With the Power Girl series hot on the racks (no pun intended), Comixology writer Noah Berlatsky -- who admits that he's a fan of cheesecake imagery, generally -- had a bit to say about the way superheroines are drawn in comics, and how a lot of superhero comics are trying to have their cheesecake and eat it too:...if you're going to have pictures of sexy women, and the pictures of sexy women are why you're there, maybe it makes more sense to just admit that, and not disingenuously pretend that you're interested in what's going on in their heads. If you make it simply about visual stimulation, it's simply about visual stimulation, and doesn't have to have anything to do (or at least, not much to do) with real women. Once you start pretending that you're talking about a smart, motivated, principled adventurer, on the other hand, you end up implying that said smart, motivated, principled, adventurer has an uncontrollable compulsion to dress like a space-tart on crack. Which is, it seems to me, insulting.So when does comic book art cross over from drawing attractive pictures of attractive ladies to pandering or being insulting? Is it simply with how skin much they show, or whether they are treated as serious characters, or whether the artists force them to swivel their breasts towards the viewer in every panel for no reason? Where do you draw the line, and why?
More after the jump.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with visually enjoying things -- and people -- that are attractive. I like looking at attractive people. Babies like looking at attractive people. By definition, we all like looking at things that attract us, and surely there is a time and place for appreciating something on the basis of its beauty, whether it's a sunset, a painting, or a body.
Of course, it's important to remember that in real life is different from fantasy -- sexual or otherwise -- and that actual people are more than just bodies or photos or drawings, and should be treated that way. But plenty of people respect their girlfriends and boyfriends as people, while also having moments where they look at their bodies in a purely sexual way, and the two are not mutually exclusive. So it's not a matter of whether or not looking at people (or the case of art, drawing them) sexually is "wrong," but rather when it's appropriate to do it.
If a superheroine is going out for a night on the town or hanging out by the pool, it makes sense for her be rocking miniskirts and bikinis that make your jaw drop. But if she's commanding a team in the middle of a life or death battle, forcing her in a barely-there swimsuit and contorting her into orgasmic poses is less appropriate, because it draws the reader away from her role as a serious character -- and the things she's doing and choosing and accomplishing -- and focuses them on her rack instead.I don't think the issue is whether or not serious characters should be sexy -- how boring would it be if our fantasy characters had to dress like they were Amish? -- but when that should be emphasized, and to what degree. Of course, there are also characters who aren't supposed to be Serious Warriors or district attorneys or government agents, but simply hot chicks or femme fatales whose sex appeal is part of their role in the story, and that's a different thing as well.
In the case of Power Girl, Nina Stone has an interesting take on the bustiness of the Kryptonian firecracker currently drawn by Amanda Conner, and why the mere fact of her enormous cleavage doesn't mean have to mean anything one way or another: "I guess I just don't see what is being oppressed here. Is there some strong feminine story that could be told if this character didn't have large breasts? What is it I'm missing?"
Berlatsky adds that what offends him most about superhero cheesecake is often how poorly it's done -- that what it portrays isn't sexiness at all, but rather a total disregard for the female anatomy it's supposed to glorify. In contrast to pin-ups from artists like Dan Decarlo and Jack Cole, who "seem to care about women enough to have looked at one or two of them at some point," Berlatsky says that "super-heroine cheesecake is often offensive just because it's so thoroughly incompetent... You look at super-heroine cheesecake, and you get a sense of a boys' locker-room cluelessness so intense that it is indistinguishable from disdain. Honest sensuality in these circumstances would be a relief."
Observe. Exhale.

Network: 






























Comments:
(7)Add a comment
Wednesday 13 May
By Murphy
Here's the problem I always have with too much cheesecake. I'm into comics for the stories. And when I see covers and artwork that play up the T&A angle, I start to worry. I start to think, gee, if they thought people would want to keep reading this based on the story alone, they wouldn't feel the need to make such an obvious attempt to just sell based on sex.
It's like a Raisinet. Sure, the outside is covered in delicious chocolate. But that chocolate is just there as a trap to trick me into consuming the non-delicous, unpleasant raisin hidden inside. Which is a very bizarre way to say that I can't help but feel that if there wasn't so much confidence in sex to sell the product, they'd try a little harder on the stories, put in the extra work to make the bad into decent, the decent into good, the good into great.
And coming at this from another angle, go to any comics event and spend enough time and you'll usually run into at least one male fan who has no sense of women, sees them as these bizarre and otherworldly creatures that think completely different thoughts from his own and have been placed there for his visual entertainment. I can't help but feel that all the cheesecake out there encourages this hypothetical straw man I just built. But they are out there, and I do not want to continue to encourage these fans. They make the rest of the community look bad by association.
Reply
Thursday 14 May
By Laura Hudson
I think that's part of my problem with it as well... It betrays a belief that the audience is so simple and lacking in discrimination that all you have to do is draw giant spheres on women's chests and you're done for the day.
There's been a lot of flap over the Marvel Divas cover, but ironically the interior art I've seen is actually really... cute. I don't know why the cover was drawn that way when the book was seemingly trying to appeal to women, except that ridiculous chest-thrusting pander-cake is so omnipresent in comics that it's kind of like working in a bell factory, and people in the industry don't even notice it anymore.
Saturday 16 May
By LoveDatJoker
I'm just prompted to key in on one thing that Noah said:
"Once you start pretending that you're talking about a smart, motivated, principled adventurer, on the other hand, you end up implying that said smart, motivated, principled, adventurer has an uncontrollable compulsion to dress like a space-tart on crack."
WHAT? Way to deny any sort of diversity of female sexuality. I'm just thinking about all my friends and I when we doll up for fetish nights - hell, I'm thinking about MYSELF out on the town yesterday in a red wiggle dress with stacks of cleavage. According to this logic, none of us are smart, motivated, principled or interested in adventure. What is with this freaking DIVIDE? Women can't be fetishy and have a desire to express themselves in a sexualised way AND be smart and cluey as well?
You know... this attitude? Might just be one of the reason this sort of thing continues to be a problem. This either/or BS. Which reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of women in general and certainly an inability to see us as human.
Reply
Monday 18 May
By lavode
"Women can't be fetishy and have a desire to express themselves in a sexualised way AND be smart and cluey as well?"
I got the impression that he was trying to say something like "no one cares about a smart, cluey female character UNLESS she dresses in a sexualised way". Which is one of my pet peeves about female characters in popular culture.
Tuesday 19 May
By Martini-Corona
Well, going out dancing isn't the same as fighting crime. Do you dress in fetish wear when you go jogging? When you shop for groceries? Maybe you do -- more power to you -- I can barely walk in heels when I need to, at a formal occasion. I'd never want to engage in superhero-y acrobatics in them...
Thursday 21 May
By kngdavid01
""I'm into comics for the stories. And when I see covers and artwork that play up the T&A angle, I start to worry. I start to think, gee, if they thought people would want to keep reading this based on the story alone, they wouldn't feel the need to make such an obvious attempt to just sell based on sex. ""
Obviously, it's done to stand out in the crowd of numerous other titles clogging the shelves. You need something to catch the eye. If your book always features a dour-looking gruff character in a trenchcoat, nothing will catch the eye of new readers. There's no reason why big boobs needs to detract anything from the story at all. But it does draw attention - otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it.
Reply
Monday 15 February
By Dewayne
I think it comes down to the fallacy of trying to make everyone happy all of the time. Comics are sold to a demographic. Originally I suspect it was directed at young men. As time marched on, the stories got better, and attracted a wider audience. I think anyone with half a brain knows that a female preparing to go into combat wouldn't ware pumps. At the same time, if the hero got caught in a situation where they were wearing pumps, I imagine it wouldn't keep them from smacking the dog crap out of the bag guy.
I bet you dollars to dimes that if someone came out with a cross dressing hero who wore heels into combat, you wouldn't see many negative comments by men.
I think it's a good thing that women are brow beating the writers/artist of these comics into illustrating these types of characters in a more realistic fashion. I do not think it's a good move to do away with the overtly sexual depictions either. I think they should try to provide to as wide an audience as possible.
Reply