|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 28, 2016 19:43:47 GMT -5
Not that it's gonna change anything, but John Kerry made a lot of sense.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu sounds as if he expects the US to give him a blank check on whatever he decides to do. A friend is a friend, but when a friend does something crappy, they should expect something along the line of "dude... don't do that".
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 28, 2016 19:59:51 GMT -5
I think there are two discussions going on here. You're right when you say that the addressing of both boys and girls line doesn't support the inclusion of gender equality but that wasn't why I brought it up, rather I mentioned it because Sorceress believed that Superman was singling out and patronizing the girl in the foreground and that it caused her to remember many occasions where the same was done to her which was why she felt negatively about the image, and that line was evidence that the girl in the foreground didn't appear to be being treated that way so she shouldn't need to feel poorly because of this poster but rather should see the positive of the message. And I don't see another way to believe it to be other wise, if we are meant to think that Superman is patronizing the girl in the foreground why wouldn't he address just her? Why not, "Remember, Sally..." instead of "Remember, Boys and Girls.."? And the finger isn't pointed at her either but rather vaguely upwards: His gaze was directly AT her, though. It could be the way the group was drawn, but she appears directly center, and the others appear more off to the sides, or at least not directly in front of him like she is. I'm not talking about proving a possible interpretation of the poster, as I'm not asking you to prove any interpretations to me. I'm telling you that it is possible to interpret it as I have. No, I cannot say for sure that is how it was meant. But you cannot either. We see it differently. I can understand why you interpret it how you interpret it. As you said, it's art, it can be seen differently by many. Why wouldn't he address just her if he was meaning to be patronizing towards her (or the creator towards women, in general)? I don't know. Obviously the other girl in the poster knows her proper place for the time, as she is hidden and barely in view. Which again goes to my point that the visual cues can't be used as evidence as purposeful under-representation unless there is reason to believe the artist felt that women shouldn't be treated equally. And per the huffpost it is a reproduction from 1949. No, they can't. However, you cannot say, with 100% certainty, that how I interpret the poster is incorrect for the same reason. Sure, you can continue to use terms like "I don't see any reason to believe it otherwise" to make it seem like my interpretation of the poster is preposterous. But you cannot say I am wrong. lol. It isn't directly at her though, it's just that she's closer to center so that when she holds his sight line it appears that they are staring at each other. Because of the two dimensional field presenting a crowd around a central figure without obscuring that figure becomes problematic, in the case of the Christ image I posted it looks like two lanes of people rather than a crowd surrounding him while in the Superman image you get a staggered, broken ring but both are meant to be visually read as figures encircled by a crowd. Although art can be interpreted in many different ways because emotional responses are a large component of their message there are object qualities such as form as I just discussed above that are not open to interpretation. And I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything like that, I'm just attempting to illustrate why the line of argumentation isn't very strong or clear in attempt to get a look at a better line of reasoning from you so that i can understand you better. Which goes to my prior conclusion, you're absolutely right when you say that I cannot say with 100% certainty that my reading of the image is correct ...but I don't have to,all I have to do is present a counter reading and either a just like or more objective argument in support of that reading to illustrate that you can't use a personal reading of the art to support a claim that the message is not inclusive making you need to go further in your self analysis of the piece. You're not obligated to commit to that deeper look, or even to follow that line of reasoning to precipitate that deeper look but that was the point of my effort. As an aside, not only have we thus far accomplished the feat of holding a passionate political discussion in a amicable and understanding fashion...but we've also brought in fine art critique AND Superman. it's a fine day indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Dec 28, 2016 20:12:45 GMT -5
Not that it's gonna change anything, but John Kerry made a lot of sense. Meanwhile, Netanyahu sounds as if he expects the US to give him a blank check on whatever he decides to do. A friend is a friend, but when a friend does something crappy, they should expect something along the line of "dude... don't do that". I'm glad to see Kerry show some spine and criticize the Israeli expansion.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 28, 2016 20:28:12 GMT -5
His gaze was directly AT her, though. It could be the way the group was drawn, but she appears directly center, and the others appear more off to the sides, or at least not directly in front of him like she is. I'm not talking about proving a possible interpretation of the poster, as I'm not asking you to prove any interpretations to me. I'm telling you that it is possible to interpret it as I have. No, I cannot say for sure that is how it was meant. But you cannot either. We see it differently. I can understand why you interpret it how you interpret it. As you said, it's art, it can be seen differently by many. Why wouldn't he address just her if he was meaning to be patronizing towards her (or the creator towards women, in general)? I don't know. Obviously the other girl in the poster knows her proper place for the time, as she is hidden and barely in view. No, they can't. However, you cannot say, with 100% certainty, that how I interpret the poster is incorrect for the same reason. Sure, you can continue to use terms like "I don't see any reason to believe it otherwise" to make it seem like my interpretation of the poster is preposterous. But you cannot say I am wrong. lol. It isn't directly at her though, it's just that she's closer to center so that when she holds his sight line it appears that they are staring at each other. Because of the two dimensional field presenting a crowd around a central figure without obscuring that figure becomes problematic, in the case of the Christ image I posted it looks like two lanes of people rather than a crowd surrounding him while in the Superman image you get a staggered, broken ring but both are meant to be visually read as figures encircled by a crowd. Although art can be interpreted in many different ways because emotional responses are a large component of their message there are object qualities such as form as I just discussed above that are not open to interpretation. And I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything like that, I'm just attempting to illustrate why the line of argumentation isn't very strong or clear in attempt to get a look at a better line of reasoning from you so that i can understand you better. Which goes to my prior conclusion, you're absolutely right when you say that I cannot say with 100% certainty that my reading of the image is correct ...but I don't have to,all I have to do is present a counter reading and either a just like or more objective argument in support of that reading to illustrate that you can't use a personal reading of the art to support a claim that the message is not inclusive making you need to go further in your self analysis of the piece. You're not obligated to commit to that deeper look, or even to follow that line of reasoning to precipitate that deeper look but that was the point of my effort. I get what you're saying, and I could possibly agree...however, I think you are giving the artist/creator more benefit of the doubt than you should, and you think I am not giving him enough. Most people, who don't read comic books, or stare at art all day long, or know anything about art, are going to see it as I explained it. They are not going to think how you described it. Because you describe it as someone who is used to viewing art. How I described it is how a lot of my FB friends viewed it as well. I get it because I know how society was towards women (and, hell, still is) back then, and I know how a good chunk of Superman was written in the decade or so after (if this came out in 1949). No, I cannot say for sure that it was left out intentionally. But I would NOT put it past anyone, at the time this was made, to exclude a mention of gender inequality on this poster. You seem to think otherwise, as I cannot provide concrete proof that my interpretation is correct, so it is...whatever. As it is right now, I have worked all day, and I worked late, and I don't think this is going to go anywhere else, so maybe we can discuss/argue this tomorrow after I have had sleep, and my mind is not so tired and I can muster up the stubbornness I need to get through arguing this more with you. lol.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 28, 2016 20:50:52 GMT -5
I guess my friends all read too into things then.
I guess I do, too.
But, in other news: I have black friends. I ask them things.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 29, 2016 2:49:19 GMT -5
Not that it's gonna change anything, but John Kerry made a lot of sense. Meanwhile, Netanyahu sounds as if he expects the US to give him a blank check on whatever he decides to do. A friend is a friend, but when a friend does something crappy, they should expect something along the line of "dude... don't do that". I only wish they hadn't waited until Obama's last days of office. If a similar statement had come earlier, perhaps in the first year of his second term, it might have had more effect. But now it's little more than a gesture. Netanyahou can just wait for the new guy, who takes a quite different view of the situation, to take over.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 29, 2016 2:59:59 GMT -5
I don't read the body-language in the Superman picture as him singling out the lone girl to be lectured. I would have said the more obvious problem is that there she is the lone female out of all those kids and that gender isn't mentioned in the list of things people shouldn't use as a basis for negative discrimination. Not unexpected in a cartoon from 1949, but if there's an objection to be made that would be the first one I'd think of.
The second would be the terms "un-American" and "All-American", but that's a separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 29, 2016 8:45:44 GMT -5
It isn't directly at her though, it's just that she's closer to center so that when she holds his sight line it appears that they are staring at each other. Because of the two dimensional field presenting a crowd around a central figure without obscuring that figure becomes problematic, in the case of the Christ image I posted it looks like two lanes of people rather than a crowd surrounding him while in the Superman image you get a staggered, broken ring but both are meant to be visually read as figures encircled by a crowd. Although art can be interpreted in many different ways because emotional responses are a large component of their message there are object qualities such as form as I just discussed above that are not open to interpretation. And I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything like that, I'm just attempting to illustrate why the line of argumentation isn't very strong or clear in attempt to get a look at a better line of reasoning from you so that i can understand you better. Which goes to my prior conclusion, you're absolutely right when you say that I cannot say with 100% certainty that my reading of the image is correct ...but I don't have to,all I have to do is present a counter reading and either a just like or more objective argument in support of that reading to illustrate that you can't use a personal reading of the art to support a claim that the message is not inclusive making you need to go further in your self analysis of the piece. You're not obligated to commit to that deeper look, or even to follow that line of reasoning to precipitate that deeper look but that was the point of my effort. I get what you're saying, and I could possibly agree...however, I think you are giving the artist/creator more benefit of the doubt than you should, and you think I am not giving him enough. Most people, who don't read comic books, or stare at art all day long, or know anything about art, are going to see it as I explained it. They are not going to think how you described it. Because you describe it as someone who is used to viewing art. How I described it is how a lot of my FB friends viewed it as well. I get it because I know how society was towards women (and, hell, still is) back then, and I know how a good chunk of Superman was written in the decade or so after (if this came out in 1949). No, I cannot say for sure that it was left out intentionally. But I would NOT put it past anyone, at the time this was made, to exclude a mention of gender inequality on this poster. You seem to think otherwise, as I cannot provide concrete proof that my interpretation is correct, so it is...whatever. As it is right now, I have worked all day, and I worked late, and I don't think this is going to go anywhere else, so maybe we can discuss/argue this tomorrow after I have had sleep, and my mind is not so tired and I can muster up the stubbornness I need to get through arguing this more with you. lol. That's just it, unless you have concrete evidence that this particular artist(who's identity we're not entirely sure of) did in fact espouse sexist views then you cannot, in good faith, make the connection that the placement of the female characters in his work denotes a sexist view. If you do not have that concrete evidence all you have is speculation, and potentially hurtful and non-productive speculation at that if in fact your supposition in incorrect...so in that case why go that rout when evaluating the message of the piece? What do you gain from immediately starting from the negative rather than starting in neutral and then finding definite evidence of negative or positive? And yes, not everyone has a minor in art history so no, not everyone can look at this piece and see an artist attempting to depict a character surrounded by a crowd and not an artist attempting to marginalize people by placing them away from the central figure...but if someone who does have that education comes along and does point that out I'd expect others who did not have that knowledge to step back and take the chance to reevaluate how they feel about the piece in light of that perspective. I can fully understand how someone who has been marginalized in life would bring those experiences with them when viewing not just this piece but any piece, and that would certainly and understandably color their perceptions in that initial interaction...but there has to be more than just that first, initial gut reaction in order for there to be dialogue. In that line of though, and in regards to this particular piece, you have to go beyond that initial speculation and either say to your self in light of the new knowledge and think either, " Hmmm, you know maybe I was looking at this image wrong, but let me talk about why I felt that way...","You know, I still think my gut is right and here's another reason why I think so..." or "I don't think that negates what I said, and here's why". In the case of that second option you point to the way in which Superman was written, which can be seen in the scans that Sorceress has provided, but this PSA wasn't brought forward by the then National Comics(better known today as DC) production company but by an off shoot of the Anti-Defamation League which has a very different set of principles behind it than the bullpen usually behind Superman so that historically poor treatment of women need not be applied to this image. So again, given the knowledge of Superman pieces put out by DC it's understandable that one could view this image and think of it as yet another dark example of the bigoted, sour, adolescent minds of the sexist men who worked at DC...but again, new knowledge, time to reevaluate! In the face of learning that it was produced by a group known for its values of equality and non-discrimination one can either posit, " That's pretty cool, I didn't know that, here's more of why I initially thought the way I did...." or "I still think the piece feels wrong, here's another reason why..." And then the evaluation process starts again, and that produces really great and interesting dialogue because not only do others get to see in a more in depth way how you approach things and learn about your feelings and passions but you get the same from them as well. Both parties are equal in what they give and take from the discussion, which is always the best out come. And that's just what we've been doing here, the above isn't some hypothetical it's what's actually happened and I've been enjoying it immensely because it's been fun to learn more about someone I really respect and I hope you're getting the same out of it.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 29, 2016 8:57:38 GMT -5
Did you show them these too? Not everyone's life experiences are the same. I was just trying to talk about how I feel. That old Superman comics often make me feel sh**ty and that it's hard to take that message of equality in that poster to heart, personally, when I think about how he treated Kara or Lois. What is the big deal if I say that old Superman comics make me feel sh**ty anyway? It should be acceptable for me to say that. It matters to me and I would like people to listen to me, but I don't want to be told that I am not allowed to feel this way. Which is what seems what's happening here. There is a whole thread about how Superman is a jerk here. Why do the "wagons have to be circled" for us? I don't know how anyone could feel threatened by what we are saying. I felt like lolatadatodo was articulating much of what I was feeling, and I have been tired because I did not sleep last night; I wasn't confident enough to write serious posts today, but I'm trying to now, because I feel like I abandoned her and that I dragged her into this. I don't know what to say, except that I think she is right. You're right, Superman was written as a jerk and a sexist pig that Ma Kent should have been ashamed of for a good long portion of his existence. And in light of that history it's understandable to see this and just think, "Oh not again!" especially if your life experiences include being marginalized in real life by men with opinions and behavior even uglier than those espoused on the pages by Superman. It's more than okay to feel that way and no one can take that away from you and no one here is judging you for feeling that way. What I am instead doing is pointing out that there is a different context here and you need not feel demoralized yet again when looking at this image. I'm saying that it's understandable to feel that way but you don't have to given it's provenance, it was put out by a group that stood up against persecution and inequality, that this image was meant to educate and empower those who saw it and with that knowledge you can cut past all those negative feelings built up by all those ugly depictions of Superman and say, "This is the REAL Superman, this MY Superman and he respects me, and that's the way it should always be." You don't have to have that reaction, but that was my hope, that you'd be able to erase atleast one hateful image from your mind and supplant it with a positive one.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 29, 2016 9:16:11 GMT -5
I don't read the body-language in the Superman picture as him singling out the lone girl to be lectured. I would have said the more obvious problem is that there she is the lone female out of all those kids and that gender isn't mentioned in the list of things people shouldn't use as a basis for negative discrimination. Not unexpected in a cartoon from 1949, but if there's an objection to be made that would be the first one I'd think of. The second would be the terms "un-American" and "All-American", but that's a separate issue. I don't know, sure there was a lot of sexism present in 1949, but do we know that's how this particular creative team felt in creating this piece? This isn't a case of Superman putting Lois over his knee where it's pretty damn clear that the message is ugly, it's a PSA about tolerance put out by a branch of the Anti-Defamation League so I think a little bit of the benefit of the doubt can be granted, and that although only three particular intolerance's are mentioned by name that Superman's message is that no form of discrimination is okay in his mind. I mean, he could name off a complete list of things that aren't right like so, "Remember boys and girls...if you hear anyone talk against some one because of their religion, race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, education level, age, socio-economic status, or political affiliation, don't wait: tell them that kind of talk is UN-American! Oh, and remember to recycle, not to litter, reduce your carbon foot print and eat more vegetables!" but that's a bit of a mouth full and I'm not sure it would all fit on the poster so i think it's far easier to just assume a universal message. The Un-American thing though? Yeah, as i mentioned earlier, especially in the light of saying nationalistic comments against others is wrong that tag line comes off as more than a little odd. But I guess you can't expect perfection.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 29, 2016 9:43:14 GMT -5
His message was awesome. It just could have included more. It is not ridiculous, or crossing some absurd line, to think that gender inequality could have been mentioned.
Saying he could have made all those other mentions is pretty mocking of something that has occurred longer than any other inequality in the history of man.
But mentioning that is over-doing it. Okay.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 29, 2016 10:02:54 GMT -5
His message was awesome. It just could have included more. It is not ridiculous, or crossing some absurd line, to think that gender inequality could have been mentioned. Saying he could have made all those other mentions is pretty mocking of something that has occurred longer than any other inequality in the history of man. But mentioning that is over-doing it. Okay. It's not ridiculous to think that it should have been mentioned, but it's also not damning that it wasn't specifically listed given the greater context and limitations of a medium that necessitates brevity. And just to think, given current trends in advertising today it would be even briefer if done today. Ads are much more visual and much less textual than they once were, so while back in '49 you had a speech bubble and a further blurb at the the bottom today all you'd get is a big glossy image and a one or two word slogan to sell the message. Instead of this: you'd get this: Only imagine that it's an image of Superman with a line up of kids of various ethnicities and a fair representation of gender and the slogan is maybe "Justice For All" or "Truth, Justice and the American Way" but no matter which way you slice it, whether it's the '49 version or the hypothetical modern take I just proposed, when you get down to it the message that is meant to be understood is discrimination is wrong. Could it have been expressed more explicitly? Sure...but it doesn't need to as it's much easier to rely on your audience to see a more universal message.
The only way that you don't get to that universal message is if you make assumptions that you have no possible way of knowing whether they are fact or not. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe it can be shown that the poster does hold a message that women are not equal either through an purposeful, intentional bias or an unintentional one due to the times. It's completely possible that the above is true...but it has so far yet to be illustrated as such and I would not be upset if you were to illustrate that very real possibility. I mean heck, my entry into this very conversation was an expression of doubt that the image was inauthentic because I didn't think such a balanced and liberal sentiment could have existed as a PSA in the purported time period...but I did the research, listened to the historical experts and learned, "Wow, I was wrong." So it's not as if I'm some great stone wall of righteousness that can't accept that another point of view could be right(and no you never said that, and that's not how i'm painting you.) all I'm saying is that you haven't illustrated why what I'm saying is incorrect or fully presented why your views are and my questioning here is not an attack upon your person or a slight to your beliefs; it's simply an attempt to exchange ideas and learn more about why you believe what you do.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 10:20:37 GMT -5
Haven't paid much attention to this foofaraw over a poster from nearly 7 decades ago, lest I become very depressed over the sort of thing that pushes people's buttons, so don't know if this has been mentioned (surely it has, though), but saying that the girl facing Superman is the sole female in the image is of course inaccurate. The figure shown between said girl & the boy leaning on his bike is also female; her dress is visible.
Or I suppose the figure could be intended to represent transvestites or transsexuals; I have my doubts, though, given the era we're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 29, 2016 10:31:04 GMT -5
His message was awesome. It just could have included more. It is not ridiculous, or crossing some absurd line, to think that gender inequality could have been mentioned. Saying he could have made all those other mentions is pretty mocking of something that has occurred longer than any other inequality in the history of man. But mentioning that is over-doing it. Okay. It's not ridiculous to think that it should have been mentioned, but it's also not damning that it wasn't specifically listed given the greater context and limitations of a medium that necessitates brevity. And just to think, given current trends in advertising today it would be even briefer if done today. Ads are much more visual and much less textual than they once were, so while back in '49 you had a speech bubble and a further blurb at the the bottom today all you'd get is a big glossy image and a one or two word slogan to sell the message. Instead of this: you'd get this: I said I thought the message was great. It was just leaving out some mentions. I have seen advertisements before, this isn't particularly impressing me. Only imagine that it's an image of Superman with a line up of kids of various ethnicities and a fair representation of gender and the slogan is maybe "Justice For All" or "Truth, Justice and the American Way" but no matter which way you slice it, whether it's the '49 version or the hypothetical modern take I just proposed, when you get down to it the message that is meant to be understood is discrimination is wrong. Could it have been expressed more explicitly? Sure...but it doesn't need to as it's much easier to rely on your audience to see a more universal message. [/div][/quote] But "fair representation of gender and other ethnicities" could easily be debatable, though. That's part of the argument. lol. This is the part that we do not agree upon AT ALL. lol. And it will keep coming back to this. You see fair representation because you are seeing it on a basic level of "Oh, there's two girls, a black boy and an Asian boy. That meets the requirements of having non-white males represented on the poster." Until you look at the placement of these non-white males. Do I think it was pretty decent for the representation of different ethnicities for 1949? Probably. I mean, considering the strength of white supremacy at the time, sure thing. Superman is gently holding the small Asian boy's face in his hand. For 1949, that was pretty gigantic, I get it. The black boy is all the way off to the side (don't worry, I expect the two dimensional art argument again), almost as hidden as the second girl, who is like a Waldo in a "Where's Waldo?" poster. The other girl, is dead center, and from a perspective of someone who is not educated in the finer details of comics art, appears to be being stared directly at my Superman who is lecturing about recognizing and calling out racism. You wish to remove any speculation that this was done intentionally. I understand that. But it's speculation and interpretation. Since neither of us know what exactly the artist of this poster meant. It's not foolish for anyone to think it could be done intentionally. It's not in all in our minds. Discrediting our interpretation or any speculation of this poster by using the ability to read art or not, is unnecessary, really. Because it's art. I think you have some undying love for Superman. Or so it seems that way with your defending this poster. It's not necessary to defend a fictional character, though. He's not real. So, it comes down to the creative team. We do not know who did this poster. Could it have been, at the time, the current Superman team? Sure. But we don't know. But given the patriarchy, the way society viewed women, the fact that it just got worse for them until women's lib, the fact that Superman was written even more from a patriarchal standpoint during the silver age, to think it might have been the creative team who maybe left out gender inequality, and/or had a say in the layout of this poster, is not completely out of reach. I get that this poster was created FOR an anti-racism message. It was specific to THAT. I get it. But toss in the art, and it just messes up the perspective for me. I even liked the poster until I started looking at it more, and I noticed the placement of the kids.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 29, 2016 10:32:52 GMT -5
Haven't paid much attention to this foofaraw over a poster from nearly 7 decades ago, lest I become very depressed over the sort of thing that pushes people's buttons, so don't know if this has been mentioned (surely it has, though), but saying that the girl facing Superman is the sole female in the image is of course inaccurate. The figure shown between said girl & the boy leaning on his bike is also female; her dress is visible. Or I suppose the figure could be intended to represent transvestites or transsexuals; I have my doubts, though, given the era we're talking about. lololol, oh, Dan. So much love to you. The second girl being in the poster has already been addressed. She's the Waldo of the poster. LOL.
|
|