What To Do With Bad Images In Mangas?

[ShiroiHikari]

Frankly, some of you guys scare me when you talk about "artistic freedom". Leave artists alone. XD As has been said in this thread many times before: If it offends you, don't look at it. What is permissible for some may not be for all, but that doesn't mean the same standard should be forced on everybody.

[Shao Feng-Li]

What if porn doesn't offend you? Look at it?

[Tsukuyomi]

Frankly, some of you guys scare me when you talk about "artistic freedom". Leave artists alone. XD As has been said in this thread many times before: If it offends you, don't look at it. What is permissible for some may not be for all, but that doesn't mean the same standard should be forced on everybody.

[SIZE="3"]LEAVE ARTIST ALONE.. THEY ARE PEOPLE TOO!!![/SIZE]

Sorry, couldn't resist ^__^]If you can't handle it.. don't look at it O_________O[/SIZE]

[Neurotic]

If I see something bad, then it's time to bite the bullet and stop reading from that series -there's no sense in encouraging it.

[CAAOutkast]

If I see something bad, then it's time to bite the bullet and stop reading from that series -there's no sense in encouraging it.

Amen to that.

[ShiroiHikari]

What if porn doesn't offend you? Look at it?

I'm talking about art. There's a difference between art and porn. We already talked about this. XD

[Nate]

The words appear to have the same root in the Greek, but that's just my amateur opinion.

That's like saying "tire" on a car and "tire" meaning to become exhausted have the same root.

Erotica is still wrong to look at. All forms of porn are sins,no matter what you say.

Quit putting words in my mouth. I never said porn wasn't a sin, and I never said it was okay to look at it. In fact if you actually READ my posts instead of just inventing things that I never said, you would have noticed that I said that Playboy is artistic but Christians still shouldn't look at it.

I was merely saying erotica is not porn. I never said that makes it okay to look at, nor did I ever say that porn wasn't sinful.

[Prince Asbel]

Sorry, I was supposed to have posted this earlier. My brain is about to explode.

Since that is the case, I am afraid your argument does not hold any water.

If anything, their shame was because of the fact that they disobeyed what God has commanded them not to do. By realizing their nudity, they in essence realized that they momentarily disconnected themselves from God (i.e. by sinning).



Also note that when Adam saw Eve for the first time, he found her to be stunningly beautiful AND that she was also naked.

I think it does hold water. Remember that they saw they were naked FIRST and then AFTERWARDS they were ashamed? I think that contradicts your interpetation. Don't you find that telling at all? And don't you think Adam hiding himself from God is a direct signal that being naked except in certain circumstances (Like sex) is at the very least improper?

And I have to disagree that Adam noticed that Eve was naked. God even asked him "Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat from the tree that I had commanded you not to eat from?" If he didn't realize that he himself was naked, I can't see (no pun intended) how he'd see that Eve was naked.

Saying this, do you then agree that it is the duty of the viewer, not the artist, to make correct judgments on what he should or should not view? Are you also saying that, in contradiction to your earlier statements, the rock star is not doing wrong by putting on a public performance?

First question - I'd say it depends on the circumstance. If I bring a friend over, and it's against his conscience to play video games, I shouldn't play video games while he's there. In that case, it's MY responsibility. If I'm going to put on some kind of party with rock music playing in the background, and I let the guests know that is in my plans, it's THERE responsibility to stay away.

Second question - Yeah... I guess I did make a contradiction considering what I said about michaelangelo. Hm. I guess I need to revise myself. Perhaps he wasn't doing wrong. I can't imagine there were people walking into that church that DIDN'T know about the nude paintings.

So I guess it gets down to this. Posting nude pictures for public viewing is okay, but the problem presented by the lust of today's cultures makes it necessary for the artist to post it not just anywhere, but like... Not just posting it in just any public place. Specifically, have a gallery with solid walls and a warning outside stating the nudity included in the artwork. Or just have a telling title that makes it obvious it's in there.

Prince Asbel, not everyone is vulnerable to nudity the same way you are, so I'm not sure where this topic is going to go. However, we are in agreement that some of us are more vulnerable to nudity and it's our responsibility to inform each other of anime/manga content and most certainly, if we create images/comics/other forms of entertainment, we'll be more thoughtful of other fellow believers.

Hey folks, you can politely comment on what we artists create and it's up to us to take responsibility of reacting to your feedback. Or not. I don't think it's disrespect to share that our art bothers you. If not, we'll continue on with our merry ways, not knowing what impact we have on others. If I didn't get feedback, I would have drawn fanservice without realizing it. Seriously. As a female, drawing women in a certain way doesn't bother me. In fact, I consider that art. But to some brothers, they saw it differently. And thus, I hold back.

Maybe you missed it, but I did and do acknowledge that nudity isn't a problem for everyone. But it should be pointed out that the reason nudity isn't a problem for you is probably because you're a girl. But I appreciate your consideration. ]Actually, it is you who needs to read more carefully. If you read my post accurately, you will notice that I say you are asserting that all nudity IN ART is wrong. This is the assertion you made. Address what I actually said.

As far as a Biblical command against nudity goes, that's been addressed sufficiently by others for me.

.rai//[/QUOTE]

Oops, my mistake. I think if you've read this far, you know by now I don't think nudity in art is inherently wrong. Plus, I would only impose this on people in certain circumstances.

PHEW! So many replies. I'm getting swamped here.

[uc pseudonym]

For the moment we are leaving it open. CAA is not anti-debate, merely anti-flamewar and closed to certain topics.

Hardy har har. I mean that it's not meant to be like looking at genitals in a textbook or to be biologically accurate, it's meant to show him off. That's why it's not circumcised despite the subject, because apparently au naturel is mega ultra manly or something.

I suspect (hope?) that Mr. SmartyPants is operating from the school of thought that says we need to just use the words instead of dancing around them like they're inappropriate.

Where can we get some official definition of pornography?

There isn't one, from a legal standpoint (in my inexpert opinion, so I could easily be operating from outdated cases). However, the definition of obscenity is "the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" which distinguishes most nudes and other artistic pieces. It also provides a relatively useful definition.

Ah, but that's erotica. I'm speaking from a legal standpoint by the way. And despite what the more conservative Christians would say, Playboy is not porn of any type.

Is that really a good way to discuss the subject? I'm not sure what the point of drawing our distinction there would be. Also, I would submit that basically no one uses this as their operational definition. There are a lot of studies done on pornography every year and I'm pretty sure they include Playboy.

How epic would it be if Berserk was also a high school comedy drama.

Not instead of. Also.

Someone will burn for this.

In my school bookshop, I found a little book entitled "Porn for Women" or something like that. I flipped through it]
"Nothing" might be the best way to go, as this book was a joke if I recall correctly.

But perhaps you should ask yourself this: were their collarbones covered?

It doesn't matter if Playboy is porn or not,It's still wrong to look at. All forms of porn are sins,no matter what you say.

While Nate can and probably will speak for himself, I'd like to point out that wasn't what he was saying before the responses go much further. In one of the earlier posts he separated pornography and morality into separate spheres of consideration.
EDIT: Beaten to it. I refreshed during this post, but apparently it still took entirely too long.

[CAAOutkast]

That's like saying "tire" on a car and "tire" meaning to become exhausted have the same root.

Quit putting words in my mouth. I never said porn wasn't a sin, and I never said it was okay to look at it. In fact if you actually READ my posts instead of just inventing things that I never said, you would have noticed that I said that Playboy is artistic but Christians still shouldn't look at it.

I was merely saying erotica is not porn. I never said that makes it okay to look at, nor did I ever say that porn wasn't sinful.

Sorry,I guess I didn't read any of your early posts.

[Syreth]

That's like saying "tire" on a car and "tire" meaning to become exhausted have the same root.

You really think it's that big of a stretch? That sounds like a pretty unreasonable comparison to me, but you're free to draw your own conclusions, of course. English is a lot less cohesive than Greek is, and it's not hard to see the connection between adultery, pornography and lust. They all have a common factor.

Frankly, some of you guys scare me when you talk about "artistic freedom". Leave artists alone. XD As has been said in this thread many times before: If it offends you, don't look at it. What is permissible for some may not be for all, but that doesn't mean the same standard should be forced on everybody.

Just to clear things up for myself personally, I wouldn't ever suggest that the same standard be applied to everyone. I just think it's a better idea for Christian artists to consider the spiritual weaknesses of others than to not consider them. Is that such a bad thing?

[ShiroiHikari]

Oh, I see what you were saying now, Syreth. Yes, Christian artists should probably be a little more careful, but if we talk about that too much this will become a different discussion.

[Tsukuyomi]

Oh, I see what you were saying now, Syreth. Yes, Christian artists should probably be a little more careful, but if we talk about that too much this will become a different discussion.

Hee hee, I'm afraid it already has But, it all leads back to the same thing, so I don't see anything wrong with stating your opinion ^^

We should all be considerate of the feelings of others, but we can't do that with EVERYONE, because well.. we don't know everyone out there o.o

Just as an artist can put consideration to the feelings of others... We should do the same for them ^ ^ I'm sure there are descriptions of the art and what kind of material it holds

Maybe not, that's just my thinking ^__^

[minakichan]

I suspect (hope?) that Mr. SmartyPants is operating from the school of thought that says we need to just use the words instead of dancing around them like they're inappropriate.

Oh, zat so? I'm, uh, kind of a pottymouth in real life, but I just wasn't sure what was OK for CAA. =/

Heh, this topic sure is turning into a he-said-she-said-you-said-I-didn't-say.

[Nate]

I'm, uh, kind of a pottymouth in real life

I was in the Navy for six years.

Your claims of being a pottymouth are laughable to me.

[Tsukuyomi]

Oh, zat so? I'm, uh, kind of a pottymouth in real life, but I just wasn't sure what was OK for CAA. =/

Heh, this topic sure is turning into a he-said-she-said-you-said-I-didn't-say.

Heeh ee, that's quite the mouth full to say ^_^

Isn't mostly everyone tho.. Maybe.. At least I am.. Can be anyways ^__^;

[KeybladeWarrior]

[quote="Tsukuyomi (post: 1224394)"]Isn't everyone tho.. Maybe.. At least I am.. Can be anyways ^__^]

No, not everyone out there is one. Have you met everyone in the world?

[Tsukuyomi]

No, not everyone out there is one. Have you met everyone in the world?

Please note that I said "Most" and "Maybe" Mr.Smarty Pants

[Radical Dreamer]

I think it does hold water. Remember that they saw they were naked FIRST and then AFTERWARDS they were ashamed? I think that contradicts your interpetation. Don't you find that telling at all? And don't you think Adam hiding himself from God is a direct signal that being naked except in certain circumstances (Like sex) is at the very least improper?

I think it's less about noticing their nudity first and then becoming ashamed as it was sinning first and then noticing their nudity and being ashamed of it. That is, they were only ashamed of their nudity until after sin entered the world.

Second question - Yeah... I guess I did make a contradiction considering what I said about michaelangelo. Hm. I guess I need to revise myself. Perhaps he wasn't doing wrong. I can't imagine there were people walking into that church that DIDN'T know about the nude paintings.

So I guess it gets down to this. Posting nude pictures for public viewing is okay, but the problem presented by the lust of today's cultures makes it necessary for the artist to post it not just anywhere, but like... Not just posting it in just any public place. Specifically, have a gallery with solid walls and a warning outside stating the nudity included in the artwork. Or just have a telling title that makes it obvious it's in there.

The artists (at least, this artist XD) thank you for understanding, in that case. XD I also agree that in galleries with nude art, there should be signs noting the nude content (I've been in a gallery like this, though accidentally XD), just as how art sites like Deviant Art (usually) have "mature art" filters.

In the gospels, when Jesus says, "Whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart," (paraphrase) the Greek word for "adultery" is "pornos." I'm not a Greek scholar by any means, but I find the connection interesting.

Not relevant, as the word pornography has a different origin.

Actually, regardless of the Greek origin of the word "pornography," I would say that Syreth is right in mentioning pornography as a kind of adultery (and I'm also not sure you were disagreeing with him on anything more than the origin of the term, Nate XD). After all, it is looking lustfully at another woman, so it fits the definition. However, I would also agree that that's not really relevant to this conversation in particular, so...there you have it. XD

[Tsukuyomi]

I think it's less about noticing their nudity first and then becoming ashamed as it was sinning first and then

Phew, so I'm not the only one that thinks that O_O

I love you so much RD

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I must also say that the word "shame" is ONLY in the NLT translation of Genesis 3.

It's not in the NIV, NASB, nor the KJV.

To conclude if they really felt shame would require us to look up Genesis 3:7 in the Greek Septuagint.

And I believe that they felt shame because they realize they had sinned by disobeying God. Tell me, Asbel, why didn't Adam lust after Eve's naked body right when God created her? Why did they not feel shame at their nakedness prior to their fall? It's not the fruit itself that caused them to fall, but the fact that they disobeyed God's commands to not eat it. Since that is the case, Adam could have had his "first sin" by lusting after Eve. (or Eve could have lusted after Adam)

And why did the feel shame in their nakedness AFTER they disobeyed God. I also must ask: why they didn't feel shame before they ate the fruit?

I find it illogical to say that nakedness is unbiblical. It is the lust of a body (naked or clothed) that is sinful. It can be quite unreasonable in this culture to NOT find nudity arousing, which is why we generally avoid nudity all together. But to say that nudity itself is unbiblical would be an incorrect assessment.

[Tsukuyomi]

When we do something shameful... do we not want to run and hide?

[Radical Dreamer]

And I believe that they felt shame because they realize they had sinned by disobeying God. Tell me, Asbel, why didn't Adam lust after Eve's naked body right when God created her? Why did they not feel shame at their nakedness prior to their fall? It's not the fruit itself that caused them to fall, but the fact that they disobeyed God's commands to not eat it. Since that is the case, Adam could have had his "first sin" by lusting after Eve. (or Eve could have lusted after Adam)

And why did the feel shame in their nakedness AFTER they disobeyed God. I also must ask: why they didn't feel shame before they ate the fruit?

I agree to a point (perhaps it was both factors that caused shame) except for the theory that lusting after Eve was Adam's first sin. Firstly, they were married, secondly, Adam's first sin was disobeying God by eating from the tree.

Also, it is essential that we look at verse 25 of chapter 2:

"The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." (Taken from the NIV.)

[Tsukuyomi]

"The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." (Taken from the NIV.)

No arguments there ^_^

[Mr. SmartyPants]

I agree to a point (perhaps it was both factors that caused shame) except for the theory that lusting after Eve was Adam's first sin. Firstly, they were married, secondly, Adam's first sin was disobeying God by eating from the tree.

Also, it is essential that we look at verse 25 of chapter 2:

"The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame." (Taken from the NIV.)

Nononono. I said "could have" as in there was the chance of that occurring. I am not saying they did, as they most certainly did not. I'm just putting things in a hypothetical sense.

I was in the Navy for six years.

Your claims of being a pottymouth are laughable to me.

Why you gotta one-up? XD

[Fish and Chips]

Why you gotta one-up? XD

[Tsukuyomi]

Why you gotta one-up? XD

[Gabriel 9.0]

I usually do my best to ignore it.

[Sparrowhawk]

Modifying a comment I said earlier because of all the people saying "Leave Artists Alone!"

When I said most "artist" were more interested in inciting lust rather than beauty, I was meaning ones that are commercially successful in pop culture: tv, movies, and certain magazines that have been debated here as to whether or not their porn or erotica XD [i find trying to draw a line between that amusing - no matter how u want to define it don't they both try to incite lust].

Should have thought about the blog I was posting on - there are a lot of artist here who I am sure have a sincere appreciation for the beauty of the body. I would just say the general populace and the "artists" feeding off of them care more for the lust factor.

[Radical Dreamer]

Nononono. I said "could have" as in there was the chance of that occurring. I am not saying they did, as they most certainly did not. I'm just putting things in a hypothetical sense.

Oooh, okay, good. XD I was about to say...XD

That's it. This thread has reached critical awesome. Any higher and stuff starts exploding.