Less Tits n' Ass, More Kickin' Ass

Disney: Say No to the Merida Makeover, Keep Our Hero Brave!

kanthara — Mon, 13 May 2013 14:41:32 -0400

Disney: Say No to the Merida Makeover, Keep Our Hero Brave!:

Merida was the princess that countless girls and their parents were waiting for — a strong, confident, self-rescuing princess ready to set off on her next adventure with her bow at the ready. She was a princess who looked like a real girl, complete with the ‘imperfections’ that all people have. …

Thanks for the heads up, perpetuallurkernazanin, I definitely signed this one.

I invite you to do the same, tumblrs!

dawnbest: reftastic: swegener: Speaking of different body...

kanthara — Thu, 09 May 2013 09:10:15 -0400

dawnbest:

reftastic:

swegener:

Speaking of different body shapes. These are all basically peak human bodies.

How come 99% of them don’t conform to what the entertainment industry tells us is the perfect body?

This is a FABULOUS set of body refs. So glad this came back across my dash so I could reblog it here :D

Totally reblogging it too cuz I lost it the last 3294 times I saw it on the interbutts. GJ!

I know you probably have seen this before, but here it is again. I love that this includes males bodies as well, and is a great reference for anyone wanting to design a various cast of characters. The mere size difference between some neighbours on some photos should give you artists great pointers on how to portray height variation in a believable way to your viewers!

(Also that way I have it in a place I’l remember and will be able to get it whenever I need it so there.)

This blog should be the basis of a course taught at the art schools that have a cartooning major. I attended the School of Visual Art for cartooning years ago, and it's aggravating even today to remember all the young guys (and sometimes girls) who entered drawing classes with a preconceived notion of what women should look like, because they'd grown up on DC and Marvel, and that's who they wanted to work for. I love what you're doing and promoting here, though. Please continue.

kanthara — Wed, 01 May 2013 23:24:09 -0400

Thank you so much!

I try to do my part with the blog, and also when I teach panels in conventions. I would draw simplified art because my first love was TV cartoons, but remember learning more complex, detailed art by looking at Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld’s work in X-Men and X-Force back in the 80s, which means I was treating women’s pelvises like a Barbie doll’s due to what I was seeing in the art. Anatomy for Artists books have saved me from that, and later life drawing classes were a godsend.

It’s like they say, you must learn the rules before you break them. Style needs to develop from a solid base.

Ooh, actually, readers, make a tumblr search for “Tanglefoot” (no, wait, let me do it for you) to find REALLY interesting character designs and posing that takes the rules, knows them, and breaks them in the most awesome, enticing way. Love this work!

It's less about the exaggeration, but more about how they exaggerate it. While yes the muscles on comic guys are pretty insane themselves, it's for guys to have an awesome asskicking figure that's ideal for them. When they exaggerate females its for eye candy, not for a good role model.

kanthara — Wed, 01 May 2013 23:12:08 -0400

Yup. It’s something called false equivalence, as I’m sure you know. Besides, I’ve said it several times previously in this blog, if someone has their own fixes of male anatomy in comics, I’d LOVE to see it, and most likely would follow it. It’s just not my focus here.

Thanks for chiming in!

Other Anon obviously didn't see your Harley Quinn or Star Wars redraws. So much more dynamic than the originals! Better story telling right there.

kanthara — Wed, 01 May 2013 23:09:22 -0400

Thanks! I really appreciate the comments!

It’s always more difficult to redraw something that was broken originally in the same kind of pose without losing dynamism. Much easier to start from scratch.

If an artist needs to draw something unnatural to make the dynamics of a character illustration work, they designed the character wrong. Fix the real problems, bandaid solutions make for pretty mediocre cartooning.

kanthara — Wed, 01 May 2013 22:34:12 -0400

This.

Did you know that when artists draw things, they can exaggerate them? Did you know that the hyper-muscular men in comics are also unrealistic? Did you know that wearing spandex actually doesn't highlight every contour and muscle on the body the way it looks in comics? Now, I'm not saying "oh, you're totally wrong and it's fine to make women real sexy all the time," but you're discrediting your own side. These "fixed" drawings are less dynamic. Sometimes the hair needs to blow the wrong way.

kanthara — Wed, 01 May 2013 22:26:29 -0400

Thanks for writing. Yes, I am aware of these things, and they have been addressed previously in the blog. Please feel free to browse the archives to find the answers to all your questions.

eschergirls: ghostarin submitted: Redrew this I’m certainly...

kanthara — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 09:31:47 -0400

eschergirls:

ghostarin submitted:

Redrew this

I’m certainly not the best at stuff like this, but at least she’s not broken anymore.I could have spread the legs a -little- more to make it more dynamic though.

I also fixed her top/collar cause I couldn’t figure out how they made sense in the other picture. I also gave her shorts under her… kimono-thing. I figured if you knew your dress would constantly give you panty shots, I’d wear shorts under. I think most would do that.

I just read your post about sex not really selling, and I had a vague memory of an article that suggested sex only sells sex. That is: Even if it's easy to use boobs to get a guys attention, he only remembers the boobs and not the product they're selling. I know this is true for me. There was a recent video game that was notable for the huge breasts on the sorceress character. I'd recognize the character due to the breasts but I couldn't tell you the game name if you had a gun to my head.

kanthara — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:19:00 -0400

That’s actually pretty accurate. One of the “sex in advertising” articles I found in my quick Google search before posting the previous post mentions that using a sexualised context makes people less likely to recall the brand name (Wikipedia):

A 2005 research by MediaAnalyzer has found that less than 10% of men recalled the brand of sexual ads, compared to more than 19% of non sexual ads; a similar result was found on women (10.8% vs. 22.3%). It is hypothesized by that survey, that this is a result of a general numbing caused by sexual stimuli[…]

Either it’s a numbing, or it’s an over-stimulation which blocks out a person’s powers of noticing stuff. ;)

I just found this blog today and have been having a blast going through it. And, I saw claims on here saying that T&A hurts sales and I was wondering if you have any sources/articles that say so that I can read. I tried to find it myself but my google-fu is weak today.

kanthara — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 22:39:00 -0400

Hi! Glad you’re having a blast and enjoying what I’m showing here.

I don’t specifically document and bookmark news articles that make these claims, but luckily, I knew I’d read one recently and found it in my browser history. You can read it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21033708

Marketing strategies may also be responsible for sexist covers. But the mantra that sex sells may not be accurate.

According to 2012 data from publishing industry analysts Codex Group, less overtly explicit covers in fact have a wider appeal among general readers.

Codex Chief Executive Officer Peter Hildick-Smith remains puzzled why science fiction and fantasy publishers sell sexualised covers.

“My guess is that it has simply evolved as category convention, allowing book buyers to instantly know that a given books is in one of their preferred categories,” he said.

Photos above are of a book cover next to author Jim Hines, who blogs photos reenacting ridiculous female poses on novel covers (and some comics ones, too). Look it up, it is SO worth it.

It appears the Codex Group has a website here: http://www.codexgroup.net/ but the webpage is limited to a splash page with a contact email address.

You can also Google “Sex Sells” and “sex in advertising” for hits that basically say that yes, men (sic) will buy your stuff, but be careful, you might turn off other demographics, and if you use sex out of context, you’ll lose your customers too.

What it all comes down to is that too many marketing people in comics still believe for some reason that only horny teenage straight boys read comics, and therefore, these are the only people comics will be marketed to. By doing this, they are actually repelling not just 50% of the market (by this I mean the female population, although some women MIGHT like the out-of-context-T&A?), but also every other person who’s not interested in getting female sexualisation splashed on every page, regardless of their age, gender, or sexual identity. See my explanation in the last post about how I have no interest in reading Savage Wolverine DESPITE the fact that I really like Wolverine as a character.

So if you take me as an example, I can tell you that T&A hurts the chances of me buying the comics that use it. And I know I’m not alone. Maybe that’s all the proof you need.

I think the best way to reply to this is the phrase I used...

kanthara — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 20:56:09 -0400

I think the best way to reply to this is the phrase I used before: Sexualisation is adding sexual content without sexual context. Also, sexiness is about the person himself or herself (or whichever gender identity applies to them) feeling like they are appealing, being happy with the way they feel, and that confidence is thus sensed, perceived or otherwise noticed by the viewer (in the drawing/photo and out of it) who can interpret it as “this person/character is sexy”.

Therefore, pinups can be sexy, if the character drawn in the pinup is designed as acting like they’re aware and happy of the effect they have on themselves, and secondarily on their audience. This is what I mean by story. If you look at the picture of Wolverine and Jungle Girl (or whoever she is), the story the picture tells you is that Wolverine is grinning like he’s a psychopath about to slice and dice someone, and the girl is posed as if she’s trying to seduce someone who’s off camera. I’m not seeing a team-up here. I’m seeing passive poses, eager-to-hack-and-slash Wolverine standing next to eye candy I can’t take seriously as a person, and I have no interest in learning more about her, or about what Wolverine is doing in that jungle in the first place. This is bad storytelling, when comics are about telling stories with pictures.

Porn, Playboy photos and pinups ARE sexual context by nature. They are designed to titillate, to excite, and the participants are willing. Yes, some art is tasteless, some drawings are bad, some photos are awful, but it doesn’t change the fact that the context is there. If the content of the photo showed a woman in only an apron in the kitchen making googoo eyes at her man/the camera while baking a pie, I might call it sexist, but not sexualised, because she’s doing the sexy thing on purpose and within a sexual context.

Hope that clears it up!

FYI.

kanthara — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:57:21 -0400

There are times I wish I could heart the replies to my posts in tumblr, but it doesn’t work that way. It just hearts the original post and doesn’t credit the individual additions.

That said, I really appreciate all the feedback and discussion, guys. I so missed this!

maverynthia: lesstitsnass: Hi guys, I missed you and I missed...

kanthara — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:56:31 -0400

maverynthia:

lesstitsnass:

Hi guys, I missed you and I missed doing this!

I got this question sometime last week, and I had to mull it over for a while because whether it’s intended or not, this is a loaded question, and I had a hard time finding the words to properly respond. Then, I got somewhat caught up on Laci Green’svideosandtumblr, and that’s when it hit me: how to answer this question.

Your question confuses Sexism, Sexiness and Sexualisation.While related because they are all questions about sex and society, they are not the same thing.

[snip]

Drawing a woman with sexy clothing is not sexist if you’re doing it because that’s the way your character is - her personality, her motivation, her story.

That’s loaded right there because MANY.. MANY artist use that as an excuse to support their sexist artwork “Well that’s just how the character is!!” The author/artist is behind the characters motivations and the character only does what the author/artist wants them to do. The character has no free will. It’s the author’s/artists personality for her, the author/artists motivations for her and the story set out by the author/artist. The character is not alive and has no free will.
So saying “Well that just the character!” Won’t hold water with me and I’ll still call it misogynistic crap. It’s better to own up to it and try to explain WHY you need a sexy character than to just think the character is some how alive and decided all that stuff themselves.

I think you missed my point.

I know very well that the character is a creation of the author and/or artist. When I talk about the character this way, I’m appealing to the writers and artists to think about their character and tell the story about them, in words and/or art. I’m not giving them a free pass to draw misogynistic crap. If it’s misogynistic, sure, call them out. Don’t assume however that every sexy drawing out there needs to have a Big Reason To Exist As They Are. Sometimes it’s just fun to draw a sexy character, because it makes ME, the artist, feel sexy doing it, even if no one can see me. And I put that sexiness in the character through intent, attitude and body language, not just with clothes or pose-that-shows-the-most.

Hello there! I hope you will accept this post. It’s not...

ghostarin — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:33:13 -0400

Hello there! I hope you will accept this post. It’s not my best work - I didn’t spend enough time with it as I should’ve have. Long story short: the outfits on the original picture were simply ridiculous (see here), I had to re-do them! Yes, “Freesia“‘s anatomy is doomed but it would take a complete re-draw to fix, and I was mainly focused on the outfits here. (But I did fix Uni’s and Socie’s waists - not Harmonys’ because I was lazy and I can just pretend that obi is extremely tight.)

I don’t believe you have to cover up absolutely everything to make a outfit seem okay - but dressing them like that… it’s just no. Their outfits doesn’t tell me anything. Nothing but FANSERVICE all over the place. Nothing about the story or their characters - just - HEY, boobs, butts, legs and crotches! I mean god damn - what was that material out of? And why wouldn’t they wear underwear - really? And BUTT CLEAVAGE? Again - I personally don’t mind when they show some skin - just… don’t make it ridiculous. Just don’t.

I also have nothing against shorts - although they were extremely tiny on Freesia - but I found it annoying that all three girls had thigh-high socks.

But yeah. I hope you like it!

My Tumblr

I do!

Sorry I didn’t get to post this earlier. You did a really good job here and I should have posted this way before but I got so completely trampled with life and storyboards… anyway.

Your costume redesigns have turned these girls from sexualised back into sexy (except for that last contortionist pose, no amount of fixed clothing will save that pose from sexualisation) because they now look like they’re wearing actual clothes instead of carefully applied tape (heck, that first one should have areola showing) and carefully applied tape like this is usually a design created to make men horny, not for women to feel sexy.

(That said, I’ve seen some seriously sexy and well-owned “carefully applied tape” cosplay and burlesque, and wow. What a difference attitude makes.)

Thanks for submitting!

Hi guys, I missed you and I missed doing this! I got this...

kanthara — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:26:00 -0400

Hi guys, I missed you and I missed doing this!

I got this question sometime last week, and I had to mull it over for a while because whether it’s intended or not, this is a loaded question, and I had a hard time finding the words to properly respond. Then, I got somewhat caught up on Laci Green’s videos and tumblr, and that’s when it hit me: how to answer this question.

Your question confuses Sexism, Sexiness and Sexualisation. While related because they are all questions about sex and society, they are not the same thing.

In the following text, I’m using “she” to make the text lighter, and because this blog is mainly about the sexualisation of female characters in comics. People of any gender can experience the following states.

Sexism is disparaging someone because of their sexual or gender identity. Clothes are not inherently sexist. People can be. Drawing a woman with sexy clothing is not sexist if you’re doing it because that’s the way your character is - her personality, her motivation, her story.

Sexiness is something a person feels and expresses about themselves. A person who is sexy is a person who is confident in her body, mind, attitude, whether she’s acting in a sexual mindset or not. She is attractive, people may find her sexy even if she’s smudged and dirty wearing unshapely coveralls while drywalling a room, because she exudes confidence and accomplishment. A person might feel sexy because they’re wearing a set of frilly underwear even if no one else gets to see them. Even a person who messes up can be sexy, if they feel like it’s okay to mess up and know they can fix it or do better the next time. Sexy is something a person is, for themselves, that can be noticed and appreciated by other people.

Some examples of my art, where I’ve drawn sexy women:

In a sexual context:

Sexy in a NOT sexual context (because she just doesn’t give a crap what people think and rocks that corset):

Sexualisation is using sex-appeal for the viewer’s gaze only. It’s not about the person anymore, it’s about showing choice bits of a person like she’s a thing to titillate the audience. It’s about boobs and butt in the same shot, making sure you break that spine so “dat ass” is up there. It’s about ripping clothes strategically to make viewers horny. It’s about the things done so people see it and go “I’d tap that” instead of “I’d make love to her”. See there? “That” instead of “her”.

Sexualisation is also very much about adding sexual content without sexual context. “Oh noes! We are being attacked by a horde of zombies! This must be why I’m thrusting my ass at them while turning at the swivel-hip so both my gravity-defying boobs can be seen practically bursting out of my ripped top!” Um, no.

This is sexualisation:

As is this:

Because the poses are exaggerated and don’t make any sense story-wise.

So go ahead and draw your sexy girls in crop tops: if they own their looks, if they as a character do it for themselves, and not just because you want people to ogle your art and see sexual attributes without being interested in finding the character underneath, then you shouldn’t worry.

A last piece of art to close this. This is fan art I did for a series of comics made by friends of mine called L’Académie des chasseurs de primes. You could say all three characters are sexy in their own way. All three show their personality through their clothing and their attitudes. Only the last one uses her sex appeal as part of her sexiness, and that works.

Where'd you go? :(

kanthara — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:23:59 -0400

Into Storyboards Land! It’s a magical place of working crazy hours to meet tight deadlines which, combined with personal issues at home, made looking at comics to flag stuff to fix, let alone actually fixing them, impossible. My huge contract is over and my smaller one’s almost done, so I’m coming back, although I still need to take a look at what’s been happening in ComicsWorld of late, so I can see how things have been going.

Who knows, maybe comic women magically became drawn properly while I was away!

I also have a backlog of questions to answer, but I do want to start again with a drawing fix. Still, this question needed answering, and I just wanted to say, I’m still alive!

(By the way, I’m doing some stuff for April Drawing Challenge while I recover from tennis elbow from all the drawing, in case you’re interested.)

Studio Technique Is Offering Online Classes!

kanthara — Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:32:00 -0500

Interrupted storyboards time!

You all know how much importance I give to practice and learning of proper anatomy, and how much I learned when I took life drawing classes, about movement and anatomy in detail. Well, the training studio where I took my life drawing classes and taught a storyboard class is now offering classes online! Samantha Youssef is an amazing artist and experienced animator whose credits include lots of Disney movies, and she teaches three classes starting this January: anatomy, 2D animation, and movement. Spots are limited, so if you’re interested, make sure you go sign up!

http://studiotechniquemontreal.com/english/registration-form.php

Here, let me just paste in her announcement and descriptions:

Studio Technique Online
All online classes are currently taught live in an online and interactive classroom. Instructed sessions run for 10 weeks.
**Online artists have access to the community website, with personal artist profiles, ability to upload work, sharing groups, tutorials relevant to respective courses, access to recorded lessons of the registered course and previous courses attended.

Drawing: Movement & Form
Focuses on fast poses for gesture and movement, as well as longer studies to understand form. Understanding posing and body mechanics.
Course prerequesites: basic knowledge of perspective.
Saturday 3:00pm - 6:00pm EST
January 12 - March 16, 2013

Drawing: Anatomy
In depth analysis of the skeletal and muscular systems of the human form.
Course prerequesites: Drawing: Movement & Form or Drawing 2.
Saturday 11:00am - 2:00pm EST
January 12 - March 16, 2013

Animation 2 (2D)
Bringing life to characters. Excercises focus on character mechanics and physics.
Course prerequesites: successful completion of Animation 1 (Online or in studio). Must submit reel for approval.
Monday 6:00pm - 9:00pm EST
January 14 - March 18, 2013

http://studiotechniquemontreal.com/english/registration-form.php

nechayano: Ok I was recently reminded that this exists (i-I...

kanthara — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:31:35 -0500

01

02

03

04

05

service not included

nechayano:

Ok I was recently reminded that this exists (i-I think someone DA-famous linked it or something because WHAT) and I think this may be relevant to tumblr’s interests so here’s my~female body variation tutorial~ whoo~

This came from some things I scribbled down when I was trying to keep my character designs consistent, and I realised that it kinda made me see bodies/proportions somewhat differently so I pasted it into this smarmy old tutorial, now cut up into (I hope) tumblr-friendly chunks so right-click for full size I think? (disclaimer: I don’t know anything and it is so far past my bedtime that it’s been tomorrow for a whole day so I’m going to nap and then maybe regret posting this.)

I’m posting this because it addresses every single reply I get about asking for body variation and being told “I don’t want muffin-top in my videogames/comics”. Body variation does NOT automatically mean “make the women fat”. This reminds me of that Dove beauty commercial, especially that last lineup. I have it somewhere, I’ll have to post it.

KARINE GET BACK TO YOUR STORYBOARDS *whipcrack*

I’m not dead! Just a hi and thanks for sticking around...

kanthara — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:12:49 -0500

I’m not dead!

Just a hi and thanks for sticking around and sorry I haven’t been here and all that stuff. This show has been very demanding of my time, so much so that I had to step down from another storyboard gig that I was really looking forward to, started, and was supposed to do part time. I also haven’t had any time to work on Sunset Val, which is my other much loved project, which I’ll hopefully be getting back to bright and early in the new year. There have also been family issues to deal with, and they are ongoing, fluctuating, but at the moment better and hopefully in a direction towards resolution.

Mostly, I haven’t been reading any comics, or looking at any comics blogs or such because I’ve been swamped with work and deadlines. I’m taking a bit of time this morning to post this because in the last few days there’s been a few asks sent my way and I will get to them, it’s just… aaagh. I do miss this terribly but deadlines and family come first!

I’ve changed the way I work on Martha Speaks boards, and hopefully this will be less time consuming for me. I’m loving this show, it’s fun and cleverly written stories in a nice looking package. I’m glad to be a part of it, but I miss making comics and the blog. I miss interacting with you guys, getting your feedback, and both teaching and learning from you.

Thanks again for sticking around!

Sure, let's give this a shot.

kanthara — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:39:03 -0400

eschergirls:

muffinfarming asked you:

Hey, first time poster here! Selkiesiun’s post, specifically the part about “nobody wants to read a comic with a fat female protagonist” made me think: would it be possible to come up with a list of people who WOULD like to see a ‘fat’ superheroine or at least a ‘normal’ one? How cool would it be to pull that list out the next time such a ‘critique’ was given? It probably wouldn’t change anything, but the artists seem so disconnected from the fans that it might at least be an eye-opener.

Okay, sure let’s give this a shot. :) (And feel free to spread this around as much as you want so more people can throw in their hat)

Who would read a comic with a (well written, not for laughs) fat female protagonist?

Signal boost! I put my vote in!