. Finally, supposing an actor found out about slash art and was angry enough to complain to his/her agent?
I'd be entirely surprised if any of the main actors failed to know slash existed- and of course slash has been covered in the press as well.
My mistake. Or that journalists would be so naive as to assume everything they see on-line is in some
way
factual.
As I said, they don't need to. Journalists need to sell papers, and so
regardless of whether or not the site does show anything factual, they'll write it up.
What I was responding to was your statement that there were people who were unable to tell the difference.
If a journalist did find a fan site with slash art, chances are the headline would read NUDE PICTURES OF [ACTOR X] SHOCKER, and the fact that these were faked up or sketched will be buried somewhere in the fine print. This _did_ actually happen at least once, with Doctor Who and the Sun newspaper.
It happens all the time- and they don't need to go to a con or look for slash art sites to do it. But again, how many gullible people are unaware that photos can be faked and that sensationalist headlines are just that. Even people who read the tabloids know they are trash- they just enjoy reading them.
Any teeny tiny
minority of persons who might even conceivably believe this really must
be
too stupid to live.
Don't you think it's just a tiny bit fascist to say that someone is "too
stupid to live"?
Not at all. Do you read the Darwin Awards? People who aren't able to sort things intelligently get to wind up in the newspapers strangely dead or maimed. This is of course a great boon to the gene pool if they make their fatal mistake before reproducing.
That better? I am talking issue with your statement that there could be confusion as to the actors being involved in fan
adult
art.
And what I'm saying is, there doesn't have to be confusion as to the
actors being involved in fan art for a fan, a spouse or, worst of all, a journalist, to assume that the actors give their tacit approval to this sort of thing.
So naturally actors give tacit approval for faked sex photos, drug photos, fabrication of alien sex slaves or whatever as well. Got it. Perfectly reasonable. Should it be necessary prominent persons do in fact challenge all of the above in courts and get damages. They do not feel that most of the time it is necessary however as they rightly assume most people aren't confused about what "weird" fans might be dreaming and acting upon and what the prominent person is up to.
I can write seriously weird stories about Reagan and Bonzo the chimp(with nasty pornographic illustrations), but most people (the ones that are smart enough to survive) will figure out that this is in fact something my own brain dreamed up and that Reagan didn't approve nor pose for said stories. I give people a little more credit and assume that they know actors or prominent persons do not give tacit approval for all sorts of things.
But why should your enjoyment of zines have to ruin somebody else's
enjoyment of cons? If because a small minority of fans like to look at dirty pictures, the actors decide not to have anything to do with _any_ fans, the majority aren't going to be happy.
I have yet to hear of actors deciding they want nothing to do with fans based on the existence of adult artwork. There are many other reasons for actors not to want to attend cons including the general hassle of fans in general. The main actors regularly attend cons knowing that such things exist. Most purveyors of such merchandise don't display it in an obvious way to bring it to their attention. I think this
Not everybody does even so little, as I'm sure you know. We've all heard
stories, I'm sure, about people who actually send slash art to actors to sign.
And the actors can trash it or right a sharp letter protesting and not signing or whatever they think is appropriate.
Treating the actual actor
present civilly and as a human being and not a sex object is courteous.
And when they're not present?
Considering that actors are frequently considered sex objects I don't see that B7 actors have any special rights in this area. Considering that many people who aren't prominent persons are seen only as a sex object, I can't get any more upset about actors than anyone else. At least the sex object in fan art is entirely fictional.
Apparently you live in a different world. As far as I can see the world thrives on selfishness, selfcenterdness and an awful lot of treating
people
as objects.
And we should go on allowing this? Just because everybody else is selfish
it doesn't mean _you_ should be selfish too.
But I can be selfish if I want to, same as anyone. I don't need to measure up to anyone else's standards or morals. I get a wee bit nervous when someone else starts worrying about allowing this or that. I happen to be a vegetarian human rights activist but aside from trying to point out the problems of objectifying persons or groups I pretty much am a firm believer of not letting others dictate their own worldview onto others.
as much as anyone else but from what I have seen they are very clearly
aware
that their objectification is for a character idea and they are not portraying the actor as an object.
Not so sure about that. Leaving aside the cases of slash art going out
using actors' real names and not the characters', the separation between an actors' image and that of a character is a very slim one indeed.
But this is not a "slash art" phenomenon. I see no reason to single out "adult" art , its creators and consumers . The persons who are unable to separate an actor from a role will have that difficulty whether they draw pictures, dress up as a character and act weirdly or make harrassing phone calls. I don't see that this small group of individuals implies that most people of average intelligence can't sort out the fact that actors are not the characters they portray and that art is created out of someone's head and that it doesn't require the tacit consent of the person portrayed or their actual presence.
As it is, though, it's pretty easy to draw a visual link between the actor and the character, and to confuse the two.
Amazingly enough, I don't know anyone who does this. I'm sure it happens to people other than young children, but then they are obviously not terribly good at sorting out reality, are they? I don't really feel an obligation to censor something because they aren't capable of understanding it. Might as well get rid of plays and television altogether, since obviously there are these people who can't figure it out and attack actors in pubs.
Considering that the only ones who need the courtesy of not being exposed
to
this are the actors or those who do not wish to see adult art,
Not true. Actors' families, their friends, their co-workers, journalists,
agents... also, in the Internet age, anti-slash fans who innocently type "[Actor X] pictures" into a search engine and click on the first site they see...
I maintain it is a little more difficult to do this than one thinks. I have to really type in specific search commands. I myself haven't typed in "Paul Darrow" and come up with a direct site screaming "Fan portrait of PD engaged in carnal acts with Gareth, Michael and Jan". Adult sites come with cautions. As I said, I only found fanfic sites with some assistance and it took a lot longer to turn up fanfic sites which featured adult situations- and not many of them feature art. How strange is it to type in Servalan and pull up a picture of one of the male fans dressed up like her (usually rather fetchingly, I might add)? Surely that might offend the actress or her friends or family or be interpretted as tacit approval? A lot of fan behavior is itself invasive and odd and objectifying. I don't think the existence of adult artwork is any more odd or objectifying than the desire to get autographs or items or clothing or imagining a favorite actor/tress or character during sex. Most of the posters who posted in reply to Shane's e-mail have expressed thoughts in a far more enlightening way than I care to. I am not interested in arguing the morality of adult artwork . I am a confirmed lurker uninterested in devoting a lot of time to writing posts to a list I read mostly for relaxation and pleasure. The only thing which has engaged me to write at all was Shane's statement:
the fact that it is there in the zine and unchallenged _would_ suggest
to> > readers that Actor X had approved or consented to their presence there.
Every time I read it all I can think of is that it's time to bring on the Clorox if the gene pool has degenerated to the point that more than a tiny, naive or unintelligent portion of the population would believe this. yes, there are some people who can't figure these things out, but most people would not think that an unchallenged zine has Actor X's approval or consent. When I started reading zines last year it never occurred to me to think that the actors had any input into the stories or that they approved or consented. Websites in most fandoms actually say something like copyright belongs to such and such and I'm just taking these characters out and playing with them. Pretty much a straight forward explanation of what it is- a use of characters without official sanction. That would apply to either adult fanfiction/artwork or general fanfiction/artwork.