Because that is the only way to fully answer how to rate the two. It is not a simple yes or no type answer.
1 Like
grummz artwork being overly-sexual has more to do with the overall look and feel of his stuff than someone just having on a specific outfit.
Simple things like poses and facial expressions can change far more stuff than a skimpy outfit in the world of art.
Combine that with his history of being disrespectful to multiple groups of people it is clear he shouldn’t be an authority people turn to.
you realize that asking where you put an ART piece within two categories is absolutely a question about art right?
I don’t know who this Grummz person is, and if he likes women in skimpy clothes, so what? I can understand people don’t like him, and they may have their reasons, that’s their subjective opinion of the guy. But if we took him as a person out of the situation, and only looked at the picture, would people still think it is over-sexualized? Some may, some may not. That’s the thing with art, it is very subjective how one percieve it. Someone religious vs a non-religious for example.
Anyways, this is taking a turn down a road I didn’t want or asked for. People being prudish is their right, and the other way around as well. I’ll leave it at that.
2 Likes
So everyone complaining about censorship was correct, this video needs more awareness, changing anything sexual in a game hasnt been done to protect women, but themselves , and is just pathetic
3 Likes
I had no idea Em8er existed, thanks for the heads up.
1 Like
I could have put any other example where nudity is a thing, that’s in a greyzone for some, not for others but deffo also for some. Thing is, Venus is a depiction of Aphrodite, the goddess of lust and fertility.
A good example would be Lars Von Trier’s Nymphomaniac. Some see it as pornographic, other as art, and yet others like distateful rubbish. All I am getting at, we have individual subjective taste. Anyways, as I wrote above. I’m done here. I’ll gladly take it it up later, but it is late here in Northern Europe, which doesn’t help my english 
1 Like
a propaganda video by a biased creator, who has only started getting an increased following because he started making videos catering to the model haters, that misinterprets stuff isn’t proof anyone was correct. It just proves you can twist anything to resonate with a certain group in an echo chamber.
The topic is not as simple as that, this is true. But since I am the person he asked, I’m happy to address his question.
I don’t consider the Venus de Milo to be gratuitous or sexualized. Neither is Michelangelo’s David. Nudity in and of itself is not bad or objectifying. But there’s a clear difference between the Venus de Milo and Alexandra Tydings’ portrayal of the same entity in the Hercules/Xena series, wouldn’t you agree?
If you’re asking me to paint a distinct line, there isn’t one. I’m reminded of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s quote regarding pornography: “I know it when I see it.”
Note that nowhere have I assigned a value judgment of “good” or “bad” to either side. I’m simply trying to answer your question. I’m not going to insult anyone’s intelligence by suggesting I’ve never watched pornography or rifled through a Playboy magazine. But I recognize those things for what they are, and the place they hold in society.
To put it in terms applicable to this forum: in my estimation the Sorceress’ “underboob” has never added anything to the game. Therefore, nothing has been subtracted by taking it away.
1 Like
I’ll have to owe you a good answer on that one. The Xena show when it was running in my country, wasn’t exactly catering to my demographic back then, so I have no experience with the show. I did, however, look up some pictures via google, and I have to say, they don’t look over-sexualized to me. Aphrodite as the goddess of lust, beauty, desire etc. can’t be easy to try manifest in a material body, so I suppose it comes down to the interpretation of the one in charge of that character. Yes, Xena shows a lot of skin, but I don’t find it sexualized in the same category as pornography or the like. It is done with good taste I’d say.
That can be highly subjective though, which I guess is what you’re getting at here. As a non-american, I would take a wild guess and say that a person from New York vs one from the Bible belt, would have very opposite stances on the subject for example. Personally, I come from a country, where things like this isn’t a big deal on the whole (Being the first country in the world to legalise pornography for example) and nudity is a thing of everyday life for many.
I know the game, and therefore the art within is Blizzards property, and they can do with it as they see fit. But, as a remake/remaster or whatever one wanna call it, wouldn’t you expect it to be as close to the original as possible, with some polish and not a redo of things? I mean, the original artist had an idea and vision when he made the sorceress, but suddenly his opinion on his “own” work is seen as dated or what? Would it have changed anything leaving those underboobs in for example? In your own words, they didn’t add anything, but nor do the coverup as I see it, other than showing a desire to cover them up because of whatever reason the person had or was told (there’s plenty of speculation on this, which is a can of worms)
Anyways. I was just baffled at your two-category options further up, as it is usually more nuanced than that. Which is why I used Venus de Milo as an example, which doesn’t fall into either category. May you have a great launch, and the RNG gods bless your findings!
1 Like
To be clear, I don’t think Xena was pornographic or objectionable. I used to watch it, in fact. All I said was there’s a difference between the statue of Venus and the show’s depiction of Aphrodite, and yes that difference is sexual. And case in point, nudity itself is not the issue. Venus is nude but not sexual. Xena’s Aphrodite is sexual but not nude.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m getting at.
You’re probably right. Although I lived in the so-called “Bible belt” for a time and you’d be surprised at how many strip joints exist there. There are a lot more churches, of course, but where I was you wouldn’t have to go far to find a “gentleman’s club.”
I would argue that covering up the Sorceress’ and Amazon’s chest, or putting some more clothes on the 'Zon in general, is not a radical departure from the original vision. The Amazon is different in other ways of course as has been discussed ad nauseum around here and that’s a different conversation, but I have absolutely no problem with covering up her cleavage. Nudity and sexuality have a place, but it need not be gratuitous. I’m fine with that place NOT being Diablo 2.
Absolutely a can of worms. But there is a much greater awareness of female objectification in all forms of media than there was 20 years ago, and that is a good thing. Some will call it being “woke” but that is reductive and dismissive of legitimate concerns. The point is that the underboob didn’t need to be there. It was gratuitous, a bone tossed to the target audience at the time which was mostly male. It added absolutely nothing to the Sorceress’ portrayal, and not for nothing Blizzard has a bit of history with that and not in a good way.
I maintain that there is a difference between appreciation of the female form (which is good) and objectification of the female form (which is not), and that Venus falls very easily into the former category.
And same to you, good sir!
Look - with all due respect to everyone’s opinion -enough!
We’ve had enough of this subject, nothing in the reality of the situation is going to change anytime soon - and it’s RELEASE DAY!!
Play the game!
Have fun!
It is what it is, and it’s time to make the best of it.
Prove me wrong?
Protip: You can’t.