What's your opinion on religous related minis? [Archive]

Ritual

11-13-2005, 10:04 AM

In theory, I think everything goes! However, things CAN be done in poor taste. I don't have any examples ATM, but let's say for instance, that someone made a demon who rips apart an obvious Jesus-like figure. I don't find that idea very creative or 'artistic' and I think that would be a display of poor taste. I don't think it's wrong to challenge religious beliefs, but I see no point in doing it for shock value.

On another note, I like some stuff that's inspired by religions. I like the dark, archaic style of medieval catholicism for instance.

Mosch

11-13-2005, 10:17 AM

I can't see how mini could be inapropriate. Take Mascot Miniatures - they were not "indecent", they were just aimed at a totally different market and I see nothing wrong with adult miniatures. Take military modelling - in Germany, the Swastika ("Hakenkreuz") is not allowed. But the actual tanks and soldiers wore those, so why not paint it on? I see no problem in a Hitler miniature - or even an execution scene. I don't want to paint one, but it's still just a little sculpture.
I don't think a designer can go "too far". It's just toys, not a book on social behaviour or something...

Klute

11-13-2005, 11:52 AM

Anything goes as far as I am concerned.
It is up to the artists to decide whether it is morally OK for them as it is with the buyer.

I like those nuns with guns.

supervike

11-13-2005, 12:07 PM

Well, I agree and disagree.

I can certainly see how someone could be offended by a 1 inch lump of metal the same way I can see how someone could be offended by one little word. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but just that it is understandable.

I mean if that is the point, to just offend someone, then the artist may need to re-evaluate his/or her beliefs. I suppose art is meant to evoke a response, but is 'offense' a legitimate one? I mean it would be rather easy, if that was your only goal.

There was an artist here in the States that submerged a crucifix of Christ into a vat of his own urine....Maybe I misunderstand the point, but it seems the goal was clear.

I agree with Ritual too, I love the dark religious overtones I've seen in some miniature art. It sets a mood fantastically.

But, back to your point...I've never stumbled across a mini that I thought 'crossed the line'...Sure, some have been for a mature audience only, but that seems reasonable.

I'm glad Mosch brought up the Swastikas...I want to paint up some 'alternate ww2' minis and planned on using Swastikas...but they create a stigma all thier own.

Regular people think us mini painters are weird enough...Do you think painting religious icons with nudity and swastikas would help that image? LOL

Frustrated Father

11-13-2005, 12:19 PM

Interesting thread.

I think people that get upset about these sorts of things are just a tad over sensitive to begin with, showing them something like angels having nasty sex (hrmmm, that's a miniature idea) or a Nazi goosestepping and having them go off is just a foregone conclusion.

I personally am very hard to shock, but I do think that there are some things that can be done in better taste with a touch of decency, but at the same time, it is up to the manufacturer and ultimately, the consumer.

I have to admit when I first started out with miniatures and looking through CMON and some other galleries, I came across a miniature that had a huge Swastika painted across the flag it was carrying and I had to stop and evaluate it for what it was. When I realized that it was a alternate WW2 miniature I didn't see a problem with it in the least. Heck, I don't think I would have had a problem with it if a bunch of Rackham Wolfens had it across their foreheads other than for me to give it a brief 'tasteless and tacky' label.

The Warmachine Menoths didn't even come onto my radar as religious, even though I know they are supposed to be inside the game. Just didn't blip on the screen for me. Same with the Cell Entertainment 1999 stuff - yup, I know its supposed to be a game of angels and demons, but again, didn't really show up on the screen for me.

Then again, maybe I'm oblivious to this sort of stuff.

Klute

11-13-2005, 12:25 PM

I think there is a lot of stigma around the use of a swastika.
I know why and fully understand people see it as a symbol of torture and suffering but to me it is just another symbol......of Egyptian origin I believe.
Should the Union Jack not be seen in the same light for the suffering our Empire has caused over the centuries.
Or the Stars and Stripes for that matter.

Now Jim.
If you were to paint up a WW2 guy with a Swastika you will get some ummers and arrers but its historical accuracy so OK in my opinion.
If you do an alternate WW2 guy the same there will be more upset.
If you do a WW2 guy covered in Swastikas and torturing a very thin naked guy then a lot of people will be upset.

I think common sense has to be used in things like this.
A painter or photographer is allowed to use scenes of Nazi torture etc so why cant we ??
Just a thought.

You know that Narg and Gayle piece I did. There was a discussion on Creafigs concerning the morals of the painter (me) and why I got kicks out of representing violence towards women.
WTF

I think there is a lot of personal taste involved in judging morallity.

Frustrated Father

11-13-2005, 12:31 PM

I remember hearing a bit about that Mark over your contest piece. I couldn't believe anyone would get upset over that, but then again, that just goes to show how different things will set people off, whether religious, sexual, violent, etc.

In general, I have to sound like a broken record and say 'common sense'. I was almost going to use 'the rule of thumb' in a sentence but then I got to remembering the 'Boondock Saints' scene and couldn't stop laughing (rent the movie people, its worth it).

EricJ

11-13-2005, 03:21 PM

I think if done artistically and with a reason, anything goes, however this is actually probably less the case than someone just wanting to shock. It seems more and more people mistake shocking as artistic, and it just isn't the same.

However, it seems like there are also maybe some subjects that are currently touchy subjects. For example, I was thinking of using the same bruising on the new Spyglass Dot that I used on my munchkin (well a bit more subtle) but the couple people I ran the idea by thought the subject of battered women would just be poor taste :(

green stuff

11-13-2005, 03:47 PM

For example, I was thinking of using the same bruising on the new Spyglass Dot that I used on my munchkin (well a bit more subtle) but the couple people I ran the idea by thought the subject of battered women would just be poor taste :(
Maybe if you give her an undead look with those bruises than it will shock less. Just an idea :P.

Mosch

11-13-2005, 04:28 PM

You know that Narg and Gayle piece I did. There was a discussion on Creafigs concerning the morals of the painter (me) and why I got kicks out of representing violence towards women.
WTF

Instead of most people in the mini painting hobby getting kicks out of representing violence against anything at large?
By the way, I lived beside an S/M-club for some years. That has nothing to do with anything, but the "guests" usually looked pretty happy when they entered the door...

Interesting thread.

I think people that get upset about these sorts of things are just a tad over sensitive to begin with, showing them something like angels having nasty sex (hrmmm, that's a miniature idea) (...)

You know, I was thinking that some Excalibur miniatures are obvious armed at the at the libido, but I would really one of those "nasty angel sex" miniatures just because the idea is so absurd :D

The Warmachine Menoths didn't even come onto my radar as religious, even though I know they are supposed to be inside the game.

If nobody had told me, I would have never gotten the idea.

However, it seems like there are also maybe some subjects that are currently touchy subjects. For example, I was thinking of using the same bruising on the new Spyglass Dot that I used on my munchkin (well a bit more subtle) but the couple people I ran the idea by thought the subject of battered women would just be poor taste :(

Why are fictional battered women poor taste and fictional ripped apart soldiers are not?
Also, who is Dot?

green stuff

11-13-2005, 04:37 PM

Also, who is Dot?
Dorothy from the Zo range ;).

Brimshack

11-13-2005, 04:54 PM

Interesting question,

I think it would be a mistake to assume a common reference point on the ethics of such things. From the standpoint of some religious perspectives, failure to show what they consider proper respect for an icon of their faith is not merely offensive but sacriligious. The same can be said of what they consider an inappropriate interest in some irreligious themes. When Evangelicals complain about D&D in general, Piss Christ, or any of a variety of sacriligious artworks, it doesn't really amount to an assertion that it is personally offensive, so much as a claim that it is an inherently objectionable defiance of God's will. One has to make up his own mind how much one cares about the sensibilities of such folks, but we probably shouldn't confuse many of the objections raised in religious circles with matters of personal asthetics.

(Transition Missing)

I once heard someone say that a Crucifix in a jar of urine is not art, but saying a crucific submerged in a bottle of urine is art ...is art. It's an amusing take, and I think it touches on an interesting point. A lot of the more self-consciously sacriligious artworks are actually generated more with an eye to the drama created around them. Often the art of the author has more to do with the narratives he hopes to inspire with that artwork than with the details of the work he's actually done. Whether or not that's a valid approach is another question. As applied to minis, I guess the question could be whether or not any of the pleasure taken from the mini might have more to do with the symbolic confrontation with those it might offend. If so, then fair enough I suppose, but it's a threshold one could pay attention to.

Spacemunkie

11-13-2005, 05:34 PM

The point of work like that is specifically to challenge peoples pre-conceived ideas. They stimulate thought and debate which has to be a good thing.

And I think that offense is a perfectly acceptable reaction for an artist to want to provoke in their audience if that is what they want to do. There are a great deal of things that are seen as taboo or inappropriate simply because society had deemed them to be that way for many years. Art can make people reassess and question their surroundings, behaviour and beliefs. Once again, a good thing imo.

Artists have historically challenged anything they deemed to be a barrier to expression and knowledge. Da Vinci hired grave robbers to acquire the cadavers that he would dissect and draw. This is still highly illegal, but the guy furthered both medical science and art by doing it. Expressionists challenged the Nazis in 1930's Germany. Again, their work was seen as abhorrent and socially unacceptable.

The clash mostly occurs where there is a vested interest in a given organisation (like a religious one...) maintaining the status quo. Certain groups within society may well feel that a urine-soaked crucifix expresses perfectly adequately their feelings about the church because of the church's inability to accept new ideologies and social norms - women and gays being most notable.

There are of course boundaries. Don't want babies nailed to canvases or anything like that, but as far as challenging outdated theocracies is concerned, no problems.

Mosch

11-13-2005, 05:45 PM

There are of course boundaries. Don't want babies nailed to canvases or anything like that, but as far as challenging outdated theocracies is concerned, no problems.

There was an art perfomance called "Maneater". Guess what the artist did.
That guy himself said it was a real fried stillborn baby, but the general consensus is that it was a chicken with doll parts. Still, that is one kind of "art" that I do not deem good. I also despise "Körperwelten" ("Body worlds"), a show that displayed conserved corpses in different poses - one had his own skin folded over his arm, one was sitting at a chess table etc. I never saw the show, but I never wanted to either. I can not see the artistic merit in it - I feel offended by it, and it is incredibly hard to offend me.

Spacemunkie

11-13-2005, 05:57 PM

I went to that Body Worlds exhibition and I even bought the catalogue. It was absolutely amazing. There was nothing even remotely sick about it, it was simply a guided tour around your body. You got to see the REAL effects of smoking on the lungs, drinking on the liver and even to see miniscule stuff like the thousands of blood vessels that make up the body.

It was less like an art exhibition and far more of a science or biology lesson. It did however, show what a work of art your body is.

So basically you were influenced/offended by the media reaction to it, much in the same way that many people were over here. Fine, but you missed out on a remarkable experience.

My life drawing tutor thought that it was vital to have an understanding of the mechanics of the human body. He did that by taking us to a dissection at the local teaching hospital. Again, utterly fascinating.

Mosch

11-13-2005, 07:25 PM

The media had nothing to do with it (I don't watch TV and really don't read too many papers either ;)). My opinion is that art should not incorporate dead bodies (tangible, REAL corpses) under any circumstances. I see it as a degrading thing to do to the person. The personality is lost - this is not viewed as a human anymore, just entertainment, and I don't think this is a good thing.

Sakura

11-13-2005, 07:34 PM

But it's supposed to be educational, not art. I can't remember anyone saying it was art. Some people might find it entertaining, but some even find accidents entertaining...
I so wanted to go, because I'm very much interessted how the body works, how organs look and all that. I'm studing biologie for a reason. But my mother wouldn't let me go there, thought I couldn't take it or something. She went there, though :mad:

Brimshack

11-13-2005, 07:40 PM

Just in case ...If said anything to imply that challenging preconceived notions is an invalid goal for any artwork, then this was certainly not my intent.

I do think there are times when this approach is a little too convenient and I wonder at the preconceived notions some may have about those whose preconceived notions they intend to offend. As often as not, I think flying in the face of religious sensibilities follows a rather stale script. And it has become such a commonplace that certain religious groups are thoughtless in their values, so anything to shock them is often used as a rather cheap means for some to act out a sense of cultural superiority. It isn't the images that bug me so much as the readyness to assume that someone else's sensibilities need challenging. I'm not saying, I would oppose any such uses of art, but I do think challenging preconceived notions can become a tiresome metanarrative.

Point of Clarification: These comments are not made in reference to the Body Worlds exibit. I haven't seen it and have no opinion on the matter. I'll step out if that's the direction y'all want to pursue.

Frustrated Father

11-13-2005, 08:15 PM

Ya'll have just talked circles around me and it was fairly fascinating to watch it unfold, my wife said I had a 'duh' look on my face.

:D

I guess there will always be people that will be offended emotionally, morally as well as spiritually to any number of things in the world. For instance, I believe it was Scott ('munkie) who brought up that some are is there to challenge preconcieved notions as well as to break down some barriers in order to make a point, or in such as this case, discuss it years after the fact. It obviously has made an impression, whether good or bad is irrelevent at this point as it has people discussing it in an adult manner which I find a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

I do have to admit though, that I went and did a bit of research on Piss Christ and found it very interesting that the mans work was underwritten by the national taxes which fund the National Endowment for the Arts. I'm truly not bothered by the whole religious bit and the urine, but I have to admit, I'm rather irked to find out that tax payers money went towards making this a reality. Apparently he did it a couple of years later too with Madonna and Child.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b0/Piss_Christ.jpg/130px-Piss_Christ.jpg

Looks to me as if someone needed to drink a bit more water vs. soda ... eaack!

I have to admit though that I myself am interested in seeing that Body Works as well, or there was a special on TV where they flash froze a cadaver and then sliced it into wafer think pieces, bit by bit, and have it all together in this glass setup. It looks like a three diminsional human beinging (odd looking, but human) and then you can start to 'flip' through his pieces, seeing the inner workings of the guy.

Quite fascinating.

sebrushworth

11-14-2005, 07:27 AM

Mosch

11-14-2005, 12:42 PM

I don't think that stuff is degrading to the people whose corpses are used, since they have donated their bodies freely to it. I think it's commendable that they decide to do something useful with their bodies after checking out, instead of just being put in a hole in the ground.

If I remember correctly, many of the bodies were used without the relatives' knowledge and were obtained from dubious sources. However, that was not my point really...

Sakura, if this wa not supposed to be art, then why did everyone (including himself) refer to him as an artist?

I still stand by this: A dead human body that is used to entertain other people degrades the dead person and I see it as an insult. However, I see no problem in donating my body to science - but for show purposes, I don't think it's right.

EricJ

11-14-2005, 12:59 PM

The fact is, that there is a line there between what is art and what is not. The problem is, that if you asked 100 different people where that line falls, you're likely to get 100 different answers. There are so many variables involved in this question, the answer is as complex as the human condition - in other words, everyone being unique will result in unique opinions.

Other than the extremes (ie the school of thoughts that EVERYTHING is art, or essentually no one but the greats are art).

Spacemunkie

11-14-2005, 01:09 PM

Just go and check out the website!

It's not an 'art' exhibition. It's a biological and educational exhibition designed to raise peoples awareness of what is actually inside them, and how the things we do to our bodies can affect them adversely.

The bodies were left to Von Hagens WITH THEIR USERS CONSENT! There are downloadable consent forms on the Body Worlds site and they are available at every exhibition. The guy probably has enough to last him a good while now...:D

As for using human bodies, we've done it for years in the name of research, education and medical science. Thankfully people don't need to rob graves any more as we have (supposedly) become a touch more enlightened these days.

As for a dead persons body degrading them, what gives you the right to decide what happens to MY body after I carc it. If I want some med-student hacking off my nipples it's my decision. Just as it would be if I were to leave my body to Gunther Von Hagens. It's just a piece of meat anyway...

Mosch

11-14-2005, 03:25 PM

Of course I will not interfere with anyone who wants to do anything with his body. I am just telling you what I think about it - if someone wants to do it, it's their decision, but I still think it's a bad one.

I don't want to say much more about the way the bodies were obtained until I find the source I had this from again, else there would be no real contribution to the discussion...

Whatever, Körperwelten was not really the topic now.... and in lead I say everything goes :)

vincegamer

11-14-2005, 04:25 PM

Idolators every one of you!

artshiraz

11-14-2005, 06:03 PM

No hittin please

On Minirealms was a thread about the "skeleton Church", somewhere in Skandinavia (Finnland? Don't remember). Some people found it excellent for a 40k Reference. Some people found it sickly strange, other agreed with the basic idea. One even saw something about the Church history on Discovery Channel and could point us others who hadn't seen into the history about why that church came to be.

About two years ago there was an outcry as someone -an italian or hispanic I think- posted pictures of his medieval miniatures dungeon scene. It was a very realistic dungeon scene, with lots of devices, lots of (mostly females I think) victims, lots of blood. And a preacher with a gleefull face.

I don't remember the URL, but about every time someone said to a sculptor "I would like a hostage, a victim", it was almost always compared to that page.
Heck, I remember asking if it wasn't possible to get a shackled dwarf. (S)He was supposed to become a center piece of my Hirstart dungeon... As I couldn't very well use an armed one for a prisoner I asked for a bound one. That was almost to much back then.

I do have the whole Shadowfarge Nun Team. Perhaps there are some Nuneries, Cloisters or what-do-I-know out there, who condemn the minis (or the company) because you see a nun in garters, or one made up a bit like a naughty school girl. Is that perturbing?
To some perhaps, to me not.

@Mosch: seems you were not the only one living door to door with such a club. But in mine the "guests" even came out laughing and in good mood.
About "Körperwelten": you might find something at spiegel.de as they had a broad coverage. And I seem to remember some of the points you arged with.
Oh ... and here's Dot
http://www.spyglassminiatures.com/Pics/zo-002_front.jpg

@Klute: Really? Was there really an uprising because of the Narg&Gayle Scene? Amazing, I remember smiling slightly on FoD (?) when I saw the pic for the first time, because I found -and still find- the idea original and the execution top notch.

To conclude: There are a lot of minis out there, and not all of them can please all of us. There are even a couple of minis I detest downright. And some where I am wondering about the mental sanity of the sculptor. But then.. What I like is not necessary what you like and vis-verca. So basicaly I agree with everything goes. Because who is to force me to spend money on minis I don't like at all.

LeadAsbestos

11-14-2005, 07:00 PM

A body isn't a human. It is just a complex bag of goo. I like art that reminds us of that fact, and asks what has gone missing in the transition from "person" to corpse.

But that's just me...

vincegamer

11-15-2005, 04:17 PM

It's not an 'art' exhibition. It's a biological and educational exhibition designed to raise peoples awareness of what is actually inside them, and how the things we do to our bodies can affect them adversely.

I read a bit about this too. The maker of the figures has been accused of obtaining the bodies in dubious ways (e.g. buying dead prisoners from the Chinese government) but he denies it of course - there's no proof, but he made some of the work before he started using those consent forms.

As to whether it's art, well, the maker wants it to be considered art according to an article I read. Why? Well, it was a cynical article. You see, his patent has run out and other people are now using his method of preservation. When that happened he started doing the body posing and display. If it's art, rather than science/education, then he can claim a copyright, which has much longer protection than patent.

Mosch

11-15-2005, 04:59 PM

Ah! Thanks, vince, that cleared up a lot of half right knowledge I had about this ;)

Spacemunkie

11-15-2005, 06:09 PM

The exhibition is well worth going to see if it reaches your neck of the woods though :D

Von Hagens conducted an autopsy live on national TV over here a few months back. He used a bunch of his plastinated bodies and parts of bodies as visual aids while he was doing it. It was extremely interesting.

Klute

11-15-2005, 06:31 PM

I saw some of that Scott and amazing it was. Have to say though they could have used a more "normally" endowed male model.
Unless "normal" is 10 inches slack.

@Artshiraz
Not so much a big deal on creafigs just a few were saying it was shit based on the belief I did it to put women down. It ended up OK though and got me talking with a few of the French guys.
I had to explain it was all in the look of the female figure. Sort of looks like he is in control until you see her face then you realise she is the boss.

vincegamer

11-16-2005, 11:12 AM

I was just listening to an interview with a black American painter who recently died - can't remember his name.
Anyway, he had done a painting 30+ years ago that made him famous. It was a KKK man raping a black woman.
In the interview he was explaining that no one ever understood what he was painting. He said look at the woman. The subject of the painting isn't oppression, it's resistance. The black woman is strong and is going to fight tooth and nail for her rights - not going to let the economic establishment push her around (you were supposed to get this from the pinstripe suit you could make out under the Klan robes).

Frustrated Father

11-16-2005, 12:52 PM

I've watched some of those autopsy shows on the History or Learning Channel (can't remember which it is). Interesting, but sort of sickening as well seeing someone look like so much hamburger or moving the insides around or simply pulling them out to lay on the side of a person before doing whatever it was they wanted to do and stuffing you back up like a thanksgiving turkey.

Bleah!

As for the type of artwork that you were mentioning Vince, I'll be damned if I would have picked up on something like that. My mind doesn't really process what isn't obvious, I just see something and just take it for the face value it is, artwork like that is pretty much lost on me.

I know, uncultured heathen.