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

[tuxgeo]

The mind just boggles . . .

Boggle away all you want.

. . . I'm not offended, though I'm a little disappointed in civilization in a broad sense right now because even if it's acceptable, it shouldn't be this controversial to talk about what the image is doing in the first place. . . .

Controversial? Not controversial; but how about "unnecessary?"
This thread is 16 pages long now, yet you keep harping on it. My advice to you would be this: say what you have to say, one time, and then let the conversation wend its way onto other topics.

Eternally rattling on and on about the same thing over and over is another cause of boggling, you know. It's not air for birds and water for fish: it's more like confirmation bias -- you appear to be so trained to see things from that one point of view that you see the same effect as being both present and emphasized everywhere.

Quoting Elsa: "Let it go."

 

[Dausuul]

Is it now considered a positive goal for society to approach a reality where men and women behave and dress in exactly the same ways such that you can't tell what sex someone is? That's not meant to be a snarky dismissal of the notion, by the way, that's actually a real question.

The purpose of the Hawkeye test is to determine if a female character is being portrayed in a sexualized way. In itself, it's descriptive, not prescriptive. When somebody complains about something failing the Hawkeye test, there is an implied "This is a situation in which it's not appropriate for this character to be portrayed in a sexualized way."

I do ballroom dancing, and my female counterparts routinely dress and pose in ways that would fail the Hawkeye test. That's fine! Looking glamorous and sexy is a big part of ballroom for many people. Likewise, if a D&D book contains art showing the PCs attending a ball at the royal palace, and some of the female PCs are in cleavage-baring gowns, there's nothing wrong with that. It's appropriate to the situation. The Monster Manual entry for "succubus" should fail the Hawkeye test (although if the corresponding entry for "incubus" isn't equally sexualized, that's a different problem). Et cetera.

Where it becomes a problem is when you've got characters in the heat of combat or slogging through a dungeon, striking "brokeback" poses or wearing stainless steel bras and garter belts. That's where the Hawkeye test becomes useful: It's a yardstick for saying, "Yeah, okay, this character is being sexualized in this image. If this is a scenario where that doesn't make sense, we got a problem."

 

[Mistwell]

Sure, I buy that, though all that being true doesn't mean that it's not also sexualized, even if it's in the sort of offhand way that a lot of depictions of women are sexualized even when they're not trying for it. You can TOTALLY focus on that circle and still call attention to the figure's attractiveness.

Like I've said elsewhere, it's entirely possible that neither Tyler Jacobson nor the art directors really were aware of it, and weren't consciously doing it, just because it's not significantly different from most other fantasy artwork. It's the air we breathe. It probably takes a lot of effort to NOT do it.

It's also entirely possible it's just you seeing sexualization where there isn't any. I see nothing "attractive" about the figure, but you do. It's a subjective call, but you're claiming it's objective AND that if the artist didn't see it that means he just subconsciously did it. That's not the Occam's razor view of this though - Occam's razor says it's probably just you, and that the artist is more aware of himself than you are

What's weird is dozens of people have said they don't see what you're seeing with this one - and yet you have yet to pause and consider you might be wrong. That, my friend, is weird. For you. For lots of people here it would not surprise me. But for you do still be harping on something so many others don't see, and to claim if the artist didn't see it that means the artist subconsciously did it because you couldn't be wrong about that - it's odd.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's also entirely possible it's just you seeing sexualization where there isn't any. I see nothing "attractive" about the figure, but you do. It's a subjective call, but you're claiming it's objective AND that if the artist didn't see it that means he just subconsciously did it. That's not the Occam's razor view of this though - Occam's razor says it's probably just you, and that the artist is more aware of himself than you are

What's weird is dozens of people have said they don't see what you're seeing with this one - and yet you have yet to pause and consider you might be wrong. That, my friend, is weird. For you. For lots of people here it would not surprise me. But for you do still be harping on something so many others don't see, and to claim if the artist didn't see it that means the artist subconsciously did it because you couldn't be wrong about that - it's odd.

Not to be disagreeable, but if you follow Kamikaze's logic, he would expect almost everyone to disagree with him - see the "air we breathe" bit - what he's saying is this stuff is so low-level and prevalent that most people simply cannot notice it, and will of course deny that it is there. Hopefully that makes sense even if one disagrees. If most people agreed with him, he'd be wrong in the "air we breathe" point!

As noted, I personally think it's very mild sexism, because it fails the Hawkeye test, and it's not actually offensive, just boring (I personally think the light thing is not even subconscious sexism, as I'm sure a male character would have had lighting in the same place, but I understand the argument). It is a lot better as a situation than say, the 4E covers, as noted. So right direction, getting there!

Rather disagree on Occam's razor though, solely because I am an artist (training-wise), went to art school, and so on, and at art school, artists absolutely ran the gamut in terms of ability to understand their own motivations and biases, from biting self-analysis to complete ignorance and even aggressive denial of really obvious stuff (particularly sexual/phallic imagery - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but with some of these students, particularly male ones, Freud would have had a field day!). My personal experience would thus lead me to believe artists are often not aware of what they're doing in their own work. Reading interviews/blogs from fantasy artists suggests they tend towards the "less aware" end of the scale, on average (imo).

EDIT - One major anti-sexist plus of the piece - the female character is active and aggressive (up in the giant's face, literally!) and the male character is more passive (and not seeming to "guard" her), in a reversal of standard tropes.

For my money that outweighs the Hawkeye stuff, and overall as noted the whole thing is strongly progressive compared to a lot of older art (most, perhaps).

 

[Mistwell]

Not to be disagreeable, but if you follow Kamikaze's logic, he would expect almost everyone to disagree with him - see the "air we breathe" bit - what he's saying is this stuff is so low-level and prevalent that most people simply cannot notice it, and will of course deny that it is there. Hopefully that makes sense even if one disagrees. If most people agreed with him, he'd be wrong in the "air we breathe" point!

Well that just makes it a conspiracy theory, since it's unprovable. It's more likely there is something about Kamikaze going on subconsciously that makes him see sexualization where there isn't any, rather than he has some special insight that we just can't grasp.

 

[bogmad]

Well that just makes it a conspiracy theory, since it's unprovable. It's more likely there is something about Kamikaze going on subconsciously that makes him see sexualization where there isn't any, rather than he has some special insight that we just can't grasp.

No, I can see the logic of his point of view, even if I might not agree 100% with the extent of latent sexism I can still respect the opinion, especially if we both agree this cover is a step forward. Sexualization is a pretty fluid concept.
There's no proving opinions, otherwise we're all conspiracy theorists.

 

[Umbran]

Well that just makes it a conspiracy theory, since it's unprovable.

I think KM overstates his case. However, this is not really an appropriate response.

If you are not subject to the -ism, you are very likely to be insensitive to its expression. They cannot "prove" that the image is sexist - it ins't a subject to mathematical logic, or anything. Unless the artist steps up and says, "Yeah, when I painted that, I totally wanted to make that female characters a sex object, subordinate to the powerful male hero character, 'cause girls can't be heroes!" it is going to be a matter of opinion.

But, "proof" isn't really the important issue here. The opinion matters, as functional bit is how the images make people feel. Will that image make viewers think more about the character's sexual aspects before other things?

On this one, I'm going to guess "No" myself. But I'm willing to listen, and if enough folks say otherwise, adjust my estimation of the image accordingly.

I am *not* going to dismiss any of them as being conspiracy theorists. And neither should you.

 

[Mistwell]

I think KM overstates his case. However, this is not really an appropriate response.

If you are not subject to the -ism, you are very likely to be insensitive to its expression. They cannot "prove" that the image is sexist - it ins't a subject to mathematical logic, or anything. Unless the artist steps up and says, "Yeah, when I painted that, I totally wanted to make that female characters a sex object, subordinate to the powerful male hero character, 'cause girls can't be heroes!" it is going to be a matter of opinion.

But, "proof" isn't really the important issue here. The opinion matters, as functional bit is how the images make people feel. Will that image make viewers think more about the character's sexual aspects before other things?

On this one, I'm going to guess "No" myself. But I'm willing to listen, and if enough folks say otherwise, adjust my estimation of the image accordingly.

I am *not* going to dismiss any of them as being conspiracy theorists. And neither should you.

The "proof" I am referring to is not of the sexism of the image - it's of these supposedly subconscious influences that KM can detect but the rest of us cannot, and if we say we cannot that's proof it's subconscious influence. It's a tautology all dependent on KM being able to observe something we cannot ourselves observe. If you don't like the term conspiracy theory, in the very least can you agree he's saying we're supposed to have faith in his observation skills to detect something the rest of us cannot detect, because apparently we've been blinded to it by those influences where he has not?

 

[Salamandyr]

We can't get this guy anymore. He's writing Fables. I did love his art though.

 

[Dausuul]

The "proof" I am referring to is not of the sexism of the image - it's of these supposedly subconscious influences that KM can detect but the rest of us cannot, and if we say we cannot that's proof it's subconscious influence. It's a tautology all dependent on KM being able to observe something we cannot ourselves observe. If you don't like the term conspiracy theory, in the very least can you agree he's saying we're supposed to have faith in his observation skills to detect something the rest of us cannot detect, because apparently we've been blinded to it by those influences where he has not?

Keep in mind you're talking to two different people here: Kamikaze Midget, and Ruin Explorer suggesting a possible interpretation of KM's position. You're pointing out that Ruin Explorer's interpretation is tautological, and it is, but it's also not what KM said.

I'm not going to leap in with my own interpretation, since a) KM is more than capable of explaining his own position, and b) I don't in fact agree with that position, so I doubt I'd interpret it very well. I think Hawkeye is the appropriate test here, and that goes for the lighting as well as the pose. Imagine the same scene with a male wizard fighting the giant. Does the light look oddly placed or inappropriate?

If I find time tonight, I might try Photoshopping the wizard into a male elf and see what it looks like.