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.
Matt Brady’s got an interview with Adam Hughes up here at Newsarama, in which Mr. Hughes defends the statue.
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?
Blogger Melchior del Darién found issue with some of Mr. Hughes’s arguments.
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?