Forum - View topicWhat Do You Think the Intention of This Image Is?
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Message | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Blood-
 Bargain Hunter Posts: 24136 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have been having a debate with some posters over what the intention of the illustrator who created the image below was. To me, the intention of the image is pretty clear but I'd be interested to hear what a wider sample thinks. My preference would have been to provide a link without any commentary and just ask, what do you think the intention of this image is? However, that might have caused some people to click on the link when other people were around, resulting in the potential for embarrassment to the viewer. The image contains no nudity (although attire is scanty) and does not show any sexual activity.
Image A further caveat: I am interested in what YOU think the INTENTION of the image is, from the prospective of whomever created it. I am not interested in what reaction YOU personally have to the image, although feel free to add that in a message, if you wish. What I am trying to gauge here is what you THINK the illustrator was trying to accomplish. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kaydub
 Posts: 318 Location: Cincinnati, OH |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have to go with titillation based on the fact that the girls are wearing sheer lingerie instead of more standard sleepwear. Furthermore, one of the girls does not seem to be wearing a bra under her outfit. The act of cuddling on a bed might be innocent enough, but the sexy, revealing attire screams "fanservice" to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZepysGirl
 Posts: 470 Location: NY, NY |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yeah, the artist loses any source of "innocent scene of platonic affection" as soon as s/he put the girls in sexy lingerie. That you felt the need to warn people of the content of the image (even though there's no nudity or sexual activity) shows that it's not meant as a pure expression of these girls' feelings or some crap like that.
Just because you can't see their tits doesn't mean it's not titillation. Last edited by ZepysGirl on Fri Nov 02, 2012 1:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Blood-
Bargain Hunter Posts: 24136 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Christ, I accidentally voted for the first option instead of the third one as I intended. Whatever the final tally for option 1 is, subtract a vote from it and add it to option 3.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Touma
 Posts: 2651 Location: Colorado, USA |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I took the middle choice.
I think that you might have a more meaningful poll if you asked what people actually see, instead of what they think that the artist intended. Or can I assume that those who say that the intent was platonic see the image as being platonic, while those who think that the intent was to titillate are titillated by it? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ZepysGirl
Posts: 470 Location: NY, NY |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Uh, no, you cannot assume that. :/ I can look at porn and say "Wow, that's porn!" without being turned on by it. I'm sure many other people have this ability. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DuskyPredator
 Posts: 15573 Location: Brisbane, Australia |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the artwork is made for titillation, but I can see how see how someone would like it just for the platonic love. When I was a young kid I had a shirt which had the words "duck you", now the shirt was made to be a bit risky in a kid having a shirt with an implied swear, but I just liked the fact it had a duck with sunglasses on it.
Blood-, aren't you kind of going at someone a little hard? I know you just wanted to get some opinions to porve yourself right, but try not to make yourself look to petty ok. There was a little bit of hypocrisy, but is it worth the trouble. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Blood-
Bargain Hunter Posts: 24136 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Absolutely not. You continue not to understand my point. I specifically want people's opinions on what they think the purpose of that image is. That point was incredibly germane to the original debate. I don't think you will ever understand what I was driving at even though my point was - and remains - incredibly simple. @ DP - I assure you it was absolutely no trouble for me. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dorcas_Aurelia
 Posts: 5344 Location: Philly |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think that's part of the problem. Half of that moe thread is you and dtm (and a handful of other your supporters) going after each other. I have opinions about the image, but I don't care to share them because I think both sides are being irritatingly antagonistic, and I don't want to be drawn into it. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jl07045
 Posts: 1527 Location: Riga, Latvia |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think the author wanted to show an innocent scene of platonic affection with the intent of both getting a kawaii reaction and titillating the viewers. So neither option is good enough for me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Blood-
Bargain Hunter Posts: 24136 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yeah, I should have put "mixed" as an option. But even a "mixed" response proves my contention that a normal viewer should be able to tell there's more going on than an innocent, platonic vibe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Keonyn
 Subscriber Posts: 5567 Location: Coon Rapids, MN |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I kind of agree. I don't think the author intended to imply any sort of sexual relationship between the two woman as the expressions and behavior doesn't really seem to amount to that. However, the author clearly also intended to titillate through the fanservice element by dressing the two characters in the manner in which they did. So while I do think the intended relationship is meant to be portrayed as platonic, they didn't let that stop them from lacing it with eye candy that was clearly intended to titillate. So, in the end I chose option two, because when all is said and done I don't really give a crap. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
vashna
Posts: 1313 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Once again, I'm apparently late to the party! I selected the third option, as it seems that the majority of people have. However, I don't want to say that the artist actually felt there was any real connection between the characters. There probably isn't an intended sexual relationship, in a manner of speaking. It seems to be fanservice plain and simple. I can think of many series where an artist draws something that's quite suggestive, but really isn't involved in the story. There are so many unnecessary scenes in things that it isn't even really funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
T. Nugent
Posts: 1 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I think they want to impress them-self. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
KingCobraRuler
Posts: 1 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group