aloha again!i have seen to many christian comics where the girl is way to SEXY.how do we show an attactive women in a comic and not send the wrong message. disney totally FAILS on this with most of their modern princess (pochahontes, ect) has anyone seen it done right before? the only example i could think of is JESSIE from toystory 2she is female, very cute, attactive and NOT sexy. anyone else?le0www.aydellon.com
You need to be a member of CCAS - Christian Comic Arts Society to add comments!
Now for our brother Leo and his quest to create the cute girl without all the fanservice, let us continue on finding the right way to draw women without offending God, compromising our faith, and still being awesome artists for Christ.
I think it can be done quite easily. Just observe real people (in this case woman/women) and draw them. If they happen to be cute, well then...!
(I'd love to take a crack at Song Of Solomon. And no, I wouldn't play it safe either - though I don' t know if I would dare show the outcome. The biggest difficulty is translating all the metaphors, and at a certain point you no longer know what's what - it's as if the metaphors don't hold until the end just to obstruct any possibility of it being visualized. Apparently, according to the Rabbi's you have to 30 yrs. or older before you're allowed to read it.)
Been a while since I checked this topic - another tidbit about Early Archie: Betty was much more conniving, sassy and mean spirited in the earliest episodes, and Veronica was presented as a, um...less than wholesome girl (rhymes with "mutt") who at times came home the next morning from excursions with boys. There of course was nothing ever explicitly stated, but the art most definitely insinuated things - and you could read into it (or not). And, to say the least, when I read these early episodes, I was actually surprised at how ribald they were.
Buzz Dixon said:
Daniel, I used to think Betty was the wholesome, pure girl-next-door then I started re-reading stories from the 1950s and 60s and realize she's more of a FATAL ATTRACTION-type stalker. Seriously, the girl is dangerously deranged, obsesses over Archie, and has made at least two nearly successful attempts on his life. Veronica has her flaws, but at least they fall within the normal range of human emotions. Betty's really nuts behind that sweet facade.
And I hope no one has mistake my statements re God having no problem with nudity as being synonymous with God requiring nudity. No, clearly there are situations where clothing is needed for very practical reasons, and it's never a bad idea to be polite and emolate one's neighbors' style/mode of dress so long as it's not violating any of God's laws.
That being said, one of the things I gleaned when I went to Hawaii last year was how the missionaries were the ones who were having problems with nudity, the Hawaiians were okay with it, and the missionaries' insistence that the Hawaiians feel shame (not guilt) over their native dress proved to be a significant -- and needless -- barrier to winning more Hawaiians to Christ.
I think Christ would rather welcome two semi-naked people back in the fold instead of just one of the pair who happened to be fully dressed.
No doubt Buzz, I'll be the first to admit the Japanese is not America and they do not hold to our values. I was using the art style of Mr. Miyazaki as modest artist who didn't have much sexual overtone is his work. His hidden messages, I don't know. I have to read up on him more to understand him before I say something that may not be right and unfair.
I got the links, I'll check them out.
Now for our brother Leo and his quest to create the cute girl without all the fanservice, let us continue on finding the right way to draw women without offending God, compromising our faith, and still being awesome artists for Christ.
Hmm. Really? Hey Buzz, can you send me your resources on that. I would like to know where you learned that about Spirited Away.
Buzz Dixon said:
A good reply, Paul, but are you aware that Miyazaki's SPIRITED AWAY is about child prostitution; that the symbols and artefacts used at the bath house are those also associated with prostitution in medieval Japan? Miyazaki made the film to operate on two levels, a fairy tale one for children and a commentary on child prostitution and exploitation for adults.
It is not a provocative or exploitive story, but it isn't an innocent one, either.
This has been a very interesting topic, but in the end it comes down to this, let's becareful out there folks. There is no way we are not going to get away from this topic. When I stop and think about trying to do a graphic novel series on The Songs of Solomon, every last one of us as Christians will be challanged with the task of drawing the appropriate sensualized woman. Or doing a piece on the story of David and Bathsheba, trying to visualize what he saw without making it...well.
I think what we have to do is realize we are Christian Artists given a talent by God. We should be appropriate but as my pastor once told me when I did a drawing for kids on the story of David and Bathsheba. "Draw for God and the Kids, just please be modest in the artwork." It was a good lesson and he was pleased with the results. No, there was no nudity. I liked what the ladies said about drawing females. It's about designing an effective character based on their strenghts and who they are. I am more familiar with Anime and Manga and their culture when it comes to art. True they are not as conservative as Christian Artists, and it shows. But what they do know is building "character" in their heros and heroeins. Hayao Maziakia (Spirited Away) is a great example of building strong female characters without all the sexual "fanservice". I like to study his work, because of how clean it is, building pretty females.
couple thoughts-
buzz you comment about betty and veronica and pre 1920's indency- i think we all see archie as wholesome comics- but honestly- not that i don't like dan decarlo and artists who have been influenced by him- but i think we could say that betty and veronica are somewhat sexualized- and definitely josie and the pussycats. i'm not going to say they aren't family friendly comics- but seriously, even their bodies are more curved than actual girls- especially of their age. and they don't always wear the most chaste clothing either- perhaps even more so in older stories. maybe we grew up reading that (or reading image) if we are against disney princesses, i would probably put bettie and veronica at about the same level of "family freindly material, yet has a predispostion to a disproportionate female form"- also- when have you seen a heavy set person in an archie book who's size was not a comedic aspect and/or who was a romantic interest?
and also about image- don't forget that image publishes tons of different artists with tons of different styles. seriously. i'll admit that typically, i am not a fan of image books- however, they will release something now and then that i like. madman, for instance- and that is like the 4th or 5th publisher of the book. image is an indie publisher- they publish all sorts of books- they may be known best for the styles of their founders, but i don't even think that many books they put out now look much like that. once, a friend said he liked the "image art style"- for the same reason, i found that kind of ironic... in fact, a year or two before image was started, you could have easily called it the "marvel art style"- at least of its day.
also- about clothes. i don't know what the temperature would have been in the Garden, but i think that clothes serve more for warmth/accomodation to an environment than for decency. maybe winter in eden would have brought about clothes just as much. when i think of the suffering that isaiah went thru during his unclothed time, i think more abot his comfortability than his decency- also, think about bodily odors- would that not be more embarasing. i couldn't imagine living in winter- anywhere- with a lack of clothing- or just imagine how uncompfortable it would be to sit around without a nice pair of pants- or even sitting around unclean, or feeling sick. perhaps, in humans, God does not provide us with our own clothing (i.e. fur, much like the animals)- not because He thinks we should go nude, but because we are able to make our own which can be modified for any environment. animals fur is the same year round and suits the biome in which they live- humans live in all biomes and dress accordingly. yes adam and eve first put on clothes due to shame, but i guarantee- when they reached cold weather, they were wearing them for warmth probably more than shame.
perhaps i am trying to be controversial- perhaps i am trying to continue discussion....
hey friends, just thought i would throw in a couple comments. they might have been covered, but i thought i would share. One thing is, i think my personal feelings about it are definitely desensitized from the whole thing. I will have a Wizard that i am scanning through, and there will be a crazy over sexual-ized Storm, or a Micheal Turner ad for Fathom (RIP) I will be reading an article on one page, my wife will look at me and ask me what i am doing. Now she jokes about it, but i have explained to her, "honestly babe, i don't even NOTICE that" my brain doesn't even GO THERE...." and that is the honest truth. I could never imagine a DRAWING of a CARTOON female attractive. Maybe that's just me. But like i said, maybe I have been so use to it for so long, i look right past the words like "sexy, stimulating, sensual..." so in that respect its never really been a problem for me. its been so closely tied into the culture of comics ESPECIALLY 90's and led by the guys who founded Image, i fully agree with that. now its in everything. This all goes back to the root of sin. example, if I find a woman attractive, you might say, wow Matthew, you are a sinner....... Were my thoughts impure? do you know that? I believe that attraction is part of how we are built. God made our eyes like that. I find women that look like the same kind of woman as my wife attractive. it is our human nature that crosses the lines. I think its funny, cause my wife will ask me, "do you find her attractive?" (girl on a tv show, or things like this) most of the time, i have to "check" cause its not even on my radar as a married man.
so with comics, drawing a "nicely" proportioned female (nothing crazy, but something near "peak physical form for a super heroine") i find nothing wrong with.... now if YOU have problems with it, and cant handle my super hero look "attractive" that sin is started in your heart. get what i mean? why do i get the blame? if that is the case, on a wider example, you would say to me, all girls need to wear baggy clothes and never show their female form. this is a cop out to the "sinful thoughts" someone needs to change THEIR ways cause YOU can't be a man about something???? I am definitely not standing up at all for Witchblade type of drawings where they are just wearing thongs and whatnot, that stuff is what is making things less special for kids looking at it. desensitizing. I just think there is a balance of respecting women, but also being able to have "attractive" characters. I mean, some people have problems, and like someone above said, looking at Betty and veronica. should the artist "lessen the cuteness?" why is that the artists problem? I believe their is a fine line. something that should definitely be kept in check. Agreed with Baker, and others above. create your OWN style. lets take the female form back from comics! but if we try to not make it "beautiful" God would not like that either. cause that's what HE sculpted!!!
Great topic for this place. something, as brothers and sisters, we should have a standard of what our art looks like.
I hear what you are saying Buzz about male artists vs. female artists. And I agree that you should not throw out all of your tools. This is where organizations like this one are great for younger artists. Here they can be mentored by more seasoned artists and writers (both artistically as well as spiritually) on proper art techniques (proportions, anatomy, perspective, layout etc...) as well as enter discussions like this one that will mature them in their faith to take a second look at certain aspects of their art in relation to their faith.
One final thought on this subject: When the First Church Council in ACT 15 took place about what to do with the Gentile Christians they were discussing whether or not the Gentile Christians should be bound to the Law as the Jewish Christians were. Thanks in large part to the Apostle Paul the letter sent out to Gentile Christians said that they were NOT bound to obey the laws of Moses. They did not need to be circumcised. The ONLY rules they were given were to not eat food or blood offered to idols and to ABSTAIN FROM SEXUAL IMMORALITY. Sexual Immorality is a very broad category and I think that as Christian comic creators we need to be wary of how we present the female form in our art.
For example: The naked prophets? How would you draw that scene? Full frontal nudity? Shown from the back but head to toe with a crowd staring in shock? Waist up with a second panel showing the reaction of the crowd? A "worm's eye view" showing a pair of feet and legs in the foreground with a shocked crowd in the background? One can see that there are MANY MANY options to choose from. Similar scenes like Samson and Delilah, David dancing in the streets or Adam and Eve have given artists trouble since day one of comic art. Sometimes less can more if the composition is just right. So as you say: Practice!
I noticed you OMITTED my comment about how IMAGE draws the women. Archie comics are not the type of comic art that most Christian artists are trying to emulate. The vast majority of Christian comic book artists (except for the older folks like me) grew up reading Jim lee, Todd McFarlane, Marc Silvestri and others over at IMAGE. Their tendency is more towards that rendition of the female form (the IMAGE Style).
IMAGE's stlye rendered the female form (at least in the late 90's) as overtly sexual. You don't have to "be determined" to sexualize the art when the woman's shirt is torn to shreds and barely covering her "stuff" plus she's in a pose where her breasts are literally "in your face". This is a occurrence that happens all the time in comics.
Archie comics was always more CARTOONIE and is geared towards a younger, preteen female audience. IMAGE is aiming at the 15-35 demographic.
You can debate all day long about nudity and "the culture changing" and I agree to a point, but there are some images in comic art that are clearly sexualized to anyone with eyes in their head.
Replies
I think it can be done quite easily. Just observe real people (in this case woman/women) and draw them. If they happen to be cute, well then...!
(I'd love to take a crack at Song Of Solomon. And no, I wouldn't play it safe either - though I don' t know if I would dare show the outcome. The biggest difficulty is translating all the metaphors, and at a certain point you no longer know what's what - it's as if the metaphors don't hold until the end just to obstruct any possibility of it being visualized. Apparently, according to the Rabbi's you have to 30 yrs. or older before you're allowed to read it.)
Buzz Dixon said:
leo
www.aydellon.com
I got the links, I'll check them out.
Now for our brother Leo and his quest to create the cute girl without all the fanservice, let us continue on finding the right way to draw women without offending God, compromising our faith, and still being awesome artists for Christ.
Buzz Dixon said:
I think what we have to do is realize we are Christian Artists given a talent by God. We should be appropriate but as my pastor once told me when I did a drawing for kids on the story of David and Bathsheba. "Draw for God and the Kids, just please be modest in the artwork." It was a good lesson and he was pleased with the results. No, there was no nudity. I liked what the ladies said about drawing females. It's about designing an effective character based on their strenghts and who they are. I am more familiar with Anime and Manga and their culture when it comes to art. True they are not as conservative as Christian Artists, and it shows. But what they do know is building "character" in their heros and heroeins. Hayao Maziakia (Spirited Away) is a great example of building strong female characters without all the sexual "fanservice". I like to study his work, because of how clean it is, building pretty females.
buzz you comment about betty and veronica and pre 1920's indency- i think we all see archie as wholesome comics- but honestly- not that i don't like dan decarlo and artists who have been influenced by him- but i think we could say that betty and veronica are somewhat sexualized- and definitely josie and the pussycats. i'm not going to say they aren't family friendly comics- but seriously, even their bodies are more curved than actual girls- especially of their age. and they don't always wear the most chaste clothing either- perhaps even more so in older stories. maybe we grew up reading that (or reading image) if we are against disney princesses, i would probably put bettie and veronica at about the same level of "family freindly material, yet has a predispostion to a disproportionate female form"- also- when have you seen a heavy set person in an archie book who's size was not a comedic aspect and/or who was a romantic interest?
and also about image- don't forget that image publishes tons of different artists with tons of different styles. seriously. i'll admit that typically, i am not a fan of image books- however, they will release something now and then that i like. madman, for instance- and that is like the 4th or 5th publisher of the book. image is an indie publisher- they publish all sorts of books- they may be known best for the styles of their founders, but i don't even think that many books they put out now look much like that. once, a friend said he liked the "image art style"- for the same reason, i found that kind of ironic... in fact, a year or two before image was started, you could have easily called it the "marvel art style"- at least of its day.
also- about clothes. i don't know what the temperature would have been in the Garden, but i think that clothes serve more for warmth/accomodation to an environment than for decency. maybe winter in eden would have brought about clothes just as much. when i think of the suffering that isaiah went thru during his unclothed time, i think more abot his comfortability than his decency- also, think about bodily odors- would that not be more embarasing. i couldn't imagine living in winter- anywhere- with a lack of clothing- or just imagine how uncompfortable it would be to sit around without a nice pair of pants- or even sitting around unclean, or feeling sick. perhaps, in humans, God does not provide us with our own clothing (i.e. fur, much like the animals)- not because He thinks we should go nude, but because we are able to make our own which can be modified for any environment. animals fur is the same year round and suits the biome in which they live- humans live in all biomes and dress accordingly. yes adam and eve first put on clothes due to shame, but i guarantee- when they reached cold weather, they were wearing them for warmth probably more than shame.
perhaps i am trying to be controversial- perhaps i am trying to continue discussion....
so with comics, drawing a "nicely" proportioned female (nothing crazy, but something near "peak physical form for a super heroine") i find nothing wrong with.... now if YOU have problems with it, and cant handle my super hero look "attractive" that sin is started in your heart. get what i mean? why do i get the blame? if that is the case, on a wider example, you would say to me, all girls need to wear baggy clothes and never show their female form. this is a cop out to the "sinful thoughts" someone needs to change THEIR ways cause YOU can't be a man about something???? I am definitely not standing up at all for Witchblade type of drawings where they are just wearing thongs and whatnot, that stuff is what is making things less special for kids looking at it. desensitizing. I just think there is a balance of respecting women, but also being able to have "attractive" characters. I mean, some people have problems, and like someone above said, looking at Betty and veronica. should the artist "lessen the cuteness?" why is that the artists problem? I believe their is a fine line. something that should definitely be kept in check. Agreed with Baker, and others above. create your OWN style. lets take the female form back from comics! but if we try to not make it "beautiful" God would not like that either. cause that's what HE sculpted!!!
Great topic for this place. something, as brothers and sisters, we should have a standard of what our art looks like.
One final thought on this subject: When the First Church Council in ACT 15 took place about what to do with the Gentile Christians they were discussing whether or not the Gentile Christians should be bound to the Law as the Jewish Christians were. Thanks in large part to the Apostle Paul the letter sent out to Gentile Christians said that they were NOT bound to obey the laws of Moses. They did not need to be circumcised. The ONLY rules they were given were to not eat food or blood offered to idols and to ABSTAIN FROM SEXUAL IMMORALITY. Sexual Immorality is a very broad category and I think that as Christian comic creators we need to be wary of how we present the female form in our art.
For example: The naked prophets? How would you draw that scene? Full frontal nudity? Shown from the back but head to toe with a crowd staring in shock? Waist up with a second panel showing the reaction of the crowd? A "worm's eye view" showing a pair of feet and legs in the foreground with a shocked crowd in the background? One can see that there are MANY MANY options to choose from. Similar scenes like Samson and Delilah, David dancing in the streets or Adam and Eve have given artists trouble since day one of comic art. Sometimes less can more if the composition is just right. So as you say: Practice!
IMAGE's stlye rendered the female form (at least in the late 90's) as overtly sexual. You don't have to "be determined" to sexualize the art when the woman's shirt is torn to shreds and barely covering her "stuff" plus she's in a pose where her breasts are literally "in your face". This is a occurrence that happens all the time in comics.
Archie comics was always more CARTOONIE and is geared towards a younger, preteen female audience. IMAGE is aiming at the 15-35 demographic.
You can debate all day long about nudity and "the culture changing" and I agree to a point, but there are some images in comic art that are clearly sexualized to anyone with eyes in their head.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next