I had the great luck to be able to attend Spectrum Fantastic Art Live 2 just a little while
ago. The drive to Kansas City, MO took
far longer than I should have wished, but it was well worth it. The variety of
great artists filling the gallery hall was a site I will remember in both my
memory and my photo album. These are the paintings that inspire children to
dream of dragons, for men and women to visualize as they read through books to
escape their lives for a short time, these are the pieces that create a world
beyond the real. While my main objective
for this trip was to enjoy the fantastic art I have loved since childhood and
to have informative conversations with artist of a far better caliber than
myself, I always have secondary objectives.
 |
| Spectrum 20 Award Gala, Beautiful |
Walking around the hall, rows of paintings, sketches, sculptures, and live
demonstrations, it is easy to identify some of the classic depiction of sci-fi
and fantasy women. Sadly, these classic
depictions are most commonly that of the Damsel in Distress, the Evil
Seductress, or the Power is Sex(y). There were rows upon rows of booths, but
within those rows, hidden sometimes at the corners, these upsetting depictions
of the women in sci-fi and fantasy were still alive. At one point I began to
notice that some of the paintings, prints, and illustration that had more
graphic sexual content were being censored with small slips of stick-notes.
They were stuck on, hiding nipples or genitalia, while the rest of the picture
was open for the viewing public. The picture of the chained woman with the
distressed face and her legs spread, the exposed captured woman being taken
off, the seductress enthralling onlookers with her sexual power, were all okay
for viewing, all undamaging, as long as those few key pieces of anatomy were
covered. Seeing this it gave off a sad
message: Viewing women as disempowered and objectified is fine, so long as that
sticky-note stayed were it was stuck. I know this may have been for the sake of
the children, since both artists and spectators were free to bring their
children and some certainly did, but that does not really make the situations any
better in my opinion. By blocking off those parts, but not the image it self,
it may make it appropriate for public viewing, but it certainly does not
decrease the impact it would have on how a boy views women or how a girl will
choose to view herself.
I would like to clarify that I am not at all opposed to nudity in art.
Nudity in art has existed since the beginning of art itself. The human body can
convey power, grace, beauty, sexuality, environmental interaction, and the
spectrum of human emotion. David Palumdo's Fed is a great example of the
power nudity can convey to an image. It is a disappointment when these such
powerful works are overrun by the objectified and over-sexualized female
figures so common in the sci-fi and fantasy world. Again, though, similar to the argument about
who has the power in what children see if video games, who has the power to
change what is seen on book or comic covers?
Dan Dos Santos, a great artist I had the pleasure of meeting at SFAL2, was
indirectly accused by a BBC article of being sexist in his works by using one of Dos Santos’ works
as the example for sexist science fiction art.
The article goes on, giving other examples including the classic Conan depictions.
The article brings up a few good points, such as how “many science
fiction and fantasy readers are disappointed to encounter everyday sexism in a
medium that is supposed to offer an escape” (which is similar to the immersion-problem
many feel when playing video games). It
also points out that many science fiction covers, classic and modern, are still
created to attract a heterosexual male audience, even though the amount of
science fiction and fantasy female authors and readers, as well as members of
the TGLBQ community, is on the rise. One
of the most powerful, and true, lines from the BBC article comes as a quote
from Tracy Hurley:
"Male characters [are]
powerful and strong, and women's sexuality will be emphasized. And why is that
a problem? It's constraining for both men and women."
 |
| Art Hall, filled with fans, both men and women. |
In response to this indirect critique, the artist collaboration
blog Muddy Colors
responded internally with a post by Arnie Fenner, retiring co-director of the long running Spectrum books that
inspired/created the whole SFAL event.
Arnie brings up the key of the whole issue in his post Objectify:
“But unless I'm missing
something, here's the thing that bugged me about the BBC article and Hines'
cosplay: the artists get the "blame" for what appears on the
books' covers. Not the writers whose stories and descriptions lend
themselves to the interpretations being decried; not the publishers, not the
editors, not the art directors, not the sales reps, not the retailers, and not
the consumers. All of whom dictate what the commercial artist creates
and delivers. If they don't approve, if the artist doesn't follow direction and
give them what they're paying for, the art is never seen. If the customers
don't buy the books, other solutions are sought.”
I agree, mostly. I agree that it takes a whole line of
people from writer, to an art director, to an artist, to a publisher, to the
consumer to create the sphere of influence in which these art pieces (both
written and visual) can exist. There is
no easy solution. It is a whole cultural setting in which the realm of the
idealized men and objectified women is written about, enforced, and portrayed.
No individual or part of the chain of creation can be completely at fault, and
blame cannot be so easily delegated.
So,
when a talented artist such as Dos Santos creates works such as the one
critiqued by the BBC article, it took several stages for it to become that
particular piece. The writer created the character, the art director gave input
for the work, and the art was completed through the views of several people,
not the artist alone. Also, to have called out an individual piece without
these correct justifications was an obvious mistake. Sexist and objectified
depictions, in video games, in comics, in the world of Fantastic art, do not
exist in a vacuum and do not under the majority of circumstances come into the
public view through the work of an individual.
I’ve
heard it said that in the art world that you have to take the jobs offered to
you. To start off, you need all the money, work, and publicity you can get.
Young artists, or artists just starting off, may find that falling in line with
these constricted image types is the best way to begin a career, but this will
only continue to perpetuate these images for years to come. Once set in their
career, artist can choose to be picky. Steven Belledin, another artist I have had the great
opportunity to meet, never compromises his values in his depiction of female
characters. He has said that this has at
times put him at odds with those offering jobs, but I would like to assure him
that for some viewers and new artists just knowing that not compromising is an
option is a light for a better future.
-K.
No comments:
Post a Comment