* <<F54.0761>> Manara Spider-Woman / Hillary "Going For The Top!"
Ugh, you say. This Manara thing is so last year!
Yeah, well, I've been busy and it took me a while to get around to it.
I thought, how can we take this in an absurd direction?
-----
"UUUGGHHH," goes up the collective groan. "ANOTHER Manara parody?!"
Yeah, well, I wanted to riff on the Manara cover last year when it
was still news, but I was busy. I would have let the sleeping dog
lie if Frank Cho hadn't stirred the cauldron of controversy with his
Spider-Gwen sketch last month. That somehow made it into my news
feed, so - blame Mr. Cho.
Getting right to the point, I'm not wild about the cover. I don't
dislike Manara's work, I don't think the cover is outrageous, I don't
think it's offensive - at least, not on a purely visual level. I
simply don't like what it represents.
I want to begin by saying that I don't think Manara did anything
wrong.
Illustrators have responsibilities. So do clients. Illustrators
have a responsibility to produce art that will meet the client's
needs in the style that the client wants. Clients have a
responsibility to communicate their needs to the artist and to
*select the artist who will produce the style of art they want*.
Manara is a *very* established artist. Among other things, he's been
one of the preeminent eroticists in comics for, what, forty years
now? That's what he does, that's his style. Arnold Schwarzeneggar
plays every role with an Austrian accent. Manara draws erotic female
figures on every job.
When Marvel hired him for the X-Women 1-shot in 2010 (in my opinion,
a more transgressive piece of work than the Spider-Woman cover), they
knew what they were getting. For heck's sake, the description on
marvel.com reads, "Storm, Psylocke, Shadowcat, Marvel Girl and Rogue
save the world *and look great doing it*" (emphasis mine). For every
subsequent variant cover they've commissioned from him, they've known
what they were getting. Clients can always send work back for
revision if it's not what they want/need, or simply not print it.
They printed it. Marvel editorial obviously thinks that the level of
eroticism Manara brings to his superhero work is acceptable for the
comic's intended audience.
And, y'know what? I don't unconditionally object to the level of
visual eroticism in Manara's superhero work. It's pretty tame stuff,
and I think if it were presented in a context that warranted
eroticism - a seduction, an intimate romantic scene, etc. - it's
entirely suitable for a mainstream superhero comic.
Now, having broached the subject of context, let's get into this
picture of Hillary Clinton.
Hopefully your first reaction was laughter, because that's what I was
aiming for. It is absolutely the wrong context for sexuality, and
I'm hoping there's humour in that contextual dissonance. And, I also
hope it helps illustrate the points I'm going to try to make here
with anvil-drop subtlety.
Hillary Clinton wants to be evaluated based on her political acumen,
her character, her ability to lead - not on whether or not she gives
men a boner. The visual elements in her media campaign are going to
be designed to make you think all kinds of things about her: that
she's down-to-earth, that she's listening to you and is interested in
your issues, that she's strong and resolute - but eroticism won't
come into it.
Yet, she is certainly going to face more criticism than any male
presidential candidate on the basis of how "good" she looks from day
to day - whether she looks tired, or old, or cranky, whether or not
her hair is done well, or her lipstick is the right colour, or her
outfit is too stylish, or not stylish enough (female politicians
can't just wear the same suit every day). And she's going to face
these criticisms because that's how we, men and women both, are
enculturated to evaluate women in America.
Part of that process of enculturation is exposure to media. Books,
magazines, television, films, and yes, comic books - in all of these
media, every time we allow the sexual attributes of women to be
evinced in contexts where the sexual attributes of men are omitted,
we're reinforcing the primacy of sexuality and physical
attractiveness in our evaluations of women.
Some people think that's the natural order; that a woman's role,
ordained by nature, is to be, first and foremost, pleasing to the
eye. I think that's horse shit. It's cultural programming.
Publishers need to operate with an awareness of the fact that they
are shapers of culture. Artists do, too - now more than ever, since
any yahoo with an internet connection can reach an audience of
millions with the right stroke of luck. But, publishers in
particular need to be aware, because at this point in time publishers
in print and traditional broadcast media still have significantly
more cultural cachet than bloggers or online personae, and they have
the resources to make sure that their media reach more eyeballs than
independent artists who pray for the gods of virality to smile on
their work. When a lone artist independently publishes something
online, it's a personal statement. When a publisher publishes and
markets a piece of work, that's the establishment taking a position
of support behind an artist's personal statement.
There have been two defenses for the Manara cover. The first defense
is denial. "I've seen Spider-Man in that same pose a million times!
There's nothing sexual about it." This position is, at best, naïve.
At worst, it's ignorant. Yes, we've seen Spider-Man over and over
again with his butt at the top of the frame, and his head at the
bottom - but no honest person can look at Manara's cover and deny
that the butt is a focal point of the image, and that it's been
rendered in such a fashion as to appear essentially nude rather than
costumed. In the image that went to the presses, the butt was
considerably de-emphasized by the placement of the Spider-Woman logo,
but the full artwork, sans-logo, was all over the internet, and it
was plain to everyone who saw it that the piece was overtly erotic in
character - and this has never been the case in any of the similarly
composed Spider-Man images that we've all seen.
The second defense is not actually a defense at all: "yeah,
Spider-Woman's lookin' sexy on the cover - so, what?"
Alright, let's hew the weeds before getting into this one: if you are
a man who says the word feminism with a sneer, you can just go fuck
off right now. I hope some day your world is shaken by a woman that
you actually respect as a peer, or you have a daughter and despair at
the realization that she's going to grow up facing a host of biases
that you never had to. This little essay will probably read to you
as some kind of softball "SJW" tract, and you'll dismiss it off-hand.
C'est la vie.
If you're a woman who says the word feminism with a sneer, I honestly
don't know if I've got the persuasive power to reach you, but feel
free to read on if you care.
For the rest of the "so what?" crowd: what do you think it says to
13-year-old girls who see Spider-Woman presented as a piece of ass on
a comic-book cover, when they never see Spider-Man presented in that
way? Remember, this is a T+ comic, a 13-and-up comic. What do you
think it says to 13-year-old boys? It's not saying Spider-Woman is
strong, Spider-Woman is courageous, Spider-Woman is *heroic* - it's
saying Spider-Woman is sexy. And this is something that covers never
say about Spider-Man or his male cohorts.
Who does this serve?
Well, it obviously serves people who enjoy Manara's aesthetic, that
goes without saying. And it serves Manara by exposing him to a large
audience that may not be familiar with the foremost European comics
artists. And it serves Marvel by giving them the prestige of saying
"variant cover by international superstar Milo Manara!".
Does it serve the narrative? No - but this isn't anomalous as the
narrative function of comic book covers is being deprecated by the
industry. That's another essay.
Does it serve the character? Not particularly. In my reading of the
cover, Spider-Woman isn't portrayed as an action hero, she's
portrayed as some kind of sex object.
Does it serve the existing Spider-Woman fan-base? Only the ones who
are interested in seeing the character sexually fetishized.
Does it serve to attract the book's target audience? Probably not.
It's not an erotic comic book, it's mainstream superhero stuff, so
the cover could be seen as a bit of bait-and-switch.
Basically, the cover was printed because some people at Marvel -
probably men - liked it and thought it would sell books. And they
thought, hey, a little sexiness never hurt anyone, right? I mean,
it's not *pornographic* or anything!
But it does hurt. Equal opportunity for women is never going to
happen without equal representation in government, in business, in
academia, and in media. Maxim magazine, the Sports Illustrated
swimsuit issue, sexy depictions of female superheroes - these things
aren't inherently evil, but they're symptomatic of a culture that
sexually objectifies women to a far, far higher degree than it does
men.
There's a place in comics for sexuality and eroticism - even in
superhero comics. But, I don't think that routine, casual,
decontextualized sexualization of female characters - titilation for
titilation's sake - *especially* in the absence of corresponding
treatment of male characters, is acceptable in comics marketed to a
very broad demographic that includes young teens and preteens.
There's a bit of an unresolved issue in that, though: ~are~ comics
like Spider-Woman marketed to young readers? The T+ rating that
Spider-Woman carries is defined as "appropriate for most readers 13
and up, parents are advised they may want to read before or with
younger children". All that means is that Marvel thinks Spider-Woman
won't psychologically damage 13-year-olds; it doesn't tell us who the
book is actually intended for.
The issue is moot, though, because here's how this usually works: in
comic book shops and book stores, care is taken to place the little
kid stuff in one area, the adults-only stuff in another area, and
everything else gets lumped together. So, regardless of the target
readership, any comic book that isn't for small children or strictly
for adults ends-up being on offer to anyone who bothers to walk by
the racks or shelves; nine-year-olds and forty-year-olds, boys and
girls and everyone inbetween.
I don't think covers like Manara's will psychologically damage
13-year-olds. I do think that they serve to maintain an undesirable
status quo, though. When you've got comics reaching the same
demographic as prime-time television, I think you have a
responsibility to strive for fair and equal representation of men and
women. I think this is especially important when you're dealing with
all-ages superheroes - characters that are traditionally intended to
be positive role-models for younger readers.
* * *
I mentioned Frank Cho up at the top, so I might as well put my two
cents in on that as well.
Frank Cho is allowed to post whatever the hell he wants on his own
website. I read the Spider-Gwen sketch as light humour, and I don't
have a problem with it. Some find it objectionable that Cho did a
cheesecake sketch of a teenage character, and I understand that point
of view. Spider-Man's reaction at seeing Gwen's butt - it's teenage
humour. Nothing worth getting up in arms about. The manner in which
Gwen's eyes are addressing the viewer, though - that's where there's
a potential issue, and I'm sympathetic to those who take offense even
though I'm not sure I do.
* * *
I also want to mention Alex Maleev. Maleev did some beatiful
Spider-Woman artwork on the 2009 series that Brian Michael Bendis
wrote. His renderings of the character's costume were essentially
nude as well, but there was no kerfuffle over his covers. I think
there are two important points to make with regards to that.
First, I think the fact that Manara is well-known as an author of
erotic comics really amplified the negative reactions against his
Spider-Woman piece. In fact, it probably wouldn't have made much
news at all if it were a lesser-known artist. A few people might
have blogged about it, but that would have been the end of it.
Ultimately, I think it's a good thing that it blew up the way it did,
because it got a lot of people thinking and talking about
sexualization and representation of female characters in comics.
The second point is that nudity isn't always sexual. Manara's cover
isn't problematic solely because of the treatment he gave to the
costume - it's more to do with posture and composition, and the way
that Spider-Woman's expressionless face is partially occulted behind
a mask while her virtually naked body is left exposed to the viewer.
It's depersonalized, objectifying. Maleev's Spider-Woman work, on
the other hand, has a different tone to it. The covers for issues #4
and #7 in particular have a very intimate, very ~naked~ quality, but
this makes them work as ~portraits~, not pinups - Spider-Woman feels
more like a person, and not a piece of meat.
My attitudes regarding nudity in art are pretty liberal. I don't
have a problem with it in principle. In fact, I think one of the
things that makes superhero comics so visually compelling is the
virtual nudity of superheroes. The expressive potential of the human
form is immense. When we're naked we are our most vulnerable, our
most fragile, and yet how better can you illustrate bravery,
strength, and courage, than by depicting a powerful naked figure in
perilous conflict? It is strength and vulnerability in apposition -
it's high physical drama.
The hazard of this effectual nudity is that when you have a majority
of male heterosexual illustrators, there's an arguably natural
tendency to see the female figure employed as an object of desire,
and not as an expressive medium. Editorial oversight is supposed to
provide a check on this tendency.
* * *
That's the last asterism, I promise.
Since I finished this picture a few days ago, I've started to
second-guess myself about whether I should post it or not. When I
look at it, I still think it's funny. It's silly. I did a picture
of Betty White as a professional wrestler some years back and the
humour of this works on the same level for me as that. The absurdity
of it.
But, there's also something slightly offensive about it, and I don't
know if it actually works as the satirical piece I intended it to be.
Who's the butt of the joke, here? ...Hillary Clinton? It's not
supposed to be a Hillary Clinton joke. I picked Hillary because
she's in the news a lot right now, and because she's a woman with a
very high public profile who is taken seriously as a professional -
someone who doesn't need to market herself as a sex symbol - someone
whose reputation would actually be adversely affected if she suddenly
began to campaign in that way.
It's supposed to be inappropriate - to say, hey, the gratuitous
sexual objectification of women happens way too much. Where does it
end?
But I worry that what it will actually read as to a lot of people is,
hur hur hur, Hillary Clinton is a woman, and this is what I think
women are good for.
No way to know until I post it, right?
Okay. Here goes!
-----
Spider-Woman's gaze is off the page, but her butt is addressing the
viewer. There's no context, no scene - it's gratuitious sexuality.
Is Spider-Man sexy? Do readers care?
The process of enculturation is carried-out from birth by exposure to
the speech and physical communication of the people around us, and,
of course, by exposure to media. Western media abounds with
eroticised images of women, and v in all contexts, even contexts
that don't at all warrant them - such as the covers of superhero
comics.
Don't roll your eyes, this is a real issue.
There are erotic comics. There are even erotic superhero comics.
And then there are mainstream superhero comics, which, while they may
contain erotic elements as narrative devices, are first and foremost
about heroism - courage, perseverance, duty, the usual heroic
attributes - played out in the grand tradition of dramatized physical
violence.
Manara's eroticism is gratuitous
What I object to is the eroticism even being there in the first place.
My evaluation of the cover as inappropriate is less to do with the
age of the target readership, and more to do with
Sex and eroticism are parts of life. There's a place for them in art
and in literature.
There's a place for eroticism in comics, and it's not just in the
adults-only section of the book store.
--
Excerpted from:
PUBLIC NOTES (F)
http://alph.laemeur.com/txt/PUBNOTES-F
©2015 Adam C. Moore (LÆMEUR) <
[email protected]>
