But, alas, this is how the male gaze works. The artist makes the assumption, consciously or no, that everyone looking at the image is a het man, a het man who objectifies women just like him.
Or does he? Or does she?
To talk about the male gaze and objectification in comics is all fine and dandy, but it is somewhat telling when someone complaining about the assumptions of an artist drawing Power Girl makes a number of broad, sweeping assumptions themselves.
Assumption 1: The artist is male.
Did anyone read either the Power Girl or Terra miniseries drawn by Amanda Conner? Plenty of cheesecake, plenty of shots from angles that serve to draw focus to women's body parts. She has the advantage of being a great artist, with a solid grasp of anatomy, but she's not afraid to play up the sexy, even at the risk of contributing to this 'male gaze' thing.
The examples Crowfoot brings up may have been all drawn by men, I didn't check. But I did check enough to see that many of the images she links to are on a Power Girl fansite with a whole gallery of images from both professionals and (seemingly) amateurs. It seems a little disingenuous to me to broadly smack a brush on the professional comics industry using fanart to bolster your claims. (And I like how the one example cited as being "good" has Power Girl folding her arms over her breasts, concealing them. Bad breasts. Stay hidden.)
Assumption 2: The artist is obliged to make art that appeals to every last cranky person on Earth.
"You aren't serving MY needs as an audience member, therefore you fail art!" You know, I realize it can be frustrating when it's hard to find the kind of comics (or other media) that you like to read, tailored to your personal preferences, but what is with this recurring idea that people making this stuff are somehow obligated to appeal to everyone, or avoid hurting anyone's feelings, or any of that stuff? Is there any reason this should not be called entitlement?
Assumption 3: The artist makes any kind of assumption, conscious or otherwise, about their audience.
Oh, I'm sure some do, but I'm also sure some people drawing Power Girl do it simply because they want to, and whether they think anyone else viewing the picture shares their particular viewpoint enters into the equation not one bit. How can you tell who does and who doesn't? Why, gosh, you can't.
And finally:
Every time I see female characters drawn this way I want to grab the artist and shake him “stop fantasizing jackass and draw me some awesome comics!” I feel like I’ve just been unwillingly brought into his porn fantasy. I mean, ew! Dude! Put it back in your pants! We don’t want to see that, or know it!
...You know, if there were scenes in a comic of a homosexual couple being affectionate, or (as has happened) a male superhero were to be portrayed with prominent "bulging", and I freaked out with disgust and went "ew, I don't wanna see your gay fantasy stuff", I could easily be called a homophobe. Is it heterophobia when someone has a spasm over heterosexually-appealing material, particularly what they perceive as someone else's sex fantasies?
I think you could make that case.
4 comments:
I'd add another one-- what if the artist in question is publicly lesbian and draws women in very revealing poses (assuming, for sake of argument, that she draws them without mis-shapen breasts, such as those that anger Crowfoot). Is her desire, channeled through her artistic talent, a manifestation of the "male gaze?"
In truth, the whole "male gaze" business was just academic Laura Mulvey's agitprop, designed to provoke reaction more than to spark insight. I'm amazed anyone takes her seriously after Gaylyn Studlar debunked her conclusions.
I tried to read the post you sited in this I got about a paragraph in and was like, "Ugh!" I agree with you on this matter. Just remember what they say about assumptions, when you assume something you make an ass out of you and me.
Flipping into my wife's downloaded art I can't help but see tons of what most people would call cheesecake.
I very much doubt she got it for the porn factor.
When some people want to rage, half the time its just about them trying to make EVERYTHING evidence. Give me some time and I could totally show you how Mountain Dew hates girls.
Kinda reminds me of this time a few friends and myself were on our way to dinner and someone new to the group suggested a buffet.
I friend that already did not want to like this guy was convinced that was a insult about him being overweight.
If you look really hard anything can be twisted to better fit what your looking for.
PS: I really how you challenge points of view and make people think.
"You aren't serving MY needs as an audience member, therefore you fail art!" You know, I realize it can be frustrating when it's hard to find the kind of comics (or other media) that you like to read, tailored to your personal preferences, but what is with this recurring idea that people making this stuff are somehow obligated to appeal to everyone, or avoid hurting anyone's feelings, or any of that stuff? Is there any reason this should not be called entitlement?
Funny you mention this. Because I saw a similar type of comment made about another fan making silly complaints regarding what they were "owed" by the publishers, from one of the pro-feminist fangirl "non-hive-vagina."
The reason I find it so funny, is because her comments to that fan, so perfectly work on "Crowfoot", too. For the sake of enlightnement (not to mention exposiong some hilarious hypocrasy), here's the part of that post for your viewing pleasure:
Really though, what's bringing out the cattiness in me is the level of fan-entitlement in the post. Yes, Mr. Henson, and me, and many other people are regular and loyal customers who faithfully spend way too much money on our hobbies. But you know what? They don't owe us anything.
Rinse and repeat: The companies DON'T OWE US ANYTHING.
We didn't sign any contract. They didn't promise us the comic book equivalent of frequent flyer miles. We're not long term partners and barring subscriptions (which are a whole other issue, pun unintended) we're not bound by any legal agreement or otherwise forcing us to continue to buy the product.
The depth of our relationship to the companies is this: we give money. We get comic.
Hell, they don't even have to give us a GOOD comic. Sure, we can bitch, but it's not like we have grounds for a lawsuit. The most we can do if we're unsatisfied is stop buying the damn comic.
When I look back at so many of the "fangirl feminists" complaints over the last few years, knowing this was actually written by one of them, I swear to you, the irony isso strong it almosy kills me. ;)
Post a Comment