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

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.

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.

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.

“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?”

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.