![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I really should know better, but I clicked on a link to the DC message boards, topic of the new Frank Miller cover.
In summary... this is why I’m going to stay way the hell over here okay thanks. However, one exchange did catch my attention and would not let me shake it as it might have a sane person.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
maelithil:
Depicting [women] as an ass, a pair of tits, some gorgeous thighs is doing them a disservice. Distilling them into nothing but their sexual attributes is objectifying. And that's exactly what this cover does.
Random Fanboy:
And notice that Superman's chest is OFTEN a whole panel unto itself. Not Superman fighting the bad guy. Not Superman standing full figure. Superman's chest. Just his chest. His huge, massive, S-draped, extraterrestrially muscular chest. Is Superman being objectified? Is he being used? Should I cry for Superman?
And. Just. What? This is the counterexample?
But! Maybe it’s not that his logic is just that scary. Maybe it's hard to understand what she’s talking about because it really, honestly is that there’s no comparable example featuring a male denizen of the DCU. I mean, even the occasional Nightwing crotch shot *tries* to have context.
Obviously, something had to be done. For The Good Of Fandom.
Luckily, much like Miller, I have no shame.
Totally Appropriate Covers (with bonus, never before seen script excerpts!)
Hal’s flying away from us through a generic starfield, nothing interesting to see except him. Have him wriggle around, giving us a good shot of his package. Add some details, something fancy for the fanboys to drool over, but don’t let it draw attention away from the point of the cover – that Kyle has nothing, NOTHING, on my boy Hal.
Be careful with this one – we don’t want Supes to come off as too powerful, too imposing. Maybe have him lean a bit, off balance, the better to show off his *well filled* briefs. He's fiddling with the waist line, such a cock *heh* tease. He knows he’s got what we want, and if we turn the cover, he’ll let us have it.
Well, we’ve done just about every variation on the theme by now, so let’s go back to the basics: Black on black, a full cover shot of Batman’s ass. Add in the utility belt for colour – give it that Sin City look. Show me thick, powerful legs under that latex or whatever the hell he wears. Clenched butt muscles. Make it obvious this is no BatGIRL we’re talking about.
In summary... this is why I’m going to stay way the hell over here okay thanks. However, one exchange did catch my attention and would not let me shake it as it might have a sane person.
maelithil:Depicting [women] as an ass, a pair of tits, some gorgeous thighs is doing them a disservice. Distilling them into nothing but their sexual attributes is objectifying. And that's exactly what this cover does.
Random Fanboy:
And notice that Superman's chest is OFTEN a whole panel unto itself. Not Superman fighting the bad guy. Not Superman standing full figure. Superman's chest. Just his chest. His huge, massive, S-draped, extraterrestrially muscular chest. Is Superman being objectified? Is he being used? Should I cry for Superman?
And. Just. What? This is the counterexample?
But! Maybe it’s not that his logic is just that scary. Maybe it's hard to understand what she’s talking about because it really, honestly is that there’s no comparable example featuring a male denizen of the DCU. I mean, even the occasional Nightwing crotch shot *tries* to have context.
Obviously, something had to be done. For The Good Of Fandom.
Luckily, much like Miller, I have no shame.
Totally Appropriate Covers (with bonus, never before seen script excerpts!)
Hal’s flying away from us through a generic starfield, nothing interesting to see except him. Have him wriggle around, giving us a good shot of his package. Add some details, something fancy for the fanboys to drool over, but don’t let it draw attention away from the point of the cover – that Kyle has nothing, NOTHING, on my boy Hal.
Be careful with this one – we don’t want Supes to come off as too powerful, too imposing. Maybe have him lean a bit, off balance, the better to show off his *well filled* briefs. He's fiddling with the waist line, such a cock *heh* tease. He knows he’s got what we want, and if we turn the cover, he’ll let us have it.
Well, we’ve done just about every variation on the theme by now, so let’s go back to the basics: Black on black, a full cover shot of Batman’s ass. Add in the utility belt for colour – give it that Sin City look. Show me thick, powerful legs under that latex or whatever the hell he wears. Clenched butt muscles. Make it obvious this is no BatGIRL we’re talking about.
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Yeah right....
"I have never seen a comic that had the focus purely on a female characters genitalia, in the same manner you've depicted theses male characters bulges."
Thinking out loud is fine. The posted "examples" were being directly compared to Millers WW cvr. They're overly exaggerated examples and calling them "equal" in camparison is absurd.
And to quote you:
"There is, however, a LOT of focus on crotches and breasts and ass. See above example."
Now I'll quote another piece of my post cause it seems like you never read it:
"I can understand your reasons to rant and I'm not saying there isn't any exploitation going on, but these example covers have gone to the XXX extreme to inflate the point and then are being compared as "equal", which is complete utter bullshit."
Is my point coming across yet, have the blinders become transparent now. Or is someone going to post another example of a exploited female character for no reason.
And just for your info, I don't give a flying crap about owning a LG, blog, or myspace account, even if it is somehow inconvenient to you. So nut yourself up if that's what gives you kicks.
However I did check out your LG, and it was interesting to see that you are an artist. I did a quick google image search of your name and it only took getting to the second page of images to find a art print of a NAKED WOMAN SHOWING OFF HER TITS (or tit rather) AND ASS.
Just so were on the same page, the image I'm refering to: http://tinyurl.com/o64rl
Now here's what I want to know (assuming you are the same artist from the linked pic), how can you cry foul on Miller, the art of your posted image in fact, and other exploitive works, when you yourself are partaking in the very subject matter you say your against. You don't find that HYPOCRITICAL, because it is, HUGELY. From the other images that came up it looks like your art is largely aimed at a female audience and looks generally mild and flowery, so why is someone targeting that demographic, and who is hardcore anti T and A (that ADV cover was'nt that big of a deal BTW), wind up doing such a piece?
Ultimately it's going to boil down into one or more of the same reasons that Millar and the other offenders do it, exposure, money, and gratification. Unless someone had a gun to your head making you do that piece, your as much of an "offender" as the other artists this messageboard rants about, making your statements conflicting.
Again, if the linked pic isn't yours I retract my comments, but if it is, consider your views null and void, hypocrits don't get a vote in my book.
From:
Re: Yeah right....
I did the painting for myself, originally, at a time when I was employed by Gainax, but didn't have anything to do after moving from Texas to California.
Thanks for reading my LJ.
I'm sorry you missed the point about my objection to the ADV cover, which wasn't that it was T&A (there's very little T and no A), but that it looks like 80's-era anime porn. The girl looks frightened, her costume looks like lingerie, and she is depicted as a captive in a dungeon. My problem is that the cover (which also appears on the Japanese DVD) is wildly inappropriate for an anime that is really meant for young girls, and my ranting was about makers of anime larding in what looks like fanservice for paedophiles.
But, apparently, you just saw the picture of it and moved on without reading what I said about it.
You could sign your name since you're so passionate, maybe provide a URL. That doesn't take any time at all.
I don't give a shit if you consider my views null and void. I'm not afraid, nor crushed, nor the least worried, of your poor opinion of me.
P.S.: It's aren't, the contraction of "you are" is you're, and hypocrite.
From:
Re: Yeah right....
I think someone at West Coast Comics in Australia is really optimistic in pricing it at $190.00 US.
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Yeah right....
A tit is a tit, an ass is an ass. The character is being exploited in a T and A fashion, more so than the villianized Miller cover because she's naked. How can you justify one form of female exploitation as opposed to another. Wether you are selling it to a general audience or not, is also irrelevant. If I can google it so can others.
You have made it clear that your against female exploitation, yet you have a clearly exploitive piece of art for sale. Do you not see that contradicts your view point and eliminates any credit it may have, not only to me, but to everyone else on this subject?
My statements were never ment to give you a bowel movement. Nor were they ment to scare, crush, or worry you. You can sell as many prints of whatever you like to whomever you like. Good luck with your art, all the power to you.
Thanks for correcting my spelling of "hypocrite", I'll return the favor by posting the definition of it for you:
hypocrite:
1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
For some more enlightenment: http://www.hardcoretruth.com/Hypocrisy/
P.S: There's no "a" in pedophile.
From:
Re: Yeah right....
Yes, I feel completely enlightened by a site with misleadingly-named links to get rich quick schemes, and 150+ point screeds about Liberals.
Or the one about being an honest hypocrite. Priceless.
"P.S: There's no "a" in pedophile."
Variant spelling, legitimate. See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paedophile. Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
That would be a real dictionary, published by Merriam-Webster, not a definition supplied by "Hard Core Truth."
And now I'm done!
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Yeah right....
Or the one about being an honest hypocrite. Priceless."
What does an ad on a site have to do with the actual content of the site? Again, your pointing out something irrelevant. Considering my claim against you, the subject matter of the link has merit and relevance.
The topic of the honest hypocrite (a hypocrite is a hypocrite to me really), boils down to the fact a honest hypocrite sees and understands their faults, where as a regular hypocrite tries to justify and perceive things around them in a false manner as if to encapsulate themselves with lies to create a "I can do no wrong" persona.
When you tell me "she's standing in water" is suppose to somehow justify your prints exploitive nature, your deluding yourself, and exemplifying the "I can do no wrong" persona.
The new topless doodle for your avatar is only digging you a grave, and solidfies my claim. I take it your new avatar was meant to irritate me in some way? (psst...I'm not the one complaining about T&A, remember). In fact, this character shares the same petit, child like similarities as that ADV cvr you went off on, on your LG, conflicting your view points even more, now that's *priceless*.
If you check Hard Core Truth again, you'll see that in their introductory definition of "hypocrite", they quote from WEBSTER'S NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY. You don't get much more "real dictionary" than that.
Thank you for enlightening me on the duel spelling of pedophile (or paedophile, whichever you prefer). At least I can say I got something out of this. I would have seriously prefered some enlightenment regarding the subject of the discussion, and your reasoning as to why you think you (or someone with your mentallity) should be able to sell exploitive works, but others like DC and Miller should'nt.
To be honest I don't think you could give me an answer, but it would have been interesting to see you try. Your thought process is conflicted, and from some of your responses, completely baffling and enigmatic.
All the best to you with your art. Good day.
From: (Anonymous)
Re: Yeah right....
There is in the UK, septic tank.
From:
Re: Yeah right....
This -->
And just for your info, I don't give a flying crap about owning a LG, blog, or myspace account, even if it is somehow inconvenient to you. So nut yourself up if that's what gives you kicks.
Fails the "civil" test.
(And yes, of course, this applies to
From:
Re: Yeah right....
From:
Re: Yeah right....