NEW PRODUCT: WOLFKING: 1/6 Head #WK-T012 (Putin)

Product Name: 1/6 Iron Fist President Head Product no.:WK-T012 The large cargo head carving is equipped with a neck connector









#newproduct #Wolfking #IronFistPresident #male #headsculpt #accessory

Not the first (and probably not the last) rendition of Putin in sixth scale. Instantly recognizable.
Friendly reminder of the forum's strict political neutrality policy.

To be clear. This is a piece of plastic with someone's likeness, like so many others before it. Like any of them, it could be potentially used in a variety of ways, intended or unintended by its designers and manufacturers. Whether or not these ways have a place on this forum, the product itself is just a product that is out there, and this space is intended to make available images and information on products, not engage in political debates and recriminations. Any incendiary postings will be deleted.

JohnByng wrote:You seem to deliberately misunderstand the nature of this piece of plastic. It is not simply the representation of a controversial figure, it is the likeness of a mass murderer who is killing men, women and children as we engage in this pathetic debate.

Whatever it could be used for is beside the point. You are giving space to a message of hatred. "Iron Fist President" and Putin's signature make the purpose of the timing of this release all to obvious. It could not be more blatant!

You can continue to pretend to yourself that politics has no place in this forum but by providing a platform for these fascistic icons of despotic regimes you are, de facto, committing a political act.

Don't bother to ban me, I quit!

JohnByng, I think you may be misunderstanding GF's position or cautious advice, so let me interject another voice. I know you've made intelligent contributions so I hope you will reconsider. To some extent I think you are confusing the plastic representation with the thing itself/himself. You will not find me disagreeing with anything in the substance of your first paragraph, but fortunately that is something that is being said and heard all over the world, and it wouldn't add anything fruitful to carry it over to this forum, which would be ill-suited to it anyway. Bear two things in mind, maybe. (1) When Time Magazine chooses the Man of the Year, they are clear that no approval is involved, just a recognition of world impact good or bad. A plastic head should be given the same latitude surely, especially when it's not apparently Russian made, or a specific proganda item. And (2) perhaps it helps to think that as the piece of plastic isn't the man itself, it doesn't inherently "give space to a message of hatred" just by being here (or anywhere). The opposite could be true -- some artist could just as easily use this piece of plastic in a way that would completely express what you are saying in your second sentence and use it to persuade people of something that needs to be said.

Thank you for the constructive input, MBAM, I could not have said it better myself, and completely agree. By the looks of it, my private message to JB did not get that across. I certainly feel that politicizing this or making more of it than it is (whether deliberately or subconsciously misunderstanding the meaning of "neutral") is harmful to the forum, and would result in intrusive, destructive, and potentially arbitrary censorship (and I am fully aware of the irony of censoring that myself). Hence, a commitment to strict neutrality on principle, however awkward that may be at times, and however unpopular or incomprehensible it may be with some.

GubernatorFan wrote:Thank you for the constructive input, MBAM, I could not have said it better myself, and completely agree. By the looks of it, my private message to JB did not get that across. I certainly feel that politicizing this or making more of it than it is (whether deliberately or subconsciously misunderstanding the meaning of "neutral") is harmful to the forum, and would result in intrusive, destructive, and potentially arbitrary censorship (and I am fully aware of the irony of censoring that myself). Hence, a commitment to strict neutrality on principle, however awkward that may be at times, and however unpopular or incomprehensible it may be with some.

I think the thing that people get triggered by, in the heat of the emotion, is some kind of erroneous assumption that by talking about the neutrality of the representative object, somehow we are implying both sides of the underlying issue are necessarily equivalent. Or that somehow, we're saying silly toys are more important than world events. Neither of those would be a fair statement. But "the map is not the territory." Another way to look at it is this. If someone posted somewhere, "Here is a source of photographs that would be useful to anyone writing an article about the Russia Ukraine situation," I doubt John Byng or anyone could take issue with that. We need words, pictures, songs and little plastic heads in order to be able to talk about anything. The content of that talking is up to the speaker and it's somewhere else than here.

Moonbase Alpha Male wrote:I think the thing that people get triggered by, in the heat of the emotion, is some kind of erroneous assumption that by talking about the neutrality of the representative object, somehow we are implying both sides of the underlying issue are necessarily equivalent.  Or that somehow, we're saying silly toys are more important than world events.  Neither of those would be a fair statement.  But "the map is not the territory."  Another way to look at it is this.  If someone posted somewhere, "Here is a source of photographs that would be useful to anyone writing an article about the Russia Ukraine situation," I doubt John Byng or anyone could take issue with that.  We need words, pictures, songs and little plastic heads in order to be able to talk about anything.  The content of that talking is up to the speaker and it's somewhere else than here.

I think this is all very true, and very well put. The real world issues are very real and very divisive. Recent events and the horrors of war have made it relatively easy to adopt a black-and-white view of the situation, even if, without being a specialist, I know enough of the region's history to know that things are not entirely clear cut when it comes to the underlying motivations and justifications -- just as is the case with the aftermath of the division of any supra-national empire, be it in South Asia, Africa, the Near East, Central Europe, the Balkans, or most recently the Soviet Union. But, again, these aspects neither change current realities nor belong within the scope of this space. At the risk of appearing to be suggesting politically charged courses of action, this little piece of molded plastic, while it is an inanimate object, might become propaganda (of one kind or another) depending on who possesses it and what he or she does with it; but whether one puts it up in a shrine or melts it in a fire, is beyond our purview (and might not belong on this forum ether way). It might also be a valuable addition to one's collection of real-world or historical leaders, good or/and bad, and censoring it might have a negative impact on a collector's ability to enjoy this hobby.

GubernatorFan wrote:

Moonbase Alpha Male wrote:I think the thing that people get triggered by, in the heat of the emotion, is some kind of erroneous assumption that by talking about the neutrality of the representative object, somehow we are implying both sides of the underlying issue are necessarily equivalent.  Or that somehow, we're saying silly toys are more important than world events.  Neither of those would be a fair statement.  But "the map is not the territory."  Another way to look at it is this.  If someone posted somewhere, "Here is a source of photographs that would be useful to anyone writing an article about the Russia Ukraine situation," I doubt John Byng or anyone could take issue with that.  We need words, pictures, songs and little plastic heads in order to be able to talk about anything.  The content of that talking is up to the speaker and it's somewhere else than here.

I think this is all very true, and very well put. The real world issues are very real and very divisive. Recent events and the horrors of war have made it relatively easy to adopt a black-and-white view of the situation, even if, without being a specialist, I know enough of the region's history to know that things are not entirely clear cut when it comes to the underlying motivations and justifications -- just as is the case with the aftermath of the division of any supra-national empire, be it in South Asia, Africa, the Near East, Central Europe, the Balkans, or most recently the Soviet Union. But, again, these aspects neither change current realities nor belong within the scope of this space. At the risk of appearing to be suggesting politically charged courses of action, this little piece of molded plastic, while it is an inanimate object, might become propaganda (of one kind or another) depending on who possesses it and what he or she does with it; but whether one puts it up in a shrine or melts it in a fire, is beyond our purview (and might not belong on this forum ether way). It might also be a valuable addition to one's collection of real-world or historical leaders, good or/and bad, and censoring it might have a negative impact on a collector's ability to enjoy this hobby.

All true. As a side note, it's kind of interesting how viewpoint content can sneak in with ostensibly neutral objects. Some of the early 3R figures were expressive in a particular way, though the later ones became more "purely photographic." DiD's Donald Trumps carried a bit of implied content through facial expression and accessories, but more like caricature than politics. The head that we're talking about in this thread seems totally central/neutral on its face, except the name "Iron Fist President Head" suggests ironically that its makers wouldn't disagree with John Byng. I don't think Iron Fist President would be a compliment unless it was some kind of Marvel Comics Kung Fu story line. Now that I think of it, do you think maybe it would turn the heat down on this thread to lose that caption in the thread name (unless you think it's necessary for people to locate the head?)

Moonbase Alpha Male wrote:All true.  As a side note, it's kind of interesting how viewpoint content can sneak in with ostensibly neutral objects.  Some of the early 3R figures were expressive in a particular way, though the later ones became more "purely photographic."  DiD's Donald Trumps carried a bit of implied content through facial expression and accessories, but more like caricature than politics. The head that we're talking about in this thread seems totally central/neutral on its face, except the name "Iron Fist President Head" suggests ironically that its makers wouldn't disagree with John Byng.  I don't think Iron Fist President would be a compliment unless it was some kind of Marvel Comics Kung Fu story line.  Now that I think of it, do you think maybe it would turn the heat down on this thread to lose that caption in the thread name (unless you think it's necessary for people to locate the head?)

I agree. The preferences of China's government have been noticed reflected in some Chinese-manufactured items before, and this may well be the case here. One might add that having to fall in line with the demands of a totalitarian government does not necessarily reflect the beliefs of individual companies and their employees, who may feel differently but have to appease and flatter; or, amorally, use the opportunity to make a buck. Moreover, whatever these demands and preferences, ultimately this is what one makes of it. "Iron Fist" can be good or bad depending on the context and intention; it could even be neutral. It did occur to me to remove it from the heading, especially as it is not actually in the promotional photos. So I did -- our internal search feature is so bad, it would probably make no difference, and googling should find it either way. But I do think it has been possibly over-interpreted. Even more so the "signature," which is just Putin's full name rendered in English with cursive font, and looks nothing like his real signature (for which see Wikipedia).

GubernatorFan wrote:Even more so the "signature," which is just Putin's full name rendered in English with cursive font, and looks nothing like his real signature (for which see Wikipedia).

Next, you're going to tell me he didn't actually stop by their studio to pose for this head ?

Moonbase Alpha Male wrote:Next, you're going to tell me he didn't actually stop by their studio to pose for this head ?

Well, I don't know about that... it is a pretty good likeness (although I confess I haven't looked at it side by side with a photo of him).

GubernatorFan wrote:

Moonbase Alpha Male wrote:Next, you're going to tell me he didn't actually stop by their studio to pose for this head ?

Well, I don't know about that... it is a pretty good likeness (although I confess I haven't looked at it side by side with a photo of him).

How would you want to be the sculptor telling Putin that you screwed up his portrait   ?

Moonbase Alpha Male wrote:How would you want to be the sculptor telling Putin that you screwed up his portrait   ?

Oh, I wouldn't. So there are two options: he is so satisfied with his appearance that this is as good as an officially sanctioned portrait (and therefore, arguably, propaganda-worthy), or it is not an officially sanctioned portrait (and therefore, arguably, the opposite of propaganda).

It is a good likeness.  The long neck limits the types of bodies it can be used with. IMO we need more head sculpts of influential people regardless of their historical or political background. There are far more important things to get upset about than a chunk of plastic. Sensitive snowflake priorities need a reality check.

Its Amazing nice blog Admin Keep Sharing your content We Also Read and gain more knowledge Thanks for sharing

Visit my Instagram