Original AFD Artwork Debate

[wasted]

4 hours ago, viruzzz said:

2010s are the "im offended behind a computer" years.

It seems like an easy way to feel like you are doing something. 

[wasted]

3 minutes ago, killuridols said:

The bolded is your interpretation of it. It is fair and valid. But if someone else doesn't see it that way, I don't think it is because they have an agenda.

I guess that, as humans, we will mostly feel more compassion for the assaulted girl than for the a rapist robot or for the avenger monster.

Maybe it is futuristic and this is how our reality is going to look, once the AI becomes fully independent of us

That’s what I’m warning against. You see the ugly thing and throw the rest out. And there’s s danger to that because it can be used to shut down communication. 

Yes, that’s another thought. It’s a warning. 

What I thought first time was that the robot had come across the girl and he looked up to see the demon coming down on him. He was like Who me? He was innocent!

I’m talking about the move to ban or censure based on a subjective opinion. 

[viruzzz]

4 hours ago, killuridols said:

But who are offended by skeleton porn?

All of it is cringe, like most of GN'R imagery.

Bring back Ashbaswag

[killuridols]

27 minutes ago, wasted said:

That’s what I’m warning against. You see the ugly thing and throw the rest out. And there’s s danger to that because it can be used to shut down communication. 

Yes, that’s another thought. It’s a warning. 

What I thought first time was that the robot had come across the girl and he looked up to see the demon coming down on him. He was like Who me? He was innocent!

I’m talking about the move to ban or censure based on a subjective opinion. 

The robot is grabbing and stepping on Mini-Mites so I guess he's involved in the crime. That's the evidence, I assume.

I dont get why feeling compassion for the raped woman is an attempt to shut down communication   

Screaming PC is the danger. Throwing around PC labels is shutting down the debate of a controversial subject. I have asked many times here but got no answer: would men react the same if the raped person was male?

Was this painting ever really censored? Because I have seen it around ever since I became a fan of the band. I have always had access to it.

[wasted]

39 minutes ago, killuridols said:

The robot is grabbing and stepping on Mini-Mites so I guess he's involved in the crime. That's the evidence, I assume.

I dont get why feeling compassion for the raped woman is an attempt to shut down communication   

Screaming PC is the danger. Throwing around PC labels is shutting down the debate of a controversial subject. I have asked many times here but got no answer: would men react the same if the raped person was male?

Was this painting ever really censored? Because I have seen it around ever since I became a fan of the band. I have always had access to it.

Feel compassion yes. But that’s not the point of the painting! don’t get outraged and miss the point or avoid thinking. Rape is bad okay, don’t bother painting anymore. Everyone knows that. What are the consequences of rape, now that’s more interesting. I’m going spend 2 months painting this it might as well be interedting. 

Not for this image but for when it has a more important message. Almost like Trump, let’s avoid wars and bring jobs back? You slept with a porn star! Outrage culture can be used to control things. Trump uses fear to control things. 

I think you think I’m talking about this painting specifically. I’m just using it as an example of how to approach provocative images. 

This one rides the line, and has to be set in the context of what is shocking on sunset strip in the 80s.  

I think they changed the cover because certain stores wouldn’t stock it? Is this something morally right or not? 

 

[killuridols]

46 minutes ago, wasted said:

Feel compassion yes. But that’s not the point of the painting! don’t get outraged and miss the point or avoid thinking. Rape is bad okay, don’t bother painting anymore. Everyone knows that. What are the consequences of rape, now that’s more interesting. I’m going spend 2 months painting this it might as well be interedting. 

I didn't say that's the point of the painting. I just think that is what it could cause in some people. It's clear that others feel joy from watching it. Still, that doesn't say anything about the point of the painting. What is the point, anyway? You're not Williams... he should respond to that. Anyone else responding for him are solely exercising their right to give opinion, but it should not be stated as "the point of the painting".

Most rape victims do not give a fuck what are the consequences of raping. Having the rapist killed or jailed will not give them back their integrity and their right to not be violated.

This is not interesting for me, but I guess it is interesting for you. Fair enough.

53 minutes ago, wasted said:

I think you think I’m talking about this painting specifically. I’m just using it as an example of how to approach provocative images. 

The discussion of this painting is what this thread is about. Anything else is just derailing.

How to approach provocative images?
I do not think you can dictate on that.

54 minutes ago, wasted said:

I think they changed the cover because certain stores wouldn’t stock it? Is this something morally right or not? 

No idea. That's what they say. I was a child and have no experience with what happened. But the painting was still available inside the album packaging.

I believe that morals are personal.. What might be right for me, might be wrong for you and viceversa. Censorship is usually exercized in the name of others, to protect them from something allegedly harmful.

I am not cool with the censorship of the album cover but at the same time, the band using that cover was forcing their fans to buy their music associated to an artwork that they might not be cool with.

Forcing your morals on people is cutting freedom as well. What if instead of that, the cover would be about animal cruelty? Or someone beating a child?
I understand provocation works that way.... it pushes your buttons and your limits. That is when the audience receives a call to act upon it.

My reaction is to reject their imposition. I will not hang any poster with that image in my walls. This does not constitute censorship. I am choosing for myself, not for a group of people.

 

[wasted]

52 minutes ago, killuridols said:

I didn't say that's the point of the painting. I just think that is what it could cause in some people. It's clear that others feel joy from watching it. Still, that doesn't say anything about the point of the painting. What is the point, anyway? You're not Williams... he should respond to that. Anyone else responding for him are solely exercising their right to give opinion, but it should not be stated as "the point of the painting".

Most rape victims do not give a fuck what are the consequences of raping. Having the rapist killed or jailed will not give them back their integrity and their right to not be violated.

This is not interesting for me, but I guess it is interesting for you. Fair enough.

The discussion of this painting is what this thread is about. Anything else is just derailing.

How to approach provocative images?
I do not think you can dictate on that.

No idea. That's what they say. I was a child and have no experience with what happened. But the painting was still available inside the album packaging.

I believe that morals are personal.. What might be right for me, might be wrong for you and viceversa. Censorship is usually exercized in the name of others, to protect them from something allegedly harmful.

I am not cool with the censorship of the album cover but at the same time, the band using that cover was forcing their fans to buy their music associated to an artwork that they might not be cool with.

Forcing your morals on people is cutting freedom as well. What if instead of that, the cover would be about animal cruelty? Or someone beating a child?
I understand provocation works that way.... it pushes your buttons and your limits. That is when the audience receives a call to act upon it.

My reaction is to reject their imposition. I will not hang any poster with that image in my walls. This does not constitute censorship. I am choosing for myself, not for a group of people.

 

By banning it you are saying it’s immoral right? I don’t think you can say that as it’s subjective. Murder is immoral, we have decided for citizens but not military. Morals aren’t personal, but they are flexible. 

I’m saying being open to a more complex meaning. Don’t use the offensive part to define it. The responsibility lies with audience. If it was just the raped girl, then I’m finding it harder to justify. Guns n Roses was ere, it’s hard to see the joke. If it’s hateful and exploitative then get outraged. 

It’s more interesting than just writing “rape is bad” on a canvas. It’s a snap shot of a situation. Robot rapes girl, then vengance is coming. It tells a story. Rape being bad is implied or taken for grant. It’s more about the cycle of violence. 

If you just see the rape victim then you’re out, then yes it’s boring.

Then you have throw out just about every movie, book, painting - they all have something offensive. Life is offensive. But you have to tackle it, depict scenes, make commentary. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by wasted

[killuridols]

1 hour ago, wasted said:

By banning it you are saying it’s immoral right? I don’t think you can say that as it’s subjective. Murder is immoral, we have decided for citizens but not military. Morals aren’t personal, but they are flexible. 

Morals are mostly personal, they are a code of conduct by which individuals live their lives. This is not related to law. Murder is illegal in most countries but it is not immoral for the criminal. Rape is not immoral for the rapist. Child abuse is not immoral for the abuser.

Censorship is an imposition of your own moral values onto others. It can be pushed by the governments or by private groups of pressure.

1 hour ago, wasted said:

I’m saying being open to a more complex meaning. Don’t use the offensive part to define it. The responsibility lies with audience. If it was just the raped girl, then I’m finding it harder to justify. Guns n Roses was ere, it’s hard to see the joke. If it’s hateful and exploitative then get outraged. 

It’s more interesting than just writing “rape is bad” on a canvas. It’s a snap shot of a situation. Robot rapes girl, then vengance is coming. It tells a story. Rape being bad is implied or taken for grant. It’s more about the cycle of violence. 

If you just see the rape victim then you’re out, then yes it’s boring.

I'm saying you can't dictate which meaning people want to give to art. Once you put your art out, you don't own it anymore... Or maybe you do but you can't tell people how to react to it. It's not a responsibility, it's a choice. Audiences don't owe anything to the artist.

Call it boring, whatever, I'm not worried..... Yes, it's a snapshot of a situation but I'm not sure it tells a story. I guess it tells part of a story that we don't know how it started or how it continues, so it's not comparable to a movie or a book.

I choose to focus on the girl because on a human level, I connect more to her than I connect to a robot or a fantasy monster. My eyes are on her and her suffering. For all I care, the robot and the monster can fuck off. So can Williams and GN'R. Fuck them all. I stand by the girl and it's a conscious choice.

1 hour ago, wasted said:

Then you have throw out just about every movie, book, painting - they all have something offensive. Life is offensive. But you have to tackle it, depict scenes, make commentary. 

My bookshelves are filled with provocative books, books that the dictatorship of my country banned in the 70s because they allegedly divulged ideas contrary to the "right", to the "good manners", to the Catholic Church, etc.

I have watched more independent films than the sum of all forum members have watched in their whole lives. I am not one you should be giving that advice.

The thing is, having an open mind does not equal accepting anything for your life or receiving the misery of the world with open arms.

Exercizing critical thinking is important for me but I have boundaries and like I said before, my personal values are above all. They are not perfect and I am flawed but I soldier on.

Edited June 28, 2018 by killuridols

[Bertrice]

On 6/23/2018 at 10:19 AM, Blackstar said:

A report (October 25, 1988) about the reaction on the AFD artwork by a local activist group in Santa Cruz, California:

In the next day's issue there was an editor's opinion article against the attempt to censor the album because of the artwork (to support their position, the author of the article uses controversial books and movies as examples, one of which is the film Deliverance which contained a graphic scene of raping a man):

 

the town I grew up in. Ahh yes liberal censorship. Santa Cruz attracts leftist kooks. I remember it was like 5 feminists protesting

[wasted]

2 hours ago, killuridols said:

Morals are mostly personal, they are a code of conduct by which individuals live their lives. This is not related to law. Murder is illegal in most countries but it is not immoral for the criminal. Rape is not immoral for the rapist. Child abuse is not immoral for the abuser.

Censorship is an imposition of your own moral values onto others. It can be pushed by the governments or by private groups of pressure.

I'm saying you can't dictate which meaning people want to give to art. Once you put your art out, you don't own it anymore... Or maybe you do but you can't tell people how to react to it. It's not a responsibility, it's a choice. Audiences don't owe anything to the artist.

Call it boring, whatever, I'm not worried..... Yes, it's a snapshot of a situation but I'm not sure it tells a story. I guess it tells part of a story that we don't know how it started or how it continues, so it's not comparable to a movie or a book.

I choose to focus on the girl because on a human level, I connect more to her than I connect to a robot or a fantasy monster. My eyes are on her and her suffering. For all I care, the robot and the monster can fuck off. So can Williams and GN'R. Fuck them all. I stand by the girl and it's a conscious choice.

My bookshelves are filled with provocative books, books that the dictatorship of my country banned in the 70s because they allegedly divulged ideas contrary to the "right", to the "good manners", to the Catholic Church, etc.

I have watched more independent films than the sum of all forum members have watched in their whole lives. I am not one you should be giving that advice.

The thing is, having an open mind does not equal accepting anything for your life or receiving the misery of the world with open arms.

Exercizing critical thinking is important for me but I have boundaries and like I said before, my personal values are above all. They are not perfect and I am flawed but I soldier on.

I think in terms of censorship we are talking the morality of a country. That is what checks personal morality. So in this case it was censored, which would suggest they thought it was immoral. We generally say murder is immoral and apply it. But in other cases it’s seems flexible. I would argue it’s not because it’s open to interpretation, the whole image should be considered. You can be obtuse and focus or isolate just the raped girl to make your judgment or experience. But I am saying other than think what you want, enjoy or hate it, but don’t censor it based on your selective critique. But if it was just the raped girl, then I think it could be. I’m not saying you can show snuff movies on ABC. We aren’t in somekind of free market utopia  that might sort that out. 

 

Not advice, just don’t think you are getting what I’m saying. I’m not saying control what people think but we shouldn’t censure based on that. 

I’m not saying the future of the world depends on this pic but that these things can snowball. And it is easy to start banning things that you just don’t like because you can  always find something. So that’s why not liking something shouldn’t be grounds for censorship. 

It has been for Mao, Stalin, Hitler in the past and it didn’t work out great. 

I just worry with this tendency to outrage it will be used nefariously, we will thimk we are being good, but suddenly we will have no say in our own lives. But hey we got McDonald’s and xbox how bad can it get. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by wasted

[action]

technically, it was not rape, since robots can't commit crimes. the law does not apply to robots.

I don't see any evidence of a "fourth" party, a human rapist, that was responsible for the crime either, so I assume the violence was done by the green robot.

this opens up a new can of worms: at what point will AI become so advanced, that the law should start punishing robots / machines for their crimes. what about self-driving cars who kill people in traffic? should cars be jailed? I see you laughing, but I haven't seen anyone laughing by the concept of a robot raping a woman yet. in both occasions, the "crime" was committed by a machine.

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by action

[Scream of the Butterfly]

On a related note (sort of), was there ever any explanation given as to why the picture of Ruth Snyder in the electric chair was used as the background for the band group shot on UYI? I suspect it was because after the rape picture on Appetite they thought it clever to "go further" and show a woman being killed, but was there anything more to it?

[AncientEvil80]

3 minutes ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

On a related note (sort of), was there ever any explanation given as to why the picture of Ruth Snyder in the electric chair was used as the background for the band group shot on UYI? I suspect it was because after the rape picture on Appetite they thought it clever to "go further" and show a woman being killed, but was there anything more to it?

Hmm, good question. Unfortunately I have no answer myself... 

Maybe we should ask Fernando? 

[wasted]

4 hours ago, action said:

technically, it was not rape, since robots can't commit crimes. the law does not apply to robots.

I don't see any evidence of a "fourth" party, a human rapist, that was responsible for the crime either, so I assume the violence was done by the green robot.

this opens up a new can of worms: at what point will AI become so advanced, that the law should start punishing robots / machines for their crimes. what about self-driving cars who kill people in traffic? should cars be jailed? I see you laughing, but I haven't seen anyone laughing by the concept of a robot raping a woman yet. in both occasions, the "crime" was committed by a machine.

 

“Too bad she won’t live”

This is kind of what I’m saying, you can throw your arms up get offended and play into an agenda or you can think about it for a while and get a more nuanced opinion

on it. 

[wasted]

14 minutes ago, AncientEvil80 said:

Hmm, good question. Unfortunately I have no answer myself... 

Maybe we should ask Fernando? 

Axl said relatively recently the “Dead” poster was used because that line up was dead at the time. 

Did they get a stay of execution?

[soon]

5 hours ago, action said:

technically, it was not rape, since robots can't commit crimes. the law does not apply to robots.

I don't see any evidence of a "fourth" party, a human rapist, that was responsible for the crime either, so I assume the violence was done by the green robot.

this opens up a new can of worms: at what point will AI become so advanced, that the law should start punishing robots / machines for their crimes. what about self-driving cars who kill people in traffic? should cars be jailed? I see you laughing, but I haven't seen anyone laughing by the concept of a robot raping a woman yet. in both occasions, the "crime" was committed by a machine.

 

Youd really like to suggest that a rape is only a legal concept? Its not. Its a thing that happens.

15 minutes ago, wasted said:

“Too bad she won’t live”

This is kind of what I’m saying, you can throw your arms up get offended and play into an agenda or you can think about it for a while and get a more nuanced opinion

on it. 

Or, are people getting really nuanced about it but you label that as being offended? Maybe just because the nuanced areas of interest or simply different?

[wasted]

3 minutes ago, soon said:

Youd really like to suggest that a rape is only a legal concept? Its not. Its a thing that happens.

Or, are people getting really nuanced about it but you label that as being offended? Maybe just because the nuanced areas of interest or simply different?

Ultimately for me it’s think what you want but don’t censor it. 

I don’t think isolating or editing one part of an image to get outraged or censor it is really very nuanced. It’s activism and I can see some worth in that, but in the end where does it end.

Guess it depends if you think images are causing rape. I kind of don’t buy that guys are being persuaded to rape by culture. It’s a psychosexual state caused by abuse. 

It’s a good cause, heighten awareness. But don’t assume outrage to control a political narrative. 

Then there’s context. Get outraged about a depiction of rape but do nothing to stop ISIS which leads to more real rapes. Fund that while you distract us with some subjective outrage. 

[action]

29 minutes ago, soon said:

Youd really like to suggest that a rape is only a legal concept? Its not. Its a thing that happens.

 

I suggest that rape involves a rapist. Not an unreasonable concept to grasp, I'd wager?

here we have a machine "raping" a woman. the machine "looks" like a man, it even wears a coat, but it is still very much a machine. bolts and wires. Sorry, but that's not rape. If you say it is, we need to jail machines.

I'll make the issue even more problematic: what if an animal, say a gorilla, commits rape on a woman? gonna jail the gorilla? If you say a robot can commit rape, then surely a gorilla can?

there are two options:

- either claim the robot is a rapist, but then we need to build new prisons for machines, and any object that commits "rape". Rape is, after all, a thing "that happens" you say.

- or you accept that rape involves a subject of criminal law, ie a person who can think for him/herself.

Machines don't commit crimes, they "malfunction" at the very most. It's a computing error.

Edited June 28, 2018 by action

[soon]

12 minutes ago, wasted said:

Ultimately for me it’s think what you want but don’t censor it. 

I don’t think isolating or editing one part of an image to get outraged or censor it is really very nuanced. It’s activism and I can see some worth in that, but in the end where does it end.

Guess it depends if you think images are causing rape. I kind of don’t buy that guys are being persuaded to rape by culture. It’s a psychosexual state caused by abuse. 

It’s a good cause, heighten awareness. But don’t assume outrage to control a political narrative. 

Then there’s context. Get outraged about a depiction of rape but do nothing to stop ISIS which leads to more real rapes. Fund that while you distract us with some subjective outrage. 

With respect; Im very confident that nothing anyone has said in this thread comes anywhere close to what you are speaking to here.

1 minute ago, action said:

I suggest that rape involves a rapist. Not an unreasonable concept to grasp, I'd wager?

here we have a machine "raping" a woman. Sorry, but that's not rape. If you say it is, we need to jail machines.

I'll make the issue even more problematic: what if an animal, say a gorilla, commits rape on a woman? gonna jail the gorilla? If you say a robot can commit rape, then surely a gorilla can?

there are two options:

- either claim the robot is a rapist, but then we need to build new prisons for machines, and any object that commits "rape". Rape is, after all, a thing "that happens" you say.

- or you accept that rape involves a subject of criminal law, ie a person who can think for him/herself.

Machines don't commit crimes, they "malfunction" at the very most. It's a computing error.

So you've already dropped your original argument which was that rape only exists as an aspect of criminal law and that a robot isnt subject to criminal law? 

Probably just destroy a robot rather then jail it to answer your question.

[wasted]

1 minute ago, soon said:

With respect; Im very confident that nothing anyone has said in this thread comes anywhere close to what you are speaking to here.

I’m pretty sure that’s true. And I’m prone to flip flop between both sides. I’m talking about a war in my mind and somekind of conclusions I came to. A raped girl needs all the support they can get. And activism is beautiful. I’m just worried when people’s natural goodness gets used against them. 

 

 

[action]

4 minutes ago, soon said:

So you've already dropped your original argument which was that rape only exists as an aspect of criminal law and that a robot isnt subject to criminal law? 

 

I'm not sure I understand your argument. I stand by both claims.

a factory press ripps off the arm of a worker. Has the machine assaulted someone? No. We don't say: "a machine assaulted someone". We say "a person got an accident in a factory". That's what I try to explain; the same goes with a machine "that looks like a man", "doing stuff to a woman that, if a man did it, would be called rape".

If you look at the robert williams painting, what you "actually" see is a woman having had a terrible encounter with some sort of humanoid machine. It's a bit of a stretch to use this picture as a case against rape, I think. That would be like using a picture of a deadly traffic accident involving a car, as a case against murder.

[soon]

Just now, action said:

I'm not sure I understand your argument. I stand by both claims.

a factory press ripps off the arm of a worker. Has the machine assaulted someone? No. We don't say: "a machine assaulted someone". We say "a person got an accident in a factory". That's what I try to explain; the same goes with a machine "that looks like a man", "doing stuff to a woman that, if a man did it, would be called rape".

If you look at the robert williams painting, what you "actually" see is a woman having had a terrible encounter with some sort of humanoid machine. It's a bit of a stretch to use this picture as a case against rape, I think. That would be like using a picture of a deadly traffic accident involving a car, as a case against murder.

You understand that the painting is of a fictional reality, right?

[action]

Just now, soon said:

You understand that the painting is of a fictional reality, right?

still, people get upset about it

[ZoSoRose]

You guys are all idiots

[killuridols]

7 hours ago, wasted said:

You can be obtuse and focus or isolate just the raped girl to make your judgment or experience. But I am saying other than think what you want, enjoy or hate it, but don’t censor it based on your selective critique. But if it was just the raped girl, then I think it could be. I’m not saying you can show snuff movies on ABC. We aren’t in somekind of free market utopia  that might sort that out. 

I am not obtuse for refusing to acknowledge the presence of a robot and a monster. I have good eyes. I see them both in the picture but I dont give a fuck about them. I've already explained this 10 times and you keep suggesting that the problem is with me.

I'm not censoring jack shit  and the ones who protested about it have a right, I guess.

I am not up for censorship of any kind but you have to admit not everybody got the intellectual tools to see beyond the breasts of that girl. There are all kind of people in society, there are teenagers and children. Believing that everybody has achieved the level of understanding you are aiming for here is certainly pretty naive.

If I was in charge of educating persons I'd pick this painting and have it dissected in school. Now, there are lots of people who do not go to school, you know?

7 hours ago, wasted said:

I just worry with this tendency to outrage it will be used nefariously, we will thimk we are being good, but suddenly we will have no say in our own lives. But hey we got McDonald’s and xbox how bad can it get. 

I dont see any tendency to outrage.... I see people scared for the fear of having a new generation of kids who do not want to hurt others and be respectful of diversity and other human beings.

I am not worried at all. When I say I will not sing OIAM I am not being "PC", I am being the way I always was... I respect others and have compassion for their situation and problems. When I say I will not hang that picture in my walls, Im saying that I dont want to have the image of a raped woman permanently stuck in front of my view because I dont enjoy none of it, regardless of the rapist being a useless robot or her avenger being a useless monster.

It is very simple and you complicate it.