This doesn’t look like someone who fight against ‘alien menance’. She look like someone that ‘rollout of a futuristic Nightclub’
Please make her look rougher, cover her underboobs and lighted privates with a metal dress and make her 30 years older and a face similar to that of D2R Amazon.
I can see this contradiction of your comes from an battle of the fake external and true internal version of self: ‘Satisfying the stockholders so you don’t loose your job’ ~VS~ ‘being true to your heart and your childhood fantasies’
What contradiction? This is who he is, and always has been. He prefers over sexualized women, is a proud gamgergater, bragged about being part of Blizz for over 15 years after leaving Blizz, and drove another game studio to the ground before they removed him as CEO. He is currently fishing for funding for his own game seeing as nobody will have him. Oh, and he made a stink about “removing Blizz from his bio” finally, after the lawsuit came out as though he was not someone who “stood for exploitation of women”. Ok, well that is self contradiction I suppose.
That guy?
What is self contradictory about that. This also has nothing to do with D2R. He was a Producer (manager) on D2. Long ago. Left Blizz in 2006 and his last position was as a Team Lead in WoW.
I thought the face on the Amazon was odd - too angular. After playing Alpha and Beta, the gritty look of the chars actually fits the environment. I never had issues with the outfits on them or any of the other chars.
Seeing the really bad takes by quite a few of the posters that were pretty vile, I am glad they did not change it.
Had people stuck to focusing on the art work and what suited the game in a constructive way, I could have even agreed with much of it. As it stands now, I like the new models.
Try finding anything I said that was not generally supporting people being good humans and treating each other right. Feel free to quote my post about the Amazon face even - it was polite and focused on the art work. Period. If real women want to present themselves as sexy that is their call adn I support that. If an artist wants to depict a char as a battle warrior in harsh environment I support the artists on that too.
Can art really be “over sexualized” is it such a surprise that men like the female form and highlight and dramatize certain aspects in their depictions?
There’s a difference between admiration (“You look great in that dress.”) and objectification (“What catalog would you like them to step out of?”). It’s really not that difficult.
Most of the men in WoW look like they’ve been fed steroids since birth and no one complains. The average wow player isn’t exactly Mr. Olympia either and there’s not a peep about that ever.
Because outside of prison environments sexual objectification of men hasn’t historically been a thing, unlike the converse.
I’m not talking about how depictions look compared to the “average” man or woman. That’s beside the point. It’s possible to depict either gender as someone who is physically “above average” without sexualizing them.
And where would you put Venus de Milo, given those two categories? If a game ever depicted Aphrodite as the sculpture, would you call it over-sexualized as well?
Not judging here, just trying to determine if you differentiate between nudity, depending if it is art or not.
If you cant tell the difference between that pin-up artwork that appeals to only the most primal aspects of the male brain and the venus of milo, that has been crafted by hand out of stone on your own.
Then you might be hard to convince.
Multiple factors are at play here:
time in which the “art” is being created
purpose for which it is created
medium on which it is being created
aspiration in which the art is being created (realism and anatomic study vs. super-sexy-boobism)
overall corpus of art that the artist has created
what it adds to society, what discussion it ignites
does it empower people or exploit them?
was it created for profit, marketing or art?
will it be remembered 2000 years from now as a great piece of art or will it be forgotten probably after you close this very browser tab (or maybe 2-3 minutes later)?
Because the person who answered the question, wasn’t the one I asked the question. The person I asked, sat up two categories, and all I wanted to know, is where is the line. Wasn’t trying to engage in an art discussion, merely an elaboration. We all comes from different walks of life, and what some might deem sexualized, others will not.
In the case where Blash clearly view Grummz’s work as over-sexualized, and in his words "appeals to only the most primal aspects of the male brain " he clearly thinks that female bare skin is equal to something sexual. In my point of view, she isn’t engaging in anything sexual. Sure, her clothes are barebone, but where I come from, that’s hardly something to raise an eyebrow over, where topless women at the beach is common sight.
That is not what he said at all. He said context matters. Which is very true. Context matters.
As for the person who is the subject of this thread. He is well know for sexual portrayal of women, advocating for it, and promoting it. He has been doing that for over 15 years now, very openly in public. Judging him based on his own words and actions seems reasonable. As was said, the body of work produced by the artist tells you what that artist wants to be known for.
Human bodies are indeed beautiful, esp when the person doing it has free will to express themselves through their own body - that they control.
I can’t really improve on what Blash said. He hit all the important points on the variety of art out there and how that is judged. You might have wanted a simple one line answer, but the topic is not as simple as that.
