Unconditional surrender...?

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think anyone here is actually supporting assaulting women.

I think the difficulty lies in the challenge of context - once the context of VJ day and Times Square with all sorts of other people celebrating (in other words the photo) is removed, what we are left with is a man forcing himself onto a woman who is clearly not, in any way, an equal participant (which is obvious from the original photo and confirmed from the woman involved). Add to that the title and we have something deeply disturbing. I suspect the sculpture and some here (who know the photo) simply see is as a 3D sculpture version of the photo - but many, many people will see the sculpture only, and will not know either the photo or the context (the name has erase the notion of the end of WW2) - put yourself into their minds for a moment.

If they are just the action as ok, or something that people should ' lighten up' about then in what sense are they not supporting it? If it is ok, acceptable, just a matter of excitement, then how is that not supporting it?

[Steve H]

Ah the 'she didn't about protest enough' victim blaming beloved of apologists of sexual assault of women.

I'm not blaming her!

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not blaming her!

Apart from judging the specific women as a liar earluer.

[ad_orientem]

Which is why the photo and the sculpture are different - the photo is imbued entirely with context - the sculpture is entirely detached from that context.

I think I would agree with you on that point.

[ippy]

And once you take it out of its context what you are left with is a sculpture called 'Unconditional Surrender" of a man imposing himself on an unwilling woman. If you cannot see why that is problematic then I think you need to think a little harder.

You can either like or dislike a work of art and with most works of art it's more often than not that most of us are able to enjoy them even more when we know some more about their history.

If anyone looks at this sculpture knowing it's based on that world famous photo it's very likely that most people that know about the history of the original theme that motivated the sculpture, will be able to appreciate it for what it is.

Those looking at the statue would be more likely be thinking either this is inspired or maybe think it's rubbish, after that anyone that has any idea about the source of inspiration for this statue would be unlikely to be misled into thinking it's an illustration of an assault and probably think to themselves why call it that? 

There's always going to be the odd few that haven't managed to understand the history of the sculpture's origins, tough luck for them.

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

You can either like or dislike a work of art and with most works of art it's more often than not that most of us are able to enjoy them even more when we know some more about their history.

This isn't about whether an individual likes or dislikes the sculpture but what it represents to them.

If anyone looks at this sculpture knowing it's based on that world famous photo it's very likely that most people that know about the history of the original theme that motivated the sculpture, will be able to appreciate it for what it is.

I agree - if you know the photo then you will probably understand the context of the sculpture even though it is entirely unclear from the sculpture and its name itself. However I think there are huge numbers of people who have never seen the photo, particularly those from younger generations who will have no context for the sculpture should they encounter it.

Those looking at the statue would be more likely be thinking either this is inspired or maybe think it's rubbish, after that anyone that has any idea about the source of inspiration for this statue would be unlikely to be misled into thinking it's an illustration of an assault and probably think to themselves why call it that?

This isn't about whether someone like it or not, but the meaning they take from it. If you hadn't seen the photo (probably most people) and encounter the sculpture, then what you will see is a man all over a woman who is clearly not an active participant. And then you see the name 'Unconditional surrender' and I think you would consider the context being the unconditional surrender of a woman to a man forcing himself on her.

Whether someone thinks the sculpture is 'good' is irrelevant to this discussion.

[Nearly Sane]

You can either like or dislike a work of art and with most works of art it's more often than not that most of us are able to enjoy them even more when we know some more about their history.

If anyone looks at this sculpture knowing it's based on that world famous photo it's very likely that most people that know about the history of the original theme that motivated the sculpture, will be able to appreciate it for what it is.

Those looking at the statue would be more likely be thinking either this is inspired or maybe think it's rubbish, after that anyone that has any idea about the source of inspiration for this statue would be unlikely to be misled into thinking it's an illustration of an assault and probably think to themselves why call it that? 

There's always going to be the odd few that haven't managed to understand the history of the sculpture's origins, tough luck for them.

ippy

Lot of words to cover your support for assault.

[Walter]

Lot of words to cover your support for assault.

Saney

You make me smile out loud !😄

[Nearly Sane]

Saney

You make me smile out loud !😄

Few words to support assault.

[Walter]

Few words to support assault.

nope , not biting !

😘😝😘

[Steve H]

Few words to support assault.

You are getting very tiresome now. Give it a rest.

[Nearly Sane]

You are getting very tiresome now. Give it a rest.

I can imagine you finding someone pointing out your support for assault tiresome.

[Nearly Sane]

nope , not biting !

😘😝😘

Your evasion of your support of assault is noted. You have daughters, if someone just walked up and deep kisses them with no consent, you would support that? If not then...

[Walter]

Your evasion of your support of assault is noted. You have daughters, if someone just walked up and deep kisses them with no consent, you would support that? If not then...

" noted" now is it ?
Well, fuck me . I'll not sleep tonight 😤

[Steve H]

I can imagine you finding someone pointing out your support for assault tiresome.

You are looking more like a santimonious, self-righteous, humourless obsessive with every post you make on this thread.

[Nearly Sane]

You are looking more like a santimonious, self-righteous, humourless obsessive with every post you make on this thread.

Said the man who supports a woman being assaulted.

[Nearly Sane]

" noted" now is it ?
Well, fuck me . I'll not sleep tonight 😤

And evasion too

[Walter]

And evasion too

https://youtu.be/k9IfHDi-2EA

Oh dear!

[Roses]

You are looking more like a santimonious, self-righteous, humourless obsessive with every post you make on this thread.

Talking to yourself again, Steve.

[ippy]

This isn't about whether an individual likes or dislikes the sculpture but what it represents to them.
I agree - if you know the photo then you will probably understand the context of the sculpture even though it is entirely unclear from the sculpture and its name itself. However I think there are huge numbers of people who have never seen the photo, particularly those from younger generations who will have no context for the sculpture should they encounter it.


This isn't about whether someone like it or not, but the meaning they take from it. If you hadn't seen the photo (probably most people) and encounter the sculpture, then what you will see is a man all over a woman who is clearly not an active participant. And then you see the name 'Unconditional surrender' and I think you would consider the context being the unconditional surrender of a woman to a man forcing himself on her.

Whether someone thinks the sculpture is 'good' is irrelevant to this discussion.

Quote from: ippy on November 30, 2019, 01:26:10 PM
Those looking at the statue would be more likely be thinking either this is inspired or maybe think it's rubbish, after that anyone that has any idea about the source of inspiration for this statue would be unlikely to be misled into thinking it's an illustration of an assault and probably think to themselves why call it that?

This isn't about whether someone like it or not, but the meaning they take from it. If you hadn't seen the photo (probably most people) and encounter the sculpture, then what you will see is a man all over a woman who is clearly not an active participant. And then you see the name 'Unconditional surrender' and I think you would consider the context being the unconditional surrender of a woman to a man forcing himself on her.

Actually on having a re-read of your post you it seems to be a combination attributing things to me that I haven't conveyed at any point in that former post of mine and shuffling the some of my other words around another way that in fact amounted to repeating what I did say.

If you look at the two paragraphs toward the end of your post, one of yours and one of mine, your paragraph doesn't relate to the things I had written, it looks to me that you may have misread my words in some way, we all do it from time to time, even I get it wrong sometimes even though I know you'll find that difficult to believe.

[ProfessorDavey]

Those looking at the statue would be more likely be thinking either this is inspired or maybe think it's rubbish, after that anyone that has any idea about the source of inspiration for this statue would be unlikely to be misled into thinking it's an illustration of an assault and probably think to themselves why call it that?

And what about those people (probably the majority) who have never seen the photo and therefore have no idea about the context and inspiration for the statue. As I've pointed out previously I imagine what they will see is a man all over a woman who is clearly not an active participant. And then you see the name 'Unconditional surrender' and I think you would consider the context being the unconditional surrender of a woman to a man forcing himself on her.

And actually for those people who do understand the background, quite a few (as NS points out) will know that the photo involved a non consensual act and the photo and the sculpture are pretty obvious in that respect as the woman is so obviously not an equal participant in the act.

[ippy]

Technically it's also considered to be an assault if someone blows smoke into your eyes and I suppose it's also unfortunate for those that misrepresent and others that miss the point.

ippy

[Steve H]

Talking to yourself again, Steve.

Grow up. Most people grow out of that response before they enter their teens.

[Roses]

Grow up. Most people grow out of that response before they enter their teens.

It is you who needs to grow up, many of your posts resemble those of a toddler having a temper tantrum.

[Roses]

Getting back to the topic, in my opinion no one, male or female, should kiss or be intimate with another person without their express permission, even if they seem to be up for it.