I've deliberately stayed out of this; but this thread is exactly what the guy was wanting.
"No such thing as bad publicity". It's getting him noticed. How many people visited his site to see it? Look at Damien Hurst, Tracy Emin, they produce absolute shite, but because it's recognised, its supported and made popular.
Conversely, look at the violin player who plays at the Carnegie who posed as a homeless person. He had no publicity for that, but made nothing, while the one which was publicised got him thousands of dollars.
Stuff like this shouldn't be made, it's not art for the sake of art, or political, it's overt sexualisation and desensitising, hopping on the bandwagon of liberals who are literally too fucking stupid to realise the difference to support and promote; and on sideliners who create discussion over whether it's right/wrong.
Want a way of life to live; if you have to question whether something is right or wrong, it's definitely wrong, and shouldn't be done. And that ranges from the government, to painting scenes of rape, let alone filming it; Caligula.
Having seen that film as well; I can say as well that they were right not to show it. It's not actually added to in any way by showing the rape scenes, they were pure smut and titillation to sell and desensitize; it would be like showing Sauron in Lord of the Rings torturing little kittens to show how evil he is. Going by the films, it doesn't actually say "why" he's so bad, after all, just that he is. But you don't always need that to enjoy a film; in the end that's what it's there for.
I remember being shown The Kite Runner
by my sister's boyfriend who - this is about to sound like utter bull - works for channel 4 as a cameraman. The film insinuates one older boy raping a younger one in one particular scene, and because he's of, in the rapist's eyes, inferior race. The film is set in Afghanistan. It really legitimately shows the xenophobia endemic in the country.
I'm still rather undecided on this piece. You don't need to go far on the internet to stumble across pornographic portrayals of fantasy settings. Calling the piece desensitisation and titillation is not something I relate to. Why? It stirs real disgust in me, and it really doesn't turn me on.
Further than that, I honestly believe some small percentage of humans don't possess the understanding of right or wrong to be able to question if something is or isn't. Should we not at least have means to try and educate them with?
The main difference between seeing something like this in Warhammer 40,000 and in Lord of the Rings is that they both represent themselves differently. Like it or not, Lord of the Rings was written by a Christian whose views on the way the world should be seeped into his storytelling. Lord of the Rings holds many allegories for taking a spiritual path. Sauron is
a force of evil in that background. Some would consider that bad story telling. He has Smeagol/Gollum tortured just because he wants his possession back. Ultimately though, it's an allegory for World War II and the Bible when you look really deep into it. Here's the big difference, though: it never clearly labels itself as background where immensely grim, dark things happen. It took it's chance to say that it could pass by any subject matter it chose to and remain okay for children to read. It essentially let itself be certified.
Warhammer 40,000, on the other hand, has given itself this certificate. It even goes as far as to show it - take for example the mass genocide of loyalists on Isstvan III through virus bombing and bloody scouring. Night Lords flay and crucify their opponents and subject their opponents to terror attacks, that as they read in books, would cause immense trauma to see in reality, if in reality such imaginations could exist. And because it has said and portrayed itself in such an adult fashion at times, we are at liberty to choose whether or not to view it this way.
This is all stuff a child could pick up to read. And along those lines that's why rape is shied away from in the background, and only made the loosest of connections to: because the hobby is 12 and up. It's immensely hypocritical, but at least its a system.
This isn't to say, however, that I don't understand where you're coming from - and maybe you could be so good as to be clearer for those who don't. There is 'no such thing as bad publicity'. Jez, I believe even goes so far to show he's exemplified this. Have I as a liberal realised the difference in supporting this work and promoting it? I'm not really sure any of us knows for sure why the artist created this diorama? I've tried to reason why. I only recently realised that the posting person of the image has the words 'Awesome Stuff' to describe what's on his page. A glance over his content doesn't seem to bring up anything similar to this at all. As a matter of fact his hobby section is pretty regular of what one would expect of the hobby, outside the aforementioned diorama. So whether that banner is quite poorly thought out, an insight to a man out to make money through shock value, or an insight to a perverse mind is debatable.
That being said, I'm not sure if I've just given publicity to a person who doesn't deserve it. I do believe I've at least caused some very healthy conversation through this piece, though. Or I hope so.