Community response of new ubuntu artwork

[John]

Karsten Fischer wrote:

>>>
>>>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

I have tried to find them on the net, I've followed links from the 
thread and even gone to the archives (where attachements age destroyed 
so as to prevent people from reading them), but I've not found them.


> 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. 


I've heard writers, when confronted with someone else's interpretation 
of what they wrote, say something like, "That's not what I intended, but 
it is a fair interpretation."

How much more open to interpretation are photographs and other pictures 
than words?


> 
> 
>>>        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. 

Well, it seemed to me that when you said this: "It still is a sad thing 
if a picture like this is perceived as sexual offending," that were 
criticising those who see it so.

The world's largest Moslem nation is immediately to our north, and we 
currently have a cricket team visiting the world's largest democracy.

Most people in both countries have little appreciation of Western ideas, 
if you offer people in the first port, in the second beef you will cause 
mortal offence.

They are both entitled to their viewpoints however much or little _I_ 
hold to them, and I will not criticise them for their views.

I don't think most people in either would approve of Australian beach 
attire, but you can bet that Australians would be pretty hostile of they 
tried to inflict their values on us.


What is important is not what you or I think of the images, but of 
people's perceptions of them. Some people have said that they perceive 
them as not suitable for all places we'd like ubuntu Linux to go. You 
can be sure there are many who've not spoken up but who agree with them.


> 
> 
>>>        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? 
I'm not sure that the native south americans have been well-served by 
missionary programs, but I've not been there to see for myself. I'd say 
that overall, native Australians haven't been well-served (but some of 
those might disagree with me). Largely they're at the bottom of 
Australian society, the least well-off, lest educated, least healthy....


But really, I was referring to efforts at changing people's minds. Not a 
lot of our native Australians have adopted whole-heartedly the views 
esposed by the missionaries; the fact that Australia is largely (loosly) 
Christian arises from the fact that people immigrating have brought 
their culture with them. Mostly, those immigrants have come from 
christian cultures.

Changing peoples' minds will take longer than we have. Encouraging them 
to use linux is enough, without trying to educate them to different art 
appreciation, religious and/or moral views etc.

Even the GPl is a significant culture shock.