I strongly dislike the trend in this thread of posting a collection of pictures from a diverse field of artists without any context and then collectively sneering at them.
It is deeply intellectually dishonest. You could equally well select an assortment of fantasy art of people in chains to imply that the artists are supporters of slavery.
We can't interpret these pictures in this context in any other way than you decide to show them. For all we know these artists could be parodying the very art styles you are using their picture to decry. Or else select 1 from a range of 100 pictures by the same artist which best illustrates your purposes. Never mind if they have drawn 99 pictures of relatively sensibly dressed women, you can force your own interpretation onto their work.
That would be intellectually dishonest; however, no one is doing that on this thread. Please cite one example where assumptions are made about an artist or their body of work. All anyone is doing is posting individual pictures and limiting their comments to those specific pictures.
A painting is a complete work of art, unlike quotations which may very well be taken out of context. The painting may be a part of a larger series, but it should be able to speak for itself. I don't think looking at a picture of a bikini-clad woman wielding a battle-axe and thinking, "Hm, she is inadequately clad for her job" is "forcing" an interpretation.
I'll tell you what I find intellectually dishonest (and this is not directed at you, @ajwz ): when people insist that these skimpy armors are practical, as if that would give this form of art some sort of gravitas.
This sounds like I'm against pictures of sexy adventurers dressed in outlandish gear, but really I'm not. I think people should feel free to enjoy whatever pictures they like. Just own up to it instead of trying to fabricate some link to Greek warriors, you know?
by agnidevi Um... Eesh! Too many snakes and not enough flesh coverage here for me. It's the Egyptian "three straps and done" gal.
I actually really like this one. It's a beautiful painting, and aside from the wtf nipple straps, she seems dressed acceptably for a sultry-temple-priestess type.
by HELMUTTT Clothing is straps. ALL straps! by riikozor Okay, I get the straps and leather/bandedmail bikini, but... why the chains? by warlordwardog "I'm Yakko!" "I'm Wakko!" "And I'm not wearing any pants!" by deivcalviz "I am protected by my Gut +12!"
by agnidevi Um... Eesh! Too many snakes and not enough flesh coverage here for me. It's the Egyptian "three straps and done" gal.
I actually really like this one. It's a beautiful painting, and aside from the wtf nipple straps, she seems dressed acceptably for a sultry-temple-priestess type.
I could be wrong but the image looks like it could be based on the Hathor (or the actress who played her) from Stargate. What I do like about this particular image is the fact that she doesn't seem to have a completely flat stomach, though - as you say - the nipple straps are a bit odd. I think, feasibly she could be used as a Priestess in Mulhorandi setting.
FWIW, I don't necessarily object to say a mage or a priest being scantily clad in the right setting i.e not in the midst of a battle where enemies are wielding pointy, pierce-y, smashy things, especially like Carsomry, which'll strip your magical protections and half your guts from you before you can say 'Ouchie' My main objection is to female characters - who aren't of a barbarian class - wielding pointy, pierce-y or smashy weaponry not adequately armored enough to deal with enemies wielding same.
for the vampire maybe shes thinking "i dont need armour i have DR!!!" but yeah all those are silly, as for morrigan from DA again, mage dont wear armour....but she does explain that what she wears is A: formed rags and B: provocative for a reason so people will underestimate her and thus she can manipulate them. so that i dont have a problem with. the woman with the sickle confuses me....if you have a giant flaming sickle......why would you be naked next to it? do you think after every fight she goes and bathes in sun tan lotion?
I strongly dislike the trend in this thread of posting a collection of pictures from a diverse field of artists without any context and then collectively sneering at them.
It is deeply intellectually dishonest. You could equally well select an assortment of fantasy art of people in chains to imply that the artists are supporters of slavery.
We can't interpret these pictures in this context in any other way than you decide to show them. For all we know these artists could be parodying the very art styles you are using their picture to decry. Or else select 1 from a range of 100 pictures by the same artist which best illustrates your purposes. Never mind if they have drawn 99 pictures of relatively sensibly dressed women, you can force your own interpretation onto their work.
That would be intellectually dishonest; however, no one is doing that on this thread. Please cite one example where assumptions are made about an artist or their body of work. All anyone is doing is posting individual pictures and limiting their comments to those specific pictures.
A painting is a complete work of art, unlike quotations which may very well be taken out of context. The painting may be a part of a larger series, but it should be able to speak for itself. I don't think looking at a picture of a bikini-clad woman wielding a battle-axe and thinking, "Hm, she is inadequately clad for her job" is "forcing" an interpretation.
I'll tell you what I find intellectually dishonest (and this is not directed at you, @ajwz ): when people insist that these skimpy armors are practical, as if that would give this form of art some sort of gravitas.
This sounds like I'm against pictures of sexy adventurers dressed in outlandish gear, but really I'm not. I think people should feel free to enjoy whatever pictures they like. Just own up to it instead of trying to fabricate some link to Greek warriors, you know?
Well I agree with the second half of your post.
I don't necessarily agree that a painting is a complete work of art as should be able to stand by itself. However, even if I concede this this point, individual paintings have still been mis-interpreted, whether implicitly or explicitly
by SicilianValkyrie "No, this metal embedded in my skin doesn't hurt at all. Not after the drugs kick in, anyway..."
Is this outfit so unrealistic and revealing for someone who is, for example, travelling in a desert, as seems to be impled by the background? Why is it assumed that metal has been embedded into her skin, when she is clearly not intended to be human? She could easily be a gensai, or you know, a humanoid not from a D&D world.
by beonarri Seriously wonky anatomy. Check out her arm holding the apple.
This outfit seems undoubtedly erotic, but why should we consider it impractical? It doesn't look like she's about to go out and slay a dragon? At least it sems to have been selected for the anatomically slightly incorrect drawing skills of the artist, but then what merit is there in posting it in a thread about impractical armour on females?
Yes I know I've gone and picked a couple of easy examples, because they illustrate my point better, but in general my point is that it is the curator of a collection who gets to define what they think the picture represents, not the artist, which is wrong, regardless of whether you agree with the underlying point or not
Also, in general, curations of negative themes or bad works are nasty, contribute nothing and tend to be end up as self-indulgent laughing at others.
EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PICTURES TURNED OUT TO DESERVE TO BE HERE, which I argue against above, I could just as easily got to fanfiction.net, pick out 100 stories of terrible and unrealistic baldurs gate erotic fanfiction and come back and post them in a new thread here. Would you then consider it clever, witty, or just mean spirited?
typed in google "good female fantasy art" and this was number one thankfully
sadly this was also in "good female fantasy art" and while the art itself is amazing....THIS ISNT DIABLO 2 bone armour isnt THAT great!!!!
i.....what? ok your rather attractive....but aren't you cold? is that why your "bra" is still on? is it frozen there? this is more stupid than sexy....on the bright side her breasts are of realistic size so *shrug* take what you can get from this silly image i guess...oh and this was also in "good female fantasy art" ....ill try and find another good one to even things out
im still looking
found on- wait that's paint not armor....hang on
there we go!! i really like this one because even the lightly armored rouge is still clothed, its still a bit silly to wear so little in the blizzard but its fantasy perhaps its some clothing of frost resistance an all in all common magical item... i MUCH prefere the warrior though
@MrPenfold666 I think that second picture is by Luis Royo- and only the skull is bone (and I doubt it's armor or meant to be). What she's wearing is clearly lingerie and a shawl. Maybe the fact that it's Royo art makes it "good".
EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PICTURES TURNED OUT TO DESERVE TO BE HERE, which I argue against above, I could just as easily got to fanfiction.net, pick out 100 stories of terrible and unrealistic baldurs gate erotic fanfiction and come back and post them in a new thread here. Would you then consider it clever, witty, or just mean spirited?
Wait, whut? Sorry, I'm going to take umbridge here, that's a terrible analogy. Firstly, I doubt you'll find 100 BG erotic fic stories over at fanfiction.net, in fact the M rated fic over there accounts for just 78 stories and not all of them are erotica, secondly I think you're doing a good majority of the writers who post BG fiction over at fanfiction.net (or anywhere else for that matter) a great disservice by suggesting such a thing.
EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PICTURES TURNED OUT TO DESERVE TO BE HERE, which I argue against above, I could just as easily got to fanfiction.net, pick out 100 stories of terrible and unrealistic baldurs gate erotic fanfiction and come back and post them in a new thread here. Would you then consider it clever, witty, or just mean spirited?
Wait, whut? Sorry, I'm going to take umbridge here, that's a terrible analogy. Firstly, I doubt you'll find 100 BG erotic fic stories over at fanfiction.net, in fact the M rated fic over there accounts for just 78 stories and not all of them are erotica, secondly I think you're doing a good majority of the writers who post BG fiction over at fanfiction.net (or anywhere else for that matter) a great disservice by suggesting such a thing.
I think by missing my point, you have helped to demonstrate my point
EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PICTURES TURNED OUT TO DESERVE TO BE HERE, which I argue against above, I could just as easily got to fanfiction.net, pick out 100 stories of terrible and unrealistic baldurs gate erotic fanfiction and come back and post them in a new thread here. Would you then consider it clever, witty, or just mean spirited?
Wait, whut? Sorry, I'm going to take umbridge here, that's a terrible analogy. Firstly, I doubt you'll find 100 BG erotic fic stories over at fanfiction.net, in fact the M rated fic over there accounts for just 78 stories and not all of them are erotica, secondly I think you're doing a good majority of the writers who post BG fiction over at fanfiction.net (or anywhere else for that matter) a great disservice by suggesting such a thing.
I think by missing my point, you have helped to demonstrate my point
No, not really, you're comparing a relatively small yet comparatively high quality output with a vast output of work which, whilst obviously demonstrating a good degree of skill, in many cases the subject matter leaves a lot to be desired. It's like comparing the photographer who shoots the Playboy centrefold with a photographer who shoots for National Geographic. No one here is questioning the skill of the artist, what they're questioning is the merit of the images.
@LadyRhian, I haven't run across those, should I be relieved?
@BaldursCat It's very... unlike the games, to be honest. Red-haired Minsc would rather wash dishes than adventure. Khalid is cheating on Jaheira with everything in a skirt that moves. It does read like REALLY bad fanfic.
@BaldursCat It's very... unlike the games, to be honest. Red-haired Minsc would rather wash dishes than adventure. Khalid is cheating on Jaheira with everything in a skirt that moves. It does read like REALLY bad fanfic.
by ethanrevolution How does she sit with those metal plates embedded in her rear end? by dimelife I can't say I'm surprised by the bare sides, but WHY? by AntonioDeluca Went out to seduce, stayed around to stab, apparently. And those rings on her hips must HURT. by Thaldir Tieflings- now with more nearly uncovered boobs! by Adam-Fisher Okay, so her middle, lower arms and legs are important to cover, but NOT THE REST OF HER? by thejeffster Keyhole armor makes me sad- but her kneecaps will totally eat you! by nadrojwobrek Okay, she DOES look cool, but where did the rest of her armor go? Why are her underpants showing? ::Goggles:: by zuthell Ugh. Brokeback pose. Can ANYONE hold such a pose? by sicilianvalkyrie Boob window. AGAIN. byAnan4Art Naked but for a chainmail drape over her boobs? Really?!
by RAFAELGALLUR Okay, another guy protected by "Abs of Steel" by Kid-Eternity Two Heads mean I don't need armor by ilkerserdar Because two leather straps trump belly armor by mir-nye Bikini top plus tattoos are best armor? by Xrobingoodfellowx Samurai Conan?
Also, in general, curations of negative themes or bad works are nasty, contribute nothing and tend to be end up as self-indulgent laughing at others.
So we have people self-indulgently laughing at other people's self-indulgent paintings, right?
I agree that a couple of pieces have been borderline. (Giraffe-Neck on page 1 would have been a good example!) And if participants aren't careful, there is the potential for commentary to turn nasty. But the tone here has been pretty good-humored, and no one is laughing at the artists, so I don't feel that a wagging finger is called for (at least not yet).
[I]n general my point is that it is the curator of a collection who gets to define what they think the picture represents, not the artist, which is wrong, regardless of whether you agree with the underlying point or not
Hm, disagree. Here, take this shield of +1 vs. Opposite Opinion.
Once the artist releases their work to the public, it is out of their hands what it represents. I can look at The Child's Bath and see a woman enslaved to patriarchial gender roles; you could look at the same painting and see a tender ode to motherhood. Cassat did what she could to make the painting represent her viewpoint, but ultimately it is up to schmucks like you and I to decide what the painting means to you and me.
So yes, IMHO the curator does have the right to decide what pictures belong in a certain collection. And you and I are free to agree or disagree.
EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PICTURES TURNED OUT TO DESERVE TO BE HERE, which I argue against above, I could just as easily got to fanfiction.net, pick out 100 stories of terrible and unrealistic baldurs gate erotic fanfiction and come back and post them in a new thread here. Would you then consider it clever, witty, or just mean spirited?
That would depend largely on the accompanying commentary.
Although it might be more fun to see an annotated thread called "Awesome Fantasy Art."
THat one isn't that bad. You're in a desert setting so wearing armor would be too hot and burdensome. She could pass off as a rouge who wouldn't be wearing clunky noisy armor.
I forgot to add my own mental note: never try to be cynical towards people on the internet. It's futile.
That's not the problem. I'm just tired of people coming into this thread with the sole purpose of insulting the OP and anyone enjoying the thread. You just happened to be a) more blatant than most about it, and b) the most recent.
OK I'm going to state a couple of things about this thread that seem obvious.
1) Some artists are not as good at drawing anatomy as others, hence giraffe neck and the broken back look. Presumably they are getting better with each drawing, and good luck to them.
2) Yes many of these count as fantasy soft porn. The artists have all gone to great lengths to hide genitalia and nipples, given on deviantart showing either would require you to flag the image as mature, which reduces your viewership because your viewer has to be logged in.
3) Many of the articles of clothing fail practically because they are really designed to perform this one rather arbitrary task.
4) That said, women do draw a short straw in fantasy art and in society as a whole. It would be nice if we (society) could fix this.
5) On that note, they're all so .. white. Even the drow. 'Society' could fix that too while we're about it
@The_Potty_1 In regards to the "Brokeback Pose" it's not an anatomy fail- it's done so that the woman in question can show off her boobs and her butt at the same time, to titillate the viewer. It happens a lot in comic books as well. Unless you are part cat, your spine doesn't work that way.
The one in the pic isn't quite as extreme as some (You can only clearly see one breast), but if you can see both sides of the butt, both boobs and the full face, it's a brokeback pose. Male characters get it too, sometimes, but obviously, much, much less than women.
@The_Potty_1 In regards to the "Brokeback Pose" it's not an anatomy fail- it's done so that the woman in question can show off her boobs and her butt at the same time
People need to stop taking this thread so seriously, It's just a thread about pictures, it's not like we're talking about racism, religion or gender equality.
This thread made me laugh not to mention put a smile on my lips, and if i have a bad morning i'll just go to this thread for a quick laugh. I would urge people here to do the same, just think of it as harmless fun when you view the pictures. There is no need to make something big and ugly out of something small like this.
If they weren't ready to accept people poking a little bit of fun at their work when they drew women and men like that, they shouldn't have done it to start with. We're not insulting the art and most of these pictures are very well drawn, we're just poking fun at what went wrong when they put on their clothes that morning.
I would also like to point out that i personally find LadyRhians comments very witty and entertaining.
@BaldursCat It's very... unlike the games, to be honest. Red-haired Minsc would rather wash dishes than adventure. Khalid is cheating on Jaheira with everything in a skirt that moves. It does read like REALLY bad fanfic.
Oh, those I forgot he wrote the last one, it was Philip Athans before then, wasn't it. Yeah, I read, they're bad, although in Philip Athans defence his writing style is highly readable so the pain didn't last too long.
Comments
A painting is a complete work of art, unlike quotations which may very well be taken out of context. The painting may be a part of a larger series, but it should be able to speak for itself. I don't think looking at a picture of a bikini-clad woman wielding a battle-axe and thinking, "Hm, she is inadequately clad for her job" is "forcing" an interpretation.
I'll tell you what I find intellectually dishonest (and this is not directed at you, @ajwz ): when people insist that these skimpy armors are practical, as if that would give this form of art some sort of gravitas.
This sounds like I'm against pictures of sexy adventurers dressed in outlandish gear, but really I'm not. I think people should feel free to enjoy whatever pictures they like. Just own up to it instead of trying to fabricate some link to Greek warriors, you know?
FWIW, I don't necessarily object to say a mage or a priest being scantily clad in the right setting i.e not in the midst of a battle where enemies are wielding pointy, pierce-y, smashy things, especially like Carsomry, which'll strip your magical protections and half your guts from you before you can say 'Ouchie' My main objection is to female characters - who aren't of a barbarian class - wielding pointy, pierce-y or smashy weaponry not adequately armored enough to deal with enemies wielding same.
I don't necessarily agree that a painting is a complete work of art as should be able to stand by itself. However, even if I concede this this point, individual paintings have still been mis-interpreted, whether implicitly or explicitly Is this outfit so unrealistic and revealing for someone who is, for example, travelling in a desert, as seems to be impled by the background? Why is it assumed that metal has been embedded into her skin, when she is clearly not intended to be human? She could easily be a gensai, or you know, a humanoid not from a D&D world. This outfit seems undoubtedly erotic, but why should we consider it impractical? It doesn't look like she's about to go out and slay a dragon?
At least it sems to have been selected for the anatomically slightly incorrect drawing skills of the artist, but then what merit is there in posting it in a thread about impractical armour on females?
Yes I know I've gone and picked a couple of easy examples, because they illustrate my point better, but in general my point is that it is the curator of a collection who gets to define what they think the picture represents, not the artist, which is wrong, regardless of whether you agree with the underlying point or not
Also, in general, curations of negative themes or bad works are nasty, contribute nothing and tend to be end up as self-indulgent laughing at others.
EVEN IF EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE PICTURES TURNED OUT TO DESERVE TO BE HERE, which I argue against above, I could just as easily got to fanfiction.net, pick out 100 stories of terrible and unrealistic baldurs gate erotic fanfiction and come back and post them in a new thread here.
Would you then consider it clever, witty, or just mean spirited?
typed in google "good female fantasy art" and this was number one thankfully
sadly this was also in "good female fantasy art" and while the art itself is amazing....THIS ISNT DIABLO 2 bone armour isnt THAT great!!!!
i.....what? ok your rather attractive....but aren't you cold? is that why your "bra" is still on? is it frozen there? this is more stupid than sexy....on the bright side her breasts are of realistic size so *shrug* take what you can get from this silly image i guess...oh and this was also in "good female fantasy art" ....ill try and find another good one to even things out
im still looking
found on- wait that's paint not armor....hang on
there we go!!
@LadyRhian, I haven't run across those, should I be relieved?
I agree that a couple of pieces have been borderline. (Giraffe-Neck on page 1 would have been a good example!) And if participants aren't careful, there is the potential for commentary to turn nasty. But the tone here has been pretty good-humored, and no one is laughing at the artists, so I don't feel that a wagging finger is called for (at least not yet). Hm, disagree. Here, take this shield of +1 vs. Opposite Opinion.
Once the artist releases their work to the public, it is out of their hands what it represents. I can look at The Child's Bath and see a woman enslaved to patriarchial gender roles; you could look at the same painting and see a tender ode to motherhood. Cassat did what she could to make the painting represent her viewpoint, but ultimately it is up to schmucks like you and I to decide what the painting means to you and me.
So yes, IMHO the curator does have the right to decide what pictures belong in a certain collection. And you and I are free to agree or disagree. That would depend largely on the accompanying commentary.
Although it might be more fun to see an annotated thread called "Awesome Fantasy Art."
THat one isn't that bad. You're in a desert setting so wearing armor would be too hot and burdensome. She could pass off as a rouge who wouldn't be wearing clunky noisy armor.
Did you somehow remove the "report as spam/abuse" button from your post? Because believe me, I looked long and hard for it.
Nope.
I forgot to add my own mental note: never try to be cynical towards people on the internet. It's futile.
1) Some artists are not as good at drawing anatomy as others, hence giraffe neck and the broken back look. Presumably they are getting better with each drawing, and good luck to them.
2) Yes many of these count as fantasy soft porn. The artists have all gone to great lengths to hide genitalia and nipples, given on deviantart showing either would require you to flag the image as mature, which reduces your viewership because your viewer has to be logged in.
3) Many of the articles of clothing fail practically because they are really designed to perform this one rather arbitrary task.
4) That said, women do draw a short straw in fantasy art and in society as a whole. It would be nice if we (society) could fix this.
5) On that note, they're all so .. white. Even the drow. 'Society' could fix that too while we're about it
http://www.thegeektwins.com/2012/03/10-most-ridiculous-broken-back.html#.UlvHqxbP0Rw
The one in the pic isn't quite as extreme as some (You can only clearly see one breast), but if you can see both sides of the butt, both boobs and the full face, it's a brokeback pose. Male characters get it too, sometimes, but obviously, much, much less than women.
I was going to say just call it "Impractical Fantasy Art" but that's like beating a dead horse.
This thread made me laugh not to mention put a smile on my lips, and if i have a bad morning i'll just go to this thread for a quick laugh. I would urge people here to do the same, just think of it as harmless fun when you view the pictures. There is no need to make something big and ugly out of something small like this.
If they weren't ready to accept people poking a little bit of fun at their work when they drew women and men like that, they shouldn't have done it to start with. We're not insulting the art and most of these pictures are very well drawn, we're just poking fun at what went wrong when they put on their clothes that morning.
I would also like to point out that i personally find LadyRhians comments very witty and entertaining.