Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Eye's can deceive
Message-ID: <4500039@ccvaxa>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 14:39:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.4500039
Posted: Tue Oct 15 14:39:00 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 17-Oct-85 23:35:40 EDT
References: <10900091@inmet>
Lines: 24
Nf-ID: #R:inmet:10900091:ccvaxa:4500039:000:1106
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece    Oct 15 13:39:00 1985


> /* Written  2:34 pm  Oct 10, 1985 by dwyer@inmet in ccvaxa:net.women */
> I was pleased to receive my copy of IEEE Computer Society Publication's
> catalog.  It took me about ten minutes to see that the graphics on the
> cover, by Steve Smith of Genigraphics Corp., contained a discernable
> image of a naked woman.
----------
Hmmm.  My first reaction was to wonder whether IEEE knew about the
note-exactly-hidden, but not-exactly-obvious image.  I assume they
did.  On reflection, I don't think it's an offensive use of sex,
simply because it ISN'T obvious, catchy, or blatant.  Were I they
I wouldn't have used it, just because there will be some people who
consider ANY use of nudes in advertising ipso facto sexism and
therefore offensive.  Why offend anyone if you can avoid it?
In this case, though, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the
doubt and guess that they meant to present a piece of computer-generated
art, as art, and that the subtle use of a female silhouette was not
meant as sexist or exploitative.

But I'll bet they get letters...

-- 
scott preece
ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece