I'm afraid I don't understand your view on the subject. First I want to stress that I'm not disliking this artists work, nor was I that offended by anything Cho had done with his covers. The image that has recently been unveiled as the newest variant, thought an attractive and well crafted piece of artwork, far more centers on Diana's body then what Cho did. Of all Cho's covers, I found possibly the most recent the most guilty of any problems, and it was just her standing with her back to the viewer. For example, Cho's variant for #4 which was black and white and had all the detauil behind it paid more respect to Diana as a character then this newest one. Cho's image for number 4 showcased the words engraved in the marble as "Seek Peace", "Amazon", and "Prepare For War." Those words and the artwork are not in any way dwelling on her body, but her heritage. Also the greek Angelic (possibly Aphrodite and Athena) figures, as well as the olive crown, the dove flying overhead. Nothing about that cover is sexualized. It's actually displaying the character and what she stands for monumentally better then the one recently displayed.
I want to say right now, I'm going to be critical of the newest image, just because I think it's fair, not because I'm actually all that insulted by it. Diana is standing with her face somewhat visible, the main focus of the image is on Diana's chest, her eyelids are closed almost lustfully, her lips are parted, as she holds the magic lasso against her body. Nothing about that image projects power, or wisdom, or compassion, or anything really besides Diana is a gorgeous woman. I don't think it's done in a vulgar or insulting way, but I don't see why one, which is actually showing the character for things besides her beauty is sexualizing her, while another, with her simply standing there, the audience focused directly at her chest, is not? Sexualizing, as far as I know, is where you reduce a person/character into nothing more then an object of lust. I would argue #4's variant cover in no way is doing that, whereas this arguably could be viewed as doing so. We aren't even really certain what Diana is even doing in the current image. It almost looks like she's interacting with someone who isn't shown?
That all being said, I do believe that the new cover artist appears talented, and personally, I like the image as it is a well done piece of artwork. All the image really tells me though, is that Diana is attractive. Not powerful, or compassionate, or intelligent, or skilled, or anything like that.
I disagree.
Diana is holding her head high, and the Lasso is in her hands, barely touching her body. To me, the image looks very regal. She looks like a queen or goddess. Everything about her stance suggests a quiet strength and power to her. She looks like she's standing there, ready to use the Lasso to bind you to her service. (I, for one, would offer no resistance whatsoever! ) The closed eyes give her a slight sensuality, sure. But it's minimal and just softens the image so as not to make her seem fearsome or intimidating.
The focus on her chest might mean more if this image gave her a large chest. Which it didn't. She looks more like Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman in that respect.
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
--Lord Alfred Tennyson--
There is nothing at all that I see sexualized about this new picture from Frison.
1. She is standing straight, no curved spine.
2. No cleavage
3. No butt cheeks/panties/thong
4. Her position is not set to display #2 or #3 i.e. she isn't bent over to display her assets.
It has nothing to do with skin (and Diana, in this pic, even covers more skin with the cloak partially covering the top of her breasts/potential cleavage) and everything to do with stance and accentuation of, to quote Kristen Chenoweth, 'boobs and butt'.
To me, the most sexualized images of women in comics are the ones where they are contorted in such a way that you see cleavage *and* butt, that show over-sized breasts (bigger than the woman's head and not naturally shaped at all), that have that horrendous 'c' curvature of the spine to stick the butt out and thrust the chest forward, etc.
I don't see any of that here.
First, I'd like to thank people for not attacking me, just for my opinion. That's all it is, as I am not absolutely certain about anything. (Well not anything, but most things.)
Gaelforce,I agree, based on your own criteria I do not see anything at all. It is helpful you at the very least gave standards by which to judge such artwork. My only issue with the list you gave is, it seems to be addressing the chest and posterior region (Or poses that accentuate those), and not anything else. Women can be sexy (or sexualized) in many different ways sadly, as even garments that the character is wearing can lead some to feel she is being sexualized. My biggest concern with this image (Let it be known, I like the image, and the artist), is Diana's expression. Sure the image is focused on her chest, and she is showing a slight bit of inner thigh, but I think that's going to happen, and the image may be reformatted, as I doubt they are going to cover up Diana's face with the title. So the title alone may take some attention off of her chest. Her expression though in this image is not an expression I am used to seeing Diana make. Having your eyelids open half way is often described as a sultry or seductive expression. I can imagine Poison Ivy, or Catwoman using that expression, easily, but Diana not so much. That's presenting a facial expression to make her more sultry and sensual, when I don't see why that was needed at all. Maybe that's not the clinical definition of sexualizing, but I think it at the least, in my opinion is a valid concern. Does she look attractive, and gorgeous yes, and that seems to be what the artist was going for, but I can't take much more from it,other then she's a gorgeous beautiful woman.
Your concerns about anatomy being too large or not represented in a realistic means I do agree with. To me when an artist does that, the artist is going for an almost caricature, rather then a realistic image. Sometimes caricatures aren't appropriate though. This (the newest variant) is by no means that, but I think her expression is a bit off character, presenting her as different then she actually is. I can't remember the last time I saw Diana try to seduce anyone. It could be argued it's also an expression of fatigue, which would also be a way of viewing it, but when I see half open female eyes, I often think of seduction. As Vanguard posted, he believed from his opinion that Diana was getting ready to rope in a criminal, and was standing powerfully and regally. From the context of the image, she may be doing that, or returning the lasso to her clasp, or just holding it for some reason. Without context, I can't really say, other then what I saw when I viewed the image.
The pose that everyone is critical of, the pose where you twist your upper body, bent and then your posterior is also on display, is 'somewhat' possible. To the extreme levels, no I would say it isn't not where you see both perfectly, as yes Diana and other heroines are flexible, but some of the poses are just awkward. Some of the images in comics though aren't really poses, in that the person holds it, as the image is just representing a milisecond of an action sequence that may look awkward as heck, but that exact moment is only one second. As stated though, I do understand the criticism of that pose, however I think some examples of it are monumentally worse then others. Cho, in the case of #3, I personally wasn't too offended by.
All of this is my opinion, and as such can only be what I honestly felt and saw. There is no right or wrong except in saying that it is rightly what you felt or saw. I wasn't calling for everyone to hate on this new image, but more exploring what it is to have a sexualized image? Are the images that Heidi Klum poses for in Victoria's Secret, sexualized? She's a lingerie supermodel modeling lingerie? Is it even possible to do that with or without sexualization. At times when I post it might seem like I'm trying to make someone else look wrong, but it's more about understanding. Can a woman who is simply sitting on a sofa, legs closed, wearing a bra that has cleavage showing, and her back arched slightly exist without it being sexualization? It's a question, not a call to a fight. Many of Diana's abilities relate to agility, and as such that can put you into some very diverse postures. The one in question is probably done to the point of overkill, but I believe, in my opinion there are times it makes sense.
While I don't want to go back into the "Pros" and "Cons" of the old artist leaving the book, it is nice to see such a great artist winding up in that spot.
Daaaaammmmn! Frison is killing it! For me, the real draw here is the eyes. Just the right air of mystery to them.
Love the animal imagery as well. I wonder if there's any significance to it. It's just a variant, so it doesn't really have to have any real relevance to the story, but I'm wondering. Animals are showing up in Diana's book a lot right now. Perhaps she's getting back her animal empathy?
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
--Lord Alfred Tennyson--
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
--Lord Alfred Tennyson--
Though much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
--Lord Alfred Tennyson--