Cracked.com and sexist costuming in comics
By
Agonus,
Posted on: 2012-01-31 11:41 in Comic and Hero-Villain Culture
We are two posts away from posting the Rob Liefield link, aren't we?
I have an example of bad artistry and function:
Look at Catwoman. She has real, DD sized breasts. Let me teach you something about gymnastics and fatty tissue and Olympic level athletes. Their breasts get reduced, they become much straighter in the body. Her chest ALONE defies all belief because she is a "normal human." Now, if she just off-handily mentioned they were fake, I'd be okay with this.
Her hips are almost matronly, but offset by an impossibly narrow waist to support the acrobatics she does. Her thighs are rightly developed, but then her calves and ankles are not proportional and would snap pulling off the crap she does. Her biceps are correct, but, given the lack of detail in her forearm muscles, one gets the impression she has "soft" muscles there. Which is wrong. Furthermore, check out her shoulders. Very straight, not developed.
A normal human being would rip their arms OFF without the corresponding shoulder and ligament support.
What does this matter? Because she is a normal, athletically gifted **** sapien (sapien). We can let Power Girl, Starfire, et al get away with it because they are aliens and aren't subject to OUR WELL DEFINED BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.
/huff
Edit: there's a scene in Hush before the retcon where you see Selina Kyle in an evening dress and the picture is FLAWLESS. She's not exceedingly curvy, her chest is tight and athletic, her hamstrings and quads are well developed, as are her biceps and forearms. They even went to the trouble of drawing muscle lines above her bosom and made her shoulders much less narrow. The picture radiates confidence and is utterly believable.
Quote:
What do art teachers know? All the art teachers I had were always against using modern tech. I recall, arguing with one of my teachers way back who was trying to talk me into hiring a model for a day for an dynamic pose assignment. The model charged too much an hour for my pocketbook at the time to hire for the day. I told her can't I just hire the model for an hour, and take pictures of her with my digital camera and work from the pictures? She looked at me like I was crazy, and commented how I was always trying to save money with my new fangled ideas for doing the work like doing it with Photoshop, a Wacom tablet, and an offset printer instead of paint, brush, and canvas...it was talking to someone in the middle ages...lol! |
Originally Posted by Durakken
Research that is horrible for learning art. Life art teachers will tell you that you should use ugly/old/overweight models because more lines and creases and such are better to learn from.
|
Modern artists use every reference techniques we can get a hold of to get the job done, whether it be a model posing a few minutes for some pictures to reference from, or doing searches on the internet, and even using 3D model programs like Poser or Daz 3D to get what we need in order to get the job done. As a great professor I had once told me, our first priority as artists is to solve problems.
Quote:
While i agree that you should use use new stuff for medium and taking the strain off the model. I don't see how any of that goes against why you should use models that are not all that pretty... in fact it somewhat goes to show why you should use live models that aren't "good looking" because you can't be certain that what you see in the picture is what you would see and also sense of space and such might be altered by using other references... ie tech can help with quick references, but for learning I think it is best to go with the classic approach.|
Originally Posted by Innovator
What do art teachers know? All the art teachers I had were always against using modern tech. I recall, arguing with one of my teachers way back who was trying to talk me into hiring a model for a day for an dynamic pose assignment. The model charged too much an hour for my pocketbook at the time to hire for the day. I told her can't I just hire the model for an hour, and take pictures of her with my digital camera and work from the pictures? She looked at me like I was crazy, and commented how I was always trying to save money with my new fangled ideas for doing the work like doing it with Photoshop, a Wacom tablet, and an offset printer instead of paint, brush, and canvas...it was talking to someone in the middle ages...lol!
Modern artists use every reference techniques we can get a hold of to get the job done, whether it be a model posing a few minutes for some pictures to reference from, or doing searches on the internet, and even using 3D model programs like Poser or Daz 3D to get what we need in order to get the job done. As a great professor I had once told me, our first priority as artists is to solve problems. |
That spacial thing is kinda important as it translates to figuring out how bodies interact with things around it as well as helping to make things look 3dimensional rather than a flat image.
Also I'd have told your professor that not only is it cheaper, provides a decent result, but it also allows you to work on another artistic talent that most artists lacks I find... Framing, composition, and focus that is taught heavily in photography.
Quote:
Cause you make our work sound like it should be harder than it is. We learn by repetition of drawing things around us, and our "eye for anatomy" is not really about anatomy but for symmetry of shape and form, what little real anatomy we do study is mainly to know how body parts are joined and fold over others. I can't see how you can get a sense of that from someone with many many folds that cover that up. As for the classic approach, not many professional artist in the modern age I've met learned through the classic approach. Most of us learned by copying art we like.
|
Originally Posted by Durakken
While i agree that you should use use new stuff for medium and taking the strain off the model. I don't see how any of that goes against why you should use models that are not all that pretty... in fact it somewhat goes to show why you should use live models that aren't "good looking" because you can't be certain that what you see in the picture is what you would see and also sense of space and such might be altered by using other references... ie tech can help with quick references, but for learning I think it is best to go with the classic approach.
|
The Cracked article in the OP is discussing comic book art in the context of the male gaze. Which is to say, that the art is created with an eye toward men reading the comics. Which is to say that the description of how Namor's depiction works is accurate in that context. Obviously, real life is messier than theory.
I can see what Arcanaville is arguing, but I have only seen "but men are objectified too" brought up to counter discussions about how women are objectified and sexualized. I wouldn't mind seeing a discussion of the topic that wasn't used as an attempt to derail, but I have not yet been witness to such.
Elsegame: Champions Online: @BellaStrega ||| Battle.net: Ashleigh#1834 ||| Bioware Social Network: BellaStrega ||| EA Origin: Bella_Strega ||| Steam: BellaStrega ||| The first Guild Wars: Kali Magdalene ||| The Secret World: BelleStarr (Arcadia)
Quote:
Drawing from a 3-D object or person in front of you is rather different (easier too) than drawing from a photo, where your subject has already been rendered 2-D. With the object in front of you, you have to learn how to render it "three-dimensional looking" on a 2-D on surface. Use a photo and you don't get that experience, you're just 'aping' the shapes the values created.
|
Originally Posted by Innovator
I told her can't I just hire the model for an hour, and take pictures of her with my digital camera and work from the pictures?
|
Quote:
Yeah my art teacher was saying exactly what you are, but I've drawn with both techniques and I've never seen a difference in my drawings. Only that a live model just gets impatient quicker, and if you're paying her it gets expensive.
|
Originally Posted by Clave_Dark_5
Drawing from a 3-D object or person in front of you is rather different (easier too) than drawing from a photo, where your subject has already been rendered 2-D. With the object in front of you, you have to learn how to render it "three-dimensional looking" on a 2-D on surface. Use a photo and you don't get that experience, you're just 'aping' the shapes the values created.
|
Quote:
Yeah but Power Girl's beewbs are her emblem. I mean if she went in for breast reduction what good would that hole be.
|
Originally Posted by Xzero45
How? If her explanation worked, she would instead have a big blank white space there instead of a big hole. You sew an emblem into the clothes, not into a hole you create for some absurd reason.
|
------->"Sic Semper Tyrannis"<-------
Heh... all this reminds me about how my canonically overendowed character is on a breast reduction diet to deal with back problems.
Anyway... I was born and raised in Las Vegas, Nevada. My exposure to this atmosphere has given me a rather different standard to what is appropriate and what is common attire for women and men. A very relaxed standard, it is. I hear on talk shows about fashion where a bunch of women are arguing if a dress is showing too much, and all the while I'm thinking "Whats the problem? I saw a dozen chicks dressed like that an hour ago!" From tight fitting clothes that teach me the intricate anatomy of reproductive organs of both women and men, to the simple absence of clothing at all, I'm used to it all now. Not to mention that Vegas gets hot as hell in the summer, and even I consider walking around in nothing but jean shorts despite my horrendous body. If you ever go to an art convention here, watch out and be prepared for nude body paintings, anatomically correct sculptures, public airing of R-rated movies, and 100-image collages of Winnie the Pooh modified to have all the naughty giblets front and center.
My standard for what I consider appropriate attire basically follows this logic chain:
#Can I see your naughty bits, either directly or indirectly?
*If yes, inappropriate.
*If no, appropriate.
Where the amount of skin shown is really only relevant if the person showing the skin is too ugly to be doing so. So, when I saw Power Girl, I didn't have a single issue with it. When I heard people had a problem with her, my first thought was "Wait... people have a problem with this?" and my second thought was "...Why?". To this day, I have to try and force myself to see it the way other people do, which equates to me repeating jaded standards unempathetically while secretly wishing for those people to shut up and quit demanding that I care. I think I get some of it... I suppose.
But my poor sister... She was raised in the exact same place I was, and the upbringing has had a drastically different effect on her. She has developed quite the self-image problem despite the fact that she isn't ugly even in the buxom bimbo fest standard known as Vegas. Her behaviors perplex me, and I'm never sure exactly what her reaction is going to be to whatever image show up in whatever media we are exposed to. Whenever she goes feminazi on me it is annoying, but I usually let her do it just to vent some steam. I'm not sure if I can figure out her position, either: It is O.K. to dress hot but you can't do it because it means you're trying to appeal to men as objective sex object but you still want to look attractive so do it to appeal to women? It is bad that media always chooses attractive women but is it O.K. in the practical sense that you don't want to stare at ugly women the whole time? Is it not O.K. for an unattractive woman to be a plot point if it is played by an actress that can look nice when not dressed down, or is it an insult to unattractive women to cast them in a role depicting such? It is O.K. for a woman to be attractive unless she is animated/otherwise fictitious then it isn't O.K.?
I'm pretty sure I have the core cause nailed down. The phrase goes "Never is a man more angry than when he is jealous". Can't remember who said it (think it was God). Part of the apparent confusing ambivalence that surrounds her is that there are two opposing ideals at war. The first is the ideal of superiority via different pursuits; basically by not being part of the system focused so heavily on shallow appearances by substituting loftier goals like careers and education, the person becomes better than the system and thus not subject to its standards. The second is the ideal of acceptance; the shallow system is ubiquitous and the accolades given to whomever has that unrealistic standard are nonetheless real, sincere, and a benefit to pursuing other goals.
It's the old case of Id vs. Superego, sans the rest of the creepy wrongness of Freudian logic. In her head she thinks that it is better to follow through on other things than aesthetics and it is better to do so, but her gut reaction and self-esteem issues still has her yearning to be a tall, buxom blonde who garners the lust of men at large. As interesting as that all is, however, it doesn't put me one step closer to solving this dilemma. So now, I just see how often it is I can apply it to other women. It works... way too often. This conflict is definitely a widespread phenomena.
But on to the topic at hand: I do wonder if "sexist" in this content is supposed to just mean "showing skin" or if it is blatant discrimination between genders. And if so, is it discrimination to have women show more skin than men, or is it merely different from the skin-tight outfits that male superheroes wear. To this, I agree a lot with what Arcanaville had to say.
TPN trial guide video / MoM trial guide video / DD trial guide video / BAF trial guide video
/ Lambda trial guide video / Keyes trial guide video / Magisterium trial guide video / Underground trial guide
Quote:
It's not the difference in your drawing, it's learning the skill and ability to do so quickly and accurately that makes it worth while; the more you know about doing art the better for your art, right? If your model is getting impatient, get a new model, you're paying them to stand there, not complain. |
Originally Posted by Innovator
Yeah my art teacher was saying exactly what you are, but I've drawn with both techniques and I've never seen a difference in my drawings. Only that a live model just gets impatient quicker, and if you're paying her it gets expensive.
|
Quote:
I am reminded of this comic.
|
Originally Posted by BellaStrega
The Cracked article in the OP is discussing comic book art in the context of the male gaze. Which is to say, that the art is created with an eye toward men reading the comics. Which is to say that the description of how Namor's depiction works is accurate in that context. Obviously, real life is messier than theory.
I can see what Arcanaville is arguing, but I have only seen "but men are objectified too" brought up to counter discussions about how women are objectified and sexualized. I wouldn't mind seeing a discussion of the topic that wasn't used as an attempt to derail, but I have not yet been witness to such. |
,'&#
{}... .-
01234
"*_
?;!hgfauirebcew
Quote:
If you read the article, you've seen it brought up in another context: the context of how objectifying and sexualizing both male and female characters denigrates women and glorifies men, because all men like to be objectified in exactly that way.|
Originally Posted by BellaStrega
The Cracked article in the OP is discussing comic book art in the context of the male gaze. Which is to say, that the art is created with an eye toward men reading the comics. Which is to say that the description of how Namor's depiction works is accurate in that context. Obviously, real life is messier than theory.
I can see what Arcanaville is arguing, but I have only seen "but men are objectified too" brought up to counter discussions about how women are objectified and sexualized. I wouldn't mind seeing a discussion of the topic that wasn't used as an attempt to derail, but I have not yet been witness to such. |
The problem isn't the male gaze idea. The problem is the article writer is attempting to *prove* that comic book costumes exhibit the male gaze phenomenon by explicitly stating without any evidence a rather extreme position: that no matter how sexualized or ludicrous Namor's costumes are, well, we all know all men would jump at the chance to look like Namor.
Do we all know that? Isn't that just as absurd as saying all women deep down inside want to look like Power Girl, even if they won't admit it?
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
Quote:
Just to point out... physically women prefer a less diverse look in men however are also less attracted physically to men in general so the argument is scientifically inaccurate. The muscle bound guy is an objectification of men. It's just that you think you can argue that since you don't judge primarily on looks it's not objectification.|
Originally Posted by FlashToo
I am reminded of this comic.
|
You could make quite the argument that it's only objectification physically, but we could probably look at all the characters mentally and i'm willing to bet that more male characters fit the stereotypical male that fit all the wants of women while most of the women in comics don't... but I haven't gone and done the research so i don't know 100%
As far as it's male fantasy... actually that's not true. Everyone wishes they'd look awesome, but in general men don't care about other male physical appearance because women don't look at physical as the primary and so there isn't this over whelming drive to be the best physically... so it's a non-starter from the aspect that people are taking it from, however... if we're talking other factors... Bruce Wayne is a power fantasy from top to bottom and is totally objectified. Most of the heroes that come to mind outsides of Batman are not the same type, but are power fantasies. One could argue that the "rich" is the quality that is being fantasized with Bruce, but it's not... it's the successful part which can be seen across most hero characters and inversed in most villains... ie Reed Richards is successful while Dr. Doom is not (even though he has conquered the world one could make the argument that was unsuccessful too ^.^)
On the other hand because the more "attractive" to fit this ideal of media and breeding instinct is there women who read comics might be having a power fantasy because they are looking at characters that look like they'd want to look in the best condition...not just to attract men but to piss off other women.
So one might say the whole objectification and power fantasy that women accuse comics of being for men is a projection of what they are reading when they female characters >.>
The more I go to this website, the more I miss the Old Cracked magazine. Not that failed attempt at cashing in on things like Maxim. THIS ONE!
Quote:
Sure it is. Absolutely absurd.|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
If you read the article, you've seen it brought up in another context: the context of how objectifying and sexualizing both male and female characters denigrates women and glorifies men, because all men like to be objectified in exactly that way.
The problem isn't the male gaze idea. The problem is the article writer is attempting to *prove* that comic book costumes exhibit the male gaze phenomenon by explicitly stating without any evidence a rather extreme position: that no matter how sexualized or ludicrous Namor's costumes are, well, we all know all men would jump at the chance to look like Namor. Do we all know that? Isn't that just as absurd as saying all women deep down inside want to look like Power Girl, even if they won't admit it? |
But... no matter how sexualized or ludicrous Namor's costumes are we DO all know all men would jump at the chance to be built like him.
I guarantee that if you polled a group of 1000 men from ages 14 to 30 with the question 'If someone could give you a six pack of abs with the snap of their fingers, would you take it?' - you'd get a thousand 'yes' answers. (I'm sure I'd get a few 'no' answers from here, but 1) I'd be skeptical and 2) I would love to hear 'why not')
Like I said, it's not purely for the ladies. It's about dominance. It's the heart of competitive and entertainment sports - the deep seated psychological need to strive, to compete, to be BETTER than other men.
I'm about as unambitious in life as a man comes, but the sheer primal joy I got when outlifting someone, or smashing them into the boards, or tackling them into the ground, or twisting them into submission? It was intense. These days the feeling can be transposed to things like video games - the profound satisfaction of owning someone - but it all comes from the same place.
And all of that would be a lot easier if you were built like Captain America or Namor.
There are no average built men in comics because we (men) won't accept average in our power fantasies. We never have - look to the original superheroes: myths. For as long as we've had recorded history it's always been about physical dominance. Hercules, Zeus, Thor, Atlas, Cu Chulainn, the Spartans (the hero worshiped versions) - no scrawny weaklings among them. Look to even modern fiction - the Klingons, the myriad of other token warrior races in any setting, the action hero, the marines (the hero worshiped versions).
So in a sense we DO all know that. Men have spent 8000 year writing stories and drawing pictures telling us so. (Hell, pictographs on cave walls of hunting, celebrating a memorable kill, tell us so.)
Weight training: Because you'll never hear someone lament "If only I were weaker, I could have saved them."
Quote:
That is ridiculous. That's like asking "Would you like a million dollars?" There are no negatives except for the lose of a niche group of women that don't like people in good shape or in the case of money the lose of being poor and some experiences that come along with that.|
Originally Posted by TheBruteSquad
Sure it is. Absolutely absurd.
But... no matter how sexualized or ludicrous Namor's costumes are we DO all know all men would jump at the chance to be built like him. I guarantee that if you polled a group of 1000 men from ages 14 to 30 with the question 'If someone could give you a six pack of abs with the snap of their fingers, would you take it?' - you'd get a thousand 'yes' answers. (I'm sure I'd get a few 'no' answers from here, but 1) I'd be skeptical and 2) I would love to hear 'why not') Like I said, it's not purely for the ladies. It's about dominance. It's the heart of competitive and entertainment sports - the deep seated psychological need to strive, to compete, to be BETTER than other men. |
There are only 2 types of people on earth that they would say no to that. Those who asked well would i be healthier or worse and the person granted the wish would say that they'd be worse... and if the person felt that the purposed change made them look worse. Why? Because no matter who you are you want to be good looking and/or healthy. There are other possible benefits to that but that never comes into it.
Quote:
Durakken, focus on the reasoning and not the framing.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
That is ridiculous. That's like asking "Would you like a million dollars?" There are no negatives except for the lose of a niche group of women that don't like people in good shape or in the case of money the lose of being poor and some experiences that come along with that.
There are only 2 types of people on earth that they would say no to that. Those who asked well would i be healthier or worse and the person granted the wish would say that they'd be worse... and if the person felt that the purposed change made them look worse. Why? Because no matter who you are you want to be good looking and/or healthy. There are other possible benefits to that but that never comes into it. |
The 'wish' scenario is essentially what is presented in the article's context. "If you looked like Namor, you'd happily wear speedos too."
Arcanaville's stance is that's broad sweeping and offensive to men, "that no matter how sexualized or ludicrous Namor's costumes are, well, we all know all men would jump at the chance to look like Namor."
My stance is 'Yes, yes they would. 8000+ years of a largely male dominated society creating male power fantasies has produced 8000 years of ripped men who can beat any opponent, be invulnerable to harm, tear the earth asunder with their might, wrestle lions, punch out bears, and make women swoon. Why *wouldn't* a man want to get in on that?"
Weight training: Because you'll never hear someone lament "If only I were weaker, I could have saved them."
But it's not a "power fantasy" it's a "hey i'd really like to look good because that propagates my genes and be healthy because that means i live longer and can protect them and propagate more" reality.
Further more power fantasy is looking in the wrong direction. There are a few, but most of the most notable ones are not... like Superman and Green Lantern. They are not me seeing myself in them, but rather more of a helplessness fantasy where i'm the one being saved not the one doing the saving.
Quote:
But we DON'T all look like that. Because we can't look like that. Even if our genetics were perfect and we trained every day of our lives we couldn't get that physique. That's what makes a superheroic physique a 'power fantasy'. It's also a huge factor as to why comic art evolved in the direction it did - when the unattainable became more common place (ie, the builds from the sixties can and are replicated by gym rats of today) the bar on unattainable had to be raised.|
Originally Posted by Durakken
But it's not a "power fantasy" it's a "hey i'd really like to look good because that propagates my genes and be healthy because that means i live longer and can protect them and propagate more" reality.
Further more power fantasy is looking in the wrong direction. There are a few, but most of the most notable ones are not... like Superman and Green Lantern. They are not me seeing myself in them, but rather more of a helplessness fantasy where i'm the one being saved not the one doing the saving. |
As for the second paragraph... well, that's certainly an interesting glimpse into your psyche. I've never once been rescued or felt helpless in my own imagination, and never once been more concerned with empathizing with the victims in a comic than putting myself in the place of the hero saving the day. Ever. If I read Superman and daydream, I *AM* Superman.
Weight training: Because you'll never hear someone lament "If only I were weaker, I could have saved them."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheBruteSquad
Sure it is. Absolutely absurd.
But... no matter how sexualized or ludicrous Namor's costumes are we DO all know all men would jump at the chance to be built like him. I guarantee that if you polled a group of 1000 men from ages 14 to 30 with the question 'If someone could give you a six pack of abs with the snap of their fingers, would you take it?' - you'd get a thousand 'yes' answers. (I'm sure I'd get a few 'no' answers from here, but 1) I'd be skeptical and 2) I would love to hear 'why not') |
Wouldn't the same largely be true of women though too? I'm not talking Power Girl protortions, but if you polled 1000 women with the question, would you like to be built like... Supergirl, I would think you'd also get close to 100% affirmative responses. Wouldn't you?
(Sometimes, I wish there could be a Dev thumbs up button for quality posts, because you pretty much nailed it.) -- Ghost Falcon
Quote:
I don't see why not. I believe the heart of the debate lies with the assumption that if they did, they'd be less likely to run around in a bikini (like in comics) - whereas the article assumes that a man would be MORE likely (I would be, most guys I know would be, I couldn't even imagine not being more likely).|
Originally Posted by mousedroid
Wouldn't the same largely be true of women though too? I'm not talking Power Girl protortions, but if you polled 1000 women with the question, would you like to be built like... Supergirl, I would think you'd also get close to 100% affirmative responses. Wouldn't you?
|
Personally, what I see sexist about the premise in the article isn't the assumption that all men would wear speedos if they had the body for it. What I see as (typically) sexist is the assumption that no woman would dress up like a comic super-heroine if she had the body for it.
Weight training: Because you'll never hear someone lament "If only I were weaker, I could have saved them."
Quote:
Excellent citation! And I agree with Amber completely. It's simple I think, superhero comics would be less alienating to women readers if more of women supers in them dressed like this.|
Originally Posted by FlashToo
I am reminded of this comic.
|
But as a silly aside, I just avoid this whole issue in the game by mostly building robots and weird looking aliens.
"Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them."
Quote:
Wrong wrong wrong...|
Originally Posted by TheBruteSquad
But we DON'T all look like that. Because we can't look like that. Even if our genetics were perfect and we trained every day of our lives we couldn't get that physique. That's what makes a superheroic physique a 'power fantasy'. It's also a huge factor as to why comic art evolved in the direction it did - when the unattainable became more common place (ie, the builds from the sixties can and are replicated by gym rats of today) the bar on unattainable had to be raised.
As for the second paragraph... well, that's certainly an interesting glimpse into your psyche. I've never once been rescued or felt helpless in my own imagination, and never once been more concerned with empathizing with the victims in a comic than putting myself in the place of the hero saving the day. Ever. If I read Superman and daydream, I *AM* Superman. |
The reason men and women look like that in comics today is because of 2 reasons. Carnival attire and Bad artists. Nothing more nothing less. You also assume that men would want to look "rippling" when most people have looked at that and agree it looks disgusting. Of course then we're not talking about rippling muscles as hyperbole likes to creep up on you we're talking about looking healthy and what people who don't sit around all day call normal... and yes, even if you exercise all day, by the standards that our species grew up in we sit around all day.
As for your assumption it is not my psyche at play here, but rather the origin of the concepts. Superman was not created as a guy that is superpowerful that I wish I was, but a protector to children and Green Lantern is a friggin space cop... the very notion of which is someone there to look out for you. Same thing goes for Batman even though he's the one I would call pretty much pure power fantasy, even he is not really about you seeing yourself as him or having the fantasy of being him, but rather having the fantasy that there is someone out there to protect you and that is looking out for the good rather than some greedy motivation.
Iconic Comic Heroes almost all have their origin in being protectors and servants of the people, not as I wish I was this. There are very few that i can come up with off of the top of my head that I would consider both well known and power fantasies... and of the ones that comes to mind right off the bat are all marvel ones... there is Captain Marvel that is a power fantasy.
Quote:
Few people set out specifically to create a 'power fantasy' as a character. That's not a concept (with the exception of several Image characters and, as you mentioned, Captain Marvel - though that's more wish fulfillment than power fantasy.)|
Originally Posted by Durakken
Wrong wrong wrong...
The reason men and women look like that in comics today is because of 2 reasons. Carnival attire and Bad artists. Nothing more nothing less. You also assume that men would want to look "rippling" when most people have looked at that and agree it looks disgusting. Of course then we're not talking about rippling muscles as hyperbole likes to creep up on you we're talking about looking healthy and what people who don't sit around all day call normal... and yes, even if you exercise all day, by the standards that our species grew up in we sit around all day. As for your assumption it is not my psyche at play here, but rather the origin of the concepts. Superman was not created as a guy that is superpowerful that I wish I was, but a protector to children and Green Lantern is a friggin space cop... the very notion of which is someone there to look out for you. Same thing goes for Batman even though he's the one I would call pretty much pure power fantasy, even he is not really about you seeing yourself as him or having the fantasy of being him, but rather having the fantasy that there is someone out there to protect you and that is looking out for the good rather than some greedy motivation. Iconic Comic Heroes almost all have their origin in being protectors and servants of the people, not as I wish I was this. There are very few that i can come up with off of the top of my head that I would consider both well known and power fantasies... and of the ones that comes to mind right off the bat are all marvel ones... there is Captain Marvel that is a power fantasy. |
The fantasy is in the execution, not the concept. Little kids didn't used to dress up like Superman to pretend to be protected by him: They did it to pretend to be him. The fantasy is in the idea that anyone could have been selected to be a Lantern. The fantasy is with the idea that despite how much of a 'loser' Peter Parker has been made out to be he ended up (for 20 years anyways) with a supermodel wife.
Regardless, the broad topic at hand is the oversexed portrayal of both genders in comics. That has nothing to do with the origin of the characters or the background of the characters and everything to do with the portrayal of the characters, so we should stick to your first assertion: It's all because of bad art.
Who is a good modern artist? What makes them good? How do they avoid the 'bad art' pitfall? How are their men and women portrayed?
Weight training: Because you'll never hear someone lament "If only I were weaker, I could have saved them."
Contrarily, most manga artists are generally really good artists who have a style. Which what a lot of people argue about the surface artists that I'm talking about. Those surface artists may have a "style" but they can't seem to draw slighting, proportions, or any number of other things right and any real artists knows that you first learn to draw the basic then you can pick up a style...