J. Scott Campbell: Ruining Your Fairy Tales

2 Dec

[Geile+Maerchen_05.jpg]

J. Scott Campbell is making a calendar that will go on any fanboy’s inside bathroom door especially if they watched a Disney movie praying for a Nip Slip.  Disgusting.

In this post, I examine some images from J. Scott Campbell’s 2010 calendar with Fairy Tale princesses as sex objects, and I discuss the complete ridiculousness of ever trying to appear like a decent, fair person when you have this artwork on your track record.

[Geile+Maerchen_14.jpg]

You know, I haven’t seen anything so outrageous for awhile.  J. Scott Campbell’s newest work appears to not only exist for the full exploitation of childhood character favorites (clearly the Disney fairy-tale version of the characters) but to also rape the very idea of a world in which women can be viewed as equals and not sex tools.

To be clear, I am completely one for absolutely no censorship, ever.  I just find that when a highly used comic artist produces images like this it’s upsetting.  Not because they’re necessarily the one doing it or for the images themselves, but because the practice of dehumanizing women in comic books and comic-like artwork is so prevalent and deeply embedded within the industry.  J. Scott Campbell just happens to be an exemplar of this practice (as well as Jim Lee, Rob Liefeld, other predominately 90s artists, and even a lot of modern day artists).

To see some more of my opinions on the representation of women in comics, check out my Super HeroiHOT feature: http://mechanisticmoth.wordpress.com/super-heroihot/

[Geile+Maerchen_13.jpg]

Oh no! Little Miss Muffets shoe’s going to fall off with that pointed toe and all of that yummy, white “porridge” is going to spill on her dainty legs all because of some mean, mean spider.  Good thing she remembered to wear her undies.

Almost every one of these stilted calendar works of smut features placid deprecations of the female form.  Sure, the faces have a half ass attempt at showing expression, but they’re plastic.  Each fuckable/poseable/innocent-yet-sexy-and-foolish doll has a copy and paste figure of which none of the human population fits into the impossible proportions.

Not only do his nearly blasphemous reimaginings of (the Disney version of these) characters oversexualize to a hyperdrive-like level, they appear completely impractical.  Belle’s Coconut sized breasts should be falling out of that corset number while her body quickly snaps over on itself.  Plus, the surrogate man, the Beast, dominates over her not only in physical appearance, but in the act of placing on her cloak like some pimp.

Snow White, you seem so surpised!  What, with your pouty lips and all.

The poor attempt at wit only further damages the images.  These photos are like B grade hentai or really colorful Tijuana comics posted on the bathroom stalls next to a couple glory holes and “call this number for a fun time”s.

[Geile+Maerchen_17.jpg]

Who sits like this when they eat!?  Oh yeah, I’ll lay my toned thighs out here… kink my back a little to show a hint of my ass and put out my tits… time to put the spoon in my mouth!

Strangely, Campbell’s mock of talent that can actually go somewhere furthers into even the realm of Spider Man when this Goldilocks Image looks strangely like Campbell’s poorly construed bimbo-ified cover to Spider Man #601:

I purposely hold my coffee cup to accentuate my amazing cleavage, too!

Seriously, what is the point!?  What does this sort of misogynistic artwork accomplish?  Merely to corner stereotypes of Women (and for that matter, someone thinking that the majority of men would enjoy this shit) and slash it across a calendar that will fade with age and other things!?  Now, you can’t fault Campbell for at least decent artwork, but his talent is in the wrong place.  It conforms and projects itself as the norm: to mistreat and use women.

[Geile+Maerchen_12.jpg]

This image looks like Tinkerbell’s giving Captain hook a stripper dance!

Trust me, if you look and find these images on some other sites (the one’s that aren’t actually in arms about how insulting it is), you’ll find some of the most disgusting comments where you thought these people didn’t actually exist in the world because that type of sexism is just too fucked up.  Plus, others (women included) find some of these images funny.  I don’t understand if there’s any humor at all in these images because they’re so downright exploitative.  Seeing a hyper-sexual version of a character known (at least through the Disney versions) for their (near) chastity, innocence, and strong virtues.  Sure, I disagree also a lot about the Disney portrayals and how they subjugate women to waiting on men and being man’s personal bitch.

[Geile+Maerchen_18.jpg]

That’s the Little Mermaid… Siren of the Seamen.

So, I find that what’s needed with these characters is something in between these sexual images and the Disney caricatures of classic female characters.  One in which the 50s mindset of Women’s Roles being that of the house-slave does not exist and the Woman’s role in Campbell’s work of being personal sex objects that we can basically rape with our eyes does not exist either.  An ideal model in between those extremes emphasizing the power of women (and for that matter transgenders) equalling (and often times surpassing) that of man.

[Geile+Maerchen_19.jpg]

Tiny ribcages that would most certainly crush all of the person’s internal organs are a requirement for the field of smut (and comic books), now.

It’s really no wonder that in the original story of Sleeping Beauty the prince raped her while she slept and she gave birth to twins (while still sleeping) with an arched foot like that!

Plus, did someone specially design that “sheet” for her so there could be a hole/perfect folding for her leg to come through?

Because, basically, I’m tired of images where women are naked for absolutely no reason (because, of course, men are never naked for absolutely no reason!) and are merely shown to give a boner to 13 year olds wondering what Sleeping Beauty looks like naked… and if vines were trying to enter her.  This is not sexy.  This is worthy of vomiting for a year of disappointment over.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

I caused a bit of a stir with one Major Spoilerite reader the other day at MajorSpoilers.com when they posted a J. Scott Campbell image for their art of the day.   It was of the Evil Queen of Snow White fame.

Here’s what I initially commented on the image:

I really have a problem with a lot of J. Scott Campbell’s work. There’s absolutely no doubt that he has a lot of talent, but all he does is “sexify” (female) characters for not really any necessary point. He never really shows any real women with real bodies… it’s always impossible body proportions and giant T & A. Check out my blog post on Campbell’s 2010 Fairy Tale calendar to see what I mean: http://mechanisticmoth.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/j-scott-campbell-ruining-your-fairy-tales/

  • Seneca:

    I really dont see what the complaint is, its just art. He’s not creating life in his image. Art doesn’t always have to be realistic. Perhaps you take this all too seriously.

    • Seneca:

      BTW if your going to rail on the guy for indecency then the least you can do is clean up the foul language on your website. I’ve seen worse images in tattoos. Again, your spending -waaaaaaay- too much time taking Campbell -waaaaaaay- to seriously. You need a new hobby, like feeding the homeless.

  • Seneca, I’m one all for absolutely no censorship. I just, personally, do not believe that J. Scott Campbell uses his art in a way that benefits the portrayal of women aside from the bimbo-stereotype. I use Campbell as a case study for my continuing argument on my blog that J. Scott Campbell isn’t just some fluke, but is part of a trend amongst artists to depict women in a dehumanifying way. I’m not trying to rail on his art because I believe that a lot of it is good, and I even like the image above.

    Yes, I’ll admit that on my blog I do use foul language sometimes more often than I should. Typically, I use it to emphasize a point or to produce a bit of irony, but occasionally it comes out just too naturally. If I was to write a paper on the subject (like I often do in my Communication Studies), I would use a different framework of language, but since it is my personal blog, I feel like I can be a bit more frank.

    The reason I take the artwork and writing of comic books seriously is because it is a reflection of beliefs and idealogies within the social sphere despite a lot of comics focusing on fantasy. If women are constantly derailed and stereotyped in comics then I find issue with that. There is no reason why people of different gender (including transgender) should not be considered equal within any form of media, and yet they often are.

    I hope that expresses some more of my viewpoints, and I appreciate your comments.
    For more information on the topic of the portrayal of women in comics, check out Kelly Thompson’s amazing blog: http://1979semifinalist.wordpress.com/

  • Hope you enjoyed my reply.

    For a follow up post cleverly titled “Scott Campbell: Ruining Your Fairy Tales Redux” check it out here.  I mostly continue my train of thought with new examples from The Wizard of Oz.

    About these ads

    73 Responses to “J. Scott Campbell: Ruining Your Fairy Tales”

    1. Nadia December 20, 2009 at 8:08 AM #

      Wow, I’m sorry, but you are taking yourself far too seriously. If a guy likes drawing women, so what? If it’s going to be a calendar, /so what/. I don’t see you railing about Sports Illustrated, or 1960s Pinup calendars–No, it’s Disney Princesses. I personally think the artwork is amazing, if only for the amount of work put into it, and to be frank, your use of cursing doesn’t help your cause at all. And he is not ‘ruining’ fairy tales–to be quite honest, Disney sort of ruined them in the first place. Cinderella had her sister’s feet being cut off, for goodness’ sake. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves? The ‘kiss’ bit was a euphemism for ‘sex’. Beauty and the Beast? Eros and Psyche. Guess what was in there. Peter Pan? Well, gee, let’s see, original story… “The boys on the island vary, of course, in numbers, according as they get killed and so on; and when they seem to be growing up, which is against the rules, Peter thins them out; but at this time there were six of them, counting the twins as two.”

      Thin them out.

      So, to be quite honest, pin-ups of disney characters is not that bad, considering. ‘But, wait! They’re objectifying them!’

      Uh. Disney. They were already sort of objectified. In any case, it’s just a fun little calendar, and getting into a tizzy over it isn’t affecting anyone’s viewpoint but their own outlook on you. It would be like yelling at one of your friends for getting you a gag gift.

      • mech-chick March 29, 2011 at 2:27 PM #

        I have to agree with this comment, what is so wrong with him putting his own spin on a few Disney characters? I honestly love the artwork. Stop trying to portray yourself as the ultra-feminist “I am woman, hear me roar!” and just appreciate the art for what it is. Sure maybe they aren’t proportionate, but that doesn’t matter in art, or retail for that matter because that’s how the dolls/ Barbies look too. Get off your high horse and go get some since obviously that’s what you’re most upset about.

    2. Jayfournines January 2, 2010 at 9:04 AM #

      I think you’re looking too much into it, you’re complaining about the dehumanizing of women? what about dudes? No one will ever eeeeeeeeeeeever have the same muscles as Captain America or Superman, but no one bitches about that, y’know why? cause no one really cares….and guys don’t complain about other guys being objectified lol

      • Jack January 13, 2012 at 5:44 PM #

        EXACTLY!!!!!!

      • Tatiana November 17, 2012 at 2:46 AM #

        *snort* Please! When are guys objectified in art? They don’t complain because it doesn’t happen, and the extremely RARE occasions in which it even begins to compare to the way women are objectified in popular culture guys are quick to jump all over it and WHINE like children over how unfair it is to them. Ugh. What a joke.

        Now, granted, I see nothing wrong with an artist taking images that were already some gross inaccuracy about women and taking them to the opposite end of the spectrum. In fact, I think it’s a tad ironic to take the practically Mormon ‘I’m a stupid woman who’s good for nothing except cleaning my husband’s house, cooking his food, and popping out his babies’ ideal of women that Disney seems to promote, and swapping it for the modern ‘morally vacant’ male views of women.

        The issue I have with it is that I doubt the artist even understands the meaning of the word, let alone how to use it cleverly in his art. When I start seeing images of MEN in poses like this, half-naked and stretched out on sheets for women to gawk over and masturbate to, then you can talk. Until then, you’re just spouting the same old circular argument crap that useless politicians are so fond of using against those ‘normal folk’ who are too stupid to know they’ve heard the same line restated ten different ways.

    3. ben January 24, 2010 at 2:11 PM #

      look mate, if you trty doing these drawings you will see that not only is this the best art producable but also a butiful portrail of the femail body, u look in shops and on tv all you see is women throwing themselves around like dogs to make money and sell sell sell, so dont think your clever just because you noticed you can win people over by saying how wrong femail exploitation is because those women are beautiful, and that calender is the bigest sucses ive ever seen, so i sujest you rethink your opinion because let me tell you if the calender was coverd in half naked firemen do you know how many complints of morons like you there would be? zero. and why, because you and all your litle friends would be so alienaited by it you would jus not write anythin atall, screw you……………………

      • crscheid January 25, 2010 at 8:50 PM #

        Dude, it’s spelled ‘female’. Goddamn.

      • Nadia February 2, 2010 at 6:19 PM #

        A translation, because opinions are important, no matter the spelling:
        ‘Look mate, if you try doing these drawings, you will see that not only is this the best art produce-able, but also a beautiful portrayal of the female body. You look in shops and on TV, all you see is women throwing themselves around like dogs to make money and SELL SELL SELL, so don’t think you’re clever, just because you noticed you can win people over by saying how wrong female exploitation is, because those women are beautiful, and that calendar is the biggest success I’ve ever seen. So I suggest you rethink your opinion because let me tell you, if the calendar was covered in half-naked firemen, do you know how many complaints of morons like you there would be? Zero. And why, because you and all your little friends would be so alienated by it you would just not write anything at all, screw you.’

        While I disagree with some of this(not female exploitation, not even real women,), I think it’s something that shouldn’t be brushed off. They obviously put some effort into writing this, at the least.

        Plus, it irks me when people brush other people off.

    4. 1979semifinalist January 25, 2010 at 4:49 PM #

      Nadia: “Taking yourself too seriously” Ah. The frequent argument of people who don’t want to engage in a discussion of issues. Sure it’s just comics (and animation) sure it’s not as important as other issues out there, but we all talk about issues that are important to us and in areas in which we have experience and a personal stake. The problem of women being hyper sexualized and objectified in media is a big problem and it isn’t limited to comics – I applaud MM for being willing to get into it and express opinions – ones that I’ve learned make people already happy with the status quo very pissed (the comments here I see prove that theory out).

      I also think that MM is taking umbrage at Campbell’s take on fairytales, not because fariytailes are all fluffy and innocent to begin with, but because for the most part the version of fairytales Campbell has interpreted are clearly the “Disney version” of said fairytales – and we all know those fairytales are geared towards children…in particular young girls. And this is not a great message to send to them.

      Jayfournines: One of the reason mens portrayals in comics do not get complained about as much, even though they are often as idealized as women, is because the images of men in comics are almost without exception athletic portrayals which suggest strength, ability, and power; while portrayals of women are generally (and certainly in the case of J. Scott Campbell) model and pornstar portrayals which suggests beauty and sex.

      It’s not a balanced scale – not in the least – which is why there is not equal complaints about male objectification (and that doesn’t even begin to tackle the costume inequalities between the sexes). I suggest if this is really all you have to say about the subject that you dig a little deeper, inside yourself and inside media, because you’re just barely grazing the surface of these issues.

      Ben: I’d love to respond to you, but the spelling was so bad I couldn’t read most of it.

      MM: Thanks for the link. Keep fighting the good fight. Things will change…eventually…though probably not J. Scott Campbell.

      • Nadia February 2, 2010 at 6:12 PM #

        ‘The frequent argument of people who don’t want to engage in a discussion of issues.’
        I’m not ignorant, please do not talk down to me like I am. I’m not saying it’s a problem–of course it’s a problem. But this seems like, to me, that it’s a bit diverted with this, like focusing on the wrong thing. Not to mention that this calendar definitely is not projected towards children, as you can usually only get it off of the internet. Which would require a credit card. And if a kid has a credit card already, but they would take offense or take a message from this, then they… shouldn’t… have a credit card.
        And why should art be funneled towards not objectifying women? What if he just likes drawing? Some people wouldn’t consider this art just because it’s a cartoon, ignoring the ‘woman’ part completely. But how would we know, have any of us even talked to the guy? Probably not. Besides, drawing women as such doesn’t mean he’s horrible to women, or advocating women as objects. Nor does he put the idea in there. Anyway, there are tons of women who also draw like this, as a way of women’s power. Someone comfortable with sexuality is usually not someone who will hurt someone else in that way, as well.

        As for issues, isn’t there more important things to be focusing on instead of a guy’s art? There isn’t anything you can think of?

        • Silenus September 13, 2010 at 4:25 PM #

          “Isn’t there more important things to be focusing on?” Look, another non-argument designed to quash reasoned discourse and debate!

      • Tommy April 13, 2011 at 6:26 AM #

        Your argument about why men are objectified less is very wrong. Men being portrayed as athletic and strong is just as bad as women being portrayed as sexy. Both are physical idealizations of the two genders. Men aren’t supposed to have curves and women are not physically built to be as strong or athletic as men can be.

        The notion behind why they are portrayed this way goes back as far as the history of humankind (notice I said humankind instead of mankind to make you happy). Men are historically protectors and providers, and women are carers and nurturers. Simply put, men are physically built to be athletic (for the sake of survival, not competition) and women are physically built to bear children. Back when we needed to do more than throw our food in the microwave for a few minutes to survive, men got their power from their strength and athleticism, and women got theirs from their beauty and ability to bear children. That is why women are attracted to strong, athletic men and men are attracted to curvacious, voluptuous women (bigger curves mean you have bigger hips and can handle childbirth better). Keep in mind the ideal for male and female beauty has changed many times to reflect the circumstances of the time period (e.g., in the middle ages, plumper men and women were more attractive because it meant they could eat more and were more likely of a higher class). So a man being portrayed as strong and athletic is the same as women being portrayed as sexy. Both cases are sexual objectification.

        If you want to claim that there is a difference in the way genders are portrayed, talk about intelligence or fortitude or something like that where gender does not play a role.

        Lastly, I agree with you that women should not be objectified anywhere near as much as they are, but don’t expect any dramatic changes tomorrow or even in your lifetime. You’re combatting thousands of years of preconceived notions about mens’ and womens’ roles in society. Gaining rights is one thing, but shifting those notions is another far more complex task. Good luck, but be patient with people. People don’t like change.

    5. Algae February 2, 2010 at 2:57 PM #

      “Look how awful J. Scott Campbell is! See how bad this picture is? And this one, too! And this one! And this one! How could anybody ever look at these? I mean, look at them! Oh, and these too!”

      You’re criticizing Campbell’s work, but at the same time you’re using it to prop up your soapbox. I, for one, only visited this site because I did a google search looking for his artwork. You’re absolutely right that his artwork objectifies women, but I suspect that you chose him as your particular target because his objectifying portraits tend to be really hot, and people will read blogs with really hot pictures on them. If you’re actually upset about these pictures, don’t give them any more attention than they already have, and certainly don’t use them to attract readers.

      If someone drew an impossibly fat woman, or an impossibly muscular woman, or a woman with an impossibly large head, and some child came to expect that fat bodybuilder bucket-heads were the female sexual ideal, no one would care, because no one would agree with him and they’d just think he was weird. But feminists know as well as men do that men prefer thin, easy women with large breasts and hips, and artists who play into that preference offend them. I don’t know a single woman with a strong self-image who gives a shit about smut or porn. Maybe you should look inward for the source of this problem.

    6. MechanisticMoth February 2, 2010 at 3:12 PM #

      Alright, I’ve refused to respond to these comments for awhile, and having Kelly Thompson come on here and respond to those comments was very exciting. So, Kelly, thanks a lot for pointing out basically everything I was thinking in response to previous comments.

      I also want to thank everyone who has (or will) commented for sharing their opinions, and as much as I’ve wanted to, I’ve never refused to include anyone’s comments on this topic.

      Now, to reply to Algae:
      – You’re right, I’m using J. Scott Campbell for my own purposes. I’m using his work as a case study amongst a field of bigotry against women in comics. I intend also to use other artists’ work as case studies. However, I frankly don’t believe that I chose his artwork because I personally (or believe anyone else should) find the images attractive.
      – You’re also right that if women were depicted differently many people may not be as upset about the issue. However, what is upsetting is that throughout decades, centuries, and millenniums Women have been depicted as sex objects. So, anything conforming, supporting, or propagating to that social norm is upsetting to me because I find that it is wrong, and does not emphasize to any extent the grand abilities that women have. And, to that effect, it also suggests that there are only two genders to choose from which is another topic I plan on following up on.
      – I believe that suggesting for me to look inward for the source of the problem is an excuse for you to further any more knowledge on this topic. I have already looked inward and shared my opinions about the matter and intend to share them more. Also, as a man, I feel highly comfortable with going against the societal norms of objectifying women and not conforming to what my gender has typically created or profited from because I believe it’s important for women to be considered equals both in our social institutions and practice.

      I believe this is not a topic to just shrug off.

      Thanks once again,
      – Elliott

    7. Nadia February 2, 2010 at 6:00 PM #

      I respectfully disagree. Kudos to you for doing what you believe–I can respect that. As an artist, however, it’s sort of free speech.

      Anyway, here:

      http://love146.org/

      Maybe you could post on something like this, at some point. I’m not trying to advertise, or anything, but since you seemed to be in a tizzy about this, I figured it was something you could at least look at. Feel free not to, of course. And if you do, thanks. If you don’t, thanks for at least looking at the post.

      • MechanisticMoth February 2, 2010 at 6:15 PM #

        Thanks Nadia for the positive support and seeing that we can debate in a meaningful way while still coming to different conclusions.

        I also appreciate the link. I may take a cue from you and write something about it. I have to admit that I’ve never been involved in political issues on a global spectrum as far as AIDS, Apartheid, and Child Sex Trafficking goes. I have more so been focused on the local level within my city, state, and nation. Granted, my belief that sexism exists in comics does play towards that global level, but never to the same extent or to the same amount of immediacy.

        I believe one part in that Kelly pointed out, is that, for one, I’m not well-versed in the issue. Two, I am therefore not as involved or it does not hold the same meaning to me.

        I find that website incredibly well-made, and I believe I’ll look more into child sex trafficking and maybe try to do my little part with some graphic post or something. I suppose making at least one person aware is an accomplishment within itself. I do have to admit that I’ve never made many artistic works (whether they be film, graphic art, or music) with the purpose behind it being to provide a political work to the discourse, but this definitely seems like a good topic to begin a new trend.

        I always remember the power behind the child sex trafficking parts in “Oryx & Crake” by Margaret Atwood and how those parts still haunt me. Maybe that’s a good starting point?

        • Nadia February 2, 2010 at 6:24 PM #

          Hey, not a problem. Just try and tone it down a little? When I first read this, I have to say, I was a little enraged, being an artist myself, and it took me somewhere about… a month to calm down and post that. By all means, go along with your opinion, but (and I hope I’m sounding neutral) you come off as a bit ‘rabid for the cause’.

          And don’t thank me for the link–it’s something I found. I just donated a little, I didn’t really have anything to do with the making of it at all.

    8. dbeauche February 7, 2010 at 9:28 AM #

      I’m a bit late to this, but wanted to address a couple things.

      One: Attacking lack of realism in art stupid; art is, in part, the practice of conveying a personal view of something, and even the most realistic pieces provide half-truths and minor falsities. Yes, Campbell’s work is quite obviously self-realized embellishment, but nearly all comic art is this way, doing for sky scrappers and biceps and expressions what it does for the female figure. It is the exageration of various arch-types; the plump woman as well as the “hot” woman.

      J Scott Campbell is not claiming that women do or should look the way that he depicts in this calendar: it is a fantasy which he has been able to lay to paper due to natural talent and years and years and yars of consistent training at his craft. He has a right to the images just as he has a right to his own sense of beauty; they are not required to depict women as powerful, modest, brilliant or capable. He is niether, however, claiming they cannot be these things. Campbell’s depicting the beauty of the female form via his artistic interpretation.

      The fact is that men have these exagerated senses of beauty in the opposite sex, just as women do. Do women believe every man looks or should look like a poster image? No, but they have the right to enjoy the image despite zero implication of the man’s worth otherwise. As long as we do not allow the interpretation – the exageration to replace our sense of actual beauty then these pictures are just art. Not Picasso, but art all the same. A snack that’s not terribly nutritious, but is alright now and then.

      As for the debassing of classic images, I can sort of see your point, but then these are the films with which Campbell is familiar – loves – and these depict a part of his reception of the female characters within. I know I found Princess Jasmine…eh hem…aesthetically striking as a kid. And why shouldn’t I have? Women are wonderful things to look at; knowing they’re at once often very cool, smart, capable, strong people doesn’t cancel that out. Cheesecake is OK. You just need to know how to balance your diet.

      • Seraph December 5, 2011 at 1:56 PM #

        Loved this comment!

    9. crash March 6, 2010 at 1:23 AM #

      who wrote this garbage?? how about posting something you have accomplished in your life and compare it.

    10. Cathal March 12, 2010 at 3:17 PM #

      God, whoever wrote this article is fucking hilarious. Seriously, feminists need to stop being such chauvinists and just live their life, they’re worse then the homosexuals when it comes to flying their flag.

    11. Shut Up March 27, 2010 at 11:03 PM #

      Seriously, get a life. You sit and cry about everything. I guess all of the vintage pin-up paintings are all woman hating and crap too huh? Guess what? The male and female forms are celebrated and stylized all of the time. You whine about enormous breasts. Have you ever seen how large the male pectoral muscles are as well. The men are most often over muscularized. I guess that is “disgusting” too huh?

    12. Jacky March 31, 2010 at 7:37 AM #

      I have to support some of the comments being made here. Yes, women are exploited, and images are often made to be very sexy. However men are in the same situation only with no attention because nobody cares about it. I might be fit but I’m no model on a calendar. You show the picture of M.J. sitting with her arms squeezing her chest and call it wrong, what about a picture of Peter with his shirt off showing bulging muscles and a six-pack, or what about his skin tight suit? That image can be seen but nobody takes offense because people register it as a persons body, I guess society hasn’t matured enough to realized that men and women are both human, both are bodies, and only because of modern social movements is the female form always condemned when shown with what can be seen as sexually. Why doesn’t somebody fight for me? Nobody fights for men because nobody takes offense, a male is a male and if women like seeing a half naked man well that’s just fine, ’cause everyone has sexual interests even if they don’t want to admit it.

      It may be a bit controversial in terms of context, Disney characters. However people tend to forget that Disney took all of these characters from somewhere else. Fairy tales were often rather sick and disturbing. The little mermaid cuts off the head of her lover, are you going to tell me simply because of its ties to the Disney movie we should erase the original tale because it isn’t appropriate for children?

      I understand there are people who have faced these issues in their lives but they (and maybe you) need to realize not everyone does things just to put others down. Everyone has a past and everyone has reasons. Plain and simple art is art. I personally love this work, and I’m sure you’ll bash me for this, but I’m also a fan of pin-ups. I grew up with the pin ups in my father’s garage and I became a fan of the artwork. This artist is simply taking a set of characters that people have grown up with, and putting them in a different light. Who says the princesses were always innocent? From a child’s perspective they are innocent and fun characters, adults see the complexity involved in the stories. There is nothing wrong with showing the side that adults see, to adults.

      Plain and simple, this is amazing artwork, and an original portrayal of classic characters is nice, because only Peter Pan stays a child forever, the rest of us grow up and get hit by these things called hormones which develop bodies in certain ways. I think you need to open your mind and see the true world around you. There are certainly men who put down women, however there are also women who put down other women, and women who put down men. These people are low, and everyone accepts it, but people tend to forget everything except that men can be bad to women. You talk about this “cause”, to make the world better for women. I’m sorry but when you come off so violently towards anyone who doesn’t agree with you or do as you do, you will not make any progress. If you want to truly help women then go out and help in shelters, do some community service, help all people. Women are not the only people who need help, and saying that they do and that people need to stop objectifying them only makes your argument weaker. I know you will look down on this again but the woman I am dating is running in a certain pageant system which I will not name because I refuse to have them heckled for my words; but since she began with the pageant system we have both done more community service, more to help people from all walks of life, than I have ever done before. There is always the side that people ignore.

      Why must women take offense to a sexual portrayal? If you want to be strong, then see it as what it is, whether it be a painting, a picture, a commercial, its just what it is. It isn’t doing anything to you to make things worse, so unless you see a picture saying “Ha! This women is my object now look at her trim frame and perky breasts!” just please see it for what it is, a painting, picture, or commercial.

      • MechanisticMoth April 12, 2010 at 5:41 PM #

        I’ve waited a bit to respond to this mostly because I’ve been very busy. Nevertheless, I want to say thank you for your well-articulated points and not actually going into full personal attack mode against me.

        Also as an embodied male, I feel objectified when men are held up to the standard of being muscle-bound, pouty, dark and mysterious guys. However, my offense to this is because I can never be like it. Women also take the same offense to (some of) these images because they can never be like that.

        Articulating some of Kelly Thompson’s comments, the problem with the situation is that the portrayal of over-sexualized males tends to favor that gender over over-sexualized females. Hence, men are depicted as flawless but also intelligent and something to strive for while women are depicted as flawless but something that can easily be tossed away; foolish and dumb, women are portrayed as the lesser gender by only emphasizing the characteristics that men find so sexually appealing.

        I would not go on a rant against your girlfriend’s pageant system, but I understand your concerns. I believe, though, that by you specifying this point, you have helped my argument: the pageant system (although many, including myself, would argue has a lot of flaws) still emphasizes community service and something to aspire to. The goal is to show women both as beautiful and intelligent. This art does not have this goal because the latter is barely ever addressed, and, even when it is, the former wins out in an overly sexual way.

        I believe that your final comments have some issues, but I understand that many people have been under the same impressions. Suggesting that looking at these pieces as merely what they are is a cowardly thing to do. Coming from my rhetorical communication studies background, I see everything as having some cultural significance whether little or small. So, I believe these images have cultural significance because I want to understand why they are so pervasive and why I can write this one article and start a firestorm of differing opinions.

        As Stuart Hall stated, “Nothing meaningful exists outside of discourse.” Therefore, by bringing this to the table and discussing it with our differing viewpoints we make the topic and the portrayal of women in the public media meaningful.

        In response to your second to last section, I have to admit that you are right. When I wrote this, I was fairly scathing and, since then, my viewpoints have simmered a bit. However, that does not mean that I feel like this is any less wrong, but I believe my diction in articulating my viewpoints was not as well thought out as it could have been. Also, the point of third wave feminism is to counter the objectification of all outside/minority groups whether it be for sexuality, race, gender, or socioeconomic status. This article only addresses one of those (primarily), but I believe that some of my other work exemplifies this equality.

        I also enjoy some pin-ups, too. I especially enjoy some of the more modern looks retroactively at them by female photographers because now the power is in the woman’s hands.

        I believe I covered your comment about the original fairy tales countered with the Disney versions in the original post.

        Once again, thank you for comments for being incredibly intelligent, frank, and insightful.

    13. Tenjina April 14, 2010 at 9:10 PM #

      hey, just to recap disney didn’t invent these characters, the story lines, the backgrounds, the ideas, nothing. They took the ideas from old story books, not tailored towards children, and changed them a bit, added some things and made them for kids.

      like google grim brothers or something, just cuz disney made it pretty for children doesn’t mean they actually started out that way. They were stories written by 2 men in their 30-40’s.

    14. vince May 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM #

      Everyone’s a critic. What do you produce or create besides a useless blog?

      • L. June 25, 2012 at 10:52 PM #

        You don’t have to be a chef to know when you’re eating shit. By the same logic you use here, if someone can’t draw then they should never look at art from a critical standpoint.

        People always use this ad hominem fallacy, but what’s worse is most honestly believe someone’s critic becomes invalid if they can’t recreate the thing they’re criticizing. In short, you fail logic, and on top of that insulting someone rather than providing a coherent argument against what they’ve said immediately lets everyone know you have a very small mind.

        • MechanisticMoth June 25, 2012 at 11:12 PM #

          Well thanks L. that was quite kind and reasonable of you!

    15. Meta July 13, 2010 at 3:10 PM #

      Hmm… I do agree with many of your points, though I also feel he has a right to draw what he wants and let the laws of consumerism decide his popularity.

      That being said, you also have a right you point out how stupid it looks. XD That’s the freedom of being the consumer.

      Also, yeah, drawings like this make women look like they exist merely for male satisfaction… but keep in mind there’s plenty of women doing the same to men. I mean… just look up Yaoi in a google image search. They’re all either skinny little wide eyed innocents or large broad shouldered beasts (that and they’re all very stylized looking). There’s no such thing as any other types of men to some women, you either get apples or oranges.

      Granted they might not be as well known, but that’s up to whoever is interested in them, and truthfully the female side of dehumanizing the opposite gender has been growing, regardless of so many women acting embarrassed by the notion that they’d look up nude art of men. Artists like Sanami Matoh became famous in many other countries.

      Not saying it’s morally right or not… just saying both genders are as guilty.

    16. Frank September 10, 2010 at 3:16 AM #

      J. Scott Campbell is draws quite interestingly. If you study his drawings, you will notice what sets him apart from the rest of artists. While he does draw the female figure way out of realism, so do many other artists. Other artists will also make the female form very sexy, but it’s the faces that sets him apart. The eyes of his female drawings are very very almond shaped, the noses very very small and round, and the mouth very pouty and vertical, and the eyelashes are thick and diagonal and somewhat separated from the eyes, and a small little chin as well. I never read Danger Girl, but it took me only a few looks at his drawings to be able to tell how he draws faces. The only thing that I do find troubling is how he draws the noses. Women often get plastic surgery to get these types of noses which I feel is sad, and if Campbell only helps to make women do this then it cannot be very good can it. He’s a superior artist, but this article does touch on some very interesting points, and this is America, so I value the freedom of speech and art, so to each person their own. I actually prefer Amanda Conner’s art because her female characters look more realistic such as Power Girl and the Black Cat.

    17. jasmine Grey September 25, 2010 at 3:19 PM #

      i thnk his art is beautiful

    18. Hannah September 29, 2010 at 7:31 AM #

      It’s just a calender. First of all, many people have put their own twists into the fairytales.

      Plus, sorry. I don’t think isn’t making me feel like women are objects. I like his art, for sake that his art is bloody fantastic. I’m not gonna let some artist think that I need to have big breasts and tiny ickel waist and lovely curves in order to live in this world. I’m not stupid enough to go, ‘OMG, Her breasts are so big. I need to make mine bigger so I can get attenion’. Really, why do people feel the need to compare themselves to COMIC BOOK CHARACTERS. Is beyond me. So really, no. This isn’t making me all pissed off, I actually love his work. I admire the way he draws and creates his drawings. So screw you basically.

      J.Scott Campbell isn’t probably the only artist that has done this sort of intrepation to fairytales. So really, your attack is pointless. Really, you think ALL women in this entire world are gonna look at these and go, ‘I want that body, so I’ll spend tons of money for surgery to get plastic boobs’. Same case with men, not all of them are gonna go ‘I need to look like I have something stuck up my butt, or have massive rippling pecks to live’. Maybe, some people actually will look at these pictures and go ‘Wow! Thats amazing, his artistic skills are inspiring’. Instead of trying to make an issue out of everything in the world. Some people are actually happy with the their bodies. Shockingly enough.

      Plus, this calender does the have the world ‘pinup’ included in its title I beileve, have you seen the 50’s pinups? This might be a modern interpretation of pinups?

      You think this will make men, mistreat women? There are MUCH worse things men have done to women, without looking at this sort of thing. So don’t blame it, for something that came from twisted-thoughts of people. Well, I understand your point, but really. Usually the men who do mistreat women, think its what from they seen in say pornography or comics. Fail to seperate fact from fiction. They don’t seem to understand, that comic books and pornography are not real life, their fantasy. So really, its rather stupid of you to blame a comic book artist for the objectifying of women. There are much bigger problems in the world, much more serious reasons why men mistreat women, either because, how they grew up? What morals they were taught (or the lack of them), the influence of people around them, environment etc etc
      Yes, I agree indeed. That it is wrong to mistreat women, it is wrong to kill women etc etc, and its great that your not putting up with it at all. But really, it gets annoying when you seem to find something WRONG in everything.

      Sorry, for the rant. But, had to be said.

    19. Sarah October 11, 2010 at 7:59 AM #

      Each to their own isnt it, some men/people find women who look like this really attractive and some men/people will find it utterly disgusting.

      This is clearly aimed at an older audience, I don’t think the artist would intend for these pictures to ‘ruin’ the fairytales the kids are watching! So obviously people need to be mature when looking at things like this.

      I think this artwork is fantastic, I wish I could be as good as him. I’m a woman and I’d happily draw like this, I’d draw men with as many muscles as I could fit in there too, mostly because, to me, its more interesting than just drawing what I can see in front of me, I’d want to be able to add in extra ‘unhumanly’ things too.

      There’s nothing wrong with accentuating the human body, male or female, its basically down to the sleaze-bags who wont see this for artwork and see it as porn. If they want porn there’s loads on the internet, then they can see ‘real’ women there, right?

      I mean, I don’t disagree that the women in these pictures are overly sexualised, I just don’t think its right slating this work because of it. Its still brilliant art. Also, art isn’t always supposed to be proportional and look EXACTLY like a proper human, unless its realism, which this isn’t. He’s not looked at a woman lying in a bed, naked and thought ‘oh well she clearly looks like this…’

      Why ANYONE would want to compare themselves to a comic book character is beyond me, they’re drawn that way because they’re NOT supposed to look like normal humans, hence the whole point of a super hero. People who compare themselves to fictional comic book characters have got serious self esteem issues. I totally agree with everyone whos said that already!

      Try looking at some of the crazy things the Japanese draw! This is positively suitable for children compared to that. (That’s just a figure of speech, I hope no one gets the wrong idea by that and think I’d happily give these drawings to a child!)

      I’m not trying to change anyones mind either, that’s just my opinion on the whole thing, and to me, it did look like you were taking the whole thing FAR too literally, but at the end of the day that’s your opinion, and it IS just art :)

    20. HeartlessSoulEater October 13, 2010 at 8:16 AM #

      You know you can’t blame Campbell entirely. He only did the outlines. The color that really makes the pictures pop, or in your words “oversexualize to a hyperdrive-like level” was done by someone else. Maybe you should write a paper about them next.

      So who’s Campbell’s partner in crime? The Mussolini to this Hitler? The aid to this “objectification?” The Mistress of Color herself Nei Ruffino. That’s right. Half of this artwork was done BY A GIRL!

      I hate to say it but people like you hold women back more than helping them. Why should the size of a woman’s breast be the deciding factor in determining weather or not a picture is empowering? How come a man can’t draw a picture of a woman with out it being objectifying? Why if a picture of a woman is sexy it most have been draw by a sexist man?

      Maybe you didn’t do all your research and you didn’t know about Ruffino, or maybe you did and you never mentioned her because it it would have made your point harder to prove. The point being your credibility as a writer has suffered because you found something you didn’t like and jumped all over the first name you could connect with it without checking to see if there was more to it. Try not to do that again. It makes you look like a moron, which as a writer I doubt you are.

    21. X-Mann October 20, 2010 at 10:53 AM #

      Well said HeartlessSoulEater. I was reading this blog and I was not going to post any comments; I figured it’s your opinion and I’ll leave you to it. That is, until you said this “the problem with the situation is that the portrayal of over-sexualized males tends to favor that gender over over-sexualized females. Hence, men are depicted as flawless but also intelligent and something to strive for while women are depicted as flawless but something that can easily be tossed away; foolish and dumb, women are portrayed as the lesser gender by only emphasizing the characteristics that men find so sexually appealing”. Foolish and dumb? Lesser gender? This simple statement spoke volumes to me and reinforced two statements. 1: you have never read a comic book in your life, and 2: you aren’t really looking at this art work.

      Take a good chunk of the day and do some serious research, because that statement goes to show you haven’t. You want to lead the war against objectifying women in comics, then read some comics. Read Wonder Woman, Gotham City Sirens, Supergirl, Ultra, Red Sonja, Queen Sonja, I Kill Giants, Power Girl, Ms. Marvel, Batgirl, Tank Girl, 28 days later, Atom Eve, Storm, Fallen Angel, The Suicide Squad, Wonder Girl, Teen Titans, X23, Women of Marvel, She Hulk, Hellcat, hell, even both of the main stream Avengers teams are lead by STRONG FEMALE CHARACTERS. I have heard this argument for a long time. Yes some women are objectified in comics, but for every woman there is also a man objectified as well.

      I work at a prominent comic store and I designed an entire wall for this specific reason; that women can be portrayed as SMART, STRONG and SEXUAL. You (for whatever reason) refuse to believe this statement. Every comic I have listed here has strong, smart females as the protagonist. Some of which are stronger than their male counterparts. Supergirl: older, faster, and stronger than superman, Suicide Squad: was run by Amanda Waller (one of the most powerful women of the DCU at that time). She Hulk: Is super smart and is a lawyer, and on several occasions had to represent and save major Marvel characters (Spiderman included). Sexy female characters are far from foolish and dumb, if you see them as that way then maybe the fault lies with you. Not the art.

      My point is If you want to lead this charge fight the right fight. Don’t crucify Campbell (and his FEMALE colorist), don’t make martyrs out of the Disney princesses (if you’re going to cry about anything cry about Disney ruining these stories) If you want to change things, to help women, then build a shelter, volunteer at a woman’s center. If you’re trying to change comics portrayal of women, then change the way men are portrayed as well. Both are portrayed as perfect. Its a fantasy world, where everybody is perfect…hell even Jimmy olsen has a great body. The female form is beautiful, so it’s portrayed as such, but if you’re just looking at the pictures and not getting the full story; you’ve lost this battle before it’s started.

    22. Olivia November 28, 2010 at 12:19 AM #

      I don’t know if anyone at all will ever read this, but I’m going to write anyway, if only to vent my own feelings.
      As a pastime drawer, I think this man (J. Scott Campbell) has exceptional talent. But in my opinion, it’s used the wrong way. Of course, that’s only my opinion. I bet some people would think my drawings are rubbish. Personally, I just hate nude drawings. Sleeping Beauty is my favourite princess in the whole Disney History. And in this collection, she’s probably the most inaproppriate. But nude drawings, paintings, even statues have been going on for ages. The Greeks and Romans, for example. And this may bother me, as a person, but I am only a person and everyone has a right to do what they like. And If I don’t like things like this, I’m not forced to look at them.

      I am a huge Disney fan, and as one I always like different versions of them. I have found some that I didn’t like at all, (Like the Disney Twisted series.) But with bad, good also comes.
      Many people also talk about women being objectified in Disney movies. There are even feminists trying to change classic fairy tales, saying that women do not need men to survive. I say, just leave the classic fairy tales alone, but make what you will with the new ones, they’re all yours.

      So, to just sum everything up before I keep rambling for hours, I don’t like what the drawings represent or imply, but evryone should be free to do what they like as long as it stays between the barriers of God. :)

    23. Chris January 16, 2011 at 8:28 PM #

      I can understand that these images a highly sexualzed but at the same time Campbell can draw what ever he wants to and if you find issues with that, rather then make a blog over it, why not take it to him personally. Let your concern be known to the artist himself and see what he has to say about it. I will say this, drawings such as this will never stop and will continued to be sexualized. We can not police society and try and make this go away. If there is a concern over children and teens seeing these images, then perhaps it is time for parents to be parents. I hope you are not one of those folks that would force government to create child protection laws over this stuff because it will not work. Who is government to decide what is right and wrong all of the time. All we need is more laws and bigger government.

      Proper parenting is the only real protection against what some think is disturbing or what can harm children. All issues and protection start in the family. Personally i like Campbell’s style but i can never find myself to draw women like this as i think sexuality needs to have class as well. However, that will not bring me to stop and protest against Campbell or others like him. That is just my personal moral opinion and i will not force anyone to think that way if they choose to disagree.

    24. thane January 20, 2011 at 7:12 AM #

      lol, you guys are funny!

      let’s get the stakes and torches and burn the man who likes to draw sexy women, and who does so quite good imo :P

      all i can say is nice work skott, you raged the femenistas :)

    25. Suyuki January 25, 2011 at 1:01 PM #

      Just as an openin thought, I feel that several comments, from both those that support this type of art and those that do not, have been… harsher than they need be. Though they are all our opinions and we are all entitled to them, I just feel we would all do well to remember that we are speaking to and about real people and as such, should show them due respect. This brings me to my point. While I must say that it is quite true that Mr. Campbell is indeed portraying (with a good deal of talent I must admit) the female leads from our favorite childhood films (and clearly recognisable as the Disney rendition), that we need to keep one thing in mind that I feel we are all forgetting. The drawings are of completely fictitious people. It is true that far more often than not, the female figure is portrayed in a completely impossible way, geared mainly at creating an image with high sex appeal. This is true for a great number of comics and other form of media but the simple fact remains that they are not real. I strongly doubt that the vast majority of artists drawing this type of art are truly trying to suggest that women are no more than objects used for sexual pleasure. Just as I feel that most men (for sadly I’m sure there are some that do, though this type of art is not to blame for their misguided beliefs) do not expect real women to conform to such blatantly unrealistic figures. In truth the name of this series of pictures sums up my point nicely. Fairytale Fantasies. These pictures only purpose is to give men (and women, for there are pictures depicting men in such a fashion as well) a fantasy to enjoy, nothing more. We are all human, men and women, and we all deserve the same respect and equality. Unfortunately there are people in the world who would use art to express their foolish and debasing views of the opposite sex, but I do not believe that the works of Mr. Campbell fall into that category. Admittedly I am a man and do find his works appealing, for both the content and how well drawn they are, yet at the same time I find many women in life attractive who are far from fitting this fairytale figure and for reasons other than their physical appearance. On a side note, your comment about the beauty and the beast picture intrigued me. I viewed their rolls opposite the way you described it. The impression I got was that the beast (or as you said, the man) was under her order, as if fetching her robe at her request and not lording over her as if to protect a piece of property. The endless powers of interpretation…

      • Seraph December 5, 2011 at 2:18 PM #

        Another intelligent comment I loved.

    26. wrmIII February 28, 2011 at 4:22 PM #

      Is Conan any more or less “realistic” than these women? Google “Rob Liefeld Captain America”, my friends.

    27. Sketchmavrik&} March 14, 2011 at 8:47 AM #

      I think the drawings are great, and the content ok… Heres why:

      1) There are women who are fine with showing off their bodies and making guys go bonkers over them. Fact, it’s called Sex Apeal and women have the choice of being that way or not.

      2) These are only pictures on a Calender with sexual fantasy themes, that an artist is making money off of. Note that he is not using women, but femanine images in his head. He’s a guy- so what.

      3) It’s a free country people, and that’s what makes this Nation so awesome! So slut it up on the canvas if you want. People pick and choose sit and lose.

      4) I can tell you (angry person who wrote the blogg) like to bitch. So with that being said I find it ironic that you are working against the making of “Females” (they were calender images) or “Femails” as that other dude put it (he doesn’t want to get in trouble with technicalities. Hence the use of femail instead of females- he wrote nothing against females lol!) into bitches. Why is that ironic? Because YOU ARE a bitch.

      Long live J. Scott Campbell!!!

      P.S. please reply back poster. I get a kick out of your idiocy 8)

    28. Tommy April 13, 2011 at 5:25 AM #

      Before you keep going on about how comics mesogynize women. Go ahead and take another look at them. How many normal looking men do you see? Men are dehumanized just as much as women. Comic artists are just trying to do what we can’t do in real life, create an ideal world (except there are still bad guys for the superheroes to fight) with ideal looking people. Comics are fantasy. If you really to target something that is harmful to women, take a look at any magazine that women read like 17 or vogue or cosmo. They mesogynize women (and dehumanize men) way more and they are marketed to them.

    29. 1979semifinalist April 18, 2011 at 9:50 PM #

      Oh joy. I’m back.

      So here’s a thing, on the difference between idealization and sexualiztion, particularly as it relates to comics, that most of the people here (judging by the way the comments are trending) are not going to agree with but I’m going to break down anyway…if only for my own peace of mind.

      This comes down to four core categories in the differences between how men and women are realized in comics: Body Type, Clothing, Beauty, and Posing.

      By and large (and yes, there are always exceptions) here is how you can break it down to seem some of the discrepancies:

      1. Body Type. Both men and women are given crazy nearly unattainable idealized bodies in comics. But this is where the equality ends. Men are generally portrayed with idealized athlete body types. Women are generally portrayed with idealized porn star and supermodel body types. If women, like men, were rendered like gymnasts, swimmers, runners, and body builders – you’d see a lot less wincing and bitching about image inequality – because it would be pretty balanced. Sure it would be an idealized athletic form that few of us can achieve and many of us would admire or like to have – but it would be equal at least. But instead men are portrayed with athletic body types and that suggests strength, power, and ability – all traits that make much sense in comics, and specifically make sense for superheroes. Women however, are generally saddled with model and porn star body types which suggest beauty, sex, and often enough, submissiveness. None of those qualities tie directly to comics, or superheroes, and in this case, should not represent the be all end all for fairytales either. Idealization of the form is not the same as sexualization of the form. The sexual aspects of a man are not highlighted in comics…in fact, the penis is an area quite generally glossed over, to hilarious effect sometimes. While all of a womens’ sexual aspects are put on most prominent display.

      2. Clothing. Yes, most comic book characters, both men and women, are subjected to the incredibly unforgiving spandex. But time and time again the men get to be fully covered by their unforgiving spandex – think of any of your average superheroes – covered nearly head to toe in spandex (Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Thor, Wolverine, Green Lantern, Flash, etc). While the ladies are subject to swimsuits, thongs, low cut tops, stiletto heels, boob windows, thigh highs, fishnets, bikinis, and – apparently all the rage lately – costumes unzipped to their stomachs (Wonder Woman, Power Girl, Supergirl, Catwoman, Black Canary, Black Widow, Psylocke, Rogue, Emma Frost, Ms. Marvel, etc.). The costumes in Campbell’s work above rarely make any sense and are clearly designed to titillate (some of them are wearing lingerie or are naked…and bizarrely, the Little Mermaid apparently has an ass crack, despite the fact that she doesn’t have an ass?). There’s nothing inherently wrong with titillation, but let’s call a spade a spade and not pretend that it’s the same way that male characters are routinely dressed in similar comic-like imagery. It’s not remotely the same, and we all know it.

      3. Beauty. Most characters in comics are beautiful. It’s true. Much like our idealization of the body, the face (etc.) has been idealized too. Not unlike Hollywood, comics tend to show a world full of people that are exceptionally attractive (and mostly white, but that’s a whole other post). However, men in general, are still allowed to look a bit like monsters…on occasion and as necessary. For women…it’s incredibly rare…unless they ARE in fact monsters (but even then it’s rare). One of the most well-known examples of this is The Hulk. Bruce Banner as The Hulk? Pretty monstrous. Jennifer Walters as She-Hulk? Stone. Cold. Fox. But to draw specifically from the above imagery though there are few men present…Beauty and THE BEAST, Tinkerbell and Captain Hook. And again, nothing wrong with these women being beautiful, but let’s not pretend it’s “all equal and shit”.

      4. Posing. This takes us back very much to the athlete v porn star images on which our characters’ forms are based. Because, while men pose somewhat ridiculously quite often – they are still posing as athletes, heroes, conquerors, and badasses. They generally look powerful and often in control. Women on the other hand are so notorious for being posed submissively and for maximum wank factor that “the brokeback”* pose has become firmly entrenched in our comic nomenclature. It suggests sex, sexuality, availability, submissiveness, and beauty. It’s not the same as appearing strong or powerful, badass or heroic. Again, there’s not necessarily anything inherently wrong with women being posed sexually…but it depends very much on context and purpose, and to pretend it’s the same way that men are posed and idealized in comics/imagery is just regoddamndiculous.

      As a sidenote, to Tommy above, I would ABSOLUTELY agree that Fashion magazines geared toward women are HORRIBLY guilty of similar crimes against women, and in many cases it’s a worse offense because girls read them in much greater numbers from a young age and get ingrained with that shit early on…it’s hard to deprogram that…many of us spend our whole lives trying to deprogram. But you’re kidding yourself if you think there aren’t women, men, and publications (Jezebel to name a big one online) calling that shit out on a regular basis and trying to put a stop to it, to make people aware of it, to stop it from continuing to happen to future generations. But two wrongs don’t make a right and all that…so if it’s wrong for fashion magazines, as you seem to think it is (and I agree), then it’s also wrong for comics. We can be better than this. Comics can be better than this.

      And at that end of the day that would be my argument against Campbell. Nobody would say he isn’t a talented artist, he is, he has been for YEARS. And it’s certainly his prerogative to draw as much of this shit as he wants…but it’s also my prerogative (and MM’s) to call it out as we see it and to choose not to support it.

      Also, to the commenter that mentioned Nei Ruffino…I’m well familiar with her work, and personally I don’t like it, I find it pretty offensive on the regular. Women are just as capable of being sexist (or just creating offensive work) as men…there’s no great divide where women are brilliant perfect people that make no mistakes and always have the same beliefs and where men are moronic assholes that do nothing but make mistakes and always have the same beliefs. That’s just silly.

      Okay…Ciao! I’ll come back in another year or so I guess! :) Can’t believe this post is still going MM!

      Kelly

      *the brokeback pose is when a woman is posed so that she manages to show both her ass and her tits at the same time. Ah-mazing

      • MechanisticMoth April 19, 2011 at 1:29 PM #

        As always, Kelly, you make me laugh as you make a ton of sense. Your points are very well explained, and I hope that they will be considered carefully for future commentators (considering that they read all of the comments and do not just reply willy nilly).

        I can’t believe this post is still running strong. Hell, it’s on the second page of google when you search “j. scott campbell”! I suppose it is because of all of the reprints of the calendar.

        I need to start using the “brokeback pose” description more often.

        Oh, and just as a note for future commentators – aside from just looking at 1979Semifinalist’s comments THAT MAKE A LOT OF SENSE – please stop telling me that I’m a stupid woman overreacting and that I need to go get laid (which will obviously quash any feminist aspirations). I am a man who supports feminism because we live in an absurd attempt of the world to be post-feminist. Women’s issues have not been solved. There is still room for improvement. Just because people say that women are allegedly now our equals does not mean that this statement has any effects in the real world. Representations of women in the media continue to be highly sexualized. And, even in that real world that apparently exists, women are still underpaid compared to men and have less power than men. Look at who are the CEOs in the top 100 Companies. Most of them are privileged white men. Who controls most of the media/The USA? Privileged, white, older, conservative men. Naturally, their viewpoints will affect what is portrayed in the media, and, at this moment, representations of women still not bode well.

        There is a problem in the real world that affects what we see in the comic world and that needs to change.

        • David May 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM #

          I loved the discussion, and thought I’d put in my two cents.

          I fully agree that we are surrounded by an increasingly pornographic media, and would be pleased to see that trend reverse. But viewing this solely in terms of chauvinism seems oversimplified at best.

          In fact, comic book heroines are an excellent example of the distinction between pornography and objectification. There is no denying that comic books have, for some time, included a form of light porn in their depictions of women. However, anyone who has spent any time reading comics is aware that the overwhelming majority of female characters therein cannot be summed up by their bra size any more than flesh-and-blood women can be summed up by their biology.

          I read a great many comics as a teenager, and found myself particularly drawn to some of the female characters. I do not deny that sexy images of them had something to do with that – but this is a double-edged sword. The simple fact is that there was no clear linear connection between breast size and my interest. Rather, there was a much closer correlation between my interest in the content of the character and how sexy I happened to find her. Moreover, I’ve always noted the complete inability of objectification theories to account for the strength exhibited by these characters.

          Yes, body type matters when it comes to sexuality, and there is a reason why Campbell has drawn large breasts on his women, but no man finds a girl sexy without finding something sexy about (what he perceives to be) her personality.

          This gets back to the traditional controversy about the “naughty nurse” stereotype. Pornography it is – and therefore not a healthy approach to sex. In addition it may also be objectification (men seeking to demean a common symbol of professional women) or not (men having a certain respect for, and therefore attraction to, clearly intelligent women).

          Yes, objectifying images are hurtful. But proponents of feminism only damage their own cause when they demand that women never be thought of sexually. Not only is this an impossible task, but often attacks something that may well have been rooted in a much more nuanced view of women than they realize.

          Some of the comments of the original post seem to fit this pattern. The idea of someone being “innocent-yet-sexy” doesn’t strike me as odd at all. Innocence is, for many of us, a prerequisite to sexiness. Likewise, one could indeed view the beast as Belle’s pimp, and, reading that, I can see why one wouldn’t find the image alluring at all. On the other hand, one could remember the actual story (which, presumably, was the point of using known characters) and realize that this is meant to portray the sexual side of romance. The warmth of the lighting choice and the gentleness of the beast’s gesture reinforce that idea. Moreover, Belle hardly looks like an abused or helpless person. Any sexuality she exhibits would appeal only to a man who is attracted to a self-confident woman. I suppose I could go down the list, but you see the point. That these images could be taken as objectifying does not mean that they must be, nor that they were intended in this fashion.

          In my view, the opponent of pornography should point out the damage it does to the addict, which is much the same of any fantasy. It reinforces the belief that we can have the reward (in this case sexual intimacy) without actually doing the work of maintaining a loving (I personally would hope, marital) relationship. This leads me to think of porn as something akin to junk food. Without the natural, but less instantly gratifying parts, a certain weariness will eventually set in.

          As such, I would say that this is indeed a moral issue, but not, I think, a gender-dominance issue.

    30. M April 27, 2011 at 9:36 PM #

      I think that you are correct in saying that this person’s art itemizes women; however, the women depicted, as you yourself have repetatively stated, simply can not possibly exist, matter much existed at an earlier time. This means that they are not even properly women at all. Instead, they are exactly what they appear to be; Disney princesses that have been greatly endowed and then had a touch-up on their artwork and kowledge of the Kama Sutra, which is why nobody (female, male, both, neither) should try to imitate any of the above peices of artwork. By now, you either (partially) agree with me or are staring at your computer thinking “wtf?!? rotflol!! tHare R, like, wuRD THINGGS ON MAH SCREN! hahahaha/lolipop!!”.

    31. Enzo August 16, 2011 at 5:26 PM #

      This entry of yours reminds me of that Simpsons episode in which Marge battles the Itchy and Scratchy tv show. She succeeds for cancelling the show – temporarily, but gets hammered on views of art when she is presented with the naked body of David by Michelangelo.

      Anyway, there is an old adage which says: “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder”. But what really annoys me is that the “beholder” is telling other people that his or her view of what is “beautiful” or what is “artistic” is “absolute” but in fact that ART CANNOT BE QUANTIFIED.

      How each of us who views art, describing art is SUBJECTIVE.

      For me, art is more about the “arousal of the senses”. If we hide it with these so called “intelligent mumbo-jumbo” debates, trying to quantify art with feminist or religious views and other forms of bull, then you and anyone out there saying these stuff are just being plain hypocrites.

      If you hate these artworks, do we all have to agree on that? Seeming that you are telling everyone in this entry to hate it as well.

      Another thing that I find it strange, I see a lot of classical artworks out there from great masters from the past who makes these erotic artworks which were derived from Greek mythologies like “Leda and the Swan” for example (a girl consummating with a bird, how about that?), and features nude women. Now, compare that to these clothed ones that Campbell made, the latter was much tamer.

    32. talkingship.com October 20, 2011 at 6:41 PM #

      Using the female body as inspiration for artwork is hardly something new. In fact, there is no single theme more represented in the world of art than that of the female body. I find the female body alluring, engrossing, and worthy of endless adoration. I am sorry if you do not share that feeling, but claiming that we have entered into a worldwide conspiracy to degrade women through current artistic efforts seems like you are exercising a willful disregard of art through the ages. And finally, this whole notion that women are subjugated more egregiously in comics than men is simply hilarious. Have you ever picked up a comic book? Sure, the women are thin and have large breasts, but the men are in peak physical condition, with their shirts either off or so skin tight that you can tell how cold it is in the room.

    33. Samantha December 15, 2011 at 9:52 AM #

      The part that really is the kicker here is, This blogger isn’t doing jack shit except complain that she is never going to be this skinny or body type or, as humorously as it sounds, bend the way these fantasy chicks do. If your cause is sooo justified then do something about it, fix it, it being the problem. Complaining about it in a general sense such as this is annoying, because your leaving the problem there so you and others, have something to complain about. Your not a women’s rights activist or whatever they were called. They got shit done, and they fought the sexism one amendment at a time. Go to each artist, or company, or government and do what it takes to change life for the better, blogging is……just the stupidest way to go about it. Your essentially giving your enemies more information to use in order to think of ways of countering your arguments.FEMINISTS! Thats who you think you are, more like whiny little girls who probably would not have these open beliefs if they weren’t chicks.

    34. Jenny January 11, 2012 at 6:18 PM #

      Yeah, I’m a 26 year old woman and not only do I love this stuff, I draw it myself, usually much “dirtier”. I find the fact that I can’t find my 5 year old a swim suit that isnt cut to accentuate breasts (that she doesn’t have thank goodness!) Much, Much worse!

      • 1979semifinalist January 11, 2012 at 7:51 PM #

        @Jenny:

        The fact that you don’t realize that those two things are related (a highly sexualized calendar of “Disney” fairytale characters and young girls highly sexualized swimsuits) is painfully alarming.

        Or you’re going for sarcasm, to which I would say “excellent point Jenny!”

    35. Ayesha January 18, 2012 at 12:35 PM #

      Soo I know I’m super late responding to this, but I just wanted to say…. The blogger insists that Campbell is objectifying the princesses who are known for their innocence, chastity, etc…. I’m sorry, but I’m pretty sure Disney did that already – only in Disney is it acceptable to be married off at 16 and 17 to virtual strangers with whom the princess is usually only barely acquainted with. The original stories were gory and sexualized, for sure; Disney only tried to “clean them up” as it were, but even that was half-assed – at least the originals rarely if ever mentioned specific ages so one would imagine they were all adults at least. I would never in my life condone the objectifying of women, but if you’re going to complain about the issue, you’re going to have to point out the entire media in this society – to just pick up on this one thing that is relatively harmless – many women find Campbell’s reinvented princesses interesting and fun – is just plain silly when there are so many real cases of objectifying of females going on.

      • 1979semifinalist January 19, 2012 at 4:48 PM #

        So the blogger cannot talk about this as an issue or a specific product that features this issue unless he discusses the entire breadth of the problem in all media?

        That seems excessive to say the least. And highly impractical.

        As for the complaint about the original fairytales being dark…I think that’s very true, and if Campbell had not used VERY obvious Disney versions of these characters as his base, it would mitigate a lot of the issues. But he did. The look and feel and colors for the pieces are clearly taken from the Disney versions of these fairytales, which makes the fact that they have been so hyper-sexualized more offensive since those are touchstones for a lot of young girls.

    36. Spike February 7, 2012 at 3:56 PM #

      Really well I Might as well throw my hat in the ring so here it goes…..To each there own personally Im a big fan of J Scott like so many others and Im a female myself and yes I understand that he used the “Disney Characters” to do it but like how everyone else already placed it the so called disney characters where not all sweetness and happiness. An even the moneys now have something in them thats a so called inside joke between the disney artist like in little mermaid the point of the castle is in the shape of a penis and Alice and wonderland shows smoking ang people being beheaded and so on and so. What makes me laugh is that you feel the need to try and defend the female form are we not capable or do we need a guys opinion so that things will change a so called knight an shinning armor (sorry I had to throw another disney thing in there) and I understand that your looking for equality but lashing at these certain drawings arent going to help especially since they’re arent any women themselves who have a real problem with
      them and if they do they just ignor it because A:There art work or B:Its not affecting
      them because as you think it is.
      I draw the exact same way because in my fantasy land my art is suppose to be creative unnatural and out side the box. Yet again this is how you feel towards it
      P.S. As for your comments on the female form we are all made differently an I know Im proud of how I look an if any one wants to get at my case for saying this but as for the comment about belles so called breast being to huge and she is suppose to be falling over herself is kinda rude Im small in the waist with a large chest and I dont fall over plus when my boyfriend helps me put on my coat I dont find it pimpy I kind of find it romantic.
      In the long run if you feel that this is wrong then by all means say how you feel.

      • 1979semifinalist February 8, 2012 at 8:53 PM #

        Apparently 2012 is the year in which I respond to all of these new comments! WOO!

        @Spike

        “They’re [sic] arent [sic] any women themselves who have a real problem with them…”

        I can assure you that is not true. I seriously doubt I’m alone, but if I am, I’m still one woman…thus undoing that argument.

        “…if they do they just ignor [sic] it because A: There [sic] art work”

        Again, I’m here and I’m not ignoring it. There are many places on the web (and beyond) where women (and men) talk about these issues – including major sites like Jezebel. To ignore the problems in media and how women are portrayed is to assume that those portrayals don’t affect larger issues. I can assure you they do – everything from eating disorders and self esteem, to sexual harassment in the work place. It’s all very much related.

        I find it ironic that you think the blogger is commenting negatively on the female form when in fact he’s clearly trying to say exactly the opposite – that these barbie standards are potentially damaging in the way that they present ALL women as having the exact same barbie like dimensions.

    37. RG March 26, 2012 at 3:47 AM #

      Oh wow, another misguided woman who thinks she’s being the good feminist by railing against pictures or drawing of attractive females. You even used the word
      “misogynist” when it’s obvious you have no idea what that word means. Feminism is a noble movement about giving equal rights to both sexes, its brother movement being masculism. But people like you, people who use the guise of feminism as a soapbox for your immature ideas toward sexuality, you give the movement a bad name. It’s apparent to me that you are dissatisfied with you own appearance, and so you are offended by pictures of beautiful women, as they remind you how ugly you are. I suggest you start going to the gym, and perhaps shaving your armpits and wearing make-up more often. It might also be good to buy a ZNP bar or two for that fungal folliculitis on your ass. And maybe when your in shape and have clear skin, you can get yourself laid. Then you’ll stop pathetically railing against harmless sexual drawing and realize they are there for entertainment, and not to oppress women.

      • MechanisticMoth March 26, 2012 at 4:44 PM #

        I’d like to remind people that I’m a man… and yes, I totally have fungal folliculitis…

    38. Huami March 26, 2012 at 1:30 PM #

      time to get my lotion and tissue paper ^_^

    39. Snw616 July 14, 2012 at 10:17 PM #

      Wow who died and made you queen bitch? So the drawings are a little risqué? Oh well. Coming from a girls stand point, his artwork is amazing. Haven’t you heard of freedom of speech? He’s just expressing his talent on Disney characters. But about Disney ruining fairy tales…it’s not like they’re re-written forever. Disney just made them happy and appropriate for little kids. I grew up on that stuff and let me tell you, no matter how you tell them, dress them or draw them, they’re all someone’s imagination so respect it

    40. marikit July 15, 2012 at 5:56 PM #

      Reblogged this on Idiosyncratic Inklings and commented:
      I dont think he’s ruining it. its gorgeous!!

    41. M.A.F. August 23, 2012 at 10:48 PM #

      Sorry, seems I’m very, very, very, very late to the party just as many others are. I would just like to say one thing that has many or some parts. Nobody can tell someone else what to do and what not to do, they can only tell themselves what to do and what not to do as it is nobody’s right to tell someone what’s not of there own thought and what it should be. Sorry if you disagree to agree or what ever floats your boat and not mine :P.

    42. Nathalie March 25, 2013 at 6:49 AM #

      I actually think these pictures are more real than any of the pictures disney does of women. These ones at least doesent look like anorextic freaks. And disney is pretty god in objectify women themself. Exuse my bad english.

    43. Nell April 5, 2013 at 11:45 AM #

      Man you should look up the pictures someone did of underwear model Disney Princes. I’ll totally let this man exploit female sexually and sensuality and know how to appreciate it, as much as I can appreciate the Disney Price’s ripped abs and above average “package” sizes.

    Trackbacks/Pingbacks

    1. Ma’am, You’ve Got Yourself a Healthy Blog! « MechanisticMoth - February 3, 2010

      [...] Popular Posts: – J. Scott Campbell with 685 views – Andrew Lloyd Weber with 419 views – Super HeroiHot She-Hulk with 144 [...]

    2. 100,000 Views « MechanisticMoth - September 23, 2010

      [...] J. Scott Campbell: Ruining Your Fairytales coming in at 5,984 views. [...]

    3. J. Scott Campbell: Ruining Your Fairy Tales Redux « MechanisticMoth - March 30, 2011

      [...] I try, I will not be able to shake myself away from my original post that I wrote forever ago about J. Scott Campbell and his work with fairy tale characters.  Now, I wrote this nearly a year and a half ago, yet it still garners 30-50 views a day for this [...]

    4. 200,000 VIEWS!!! « MechanisticMoth - April 9, 2011

      [...] by the way, our heavy hitting J. Scott Campbell post is now on the second page of links on Google when you search his name!  [...]

    5. A Month of Comic Book Sites – Mechanistic Moth | Comics Should Be Good! @ Comic Book Resources - June 25, 2011

      [...] Elliot “Mechanistic Moth” Sawyer has appeared on Comics Should Be Good a few times, including his hilarious Superman/Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles team-up that appeared in a Reader Art Gallery here. Kelly has also mentioned his rant about J. Scott Campbell’s drawings of fairy tale characters titled “J. Scott Campbell is Ruining Your Fairy Tales.” [...]

    6. My Secret: How Friends, Family, and Comics Helped Save My Life « MechanisticMoth - February 15, 2012

      [...] to them.  That’s also why I want to make them better.  I write posts like the one on J. Scott Campbell because I want comics to learn to better represent women, people of color, and other groups.  They [...]

    7. 500 Posts « MechanisticMoth - March 29, 2012

      [...] J. Scott Campbell Ruining Your Fairy Tales has been a hot topic appearing on the second page of google when you search his name.  It comes in at almost 21,000 views since I wrote it nearly 2.5 years ago.  And, it has the most comments on the blog (with the typical “you’re being a feminazi/such a woman” comments abound… even though I keep reminding the commentators that I’m a man). [...]

    8. Feminist Frequency or One Step Closer to Eliminating Sexism « 1000 Things We Hate - June 12, 2012

      [...] One of our place markers for 1000 Things We Hate will be a post on sexism in comics.  I’d like to expand that to sexism in general, but I’m most familiar with comics.  This post will upset many people as does my post on J. Scott Campbell. [...]

    Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 204 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: