||[Dec. 5th, 2007|01:25 pm]
Really great follow-up on having tits and such in a publicly shared inspirational folder / scrap file...|
Personally, I think this kind of categorization is a crutch.
Porn/erotica/nekkidity is legitimate art.
And there is always something wrong with prescriptively antisexual people.
I don't even understand what he's trying to say. That you can't use the naked body in your graphics and still call it design? That "real" graphic design doesn't use the female form? That's just demonstrably wrong.
Even if we put aside the fact that high art has used the naked body, particularly naked women, as subjects for thousands of years, the use of organic forms and the human form is very common in design work.This is what first came to mind
as a counterexample to his claim.
Well, fffound is a new shared image bookmarking website.
It seems that this person is chiefly interested in novel examples of what they feel is "graphic design". And they got concerned that there was too much smut in the mix for their "graphic design" to be preserved.
Also, I was imagining this person was a girl from Eastern Europe. Though I can't make a very convincing case for it.
Yeah - I imagine it was a woman who wrote this too.
Not that I completely disagree. Over-saturation of the "sex sells" mentality just dulls our sensitivity to it (and can get disgusting quickly).
Sensationalism will always sell. Love and war are two or our base instincts and sensationalism capitalizes on these instincts. Graphic design is often designed to "sell" and so graphic design which contains references to love/sex or violence/death will always sell. Get over it. A beautiful woman will always be used to sell beer . . . but as my dad used to say: "Does the girl come with it?"
do you like stefan sagmeister?
I'd like to live in a world with more folks like him.