The blue manip is,to me, pure art.. at least, the cropped version. This is, of course, only my opinion. I suppose an argument can be made that a well drawn erection is art.. and well.. everybody has their own opinion of what art is anyway.
Oh, perhaps I shouldn't have said Frodo's Person is "partially aroused" (sounds like a beast under the Lonely Mountain), which seems somehow still to imply a full-blown erection. It's simply larger and more perky-looking than a flaccid penis would look. No one else is in the image, and Frodo in the image is not relating to anyone, nor is he touching himself. But, it remains that for the experienced viewer, this is not a "disinterested" bit of male gentialia.
Someone else might have said Frodo was merely very generously endowed in the "phallic department". But, since the manipper corroborates that the member in the image is "somewhat aroused," I feel I am being accurate in saying it is. But, "erection" gives the wrong idea altogether. Which sounds like flagpoles waving around.
Oh, well, I won't argure further. Sorry, Taerie. And I know your argument about the permission factor in using people's images for manips.
And it's not the same as when faces are used for satire. No one asked George Bush about sticking his head onto The Thinker, sitting on a toilet, spewing bombs over Iraq, with a thought bubble coming out of his head, saying, "Duh...", but I suppose they really ought to have. Yet no one but his most fevent supporters complains about this usage. The issue doesn't seem to be so much "using his image", as it is "what his image is used for." Which is a very legitimate point. To make fun of Bush mishandling a public policy, like the war in Iraq, is received much differently than making fun of Bush in his private life.
But, sticking a celebrity's head on a porn shot -- perhaps, especially because it is so convincingly done -- is another matter. Again, though, I think one should bear in mind the targeted audience of the manip. The manip made as political satire is made to be seen by the nation. The porn manip of a fan is made to be seen by a circle of fellow-fans.
It is a more complicated question than I first thought. Myself, I wouldn't make such manips. But, am I not doing something similar? -- using film-Frodo's face to make my own less highly-rated manips? And do I not use his image painted in words (as do hundreds of other fanfic writers), in my fanfic, in which the protagonists do far more, sexually, than what Frodo does in my manip (which is to just sit there, looking lusciously contemplative)?
If I make a manip using his face showing him riding in the cart to Hobbiton, or talking to Ted Sandyman in the Green Dragon, no one would complain. But if I made a manip using his face showing him in bed with another hobbit, there would be a lot of complaining -- about how I "used his image".
What about the gazillion fan artists who use film-Frodo's face for their illustrations? What is the travesty: that they use his face, or that they use his face to put in illustrations depicting sex scenes? So it's ok to use his face to show him being treated to mushrooms, or looking mournful in Ithilien, or being tortured in Cirith Ungol, but not making love?
I am not taking you to task, Tairie, but merely thinking out loud. Your point is extremely sound, or I wouldn't be thinking about it and talking about it. Obviously, I am still working this through, and (unfortunately) letting you be a sounding board without consulting you.
But, think about it: when I make ANY manip of Frodo (no matter what the rating) I am borrowing the face of the celebrity who played him. True, I only care about the role he played, but he did create it -- with HIS face and HIS body.
What gives me the right to do that, even if what I create is considered generally inoffensive?
Is it wrong to borrow a celebrity's face, as such -- or is only wrong to borrow the celebrity's face only when used for certain, unacceptable purposes - like putting it into erotic settings? It is quite a different issue, if so. People need to decide, then, what are and what are not acceptable purposes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 01:45 am (UTC)Oh, perhaps I shouldn't have said Frodo's Person is "partially aroused" (sounds like a beast under the Lonely Mountain), which seems somehow still to imply a full-blown erection. It's simply larger and more perky-looking than a flaccid penis would look. No one else is in the image, and Frodo in the image is not relating to anyone, nor is he touching himself. But, it remains that for the experienced viewer, this is not a "disinterested" bit of male gentialia.
Someone else might have said Frodo was merely very generously endowed in the "phallic department". But, since the manipper corroborates that the member in the image is "somewhat aroused," I feel I am being accurate in saying it is. But, "erection" gives the wrong idea altogether. Which sounds like flagpoles waving around.
Oh, well, I won't argure further. Sorry, Taerie. And I know your argument about the permission factor in using people's images for manips.
And it's not the same as when faces are used for satire. No one asked George Bush about sticking his head onto The Thinker, sitting on a toilet, spewing bombs over Iraq, with a thought bubble coming out of his head, saying, "Duh...", but I suppose they really ought to have. Yet no one but his most fevent supporters complains about this usage. The issue doesn't seem to be so much "using his image", as it is "what his image is used for." Which is a very legitimate point. To make fun of Bush mishandling a public policy, like the war in Iraq, is received much differently than making fun of Bush in his private life.
But, sticking a celebrity's head on a porn shot -- perhaps, especially because it is so convincingly done -- is another matter. Again, though, I think one should bear in mind the targeted audience of the manip. The manip made as political satire is made to be seen by the nation. The porn manip of a fan is made to be seen by a circle of fellow-fans.
It is a more complicated question than I first thought. Myself, I wouldn't make such manips. But, am I not doing something similar? -- using film-Frodo's face to make my own less highly-rated manips? And do I not use his image painted in words (as do hundreds of other fanfic writers), in my fanfic, in which the protagonists do far more, sexually, than what Frodo does in my manip (which is to just sit there, looking lusciously contemplative)?
If I make a manip using his face showing him riding in the cart to Hobbiton, or talking to Ted Sandyman in the Green Dragon, no one would complain. But if I made a manip using his face showing him in bed with another hobbit, there would be a lot of complaining -- about how I "used his image".
What about the gazillion fan artists who use film-Frodo's face for their illustrations? What is the travesty: that they use his face, or that they use his face to put in illustrations depicting sex scenes? So it's ok to use his face to show him being treated to mushrooms, or looking mournful in Ithilien, or being tortured in Cirith Ungol, but not making love?
I am not taking you to task, Tairie, but merely thinking out loud. Your point is extremely sound, or I wouldn't be thinking about it and talking about it. Obviously, I am still working this through, and (unfortunately) letting you be a sounding board without consulting you.
But, think about it: when I make ANY manip of Frodo (no matter what the rating) I am borrowing the face of the celebrity who played him. True, I only care about the role he played, but he did create it -- with HIS face and HIS body.
What gives me the right to do that, even if what I create is considered generally inoffensive?
Is it wrong to borrow a celebrity's face, as such -- or is only wrong to borrow the celebrity's face only when used for certain, unacceptable purposes - like putting it into erotic settings? It is quite a different issue, if so. People need to decide, then, what are and what are not acceptable purposes.