of women.
I’m a straight guy though, so its entirely conceivable I’m just rationalising because boobs.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
