Hello LGBT's

quibbles

Baby Dyke - "Team Macho"



Hi LGBT's.

Just curious to know if anyone out there finds this image offensive. ?
And if so , why? The Image was made by a groupe of graphic artists called *team Macho*

cotwold

I think its unnecessarily provocative.

I don't find it offensive. Im not a lesbian though.

Nevyn

Whats the point of it?
Honestly I think writing anything at all on a child's head to be close to child abuse no matter what it says never mind a label which can't possible apply to them yet.

GalwayGuy92

I don't really understand the picture, even as a piece of art it doesn't seem to make any sense other than to provoke. Not that I would find it offensive, just...unnecessary.

quibbles

Thanks for the replies, Just wanted to see what others critical thoughts on it are.

Does it make a kind of mockery of the way some people in the gay community say that gay people are *born that way* ?

Is it a mocking picture?

Does it make a comment about labels and how people try to label and categorize each other?

Is it a confusing image in one sense because we can see that the child has a word written on his/her head, and we know that the child is too young to have written it him/herself, but the tool which was used to make the marks are in the childs hand? The child seems happily oblivious and amused.


There is definitely something Mocking and insidious about this image. Would anyone agree with me, or have anything else to add?

cotwold

Wheres the picture from, is it yours? Do you know the artist?

Aard

It's juvenile.

!!!

I think 'lesbian' would have sufficed!

MicraBoy

To me it is an obvious statement about how we are born gay. Essentially when we grow old enough to discover our sexuality we end up having to label ourselves. That label may or may not be outwardly shown, but if you are true to yourself and your sexuality it might not be possible to live your life without being labelled by others. This drawing shows how a child, is gay from birth, but because the child isn't aware of her sexuality she is not aware of the label she carries (or will carry).

I don't agree it is mocking. I think it is deliberately provocative however, because we don't associate a child as being a sexual entity, but of course if you believe we are born with our sexual orientation then a dyke is a dyke regardless of what age they are.

Bringing that a bit further, may be it is a mockery of homophobes who might have no problem abusing a grown woman for being a dyke, but who would baulk at the idea of abusing a child in such a manner.

GalwayGuy92

quibbles wrote: »

Thanks for the replies, Just wanted to see what others critical thoughts on it are.

Does it make a kind of mockery of the way some people in the gay community say that gay people are *born that way* ?

Is it a mocking picture?

Does it make a comment about labels and how people try to label and categorize each other?

Is it a confusing image in one sense because we can see that the child has a word written on his/her head, and we know that the child is too young to have written it him/herself, but the tool which was used to make the marks are in the childs hand? The child seems happily oblivious and amused.


There is definitely something Mocking and insidious about this image. Would anyone agree with me, or have anything else to add?

It's certainly a possibility that this is the intent of the artist but the image clearly over-looks the fact that sexuality although not controllable does not menifest itsself in a person until puberty.
The same can be said for the application of labels, children do not begin to apply labels until at least age eight or nine when they perceive the differences between others and themselves.
Although the artist probably tried to get the mentioned messages into the piece, they have failed to fully understand their subject matter and just made a picture to cause controvercy while posing as a work of art. This is just my opinion made up of what I can see in the picture and from reading the posts of others, I didn't actually do any research...

Chuchoter

Not to be mean but if you're looking for opinions it looks like a junior cert picture by an angry 15 year old. Its a bit in your face.

Maybe the message is that if all people are born the way they are why are people ok with calling innocent children derogatory terms.

baby and crumble

TBH I find the appaling lack of drawing skills of someone who calls themselves an 'artist' offensive. What the effing crap is going on with the kids jaw? It's like something out of a horror movie. I also think I might have had that exact stripey cardigan when I was a kid...

But as for the initial question, I just find it a bit odd, really.

The eyes are following me...
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Stark

It's an overly literal take on "baby dyke".

cotwold

Yeah i thought it was a fairly poorly drawn picture as well. The face is distorted alright.

keepkeyyellow

As an art college dropout can I just say the drawing is decent enough. Not perfect but decent.

Anyway I just find it confusing.

baby and crumble

... And as a person with eyes, I have to disagree with you. I'm not saying I could do any better (not a chance!) but hey, I'm not calling myself an artist. It's like they might be trying to mask their poorer than acceptable skills in this type of artistic arena using provocation. Then again might the unusually large jawline be a statement on the traditionally 'masculine' features of the stereotypical lesbian?

And hey, for all I know this person is an incredibly talented pen & ink artist, I'm just saying...

Annasopra

This thread was reported as offensive - I locked it because I didn't see the point of the thread - Following a PM from the OP explaining more about why he (or she?) posted the thread in the first place - I reopened it because I could see some merit in having a discussion on it

Kanoe

isnt art supposed to provoke? I just noticed that the kid is holding the marker in her hands too. It's certainly gotten a reaction here, I think it's very clever. (and probably like something I'd do too)

bodice ripper

that is the kind of shocking drawing you get when someone with mediocre draughtsmanship painstakingly copies a photo.

also, the word dyke makes me feel ill

quibbles

Hi guys,

I posted this before, and I suppose I'm still looking for a discussion on the image. Since there is no *design* forum, or discussion thread, I am putting it here. ( how come there is no design section in the arts forum?)
Anyway, I asked the question, Did anyone find this image offensive.
One person replied "I don't find it offensive, but then again, I'm not a lesbian"

So My Second question is... Does one have to be a lesbian to be offended by this image?

Thanks! I don't personally mean to cause offense, but just looking quite seriously for a discussion around the image.

Heebie

I'm not excited by the image, and the label is the only thing I might find offensive. It's hard to judge that without further context.

I do find it interesting that the person in the image seems to have qualities of a toddler, and qualities of an old woman, at the same time.

rainbow kirby

Threads merged. Comments made 2-3 months ago about the same image are equally valid now.

Aard

quibbles wrote: »

Does one have to be a lesbian to be offended by this image?

Not necessarily. One could also be a baby, a Dutchman, or a wearer of woolen clothing.


Why don't you give us your detailed view on it? It's general Boards.ie ettiquette that the OP gives his opinion before asking others for theirs.

Annasopra

quibbles wrote: »

Hi guys,

I posted this before, and I suppose I'm still looking for a discussion on the image. Since there is no *design* forum, or discussion thread

Have you tried the Digital Art and Design Forum?

quibbles

Aard wrote: »

Not necessarily. One could also be a baby, a Dutchman, or a wearer of woolen clothing.

A baby could be offended by this image? But babies are impervious to the written word
A Dutchman? How come? Is that a reference to the blond hair blue eyes thing?
A wearer of woolen clothing?

What about,

A user of crayola markers


Where is the label in the image?
On the babies head or on the pen he/she has used to supposedly mark him/herself?

Thanks for all the replies.

baby and crumble

Why exactly are you looking for comments, and what comments are you looking for?

I posted the last time once or twice, and I really don't 'get' the whole thing. Ok, it's a baby, and presumably it's meant to show that the kid labeled herself because the marker in her hand is the same colour as the writing. However, I'm unsure what you're hoping to achieve by posting the image here. You seem to to fishing for a particular view that will allow you to go off and write a paper on it or something...

Also, it may be the case that you didn't get a discussion on it last time because nobody really has an opinion on it? Posting it again 2 months later is unlikely to garner a different response, I would have thought...

quibbles

Ok Zoegh,

Im not writing a paper on it. Thanks for your post.

Annasopra

quibbles wrote: »

Ok Zoegh,

Im not writing a paper on it. Thanks for your post.

why all the questions then?

stephen_n

GalwayGuy92 wrote: »

It's certainly a possibility that this is the intent of the artist but the image clearly over-looks the fact that sexuality although not controllable does not menifest itsself in a person until puberty.
The same can be said for the application of labels, children do not begin to apply labels until at least age eight or nine when they perceive the differences between others and themselves.
Although the artist probably tried to get the mentioned messages into the piece, they have failed to fully understand their subject matter and just made a picture to cause controvercy while posing as a work of art. This is just my opinion made up of what I can see in the picture and from reading the posts of others, I didn't actually do any research...

I think you will find that the origins of sexuality, sexual preference and sexual exploration start a very long time before puberty. Puberty may change or fix the sexual object but the formations of our sexual drives start in infancy and those drives decide a lot about our sexual nature.

As for the piece I think like all art it is subjective and designed for interpretation not to be offensive but to be thought provoking which seemingly it has succeeded in being?

baby and crumble

Ok Zoegh,

Im not writing a paper on it. Thanks for your post.

Well, exactly what are you doing then? I don't mean to be rude or confrontational, but you expect people here to give their opinions, which people have, and yet you pretty much complain no-one gave you enough? I don't get it.

Peoples opinions have ranged from 'i don't get it' to 'the painting is crap' to 'it's a comment on society, etc' to 'meh', and yet...

Aard

quibbles wrote: »

What about,

A user of crayola markers


Where is the label in the image?
On the babies head or on the pen he/she has used to supposedly mark him/herself?

Lol.
You're talking as though we're 14 years old and studying for Junior Cert Art.

quibbles

zoegh wrote: »

'it's a comment on society

Expand.

Nevyn

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=356
There you are the digital arts and design forum.

baby and crumble

quibbles wrote:

Expand.

If you read my post you'd see that the 'a comment on society' thing was something I ascribed to someone else, as it was an opinion shared by a previous poster, not me.

TBH, I'm bowing out of this thread now. I smell a troll, however if you are not, I'll give you a piece of advice. People don't like it when someone asks you for an opinion, you give them one and it's continually not good enough.

You have never once given your opinion on this piece of 'art', even though I have given mine (post #12 & #16) and a number of people have asked you, out of courtesy, to give something back to the thread.

I'll give you my opinion again. It's a crap drawing. End of.

Annasopra

I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is?

rainbow kirby

I think it's time we put the slightly creepy baby to bed. Locking this.