The Art of the Fantastic

-->

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.

Bringing Parents Up to Date

In 2008 Fox News aired this segment entitled “‘SE’XBOX? New Video Game Shows Full Digital Nudity and Sex”.  Newscaster Martha MacCallum, states that a new game enables players to engage in graphic sex. Cooper Lawrence, a good intentioned psychology specialist, discusses the damaging effects sexual content in games can have on their players. Lawrence states, ““Here is how they’re seeing women. They’re seeing them as these objects of desire, as these hot bodies. They don’t show women as being valued for anything other than their sexuality and it’s a man in this game deciding how many women he wants to be with.”

It’s true that many games depict women in an overtly sexualized manner. After seeing this occur repeatedly in games, it does give the impression that a woman’s most important attribute is her sexuality. But out of all the games that are guilty of treating female characters like sex objects (and there are a lot), the one they decided to grab their torches and pitchforks for was Mass Effect, one of the few games that provide not just one but multiple examples of strong, competent female characters.

"Mass Effect? Is that what kids are calling it these days?"

The folks over at Fox News assumed that the game is a sex simulator in which sex is an active mechanic. Brenda Brathwaite explained in Sex in Video Games (2007), that “an active sex mechanic allows the players to directly control the action” (2007:3). In Mass Effect, players have no control over the “action”, making the situation passive for the player. The scene is brief, only shows partial nudity, and implies sex rather than graphically depicts it. It’s nothing more than what one would see on an evening television drama. For those interested, one of the scenes and the lead up to it can be found here.

But enough about that. Many people online have already addressed how ill-informed the people in the segment were. What I’d like to talk about today is the context in which the discussion of the game took place. The people in the news segment make two assumptions in the video. The first assumption is that video games are for children.

The entire discussion about Mass Effect revolved around a “think of the children” mentality used to instill moral panic in parents at home. It focused on the negative repercussions sexuality and violence can have on kids. Sure, the game is rated for mature audiences but the assumption is that children will ultimately be the ones who get their hands on it. This is an assumption widely held by people who have not played games since the original Pac-Man (at least one panelist in the segment admits to this). Games have evolved far past winning and losing. They have branched off into complex narratives with set plots and characters. Arcade-style games still exist but that is in addition to a huge variety of other game types.

Super Mario is enjoyed by fans of all ages.

Video games are seen as toys for children and I can see how the mistake would be made. Many parents are probably familiar with getting their child a Game Boy as a gift. They might also be familiar with child friendly game titles such as Super Mario or Sonic the Hedgehog. But historically video games were not created with the explicit intention of being toys for children. As a new artistic medium, one cannot expect every video game title to be child friendly just as one would not expect every film to be for children.

The second assumption being made is that only males play video games. They were not concerned with children in general but impressionable adolescent boys. They cite studies that only take males into consideration and discuss them as the only group “at risk." According to this article by Jamie Frevele over at The Mary Sue, the Entertainment Software Association reported that as of 2010, 42% of gamers are female. Despite this, the assumption that only males play video games still pervades.

In the Fox News segment, the speakers operate under these two assumptions while readily citing examples to the contrary. As one woman states only adolescent males play video games, another admits (perhaps with a hint of judgement) that “there’s a lot of grown men that love video games, lets be honest here.” As Lawrence rhetorically asks, “Who is playing video games but adolescent males?”, one of the men in the panel discussion talks about playing a princess video game with his daughter. The contradictions are readily apparent but go unacknowledged.

Why does this matter? This matters because when the mass media discusses games it is almost always in a negative context. They are written off as being too violent or being too sexual without many people even taking the time to play them. This matters because news segments like this shape how games are perceived by those who don’t play them. They inform legal decisions about censoring or banning video games. This matters because it reduces the issue of sexism in games to “all sex is bad and therefore should not exist in games” (a blog post for another day). The way the conversation is currently framed within the mass media makes it impossible for a truly critical and informed discussion about video games to occur.

So to bring everyone up to speed...
1) Video games were not explicitly created as children’s toys. To think of them only as such ignored their depth and limits the medium.
2) Contrary to popular belief, females play video games. As a matter of fact, “women 18 and older make up more of the gaming audience than boys 17 and younger” (Frevele 2011).
3) There are many types of video games today. Not all games are like Pac-Man nor are all games bloody and violent like Mortal Kombat.
4) Playing video games is a valid form of entertainment. View it as watching a favorite movie or tv show instead of treating unproductive, waste of time for nerds, slackers, and shut-ins. 72 percent of the American population plays video games and that number will only increase as time goes by (Frevele 2011).

- J.

Brathwaite, Brenda. 2007. “Chapter 1.” In Sex in Video Games. Class River Media.
Frevele, Jamie. 2011. “New Round of Gaming Statistics: Gaming Audience Getting Older, Slightly More Female.” The Mary Sue. http://www.themarysue.com/gaming-statistics/.