Ref uesd: thisgoodlife.deviantart.com/art/Flowers-381362946
I always upvote ass.
It kind of is a semantic debate though .
I think it looks great and see nothing morally wrong for doing this piece and I don't think you owe anyone any apology for making it. Just my two cents.
I don't know what's more impressive... the ass or the hair!
"Dat Ass" so epic :D Great work
I love how there's a whole debate about sexism and then in the middle of it all, every other commenter is going "Dat ass!"
This looks perfect. I almost doubt about if this is PA... but i love it.
One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Seven asses.
But seriously, I like it. xP You did a great job on the hair!
wow... i like it... alot
Unfortunitely, whether anyone likes it or not, this is generally what society claims as attractive. Same goes with abs on males. Always was, always will. Not sure why there is a sexist debate, I can't bother to read it but I wanted to share my input...
I guess, my point comes down to: if we call this image sexist, we might as well say most games promote murder. There are parents that feel strongly about this, way too strongly overall than that their opinion can be objective measure. Aside from our case here, for example, personally I am actually critical of the game industry's fetish with over-sexualized depiction of women in every unfitting occasion. However that has less moral reason for me, and more that it just doesn't work well -- the promiscious role be reserved for a character that has explicit function in story, otherwise it degrades that function and becomes pale on over-exposure, an obvious trope causing suspension of believe in its non-sensical absurdity as well. On the other hand, a seductive figure as integrative part of the story is not sexist, even though it serves as an archetype. And I believe that the depiction of a sensual/sexual woman as is here is not sexist either for similar reason. Now if this was a fighting game and she some hard boiled killer commando with absolutely impractical body type and equipment towards this, the absurdity of it might be sexist, though it might also be just obviously hilarious. A much clearer case of sexism would be if it denied women at large to be anything else than promiscious, or punished women in its course for wanting to be anything else, though even that depends on the contextual intention of the creator at hand. If a piece isn't geared towards being sexist, it isn't sexist, the mere adoration of some female body and promiscuity from a man's perspective isn't, even though in the great scheme of things it might be interpreted towards negative attitude and action by someone somewhere. IMHO. That is, I wish my opinion on this wouldn't annoy you, as it isn't intended for that either.
Well, the heart of this issue really is a semantic debate -- without it, there is no issue, actually that is pretty much my own point. The shame in it is a direct implication throughout. That is all I wanted to see addressed from my point of view. She can have hers, I endorse her PA based on it. My view isn't particularly appalling, I think, it can rest mentioned alongside without hurting anyone.
No one other than you is saying anything about shame.
Not interested in a semantic debate.
That it would objectify women is an entirely different argument than that it is sexist (rather than sexy). Every person is also an object. Every PA here objectifies. You might even say that the principle method of the artist's eye is to objectify -- now it gets interesting. This object is a fantasy image of specific interest, It is not made an express vehicle for a political message. The artist indulged his fascination as a pixel study, and this not a shame. And it is the responsibility of the audience itself to differentiate between the body object and the woman person in real life.
I don’t see how an argument can be made that it doesn’t objectify women. The artist shouldn’t feel bad about it necessarily but should be aware that it is another image in the tradition of over-sexualized women objectified to a few (or a single) cosmetic feature(s).
It is probably a mistake to pick up on comments made many years ago, without any context whatsoever.... you simply can't read that right, which is why it wasn't intended for you, buried. Maybe instead of taking into account everything else that doesn't matter to the case at hand, you should take note how I treated you -- you -- from person to person.
OK, you know what RAV?
"Or my personal favorite: the unwashed feminist who believes personal hygiene and tasteful attractiveness to be oppressive tools invented by men. And if you don't really want to sit next to her, or talk to her since she's boring in every way, they label you sexist, misogynist and lucifer, god knows how all that fits together."
You wrote this on that other forum. I found it in under 1 minute thanks to the magic of google.
I'll stop talking to you now, kthxbye
Hrrm, you updated your post... with a lot of severe accusations... again. You are quick and... generous on those.
May I remind you that, as much as I have responsibility to not offend, you also have responsibility to not feel overtly offended "by every little thing". What I have described, really does not inform you on how I react personally, nor does my liking of this PA -- that was the point of it, to have you mind more your actual personal relation... with me for instance, rather than the infinitely complicated principal issue far beyond.
You seem to feel above any friendly advice, and I am to be framed the villain in your story. Well, I guess that is how it is then.
You are making lots of assumptions. There's always a lot to read up on -- on all sides of a problem. It is good to vary literature and expose yourself to differences. I can't say my "priviliges" have done me all that much good compared to most girls around... that's ok, and overall my case is not representative, some of it may be. And neither is this pixel art nor PixelKnight, nor I, representative for the evils of sexism, just because we can enjoy a sort of woman in promiscuous pose.
I think discussing this here was kind of interesting, as in "what can art do" and "what responsibility does the artist have". We might have different opinions on some of it. We probably have a lot more in common overall. Not knowing me, you might misjudge my interest as something else than intellectual. Looking around, this "Boys Club" did support you against disadvantage on occasion. I think that's alright, you're alright, and it would be to your further grace to maybe break some of the rhetorical habits you might depend on in other places, but don't serve you well in this place full of mostly-like-minded people.
I am not a people man. But have a nice stay all the same. =)
Thanks neofotistou, as long as theres no hard feelings thats fine with me. <3
And thanks for the link. :)
ThePixelKnight, respect x10000000
Not your fault that you didn't see the sexism of it (sexism is everywhere and hard to see), and totally awesome that you acknowledge it.
Don't worry about the anatomy, it can be made better with Loomis <3
Okay, I wasn't expecting a debate on sexism when I uploaded this, (expected comments on how bad the anatomy is or people who thought I'd traced it or colour reduced it etc lol).
I apologise for any offense caused neofotistou and anybody else, it wasn't my intention to.
dear RAV. check your privilege, read up on some feminism and then I'll deign to reply.
A very childish, very limited and grim view of social justice is what you present here.
Just because you don't like to admit your privilege, you suppose that I don't admit my own privileges when someone points them out to me! What I care most about is that when people tell me they are being harmed or saddened by something I do, I stop whatever I'm doing and at least THINK it twice. That's what I care about most. Instead of, like you, lashing out with elaborate ideologies about how you can't care about each little thing, because you can't be assed to- sorry, because you "have limited resources". Not all opinions should be adapted to dear. If you condone something sexist (and you are, and nowhere have I called YOU sexist, just one of your views) then I have no moral obligation to respect your opinion, which does me harm in the larger scheme of things. Same with racist stuff. Keep em to yourself, please, I'm under no obligation to "respect" those.
I'm a simple girl, I calls 'em like I sees 'em. I see sexism, I sure am gonna say so. If you don't like it, feel free to not read my comments. By the way, I never implied that you shouldn't do or say sexist stuff, we're human, we make mistakes. I only support the fact that you can't demand that people don't judge the sexist (or racist, or ableist, or otherwise oppressive) stuff that you do at face value, as sexist or racist, etc. I don't care if you don't judge me. I judge you. That's my prerogative.
Poor, poor form. I hope you get better soon.
By that notion I haven't called for censorship on your comments either, I encourage civil debate. All I asked is not to be judged by you this way, as I don't judge you. You've not been cornered for having your own opinion. But you see, other people can feel offended by your statements too, not just you by theirs.
Here is our point of contention: If PixelKnight had called this piece "The only REAL woman", saying "all you women have to look like this to be worth any nice treatment", and even went to your pixel art and said "I really don't like it that you push your feminist agenda by depicting women in another way than I'd like them to be", then I'd agree that to be sexist. But we are not sexist just for having personal preferences on people or bodies. If you don't like to be the way he or I likes, that is fine, really. I even encourage you to make PA that decidedly defies all other aesthetics or just shows what you like, I enjoy that alot actually.
But I have a principle issue that we have to take personal responsiblity for all these great mechanations we are somehow part of, that shape our world for good or bad. I think that is an inhuman line of thought, we really don't have the capability for more than limited responsibility. You see, I know that this issue is very important to you. And I am actually supportive on many aspects of it. But I can tell you that there are a lot of other things too, that I take issue with that you never thought about, but that somehow indirectly make for many very bad things in the world also. I could damn you for not recognizing the importance of every issue I hold dear, and living your life consequently to combat this fully, and push you into moral twilight for not doing this, like with publically stating you are advocating child labor in india, because you bought this cloth, or you are advocating animal torture, because you ate this meat. But rather I recognize we have just different emphasis on what to care about most, we have to because we are creatures of limited resources, and maybe you really like this shirt or that burger, and maybe it's all you can afford, but you also liked conditions improved, and maybe one day you are faced with a decision that actually counts, how you treat someone else face to face, and that makes you different from an advocate for all this after all, and me from a sexist. Meanwhile, girls that do enjoy appealing to me whatever wrong way, are not necessarily stupid either, and neither are you, least of all for adapting your opinion and respecting another's sensibility as he would yours.
since I never asked for it to be taken down, or censored or anything destructive at all, I fail to see what you want me to do, other than tell me NOT to speak my mind. I can't do that. I don't give a damn if you don't like what I say.
RAV, we're all sexist, because we grow up in sexist societies. If you don't like to acknowledge this and believe this image to be the result of deep thought on whether it depicts a woman in a non sexualized, non cliche, non sexist way, with a non-sexist posture and body measurments then it's your prerogative. When I say something is sexist, you're gonna listen to the person who gets to endure sexism. And in this conversation, apparently, that's me. If you don't like my critique of "sexism", then do not accept it. Spare me the "I don't have to apologise". I never asked you to. My opinion will not change no matter how much you want to be someone who doesn't condone sexism. You do condone it, and that's fine. The fact that you don't see sexism doesn't mean it doesn't exist ,dear. Someone says she's offended by sexism and you're like "I don't care". What kind of person does that make you?
I'm fed up with this boys' club. Pixelknight it's your pic, do what you want in your comments, I won't add to the aggravation.
Can we only be good if your statement is the only true remaining? =)
Sexism is a loaded term. It implies a lot of bad things. You overload this piece and the intentions of the creator with problems of all womankind. That is not fair. This guy just wanted to draw a picture in a way he liked, wrong as it may be. If you were to just point out the detail of what you don't like about it from a technical illustration or medical anatomy point of view, like you later did, that's great. But that's not how it started. Of course you are allowed humour, but we both know, especially now, that it's more for you than just humour. Certainly you are allowed to speak, but PixelKnight, and now I, are allowed to defend ourselves as well from increasingly offensive accusations on an ethical level, from just a simple pixel art, that is not in any way derogatory of women. Its anatomy can be seen a stylistic choice, and I wont apologize to like it, and I don't advocate sexism with liking this. If you can critisize pieces on a stylistic and technical level without escalating it to attacks on our integrity as persons, we are good now then.
Dat fuckin ass !!!
Excuse me RAV dear, but sexism affects us all, not just women. If you don't care that sexism harms people, then by all means don't make it *your* job.
The anatomy is wrong, because I've been an illustrator for 12 years, and before that a medical student. Not because of ethics.
My original comment "dat sexist disregard" was humour. Surely feminists are allowed to try to be funny as well?
To anyone who tries to defend sexism as "art which satisfies a sense", I'm fine with it, but I demand huge amounts of talent to back it up, dear. Since you've so kindly become an advocate to the sexism in this piece, please let the piece speak for itself. My opinion (which you're quick to stifle): it speaks volumes. Of sexism and lack of anatomy.
Very decent pixeling, but that wasn't my critique. Are we good NOW?
Why shouldn't we be good? :-) There are things to critisize either way, in friendly measure.
That there are not other body types or sexes represented is not his concern, and he doesn't carry responsibility to .. err.. rectify that. Your job, if you so please. =) The word sexist is a moral meaning that's bad, the sad smiley added to that. It is easy to read as "shouldn't be", hence my clarifcation. The problem with anatomy as mentioned was not just that it's wrong but sexist wrong. Since this is not only a critique but an accusation, this especially is up to debate. The anatomy is not wrong either way: there are people that actually look close to that. It's not wrong to look like that. And for the work in question it is certainly idealized towards a specific aesthetic, but as long as it somehow looks interesting and pleasing to a large part of people, even wrong is right. To them this piece satisfies a sense in a way you might not be receptive for as a lesbian.
Tx RAV. I like PixelKnight's style as well. I'm also a lesbian.
I'm talking not about the cliche of depicting women from behind. But the big errors in anatomy (shoulders are all wrong, calves are wrong, the waist is barbie-thin, not human-thin).
The original pic isn't good for reference, because it's too glowy.
Plus it's an ass, just to show an ass. I mean, why? And where are the oversexualised male asses in this tiptoed pose?
Did I mention I didn't say anyone should feel "bad" about anything?
I'm critiquing, and making a critique is producing *more* speech, not trying to 'stifle freedom of speech'. No shame, no remorse, no censorship. Just (to me) not tasteful either. Are we good?
It's not sexist, it is sexy. And it doesn't disregard anatomy, it regards it highly. It shows a type of body and pose, and that's all. Noone should feel bad for liking it, PixelKnight should not feel bad for making it, and you shouldn't feel bad about it. You might say that this cliché depiction of women is artistically uninteresting to you as a concept. This artist's tasteful fascination with its physicality is understandable though.
I like your style too, btw.
quite an accomplishment with the hair
Man...look at these pixels...
:( dat sexist disregard for anatomy. no :(
amazing i love this, very sensual.
There's a flatness and fuzzines about the thighs that bugs me...may too little dithering? :/ I would add some little more shade to the inner part of the right thigh (that will up the contrast a bit and mask some of the problems). I would split he darkest skin-color [168,109,87] from the hair and add more blue to it. Still, very nice image...and ass.
mm mnice pixels
Damm!! Dat hair is amazing (a)
Very sexy, perfect dithering!!!!
Arty farty, with such a pic. Nice :P
@ Hapiel: I went all arty farty :/
Sex appeal ;)
Why this composition in the canvas?
What a butt :3
I love this one