Pipeline - Mar 17, 2015

[TOTALITY]

Interesting how this situation has really become symbolic of a larger cultural discussion, which I guess needed to happen, but it seems a lot of people are looking at the parts of this specific issue within the context of the narrative they were already noticing, while not putting forth so much effort to understand how other people's narratives could be stemming from just as relatable a place. I'm sure that applies to me as much as anyone.

Listen, I'm not making any claims about Albuquerque's intent. I don't know what his intent was beyond his statement on the matter, but there are a few things I want to clarify: it's completely easy to imagine that he wasn't going for any sexual implications, and if he says he wasn't then I unquestionably take his word for it. Second, even if he was going for that, as a work of art there's nothing intrinsically wrong with depicting sexual violence or anything else for that matter; it's art- the only "insult" that would be implied against him personally would be a failure to consider its appropriateness within the context it would be presented, but A) that would only be a misjudgment from a commercial standpoint or a social miscalculation, since there's no inherently "wrong" art, and B) no one person should be personally responsible for the significance a work takes on in a larger conversation- a conversation is what ALL the participants bring to it. Which brings me to my last point on Albuquerque: I wasn't really saying anything about Albuquerque's intent before, because that's kind of beside the point. The artists' intent, in anything, is just that: the artist's intent. A reaction to art is no more or less valid because of the artist's intent.

It's also totally valid for you to think that reaction is stupid. It's important to consider what everyone brings to a conversation, what their expectations are and what they're really entitled to. Critics of the cover on both sides had every right to express their opinions (with words and the suggested potential of money) but weren't entitled to anything happening as a result. DC had the right to address it or not. Like I said, a cultural conversation is the total of what all the participants bring to it- DC participates in it by commissioning art for commercial use, we all participate in it as consumers and critics, and every participant can respond at their own discretion. We can all only control what we bring to the table, but we aren't entitled to have the conversation in a vacuum indefinitely; it may feel like it's been hijacked but it takes existing participants to respond to new ones.

[Lot 49]

I find the criticism of DC in the author's piece a little difficult to follow.

Essentially (as I understand it), what he is suggesting is that not only should DC pull the cover (which they have done), but that they should issue a contrite mea culpa, apologising for the inappropriateness of the cover for the comic that they are selling, and state that this is the reason why it should be withdrawn. In other words, as well as winning the battle not to have the cover shown, the critics should have an acknowledgement that they've won the argument as well.

I apologise (there, I can do it ) if I've misunderstood the point the author is making, but that seems to be the tenor of the argument.

But why should DC acknowledge this? Looking at the (lengthy) debate about this online, at the risk of sounding a bit boring, I'd say that there were fairly strong arguments on both sides. (I do feel personally a great degree of sympathy for Rafael Albuquerque, who seems to have been put in a very unfortunate position.) My own view, to the limited extent that it is worth, is that a variant cover is, after all, a variant that it is not necessarily reflective of the content of the comic, and that there has been a great deal of hyperbolic kerfuffle about something the profound offensiveness of which strikes me as being, at best arguable. On the other hand, if the creative team behind the book feel that it doesn't suit and might detract from what they're trying to achieve, then it is respectful not to run it.

So far as DC are concerned, though, they've made a sensible commercial decision - they're one of the big two, they are not exactly in the vanguard of warriors against (self)-censorship, and the Bat-franchise is of huge importance to them. That's all their decision to pull the cover is - a commercial decision. I doubt they think they've done anything wrong, and I see no particularly pressing reason to require them to state that they have. The critics have got what they wanted. Isn't that enough?

The apology has been made...but, the apology was made by the artist and not the people who were truly responsible for commissioning the artwork in the first place. Your apology means as much.

If DC were to apologize, it would possibly convince the author that they were not completely moronic for commissioning the artwork in the first place. It appears to be an instance of the right hand being unaware of what the left hand is doing. And since DC is throwing all of the responsibility onto Rafael Albuquerque, they are leaving the door open to further boneheaded moves.

[Lot 49]

Someone said earlier that the cover is particularly tone-deaf because Batgirl is a book about female empowerment. OK, but does it have to be 100% of the time? Why should Batgirl be about only one thing? Is that what we want in art and entertainment? Is Batman ONLY about grieving the loss of parents? Bruce never be cheerful? And why can't OVERCOMING adversity be in line with female empowerment?

It's tone deaf because DC is marketing Batgirl to be all about female empowerment.

Overcoming adversity is absolutely in line with female empowerment. And, if the cover actually showed some semblance of Batgirl overcoming said adversity instead of being victimized, I think it would have gone over a lot better.

[RobinFan4880]

The apology has been made...but, the apology was made by the artist and not the people who were truly responsible for commissioning the artwork in the first place. Your apology means as much.

If DC were to apologize, it would possibly convince the author that they were not completely moronic for commissioning the artwork in the first place. It appears to be an instance of the right hand being unaware of what the left hand is doing. And since DC is throwing all of the responsibility onto Rafael Albuquerque, they are leaving the door open to further boneheaded moves.

Corporate apologies are meaningless. They are just words, meaningless, empty words. The fact that DC pulled the comics says a lot more than an apology. They are going to be far more conservative in the future to avoid backlashes like this.

It's tone deaf because DC is marketing Batgirl to be all about female empowerment.

Overcoming adversity is absolutely in line with female empowerment. And, if the cover actually showed some semblance of Batgirl overcoming said adversity instead of being victimized, I think it would have gone over a lot better.

On the the other side of that, powerlessness was a major theme in the The Killing Joke. This cover exemplifies the horrors that were inflicted upon Babs, both physical and psychological.

There is no doubt that the cover was a step too far for the audience DC is trying to court but as a homage to TKJ, it works wondrously (which was the whole point of the variant cover in the first place).

[JoeWithoutFear]

@TOTALITY

Very, very well said.

Interesting how this situation has really become symbolic of a larger cultural discussion...

That's the whole reason it's even become an issue, though, isn't it?

...it seems a lot of people are looking at the parts of this specific issue within the context of the narrative they were already noticing, while not putting forth so much effort to understand how other people's narratives could be stemming from just as relatable a place. I'm sure that applies to me as much as anyone.

Good of you to admit your own potential shortcomings. I'm not even sure you have them, but that's rare to admit the possibility. I do agree that people are seeing what they want from all sides, myself included.

But, I would argue that it's very hard to distinguish, and perhaps unnecessary to distinguish, between the kind of focusing you may find problematic and the notion that people just .... focus on and respond to what they feel is most important. Like, I guess I'm not seeing the difference there. For instance, just because someone isn't discussing the cover in the context of what it says about, say, firearm control, doesn't mean that person doesn't care about the subject or has never thought about. It just means they found other aspects of much higher priority. And that can be for any number of acceptable reasons, right? They have thought about, perhaps wisely, they just don't see it as a problem in this (hypothetical) case.

~~~

I really do agree with the idea that art is given meaning by the audience. The only point at which an artist's intent becomes meaningful, in my opinion, is whether or not someone tries to place blame or cast negativity on that artist for something they did not intend. That's just not fair. And I think that's what is frequently at issue in a lot of these debates. People are talking about a work of art as if it is detrimental to... something. And they state that as fact (often without citing any research). It's OK if that happens once in a while, there would be no backlash. But it happens every.single.day. if you follow any form of media and especially those in the realm of geek culture. It's not so much that people don't want to hear it because they don't care about the concerns of others, it's the combination of many factors, one of which is pure fatigue at this point. I think "pick your battles" might be good advice.

It's like if you had a friend who said "I think hats make people go bald." You might be like "um, ok" and move on -- live and let live. But if everyday you had multiple people saying "hats make people go bald! Stop wearing that hat! You're setting a bad example for others! Stop it or else you're a bad person!" Eventually you'd want those people to calm down or think more carefully or at least try not to impose their beliefs on what you do. Maybe they are right? But, would it be so much to ask for hard, consistent evidence of something they believe so strongly?

It also becomes especially hard when it seems like the people levying the accusations of various -isms never cared about the subject matter before the opportunity to levy accusations. It's like if you are watching a stand-up comic and there is someone in the audience who came just to heckle the comic. It's like, dude, why are you even here? Just to ruin everyone else's evening? Go do something else if you hate it so much.

I know these aren't perfect metaphors, I'm just trying to better illustrate some of how I feel and how I know others feel -- beyond the ignorance that people often attribute.

It's really hard to voice any of my criticisms without sounding like a jerk. I know that. My screenname reflects not only my love of Daredevil but the fact that I have been trying to speak my mind more even if it means I may get (unfairly) judged at time. Such is the nature of text. You can't see the expression on my face or hear the tone of my voice. But, I really truly want people to feel represented in media and fairly. Not because I think an absence of that fuels the evils of the real-world, but because there is nothing wrong, nothing to be lost, from more people enjoying works of art! I want that. I just don't agree with the techniques people are using that they think will bring about that change. I just see those techniques as making enemies, not progress. =\ I say what I say because I think it will help get people what they claim to want. The only problem is if what people claim to want (inclusiveness, diversity, equality) is not what they really want (wage argument wars, feel morally superior to someone, generate web traffic).

@Lot 49

Overcoming adversity involves establishing that adversity in the first place. The more powerful the adversity, the more rewarding the triumph will feel. Even Superman is given vulnerabilities and struggles because a story about someone who is completely invincible is not a very compelling story (to most people).

[Coin Biter]

The apology has been made...but, the apology was made by the artist and not the people who were truly responsible for commissioning the artwork in the first place. Your apology means as much.

If DC were to apologize, it would possibly convince the author that they were not completely moronic for commissioning the artwork in the first place. It appears to be an instance of the right hand being unaware of what the left hand is doing. And since DC is throwing all of the responsibility onto Rafael Albuquerque, they are leaving the door open to further boneheaded moves.

I agree that the responsibility for commissioning the artwork is DC's, and it would certainly have been the appropriate thing to do to make that clear in the statement. To that extent, they've thrown the responsibility on the artist, and it would be decent if they were to make that clear. However, I don't think repeating or endorsing an apology would add anything at this point, other than I suppose giving a bit of satisfaction to those who wanted the cover to be changed. Even that would be arguable, as the most they would likely to give would be "we apologise that people took offence at this", which would probably be interpreted as an insult. In fact this very article gives a (mild) criticism of Alburquerque for not going much further in his open letter than that.

DC are not going to concede the "artwork was tonally inappropriate to the comic" argument, accepted separately by the artist, because the essence of variant covers is that they are often tonally inappropriate, and this would be used against them in any subsequent case in which a variant cover proves controversial. They would certainly not - any more than Alburquerque has - endorse the IMO hyberbolic accusations that the artwork implies or is meant to evoke or suggest sexual assault.

DC have made a commercial error, followed it by a commercial decision to withdraw a cover, accompanied by a commercial statement. That is because they are a company and that is what companies do. If the writer had not made a statement, followed by the Alburquerque's, then it might have taken a different course, but it would probably have had much the same end.

[Mhenry86]

One person's 'saner mind' is another person's 'buckling under pressure.'

[The Darknight Detective]

One person's 'saner mind' is another person's 'buckling under pressure.'

Sometimes they are not even mutually exclusive.

[CK99]

The art is brilliant, but it fails editorially: Why is she crying? Heroes don't cry (when threatened). .... Unless there's the Psycho-Pirate or Scarecrow putting a whammy on 'em.

[Augie De Blieck Jr.]

(This is in reply to post #39. Sorry if that isn't immediately obvious.)

What I wrote was this:

"Batgirl" is a book that's meant to bringing more women into comics, featuring a hopeful, youthful and upbeat cast of characters and stories.

So, of course, they'd put Joker with his arm around the current Batgirl, his red lipstick smeared on her face, and a gun pointing down her chest, as she stands there crying, looking frightened and helpless.

The contrast between those two things is what I think makes this cover a silly move for DC's marketing efforts.

I never used the word "offensive." I never made a feminist plea for female empowerment, or any of the other buzzwords people have wanted to use after reading Pipeline this week. Heck, I purposefully avoided that:

Forget for a moment the sociopolitical issues here. Just look at what the series is set up to be and to do, and then look at the cover. Who in their right minds would think that this cover was a good idea at this time in this situation?

To me, this cover isn't bad because of the political implications everyone is attaching to it. (Including, but not limited to, did Joker rape Barbara Gordon in "The Killing Joke"?) It's bad because it's an easily avoidable tonal mismatch to the series that actively hurts what they're trying to market with the series. It's bad because it's DC making a dumb decision and then issuing a retraction that throws the artist under the bus for doing as they asked of him. It's DC not taking responsibility for their mistakes and instead saying, "HE DID IT!"

THAT'S what this week's Pipeline is about.

-Augie

[Pessoa]

That's why a masterpiece as Basic Instinct would never be made nowadays, it is too disturbing to current audience. The insipid Gone Girl? That's fine. Rafael's cover is a great horror piece but according its detractors Batgirl readers aren't mature enough to absorb it.

[JoeWithoutFear]

@Augie

Kudos to you for replying and doing so in a mature manner. Maybe I arrived at some incorrect conclusions. If so, I am indeed sorry. Perhaps you can understand how it would be easy for me to reach those conclusions given the frequency with which articles like the one I perceived yours as do get written? Obviously I'm not referring solely to CBR. But, I mean, when I check the previews on CBR, I feel like easily 3 of the 10 article teases are in some way related to the idea that the world is out to get "marginalized" groups and that the method of this attack is ... entertainment media! ....?

Even just now on the preview page, one tease is for "In Your Face Jam: The Social Side Of Comics." Quote: "Granted, I had no idea that sexism and harassment and death threats would be part of the comics conversation. But they are. Every day. Every damn day." Yes, it is every damn day. It's just so constant that, again, hopefully you can forgive if my reaction was on a hair-trigger. I really try to push it aside, but, it builds up over time and I guess you got the bad end of it. If I believed the online outrage did a lick of good, I'd be OK with it, but, I see it having the opposite effect, so, that's why it bothers me.

Still, your words now and your words in the article, even the ones you quoted, are a little confusing. If you're not coming from a feminist read of this work, then why does it seem like you've somewhat forced the "gun pointing down her chest" bit? I wasn't the one in this thread who called that out, but, I agree with whoever did. It came off like a stretch -- trying to get at a more sensationalist tone where one wasn't needed... knowing that to (further) sexualize the cover would add potency to a (feminist) outrage. I'm willing to take you at your word, I'm just giving feedback on how it came off.

The other thing is, if you're not coming from a feminist (for lack of a better word) standpoint then why single out women when you say "'Batgirl' is a book that's meant to bringing more women into comics, featuring a hopeful, youthful and upbeat cast of characters and stories."? I mean, if your true argument is based purely on tone, and not a gender-centric one (as in my Green Day hypothetical above), then, why bring up women there? What is that saying about gender differences? I probably like hopeful, youthful, and upbeat more than most readers. I honestly feel like I have a hard time getting that desire met these days (I do so miss the original Teen Titans Go! ^_^). But, what, because I'm male I'm not included in the conversation?

If you're only concerned for bringing women in from a marketing perspective and not a social one, OK, I guess I can see that. This is a business after all and it's always wise to grow your audience. But, I feel like no one is concerned with say, appealing to my Italian heritage. Where are the articles about how most Italians in comic books are mobsters? Or how one of the few heroes we get is named ... "Guido"? You see what I mean? It's tough not to feel like certain agendas are at play when it seems like people are only concerned about SOME group's feelings. (For the record, since I don't see media representation as harmful, the portrayal of Italians does not bother me. I was just stating a for-instance. It would be cool to have a nifty Italian hero, but, there is no need for alarm at the fact that there isn't.... sorry Rockslide. ^_^ )

But, really, I'm off the rails here. I have a million thoughts on the subject and most of them are probably coming out wrong. It's a very, very, very complex subject. One that I would argue is TOO complex for the written word alone. At least in such bite-sized chunks. It's entirely possible, and in fact probable, that some bits get lost in translation. I just hope you can understand why I misjudged you and your article if that is the case.

It would be cool to continue this conversation with you here, but, I would be understanding if you don't have the time or if it's just not worth your time. Thanks again for posting in the first place -- I admire that.

[The Darknight Detective]

The art is brilliant, but it fails editorially: Why is she crying? Heroes don't cry (when threatened). .... Unless there's the Psycho-Pirate or Scarecrow putting a whammy on 'em.

That was my biggest problem with it. It wasn't heroic. Period. It wasn't her crying (that has happened a lot with both genders before). It wasn't the grim/dark look (doesn't bother me). It's not because the villain has the upper hand (again, nothing new here). The problem is that it portrayed a superhero as a wuss and all the defenses of the variant couldn't explain away that successfully. This wasn't pre-Batgirl Babs, but an experienced Barbara out in the trenches for a while sobbing and looking terrified. It just didn't make sense. Yes, variants don't always make sense, but it seemed like she was singled out to appear to be unheroic, for whatever reason.

Was it a major deal? No, just like the cancellation wasn't, either.

[dancj]

It's bad because it's DC making a dumb decision and then issuing a retraction that throws the artist under the bus for doing as they asked of him. It's DC not taking responsibility for their mistakes and instead saying, "HE DID IT!"

I can't see that at all. They haven't admitted that there's anything wrong with the cover (and may not think there is - I'm not convinced I do). If they haven't admitted that there's anything wrong with the cover then what are they throwing the artist under the bus for? The only thing it could be was requesting that they withdraw it - which he did.

[lukeyrobbo]

I think the real problem with this is the fact that some creators are going to be less exploratory with content and covers, really, seeing how quickly this cover got pulled with a little backlash. Obviously, an apology given for the inconsistency between the tone of the cover and the tone of the series was probably necessary, though I've always taken covers with a pinch of salt, variant or otherwise. Pulling the cover seems to be a little reactionary though, to me. This kind of emphasis on taboo subjects stifles creativity, and forcing such a politically-correct agenda on creators is surely going to detract from creativity somewhat.