Like the Cover Art? Tell us why...

[erik]

Obviously I wouldn't knowingly load NSFW content in front of my boss/co-workers/etc. It should also be obvious, though, that people cannot always know who is walking by their desks/cubes/etc. Also, a lot of the sites I surf operate in exactly the opposite way from what you're saying. Their content is assumed to be SFW unless labeled NSFW, like at boingboing.net. Additionally there isn't any information on the SF! that tells people the art may sometimes be NSFW. How would anybody know? I've been coming to the site for 2+ years and I don't recall seeing any NSFW art before, so how would I have known?

Honestly, I think people just want some more information on the site, so that they know what to expect. That doesn't seem like a lot to ask, and it doesn't seem like a sentiment that should be met with derision and/or dismissal. Because some new people will come along and not know about this week's art and when NSFW art goes up again this will happen all over again, unless people know in advance what they're in for. But if that's OK then fine, keep acting like people who weren't expecting NSFW art are dumb or made bad assumptions (because they didn't know things no one had told them).

Errr, I haven't suggested that anyone is dumb in this thread, but I do think that it's a bad assumption to make that everything on the internet not listed as NSFW will be safe to click on. Some sites label things that way on principle, some sites label things that way just by peer pressure, and some don't do it at all. If you can convince the people who run this site to start doing this, then good for you. I hold no ill-will against the concept at all. All I'm saying is, on sites that have no policy (real or implied) about labelling links and images as NSFW (or sites where you have seen no mention of anything labelled NSFW), it's not a good idea to assume that there is a de facto unwritten rule that the link is work safe.

[Lunkhead]

Bjam and TVIYH, I think you're missing my point.

My point is not about the content of the art.

My point is about the miscommunication about what people should/should not expect from the cover art.

If you don't tell people what to expect, you can't legitimately blame them for making assumptions and then getting something they didn't expect.

You also can't legitimately say both "It's your fault for assuming" and "We don't have to tell you what to expect, you should assume."

If you leave it up to people to have to make assumptions, by not telling them what to expect, you shouldn't complain when they don't make the "right" assumption, in my opinion.

[erik]

My point is about the miscommunication about what people should/should not expect from the cover art.

It's not really a miscommunication unless there's communication that's being misunderstood. It's not like someone said "All cover art will be work safe" and then someone saw a vagina and then they were told "It's just a body part, get over it." There was no party line. There was no communication. Any sort of stance on this matter was imagined. If you think that there <i>should</i> be a party line on this, that's a whole nother matter.

If you don't tell people what to expect, you can't legitimately blame them for making assumptions and then getting something they didn't expect.

I don't fault anyone for making assumptions, it's a natural human tendency. I do fault people for assuming something based on no real evidence.

You also can't legitimately say both "It's your fault for assuming" and "We don't have to tell you what to expect, you should assume."

Yeah, but you can say "It's your fault for assuming the best" and "We don't have to tell you what to expect, you should assume the worst."

If you leave it up to people to have to make assumptions, by not telling them what to expect, you shouldn't complain when they don't make the "right" assumption, in my opinion.

If you were referring to me, I'm not complaining, I'm trying to give suggestions for how to reduce unwanted exposure to images that someone might not want to see, and bad stuff in general: When making assumptions, err on the side of caution. Not because it's "right" or "wrong", but because it helps folks not experience stuff that they don't want to experience.

[Spud]

I think that bjam has had the most reasonable post in this thread so far. What are the chances that a page entitled "Policy of Rape" would NOT have objectionable imagery of some form or another?

[Lunkhead]

To me not communicating something until after the fact is miscommunicating, but I don't want to get into a semantic quagmire debating the meaning of "miscommunication".

As for there not being any evidence, I took as implicit evidence the 2+ years of cover art I'd looked at that was SFW. Given a long history of SFW art, and a previously stated policy of censoring band names on the front page, I don't think think it's unreasonable for someone to have assumed that the site would continue to operate the way it generally had, in a SFW manner. I'm not saying it's the "right" conclusion, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem like one that flies in the face of evidence or one that was made without any evidence whatsoever.

But mainly, all I'm really trying to say is that if there's a policy then it ought to be made known in a place where new and longtime visitors alike can read it, like possibly the FAQ or something, to clear up at least some of the potential confusion over the SFW/NSFW status of the art. But that's just my opinion, obviously, since I don't run the site and don't make such decisions.

As for the comment about suggesting people are dumb I was referring to JB's hasty insult of Bill, though JB has of course since apologized. Also, I just read into the general reactions to Bill and Bortwein's comments that people were annoyed that anyone would react negatively to the art. And as for "Policy of Rape" cover art needing to have some objectionable imagery in it, I personally don't think that's true, but that's really a matter of opinion.

Anyway, I do have one question for you, Morbid Morgan. Why use a real vagina but fake penises? I'm very curious about that choice.

[jack]

To me not communicating something until after the fact is miscommunicating, but I don't want to get into a semantic quagmire debating the meaning of "miscommunication".

why not? semantics seems to be the favorite point of discussion around here.

[boltoph]

"Janjaweed" means loosely " man on a horse with a gun." It is the name of the militia in Darfur primarily responsible for the systematic raping of Sudanese women. The cover relays that not only their name but their actions and right to torture women are a direct result of their penis.

This explanation is powerful in helping me understand the cover. I like to think that this policy of the janjaweed is "unreal" or ridiculous, completely whacked, hence the dildos vs. real penises...or that they are "fake" men (losers, knobs), hence fake penises.

[HeuristicsInc]

Also, I just read into the general reactions to Bill and Bortwein's comments that people were annoyed that anyone would react negatively to the art.

I just want to make it clear that I never said anything on whether I disliked or liked the artworks in question (except the elephant one, which I explicitly praised). That was on purpose; I didn't want to cloud the real question I had about SF "censorship vs. non-censorship"...
-bill

PS it makes me feel icky that Morgan uses the phrase "right to torture women" ... I guess that was the intent. Heavy stuff.

[erik]

As for there not being any evidence, I took as implicit evidence the 2+ years of cover art I'd looked at that was SFW. Given a long history of SFW art, and a previously stated policy of censoring band names on the front page, I don't think think it's unreasonable for someone to have assumed that the site would continue to operate the way it generally had, in a SFW manner. I'm not saying it's the "right" conclusion, I'm just saying that it doesn't seem like one that flies in the face of evidence or one that was made without any evidence whatsoever.

But mainly, all I'm really trying to say is that if there's a policy then it ought to be made known in a place where new and longtime visitors alike can read it, like possibly the FAQ or something, to clear up at least some of the potential confusion over the SFW/NSFW status of the art. But that's just my opinion, obviously, since I don't run the site and don't make such decisions.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people make that assumption either. I can fully understand the thinking behind why people made that assumption. But there's a line between "Cover art will probably be SFW" and "Cover art will definitely be SFW", as well as a whole nother semantic argument over what "SFW" implies. I guess I don't see why the FAQ needs to mention "Clicking on the cover art may result in seeing images that some might find objectionable. Click at your own discretion" because to me, that should implied by the lack of a policy. Why should it be implied? Because it prevents the clicker from seeing things that they don't want to see.

[Spud]

... as for "Policy of Rape" cover art needing to have some objectionable imagery in it, I personally don't think that's true, but that's really a matter of opinion.

I am not saying that it was a requirement, just that given the subject matter, is could have been considered likely, or at the very least, a possibility. To feign total surprise seems disingenuous.

[jb]

So I guess we're to take it that any dark, symbolic, stylized, recognizable-if-you-really-look image of a penis or vagina is now "Not Safe For Work"?

How about this image of Manet's "Execution of Maximilano", which contains no nudity or gore (whether you want to click at work, I dunno, that's the very question at hand): http://www.casaimperial.org/pics/Manet% ... iliano.jpg

How about this old etching of a pirate being strung up: http://www.piratehaven.org/~beej/pirate ... sbhang.jpg

Or how about some little kids reenacting a beheading for a school play: http://www.gdst.net/belvedere/Junior%20 ... howard.JPG

So cute.

Or how about this old painting of the execution of Louis XVI (guillotine): http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/histo ... cution.jpg

Or this grainy old photo of men blindfolded and about to be shot: http://www.firstworldwar.com/photos/gra ... ion_01.jpg

How about this famous self-immolation that graces a certain album-cover: http://alphasystem.dnsalias.net/dotclea ... lation.jpg

Or this cute and colorful but non-bloody non-gory painting of the Immolation of Brunnhilde: http://www.paulb.com/paintings/rwgot5x.jpg

Ask yourself, honestly, whether any of those images would be likely to cause an eye to bat in your workplace, especially if you took the time to explain what you're looking at.

"Oh, that picture? Well, have you ever heard of the Janjaweed? No, it's not some kind of drug reference. Well, they're this group in Sudan, yeah, the country in Africa. They're the government's official militia, and apparently they have this policy whereby they go around systematically gang-raping... right, gang-raping... they systematically go around gang-raping non-Arab women (and just plain killing non-Arab men) in order to pressure them to leave the country. Of course, even when they do escape to nearby Chad, yeah, that's another country in Africa, even when they escape, the Janjaweed follow them and do the same thing around the refugee camps. So this picture is a symbolic representation of this "policy of rape" that they've got going. Here, it's actually part of a set of three. Lemme show you the other two, see this one is a representation of the women's point of view. Right, that's a vagina, and it's the target, and then the third picture is a comment on the actions, or rather lack thereof, of the current administration in Washington and what their motivations may be for letting this kind of thing go on without doing anything about it. There's a lot of information about this situation on the New York Times web site. You want me to send you some links?"

At this point your coworker or boss is much more likely to go "oh, no thanks" than he is to say "I'm offended by the presence of a fake penis in this image on your computer screen."

The original comment by Bortwein seemed to be more to the effect that HE PERSONALLY was offended by the presence of a fake penis/vagina in the image, in addition to feeling nervous that some client might see the fake penis and vagina and be so offended they wouldn't hire him. Also, I get the impression that he was offended by the lack of craft he percieved in the fake penis/vagina images, whereas the WIIFM art has an actual drawing that Morgan I guess drew herself.

I take it (I concede that this is an assumption that may not be true, but it's made from observations of his comments) that Bortwein is not of the school which gives any credence to "conceptual art", like a single bulb swinging over an unmade bed in an empty room at a museum. But then, he is a graphic artist and places a high value on the craft involved in creating an image. This is a necessary value in his profession. Perhaps DuChamp's "found art" would not be to his taste, unless he believes those who contend that DuChamp actually created those objects from scratch with his own hands.

It is intriguing that the issue this week's cover art addresses is barely touched upon in this discussion. There's no discussion of whether or not the penis/vagina target pictures adequately convey the gravity or nuances of the issue. No discussion of whether the GOP symbol is most appropriate or whether it should have been a broader image to represent the complacency of all of the Western world, including most of the "liberal" press. No agreement that this is terrible, no statements of "I bought the darfur aid t-shirt" or "did you see that dude on the MTV Movie Awards in the Darfur t-shirt" or comments saying "I didn't know about this situation, but I googled it and holy shit".

It's an interesting experiment in rooting out where our collective heads are at. I have to say that I am not surprised at the result, but I am disappointed.

JB

[Leaf]

One of the problems with the internet and media in general, is that it puts the problems of the world right on your doorstep. However, as people become accustomed to the constant barrage of imagery and reports and propaganda, they become numb. Oh sure, teh occasional issue will grab someone's attention, but the threat never materializes on your door...so it gets down to saying ..."that's terrible", offer some opinion that has no actual merit because there is no action tied to it that can make a difference. Am I supposed to go all Bono and decry the obvious injustice? Well, it DOES suck that these people think they have this right. The art in question does a nice job of addressing the issue IF you know about it.
I think it's unrealistic to be dissappointed in people discussing an issue that affects THEIR immediate perception of life, rather than a story the read after googling Janjaweed for a songwriting competition.

JB:Case in point, rather than address how the art functions in relation to the title, you've used it as a tool to address your dissapointment in our care to discuss global issues. You've basically done the same thing you are discussing.

That being said, I knew NOTHING about this issue before the titles appeared. What can I REALLY do about it? Nothing. I don't have the resources to address every issue that comes up that I hear about. I don't have the time, the words, the money. I'm concerned with issues abroad, and here in Canada like Quebec seperating and Native Canadian issues and the fact that random people disappear around where I live. And all I can offer that at this time is my opinion, my voice, and that's it. There is nothing to resist, there is no one to apprehend. I hear about other places, and I'm thankful that I and my family are far far away from those threats. I deplore the racial and religious and cultural bias and chauvenism that motivates this kind of violence.


I still liked the art, don't find it offensive and frankly, it could have been even more shocking considering the subject matter....but then Bortwein's income might suffer.

Bortwein... c'mon. Rethink your position. Fear of potential clients not hiring you is a motive to censor art? Doesn't this.... seem a little...uh... paraonid and self centered?

My suggestion is... make up a portfolio site...then you can control what potential clients see. Or... inform clients that the material on songfight is not under your control..and point them to specific art...you know...a disclaimer. Then we can have the best of both worlds. I think that the responsibility for censorship falls on the viewer, or the one pointing the site out to others, because it's a pretty open playing field.

[erik]

It is intriguing that the issue this week's cover art addresses is barely touched upon in this discussion. There's no discussion of whether or not the penis/vagina target pictures adequately convey the gravity or nuances of the issue. No discussion of whether the GOP symbol is most appropriate or whether it should have been a broader image to represent the complacency of all of the Western world, including most of the "liberal" press. No agreement that this is terrible, no statements of "I bought the darfur aid t-shirt" or "did you see that dude on the MTV Movie Awards in the Darfur t-shirt" or comments saying "I didn't know about this situation, but I googled it and holy shit".

It's an interesting experiment in rooting out where our collective heads are at. I have to say that I am not surprised at the result, but I am disappointed.

Oh, don't be disappointed. Or rather, don't tell people you're disappointed, because that never helps anything.

I could expound about the three pictures, but art just isn't my thing. If I had to, I could probably go on about the pictures, about how (as a person who knew absolutely nothing about the situation before the titles were posted) the pictures (and titles) don't quite sell themselves as a themed unit that focuses attention on one issue; how the "Policy of Rape" art and the "What's in it For Me?" art stand on their own and can be interpreted independent of anything related to the Janjaweed, which makes them more powerful than the Janjaweed one, which only has the one interpretation (but seeing as how it has the title with the most relevance to the issue, it should be the strongest picture. I could talk about how the Janjaweed picture wouldn't make any sense to me had I not already known about the issue, and does nothing to make me curious to learn more about the subject.

but

I will more than gladly stick my nose in a conversation that already exists. And I think that lots of people around here are kind of the same way. If you want people to be all talking about stuff, then start talking about stuff. Yes, kind of disappointing that we're all not alpha-posters, but meh, whatchagonnadoo.

As far as talking about the issue in and of itself, well I feel similarly to Leaf in that I feel that beyond educating myself on the matter, there's not alot I can do about the situation. And really educating myself on it doesn't really do anything about the situation, either. I can't imagine having much to add to a conversation beyond expressions of disgust and embarrassment for not having learned of this sooner. Which is not to say that there's no reason to discuss things: there is, but I think that the benefit of discussing stuff really varies from person to person. Some people will actually do stuff after learning about the Janjaweed, and some won't.

[jb]

It is intriguing that the issue this week's cover art addresses is barely touched upon in this discussion. There's no discussion of whether or not the penis/vagina target pictures adequately convey the gravity or nuances of the issue. No discussion of whether the GOP symbol is most appropriate or whether it should have been a broader image to represent the complacency of all of the Western world, including most of the "liberal" press. No agreement that this is terrible, no statements of "I bought the darfur aid t-shirt" or "did you see that dude on the MTV Movie Awards in the Darfur t-shirt" or comments saying "I didn't know about this situation, but I googled it and holy shit".

It's an interesting experiment in rooting out where our collective heads are at. I have to say that I am not surprised at the result, but I am disappointed.

Oh, don't be disappointed. Or rather, don't tell people you're disappointed, because that never helps anything.

This is true. I was trying to be pretty analytical, but lapsed into opinion in that last sentence.

I could expound about the three pictures, but art just isn't my thing. If I had to, I could probably go on about the pictures, about how (as a person who knew absolutely nothing about the situation before the titles were posted) the pictures (and titles) don't quite sell themselves as a themed unit that focuses attention on one issue; how the "Policy of Rape" art and the "What's in it For Me?" art stand on their own and can be interpreted independent of anything related to the Janjaweed, which makes them more powerful than the Janjaweed one, which only has the one interpretation (but seeing as how it has the title with the most relevance to the issue, it should be the strongest picture. I could talk about how the Janjaweed picture wouldn't make any sense to me had I not already known about the issue, and does nothing to make me curious to learn more about the subject.

Now THAT's what I'm talking about. In the art thread, seems like that would be a good discussion. You could then go into the connection between the art and the fight, and whether the art does/should connect to the fight since there are many fighters with different takes.

but

I will more than gladly stick my nose in a conversation that already exists. And I think that lots of people around here are kind of the same way. If you want people to be all talking about stuff, then start talking about stuff. Yes, kind of disappointing that we're all not alpha-posters, but meh, whatchagonnadoo.

I guess I'm saying that people *did* start talking about stuff (and please notice that I *did* (at least sort of kind of) "start talking about stuff" while simultaneously complaining that people weren't), it was just kind of not what I expected them to talk about. I honestly was kind of surprised that people would find those images offensive because of the articles in them rather than the way in which those articles are arranged.

As far as talking about the issue in and of itself, well I feel similarly to Leaf in that I feel that beyond educating myself on the matter, there's not alot I can do about the situation. And really educating myself on it doesn't really do anything about the situation, either. I can't imagine having much to add to a conversation beyond expressions of disgust and embarrassment for not having learned of this sooner. Which is not to say that there's no reason to discuss things: there is, but I think that the benefit of discussing stuff really varies from person to person. Some people will actually do stuff after learning about the Janjaweed, and some won't.

This is a different issue, more suited to the Politics thread (which nobody responded to, notice). But you don't have to do *anything* other than be aware of the issue and take it into account when you do other things. And I don't mean looking up the source of where your sneakers are made and only buying food from companies that don't exploit whatever or avoiding diamond rings from war-torn states.

But isn't it enough to just have an opinion? Isn't it enough to know about an issue and wonder "hey, why isn't my government doing anything about this"? Next time it comes to a vote, maybe the inaction of Congress and the President will play a part in your decision. You didn't know anything about this issue before. We didn't know anything about Rwanda. We mostly didn't know anything about Yugoslavia until it was too late. All it takes to build a zeitgeist is to have people thinking about the same thing, maybe taking an extra click out of their surfing day to visit a Darfur page. It adds up to a feeling of "hey, the world is interested in this now", and those in power will notice and react.

If somebody called you up with a political poll two weeks ago and asked "do you think we should do something about the situation in Sudan", how would your answer differ from today? Maybe it wouldn't, but previously you'd have been answering out of ignorance, and you can't say that any more. Politicians watch the polls avidly, and polls reflect the zeitgeist.

So although I personally would love everyone to call their congressman and complain about the inaction regarding the Darfur situation, I think that if you just know about it and have an opinion, we're all a little better off because you're aware.

I hope this post doesn't piss anybody off. I'm honestly not trying to do that, not trying to react angrily or anything. So if I did make you angry with the above, just know that I wasn't trying to.

JB

[bortwein]

Personally... Leave me out of this discussion if you please. I was expressing my Opinion that I did not like the "art".

As for DuChamp, I have seen his "wheel" piece in person... and yes it is art. As well is his "found art" that you are talking about. I have a background in art theory and I understand the meanings and purposes of art. I also know that we ALL HAVE OPINIONS, and like art they will not all be the same.
My first post was my gut reaction to the art. So take it at that: a reaction.

Think of me what you wish, just get off my back... I at least took the time to give a constructive critic of the art after my first reaction and I also applaud Morgan for sticking to her guns and defending her art.

jb: please lighten up and let it go. I did.

[HeuristicsInc]

And Deep Throat can be commended for picking titles that get at least a few people to learn about the situation in Darfur. I'm actually surprised more people don't already know about it. I have, for a while, and have written to my representatives about the situation there. But what else can we do, I don't know. However, applause to DT; there are now more people that know something about it, just from seeing the titles on SF.
-bill

PS here's an easy way to write a letter, if that interests you.

[jb]

Personally... Leave me out of this discussion if you please. I was expressing my Opinion that I did not like the "art".

As for DuChamp, I have seen his "wheel" piece in person... and yes it is art. As well is his "found art" that you are talking about. I have a background in art theory and I understand the meanings and purposes of art. I also know that we ALL HAVE OPINIONS, and like art they will not all be the same.
My first post was my gut reaction to the art. So take it at that: a reaction.

Think of me what you wish, just get off my back... I at least took the time to give a constructive critic of the art after my first reaction and I also applaud Morgan for sticking to her guns and defending her art.

jb: please lighten up and let it go. I did.

Leave you out of it? You started it!

If you think it's art, please don't put quotes around the word. Perhaps you don't realize what those quotes do, but it looks like you're still commenting on their validity as "art" when you do that.

I'll get off your back now. I won't lighten up though. I'm not terribly heavy in the first place, appearances to the contrary. What, you want I should float away?

jb

[Adam!]

I'm actually surprised more people don't already know about it.

I don't have a TV and Slashdot doesn't write about these things. That's my excuse.

[bortwein]

ok, if I started it, then I am sorry for expressing my opinion in such the way that I did. I'll look to better control my words and thoughts next time as well as be more open to seeing "anything" on the site.

"Thanks" for "your thoughts" "jb". And don't float away, that would not be cool.

[Rabid Garfunkel]

Anyway, I do have one question for you, Morbid Morgan. Why use a real vagina but fake penises? I'm very curious about that choice.

It's actually a painting of one, that's been retouched and twiddled and so on and so forth to fit the constraints and vision and intent. Morbid's pro'lly still got the link to the artist's site somewhere.

[Morbid Morgan]

Anyway, I do have one question for you, Morbid Morgan. Why use a real vagina but fake penises? I'm very curious about that choice.

The idea that the penis is a toy, a weapon etc. I guess along those lines I should have portrayed the vagina an fake as well and therefore not seen as "real" yada yada yada...honestly, I found a cool painting of a vagina and I photographed a dildo...You use what you got. The original intent was to have the penis warp into a automatic weapon...I think it's a G3 that they are using primarily...but the dildos alone looked better...so there you have it...no real message behind the fake penis and the real vagina. Happy accident.

[Morbid Morgan]

The Vagina artist's name is Mark Mathews. Here's the link: http://www.clitical.com/erotic-art/markgallery.php