huh wrote
First, who says we're talking about fans? I could have meant agents, or journalists, or interested third parties.
Oh sorry, I didn't realize that non-fans would be hanging out in fan conventions buying fanzines and fan artwork.
Excuse me. When a convention comes to town, particularly a large one, the local paper at least usually sends someone out to cover it. I'm sure we've all seen the articles: "Sci-Fi Maniacs Converge on Manchester," coupled with photograph of person in poorly-made Klingon costume. Also, these journalists usually like to make fans look as weird and pathetic as possible in order to sell papers. Don't you think they'd _love_ to know about slash art? As for other sorts of non-fans, the guests often bring their families-- their spouses and kids, who don't need to see their parent or partner held up as a sex object. Finally, supposing an actor found out about slash art and was angry enough to complain to his/her agent? That agent might very well refuse to let the actor have anything to do with fans at all.
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. 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.
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"?
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.
That's your feelings. You don't speak for everyone, in fandom or on the lyst. Anyway, it's because of the actors that you have the show in the
first
place-- doesn't that entitle them to a bit of courtesy?
Seems to me I said "my" and I meant my. I realized when I wrote it that others might feel differently. I don't see why other's preferences for cons should affect my or anyone else's enjoyment of zines,
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.
As far as I can tell,
removing offending sales merchandise is courteous. Displaying adult merchandise discreetly is courteous. Not asking actors to sign any merchandise they don't wish to is courteous.
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.
Treating the actual actor
present civilly and as a human being and not a sex object is courteous.
And when they're not present?
Oh, now really. Are actors not also human beings? Don't they have a right
to
privacy?
Of course they are entitled to privacy. Anything which happens legally in the privacy of their own homes and grounds is sancrosant . No extended super lens cameras to catch them sunbathing in their own backyards, no spying on them when they are a scratching themselves on Sundays. While I personally would leave them alone were they to be shopping, eating in a restaurant or whatever, a prominent person cannot be surprised if others do. It happens to local prominent persons, for heaven's sake, not just actors. If you are prominent you are exposed to others even when you are on "private time".
And this is a good thing? Remember that this doesn't just affect the actors, but their friends and family with whom they spend their private time. But this is beside the point. We are not dealing with Hollywood stars, but with a group of jobbing actors who had some moderate success twenty years ago with a show that happened to turn cult. Since then they have been doing pantos, theatres, the odd bit of TV. Some are in their sixties now, and probably considering retirement. Most have second jobs which they work at when they aren't acting. Their kids go to state schools, they have mortgages and bills. To lump B7 actors in with the likes of Patrick Stewart is very, very naive, and you cannot treat them all in the same way.
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.
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. Actors tend to look like the characters they portray for some reason. This is why actors are recognised in the street. This is why you hear cases of actors who play villains in soaps getting attacked in pubs, or actors who play heartthrobs getting mobbed. If there was no visible connection between the character and the actor, this wouldn't happen. As it is, though, it's pretty easy to draw a visual link between the actor and the character, and to confuse the two.
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...
It may very well do but I find it really hard to believe that anyone could have worked as an actor for decades and not developed a fairly thick skin in this regard.
Oh yes? Didn't Iain have a few things to say a while ago as to acting and how an actor might feel if he came across a picture of himself performing [censored] with a colleague? It's one thing to go out and play a role which involves behaviour which you wouldn't ordinarily do. It's another to find out that someone has gone and mocked up a picture of this without your knowledge and consent.
Shane
"What shall I do with the other hand?" --Avon
Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015
Shane said:
Don't you think they'd _love_ to know about slash art?
Of course they do--there've been articles about slash in several newspapers and magazines, quite apart from at least three books that I know about.
Fiinally, supposing an actor found out about slash art and was angry enough
to complain to his/her agent? That agent might very well refuse to let the actor have anything to do with fans at all. Agents can't "refuse to let actors" do anything. A sensible actor who was upset about slash art would complain to the artist, and then negotiate future con appearances based on a guarantee that slash art would not be sold there, or would be subject to display restrictions.
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. 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. Even a journalist can tell the difference between a fan's sketch and a photograph that is presented as a factual depiction of an actor.
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. Actor X: "My, what a lovely sketch. It certainly shows the affection that the artist has for my character. And the other bloke. And the eight-tentacled alien. And the hoover. But, of course, nobody asked me before drawing this. I certainly didn't pose for it! And, some of my best friends and all, but personally I'm a happily married man. So, gals, do me a favor: next time, just leave me out of it, eh? Just call the picture Apollo and whatzisname, not my character and some other fella." That should clear up any confusion.
-(Y)
. 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.
-
Dana Shilling -
huh -
Shane Little