Tom Ramcigam (magicmarmot) wrote,
Tom Ramcigam
magicmarmot

Iconnery


I've had a couple of comments lately about some of my user icons being
offensive for various reasons.

Normally, I take it with a grain of salt. If I took away everything that
could possibly offend somebody, there wouldn't be much left. And really,
I haven't put together the icons to be offensive, but to reflect a mood
or a concept.

However, some folks don't get the deeper meaning. They are offended by
the image itself, probably because the image has a different context for
them. This is not new-- consider the reaction to Serrano's Piss
Christ
, where the deeper meaning was subjugated by the outpouring of
hostility over the concept of an Icon being placed in urine and blood.
Where the statement had to do with the separation of the icon from the
thing it represents, it caused a whole wave of violent reaction that
became the bigger story, and the message was lost.

I am no Serrano. I don't pretend that my icons are works of art. But I
don't intend for them to be so offensive as to detract from the concept
that I'm trying to get across. They do have meaning, and I try to use
them judiciously.

So I have after much consideration decided to remove some of the icons
that I have in my icon pool. It's not a caving in to public opinion,
it's eliminating a block to the messages that I want to get across. And
over time, I'll probably eliminate more and replace them with more
artistic and abstract ones since I like playing with iconography and
meaning so much.

Apologies to those who have been seriously offended. I have never meant
to offend. Disturb, shake up, evoke thought, but not offend.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 31 comments