well porn and pop culture in general really. And it should go without saying that this is obviously just my thoughts and me trying to establish them and I'm not saying I've got the definitive answer..
(or maybe I am? A-ha! we shall see!)
This post is inspired by a comment left my James Meeley at one of my previous posts. In it James said:
"I prefer my super hero comics and my soft core porn kept separate.
I'm sorry, but I just can't let this comment pass.
If you equate anything Jim Balent did on his Catwoman run (including this alternate reality mini-series) to porn (soft or hardcore) Then THAT is a true "fail." An "epic fail," as I believe the lingo of that goes.
I've read Jim Balent's Catwoman stuff and I've seen porn (soft and hardcore). Anyone who can't see a difference between the two either isn't trying, doesn't know what real porn is, or is simply a smarmy and snarky jerk (which, in MY book, is the worst of the three possibilities).
If someone doesn't like Jim Balent's art, that's fine. You want to say it is overly exaggerated or totally unrealistic, I can dig that. If you say it personally offends you, well, I'm cool with that, too. But to compare it to porn, even if only to be a snarky jerk, is a fundamental lack of understanding what porn is and how this is very different from it: in short, epic fail!"
(text in bold is quoting a comment from Toriach)
That comment led me to thinking. I have compared comic art to porn in the past *cough* Greg Land *cough* and I would still draw parallels between certain art styles and porn. But as James points out there is a difference.
I should probably point out here that I do watch porn. I am not an avid connoisseur I don't watch a lot and there's a lot of truly vile stuff out there. There's also some good stuff. But this isn't going to be a post about the type of porn I like, or even whether porn is a good or bad thing. It's also not going to be a post about whether we should have sexy women in comics.
Right, onwards with the subject. A lot of comic artists feature what I view as overly sexed up, sexualised women that have been influenced by porn. For example, there's the Jim Balent art shown in my previous post, Ian Churchill, Greg Land, Michael Turner. Although Michael Turner gets kudos for not drawing Supergirl with massive bosoms. (Unfortunately this was then negated in my eyes by the extreme low rider jeans and the knicker string pulled up above her hips, I mean, really.)
Most women in comics are depicted sexy first and 'strong' (whatever that may mean) second. Most renderings of women are in a similar style - huge boobs, tiny waist, skin tight costume, high heels. Sexed up. Thongs are everywhere. Even Raven, who I don't view as being particularly sexual in herself, is shown wearing skin tight barely there clothes under the cloak. Women in comics are objectified and judged on their appearance. Men aren't. I'm not going to go into why this is, if you disagree with me you may be at the wrong blog...
It's the proliferation of the same type of women, the same type of sexy that bothers me. I recently read Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs - Women and the rise of raunch culture. In it she talked about the pornification of pop culture. How images and themes from porn are surfacing in our everyday public lives, where 10, 15, 20 years ago they were very much separate*. Things like thongs, full muff waxes, lap dancing acceptability, pole dancing lessons, faux sex in music videos, porn star in training t-shirts, playboy bunny merchandise (belts, clothes and kids stationery), Borat mankinis (am I pushing it here?) etc.**(EDIT)
This leads to the situation where there is only one type of sexuality on display - and it's all about women faking it. If women are copying women in porn, or being encouraged to copy women in porn, then there's no real demonstration of female sexuality. because women in porn aren't really getting off on it. (OK some may be, but the vast majority aren't in porn cos they just can't get enough sex. It's a job). Women copying or being inspired by porn are pandering to a male vision of what our sexuality is like. They are not doing it for themselves, they are doing it for men. Now there's something quite fucked up in there, especially when you consider it's a male view of what women should look like or be like before/during/after sex/to be sexy.
But back to the point, I think that this specific type of sexuality is what is displayed in comics, most of the time. Not always. For example, Renato Guedes, Alex Ross, Ale Garza, Cliff Richards, Mike Grell, J G Jones.
As mentioned above, Greg Land apparently traces his women directly from porn. Does he trace the men too? I don't know. (Still at least his women are anatomically correct). Others just use the (intended or not) pornification of our public lives and a lot of comic art is linked to porn. Maybe not equaling porn, but there is a definite correlation.
As I said at the start, I watch porn, I like some of it. I don't however want it or it's derivation in my comics and magazines. I don't think our lives should be over sexualised, I don't think women should be displayed in terms only of their tits and ass, I think there's more to us than that and I think it demeans both the viewer and the viewed when we are reduced to our component body parts, or portrayed in terms of our fuckability. But if you use porn as your inspiration that's what you get. I repeat, that's fine, in porn, when it's sole purpose is to make you get off, but not so acceptable when you are meant to be telling a story about heroics.
In short, I think both James Meeley and Toriach have valid points. But I'm siding with the view that Jim Balent's art is influenced by porn, as is a lot of other comic art.
Have I explained myself adequately? Have I even said anything at all? I shall come back and check tomorrow.
*I don't know, I'm only 28, maybe I've got my assumptions about past decades completely wrong. Can older readers help me out with feedback?
**EDIT - something I forgot to include which might help my point. All those images of women lying beaten ont he ground, with arched backs and thrust hips, gravity defying boobs, strategically ripped clothing and pouty lips. Utterly sexualised and woudl generally seem more in place in a porn mag or as a porn still than at the end of a battle scene, because it makes no bleedin' sense in context.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWomen in comics are objectified and judged on their appearance. Men aren't. I'm not going to go into why this is, if you disagree with me you may be at the wrong blog...
ReplyDeleteI may be at the wrong blog, but I suspect you have missed some blogs that might suggest to you that you are wrong when you say that men aren’t judged by on their sexualized appearances. You don’t read gay blogs, do you?
Here, take a look at something I wrote just the other day:
http://prismcomics.org/display.php?id=1622
And there are plenty of other things out there like that where gay men took at male characters sexually.
Oh, and your request for info from older readers, you are kind of right and kind of wrong. While some of the images and cultural influences you mention are relatively new in the culture at large, many are not. For instance, if you look at Golden Age books, you'll see a lot of women in skimpy outfits. Many comic publishers were porn publishers first and knew that sexual imagery sold paper. Also the beaten images and such have been a staple of the true crime and similar genre for more decades than I've been alive.
ReplyDeleteI think what you are missing is the both comics and porn are influenced by sexual fantasy. It isn't so much that porn is influencing comics and sexual fantasy is influencing both mediums.
Now, if you want to say that sexual imagery shouldn't be in the fantasy material of comics, which are bought mainly by adult men as fantasy material, go ahead and do so, but I'm not sure I would agree with that anymore than I would agree that sexual imagery should be removed from romance novels that are primarily bought by adult women.
Women in comics are objectified and judged on their appearance. Men aren't.
ReplyDeleteNot true. Men ARE objectified, as well, just not from a female fantasy perfection perspective. Why do you think Batman has those sauve good looks, Superman has that perfect mscle tone and Nightwing that boyish charm that gets the girls to drop their panties around him? That is objectification of men.... from the male fantasy perfection perspective.
I recently read Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs - Women and the rise of raunch culture. In it she talked about the pornification of pop culture. How images and themes from porn are surfacing in our everyday public lives, where 10, 15, 20 years ago they were very much separate*.
Again, I disagree. Those things have always been there. In the Golden Age of comics you had women like Phantom Lady and Black Cat (not the Marvel character) which were very much in that "sexy style." How about the pin-up babes that service men drooled over during WWII? They weren't seperate. Oh, they may have tried to be more clever in showing it, without being direct and blatant about it, but it was always there and always has been.
Women copying or being inspired by porn are pandering to a male vision of what our sexuality is like. They are not doing it for themselves, they are doing it for men. Now there's something quite fucked up in there, especially when you consider it's a male view of what women should look like or be like before/during/after sex/to be sexy.
Then, if these women feel this way, they should go make their own comics and characters, which they could then have viewed through how women view their sexuality. And also how they view male sexuality, too. It can be done. You have the right and oppertunity to do so. Why it ISN'T done, is the real question. And i don't believe the answer is "evil men are stopping it", either.
Others just use the (intended or not) pornification of our public lives and a lot of comic art is linked to porn. Maybe not equaling porn, but there is a definite correlation.
But you don't know Jim Balent well enough (I'm guessing) to make that determination about him and his art. Greg Land you might, because of his well-known use of photo-referecned art, which has used porn images. But he is the exception that makes my point.
Let me tell you why I think Balent draws his woemn as he does. Have you ever seen a picture of his wife (yes, this "comic perv" is married), comic creator Holly Golightly? She is very attractive and, provided she's had no plastic surgery, let's just say she's also very genetically blessed.
Back in the mid-90's, while Balent was drawing Catwoman, they put out a Christmas card with Jim and "Catwoman" on it. A real life Catwoman, not a drawing. Guess who was in the suit? Yep, Holly Golightly. And after I saw that card's picture, I knew where Balent go the "body type" he used for Catwoman. And this is something that has spilled over into his current work, Tarot, where Holly will don Tarot's outift for the book's photo coversd (and she does just as good a job there, as she did as Catwoman).
My point? They it would seem MORE likely, that Balent draws his females, not based from a porn fantasy, but from the women whom he has had a long and apssionate love with. It is HIS woman, which he uses as his standard for how to draw his female leads (and a lot of other female characters). It shows how highly he regards her. And it certainly has nothing to do with his (probably) having watched porn.
As I said at the start, I watch porn, I like some of it. I don't however want it or it's derivation in my comics and magazines.
We had comics like that. It was the comics you saw in from the 50's to the mid-60's. You know, the bland, boring, flat and often-times silly comics that came about as a result of the CCA. I don't know too many people who look at those times with a lot of fondness (not the least of which is because it almost destroyed the comic industry).
I don't think our lives should be over sexualised, I don't think women should be displayed in terms only of their tits and ass, I think there's more to us than that and I think it demeans both the viewer and the viewed when we are reduced to our component body parts, or portrayed in terms of our fuckability.
So, because some guys (not all mind you) might see Balent's Catwoman through only the lens of "fuckability" that makes his art porn?
Well, then I guess you will never get your wish of our lives not being "overly sexualized." Because, you see, almost ANYTHING can be put into that type of viewpoint, even when it has nothing to do with sex or sexuality. Some people find food erotic. Some people find getting covered in paint a turn on (it's called splotching, btw). Someone might find a women scrubbing dishes, all dirty and dress in what you could hardly deem "provocative" as something that will "get them off." Does that make those things porn, too? Going by your standard it would. Which means almost anything in the world is porn, because someone is bound to have that thing be their little kink.
See, this is why I drew the line I did. Balent's art is sexy, yes. It is exaggerated, yes. It is based from a male's fantasy perfection perspective, yes. But is it porn? No, it is not. Because if it is, then almost anything can be seen as porn. That is why you need to hold porn as something very different. Not just something that is sexy or sexualized. If you'd have had Catwoman's face buried between the legs of that "female Alfred", THAT would be porn, because the ONLY reason that image exists is to show (and create) sexual gratification.
Cheesecake art is not porn. Jim Balent's Catwoman art is not porn. Greg Land's art, when not photo-referencing porn images, is not porn. A male fantasy perfection perspective, is not porn. An artistic expression of sexuality, is not porn. Only porn is porn.
@ Scott and James:
ReplyDeleteThanks very much for coming here and leaving your thoughts. I've only had a chance to have a quick scan through what you've said, and I do intend to respond, but I'm dead busy at the moment so i'm unlikely to be able to do so for at least a week.
At which point I'll probably just do a new post.
One thing I really should have clarified was that I was referring only to the mainstream DC superhero comics. That was a massive omission and I've got to stop thinking that everyone is on the same page as me.
Apologies.
I look forward to your response. You seem like a reasonable and bright person. In the meantime, you might want to look at this comic that was just posted and seems related to the topic.
ReplyDeletehttp://fortressofortitude.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/beauty-and-the-brain/
I, also, look forward to your response. It is always nice to discuss topics like this, with someone who is intelligent and well-stated, without resorting to insulting those who disagree with you. Many in the blogoverse could learn from that.
ReplyDeleteThanks both. Scott, I shall check out that link when I get a minute.
ReplyDelete