HOME | DD
Strutter79 β Journey end
[NSFW]
Published: 2010-12-27 15:52:27 +0000 UTC; Views: 50375; Favourites: 444; Downloads: 2071
Redirect to original
Description
Did this image sometime ago but never got round to posting it, carries on from:[link]
Related content
Comments: 51
To subvirgin
Now this has nothing to do with Strutters work at all. I find you most unprofessional, if you don't have the decency to comment on an artists work, don't pick arguments with the commenters. That's a really unclassy move
π: 0 β©: 0
To subvirgin - I will reply to you here. Firstly what sort of person do you think you are to attack someone and then run away? Bit of a coward aren't you.
Yes all art work is about a suspension of belief, and it is merely a representation of reality. It is however not unreasonable to ask what you think will be the far reaching affects of the messages you are conveying, and what messages you actually think the work is portraying. If you think the messages are harmless, well that's your own problem. As for judging? What I did was read the image and what the artist conveyed, if you don't like the conclusion I came to, again that's your own problem. The message these pieces convey is about degrading and objectifying women. If that's what you like to read, I suggest thinking about how you'd like the rest of the world to subsequently objectify and degrade you.
π: 0 β©: 1
I suggest you bugger off.
π: 0 β©: 0
So far so good...
All detail great...
The concrete texture on the left building may a bit more detail
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks for the feedback, I did try and add some extra bump maps to the textures but I think I must of of missed that building as your quite right it does seem to be lacking some detail.
π: 0 β©: 0
Ooh! Love the chain work. The entire composition is nicely done.
π: 0 β©: 0
Journeys end in lovers meeting,
Every wise man's son doth know
...or possibly in slave markets ^ ^
π: 0 β©: 1
Is this work intensionally misognistic? And if so/not are you worried about how people view you work? I mean is there a reason for these images? Are they art or just pornography - disgusting, degrading porn.... Just interested.
π: 0 β©: 2
Finally, I've found your comment and as you can see I never blocked you, I've been away. Your point is fair and valid but I never feature violence or rape and I think you will find that bondage is fairly common place on the internet and other media. I can imagine some people do find the images I do are not to there taste, but hey if thats the case don't look at them.
Maybe you would think it was art if I just did it black and white, seems that can be an easy way to make people think it would be more 'arty'. But thanks for reporting me though before I could even get to answer.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's okay - you actually violate some of the da rules. Even some well established artists would break these. Just a matter of appropriateness. I disagree you works are very violent, and their are many suggestions of rape - some downright blantent. Putting these images in black and white will not alter the content. I think an interesting question is how do you view women in general? That they are portrayed as sexual objects - or abusers?
π: 0 β©: 2
It's not like he went to your page and pushed his art in your face. You are here of your own free well. His art IS marked Mature after all so if you don't like mature content, bondage, violence or all of the things you say his art represents then why were/are you bothering him?
You accused him of blocking you which he never did obviously. I however have blocked you so you can see what a real block is. You are judgementally immature and don't deserve an answer to your stupid, argumentative questions. In fact who the hell are you? Nobody, that's who.
π: 0 β©: 0
Dude, it's just fantasy! The images are not real and I would'nt even contest the idea with real people thats thy they are just images with no one getting harmed.
π: 0 β©: 1
If you won't contest the idea with real people - then why make the images. Aside from influencing others to do so, what sort of message do you think you're sending out? Do you think that these images degrade and objectify women as sexual objects? Why do all the women look frightened while they are ...assaulted? The messages in your imagery suggest rape, violence (in many different way - ie restriction of movement, lack of dignity, stiping of 'victims'). You say that you do not degrade women, but do you honeslty not see this in your work? Are you genuinly trying to fool me in to thinking that you are naive and deluded?
π: 0 β©: 1
Why are you trying to find amore sinister reason. I can see where your coming from but there is no hidden context, they look frighetned because if they had a big happy smile on their face the image would be wrong.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not trying to find a sinister reason - the pictures are sinister when analysed formally. What you are doing is trying to defend you work by saying I do not know what I am talking about - instead of analysing your own photographs as a retort. Get back to me when you have analysed the formal capacities of this work and drawn a not 'sinister' conclusion. I am interesting in understand how you could possibly draw alternative conclusions from the images...
π: 0 β©: 3
You must have such a long pole up your ass. Are you female? Do these images offend you?
π: 0 β©: 1
I think being offended by torture or mysoginy means I am in any way anal retentive.
π: 0 β©: 0
Who the fuck are you? Just chill and stop hating.
If you don't like, don't look at it.
It's not misoginistic. You obviously have no idea what that word means. This isn't hateful towards women, it's something of a fetish and something that's interesting from a purely psychologically annalytical point of view.
Even if they are dark and sinister, so what? Dark and sinister things exist in teh world? Express it.
π: 0 β©: 1
You obviously have no idea what your looking at 
π: 0 β©: 1
No, you boviously have no idea what you're looking at and the arrogance to think that you do. You are one of those many people who take moral high-grounds and don't know anything but act like they do and belittle other people. In short, you have no life.
So go ahead and add a wink emoticon to make yourself seem even bitchier than you already do, that doeasn't make anyone look stupid but yourself.
Instead of being more critical of my approach to imagery, how about you be more critial of your pretension.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, while I was critical of the imagery and the way you have critically evaluated the imagery - you seem to have resorted to personal critique? Is that the only thing you have in your repertoire? And do tell If I am taking the moral high ground? What ground are you taking? The cess-pit?
No as to the imagery. Is it in your opinion liberating of a womens body/sexuality and mind, or is it in fact an image that tells men that women are objects to look at, abuse and fuck? In any case what are the far reaching consequences on the psyche of the viewers, both male and female, and what are the far reaching effects on this within a society. Are you considering how this imagery could effect the lives of young women growing up society that claims this imagery is acceptable?
I will state my original comments were all about how much is this art, and how much is porn? And where to draw the line and to what audience is this okay to show to...etc etc. Do you have an answer, or are you just annoyed because I had some valid things to say, and you're too afraid to address the way you think?
π: 0 β©: 1
You were the first to go for personal criticism. I take rationality and fairness.
The image tells no one anything, people will distort it and add meaning to it so it will fit their own views, even if it fits as the opposition to their views.
Sexist pigs will be sexist pigs, respectful men who like the idea of bondage and fantasize about it being that kind of poweful can enjoy this picture and keep from turning into pigs.
You want to stop guys from being sexist? Here's a hint: Respect from others starts with respect to others. If you bitch about how something is sexist when it's not, then you're crying wolf and no one will believe you when something is sexist.
I am annoyed by your arrogance, you have not said anything valid. I am not afraid of addressing the way I think. My awnser for who that picture is okay to show to: I'll show it to who I feel comfortable showing it to, anyone else can do the same. But everyone has a right to see it.
π: 0 β©: 1
So you say that the picture shows men exhibiting their power of women - but it is absolutley the context, she is naked and in a public place - this implies that women are vunerable, but sex objects, that they can be abused, but need a man to legitamise them - this is everything that that epitomises the sexist steriotype of women, and encourages men to treat women badly. If however the image was meant to be ironic then the message would be different, however in talking to the artist this is not the case, and these images are meant to be pornographic.
How are these arguments not valid? And, should be not teach people to feel powerful through self worth and inner power - not the subjugation of others? Is it not saying that to have power, we must ensure others do not have power?
An image tell no one anything? This is not true. This is catagorically untrue or you would not have sought to justify your opinions. Images are visual communication. They therefore, like it or not, intensionally or not, communicate a message.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, your first paragraph is pretentious and prejudicial. The paragraph only shows that she is naked in a public place, and sure, we can assume it's probably forced. That does not mean that it's okay for the man to do that to her or anything else along those lines. It doesn't even neccessitate that it's forced, but even if it is, that does not condone the act. And even if it did convey that meaning, that is a constitutional right. Freedom of speech, even for assholes.
Your arguments are invalid because they are based on a false assumption, a different one for each of your invalid arguments, like in your last paragraph, but I'll get ot that in a moment. We should indeed teach people to feel powerful through inner power and self-worth, adn that it is wrong to subjugate others. This picture says nothing of any of that, only that in this picture someone is doing that. Not that they should or shouldn't, only that they are. And that's what happens in the real world. Sometimes someone does something that they shouldn't do. Sometimes they do what they should.
No, again, you assue something. here, you assume that because something unintentionally communicatesa message, it tells someone something. But that would be like two people sitting in a classroom, and one person yawns, and the other takes it as a cue to punch the teacher in the face. Maybe he's dillusional, or maybe he went through a series of weird incidents earlier in the day. Sounds like a good sitcom, but the point is that if someone misinterprets meaning where there is no meaning, that's on the person who mistook meaning where there was none.
And your third sentence in your last paragraph assumes that I would not justify my beliefs if it were true that this picture tells no one anything. But there is no reason that they are mutually exclusive, or even related. They're two concepts as unrelaed as fire and chocolette. So back up your claim that I would not have justified my beliefs this picture did no tell people anything.
π: 0 β©: 1
You are incredibly naive if you don't think pictures communicate messages (which is the body of your argument). Images are some of the most powerful forms of influence on th planet - it is the form most advertisments take. And if a picture of someone drinking coke can influence someone to go and buy a can and take a taste, then these pictures can influence the way people (both male and female) treat the female body, and percieve power. It's as simple as that, and you can't refute it.
π: 0 β©: 1
I do not refute that people are easily influenced by images, although let's get something clear: I could easily refute that. However, I totally agree with you on that point: People are stupid and easily manipulated by images- even to the extent that they may be manipulated unintentionally.
HOWEVER! That does not justify repressing such things. It's kind of like the "if we live in fear and take too many safty precausions, the terrorists win" argument.
We should examine pictures like this, and others, and try to learn how to seperate it from reality, and see how it correlates with reality. But hiding from it in fear is certainly not teh awnser.
π: 0 β©: 1
So the crux of the matter you understand how hurtful and potentially harmful - if not down right insulting these images are - but you are prepared to defend them because you just don't think women are worth it (which sort of proves my point). I can reasonably surmise this because this ethos taken one step further comprises of saying, 'we should not be forced to 'repress' child pornography.
I also disagree with the 'fear-terrorist' quote. On the contrary both parties have lost, both parties will always loose. However, unless you can give me evidence on how 'terrorists' use imagery this is beside the point (or actually is my point) as it merely would prove the strength of visual propaganda.
π: 0 β©: 1
WOW!! You totally distorted everything and made a bunch of claims taht I made a bunch of claims taht I never made! You said I was saying things that I never said! You saying that I'm saying things that neccissitate things that what I say doesn't neccessissitate!!
I am not saying women's rights aren't "worth it" I have not done or said anything that proves your points, yuo totally missed the point of the fear-terrorrist quote. It wasn't about terrorists using imagery. God damn, this is why there are some would-be gentlemen who are now total sexists. Because they're feminazis like you who distort everything.
You make a general claim, then I point out the flaws of it, and then you add a context to it.
Statistics show you to be wrong, you have no evidence that this picture is the cause of sexists!
π: 0 β©: 1
Well I could link you to an article about hate crimes against women and about hate speech that brands terms like 'Femnazi' hate speech about women who stand up for equality
I would also like to point our that language too has connotations, allusions and consequences, if you do not understand the conclusions I have drawn (which frankly I am not suprised because if you can't understand language, you aren't going to be able to understand visual language).
You complain I make generalisations but then again you have said, 'Statistics show you to be wrong' - and yet you have not given any evidnece, or evaluated the source materials. I would also state that common analysis includes a lot of contextual analysis - if you are forgetting this when analysing stuff that happens in the real world might I add that you have a severaly limited view of the world.
But alas, yet again you have turned the conversation on to 'how to debate and how you are debating' rather than the information at hand that you seem relucant to analyse with the same rigour as my syntax. Interesting.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, "feminazi" isn't a term for women who stand up for equality, it's a term for women who with this paranoia that all men are out to get them and that aanything sexual is degrading to women, etcetera. Please, do link me.
Then of course you give that "wink-face" to act like a sarcastic smart-ass, because you think it makes you cool, when it really just makes you look like a 12-year-old trying to sound cool.
You're not standing up for equality, you're just being petty. I highly doubt you seriously go around on the pictures of men in bondage being controlled by women and saying "That's degrading towards men!"
And blah blah blah, allusions, consequencs, okay, you're so wise and all. Except oh right, there's the consequences of faking our language. You ARE a femnozi, not a feminist. A feminist stands up for equal rights, a femnazi goes around bitching at guys for looking at anything they think of as porn.
And again, in your third paragraph, you missed the clear point. You are obviously distorting it intentionally. I complained that you make general claims, then wait for me to respond, and then add a specific context and act as if that context was already mutually observed.
I was offering to link you. I shouldn't have to link you to anything. You're claiming this is bad, you bare the burden of proof. But I'll link you anyways. Next time, ask. [link] [link]
There's more, but how about you throw in some links.
You are the one with a limited view of the world. If people like something that you don't, it's disgusting, right?
And no, you're straight up lying in your last paragraph. What "information at hand?" You have given me no links. The only information at hand is that there's a picture and a femnazi who's making a situation way more complicated than it has to be.
π: 0 β©: 1
[link]
[link]
The original name chart.
The term is female Nazi - is 'female' so it's anti-male it's not male, and nazi? So what the only thing as right wing as the Nazi's nowdays are women? Although I would point out that you having mentioned the Nazi's first means you have 'lost' - according to popular internet lore.
It seems to me that you take offence at being called a sexist, but are unwilling to do anything, in terms of your opinions to nullify suh terms. Perhaps you could start to actually pay attesion to the underlying themes in these images and thinking of the consequences on people perceptions. If you find the way I debate verbose, I suggest it's your fault your vocabulary is lacking. If you attempt to better not only your language skills but visual vocuabulary you may be in a better position to jugde. Concerning your paragraph 4, this is how an argument is constructed - it seems strange that you are unfamiliar with these basic concepts.
I am all for equality, I frequently go around and pick up a similar issue with the portrayal of men in images.
I have read both those studies on porn and rape figures - what are you missing is the point. Porn does not have to be dwegrading but can be all sorts of images of couples (or more) pleasuring each other. What you cannot tell from this study is what sort of porn they are watching. Also this is just one study - I have read quite a few studies and here is an interesting one for you think about - because while these studies are deeming 'truthful' they are as subjective as anythign (again this is something if you don't understand you should look up because it is of vital importance).
So one studies
[link]
Shows that juries are less likely to convict if the women was wearing a short skirt (i.e.) above the knee. They believe that the women was to blame for the rape. In fact there are other many other reasons a jury won't convict. This is interesting because it skews the figures - if more women are reporting rape more often but being convited less then surely figures would reflect less conviction not less reporting? So in fact images like this are decreasing the prosecution of rapists - not decreasing the number of rapists. So anyways. I don't think you have anything left to add. You contributing to this culture that insists women are to blame for their own rape and stuff. ( I say you because I've checked out your 'gallery' and you make similar works).
Now, if your going to say anything, do tell me - why do you make these images?
[link]
π: 0 β©: 1
1st thing is first: I do not give a fucking rat's shit about internet lore. Anyone who values such a childish rule obviously has no idea what they're talking about. It's like yelling "punch buggy" when you're a grown ass teacher.
Second: DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH!! I HAVE NOT JUSTIFIED RAPE OR SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT!! YOU ARE GOING ON A TANGENT ABOUT CRAZY SHIT!!
Now for the rest of your bat-shit:
-You link very biased websites.
-Yes, the military is very sexist, I never said it wasn't.
-Don't tell me to better my language when you have typos. My language is fine. I can see the picture fine, and I can see its potential. But you need to see that it does not give what people take from their own minds and then accredit to the picture.
-Those words in your graph are not sexist. If a bitch is a bitch then she is a bitch. If a bossy woman is bossy, she is bossy, adn plenty of guys are bossy, too. I have the same hatred for them that I have for bossy women. If she's a milf, she's a milf, and there's not even anything wrong with that one, although it doesn't make them any better either. It just makes them physically more attractive. If a woman is treating me nice because she wants my money and then back stabs me when I have none, she is a gold digger, among many other things.
-Many women make false claims. And when they face discrimination, I'm sorry, that's wrong. but guess what? Don't take it out on any random scapegoat.
-What is up with your second paragraph? You say that I'm "unwilling in terms of my opinion to nullify such terms" but a) why add the part about my opinion? It's redundant and b) I am not a sexist, I believe that men and women should have equal rights, equal pay for equal work, equal opportunity. Not that I have to prove myself to you, but I don't mind telling you my views on it. I'm for female rights to get an abortion, or to raise the child with some government assistance (extent depending, if she needs too much, maybe she shouldn't be raising it, but not necessarily- it would just be a minor red flag is all).
=And none of this "is of vital importance." We could all die today and it wouldn't matter. Hell, even in the context of changing society's views or figuring out what's right, nothing that you have said is so important. You're being haughty and condescending. And the studies themselves aren't subjective, the way people distort them is.
-If a woman chooses to have sex with someone, it is her choice. If she chooses to drink or take LSD, that is her choice. If she was unwillingly drugged, that is different.
Now, let me answer your last question. I don't. Those are favorites. I have no images. I have one story.
Of course, I get your point. Why like them? Why make dark morbid stories?
To express myself. This is my answer, you can't take it as an answer for all men. I was heavily abused as a child, and this helps me get out any urges without taking it out on real people. I don't blame lesbians for hurting me.
But I can understand why you'd feel hurt by this. I honestly do understand. I can picture how I'd feel if it were a redneck dragging a middle easterner through a desert.
but I would try and understand the context first. And if it so happens that the artist actually condones such behavior, I would not discuss it with them. If the context is something else, I'd either leave it be or have an open discussion, not a debate.
Maybe some guys just get horny off it, but as long as they respect women, maybe this helps take away the urge to disrespect women. Maybe it makes those particular guys douche bags. Maybe it's random what the effects are. but whatever the effects, we deserve the right to make them. And you deserve the right to make your pictures, and to choose to not date guys who look at it. And to live a free life.
But that is MY answer to you. And changing humanity for the better will not come about by persecution.
π: 0 β©: 1
You seem very angry. I suggest that perhaps there is some truth to my words other wise you wouldn't have got your self so worked up. This is shown in these sentences: "To express myself. This is my answer, you can't take it as an answer for all men. I was heavily abused as a child, and this helps me get out any urges without taking it out on real people. I don't blame lesbians for hurting me."
Lets be honest here - you do blame women, and you do want to hurt them, and whilst you may be expressing yourself perhaps these images are better off being shown to a psychologist who can actually help you deal with your pain.
'Maybe some guys just get horny off it, but as long as they respect women.' The fact is this just isn't the consequence of being subjected to these images. This is the thinking of an overly oppermistic person.
I am not persecuting you or the artist - merely discussing where they felt their images fell and what messages they convey. On an social network dedicated to art works these are mundane and common place questions that the artist is usually eager to answer because it is the very soul of their practise. As it is you are not an interesting in art in either a visual or achademic way - merely how art can act as a therapy for you. This artist I am not too sure on, the answer he gave was....basically for pornographic reasons, but then again perhaps he has reasons like yours. Either way, this does not excuse these issues, they are there whether you believe they exist or not.
π: 0 β©: 1
Angry in what sense? And no, I do not blame women. You're judging me and you do not even know me.
I like art for art's own sake, the way it reflects different aspects of existence and nonexistence. This one reflects from me the cold brutality of the world, the horniness of sadism, and the desire of power over others. Not that I will pursue such power over others or that I will hurt someone for sexual arousal, or that I am cold and brutal, but just that I view things as such.
And I need no excuse to look at these images. What issues are you referring to? The ones that do not matter, the ones that do not exist, or the ones that are well worth dealing with so that we may have our true freedom?
π: 0 β©: 1
In your opinion if I percieve an issue and you do not - you delcare there is no issue. And yet, I have named it and identified it as others might. The concept has been defined. And yet you will still say it is not there. Do you not find that's a little close minded of you?
On the contrary you may claim that you hurt no one for sexual arousment, but you do not lay claim to the fact you may induce this behaviour on others, or that you have contributed to a society that sees women as inferior, or that your images are hurting people psychologically.
Now, this is nothing to do with freedom - as I have not said once - please remove this, or take this down, or other such demands - you have merely percieved critisicm as an attack rather than a means for understanding.
As for your own issues, perhaps a little look at how psycho-analysitcs (or the rather more modern version not the archaic Freud version) has to say about your art and it's relationship with the artist. It may give you more insight into your relationship and how people read art now a days.
Also, you use the term 'art' and yet have no interest in the communication value of the images - which is key in understanding and creating of art, and especially important in reading it - and yet you constantly deny extraneous readings that are not in your vocabulary, or ones you are deliberately blocking from you consciousness.
Plus maybe consider whenever I write this
π: 0 β©: 1
No, way to assume things. I didn't go in "mental state" and if you criticize, I can criticize your criticism.
I deny making people see women as objects and in any way feeling like it's okay to hurt women because of their gender.
It's not that I need to psycho-analyze myself or art, it's that it doesn't matter how people read art.
The links you gave me sent me to my inbox. Why??
What do you mean by communication value? I only made the claim that the picture does not say what people assume it to say.
π: 0 β©: 1
You know what, I can't remember what I last said, it was so long ago. Although, 'It's not that I need to psycho-analyze myself or art, it's that it doesn't matter how people read art.'
Are you sure this is true - this is totally against a post-structrualist interpretation, in which the reader is key? So you meet conjecture with conjecture I presume...
π: 0 β©: 0
Why are you demanding this person answer your questions and accusing them of trying to defend anything? Who are you? If you don't like the art, don't look. If you view it as violence or all the evil things you perceive, then don't look, don't comment, don't bother. Whether you view it as degrading or porn or whatever YOU perceive it to be it IS within the DA terms of service and he is NOT violating a single rule here.
I'm a woman and I am mature and observant enough to know that people have fantasies, Hollywood makes movies, and books are written with far more evil stories and images. In fact real life is far more evil than this persons artistic views or mine. Have you seen some of the blood and gore in this place? (and yes, most of it falls within the rules.)
You are targeting this person and harrassing them thereby making you the DA rule breaker, actually. You're a newby so look around first before you start targeting people for art that isn't to your liking.
"Get back to me when you have analysed the formal capacities of this work and drawn a not 'sinister' conclusion." Can you be more arrogant? He doesn't have to get back to you. Stop judging and standing on your self made platform and just let people be.
π: 0 β©: 0
Porn implies sex and there's been no sex yet.
π: 0 β©: 1
That is not true - the definition for porn is: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire. So you can see it is all about stimulating secual desire. Also, I don't believe for a second you are naive enough not to understand that a naked female body is not the main stay of lust, and also you bondage elements are not the main stay of several sexual fetishism.
You have not answered my other question concerning the female form - you use it in a lot of your works - all the women are overtly sexualised and put in degrading situations. You suggest that women are to be sexualised and abused to hold place in society - or at least the society of your making? I mean please refute these suggestions if they were not the intension, although they are nethertheless issues present in the end result.
π: 0 β©: 1
Pay attention to who you're ranting at, moron. I'm not the artist. Just a female fan of his work.
π: 0 β©: 0