183
Coomer artists, please get to work
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
183 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13547 readers
607 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I still don't get why the hornyposters and the puritans alike get so weird about this. Yeah they're attractive but there's nothing remotely sexual about them, it's perfectly SFW. Everybody needs to chill imo.
New strugglesession unlocked: women aren't inherently sexual.
if that becomes an actual struggle session, i'm finding the server room and running through it with a big magnet
We've already had it once before when brics posting was last in. It was stupid, women aren't inherently sexual
Right. These women are being portrayed in an intentionally sexualized manner though. It's not extreme, but they're attractive, have flushed faces, and are posed suggestively on purpose.
But like, big deal? People are going to draw people looking hot, as they have for thousands of years.
I guess I just don't see how they're sexualised in this image then. Like they're hot yeah, but that's not inherently sexual either. The flushed faces I guess, but I just sort of assumed it was the authors style.
What's suggestive about their poses?
The easiest to break down is probably Russia.
She is posed coyly, regarding the viewer without facing them directly. This may be in part because it's a reliable head shape to draw, (as we see it repeated in the rest of the figures,) but it's also definitely within typical body language for flirtation. There is within the piece a general attitude of playful contempt toward the viewer. The composition places the figures to look down at the viewer, India even bends to look at us at our level with a scolding finger, juxtaposed with a smile and heavy-lidded eyes. This is intended to make the figures more desirable, to create in the viewer the feeling of wanting their approval. It's a common enough sexual dynamic that I hope I don't have to explain further.
The placement of Russia's right arm beneath her bust both creates a barrier between the viewer and the figure and, along with her other arm, frames her breasts, which are pushed up. Both the shading (also note the little line between the breasts) and the distortion of the lettering on the shirt serve to highlight the shape. Similarly the shadows on her skirt are applied such that they mirror the pubic region and provide several lines for the eye to follow there. The bite out of this shape even seems to suggest a pubic mound. Around the edges, too we see come into shape the lighter region of the skirt as suggestive of the legs and abdomen beneath it.
You can take a lot of this stuff independently and explain it as something else, but we have to understand that this is being drawn by a person who communicates in this medium either professionally or as a serious hobby. Artists spend a lot of time making these; the composition, poses, etc. are considered and intended for effect. The artist of this piece intended for it to be somewhat erotic and applied a number of techniques in pursuit of that.
I appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me, thank you.
However I disagree with your statement. It's clear you know a lot more about the technical drawings of art, posings and lighting and so forth, so for this reason I won't go more into it, except to say that to me I see women being depicted. Saying Russia is posed coyly strikes me as you reading something into the picture that isn't made present by the creator. The fact that her arm makes her breast visible is just a result of her having big breasts - having big breasts isn't sexual of itself. The lettering being distorted does highlight that she has big breasts, but again big breasts aren't sexual. The shadows on her skirt highlight that she has some big ass thighs and a fat ass, which also isn't sexual in and of itself. Her clothes highlight the shape of her body, which is a conventionally attractive body, but that doesn't make it sexual.
I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I am trying to explain how - to me - it strikes me as you saying "attractive people are sexual". While I understand that there is an extra layer here, since someone decides to draw them a certain way, I don't see anything in their framing making them explicitly sexualised.
I know plenty of people with fat sses that sometimea wear a tight-fitting skirt, which the does highlight their pubic region at times as well. That's not sexualised.
The BRICS image is not "sexualized." There is not a single thing sexual about it.
All the women in your image are scandolously showing off their ankles, so maybe your image is "sexualized" too.
That's literally what I'm saying lol. Women's bodies aren't sexual, not in your image and not in OP either.
No, not in either. There is nothing sexual about OP.
Yes, and they're wrong. India's pose is no more sexualized than the women in your image showing their ankles, it's nonsense. I could point to literally any drawing of a human being and find something "sexualized" about it. I see nothing in OP that is actually evocative of sex.
Where did I mischaracterize what you were saying? On what basis do you think I don't believe what I'm saying? I can assure you that I do.
I was extending your argument to its natural conclusion. If you can point to some random element in OP like India raising a finger and say that that's somehow sexual, the I can do the same and point to revealing ankles as sexual. I'm not mischaracterizing your position, I'm just demonstrating why I disagree with it.
I don't understand why you think it's a bad faith interpretation. I guess I don't understand what your basis is for calling OP sexualized, as you haven't explained what elements you find sexual. All I saw was where you contrasted the two pictures, which left me to guess which differences you found significant. I just figured you were going off vibes. Also some of the women in OP are wearing less.
Because you didn't tell me what you were talking about! So I'm left to guess, and apparently if I guess wrong it's "bad faith."
Why don't you just tell me what you're talking about instead?
Absurdity?? You said you found some unspecified aspect of OP that was sexualized, and I countered by pointing out how even in your example, someone could find something sexualized about it. That seems perfectly normal to me.
And I still don't have any idea what you're talking about! At this point I'm the one that should be asking about good faith! Do you actually have anything or not? If so, why haven't you just said it? You should've explained your reasons in your very first comment.
Look if you have nothing you can just say so, you don't need to accuse me of bad faith just to save face.
E: What a strange conversation.
I guess we have different understandings of what that looks like. I didn't percieve what I said as a personal attack at all, I just saw it as a critique of your position. It was never my intention to imply that you would consider ankles scandalous, if that's how you interpreted it.
My point was that any drawing of a person could be argued to be sexualized, and tenuous connections like a raised finger or a revealed ankle aren't sufficient to classify it as such.
If you'd like, you could point out what about OP you consider to be overtly sexual, and we can go from there. Because as it stands I legitimately have no idea what you or other people are talking about, I feel like I'm looking at a different picture, the one I'm seeing looks like they're about to invite me to play volleyball or something, not to have sex.
They don't? There's considerably more exposed skin in OP and some of their clothes are more form-fitting. I don't see how you think that's an unreasonable interpretation.
I guess I can see what you're talking about with the spine with Russia's pose, but none of the others are posed in a suggestive way. Adding blush is a pretty common stylistic choice that I see in non-sexualized contexts all the time. Eye contact expresses connection to or interest in the viewer, but not necessarily of a sexual nature.
The impression I get from the image is a vibe of friendly competition, like I said, about to invite me to play volleyball or something. I think this makes sense as a political statement - it presents the the BRICS nations as a rising group that's beginning to challenge Western power, but without being threatening or hostile or something to be afraid of. I could see how the friendly taunting could come across as flirtatious, but it's still not really sexual, it's well within the bounds of a platonic sports game.
Just to jump in here. When I broke down the choices the artist made in this piece, what I really wanted to highlight is that these were conscious choices intended to make the figures more sexually appealing. My thesis is ultimately that the artist knew what she was doing. I'm confident in this assessment in part because a look at the artist's Twitter shows that she's not at all a stranger to making erotic art. It's not to say that an artist who makes sexual works necessarily makes only sexual works, but I can't look at this and say the artist was naive to what she was doing by manipulating framing, highlighting secondary sexual characteristics, and creating, to be direct, a bunch of dommes.
Again, I don't think this is a bad thing. She shouldn't be ashamed of making it and I don't blame anyone for finding the piece hot. That's kind of the point. Politically even, the message is that BRICS are cool, hot girls and you wish you could be part of their thing.
I really strongly disagree with characterizing these as "a bunch of dommes." Here's an image I found from some random sports anime (I did not look very hard so it may not be the best example, but it'll do)
You can see their expressions: smug, confident, and cocky. But you would not (well, I would not) ever think to call them sexualized, let alone that they're evocative of BDSM. And I can't help but think that the difference has to do with gender. A man being smug and cocky is normal and natural, nothing remarkable or out of place about it. But a woman with a similar expression is percieved as thereby occupying a sexual role. That comes across to me as saying that female confidence belongs only in the bedroom, it must be for the benefit of a man who finds it arousing. I find this to be a very sexist implication.
I don't doubt that the artist, being (iirc) a lesbian who draws erotica, included some elements that she found attractive, either intentionally or out of habit. But merely being attractive is not the same as being sexualized. As I've said and will keep saying, I think they're just sporty. And I don't consider attractive, sporty, confident women to be inherently sexual, much less evocatice of BDSM, which again, I think has sexist implications to suggest.
Maybe we have different understandings of what constitutes sexualization. This work is mildly erotic at most, but I stand by my assessment that it is intentionally drawn to be somewhat arousing to the viewer. I just can't look at this work in the context of the artist's ouvre and think that she wasn't aware of the effect her choices for poses, composition, and expression would have. Because of that, I have to conclude that it is intentional.
If it's acceptable that she attempted this or not (which is what I think underlies the debate on whether or not this image is sexualized) is not really what I'm trying to establish.
Well, I guess that's also a question of what is meant by intent. I don't think that the artist made an effort to ensure that people would not find them arousing, but I also don't think they were primarily drawn for that purpose. Not every element of art is a conscious decision, and I'm not really inclined to speculate about it. Objectification and sexualization can be present regardless of the artist's conscious intent.
I've accepted the single point that Russia's pose is somewhat sexualized, but other than that, I don't agree with any other point of your analysis. Ofc it's pretty subjective, but I just don't see it, and honestly I think the idea of "female confidence is inherently sexual" feels more and more to me like it underlies a lot of that perspective, and I just want to reiterate that I really strongly object to labelling them as "dommes," which aside from the sexist undertones I mentioned, it's also exactly the sort of thing I was talking about in my original comment asking people to chill. Even if there are some mildly suggestive elements, characterizing the art as fetishistic is an absurd overstatement and overreaction. Tbh I find this sort of discourse over what looks to me like an extremely normal drawing of women to be pretty alienating and kinda gross.