|
Post by pacino on Mar 18, 2015 14:43:17 GMT -5
I agree. It was a good read once, but when I read it again I was put off by it and haven't gone back in years.
It was a podcast I normally like, but they really had no open minds. I think someone on TC called it 'gatekeeping' (never heard that term before today's pod) and that's very true. You don't need to tick off A B and C to prove you are a fan of comics and have an opinion on something.
|
|
|
Post by rgsc on Mar 18, 2015 14:50:26 GMT -5
Rafael Albuquerque did a brilliant interview about this. It is in Portuguese, but I post it here anyway. I've translated some key bits: Thank you very much for linking to this interview and even more so for translating (Meu português não é bom) It shows that RA is a class act as well as a fantastic artist.
|
|
|
Post by rgsc on Mar 18, 2015 14:57:33 GMT -5
I just heard a podcast where someone snarked 'These tumblr and twitter people dont even read the book'. Another said 'They probably didnt even read The Killing Joke'. You won't be able to sway some people if they are coming from that point of view. NOT THE POINT!! Or the issue...or..whatever. Yup, not going to sway certain folks but, even worse, not going to even get them to *consider* another point of view. I've read TKJ -- does that mean my point of view is more valid? The fact that someone knows EXACTLY what is being referenced (& in this case *shudder* I really don't ever need to read those pages again) doesn't mean they have a more privileged opinion. How many of those twits read Batgirl, I wonder... by their logic if they didn't would it invalidate their right to have an opinion or somesuch nonsense?
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Mar 18, 2015 15:05:18 GMT -5
Adam Baldwin stated on twitter that he's for saving the cover. So there you go... Says volumes, doesn't it.
|
|
|
Post by battyfordc on Mar 18, 2015 15:26:37 GMT -5
All this whole thing has taught me is to fear for the future of comics. How limited are we going to be in the future if we complain about every little thing that isn't PC. Fear for the future. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the cover. But in response to the charge that "we complain about every little thing that isn't pc," I would just reiterate that there are real-world inequalities and violences that the cover is indicative of and there are real-life people that find it upsetting. As I said above: "The key to all of this, as our forum-friend Sailor Marvel has said, is to have empathy. To think about and *care* about how other people, different from us, might feel. To ask, if someone is upset by this image, why is that, and to care enough about the answer to maybe make ourselves uncomfortable by questioning ourselves and our own assumptions. To think about how we'd like to be treated--how we'd like to see people like us portrayed in fiction--and to treat others accordingly." My comment was more directed at the fact that this is the 2nd thing in 2 months. First there was the crossdresser now the cover. It's getting very old.
|
|
|
Post by Tony on Mar 18, 2015 15:29:36 GMT -5
my ultimate issue is censorship, whether it's by the government, the public, or the morality police. Raphael Alberqurque created a beautiful, scary homage to a scene in a book, that now will be forever tagged as trash because a segment of society saw it as they saw it (right or wrong is not for ME to judge). I saw a tweet yesterday that said, because DC lethim do this cover it just shows that they hate women. That is just as wrong as your perception that this cover is vile and has no business on the stands (forgive me if that's not what you think, I don't want to put words in your mouth, I'm generalizing here). How can you call it censorship when it was the artist himself who had second thoughts and made the request to have it pulled? Self-censorship, I guess, but isn't that his right, as the creator of the work? Critique lead Albuquerque to reevaluate the tastefulness and appropriateness of the piece, and he saw validity in the criticism, empathized, saw the point being made, changed his mind based on his shifted perspective, and decided he'd been in the wrong. There's nothing at all wrong with that process; that seems extremely healthy, actually, that he was open minded enough to listen and empathize, that people in his life and people in contact with him on social media were able to explain to him why the image was inappropriate eloquently and/or poignantly, and finally that DC were also receptive to pulling it once Albuquerque requested it be pulled (knowing they were going to take some shit for that decision). No step in that process is anything other than fair and respectable. Rafael Albuquerque did a brilliant interview about this. It is in Portuguese, but I post it here anyway. I've translated some key bits: entretenimento.uol.com.br/noticias/redacao/2015/03/18/a-industria-de-hq-sempre-foi-machista-diz-brasileiro-de-capa-da-batgirl.htmWhen asked if he received any pressure to remove the cover:"No. The decision was mine alone. I see a lot of people talking about freedom of expression and that I was forced to do this. I have always defended minorities. I think this is what is correct and what has integrity. I don't think a book that has the intention of lifting the female self-esteem should have images that suggest otherwise. In another book, maybe the cover would make sense. But not Batgirl's current book. Freedom of speech also means not saying what you don't want to say and that is exactly the right I exercised in making this decision."He was directly asked if concerns about the portrayal of women could cut into the creative freedom of artists or if they were valid complaints:"They are completely valid. The industry as a whole has always been sexist. We are used to this but we are living through a moment where the industry is opening up. It is important for us the reevaluate our values and our positions. I think that dialogue and respect is fundamental for the industry not to divide itself. Respect is my key flag on this issue"What would you like to be the legacy of this controversy:
"I think that, independently of your position about the cover, feminism or free speech, the important thing is to learn to listen. To have empathy for those with differing views. To put yourself in the position of the other and have some consideration... Freedom of expression cannot be reduced to only the things you like. Freedom must come with responsibility."Thank you for posting that. That says it all.
|
|
matt
Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Posts: 75
|
Post by matt on Mar 18, 2015 15:59:13 GMT -5
I just heard a podcast where someone snarked 'These tumblr and twitter people dont even read the book'. Another said 'They probably didnt even read The Killing Joke'. You won't be able to sway some people if they are coming from that point of view. On that interview I translated above, Albuquerque openly says readers, ans especially young female readers, have no obligation to read TKJ. I don't think you should have to be reading the current batgirl run or have read TKJ in the past to dislike the cover.
|
|
|
Post by rgsc on Mar 18, 2015 16:08:08 GMT -5
So, Batgirl 40! The arc wraps up! Punches were thrown; clever people acted cleverly; days were saved; heroes were heroic; dances were danced. A very good issue with plenty of action - fantastically communicated with great art & really good layouts - that had a very good resolution with a tantalizing tease about what comes in 41. (what IS on the screen?!?!?) AND HOLY CRAP FRANKIE IS GOING TO BECOME ORACLE!!! I know it was pretty well telegraphed from a few issues back but, HECK YA!
Happy with how this turned out & looking forward to what comes next.
|
|
digart
Fearless Defender
Posts: 11
|
Post by digart on Mar 18, 2015 17:09:50 GMT -5
So much to say, but I'll be brief. I'll preface by saying I dropped this new run on Batgirl from my pull list after only a few issues (I may regret it, but it just wasn't in my wheelhouse). I did, however, get a sense of the tone that it had. I can understand the point of view and objections of loyal readers and fans of Batgirl in regard to the variant cover in question. But as an artist, what worries me is the effect that social media is having on what does and doesn't get printed. Regardless of whether or not Albuquerque was personally threatened (he says he wasn't), his art was definitely threatened. So much so, that he decided to self-censor. Now yes, the image is out there - but not as it was originally intended. Self censoring is not a path I want any artist to take unless it's a decision they came about completely on their own. There was, no doubt, outside pressure from social media that created a tide of disapproval towards this piece.
The great thing about art is that it doesn't have to appeal to everyone. It doesn't have to be appreciated by everyone. It only needs to be created. From then on, those who enjoy it are free to do so, while those who do not can simply go on to the next canvas, channel, book, stage, sculpture, etc. I don't want to live in a world where artists start altering or self-censoring their art to appeal to the masses.
|
|
|
Post by rgsc on Mar 18, 2015 17:43:39 GMT -5
So much to say, but I'll be brief. I'll preface by saying I dropped this new run on Batgirl from my pull list after only a few issues (I may regret it, but it just wasn't in my wheelhouse). I did, however, get a sense of the tone that it had. I can understand the point of view and objections of loyal readers and fans of Batgirl in regard to the variant cover in question. But as an artist, what worries me is the effect that social media is having on what does and doesn't get printed. Regardless of whether or not Albuquerque was personally threatened (he says he wasn't), his art was definitely threatened. So much so, that he decided to self-censor. Now yes, the image is out there - but not as it was originally intended. Self censoring is not a path I want any artist to take unless it's a decision they came about completely on their own. There was, no doubt, outside pressure from social media that created a tide of disapproval towards this piece. The great thing about art is that it doesn't have to appeal to everyone. It doesn't have to be appreciated by everyone. It only needs to be created. From then on, those who enjoy it are free to do so, while those who do not can simply go on to the next canvas, channel, book, stage, sculpture, etc. I don't want to live in a world where artists start altering or self-censoring their art to appeal to the masses. Except he didn't self-censor. He reconsidered it in light of the discussion and requested the piece not be used. He states - clearly - that he did come to it on his own when he came to realize the issues at play. There is a difference. Part of the perils of creative work is facing criticism. I do agree with what I think your general point is in that the tone of criticism (well considered & constructive, or otherwise) on the internet tends to go to extremes - on both ends - very quickly and that there has can be some very unhealthy results from this. And I certainly agree that not everything has to appeal to everyone. I disagree with your view that seems to state that art should be exempt from criticism, however. A viewer can shrug and move to the next piece or they can voice their opinion. When something piques them - because they love it or not - they might take to the pages of a newspaper or magazine, to the internet, or in some cases to the streets (history is full of art-induced riots). Artists do self-censor all the time. In the face of critics, the market, their current cultural context and place in history. They decide what to create, what to keep, what to try to sell. When the reaction to something is not what they hoped for - either critically or commercially - they can choose to keep on keeping on or make changes to their practice. Is that self-censorship? Or might it be considered, in at least some cases, growth? Artists re-evalutate what they produce in light of time or change in world view. In commercial art, which comics like those DC publishes are, there are a whole host of different considerations at play.
|
|
digart
Fearless Defender
Posts: 11
|
Post by digart on Mar 18, 2015 18:04:38 GMT -5
There is absolutely room for criticism, but when it comes at the expense of an artists right to express himself fully - before the piece is even produced (printed) gives me pause.
Albuquerque was obviously pleased with his work when he turned it in to DC. And it is also obvious that he changed his mind only after his cover was previewed and the backlash began. I guess this whole dilemma would be solved with getting rid of "Previews" and letting the market react. If the piece had never been previewed - we'd be having a very different discussion. Call me cynical, but lately, the internet is actively seeking out things to be outraged about.
I realize this is commercial art and there are different considerations at play, including that sometimes "controversial" art sells more than "safe" art.
|
|
|
Post by tomoe on Mar 20, 2015 0:59:03 GMT -5
There is absolutely room for criticism, but when it comes at the expense of an artists right to express himself fully - before the piece is even produced (printed) gives me pause. Albuquerque was obviously pleased with his work when he turned it in to DC. And it is also obvious that he changed his mind only after his cover was previewed and the backlash began. I guess this whole dilemma would be solved with getting rid of "Previews" and letting the market react. If the piece had never been previewed - we'd be having a very different discussion. Call me cynical, but lately, the internet is actively seeking out things to be outraged about. I realize this is commercial art and there are different considerations at play, including that sometimes "controversial" art sells more than "safe" art. Isn't there a story going around that DC editorial kicked back his first cover and told him to make it more extreme? If true, that would make them the first people who interfered with his "right to express himself fully".
|
|
|
Post by pacino on Mar 20, 2015 7:36:10 GMT -5
Also, it's a corporate IP. He can express his art only as far as they let him. I guess that's censorship of a sort, as well.
|
|
|
Post by rgsc on Mar 20, 2015 11:43:21 GMT -5
Isn't there a story going around that DC editorial kicked back his first cover and told him to make it more extreme? If true, that would make them the first people who interfered with his "right to express himself fully". Reported in Bleeding Cool from "insider sources" so you might need to up your sodium intake but, yup. And, yup.
|
|
|
Post by jonathansoko on Mar 20, 2015 21:53:00 GMT -5
Hey guys. On a different note what did you think of issue 40, and the silent one shot for end game?! Both were my favorite so far. Im not a fan of silent issues, but Bengal killed it
|
|