That particular cover?

 The artist is Rowena - a woman.

Its also a self-portrait of sorts. She used herself as the model.

About 3 or 4 years ago she was at GEN*CON signing autographs and selling artworks. Over the years she also done the artwork for paperback books written by Anne McCaffrey.

Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowena_Morrill

and:
http://www.pern.nl/art_gallery/official/morrill.html


- Ed C.

Quote from: trechriron;811113I think it's a great piece BECAUSE it's eye-catching! :-) When this book was published, it was expected to be competing with other books on a book shelf in a gaming store. I have a "print" of this picture framed on my wall in my family room! :-) I feel it is appropriate to the themes in the book AND the marketing strategy used at the time.

Well, would you agree with my tentative assessment that it is purely decorative? i.e. It isn't depicting expected adventure material of the game, but rather is just an image designed to be eye-catching. Or is there a template in the book that fits with doing rituals in the nude, for example?

Most of the other GURPS covers show stuff that seems like it is expected from adventures:  characters who could be PCs or their antagonists, action of the sort you might see in adventures, etc. Horror shows a monster; Bestiary shows a beast; Magic shows various magicians in action who seem like PCs; etc.

There are exceptions, of course. GURPS Religion is one, but it is an odd book as well - which is more about world-building than about directly supporting PC adventures. So the cover of a hooded figure holding an orb seems roughly fitting.

Quote from: rawma;811095That's the somatic component. The material component was apparently most of her clothing.

maybe its an abstinence component caster must go without clothing for a week before casting this spell

Quote from: rawma;811095That's the somatic component. The material component was apparently most of her clothing.

maybe its an abstinence component caster must go without clothing for a week before casting this spell

I think that it is a neat painting, although I'm weirded out by people without any eyebrows. But yeah, it is borderline pinup (that's almost a swimsuit pose) so I guess that one could argue that it would make more sense appearing in an artbook than in an RPG. However, I've seen several representations of witchcraft rituals  (especially "satanic" ones) wherein nudity was a thing (I personally like a bit of sexy mixed in with occult stuff) so I guess that it works and that I'm a fan.

I don't quite get the perspective, though. Is that a fireplace behind her? Or is it a doorway in the background? It looks super close to her, but I'm not sure.

Quote from: jhkim;811108Thanks for the specific example. I'm not familiar with the book content, but I believe it is a non-setting-specific resource book for magic - right? So there's no real telling if the nudity is appropriate for the setting per se. Is there anything in the book that suggests nudity as an option for characters? i.e. Are there any reasons in the book for a caster to be nude when doing a ritual?

Aside from some magical traditions having rituals that are performed in the nude, no, there is no specific reason.

Quote(The sucked-in stomach and shaven armpits also suggest that to me.)

To be fair, body hair is often lacking in full clothed pictures, particularly of women. Its not generally considered aesthetically pleasing even if the picture isn't "eye candy" per se or the artist just doesn't consider it since shaving them is very common today.

I think the picture is sexy but not sexualized (assuming I understand what the Hell that's even supposed to mean). The sorceress doesn't look demeaned, deprotagonized or an object for the dreaded "male gaze". She seems confident and sure of herself with an air of implied power/knowledge to me. She's a characters that, visually at least, might be one the women in my group would be interested in playing or maybe one from her sect/cabal/coven.


And this line of discussion is a good example of why nudity will always be controversial in our current culture. Getting even a small group of people to agree on what's tasteful, let alone appropriate seems almost impossible. Nudity, especially female nudity, is hot button topic in our society.

I personally don't think art needs to cater to the norms of any society.

I also think people having a problem with nudity in art says more about them than the art.

Quote from: Koltar;811117That particular cover?

 The artist is Rowena - a woman.

Its also a self-portrait of sorts. She used herself as the model.

About 3 or 4 years ago she was at GEN*CON signing autographs and selling artworks. Over the years she also done the artwork for paperback books written by Anne McCaffrey.

Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowena_Morrill

and:
http://www.pern.nl/art_gallery/official/morrill.html


- Ed C.

Pictures of Red Sonja in her classic chain mail bikini can draw completely different reactions from the same people based on the sex of the artist.

Quote from: Nexus;811163Pictures of Red Sonja in her classic chain mail bikini can draw completely different reactions from the same people based on the sex of the artist.

As someone pointed out before:
Red Sonja's classical outfit is scale mail, not chainmail.
Your point is obvious, though.
Which makes one wonder where the line is drawn ... or if one should draw a line at all?

Ultimately, there's always going to be people that have a problem with anything remotely sexual or related to the human body. There are humans who cannot conceive of someone viewing a nude body without being overcome by libidinal rapaciousness. There are people who see sexual thoughts as a sort of brain disease transferred from the viewing of anything even remotely sexual.

The important thing is to marginalize these extremists, to keep perspective and make sure they are always put in their place as the voices of the irrational. To never legitimize them even by assuming that they represent some sort of oppressed minority or have any claim to validity. Certainly do not cater to them.

Honestly, no amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth by prudes online is going to negatively affect the sale of a product (in many cases I'm certain it improves it).

Quote from: Will;811115At least it doesn't attempt to show her cleavage AND ass crack simultaneously. That's something.

I see you have been looking at Escher Girls, too.

Quote from: Nexus;811158I think the picture is sexy but not sexualized (assuming I understand what the Hell that's even supposed to mean). The sorceress doesn't look demeaned, deprotagonized or an object for the dreaded "male gaze". She seems confident and sure of herself with an air of implied power/knowledge to me. She's a characters that, visually at least, might be one the women in my group would be interested in playing or maybe one from her sect/cabal/coven.

Sexualized as opposed to sexy seems to be when the artist has exaggerated certain parts or aspects of the body, just to be gratuitous.
For the female form, that is usually:
Unnecessarily much bared skin.
Cleavage.
Butt crack.
Thin waist or thin midsection.
Clothes designed to empathise the above things.
Positioning made to empathise the above things.
.....
The last one tends do be the worst one, as it may even put the character in positions that is pinup-like when it should be an action sequence, or even worse, unnecessarily turned sideways at the waist, just to show boobs and butt at the same time.

The cover illustration though, would probably be mainly (if not fully) ok, as full nudity in itself do not seem bad.

Quote from: Catelf;811172As someone pointed out before:
Red Sonja's classical outfit is scale mail, not chainmail.

"Chainmail bikini" is pretty much slang for revealing "female armor" at this point. If its a pejorative or not is, of course, up to the speaker.

Quote from: jhkim;811119Well, would you agree with my tentative assessment that it is purely decorative? i.e. It isn't depicting expected adventure material of the game, but rather is just an image designed to be eye-catching. ...

No. It's not purely decorative. It is in fact depicting a wizard, with wizardly accouterments in the act of some kind of ritual. So, from that perspective, it's somewhat appropriate. You personal bias towards nudity not withstanding.

Yes. It is also decorative, which in the expected intelligence of the SjGames folks, is not surprising. :-) Like I said, I think it was a good cover choice because it's eye-catching.

Just to reiterate my attitude:  

If I'm trying to sell sexy underwear or a romance novel, then I will absolutely put a sexy figure on the ad or cover.

If I'm trying to sell a table saw or a computer printer, then putting a sexy figure on the ad or cover is just stupid. It's absolutely allowed for people to do, but I think it's fucking dumb.

Likewise with games. More specifically...

Quote from: Nexus;811158Aside from some magical traditions having rituals that are performed in the nude, no, there is no specific reason.

Quote from: trechriron;811206No. It's not purely decorative. It is in fact depicting a wizard, with wizardly accouterments in the act of some kind of ritual. So, from that perspective, it's somewhat appropriate. You personal bias towards nudity not withstanding.

Yes, it depicts magic use. But it doesn't look to me like the magic activity pictured is actually expected or supported within the game. Nexus notes that there are some real-world magical traditions have rituals that are performed in the nude - but are any of these actually included in GURPS Wizards?

Quote from: Nexus;811158And this line of discussion is a good example of why nudity will always be controversial in our current culture. Getting even a small group of people to agree on what's tasteful, let alone appropriate seems almost impossible. Nudity, especially female nudity, is hot button topic in our society.

Nudity can be controversial, I agree, but the answer to that is to discuss it maturely. Actually, getting people to agree on artistic taste is almost impossible regardless of nudity.

(Also, while female nudity comes up more often as a topic, male nudity is far more taboo and touchy in my experience. It's just sufficiently taboo that we rarely see it - certainly not on the cover of an RPG book.)

See, I absolutely would expect nudity on the cover of, say, GURPS Witches or Druids or whatever, or neo pagan stuff, or whatever.

Or maenads... those would be fun.

'Hey, sexy drunk chicks! ... Covered in blood... holding a man's penis... with no man attached... eep'