Community response of new ubuntu artwork

[Karsten Fischer]

Am Montag, den 18.10.2004, 19:58 +0800 schrieb John:
> Karsten Fischer wrote:
> 
> >>- especially the login-screen shows people clothed like I see them on the street around here (in summer, that is. if I am
> >> at all angry about this it is because the screen reminds me of the
> >> nearing winter around here. I envy this guy...) 

> People here have stated that they would be embarrassed to show the 
> images under some circumnstances - that seems to me a pretty fair 
> warning that they should be avoided in a product that seeks to be 
> universally popular.

Just to point that out more elaborately:
	Some people have stated that. Not 'the people' in general.

> > 
> > :) You could put me on THAT list as well...
> > 
> > Now, seriously, after reading every mail still available in this thread
> > I'd like to point out two observations:
> > 
> > 
> >         1.    I can hardly see somebody who actually is offended by the
> >         artwork. Most seem to state that there might be others who might
> >         be offended. There is even a term in my language which describes
> >         this kind of behaviour: 'vorauseilender Gehorsam', which is best
> >         translated as: 'premature obedience', no offence meant. Alas, I
> >         might not be able to understand those who state that they are
> >         indeed offended by the pictures, I am really sorry. But in some
> >         of the posts i read '...if they had some clothes on...': What
> >         are you think they are wearing? Toothpaste (sorry if that may
> >         sound offensive, but did you ever happen to be at your local
> >         beach during summer time? )? It still is a sad thing if a
> 
> Attire enjoyed at the beach would be frowned on in church, mosque or 
> temple, the corporate boardroom or (most) weddings. Indeed, many women 
> happy to wear skimpy swimware at the beach would be embarrassed to be 
> seen in public in (less revealing) panties and bra.

I agree. But then: have a look at the pictures, please. And: we are not
talking about religious places, it is just a computer. 

> 
> >         picture like this is perceived as sexual offending - maybe a
> >         statement of the photographer might be helpful. Nevertheless, I
> 
> The viewer need not, often will not, agree with the photographer. 

That entirely depends on the viewer and his or her relationship to the
photographer, besides: it could give you another point of view, which I
personally think is almost always a good idea to have. I personally, in
the work I do, like to discuss with the audience the impression I
thought somebody would get by viewing it, comparing it with the
impression the audiences really got. 

> 
> >         truly believed that the kind of social oppressive societies
> >         which in turn do produce a perception like this in its members
> >         wouldn't exist anymore, in our secularised societies at the very
> >         beginning of the 21st century. Sadly, it seems this belief was
> >         pretty naive. But there is one thing I'd like to remind
> 
> Why do you think everyone has to agree with your view of the world? Many 
> people, most people, hold to other views which seem to them every bit as 
> soundly-based as yours do to you?

Now, stop right there. I never wrote what you seem to imply here. In
fact, my view of the world is just that: mine. Not yours, not everybody
elses. So I truly think that everybody has their own view of the world. 

> 
> >         everybody on this list of: If we always strive for the least
> >         common denominator, we will always gain just that, nothing more.
> 
> Commercial success doesn't depend on product excellence. Just ask Bill. 
> ASK IBM: OS/2 was far more advanced than any Windows of its era.
> 
> Here, we have an excellent product, but still it has to appeal to people 
> with their present views. Let's keep it divorced from a missionary 
> program intended to persuade people to change their opinions. Largely, 
> such programs fail.

I wonder what the native south americans would say to such a statement.
But since you started it: what missionary program you are talking
about? 

> 
> >         "If you want to go to the moon, reach for the stars". The
> >         picture is a reminder of what is Linux all about: people, not a
> >         single person but humans doing something together. Because they
> >         like it. Because doing something for other people is
> >         satisfying. 
> 
> It is fairly evident that some disagree with you.

Excuse my rude language right now: Don't play the self-appointed
advocate for others. I am only talking for myself, nobody else. If you
talk on the behalf of others, fine. Do you? 

And since we are at it: can you please point me to a posting where my
aforementioned paragraph - or the thoughts therein - has been discussed?

> 
> >         
> >         2.    I wonder why nobody did argue about one of the messages
> >         the pictures are telling. Cooperation instead of competition.
> >         Surely this could be perceived as an attack on the very 'holy
> >         grail' of current economics. Somebody up for the challenge?
> >         
> > 
> > I look forward to the discussion today.
> > 
> > 
> >>kind regards,
> >>Carsten Hintz
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > 
> > Karsten
> > 
> > 
> 
>