Okay, so the commotion surrounding the Mary Jane statue has largely given way for something even more offensive, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t still good discussion points out there.
Point:
Matt Brady’s got an interview with Adam Hughes up here at Newsarama, in which Mr. Hughes defends the statue.
Excerpt:
AH: Well, that’s how I end up looking at this – is it really a sexist or misogynistic act if it wasn’t intended that way on the part of the people doing it? If you perceive something that way, but it wasn’t meant to be that way, and it’s not sending people back to the stone age, is it really a sexist or misogynistic thing that’s going on, or are you seeing something that’s either not there, or that the artist never intended to be there?
Counterpoint:
Blogger Melchior del Darién found issue with some of Mr. Hughes’s arguments.
Excerpt:
My response to Hughes’ assertion is simple:
Yes, it is indeed sexism no matter what you intended. What you intended isn’t the issue.
Where I live, you still get the traffic ticket even if you tell the cop you didn’t intend to run the red light.
What Hughes doesn’t understand is that telling women who are already offended by his work that their judgment is ill-founded is not the solution.
The artist problematically presumes that those aggrieved would support rather than condemn him if only they knew more, knew what he knows, or simply knew better. This isn’t a valid defense.
It is actually an additional offense.
So what do you think?
May 25th, 2007 at 5:32 am
I think I agree with the counterpoint. Just because the artist didn’t intend it to be sexist (Really?!? A woman stuck in the kitchen doing chores for her husband whilst standing in a “sexy” pose showing off her underwear…?) doesn’t mean that the end result isn’t.
More to the point, the statue is rather crass and tasteless (IMO).
I just hope all this internet coverage doesn’t cause the thing to sell more.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:38 am
I think the lead-in to Hughes comment was much more interesting, and enough for me to realize he has no clue what he’s talking about:
“This is probably going to open up a whole other can of worms, but it’s something like using the “n-word.” Even when I’m sitting and having a discussion about how horrible that word is, I can’t even use that word in a clinical discussion about how horrible it is. I have to say, “n-word” instead. But Dave Chappelle can use it all day long, and nobody gets offended. So – is it actually an offensive word, or is the context offensive? Is it offensive when it’s used by a racist individual as a slur?”
May 25th, 2007 at 10:52 am
i thought the funniest parts of the interview were where he said that her being bent over shouldn’t be interpreted as sexist because its just a traditional pose in pinup art–as if pinup art is completely free of any charges of sexism. also the part where he insists that mary jane *really is* a bimbo, he is just doing his job of capturing her image and he has no responsiblity for how she is portrayed.
honestly, i don’t usually have a problem with hughes’ art because he tends to present women as sexy, self-confident, full of life, etc., but the sculpter of the statue presents mary jane as an empty vessel waiting to be filled by… something… or have something… splashed on her. in other words, simply an object to satisfy someone’s sexual desire.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I think both the point and the counterpoint make good ..er.. points.
Intentions do matter. They’re not the be-all and end-all, but the explanation of MJ finding Spidey’s costume in the laundry (rather than her setting out to do his laundry) puts the statue in a somewhat different light. Certainly, if Hughes had instead said, “Of COURSE she’s washing his laundry. She’s his wife — that’s her job,” we’d be for in a whole new phase of this $#!@storm. But Hughes intention was good-natured and not ill-intentioned — it makes a difference in how we think of Hughes and his art.
That said, del Darien is right that, whatever the explanation, the work is the work. Art’s a two-way street, and a creator’s intentions only travel halfway down it. The art, and what it communicates, go the rest of the way to the viewer. And telling people “that isn’t what I meant” doesn’t change what the work actually communicates.
We each bring our own experiences to a work, and no artist can control that. Huges can’t stop anyone from being offended by his work, nor should he try. But he should probably put a little more thought into the messages his statues unintentionally project.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Neither the statue and Heroes for Hire cover bother me, though I can see how it can offend or upset some.
Fact is, as long as their are heterosexual men, there’ll be soft-core porn-ish type stuff available within and without the comics industry. Does it belong in comics? Depends on the audience and your POV. I personally think that there’s enough variety in comic books as a whole where the existence of stuff like this shouldn’t be more than a blip on the overall radar of the industry, but being as one of them involves one of the most popular and beloved icons in our culture, I can understand why it got so much attention.
May 27th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
I really don’t believe Adam Hughes meant to offend and from my previous conversations with him I’m sure it never even crossed his mind. Hughes has a great love of vintage cheesecake art and is known for his modern “cheesecakey” renderings.
Some people don’t like cheesecake art and are going to be offended, if not by this then by other stuff. That’s their right and they are going to squawk about it because it’s what they do instead of creating their own art or just buying the things they support.
It doesn’t mean I have to validate their opinions, outlooks or viewpoints or grant any credence to the notion that they are more civilized, proper, or egalitarian than those held by Adam Hughes, or others who find the art acceptable, engaging or desireable.
Hughes’ critics need to realize that not everyone agrees with them nor do they hold the keys to the kingdom for all appropriate thought, attitude or action. Live your life as you deem appropriate and necessary, but don’t seek to be a values fascist and enforce your “correct” thinking upon everyone else. If that’s the way you want it, you can take a seat at the table with Mussolini, Mao, and Oliver Cromwell.
Oh and to Mel Darien:
“I’m offended that you’re offended. We’re all offended.”
Berke Breathed, Bloom County
May 28th, 2007 at 3:18 am
I think Melchior del Darién is a loser.
hes criticizing someone’s opinions.
January 17th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
I’m using a tiny issue I cannot subscribe your feed, I’m using google reader fyi.