It is very easy for self photography or performance to convey sexual agency as the artist can consent and portray themselves how they wish. Illustration is a whole different thing, as fictional characters / drawings cannot really consent, so it's up to the artist to portray them - a lot of comic book artists seem to take the chance to hypersexualise women as the main demographic that comics are aimed at is male. Part of this is classic unrealistic proportions and reducing the character to a 2 dimensional object with no reason to be there other than to be a sex symbol or to be killed off to further the plot of the (male) protagonist.
I have always enjoyed Laura Callaghan's work, as it is something that was similar to what I wanted to do at one point, I just like drawing a lot of women. There is definitely some sexual representations of women within Callaghan's work which leads me to think - how is it that they are not hypersexual? Is it because the artist is female? The intent and context of the work?
http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/en_uk/blog/independent-laura-callaghans-illustrated-women
'Callaghan’s scenes lend the females she draws power, conviction, and notoriety. The characters are not to be taken lightly, they very much command attention, through their clothing, hair color, and settings' (Espolón, The Creators Project, Independent: Laura Callaghan's Illustrated Women, 2015)
This quote basically answered my questions. The women in Callaghan's work don't meld into a mass of similar looking butts and boobs, only identifiable by costume. Each character appears to have a distinct style and attitude that is communicated even by a single image.
No comments:
Post a Comment