HOME | DD

Larky1991 In reply to KAJ420360 [2020-02-16 21:42:54 +0000 UTC]

She’s a child the fucks wrong with you. 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

shoomlah In reply to TessuSaysHi [2017-09-05 17:57:55 +0000 UTC]

I rarelly-to-never give people permission to repost them, buuuut I can't be bothered to follow up anymore! The arts so old at this point.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

shoomlah In reply to JNTA1234 [2015-05-12 07:54:41 +0000 UTC]

Wow.  Thanks for missing the point.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

WC-1O1 In reply to MountainLygon [2018-08-23 06:25:16 +0000 UTC]

MountainLygon, closer to their historical ages? If Google is correct, John Smith was born at 1580 and arrived on Virginia at 1607, that means he was 27 when he arrived, not 40-something. However, the amount of time between his arrival and meeting her is another question.

By the way, how was she a social outcast? Just curious because I've never found any information about what her personal life was like before she met John Smith.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MountainLygon In reply to WC-1O1 [2018-08-23 16:48:45 +0000 UTC]

In the film, she was a loner and a bit of an outcast. Because Disney. They would've ramped it up for an inter-generational friendship.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

shoomlah In reply to MeghanaLynn [2015-04-28 04:35:21 +0000 UTC]

I would actually change this again, unsurprisingly, if I was going to do it now!  The top would be a fur mantle over the apron, that sort of thing. The number of tattoos is somewhat up for debate, I'd argue – I don't think portraying someone with less tattoos is particularly unheard of.  Most extant descriptions of Powhatan women's tattoos are about adult women, so it's not unheard of to imagine that young girls would have less.

-C

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MeghanaLynn In reply to shoomlah [2015-04-28 16:33:36 +0000 UTC]

That makes a lot of sense. Do you have any links of drawings or descriptions from which you drew inspiration? I like to take in as much info as possible so I'm not biased.
Also, beautiful work, of course. The update to make her younger was a great idea.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

shoomlah In reply to MeghanaLynn [2015-04-28 17:24:28 +0000 UTC]

here are some of the links I saved while I was working on it, though I also had a couple books I was working with as well – hope they're helpful!

www.she-philosopher.com/galler…
webpages.charter.net/apples/na…
www.dhr.virginia.gov/arch_NET/…
www.nps.gov/jame/learn/history…
virginiaindians.pwnet.org/cult…

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MeghanaLynn In reply to shoomlah [2015-04-29 22:09:20 +0000 UTC]

Awesome! Thanks so much!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MorphoAdonis In reply to ejcapulet [2016-03-12 15:29:50 +0000 UTC]

Maybe you could teach your daughters that indigenous cultures vastly different from their own deserve respect and not to be called "undignified." Every culture treats the body differently, and they are all valid ways of existing, just because they don't live up to the all-important European standards of propriety and self-important values of the oppression of women's bits an bobs doesn't mean you can look down on them. Neither should your children.

👍: 1 ⏩: 2

elektraeriseros In reply to MorphoAdonis [2016-04-21 21:24:39 +0000 UTC]

All the applause, friend. Parents have every right to decide what is appropriate for their child, but they should consider teaching their children that not every culture sees bodies the same. Or that bodies are nothing to be ashamed of or to be shamed for.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

AsjJohnson In reply to MorphoAdonis [2016-04-03 01:19:02 +0000 UTC]

...why are people assuming the commenter finds other cultures undignified? They didn't say that... they said Disney was undignifed.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

chelseakenna In reply to AsjJohnson [2016-10-06 10:06:03 +0000 UTC]

Old comment thread, I know, sorry (was just browsing some recent comments and saw this) but honestly I read that comment kinda that way too. She specifically stated she appreciated that the "bits and bobs" were covered because she was showing these works to her children. Which, while not an implicit statement, kinda implies that she'd find it problematic to show the piece to her children if it contained more nudity.

Obviously we are all just speculating here and no one but the original commenter can clarify (and alas it seems she never did), but i think an important discussion resulted from this, nonetheless. I respect, to a certain degree, every parent's individual right to raise their kids how they want but I also really support :MorphoAdonis:' comment about the value of educating children about differing cultural practices. As both a parent and an artist, it concerns me how much my culture abhors and shames nudity (especially compared to other things, like violence, which America seems weirdly cool with in contrast).

I grew up with a certain degree of shame about my own naked body/nudity in general, and it took a lot of effort to get past that. I took years of nude figure drawing classes, I breastfeed my child, and while I may still have no desire to walk around topless in public, I still don't see the need to shield my daughter from nudity. I want her growing up understanding that breasts are natural, non-shameful things, and while our cultural norms dictate we generally (with some exceptions, like breastfeeding) cover them in public, there shouldn't be anything wrong with her seeing them. In fact, especially now as a breastfeeding mom, it seems kind of absurd to me that our kids might spend the first few months/years of their lives seeing their moms' breasts every day while nursing, yet suddenly we decide after that breasts are "inappropriate" and should no longer be viewed by the very children they were designed to feed. It makes no sense.

Anyway, sorry for that rant on an old thread, just felt these things needed to be said. /soapbox.

Edit: typos

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsjJohnson In reply to chelseakenna [2016-10-06 16:23:40 +0000 UTC]

Hm, makes sense.
(I should probably look back at everything that was said sometime. I don't really remember.)
I guess it could be the over sexualization that's usually there when there are nude pictures or skimpy clothing. It's not exactly that America's covering and hiding everything (that seems like a strange thought), but more like that there's people or artists who over emphasize and hint at things. Maybe it'd be okay if it was treated as normal, instead of most pictures people see being fetishy, and outfits obviously drawing attention to things (not just an overall tight shirt, but the type that actually goes on to point out exactly where to look). It could be the attention given to those types of parts that make them seem bad. Like, for one of the figure drawing pictures, if an artist makes the model's privates hyper-detailed, and the rest of the figure has little detail, then I would think it would feel odd. But if the artist makes the model's face the focal point, and the private areas are just in the picture, then they probably won't even be noticeable. In that case, it wouldn't be nudity itself that people avoid, but the fear of it being taken in an exaggerated, sexual way that keeps them avoiding anything to do with it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

chelseakenna In reply to AsjJohnson [2016-10-06 22:06:53 +0000 UTC]

Yeah, that's a whole other issue. I don't inherently have an issue with my own kid learning about sex from a scientific, educational perspective once she's old enough to understand those concepts, but obviously due to the nature of sex and the lack of agency of children, it is a topic I would want some restrictions placed on for my kids. And it brings up the important issue of: I don't want my daughter to grow up thinking nudity/breasts should be/are always sexualized either. That's one of the reasons, like you say, America probably is so "shy" about nudity and perfectly natural, non-sexual things like breastfeeding, because we, as a society, have somehow managed to decide all forms of nudity need to be sexual in nature, and we treat women's bodies primarily as sex objects.

This is one reason I'm relieved that as an artist, I had to take figure drawing, because I think it helped break some of those preconceived notions for me, and now hopefully I can pass that on to my own daughter. Having a daughter, these issues re: women's bodies and how they're treated by popular media, are especially important to me.

tl;dr basically I agree with you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MorphoAdonis In reply to AsjJohnson [2016-04-06 03:07:43 +0000 UTC]

"bits and bobs covered" "a more dignified version". Those statements are back to back. You can willfully ignore that the implication is that bits and bobs being uncovered are not dignified, but that doesn't mean the implication is not there.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsjJohnson In reply to MorphoAdonis [2016-04-06 15:21:24 +0000 UTC]

(shrugs) I think it's unfortunate timing. And actually, it's not back-to-back. "your work" is between the two. It looks to me like they're saying, "I've been showing your more dignified and respectful versions of the Disney princesses to my young daughters. So thanks for keeping her covered, since my young kids would be horrified to see a woman's privates." In that case, you could still say that the kids shouldn't be horrified to see someone showing things, and maybe should learn more about other cultures, but it's not calling it 'undignified'.
But, I guess English is just naturally ambiguous sometimes (not sure about other languages, but most probably are to some extent), and something can be taken a lot of different ways. There was a news story not long ago that said a policeman shot a guy with a knife - which sounds impossible. Did the knife have bullets? Was the knife shot through the air like a dart? Or did the policeman use a gun on someone who was holding a knife?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MorphoAdonis In reply to AsjJohnson [2016-04-12 02:51:05 +0000 UTC]

Okay, if you're actually going to go for the semantics and not the matter at hand, I will concede the ridiculously unimportant point that it's possible the adjective "dignified" was referring to this work thus by contrast and implying that the Disney versions, and not nudity, is undignified. But the shaming of women's bodies, as asserted by implying that a child would, without cultural and parental imposition of values, find a woman's body horrifying, is the issue I am taking here, because if a child would not find that horrifying without those influences and yet still does, it is a clear failure on the part of both the society and the parent. So if you would like to take your pointless battle of semantics elsewhere, I'm sure owl.english.purdue would be much more interested in your literally meaningless contribution to this discussion.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

AsjJohnson In reply to MorphoAdonis [2016-04-15 01:57:39 +0000 UTC]

I didn't really mean to get into a big argument.

hm... social workers didn't like me when I was little, partly because I didn't seem to care about walking in on my parents when they were in the bathroom. It was like, 'What, we're family. What's the big deal?' I'd been taught since then that no one should ever see anyone else naked (or at least, in modern America) ...and now I'm super ashamed of my body, and have been horrified when I'd been to public locker rooms (...which doesn't even make sense to have here. What, after someone goes through puberty, it's suddenly okay to start undressing in front of random strangers?).
But, well, America might be a bit backwards compared to other parts of the world (like, I've heard that Japan is a lot more free). The parent is probably doing the right thing according to American standards of decency (at least, if they're in America). If American kids start talking about nudity, the law would come down on them. Or they'd at least be considered problem children. (unless the laws have changed in the past 20 years)
So... I hadn't really thought about your issue being with the idea of the kids being dismayed at seeing private areas, since it's just how American kids are expected to be.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

MorphoAdonis In reply to AsjJohnson [2016-04-17 15:27:54 +0000 UTC]

Alright, then let's break this down further. I'm American born and raised, and I have deep problems with American culture. Especially since those standards against nudity are often used to perpetuate misogyny and rape culture; the sexualization of women's entire bodies is a problem in American society.

I was lucky to be an artist early on, so that I was exposed to de-sexualized nudity, so that's where my comparison comes from; nudity is art. Art often contains nudity. I think there is no issue whatsoever with exposing children to de-sexualized nudity in the form of art. (Maybe they can escape the shame of their bodies that you and I both absorbed from this problematic culture, for instance.)

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

MeghanaLynn In reply to ejcapulet [2015-04-28 04:10:39 +0000 UTC]

ejcapulet,
I can't help but to say that the human body without clothing is just as "dignified" as the human body with clothing...didn't your two girls come out of the womb naked? I wouldn't call your children undignified for such.
Just personal opinion of course.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0