HOME | DD
JamesRyman β Triumph of Ferocity
Published: 2012-05-06 10:32:58 +0000 UTC; Views: 90896; Favourites: 1866; Downloads: 3526
Redirect to original
Description
Magic the Gathering artRelated content
Comments: 135
Wow! i have a lot of magic cards! is so nice to find someone who draw it!
π: 0 β©: 0
i have like... 8 of this card 
π: 0 β©: 0
its nice seeing all of the art in large scale like this....I would never have seen the detail like the rips in lilianna's clothing on the card
π: 0 β©: 0
the thing that comes to mind when i look at this is
Garruk-"Dose Garruk gota choke a bitch?"
π: 0 β©: 0
Barbarian vs Wizard- Say your prayers witch!
π: 0 β©: 0
By far my favorite card art in all of magic the gathering, im a huge garruk fan. and the art itself tells the whole story behind his and her relationship.
π: 0 β©: 0
wow nice digital art
π: 0 β©: 0
yay
π: 0 β©: 1
*garruk lol ME mix things! xD
π: 0 β©: 0
Not really sure who couldn't see this image as problematic, tbh.
It took an awful long time to paint this I'm sure, so it must have come up that maybe painting a man beating a woman isn't the best way to communicate the idea.. especially as it's a part of a game that many children play..
And magic players wonder why women don't play / quickly leave the community. Ha! Ha ha!
π: 0 β©: 1
A lot of fallacious reasoning there.
1: Would you object to this image if it depicted a woman beating up a man? Because that's the next card, iirc, and I haven't seen any protest of that one. Why the hypocrisy? Why is it forbidden to depict violence towards female characters, but acceptable to show violence towards male characters? Have you ever given this any thought at all, or are you mistaking your emotional reactions for reasoned analysis?
2. You're gallery is amateurish; you won't be offended if I say that you don't know a lot about illustration. Telling a professional illustrator how to communicate an idea when you don't understand the craft is pretty absurd.
3: Lots of women play this game. Saying that women don't play because they all agree with you about an illustration is disingenuous. It's not funny, just false.
π: 0 β©: 2
Uh, no obviously it wouldn't be the same if a woman was beating a man because there isn't a worldwide cultural context about it. Men don't routinely get beaten by women. It's not A Thing.
Yeah, I can't draw, thanks I know already. I'm learning. BUT anyone can discuss the meaning in an illustration. I'm not telling him the anatomy is off, or the lighting is ambiguous. I'm saying the subject matter is inappropriate.
Wow you are just full of ~analytic reasoning~ aren't you? OBVIOUSLY women play the game. I'm a woman who plays and I have friends who do. A lot of us feel really uncomfortable in these male-dominated spaces, and being apologetic about card art with a man beating a woman is one of the (many) reasons. I'm sure there are also women who don't care, but there are plenty who do. and it really sucks to be not only alienated by the player base, but by physical parts of the game itself.
π: 0 β©: 3
Violence against men by women is a thing you moron. It's a very big thing. Stop being a sexist little 'victim', and grow the hell up. If you are going to complain about a man threatening a woman, you better complain about a woman threatening a man. Stop trying to create unnecessary fear-mongering towards men.Β
Educate yourself, stop playing victim, and go complain about woman-threatening-man illustrations and stop being sexist. You're as bad as what you are 'against' and 'hate'.
π: 0 β©: 0
As another woman who plays the game, stop playing victim in the "man's world" that is M:tG.
There is also another card, Triumph of Cruelty ([link] ) which is the opposite scenario with Liliana beating Garruk, but this is ok.
Read the flavor text: ""Rid me of this curse, witch, or die with me." βGarruk Wildspeaker," and understand the lore. This literally has nothing to do with gender, if it was a male wizard or male vampire that cursed Garruk and he was in the same position being just as threatening, it wouldn't be as big of a deal.
Garruk doesn't have magic to play with like Liliana, who can do ranged attacks much more easily than he can. He needs to be up in her face to make and progress threatening her to relieve the curse that she placed upon him during her quest to destroy the demons she made a deal with. She nearly kills Garruk.
π: 0 β©: 0
Men suffer from domestic abuse to, friend.
Almost as much as women do, youβre just being a tiny bit ignorant and sexist at the moment.
Just thought I'd tell you before you do something stupid.
π: 0 β©: 0
There's a problem with the fact that, in this illustration, the female victim is being sexualized. In the illustration showing reversed circumstances, neither figure is shown in particularly sexualized way, not even Liliana, who is almost always shown being sexy when in a dominant position (as befits her character).
More than that, this particular scene resonates strongly with many women for whom sexual assault is either part of their history or a very realistic fear. The illustration as presented has elicited a lot of negative reactions from these women and those who sympathize with them and their situation. Does that include all women? No. But it's common enough, and traumatic enough, that it makes the use of this image in this particular fantasy franchise (which specifically makes it a goal to attempt to be at least somewhat progressive and culturally sensitive with the artwork it uses) alienating and insensitive.
If the illustration had been made differently, so that it portrayed the same situation without being so reminiscent of a sexual assault scenario, it would have been no worse for the people who don't have a problem with it now, and would have been significantly better for those who do take issue with it. Being mindful of the perspectives of people for whom these issues are very real and very important doesn't take anything away from anyone else.
π: 0 β©: 2
In the nicest possible way.
You don't matter.
Your arguments have some grounding and I can almost see why youβre upset, but that doesn't matter and I'm going to explain why.
You decided this image was sexist because you felt it had connotations with rape and/or abuse, (correct me on anything if I'm wrong, I'm not a mind reader). You decided this was a valid critisism to bring up.
But you were wrong. Not only must the picture be micro-analysed to pick out these things (which, just saying brosef, werenβt intentional). One must also remove the art from the card to make the argument. F.Y.I. The flavour text really helps.
You and some of your fiends have been offended by this card art. Once again, in the nicest possible way.
You donβt matter.
Thing is youβre in the minority, the minority of people who have taken this art out of context and refused to accept later that maybe you made a bad call on this one. Sucks to be wrong I know I hate being wrong and Iβm sometime really stubborn about it. You seem like a really passionate person who just needs to use a bit more critical thinking. Iβm going send you a friend request.
π: 0 β©: 0
Does it really resonate with women whose history contains rape?
Lessee, three of my woman friends have been raped in the past, right? They've got the issues that go with it and everything, but they don't look at this picture and even care. Hell, one of them actually uses the card.
You're projecting and getting offended for your own reasons rather than thinking about how things were intended.
And you're on about "As befits her character", as if your argument actually has a basis in that. Her character was always designed to be the sexy one, yeah? So deal with it. Garruk is actually wearing MORE in this pic than just about every other one you'll find him in (most recent Planeswalker card and flipside to this scene are the only ones like this), so I can only thank Wizards and the good artist here that this was decided upon so you wouldn't try suing the company for posting such a "Sexist" picture on a card, which I doubt you even play.
In the multiple universes in magic, there are women. Women sometimes get powerful.
In a sexist world, they would either A) never get into a situation like this in the first place (the sexism you advocate), or B) Be objects wherein they are ALWAYS in this position and never actually given any power.
inb4 'my vag000 makes me right when all womyn are concerned'.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your argument is that because you don't personally know any women who are offended, there aren't actually any women who are offended? As if the many who have specifically voiced their own displeasure or negative reactions don't count? This isn't something I'm inventing or projecting, people have been speaking for themselves why they find the image distressing and upsetting.
I've said nothing about litigation. What's been going on have been complaints, people voicing their opinions on the piece. No one is forcing any change to be made, and no change could be made at this point even if that were the case. Is there something wrong with people stating the reasons why they dislike a piece of art, how it affects them in a negative way?
I have not once said "Liliana shouldn't lose a fight." Do not put words into my mouth. I've said I think she shouldn't be shown in a position where she is being physically assaulted while simultaneously being portrayed in a sexualized manner, reinforcing a cultural connection between female sexuality and victimhood and causing distress to many (not all, as you seem to think I'm saying) women for whom such situations are a frightening part of their reality. That is not something that they should have to be subject to in a fantasy card game. It's absolutely possible to portray Garruk beating Liliana without visually making her into a sexual object, and doing so would have been a far more prudent and sympathetic decision.
I'm not making arguments based on any claim to personal authority on the issue. I'm talking about issues raised by many other people besides myself. Is there some reason why the opinions of people who are genuinely upset by things like this shouldn't matter? If this piece of artwork has caused real distress for a significant number of Magic fans, isn't that important?
π: 0 β©: 1
If one is of the opinion that a well-established character in a setting, who is often portrayed as sexy and a seductress (which she is, just add necromancy to the mix), cannot be portrayed as anything other than a completely asexual cardboard standee when losing a fight, then yes one's opinion is to be discarded.
Why can't she be in a flimsy bodice in a fight when she's in a flimsy bodice out of the fight?
It's a stupid argument. One I shall not dignify with further discussion after your next wallo'text.
π: 0 β©: 0
And thus we see why arguments over who "smelt it dealt it" always end horribly.
Great piece man. I can just feel that impact coming.
π: 0 β©: 0
Love the intensity of this piece! It really looks like it's kill or be killed.
π: 0 β©: 0
I really really love this image. Really powerfull and stunning.
π: 0 β©: 0
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn! Shes about to get smoooooooooked!
π: 0 β©: 0
You should have seen the stink this art started on the MTG forums Β¬_Β¬ Some people complaining about "sexual innuendo" and the submissive position a lot of female characters end up in....
π: 0 β©: 5
I think that people before commenting about the sexual innuendo or the more extreme rape, probably need to be more concerned that their first thought when seeing a person about to get punched/stabbed in the face was 'sexual innuendo' would suggest to me some deep seated issues
my first thought was 'she should probably be throwing that fireball about now'
π: 0 β©: 1
Her back being arched upward by the rock she's being held against, the cloth of her dress being torn and plastered against her skin by the rain, and Garruk's leg being wedged between her thighs might have something to do with it. -_- Not exactly hard to see how she's being sexualized here.
π: 0 β©: 2
Her clothes are torn because they have been fighting. Holy jesus, not because Garruk is going to rape Liliana, even if he did, Liliana is strong enough to stop it. There is nothing sexual with this image, nor was there anything sexual intended. If the situation were reversed, I guarantee you, you wouldn't have said anything about sexual intentions/nature.
π: 0 β©: 0
Her back being arched?? really??? firstly I wouldn't say her back is arched she's against a rock so even if it is, it's because of the curve of the rock. I hope no one who believes a back being arched is immediately sexual innuendo, ever enters a gym or martial arts class or hell sees someone wake up in the morning and have a stretch there mind would overload.
The cloth of her dress is torn... well so are his clothes, there in a fight it happens.
Leg wedged between the thighs, seriously clutching at straws, from the basis of the picture I don't see any resistance on the clothing to suggest 'wedged'. And again I'll come back to my previous comment I hope no one who views this image that way ever ends up in a martial arts class, I don't think I've ever been in a class doing groundwork where my legs have been between another persons or vice versa and thought 'ooo how sexual this is' more along the lines of 'well that's their legs pinned so they stop kicking me, now to lock their arms out before they choke me out'
π: 0 β©: 1
The curve of the rock which is placed there specifically by the artist. This isn't a photograph, nature can't be blamed for anything. If a figure is in a particular position it's because the artist put them that way.
I don't know how many martial arts classes are performed in a dress like that.
As has been stated so often, context matters. Seeing someone stretching or practicing martial arts is very different from an assault out in the world. Picking apart each individual aspect is not the same as taking them all together in a single image. If only her dress was torn, or only her back was arched, or only her legs were being forced apart, it would be less problematic. But all of these things together bring this image much closer to the sort of sexual assault scenario that is a VERY REAL POSSIBILITY for many people. It doesn't matter if you, personally, don't have that kind of situation come to mind when seeing the image. I didn't either the first time I saw it. But please, recognize that different people with different life experiences have a different perspective. There's not something "wrong" with a person for seeing shades of a sexual assault here when sexual assault is a realistic fear that they remain vigilant for in their real lives.
π: 0 β©: 1
You are correct, you have to take in the 'whole' context of the scene, which wonderfully you seem to be using to your own ends in the hope of making the point stick, I took in the whole scene as a fight the WHOLE scene meaning the whole picture.
If you read back it was actually yourself who chose to pick apart the scene in an effort to support your opinion
focusing on the females position
focusing on the females clothing
focusing on the position of the males leg
You have focused on about a quarter of the entire image for your own argument, lets just take a quick look at another quarter. the blokes got some kind of what I presume to be bone fist spike and is clearly about to stab her with it, that is the taking in the 'whole' of this scene.
At no point did I suggest her attire was appropriate for martial arts, the purpose of that analogy was to explain my take on the position and how it does not immediately mean sexualisation or to the ugly extreme of rape, hand to hand close combat fighting involves limbs being in all manner of positions on or around your opponents body, it does not however make it sexual.
Her attire would indeed be inappropriate in martial arts, but as you so helpfully put assault in the world real or fantasy can happen anywhere therefore her attire is irrelevant, limbs being in all manner of places during a fight however is relevant.
I'll admit the image is a fine line, but a fine line which needs crucial parts to change it into what you suggest it is. He clearly has murderous intent with the bone fist raised to deal a killing blow, if he had a hand ripping her dress, stroking her breasts or riding up her leg then yes I would be inclined to agree with a sexualised nature of the scene, but that isn't happening the elements of the scene combined indicate a fight about to end in someones death.
The placement of the hands is far more important to sexualising a scene not the attire or gender, it could be two people of the same sex in full plate armour, one pinning the other to a rock and their free hand not in the killing blow but instead cupping the groin or stroking the chest, that would denote sexual intent regardless of attire or gender.
If you're going to preach about the whole context, the whole scene, taking in all elements about what the picture means, its story, then I suggest you follow your own sermon.
I will tread as carefully as I can with your last sentence. There is something wrong with someone who sees the risk of sexual assault in the world around them, it is wrong that someone should have their permanent feeling in their lives, no one should live in fear in their day to day lives. they should seek help in whatever form works to restore/create a self confidence in themselves of their own security.
π: 0 β©: 0
That's pretty stupid considering the black ferocity... :/
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>