This is a 3d website. Politics really shouldnt be discussed here, unless they are said with ART. That being said, i believe that politics is more of a dinner table debate, than a Professional 3d Creation softwares forum.
also i apoligize for this wall of text
Flame wars have been started over artwork too, particularly a certain ice-sculpture-cartoon that shall remain unspecified.
Moose, are you hoping that, if you use the Magic Word, they’ll make you Imperial Governor of Alderaan or something?
They will blow up Alderaan when it gets “off topic”.
It may be that this phase of the Occupy Movement can be seen to have run it’s course now, so this whole thing may be a moot point. When those who don’t understand the meaning and reason for a political ideal turn to violence, that ideal is left in the mud.
That’s why I do feel that the pen is mightier than the sword, and why I feel that the arts are the proper place for political discourse, as opposed to brawling in the streets with the police and throwing bricks through windows.
I, and I’m sure everyone else who heard what happened, am very sad that a small group of anarchists intent on violence have changed the narrative…
It’s my hope that, when the doves return to teaching in their classrooms, making art, writing their books, and editing their films, the original peaceful philosophy and intent of the Movement will not have been forgotten, but will instead guide our visions toward a better America in the future.
“The first man to raise a fist is the one who has run out of ideas.” -John F. Kennedy
This thread belongs in the BA Website Support forum… I’ve moved it there.
This thread is not a new place to bring up more political discussion… videos of the news here are not even remotely on-topic
Monster answered this thread very clearly and I very much agree with his post. I would add one thing: it is not the intent of the moderation team to quell political [or religious] artwork on the site. In fact, you’re more than welcome to post politically charged or religious art (it’s been done before). However, in these cases, discussion must be limited to the technique and composition of the artwork itself. Once discussion starts to be about the work’s subject, it’s no longer about the art and your thread will likely be locked.
As someone who really enjoys watching people and just observing how people act, I really find this interesting. These threads about ‘occupy wallstreet/earth’ share two things with the movement itself. They lack focus and in time they degenerate into mayhem.
Wow, I’m surprised by that move.
However, it’s a good one. I’m actually glad you did that, Fweeb
So, the message should not be discussed?
It’s kind of obvious from the rules, but I sense a grey-zone. I’m having a hard time defining it with word, though.
When does a discussion exactly stop being about the art and switches to the generic subject? It’s likely that everybody thinks about that differently…
Though, as far as I saw up to now, the moderation was reasonable, so I guess it wont be a problem.
There is one question I have:
Often in questionable threads (e.g. Occupy Earth), you write “we’re watching you” or something like that and you, the moderating team, seem to discuss a lot wether a thread should be closed or not.
Does this apply to every thread (except for maybe spam)?
That seems to be a very good organization on your part and it’s nice to have the feeling that mod-power-abusal is not at all a topic of BA.
In a sense, that question is also a compliment.
This type of art has been posted here before and this is the best compromise we could come up with. More than anything else, this website serves as a means for Blender artists to display their work and improve their technique. Let me provide this example: if someone posted artwork of a giant robot, then it would be out of line for a person to make a response post that giant robots are a dumb idea. The discussion should instead focus on the composition of the work and how effectively the artist executed it. In much the same way, if a person posts art that has a political focus, it’s out of line to discuss the merits of that philosophy. However, if the discussion focuses on how effectively the artist communicates the idea and the techniques used to do so, then that’s generally acceptable.
Thank you. Our moderation team isn’t huge; so we obviously cannot read, let alone discuss, every thread here. However, when a thread is brought to our attention, we most certainly discuss it. Fortunately, the quality of posts at BA.org is generally high, so we don’t have to have these discussions very often. In a sense, this answer is also a compliment to our members.
By the nature of politically charged art, I don’t think it’s possible to discuss it’s composition without bringing up it’s content. While the art world loves to believe that art exists alone in an impenetrable sphere. I like art for art’s sake, but inevitably it always exists in a larger context than even the artists is capable of grasping, and this broader context is often necessary to the improvement of the work.
Exhibit A (not political but relevant anyway):
As innocuous as the artist probably assumed this was, you’re a pretty innocent soul if you don’t see the disproportionately large penis. The light switch isn’t detrimental to the composition as a composition per se, but per accidens the piece is about a supernatural child molester.
Of course, beyond that, there’s contexts where the medium is very much part of the message.
On January 20, 2000, United States District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of the Southern District of New York issued a preliminary injunction in Universal City Studios et al. v. Reimerdes et al., prohibiting the defendants from distributing computer code for reading encrypted DVDs. The defendants had been sued under 17 USC 1201(a)(2), also known as section 1201(a)(2) of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Judge Kaplan subsequently issued a memorandum order in which he indicated that executable source code was not subject to First Amendment protection against prior restraint of speech. This finding is contrary to that of the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals, who ruled in the Bernstein cryptography case that source code is indeed protected speech. In their decision, The 9th Circuit even quoted some Scheme code from the declaration of MIT Professor Harold Abelson, explaining why source code is an effective and sometimes preferred means of human communication. Professor Andrew Appel of Princeton University also filed a declaration explaining the importance for computer science of being able to publish source code. More recently, the 6th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled in the Junger cryptography case that, independent of its functional significance, the expressive nature of source code affords it First Amendment protection.
If code that can be directly compiled and executed may be suppressed under the DMCA, as Judge Kaplan asserts in his preliminary ruling, but a textual description of the same algorithm may not be suppressed, then where exactly should the line be drawn? This web site was created to explore this issue, and point out the absurdity of Judge Kaplan’s position that source code can be legally differentiated from other forms of written expression.
If one of these pieces was done in Blender and posted on BA, what would be the relevant discussion? The statement isn’t an aesthetic one, and an aesthetic critique would neither be helpful nor relevant. While it would be completely on-topic to discuss the merits of the court decisions and where the piece fits in the ruling, it would be rather off-topic to chat about how pretty the source code looks.
Impersonating big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them. Our targets are leaders and big corporations who put profits ahead of everything else.
If your head is wrapped in a world of Thomas Kinkade and Stapleton Kearnes, you probably don’t recognize politically charged hoaxes as art, but let’s assume you can grasp that notion for a few minutes. The medium is pretty consistent, usually involving fake press releases on behalf of authority figures, but picking at how well they expressed their message necessarily demands discussion on what they were attacking and with what goals.
Exhibit D:
It’s difficult to talk about Goya’s composition decisions without bringing up his feelings about the royal family. It’s essential to the discussion; any change you could make to the lighting or arrangement has a visceral connotation towards the character and position of the family. It’s not simply a matter of aesthetics, it’s a matter of message. Even if the message doesn’t exist without the composition, the composition can’t be meaningfully formed without the message to guide it.
Luftmensch, your case-law examples aren’t particularly relevant and your snide insinuations about what any particular reader is capable of “grasping” are not helpful in the least. Please refer back to my (admittedly much more simplified) example.
It’s absolutely possible to evaluate the effectiveness with which a message is communicated without evaluating the merits of the message itself. It may not be easy, but it’s most certainly possible. In fact, your first example can show this: It’s a perfectly functional light switch and the mold for the figures was reasonably well-executed. However, there is certainly room for a lewd interpretation of this piece’s intent. If the intent was for a kitschy light-switch decoration, then the artist will likely need to re-work the piece to account for the lewd interpretation. However, if the intent was to be ironic, then this piece was certainly successful.
Like I said, this is the best compromise we could land on. The only alternative would be to completely disallow political, religious, or otherwise [potentially] incendiary art altogether… and I think we’d all rather not have that.
I understand the spirit of your initial statement, but your wording was vague and overly inclusive. My illustration was that, many times, the discussion must be about the subject of the art, and to exclude as much is shallow at best. Since my work time is a bit too full to actually produce incendiary art and release it into the boards to challenge your point, I at least took a bit of time to find real-world examples. Sadly, I didn’t have enough time to be nice. It takes a fair bit of time and effort to go back and make my posts friendly.
I also didn’t take the time to specifically address your first revision to your statement, but I included relevant examples. Exhibits B and C both are works of art that can’t be discussed without necessarily calling to attention the merits of the philosophy itself, since they are political activism. The light switch cover and the Goya painting were mainly just covering your excessively vague initial statement, which you did correct, but without explicit example.
Since my work time is a bit too full to actually produce incendiary art and release it into the boards to challenge your point
You could always draw some genitalia, religious symbols, and political iconography using grease pencil and present it with a nice contemporary artist’s statement to try to pass it off as something relevant.
Personally, I would not suggest for one to devote his creative talent to producing potentially incendiary art unless he is trying to become a political cartoonist or an editor for magazines like Newsweek.
There’s a whole world of other subjects and content that can be done that would have better standing with people, create a more constructive and positive impression, and attract more feedback than the incendiary type? I don’t get while some would want to use Blender to become known for controversy and not one who is talented, creative, and able to use the program to create virtually anything that he sets his mind to.
I could just as easily say I don’t understand the mindset of people who would rather dedicate their entire lives to learning a single skill a certain way than actually go out and rock the boat and tackle real world problems. Not that I actually feel that way, on the contrary, I totally understand how intoxicating exploring art is (my real world job and hobby is illustration for that reason). None the less, the view that being controversial and making people uncomfortable is bad doesn’t win me over. I want people to react to DOW killing and injuring over 100,000 people in a single bad decision. I want people to react to government corruption. I want people to see beauty in life, but not to the exclusion of being aware of the dangers and threats to life.
Ok, I think that compromise works fine with me.
As said, there most likely wont be a lot of artwork where it’s really becomming problematic.
In case of the Goya, it would be difficult if it was an example of nowadays. However, directly that kind of art in modern means is rare to stumble over, if it happens at all. In fact I guess, the only probable reason why it could happen would be to proof this post wrong.
Actually, it would be very easy to do the Goya (one of my fave artists, btw) in modern times. A recent president who shall not be named is related to some of the people in the painting. But, that’s getting political. (Goya is the shadowed character in the back. ;))
At this point I’ve pretty much decided to focus on rendering kidstuff.
(Goya is the shadowed character in the back. ;))