Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6302696" data-attributes="member: 2067">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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.</blockquote>

Verification