Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 4456-4460 (the 8th through 12th of February, 2021)
Farideh:
Faye is contradicting herself. If there is no deeper meaning to sprays than 'Sam likes to draw cool shit on robots', then how could a human getting a spray be 'culturally appropriative'?
Tyr:
In my opinion, a 'spray' on a human's prosthetic is no more culturally appropriation-y in the abstract than a human scribbling on their own arm with ink. Furthermore, forbidding a human from decorating their prosthetic with a spray would be a slippery slope.
--- Quote from: A Strawman to demonstrate the slope I envision on 08 Feb 2021, 19:15 ---If a Human isn't allowed to apply ink to their prosthetic's dermal because that's an AI thing, should humans be allowed to have dermal covering on their prosthetic at all? That's literally an AI's SKIN! In fact, should humans be permitted prosthetics of that style at all, seeing as that arm or leg or hand or foot is using components that could embody an AI, and HUMANS have appropriated it for their own use!
--- End quote ---
Now, there's murky territory in human 'sprays' to be sure, e.g. a human who wants a permanent spray to restore a design that was lost to an injury (e.g. the design ran from their spine down both arms and their right arm below the elbow in a car crash) need permission from the original artist for the design to be restored, but is it expected that this is a service tattoo artists would need to perform (at the normal rate? prorated as a 'touch up'? I don't have any tattoos, myself, so I don't know if that's a thing) , or would you get permission and then go to a spray artist? If someone with an extant prosthetic wants a tattoo, would they need to go to a special shop for a combined spray/tattoo artist or a collaboration?
Sorflakne:
Uh...so if I were in the QCverse, and I drew on myself with a marker or pen while bored at work or a friend drew on me for fun, that'd be appropriating AI culture?
Gyrre:
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 08 Feb 2021, 15:37 ---And the thing is that dogs (unlike cats!) take to training, because they want to please. They actually enjoy being taught and learning to get it right, and having a real relationship with their humans - it's just the owners (some, that is) who are either too lazy or too ignorant to get that.
--- End quote ---
And bad pet owners (generally) seem to have a trend of being lackluster parents to boot.
awkwardness:
--- Quote from: Tyr on 08 Feb 2021, 19:15 ---In my opinion, a 'spray' on a human's prosthetic is no more culturally appropriation-y in the abstract than a human scribbling on their own arm with ink. Furthermore, forbidding a human from decorating their prosthetic with a spray would be a slippery slope.
--- Quote from: A Strawman to demonstrate the slope I envision on 08 Feb 2021, 19:15 ---If a Human isn't allowed to apply ink to their prosthetic's dermal because that's an AI thing, should humans be allowed to have dermal covering on their prosthetic at all? That's literally an AI's SKIN! In fact, should humans be permitted prosthetics of that style at all, seeing as that arm or leg or hand or foot is using components that could embody an AI, and HUMANS have appropriated it for their own use!
--- End quote ---
Now, there's murky territory in human 'sprays' to be sure, e.g. a human who wants a permanent spray to restore a design that was lost to an injury (e.g. the design ran from their spine down both arms and their right arm below the elbow in a car crash) need permission from the original artist for the design to be restored, but is it expected that this is a service tattoo artists would need to perform (at the normal rate? prorated as a 'touch up'? I don't have any tattoos, myself, so I don't know if that's a thing) , or would you get permission and then go to a spray artist? If someone with an extant prosthetic wants a tattoo, would they need to go to a special shop for a combined spray/tattoo artist or a collaboration?
--- End quote ---
Why would they need to get permission from the artist to redo a tattoo that they paid that was on their body? They don't own you, they don't own the artwork that they put on you. WHy should they have any say in someone getting their lost limb inked to fix what is essentially a broken piece of art?
They have no right to your body at all, it's your body. They can refuse to touch-up someone's work or they can alter it to make it original as is tradition among artists, but they have no right to refuse to allow you to go to someone to fix a tattoo that was damaged by the loss of a limb...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version