What's your opinion on religous related minis?

[green stuff]

A lot on miniature companies who have wargame rules for their miniatures often use religious matters as the core reason to stage the battles (lets face it, this is really not far from reality ). And so their designs are often influenced by this.

So I was wondering, whatever your faith is (hey even if I'm an athiest, I sometimes find some minis intolerant ), have you ever sumbled on a mini where you thought the designer went too far?

:goodbad:

[sebrushworth]

No, I don't think you can go too far. Art shouldn't be shackled. If someone doesn't like a figure they don't have to buy it

[green stuff]

@sebrushworth : true. But take for instance the Menoth faction from Warmachine. Desert fanatics ... isn't that a little too simple especially nowadays ? OK they mixed both christian and muslim iconography, but when they came out I thought they where a bit touchy.

[Spacemunkie]

They're toy soldiers.

Anyone offended by an inch high lump of lead seriously needs to re-evaluate their beliefs.

[Ritual]

In theory, I think everything goes! However, things CAN be done in poor taste. I don't have any examples ATM, but let's say for instance, that someone made a demon who rips apart an obvious Jesus-like figure. I don't find that idea very creative or 'artistic' and I think that would be a display of poor taste. I don't think it's wrong to challenge religious beliefs, but I see no point in doing it for shock value.

On another note, I like some stuff that's inspired by religions. I like the dark, archaic style of medieval catholicism for instance.

[Mosch]

I can't see how mini could be inapropriate. Take Mascot Miniatures - they were not "indecent", they were just aimed at a totally different market and I see nothing wrong with adult miniatures. Take military modelling - in Germany, the Swastika ("Hakenkreuz") is not allowed. But the actual tanks and soldiers wore those, so why not paint it on? I see no problem in a Hitler miniature - or even an execution scene. I don't want to paint one, but it's still just a little sculpture.

I don't think a designer can go "too far". It's just toys, not a book on social behaviour or something...

[Klute]

Anything goes as far as I am concerned.

It is up to the artists to decide whether it is morally OK for them as it is with the buyer.

I like those nuns with guns.

[supervike]

Well, I agree and disagree.

I can certainly see how someone could be offended by a 1 inch lump of metal the same way I can see how someone could be offended by one little word. I'm not saying its right or wrong, but just that it is understandable.

I mean if that is the point, to just offend someone, then the artist may need to re-evaluate his/or her beliefs. I suppose art is meant to evoke a response, but is 'offense' a legitimate one? I mean it would be rather easy, if that was your only goal.

There was an artist here in the States that submerged a crucifix of Christ into a vat of his own urine....Maybe I misunderstand the point, but it seems the goal was clear.

I agree with Ritual too, I love the dark religious overtones I've seen in some miniature art. It sets a mood fantastically.

But, back to your point...I've never stumbled across a mini that I thought 'crossed the line'...Sure, some have been for a mature audience only, but that seems reasonable.

I'm glad Mosch brought up the Swastikas...I want to paint up some 'alternate ww2' minis and planned on using Swastikas...but they create a stigma all thier own.

Regular people think us mini painters are weird enough...Do you think painting religious icons with nudity and swastikas would help that image? LOL

[Nathan Caroland]

Interesting thread.

I think people that get upset about these sorts of things are just a tad over sensitive to begin with, showing them something like angels having nasty sex (hrmmm, that's a miniature idea) or a Nazi goosestepping and having them go off is just a foregone conclusion.

I personally am very hard to shock, but I do think that there are some things that can be done in better taste with a touch of decency, but at the same time, it is up to the manufacturer and ultimately, the consumer.

I have to admit when I first started out with miniatures and looking through CMON and some other galleries, I came across a miniature that had a huge Swastika painted across the flag it was carrying and I had to stop and evaluate it for what it was. When I realized that it was a alternate WW2 miniature I didn't see a problem with it in the least. Heck, I don't think I would have had a problem with it if a bunch of Rackham Wolfens had it across their foreheads other than for me to give it a brief 'tasteless and tacky' label.

The Warmachine Menoths didn't even come onto my radar as religious, even though I know they are supposed to be inside the game. Just didn't blip on the screen for me. Same with the Cell Entertainment 1999 stuff - yup, I know its supposed to be a game of angels and demons, but again, didn't really show up on the screen for me.

Then again, maybe I'm oblivious to this sort of stuff.

[Klute]

I think there is a lot of stigma around the use of a swastika.

I know why and fully understand people see it as a symbol of torture and suffering but to me it is just another symbol......of Egyptian origin I believe.

Should the Union Jack not be seen in the same light for the suffering our Empire has caused over the centuries.

Or the Stars and Stripes for that matter.

Now Jim.

If you were to paint up a WW2 guy with a Swastika you will get some ummers and arrers but its historical accuracy so OK in my opinion.

If you do an alternate WW2 guy the same there will be more upset.

If you do a WW2 guy covered in Swastikas and torturing a very thin naked guy then a lot of people will be upset.

I think common sense has to be used in things like this.

A painter or photographer is allowed to use scenes of Nazi torture etc so why cant we ??

Just a thought.

You know that Narg and Gayle piece I did. There was a discussion on Creafigs concerning the morals of the painter (me) and why I got kicks out of representing violence towards women.

WTF

I think there is a lot of personal taste involved in judging morallity.

[Nathan Caroland]

I remember hearing a bit about that Mark over your contest piece. I couldn't believe anyone would get upset over that, but then again, that just goes to show how different things will set people off, whether religious, sexual, violent, etc.

In general, I have to sound like a broken record and say 'common sense'. I was almost going to use 'the rule of thumb' in a sentence but then I got to remembering the 'Boondock Saints' scene and couldn't stop laughing (rent the movie people, its worth it).

[EricJ]

I think if done artistically and with a reason, anything goes, however this is actually probably less the case than someone just wanting to shock. It seems more and more people mistake shocking as artistic, and it just isn't the same.

However, it seems like there are also maybe some subjects that are currently touchy subjects. For example, I was thinking of using the same bruising on the new Spyglass Dot that I used on my munchkin (well a bit more subtle) but the couple people I ran the idea by thought the subject of battered women would just be poor taste

[green stuff]

For example, I was thinking of using the same bruising on the new Spyglass Dot that I used on my munchkin (well a bit more subtle) but the couple people I ran the idea by thought the subject of battered women would just be poor taste

Maybe if you give her an undead look with those bruises than it will shock less. Just an idea .

[Mosch]

You know that Narg and Gayle piece I did. There was a discussion on Creafigs concerning the morals of the painter (me) and why I got kicks out of representing violence towards women.

WTF

Instead of most people in the mini painting hobby getting kicks out of representing violence against anything at large?

By the way, I lived beside an S/M-club for some years. That has nothing to do with anything, but the "guests" usually looked pretty happy when they entered the door...

Interesting thread.

I think people that get upset about these sorts of things are just a tad over sensitive to begin with, showing them something like angels having nasty sex (hrmmm, that's a miniature idea) (...)

You know, I was thinking that some Excalibur miniatures are obvious armed at the at the libido, but I would really one of those "nasty angel sex" miniatures just because the idea is so absurd

The Warmachine Menoths didn't even come onto my radar as religious, even though I know they are supposed to be inside the game.

If nobody had told me, I would have never gotten the idea.

However, it seems like there are also maybe some subjects that are currently touchy subjects. For example, I was thinking of using the same bruising on the new Spyglass Dot that I used on my munchkin (well a bit more subtle) but the couple people I ran the idea by thought the subject of battered women would just be poor taste

Why are fictional battered women poor taste and fictional ripped apart soldiers are not?

Also, who is Dot?

[green stuff]

Also, who is Dot?

Dorothy from the Zo range .

[Brimshack]

Interesting question,

I think it would be a mistake to assume a common reference point on the ethics of such things. From the standpoint of some religious perspectives, failure to show what they consider proper respect for an icon of their faith is not merely offensive but sacriligious. The same can be said of what they consider an inappropriate interest in some irreligious themes. When Evangelicals complain about D&D in general, Piss Christ, or any of a variety of sacriligious artworks, it doesn't really amount to an assertion that it is personally offensive, so much as a claim that it is an inherently objectionable defiance of God's will. One has to make up his own mind how much one cares about the sensibilities of such folks, but we probably shouldn't confuse many of the objections raised in religious circles with matters of personal asthetics.

(Transition Missing)

I once heard someone say that a Crucifix in a jar of urine is not art, but saying a crucific submerged in a bottle of urine is art ...is art. It's an amusing take, and I think it touches on an interesting point. A lot of the more self-consciously sacriligious artworks are actually generated more with an eye to the drama created around them. Often the art of the author has more to do with the narratives he hopes to inspire with that artwork than with the details of the work he's actually done. Whether or not that's a valid approach is another question. As applied to minis, I guess the question could be whether or not any of the pleasure taken from the mini might have more to do with the symbolic confrontation with those it might offend. If so, then fair enough I suppose, but it's a threshold one could pay attention to.

[Spacemunkie]

The point of work like that is specifically to challenge peoples pre-conceived ideas. They stimulate thought and debate which has to be a good thing.

And I think that offense is a perfectly acceptable reaction for an artist to want to provoke in their audience if that is what they want to do. There are a great deal of things that are seen as taboo or inappropriate simply because society had deemed them to be that way for many years. Art can make people reassess and question their surroundings, behaviour and beliefs. Once again, a good thing imo.

Artists have historically challenged anything they deemed to be a barrier to expression and knowledge. Da Vinci hired grave robbers to acquire the cadavers that he would dissect and draw. This is still highly illegal, but the guy furthered both medical science and art by doing it. Expressionists challenged the Nazis in 1930's Germany. Again, their work was seen as abhorrent and socially unacceptable.

The clash mostly occurs where there is a vested interest in a given organisation (like a religious one...) maintaining the status quo. Certain groups within society may well feel that a urine-soaked crucifix expresses perfectly adequately their feelings about the church because of the church's inability to accept new ideologies and social norms - women and gays being most notable.

There are of course boundaries. Don't want babies nailed to canvases or anything like that, but as far as challenging outdated theocracies is concerned, no problems.

[Mosch]

There are of course boundaries. Don't want babies nailed to canvases or anything like that, but as far as challenging outdated theocracies is concerned, no problems.

There was an art perfomance called "Maneater". Guess what the artist did.

That guy himself said it was a real fried stillborn baby, but the general consensus is that it was a chicken with doll parts. Still, that is one kind of "art" that I do not deem good. I also despise "Körperwelten" ("Body worlds"), a show that displayed conserved corpses in different poses - one had his own skin folded over his arm, one was sitting at a chess table etc. I never saw the show, but I never wanted to either. I can not see the artistic merit in it - I feel offended by it, and it is incredibly hard to offend me.

[Spacemunkie]

I went to that Body Worlds exhibition and I even bought the catalogue. It was absolutely amazing. There was nothing even remotely sick about it, it was simply a guided tour around your body. You got to see the REAL effects of smoking on the lungs, drinking on the liver and even to see miniscule stuff like the thousands of blood vessels that make up the body.

It was less like an art exhibition and far more of a science or biology lesson. It did however, show what a work of art your body is.

So basically you were influenced/offended by the media reaction to it, much in the same way that many people were over here. Fine, but you missed out on a remarkable experience.

My life drawing tutor thought that it was vital to have an understanding of the mechanics of the human body. He did that by taking us to a dissection at the local teaching hospital. Again, utterly fascinating.

[Mosch]

The media had nothing to do with it (I don't watch TV and really don't read too many papers either ). My opinion is that art should not incorporate dead bodies (tangible, REAL corpses) under any circumstances. I see it as a degrading thing to do to the person. The personality is lost - this is not viewed as a human anymore, just entertainment, and I don't think this is a good thing.

[Sakura]

But it's supposed to be educational, not art. I can't remember anyone saying it was art. Some people might find it entertaining, but some even find accidents entertaining...

I so wanted to go, because I'm very much interessted how the body works, how organs look and all that. I'm studing biologie for a reason. But my mother wouldn't let me go there, thought I couldn't take it or something. She went there, though :mad:

[Brimshack]

Just in case ...If said anything to imply that challenging preconceived notions is an invalid goal for any artwork, then this was certainly not my intent.

I do think there are times when this approach is a little too convenient and I wonder at the preconceived notions some may have about those whose preconceived notions they intend to offend. As often as not, I think flying in the face of religious sensibilities follows a rather stale script. And it has become such a commonplace that certain religious groups are thoughtless in their values, so anything to shock them is often used as a rather cheap means for some to act out a sense of cultural superiority. It isn't the images that bug me so much as the readyness to assume that someone else's sensibilities need challenging. I'm not saying, I would oppose any such uses of art, but I do think challenging preconceived notions can become a tiresome metanarrative.

Point of Clarification: These comments are not made in reference to the Body Worlds exibit. I haven't seen it and have no opinion on the matter. I'll step out if that's the direction y'all want to pursue.

[Nathan Caroland]

Ya'll have just talked circles around me and it was fairly fascinating to watch it unfold, my wife said I had a 'duh' look on my face.

I guess there will always be people that will be offended emotionally, morally as well as spiritually to any number of things in the world. For instance, I believe it was Scott ('munkie) who brought up that some are is there to challenge preconcieved notions as well as to break down some barriers in order to make a point, or in such as this case, discuss it years after the fact. It obviously has made an impression, whether good or bad is irrelevent at this point as it has people discussing it in an adult manner which I find a thoroughly enjoyable experience.

I do have to admit though, that I went and did a bit of research on Piss Christ and found it very interesting that the mans work was underwritten by the national taxes which fund the National Endowment for the Arts. I'm truly not bothered by the whole religious bit and the urine, but I have to admit, I'm rather irked to find out that tax payers money went towards making this a reality. Apparently he did it a couple of years later too with Madonna and Child.

Looks to me as if someone needed to drink a bit more water vs. soda ... eaack!

I have to admit though that I myself am interested in seeing that Body Works as well, or there was a special on TV where they flash froze a cadaver and then sliced it into wafer think pieces, bit by bit, and have it all together in this glass setup. It looks like a three diminsional human beinging (odd looking, but human) and then you can start to 'flip' through his pieces, seeing the inner workings of the guy.

Quite fascinating.

[sebrushworth]

I don't think that stuff is degrading to the people whose corpses are used, since they have donated their bodies freely to it. I think it's commendable that they decide to do something useful with their bodies after checking out, instead of just being put in a hole in the ground.

As to the whole submering a crucifix in piss thing, in my opinion art requires talent and hard work. This has neither.

[Mosch]

I don't think that stuff is degrading to the people whose corpses are used, since they have donated their bodies freely to it. I think it's commendable that they decide to do something useful with their bodies after checking out, instead of just being put in a hole in the ground.

If I remember correctly, many of the bodies were used without the relatives' knowledge and were obtained from dubious sources. However, that was not my point really...

Sakura, if this wa not supposed to be art, then why did everyone (including himself) refer to him as an artist?

I still stand by this: A dead human body that is used to entertain other people degrades the dead person and I see it as an insult. However, I see no problem in donating my body to science - but for show purposes, I don't think it's right.