Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

dresdencodak.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 90 posts

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#51

Post by misnome »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #9
kevingadd wrote: post #2

Not exactly 'mildly' by any united states standard... interesting post though.

Heck, the author of TFA has it tagged as nsfw himself! I disagree that the drawings were not meant to titillate. The, ahem , anatomic detail they go into was unnecessary to prove his point.

> The, ahem, anatomic detail they go into

I'm curious what exactly you mean here? It's a naked body, it's not posed in a "Pornographic" way, and by definition a naked drawing is a drawing of anatomy, and even then it's not as though anything has been gone into in detail. I'm not sure why the artist would have to deliberately remove elements to 'satisfy' the whims of insanely prude readers?

Besides, without the anatomical details, there probably wouldn't be the visual clues to identify the characters as 'Naked', which is necessary for the point in question.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#52

Post by psionides »

enraged_camel wrote: post #8
knowtheory wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

depends on the context and the standards. The nakedness in question here is not intended to titillate, but to illustrate (ha) a point. To anyone who's ever taken a drawing class w/ a nude model, this is scandalous in the least. If you're presenting to your board of directors, it might be (presuming that character design is not pertinent to your endeavor).

Dude, I work at a fairly liberal software company in SoCal, and if I scrolled down to the bottom-most picture with the hand-drawn fully-naked chick and someone happened to glance at my screen, I would most likely be fired. As a rule of thumb, suggestive/sexy clothing is "mildly NSFW." Full nudity, regardless of context, is "very NSFW." (It may be different in Europe.)

Wow, are you serious? I knew the US approach to these things is weird but this is shocking. How can you fire someone for briefly looking at something they happened to find on the web? You never know what you can find on the web and not everything is labeled, so you can always find something by accident.

There's a big difference between spending hours at work looking through porn and reading one article which happens to have one nude drawing at the bottom. I find it hard to believe that someone leading a big company in the US can not realize that.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#53

Post by sp332 »

The rest of the "comic theory" series: http://dresdencodak.tumblr.com/tagged/design I think my favorite is "Primary and Secondary: A Tale of Two Focal Points". (Note the "Drawing Hands" one has a nude girl, but she's curled up and doesn't show anything. And of course the "Figures" one from OP is in there too.)

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#54

Post by podperson »

enraged_camel wrote: post #8
knowtheory wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

depends on the context and the standards. The nakedness in question here is not intended to titillate, but to illustrate (ha) a point. To anyone who's ever taken a drawing class w/ a nude model, this is scandalous in the least. If you're presenting to your board of directors, it might be (presuming that character design is not pertinent to your endeavor).

Dude, I work at a fairly liberal software company in SoCal, and if I scrolled down to the bottom-most picture with the hand-drawn fully-naked chick and someone happened to glance at my screen, I would most likely be fired. As a rule of thumb, suggestive/sexy clothing is "mildly NSFW." Full nudity, regardless of context, is "very NSFW." (It may be different in Europe.)

Does anyone know of any case where someone has been fired for looking at a hand drawn non-pornographic depiction of a nude in the western world? Really?

I see stories about teachers being fired for working as strippers on the side, or there's a teacher fired for http://www.parentdish.com/2006/10/02/texas-school-teacher-fi... a child to nude pictures in an Art museum (Texas -- ) but I think this is fanciful. And note that the teacher concerned was no, technically, fired over the art.

Prudishness in the US is pretty ridiculous but the only thing which would be job-threatening here is that you're surfing the web on company time AND the thing you're looking at offends someone.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#55

Post by kevingadd »

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #47
kevingadd wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you're demanding standards, you could spend a few seconds looking up the definition of sexual harassment in the workplace: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_environment_sexual_hara... You'll notice 'pictures of pornography in cubicles' is one of them. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html (a government website, note) mentions specific cases where visible pornography counted as establishing a…

In an ancestor comment you (correctly) noted that you hadn't said this post was porn. Now you are all but saying exactly that. Which is it?

I'll make my point again: The problem is not that the content is or isn't pornography; the problem is that the content can be considered pornography by a viewer. It doesn't matter whether I think it's pornography, it's whether the person at the desk across from me does. If they think it's pornography, they're well within their rights to file an HR complaint if it makes them uncomfortable.

Which is why it's good to have clear 'NSFW' warnings on things that might be inappropriate in the workplace. Trying to get really specific about what might be appropriate doesn't do anyone much good; just tag it NSFW if it's remotely questionable and people can check it out at home. Make sense?

Visible genitals - whether male or female - are often considered not appropriate for general audiences in the US. So it is not exactly crazy to assume that someone might be made uncomfortable or upset by a coworker viewing them at work.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#56

Post by saalweachter »

BrandonM wrote: post #15
enraged_camel wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, I work at a fairly liberal software company in SoCal, and if I scrolled down to the bottom-most picture with the hand-drawn fully-naked chick and someone happened to glance at my screen, I would most likely be fired. As a rule of thumb, suggestive/sexy clothing is "mildly NSFW." Full nudity, regardless of context, is "very NSFW." (It may be different in Europe.)

> I work at a fairly liberal software company in SoCal, and if I scrolled down to the bottom-most picture with the hand-drawn fully-naked chick and someone happened to glance at my screen, I would most likely be fired. If that would be grounds for firing, even after describing the context of the article, then you decidedly do not work at a fairly liberal software company.

Definitions of 'liberal' differ.

It seems perfectly consistent to me to be 'liberal' and have a 'no (non work related) naked pictures at work' policy under the auspices of a zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy. No one needs to look at naked pictures at work, and they could plausibly make someone uncomfortable in a sexual way.

Now, you could argue that the modern liberal hippie philosophy is that sex is natural and no one should be offended by it and it is just our Puritanical baggage which makes it otherwise, and maybe I'd agree with you. But you could also argue that in the context of our Puritanical baggage, our slut shaming, our last fifty-plus years of Madmen-esque workplace sexual discrimination, we need a period of overly desexualized workplaces before we can shed our Puritanical baggage.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#57

Post by teamonkey »

lifeformed wrote: post #42
alex_c wrote: post #13

Another great example is Team Fortress 2. All the characters are carefully designed to be distinguishable at a glance - I remember seeing a great explanation of this a few years back, but can only find this pdf right now: http://www.valvesoftware.com/publications/2007/NPAR07_Illust...

They kind of threw this out the window after all the hats and costumes, though.

It's all about the distinctive silhouettes of the character classes and how they move. Even with clothes you can quickly recognise a heavy, a pyro, a medic at a distance.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#58

Post by StavrosK »

eterpstra wrote: post #22

This reminds me a bit of the DOTA 2 Character Art guide. Valve takes it a step further and states that a character must be identifiable by only its silhouette - including orientation and carried weapons. It's a pretty good read, even with just a passing interest in game & character art. http://media.steampowered.com/apps/dota2/workshop/Dota2Chara...

They really have succeeded. I can tell which each of those heroes is by just the silhouette. Interesting read, thanks.

Re: Figures: They Speak For Themselves (mildly NSFW)

#59

Post by kaybe »

scotty79 wrote: post #44
Camillo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is the most ridiculously ham-fisted Mary Sue pastiche that I have ever seen, but the art is nice.

I think Mary Sue is only when character is posed as in any way ordinary.

No, Mary Sues are really awesome, in all aspects.

"The prototypical Mary Sue is an original female character in a fanfic who obviously serves as an idealized version of the author mainly for the purpose of Wish Fulfillment. She's exotically beautiful, often having an unusual hair or eye color, and has a similarly cool and exotic name. She's exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws — either that or her "flaws" are obviously meant to be endearing. "

I apologize in advance, and DO NOT click the link if you don't have time.. (because linking to TV Tropes is evil; click it and wake up a few hours later wondering what happened - you've been warned.)

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue

Post reply on HN