I have been thinking about the header art for a certain toy for a few days now, and I wanted to post it to this particular forum because 1) there seem to be more women around and 2) there seem to overall be intelligent people here.

I don't know if the Nag Nag Nag toy has been discussed here at all. It is a Japanese toy designed to look as ugly as possible and produced to be as rare as imaginable. Collectors pay top dollar for these to acquire a sense of status that actually only positions them as the chumps at the end of a manufactured rainbow of hype. But people are free to like whichever aesthetics they are drawn to and spend their money however they wish. This is not my issue. I wrote a little about it in an attempt to understand it here.





My issue pertains to these header cards, drawn by L'amour Supreme and Greg Riviera of Mishka. I think my generation is really struggling with issues or irony and desensitization, and for some people, the end result is attempting to be as offensive as possible to at least get some reaction. People often mistake being offensive as being punk. (This is also not some sort of high concept provocative art like Piss Christ.) I, personally, don't understand why the Nag Nag Nag header cards have to include these depictions of women. It seems extraneous to the art. So I asked the artists why.

This lead to a vitriolic Twitter volley complete with rape and abortion "humor" from Joel and Greg. I was disappointed that no one else really chimed in, but two women eventually did submit their disapproval.

When "lowbrow art superstar" COOP asked Greg if any "real women" had joined the debate, Riviera responded "A couple annoying hipster Asian girls. Def no woman." The conversation pretty much degenerated with Riviera calling a fellow blogger a "dumb *!#%*" and ultimately deciding things were just "not rapey enough".

Do people think this is funny? Or OK? Has 90s political correctness swung so far in the other direction that we're loathe to even simply ask questions about freedom of expression? I see that on another forum, I've just been derogatorily called women's genitalia for questioning the art in a Mishka-fronted thread. This is typically why I don't stay long on fan forums b/c the anonymity seems to give cowards a real confidence boost. At the same time, I don't want to gift Mishka any further hype on the upcoming toys by blogging about it.

What are your thoughts?

I think it's one of those things that you either appreciate or you don't. It exists to either be loved or loathed. Did everyone love G.G. Allen? No. It sparks curiosity and a certain devilish desire in people when they are confronted with such images. Who care's about genre or if it's punk rock. If it's punk rock it won't look for a genre. There is art and humor in everything. I think this is art.

speaking honestly and freely- I have a vagina and have absolutely no problem with either of those images. I think people are WAY too sensitive. Don't get me wrong, I do not believe in offending people and I hate racists etc. but a joke is a joke. And no, I don't think a cartoon woman being sht on with acid is degrading. Nor is having I guess teeth pulled from her vagina? LOL I am offended by lawmakers who try and make things difficult for women, blacks, gays, minorities etc. That is when people should get their panties in a bunch and care, because that affects people's everyday rights and lives.

I'm obviously not as in tune to the art scene as you are due to my current residence in Nebraska, and I am not familiar with the artist. The bottom picture is beyond tasteless, but like you said he is obviously trying to provoke disgust for personal gain. The only way I can see this being worthwhile is if this was made for a comic strip and Glen Beck replaced the female portrayed in these header cards. I also agree that it's "overworked" with the addition of these depictions. The creepy guy by himself would be enough, especially if he has that bad of indigestion problems. And why is Orko making an appearance?

Hi Dinkycow, thanks for writing back about this. If I'm one of just a few who thinks there's something off about it, you're right: I'll turn to focusing the energy elsewhere. It's strange...I'm not usually one to easily be offended, just shit in the news and the cavalier attitude about it from the artists kind of combined to get under my skin.

Hi Marleybone, it's funny you mention Glenn Beck! I had the same reaction and requested he be substituted for the woman in the header. Mishka's response was that it wouldn't work because "Beck isn't a woman". (He actually gets minor points for saying the same about Bachmann, a human being who neither gender would be particularly proud to claim...)

My subjective opinion: I don't think it's funny or ok. I agree that there does seem to be a shift toward the extreme in an effort to get a response. I also agree that there is an alarming growth in desensitization in popular media that has to be contributing to this.

I work in the video game industry and have been playing games since the days of pong, zork, pac-man, etc. As a teenager I got a kick out of the original Mortal Kombat games, but the one that just came out is a bit shocking to me as an adult. I'm also concerned with some of the marketing for this game where they focus on the female characters brutalizing each other.

Getting back to the header card art, it's a shame that there is a fan base or following for this but I don't see it ever gaining widespread appeal. There will always be people interested in shocking others or being shocked. At the end of the day this stuff will probably be quickly forgotten by the majority.

The attitudes of the people behind this are short sighted and narrow minded. In my opinion of course.

That is too funny - and his response seems to coincide with his depictions. Oh well, might just have to photoshop him in and send it to my Right Wing Father in Law.

If it bothers you or offends you, that's your right. I personally just don't see it as an anti-woman thing. I also don't understand when people complain about offensive tv, or magazines, or what not for the simple reason that you can turn the channel, not look at the magazine etc. For me the dangers lies in offensive things that are teaching people to be ignorant, hateful, racist, violent towards women etc. If for some reason those images angered me rather than making me laugh, I just wouldn't buy their art. Maybe I should have started with the disclaimer that I have a really warped sense of humor LOL

I think more offensive to women is a system that allows Charlie Sheen to physically assault women for 20 years with no punishment. That teen pregnancy show on MTV, where high school girls are now trying to get pregnant so they can be famous on TV, I think is much more harmful and degrading to women.

While the mention of Beck makes me ill to my stomach, replacing the woman with him would be just as 'offensive' - just to another group of people. LOL

I sense that the hipster-sleazeball type volley between you and the two artists was largely an exercise in acting and/or persona-projecting on their part. Or, if I'm wrong, it's probably that they're fairly immature. But in a scene of bigger, grosser, most rare, most over the top, and most offensive.... I would think that overtly antisocial and immature behavior like that is almost expected. Not that I think it makes it something to aspire to, but it's what I would expect to come from it.

I don't think it's going to be the cause of any social disaffection, but it certainly seems to be the result of it. And I agree with you in terms of the pendulum-swinging metaphor. Seems the whole point of anything hip/lowbrow/edgy/street/fringey these days is to just be as utterly unbelievable and over the top as you possibly can....There's only so far you can go before you start to get into actually offensive territory, and oh the hipster artists love to flirt with that stuff.

It all just strikes me as being pretty puerile.

boys should just whip them out already and measure LOL

I refuse to take part in those annoying debates where people are clearly not actually stating opinions or what not, but are either having a pissing contest or start trying to just offend to be offensive or cause trouble for shts and giggles. And as mentioned the Internet unfortunately creates an easy playground for people to hide behind anonymity and say things that in real life would never even have the guts to think in public.

Isn't this a strange phenomenon? Because of the games you mention, I'm guessing we're about the same age. Do you remember when Parental Advisory Labels started appearing on albums? I certainly was opposed to that. And now, like you, I see something on TV sometimes and think, wow, you can show that at prime time on basic cable?

But see, just being introspective about how times change will prompt people to say things like how even thinking what you expressed here means you certainly think violent videogames cause kids to go out and murder. There's no winning when you are in a debate with people who don't think.



It gets even more offensive when you put a number to the wages Charlie Sheen was getting paid to be Charlie Sheen.

I really agree. I finally watched that documentary "The Treasures of Long Gone John," and there's a part talking about how there are no critics in the lowbrow art scene and how that's good because art critics are just failed artists, etc. I thought that was interesting (and short-sighted). Have gallerists replaced critics?

The pendulum has swung so far that to admit you find something offensive is to suggest that you are humorless. And in this era of the ironic hipster, getting the joke is essential.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Amanda.

... of course the slams against conservative/republicans/tea party members is getting pretty tiresome... and for some reason it seems almost acceptable to many here in the art world. (not directing that at any one person either)

wishing harm on any living, breathing person that is innocent of any severe crimes is pretty offensive and juvenile in my mind-- Beck and Bachmann included.

Disagreeing with policies, politics and principles is fine. I think it's what makes America a great country to an extent. I've seen good and bad come from all sides though, and there's absolutely no way any side can preach their innocence-- historically, or presently.

I'm also very fond of the word "why" in politics and life. I love to try and see things from different perspectives and see where that person/people are coming from. I find instead of taking sides when you ask yourself why and try to see where people are coming from you'll have a better understanding of things.

So as to not derail this further I'll stop with that line of thinking now.

As for the header cards, I really don't see much wrong with it. I'm a male so I know you weren't directing this thread towards me, but the acid poo is more humorous to me than anything, and I think NagNagNag is kind of a cute character. I find beauty in ugly things though, so maybe I'm not the best person to give an opinion on the subject. The first header card is a little more controversial in my mind for a few different reasons that I don't feel like going into. It's still not all that bad though since everything I could tie it into doesn't really appear in the card art.

I do see your point in the desensitizing of today's culture and society. I think it's a very valid point. I've thought that for sometime now. I can't preach my own innocence in that subject matter though because I'm a huge fan of the horror genre and well, let's face it, that's pretty much all horror movies are. I'm also a fan of many other things that are considered "violent". I think the major problem more or less is it's not the subject matter as much as what it does to an individual. I can watch a movie about mass murderers and serial killers and compartmentalize it in my mind. Sadly though, there are many who can't in today's society. There's many reasons for that so I can't name just one.

geez, I remember when the Simpsons and Madonna's cone bra were the ones getting all the controversy about being too crude.

ANYWAY, I also find it kind of funny that you would see "Piss Jesus" in a different light than these header cards. I've always thought that making fun of different religions is pretty much as tacky and lame as you can get, and does not make very intelligent art at all. All it does in my mind is make something controversial in the least thought provoking way. Of course I'm not one who can speak of what art is, or should be, so I usually just keep quiet on the subject. Since I haven't heard the artist speak of his work and his inspiration I can't really see where they're coming from either. All I know about that piece of art is that it exists.



OK, I'm done rambling now.

Personally I don't like the Nag Nag Nag or a fan of the art on the cards, but if you don't like it dont look at it. Nags are rare as you said so 10 to 20 people will/would see it? I would have never seen it and the art wasn't used as advertising on websites so it would have disappeared faster then the nag.

I can honestly say that I respect your opinion...but I can also say that your opinion irritates me. Have you ever seen a horror movie? or a horror movie t-shirt? Or exploitation films? Or art for a death metal record? Just because you aren't into it doesn't give you the right to go against it. Like I said before, I respect your opinion, I don't respect your rally. I think everyone should have access to what they believe to be art. Have you ever seen those Todd Mcfarlan (sp?) gore toys? where women are split open or in bondage? These Nag toys aren't HALF as bad as that, and you're going after their header art....It's sad to me that people are surprised by things like this. What makes you different than the people you said you wished replaced the women on those header cards? They have opposing views that you don't believe in? Ironic.