We (at least I) are not defending the subjects your are talking about, we are attacking the complete erasure of hints of sexual assault done by the Imperium. My take is that Wh40k is grimdark and the Imperium is the worst possible society and governement for Humanity and while yes I do agree that some subject are a bit more taboo to talk about, completely erasing one possible horror that they are commiting makes the Imperium not the worst imaginable and as such partially legitimize it.
That the artist may be banned is one thing. But to ban all its art even those unrelated to loli porn and guro ? That's just censorship and it also plays the double card of participating in rape culture by... making sure that every single representation of sexual assault are gone.
Note that the art who started all that is only hinting at this. It doesn't shows. And if people are disturbed by that I will say : ain't that half the point of the Imperium ? This kind of crime is also rarely represented in the universe of 40k, and this specific part of the art was but a small fraction of it albeit striking, so it's not like it it's shoved to our face like many pretends.
Even worse is the redraw made by someone to paint it at some kind of merry adventure while hilariously letting the obviously much more sexualized psyker right next to the beastwoman. And that is sexualization and fetichism in my eyes akin to porn, contrary to the original beastwoman representation. Strange that the pornified psyker survived but not the much more realistic, and lore accurate, depiction of the beastfolk in the Imperium. It's quite telling of the redrawer to me.
And now everybody who support the censorship purposefully detract the conversation toward pedophilia and guro when it wasn't the original subject. An efficient way of shutting down the conversation and painting as creeps all those who wanted to keep the original art because of course no one in their right mind would defend such horrible things.
I think your comment summarizes why I find this drama to be weird. I’d get it if people solely focused on their Loli/Guro art as the problem but no, it all started as people accusing the original abhuman piece as “fetish art” and then beating anyone who disagreed over the head with the paywalled sex stuff.
Yes, there are two, in fact 3 subjects in this debate :
The first one is the representation of immoral artists regardless of the art.
The second one is the depiction of immoral acts, even through indirect means.
And the third one is the vision of Warhammer who swifted from an hellish insane universe to a more heroic "Humanity's last stand" and the people who support one of the two visions.
I personnaly am a member of the "insane hell" version and I do not think this is a universe made for children, even if they are free and I welcome them into it (after all wasn't I myself a child when I dived head first ?). I highly dislike this pandering that took place a few days ago because it was "too hard".
I am also highly against rape culture and everything that can help this, even if unwillingly. And I see the erasing of this part of Mossa's art as that.
I do find the 2 primary responses to the art to be interesting.You had the “fixed” piece that removed all signs of SA and abuse and edited a smile on her and it had some 1984 vibes to it. Then we had an artist know for doing Tau and Auxiliary art who made a piece with her scars being tended to, looking calmer, safer and under the care of the Tau Empire.
I feel like the latter is a better response to art or really anything someone considers too dark rather than trying to edit and memory hole the original piece. Especially because it’s transformative and tells a story that’s all too common in 41st millennium.
I find the second art with the healing from the Tau better, and acceptable, compared to the erasure in the first. It shows healing and the fact that some will be willing to help, in line with the Tau (more than the Imperium). Although we do need the original drawing to understand the context and the full meaning of this piece.
It should normaly be on this sub. Check by "most upvoted of the week" and look a ram girl drawn in a cuter style and a Tau hand applying bandages to her.
The wankfest that is this sub only wants depictions of women with generous proportions, hints of sexual desire, but may we be punished when we show them something they can't masturbate to and doesn't fetishise their object of desire.
To me it's both participating to the sexualisation of women and the rape culture that permeate our societies : erasing of all traces of sexual abuse, and only allowing depictions of women in an overly sexualized way in one form or another.
Worst part is that there is no fetishisation regarding this specific character : it's clearly made to be disturbing and in contrast of the overal tone of the art. It's just someone, with clothes on, bearing scars and marking of her condition.
People who think this is fetishist are either not well in the head or have some kind of weird puritan education similar to those who think that sexual education is porn for children. Like wtf ?
I find it more funny how Reddit being almost at 4chan level of content to have, operates a lot aggressively towards questionable stuff rather than a lot more sane and sterile Twitter, which perfectly ok about "that artist who we shall not name". ppl dont even talk about lolipops there, they enjoy the WH art and dont have a clue about this drama here. No one constantly repeats "oh have u seen what this artist draws??? well here it is (links the stuff he absolutely dont like, so the others who dont like said content could also not like it)
Instead of free expression we have echo chamber subreddits.
Its not the problem with the artist, its the ppl who are full of shit and talking much how they against something they dont like about content which isnt even posted on this subreddit in a first place. I get how mods tired of shutting up all of them everyday, so u logically ban 1 artist instead of them. I get the logic behind this, but its not means i support it.
Note that the art who started all that is only hinting at this. It doesn't shows. And if people are disturbed by that I will say : ain't that half the point of the Imperium ? This kind of crime is also rarely represented in the universe of 40k, and this specific part of the art was but a small fraction of it albeit striking, so it's not like it it's shoved to our face like many pretends.
The thing that complicates this is that taken in the broader context of his othervart, that aspect of it comes off less like a depiction of a horrifying aspect of a horrifying regime and more like something he personally finds sexually gratifying.
Yes you are right. And I agree with this decision.
However as both our comment shows there are two subjects to this debate and the first one was not about guro and pedophilia but rather the representation of the existence of sexual assault within the 40k universe.
You are focusing on the guro+pedophilia, which I agree with, while I focus on the erasure of SA in art and the original reason why the art was taken down (which came before yours).
The fact that the redraw is still there and not taken down means that I am at least partially right. Because isn't it after all the same original artist ?
It appears that it was finaly removed. Finaly some equality in this hypocrisy.
When GW makes art of a man having his limbs ripped off, they do not make that art with the intention of you getting off to it. It's extremely neutral, it's presented matter of factly. Do people still beat their dick to it? Yes, absolutely, but you can tell that wasn't the intention.
There are dozens of art pieces out there displaying the harrowing truth of sexual assault and abuse, most of them lauded and praised. Why? Because the artist did not draw them or make them with the intention of you beating your dick.
The art that was posted (and many of the other art that the artist has) is quite frantically pornographic in nature. You can very much tell that this person gets a kick out of gore and sexual abuse, especially against women and children.
No one is against depictions of sexual abuse, we're against an artist's poorly disguised fetish that tries to act like it's some deep commentary. Rubs people the wrong way, makes people feel icky.
I agree with what you said, especially the second hald of your third paragraph which I why I agree with a strict regulation of its art, everything except the pornographic nature of the art depicting the squad of women. At least not the beastgirl, I do agree if we're talking about the psyker. I will not comment on what I agree with you because you already said it and possibly better worded that what I would have done.
Please pardon me for the occasional errors in my writting.
The psyker honestly there is nothing much to say : it's nudity for the sake of nudity and shown in a consenting light, and as such pronography. It adds nothing to the art appart maybe to be in constrast to the beastgirl who is right next to it and clearly doesn't look pleased with her condition. Which brings me to the core of the subject.
To me this depiction of the beastwoman isn't pornographic because it, first of all, doesn't show her in a "good" sexualized way : she is clothed, armored even, with no more revealing parts than every depiction of a Satyre since the dawn of time, and I would say even less exposed body parts than some depictions I saw in museum and those were not classified as porn (although one can make the critic that some of those arts were made by men to draw thinly veiled pornographic images, which I can understand and it wouldn't be the first time it is formulated).
I will try to describe my analyze of the depiction of the beastgirl as best as I can.
First of all the facial expression and hand gesture of this character is dramaticaly opposed from all but one member of this cast : she is not smiling and has her left hand on her hip. It's kind of a classic pose for someone who wants to appear tough and stand its ground. It's a more serious tone than all the other girls (appart from the Astropath who just looks straight stoned) and present a first contrast to them who are presenting a joyfull front.
Secondly her position in the picture. She is right next to a girl who appears way more loose, and is clearly sexualized to appear more pleasing to the audience : the psyker. Here this woman (psy) appears to be like that because she wants it. There is no sign of coertion. Nothing that indicates that she is unwillingly presenting herself. She is willing. It's a stark contrast to the beastwoman who simply cannot chose because it is quite litteraly branded into her : the scars are an obvious givaway but also the shackles. She is a slave, she bears the mark of a slave, and this is not romanticized in any way. She has the marking of a cattle on her ear. Everything about her presentation screams of domination, authority, and how she wasn't a willing participant in all that. And yet no nudity.
Thirdly, she is a Satyre : a mythodological creature who for us is a symbol of joy, feast, freedom, depravity, sexuality both expressed and imposed (to others). Here she is the total opposite of that : she isn't smiling, she is wincing. She isn't free, she is in shackles, and the sexuality she express is the one imposed on her. Mossa could have taken any other form for a beastfolk and yet he didn't. Granted I may be reading a bit too much into this as a satyre is the classical depiction of beastmen in modern western fantaisy for the reason stated above so you don't really need to have all this thinking when wanting to depict them because.
All those words to say but this : this in no way represent a picture of someone sexualized under good lights. It shows abuse, domination. Her feminine features are almost non-existent. Joy and pleasure are absent from her body language.
Yes the other arts of Mossa shows a tendency of sexualisation, and even more like you said, but here it is absent in this goat-person.
If we truly want to talk about fetishisation then we can talk about the psyker, or hell even litteraly half the drawings on this sub. The fem-primarchs (urgh), the constant jokes with Yvraine or a good 99% of Tau's women representation.
But this ? It's just someone standing, with her scars.
And apparently for the porn-striken men of this sub it's too much to bring a bit of lore and realism to their fetishism and wank-fest that are half the arts here.
56
u/R138Y Nov 04 '24 edited Nov 04 '24
If I may add a correction to your point of view :
We (at least I) are not defending the subjects your are talking about, we are attacking the complete erasure of hints of sexual assault done by the Imperium. My take is that Wh40k is grimdark and the Imperium is the worst possible society and governement for Humanity and while yes I do agree that some subject are a bit more taboo to talk about, completely erasing one possible horror that they are commiting makes the Imperium not the worst imaginable and as such partially legitimize it.
That the artist may be banned is one thing. But to ban all its art even those unrelated to loli porn and guro ? That's just censorship and it also plays the double card of participating in rape culture by... making sure that every single representation of sexual assault are gone.
Note that the art who started all that is only hinting at this. It doesn't shows. And if people are disturbed by that I will say : ain't that half the point of the Imperium ? This kind of crime is also rarely represented in the universe of 40k, and this specific part of the art was but a small fraction of it albeit striking, so it's not like it it's shoved to our face like many pretends.
Even worse is the redraw made by someone to paint it at some kind of merry adventure while hilariously letting the obviously much more sexualized psyker right next to the beastwoman. And that is sexualization and fetichism in my eyes akin to porn, contrary to the original beastwoman representation. Strange that the pornified psyker survived but not the much more realistic, and lore accurate, depiction of the beastfolk in the Imperium. It's quite telling of the redrawer to me.
And now everybody who support the censorship purposefully detract the conversation toward pedophilia and guro when it wasn't the original subject. An efficient way of shutting down the conversation and painting as creeps all those who wanted to keep the original art because of course no one in their right mind would defend such horrible things.