D&D 5E Art in 5e...?

[Chaltab]

That pose is different. The classic Hawkeye test-failing pose is all about twisting and tilting to show the butt and chest to the viewer at the same time.

Which she isn't really? Her butt is covered by the skirt and even if it weren't it would still be a rather oblique angle compared to the hawkey-test. It does have a bit of the submarine sandwich leg thing though...

No, definitely not. I don't have the skill to do it myself but if you inserted Regdar into the picture in that pose he would look ridiculous.

He would, but Regdar was a fighter while this heroine is clearly a caster of some sort. A woman fighter would also look ridiculous in that pose. As it is, just lower the right leg so it's not tucked up beneath her unnaturally and it's golden.

 

[I'm A Banana]

How, exactly?

It's in two main places as far as I can tell.

First, the pose is an unnatural, T&A-displaying pose. Her back arches in an a way that backs don't arch, to further accentuate the curves. In fact, for the Hawkeye test, that's the MAIN requirement: stick a male character in that pose, and it should become obvious. Or try that pose yourself and take a picture.

Second, the lighting is featuring her body. The red light emerges from behind her just enough to highlight her waist, the light of the magic on her hand is held just close enough to shine upon her bosom, her chin, her cheeks.

As I mentioned in the other thread, this isn't to knock the art or say it should be or must be different (it is leagues better than the 4e PHB cover!), it's just to point out what the art is doing there. It's showing you a pretty lady, and showcasing the fact that she is pretty. That's relevant, because it becomes part of a world where pretty ladies always get on covers, and ladies who have other defining features (like toughness or wisdom or strength or compassion or courage) don't get put on covers, unless they are also pretty. In that world, a lady who doesn't think she is pretty is told by the world that she doesn't belong as the center of attention, as the epic hero, that unless she is pretty, her other qualities are largely irrelevant when it comes to being featured as an icon for people to look up to, admire, and want to be like. Which is, I think we'd tend to agree, kind of a problem.

It's not WotC's job to necessarily transform the entire negative portrayal of women in media with their PHB cover, and this one deserves some credit for being an improvement, so I don't want to come across as bashing it. It's a cool piece. It's part of a bigger thing than one art director can handle, I'm sure. One could just as easily mention that everyone on these covers looks pretty much Caucasian.

But it *does* sexualize the woman. It's doing that. It's not doing it as baldly as, say, Louis Royo does it. But just because it's not obvious doesn't mean it's not happening.

As an alternative, check out that androgynous pirate-person on the cover of the MM. If we presume it's a lady, that picture is not really about how pretty she is. It's about how frickin' scared or angry or loud she is (a little hard to tell!). I have a suspicion it may just be a thin, rogue-esque dude, and if that's the case, it doesn't help that the PHB lady is also the ONLY female on the cover of these books (failing the Bechdel test so far, D&D!), and also the only character to feature so much sexualization (not a great sign).

It's entirely possible that neither the artist nor the art director consciously realized what was going on there, too. Especially likely if they're both straight men. Which is really just points in favor of hiring a more diverse art and management team. Which is mostly points in favor of not hiring people you know and of taking risks on outsiders. Not that it'd STOP sexualization, just that it's hard to see yourself from the outside, and the more outside perspectives you have, the better ability you have to see yourself how others see you.

Which in this case, is that the PHB cover fitting into this narrative about beautiful women being the only valuable women in society.

 

[Mistwell]

It's in two main places as far as I can tell.

First, the pose is an unnatural, T&A-displaying pose. Her back arches in an a way that backs don't arch

This, right here, is baloney.

I am arching my back in exactly the way the figure in the picture is arching their back. Backs can handle that with no problem, it's not even a hard arch. Basketball players do that arch all the time. Both the female ones and the male ones. For yoga that would not even be considered a warm-up arch, barely a stretch. For someone who just jumped up to dodge an attack, it's a perfectly natural pose. Freeze a moment in a women's basketball game for a jump shot, and women will likely look like that pose.

In fact here, woman on the right in that jump, an even harder arch to her back:

Men too:

Now take another close up look at the picture in question.

If she were looking up, and her arm were outstretched, she'd be in a jump-ball pose.

There is no T&A accentuation here. Both are heavily covered up. It's accentuating, at most, armor and clothing. You see no additional shape of either from the pose. Indeed, you see no "A" at all in this pose, and the "T" is covered by two layers and would be at that angle regardless of the pose.

I think you're looking for something that isn't there on this one.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I agree with Mistwell: neither T nor A are on display, and the pose is realistic enough. She's not even twisting, except to the extent that would be appropriate when you're about to swing a weapon (compare to the 300 picture I posted, or the male warrior on the Hoard of the Dragon Queen cover). She's just arching her back slightly and bending her legs (which you would pretty much expect someone to be doing mid-jump).

The only question that remains is: what is she doing? She's holding a staff and casting a spell, so why is she even jumping up in the giant's face? Maybe she's casting a touch spell and wants to target the face (like continual light on the giant's eye)? The way she's holding the staff seems to suggest that she's winding up to smack him, but then what's with the glowy hand?

 

[Li Shenron]

I like all the cover pictures a lot...

Indeed it's strange that the actual name of the game isn't up front visible, but relegated to the tiny banner below. However, I like the logo and the game name font, it looks very 80s to me

I am not at all knowledged in artwork and design, but is the title font really right? It looks so "sci-fi" or modern to me. I would expect that a fantasy RPG would use fonts that evoke a feeling of something old/ancient rather than modern.

 

[GX.Sigma]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=61724&d=1400550697

Where did you find that hi-res version?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am arching my back in exactly the way the figure in the picture is arching their back. Backs can handle that with no problem, it's not even a hard arch. Basketball players do that arch all the time.

The most appropriate response seems to be this:





Or, as you put it,

This, right here, is baloney.

The perspective on the basketball players' bodies (where the one on the right is "facing" the camera) and the billowing clothes make the curve look more dramatic.

I think you're looking for something that isn't there on this one.

Y'know, if you don't dispute that the PHB woman is presented as a pretty lady, the exact angle of the curve of her back doesn't even really matter. "Well, if her back angle is less than 40 degrees, clearly she's not being sexualized" is not a real counterargument. The broader point remains, and that's the important bit. If she's presented as a pretty lady, she's being sexualized. That may or may not be a problem for any of us in particular, but denying it would be pretty ludicrous. Just because she's not in a chainmail bikini doesn't mean she's not treated as a thing of aesthetic beauty in that moment, and as long as that's true, it is potentially problematic.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Being all this as it may, are we to take it that art should delve into the contrary?

That is, that female characters depicted in D&D art should never be attractive, or should never be presented in a sexualized way, or should never have characteristics exaggerated? Because in fact, women are attractive, they do sometimes like to remind the world of it, and this one's flexbility isn't being exaggerated any more than the bicep size of the average male barbarian.

Even if one accepts cheesecake art as a problem, I don't think the solution is to try and to the exact opposite extreme in an endeavor towards some karmic cancellation. I think the way to go is to try and avoid the extremes and go for some kind of middle ground.

 

[Mistwell]

Y'know, if you don't dispute that the PHB woman is presented as a pretty lady, the exact angle of the curve of her back doesn't even really matter. "Well, if her back angle is less than 40 degrees, clearly she's not being sexualized" is not a real counterargument.

It's a counterargument to your claim the human body does not bend that way, that backs don't arch like that. If that was not a meaningful thing for you to say and get a responses to, then maybe you shouldn't have said it and I would not have responded to it. But it was your thesis sentence, and it was wrong, so I responded to it. If it was not your broader point, perhaps you should not have led with it?

The broader point remains, and that's the important bit. If she's presented as a pretty lady, she's being sexualized.

I disagree. Pretty does not equate with sexualized. A flower is pretty, but not sexualized. I don't think this figure is sexualized. At all. Not even a little bit.

That may or may not be a problem for any of us in particular, but denying it would be pretty ludicrous.

No the ludicrous thing is you insisting your tastes and opinion is so universal that anyone who disagrees is being ludicrous. The figure is not sexualized.

Just because she's not in a chainmail bikini doesn't mean she's not treated as a thing of aesthetic beauty in that moment, and as long as that's true, it is potentially problematic.

Aesthetically beautiful is also not sexualized.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I really have to go with Mistwell on this one. That's a pretty girl, sure, but, sexualised? Umm, no, not seeing it.

I mean, shouldn't there be some props being given here that we have a strong female character kicking ass on the book that EVERYONE is going to be seeing? That's a pretty big stride forward. Compare to the 1e DMG where you have bikini girl being held in the air by the VERY male efreeti. I'm thinking we should be giving some pats on the back, rather than picking a nit.