Like the Cover Art? Tell us why...

[j$]

You can read my other posts here to see (hopefully) that I am not one of the people to whom your post was directed, and I am not 'out to get you' or picking on you. I appreciate your sentiment but there's some flawed reasoning, in my opinion.

Firstly, just because someone doesn't like the art, doesn't mean they are being reactionary / anti-expression. That's a knee-jerk reaction just as much as calling for the images to be taken down just because they are a bit rude. Which as far as I am aware, no-one has...

I went to Border's books and saw a CD with a picture of a completely exposed woman on it for no apparent reason (note that it was an all male band so it definantly wasn't a band member.) If that's okay in a bookstore with a children's section I find nothing wrong with it being on the internet which is about as clean as public school anyway.

Borders (and other bookshops) also have erotica sections, clearly marked. Usually on separate floors. Having worked in a book chain, I can confirm where i worked the erotica section was carefully policed by the staff to ensure that young people did not accidentally wander there. There is no-one here to do that for songfight front page.

Now obviously, seeing some genitals is not going to kill someone; but

I just wouldn't try to act all surprised/offended when someone takes the definition of art seriously. Might as well ask for censorship over the songs too while you're at it.

Just because something isn't a silly joke doesn't make it art. And no-one is really debating whether this is art or not, just whether they like it. I'm not offended, I agree with you on censorship, but I feel like you're not helping any possible reasoned discussion by posting when you're "so drunk"!

PS: I think the name of the thread isn't "Hate the cover art? Tell us why..." but I could be mistaken.

How would you know if you "haven't really been reading" it?

[Ikari]

You can read my other posts here to see (hopefully) that I am not one of the people to whom your post was directed. But it has to be said ....

. Man this almost feels like deja vu like how Lauren was treated for a certain cover. (Which was also her last... Hmm...)

This has nothing to do with Morbid's gender and trying to drag this into that realm is ridiculous, really. Hey, if you want to play that card, why don't I get all arsey because she used a real picture for a vagina, and a toy to represent an erect penis, and claim she is being sexist? I really don't think that's the issue here.

I went to Border's books and saw a CD with a picture of a completely exposed woman on it for no apparent reason (note that it was an all male band so it definantly wasn't a band member.) If that's okay in a bookstore with a children's section I find nothing wrong with it being on the internet which is about as clean as public school anyway.

Borders (and other bookshops) also have erotica sections, clearly marked. Usually on separate floors. Having worked in a book chain, I can confirm those sections were carefully policed by the staff to ensure that young people did not accidentally wander there. There is no-one here to do that for songfight front page.

Also so what if Borders had a huge vagina hanging over their front door? Borders <> Songfight.

I just wouldn't try to act all surprised/offended when someone takes the definition of art seriously. Might as well ask for censorship over the songs too while you're at it.

Just because something isn't a silly joke doesn't make it art. And no-one is really debating whether this is art or not, just whether they like it. I'm not offended, I agree with you on censorship, but I feel like you're not helping any possible reasoned discussion by posting when you're "so drunk"!

PS: I think the name of the thread isn't "Hate the cover art? Tell us why..." but I could be mistaken.

How would you know if you "haven't really been reading" it?

Sorry I am not 'out to get you' or picking on you, I appreciate the sentiment but that's some flawed reasoning, in my opinion.

You're the one who thinks it's a gender issue. I was talking about hostility that made Lauren leave, but if that's what you think it's about that's cool.

Borders doesn't have an "erotica CD cover" section.

Everyone's reasoning is flawed BTW that's what makes it human. Just like your exessive use of confusing double negatives make you human.

And if I didn't read the topic why the hell would I click on it? You claim to not be picking on me, but you give me no credit for having at least one brain cell.

And no it wasn't directed at you, but if you want to assume you make an ass out of "u" and "me."

[j$]

You're the one who thinks it's a gender issue. I was talking about hostility that made Lauren leave, but if that's what you think it's about that's cool.

Ah yes I was just editing my post because that very point occured to me when you replied ... sorry about that

Borders doesn't have an "erotica CD cover" section.

No, you're right.

Just like your exessive use of confusing double negatives make you human.

Well, I am sorry you find them confusing.

And if I didn't read the topic why the hell would I click on it?

you said you hadn't read it.

And no it wasn't directed at you, but if you want to assume you make an ass out of "u" and "me."

Assumptions are based on my interpretation of what you wrote and posted because I wanted a response that would further elucidate your standpoint. That's discussion.

[Ikari]

Ah yes I was just editing my post because it occured to me that very point when you replied ... sorry about that

What point? I thought this was all about me not making any points?

[Ikari]

You're the one who thinks it's a gender issue. I was talking about hostility that made Lauren leave, but if that's what you think it's about that's cool.

Ah yes I was just editing my post because that very point occured to me when you replied ... sorry about that

Borders doesn't have an "erotica CD cover" section.

No, you're right.

Just like your exessive use of confusing double negatives make you human.

Well, I am sorry you find them confusing.

And if I didn't read the topic why the hell would I click on it?

you said you hadn't read it.

And no it wasn't directed at you, but if you want to assume you make an ass out of "u" and "me."

Assumptions are based on my interpretation of what you wrote and posted because I wanted a response that would further elucidate your standpoint. That's discussion.

Well I had said I hadn't "really" (which means I have read, but not paid too much care to) read what anyone had been saying. Clearly I wouldn't have randomly stumbled into a topic and talked about what was going on at the moment just by coincidence. I'm sure you can figure that out yourself though.

My school didn't teach me the usage of double negatives. If you want me to get your point it will help to exclude them.

You didn't even ask me what point I was trying to make so while we're assuming I'll assume you don't care and are looking for reasons to argue. Which is fine because I enjoy arguing otherwise I would've stopped posting in the songfight forums long ago.

[j$]

I don't want to fill up the board with tit-for-tat, so apologies for dragging this out ....

Your assumption that I am looking for an argument is wrong. On a sensitive topic like this one, I try not to say things for the sake of it. I felt that elements of your original post were flawed. Until you responded, all I had to base that assumption upon was your post and my interpretation of it, which has changed accordingly, to some extent.

In any discussion I will defend my standpoint. Equally I am always willing to admit when I am wrong. I actually enjoy being proven wrong, because it means I am learning something. Just because I write doesn't automatically mean I am right.

Please PM me if you want me to explain myself a bit better. Can't promise you any reduction in the number of double negatives, however.

j$

[HeuristicsInc]

How dense are you? Pretty damned dense I'd say!

Well, that certainly kept the discussion at a high level.
Thanks for the insults.
No, I didn't realize it was about filters. Didn't think of it. If that makes me "pretty damn dense" I guess it must be true.
And no, that policy was always strictly for the front page words and never for the songs. I remember that clearly, thanks.
-bill

PS I like the elephant art this week. Nice drawing. And yes, I don't have anything against posting these particular artworks, I just thought we had some sort of policy on that sort of thing and wanted to get it explained. Now it has been. Just would have been better not to be viewing them at work - I don't want to lose access to SongFight because of artworks. They probably won't notice anyway, but you never know what they will decide to investigate.

[Denyer]

i don't think i'd want to have a song listed on the policy of rape page but it is certainly awesome.

[jb]

How dense are you? Pretty damned dense I'd say!

Well, that certainly kept the discussion at a high level.
Thanks for the insults.
No, I didn't realize it was about filters. Didn't think of it. If that makes me "pretty damn dense" I guess it must be true.
And no, that policy was always strictly for the front page words and never for the songs. I remember that clearly, thanks.
-bill

PS I like the elephant art this week. Nice drawing. And yes, I don't have anything against posting these particular artworks, I just thought we had some sort of policy on that sort of thing and wanted to get it explained. Now it has been. Just would have been better not to be viewing them at work - I don't want to lose access to SongFight because of artworks. They probably won't notice anyway, but you never know what they will decide to investigate.

Yes, I admit, I was being pissy. I apologize.

[bortwein]

I'm sorry, but I truly feel that Reproductive Organs (or sex toys that resemble them) NEVER needed to be shown on Song Fight. As an Artist, I agree that Art is Subjective and a "To each their own" kind of medium, but as a person that enjoys coming to Song Fight to see the art just as much as listening to the music I don't think it was needed.

MK: I was asked a long time ago to be a part of the site on a weekly basis, so I take pride in the art that I have submitted to the site, because I feel it is a direct reflection onto the site as to the site's quality. When the art does not strike me as appropriate then I will speak up about it. I see song fight as a great place for people to express themselves both Musically and Artistically, not a place to view the reproductive organs of people. There is plenty of pr0n out there for that.

[jb]

In our judgement, anyone too young or too sensitive to be exposed to the issues the art presents is too young or too sensitive to be browsing without supervision.

Hahahahaha - yes, but come on, you know as well as anyone, that there's a huge difference between what people should be doing and what they do, especially when it comes to kids and the internet. This argument (perhaps neccessarily) shirks responsibility.

It doesn't shirk responsibility, it denies responsibility. It was never our responsibility.

[HeuristicsInc]

Yes, I admit, I was being pissy. I apologize.

Thank you!
I apologize also if I came across badly as well.
-bill

[jb]

I'm sorry, but I truly feel that Reproductive Organs (or sex toys that resemble them) EVER needed to be shown on Song Fight. As an Artist, I agree that Art is Subjective and a "To each their own" kind of medium, but as a person that enjoys coming to Song Fight to see the art just as much as listening to the music I don't think it was needed.

MK: I was asked a long time ago to be a part of the site on a weekly basis, so I take pride in the art that I have submitted to the site, because I feel it is a direct reflection onto the site as to the site's quality. When the art does not strike me as appropriate then I will speak up about it. I see song fight as a great place for people to express themselves both Musically and Artistically, not a place to view the reproductive organs of people. There is plenty of pr0n out there for that.

Are you really saying that you can't tell the difference between this cover art and pornography?

[bortwein]

Are you really saying that you can't tell the difference between this cover art and pornography?

I'm not saying that at all. The "art" is not appropriate for the site "In My Opinion". That is what I am saying.

Whatever. It will be gone in a week.

[Eric Y.]

Are you really saying that you can't tell the difference

this discussion is really stepping out of the bounds of the 'cover art' thread at this point. my apologies for extending the tangent but...

i heard on the radio about a week ago that one of those groups who are highly in favour of expunging anything which anyone in the world could possibly consider to be in any way offensive from being displayed anywhere public (i forget what the group was called but you probably get the idea) was sending thousands of letters to its members decrying 'soft-core pornographic content' in a television commercial for a certain fast-food chain. my understanding is that the letter did not explicitly describe the contents of the advertisement, just the label of 'soft-core pornography' and induced its members to contact television stations and media outlets demanding the ads be pulled and the fast-food company be dropped as an advertiser or whatever. and apparently, the actual image in question was some famous female (paris hilton i think they said, but i don't recall for sure) wearing a bikini, washing a car. this is 'soft-core pornography' according to this particular group of people. this is an image seen regularly during the summertime, often with groups of high-school cheerleaders raising funds for their schools or whatever; it can certainly be argued whether that is appropriate, but there's really no case to be made for it being pornographic.

[Spud]

I am glad to see bortwein stepping away from question whether or not the covers are "art" or not. They are certain controversial, as seen by the discussion in this thread. They may offend, as I tend to believe those who say they are offended.

But so does the subject of the artwork in question.

[Leaf]

I liked the art. I don't find it pornographic, I find it challenging. Clearly, that is the result, due to the numerous and varied responses! So it must be working...

I find it interesting, (I always have) that people get hung up on sexual images, body parts, and the like, but have no problem viewing violence by the way. In my opinion, it's a pretty backwards society that we celebrate, embrace and actually DISREGARD the impact of images that celebrate violence, pain and suffering, however images that display nudity, sex or acts that bring pleasure are viewed as "offensive" and "wrong". I'm more worried about my kids seeing people shot and beaten and hurt than I am about them seeing a vagina or a penis.

That being said, these images DO contain violence... so I perceive these images as a statement on the use of sex as a weapon... a powerful, and disturbing concept to be sure, but a reality in our world. One that we can all choose to ignore by debating seeing a pee-pee on a website, or one we can deal with by recognizing why this kind of art elicits these kind of responses.

And that's what this discussion and the cover art got me thinking about...

[boltoph]

I'm more worried about my kids seeing people shot and beaten and hurt than I am about them seeing a vagina or a penis.

That is, until they plan a special project for the next "show and tell" at school...

[Spud]

That is, until they plan a special project for the next "show and tell" at school...

My daughter Laura (AKA Octothorpe's "SpudNut") did a project for her first grade class this year which was a A-Z book on the human body. She did the project entirely by herself, with a page with a word and illustration for each letter of the alphabet. V was for vagina, with her own illustration. The book was put on display with all of the other projects related to the human body, many of which labeled the reproductive organs properly (a few got them wrong, but they will learn). As far as I can tell, allowing this to go on without calling any special attention to it helped these first graders to learn that these are normal parts of the human body, and there is nothing "wrong" or "dirty" about them.

Morbid Morgan did not make these images controversial. You guys did.

[boltoph]

Morbid Morgan did not make these images controversial. You guys did.

Not me! Not me! I was just going to post that a more accurate representation of "Policy of Rape" would be a picture of a male rape after it happened, as an initiation into the SLAMMER. I think they actually have a policy of rape there. Vaginas are everywhere in art, flower art, etc.

But Spud, what if she had shown the class her own? Wouldn't that be horrifying? That was what I meant. (I don't have kids nor will I ever, so don't ask)

[Spud]

That's why I said "you guys" and not "you" specifically.

In addition to being able to identify parts of the "generic" human body correctly, Laura has also learned a lot about her own personal rights related to her own body, and how to declare limits to those who would violate them. If these subjects were taboo, she would have no such education. I prefer it this way.

[boltoph]

I guess that knowing that other guys also have penises kind of defeated it being a creative and original idea to drop my pants during show and tell, when i was back in elementary school.
My "joke" to Leaf: withdrawn. Damn it's gray today.