D&D 4E Forked Thread: 4e Artwork

[circadianwolf]

Personally, I believe (and I've done numerous feminist classes, so don't go labelling me some sort of chauvinist) that this sort of behaviour is entrenched in our cultural means of thinking, and that a significant portion of the female audience *enjoys* the idea of being "rescued".

I see nothing wrong with that.

I'm glad I've been through this enough that I'm content to point and laugh at the sheer arrogance and willful ignorance of that last statement.

The rest of it, as Gradine discusses pretty well, is classic colonialist . I wish I had the inclination to demonstrate it for the misogynistic part as well, but for me that statement is so transparent that it's difficult for me to grasp how it's not obvious to others and thus how to explain the extreme anti-woman sentiment that it expresses.

IOW, yes, you are a misogynist for making that statement, no matter what classes you've taken (that was really a beautiful rationalization, I must commend you).

See the moderator warning below.

 

[Markn]

I see this thread closing in 3....2.....1....

 

[renau1g]

Find other examples. Pepper Potts held her own against Justin Hammer, Natasha Romanoff outshone Happy in the invasion bit, Ney'tiri was formidable in Avatar and ended up saving Jake more than once.

Just because it isn't the same level as say Conan from the early 80's doesn't mean that there isn't elements of that in them. I can't comment on IM2 or Robin Hood, but in Avatar I actually found it had a few instances of damsel in distress, while also having some moments of what I've noticed a trend in advertising of the stupid male and the female counterpart having to save him from his own stupidity, whether its him running into a sliding glass door, or what have you

Also, Wik has a good point re: diversity in the pictures. probably more realistically a group would tend towards more of one race depending on where they are located (besides the equivalent of our modern cities like New York or Toronto or Vancouver with their strong multiculturalism.) If it was in an equivalent area to the Middle-East, there would likely be more darker skinned individuals.

 

[Obryn]

Obryn,

Where is that one from?

The bottom of this page, which I think is outside of DDI.

You can click on all the artwork at the bottom to get a better view of it.

Like I said elsewhere, that particular image is awesome. It makes me want to know more. It reminds me, somehow, of McQuarrie's Star Wars concept art - empty, lonely, and yet somehow full of interest.

-O

 

[renau1g]

Yeah I'm amazed with how well they've captured that in Athas, it's difficult to do a destroyed sand-world without being boring. Can't wait for it to come out

Just noticed that update is supposed to be released August 2nd... weird that its up now.

 

[Gradine]

I'm glad I've been through this enough that I'm content to point and laugh at the sheer arrogance and willful ignorance of that last statement.

The rest of it, as Gradine discusses pretty well, is classic colonialist . I wish I had the inclination to demonstrate it for the misogynistic part as well, but for me that statement is so transparent that it's difficult for me to grasp how it's not obvious to others and thus how to explain the extreme anti-woman sentiment that it expresses.

IOW, yes, you are a misogynist for making that statement, no matter what classes you've taken (that was really a beautiful rationalization, I must commend you).

Please, let's not resort to personal attacks here. There's a huge difference between "You are a misogynist" and "That thing you said is misogynistic." One focuses on intent, the other on action; the former cannot be shown, the latter can. Preferably, neither should be really necessary in this thread.

This thread is about D&D artwork, specifically 4e but I guess really any fantasy artwork is up for grabs. If a particular piece of artwork is misogynistic, or if someone is requesting artwork that sounds misogynistic, then by all means, that's a conversation worth having. "That artwork you seem to enjoy or really want to make a comeback is actually really demeaning" is a respectful way to carry about a conversation, "Well then you're just a misogynist" pretty much closes the door.

I think we're both arguing the same thing here, and I respect the position you're coming from. In my own experiences, however, even in the face of what might appear obvious, up to and including Suspiciously Specific Denials, the indirect and respectful approach is more less like to shut people (and threads) down, and far more likely to make headway. Which ultimately, I hope would be the goal.

Of course, the "real life social justice education" that makes up a large part of my work is a hell of a lot different "arguments on the internet", so I may be engaging in wishful thinking here. Still, it'd be nice if the thread were last long enough to move on from whether said D&D artwork is misogynistic and on to whether said D&D artwork is interesting.

Of course, feel free to take all that with a grain of salt. As a male, I have the privilege to not feel personally offended by misogyny.

But to respond to what you are responding to; even if a demeaning trope is still accepted by the wider audience (and I would argue that it is no longer), does not make it any less demeaning. The best we can hope for, in that instance, is that the particular media we enjoy don't enjoy in such low-brow behavior. That Wizards has, by and large, avoided such a trope deserves to be commended, not lambasted.

 

[Gradine]

I usually really enjoy Dark Sun artwork. As has been said, it's really difficult to do a blasted endless desert well. I think this actually has a lot to do with it... there's only so much you can do to capture the feel of it, so the artists get to really narrow down their focus on concentrate on doing the few things you can do well. I really like most of the artwork Obryn linked to as well. OF course, except for the obligatory awkward family photo cover artwork. And the psionic halo.

Actually, one thing that the cover actually conveys a lot better than the rest of the concept artwork is the concept of non-metallic weapons. The only other artwork on there that really does a great job of it is this one. The stone maul... and especially the wood-and-bone mace. Excellent.

 

[LostSoul]

The first Conan movie is the perfect example: the woman is the sacrificial lamb, the asian guy is the comic relief, the black guy is the villain.

Wait, what? Maybe about the racial stuff, but the woman is a sacrificial lamb? It's almost like you don't think that women can make up their own minds - and in this case, it was that she was willing to die for Conan.

I guess any case where a woman sacrifices herself for a man - or a man sacrifices himself for a woman (fighting for her, ie. damsel in distress) - is bad.

I guess everyone must get by on their own.

*

There's no problem with a woman being saved by a man. None at all. It can be sexy. So can the reverse.

(What's more, I have no problem with any sort of art. I can't think of anything that I think shouldn't be reproduced, as long as it said something.)

It doesn't mean that just because the art depicts a man saving a woman that the woman is helpless; look at Klaus' references. A man can save a woman from danger, even a strong woman.

*

I wonder what you think of the relationship between Conan and Bélit. She decided to take him on her crew based on his sexual attributes - flip the roles and see how that works - a woman being given the choice of death at the hands of merciless pirates or sleeping with their captain, Conan.

Conan is sexist, yeah, but not so much as you might think.

*

Always wanted to say: Sookie Stackhouse is a strong woman; Buffy is not. Sookie is hard-core and will do what it takes, even though she's out of her league; Buffy is gifted with powers, and would just be a fan of The Hills without those powers.

 

[Gradine]

Too tired to effectively respond to your points; all good ones. "Sacrificial Lamb", in retrospect, was a poor choice of term given the context (it had been a long time since I've seen the movie.) One of the tricky aspects of feminism is that "traditional femininity", whatever that might entail, is still a legitimate choice (simply not a legitimate assumption).

Art and other forms of popular media is tricky because, as I've mentioned in other contexts, there is no such thing as a common vocabulary. This is especially truly visually. What's demeaning to one person might feel quite positive to another. What's most important (and what many people, I feel, lose sight of), is that whatever is true to a person is true to that person. If someone says "that's offensive to me", you can't argue with that. It exists, the person exists, and it offends them. None of those things can be refuted. It's very easy to call a person too sensitive without having a clue as to what their life's experiences have been like. The better road is often the more difficult one.

What does that mean for art? Very little, I suppose. Art doesn't exactly have to please. D&D, on the other hand, does have a fanbase, and it is a base that it definitely must please. This means avoiding obvious pitfalls that could serve to alienate large swaths gamers, such as whitewashing or "damsels in distress." This might have been a poor choice of words on Wik's part, and I and others have definitely latched on to it. But I think WotC recognizes these pitfalls and generally does do a good job of avoiding them. This leaves whole new pitfalls for them, though. Like halos. God damn halos.

That said, there are definitely messages that are presented (intentional or not) that deserve to be called out. This leads to debate that can be healthy so long as everyone remains respectful. Given that a general lack of basic respect for others (or at least others who are different) is the one of major causes of said reprehensible messages, this doesn't always (or usually) go so well.

The Buffy and Sookie argument is interesting, however. Both definitely have their strong moments and their weak moments. The major difference between the two is dependence. Sookie is generally an extremely independent person. She looks out for others, but isn't used to relying on others. Buffy, on the other hand, relies on others like it's going out of style. Both of these are usually represented as strong points. Buffy's usually portrayed most negatively when she tries to strike it out on her own. This could also be said for most of Angel's cast members (working together and relying on others is actually a huge theme in Whedon's works). Sookie doesn't hold the Idiot Ball nearly as often, though she's a bit more of a Mary Sue in that her bad ideas usually work out well in the end anyway. Both are definitely strong women though.

 

[renau1g]

I hate halos with a passion. I know it's irrational, but I can't get into the Psionic PC's as I always see in my mind's eye those damnable halos... ugh...