Hey all, bringing this thread back from the dead because... we're still talking about this. several times this subject matter has arisen in recent threads as well as the same concept being reposted. so here we go again: some recent work by me... and lastly: recently kinda gained the dream to work against the stereotypes around the Drow (for those that don't know, the drow in D&D are the dark elves, they are a 100% matriarchal society, yet they somehow insist on dressing themselves dictated by the male gaze.)
Glad you revived the thread! I've been sitting on some stuff for a while, but kept forgetting this was a thing, and then felt weird about posting after such a long silence.
PBS Idea Channel made this wonderful video applying queer theory to The Sims. It's not perfect, but for an eight minute video where a cishet dude explains Judith Butler, it could be significantly worse.
I'm kind of hesitant to talk about D&D 5E, because some thoroughly vile human beings worked on that product, but the art in the Player's Handbook seems terrific, and features a ton of women and people of colour. On that note, Jason Morningstar (he made Fiasco) recently released Night Witches, a game about women who were enlisted into the WWII Soviet bomber regiment. The art is great (Kickstarter link, probably the best place to actually see the art outside of the book), and features a lot of diversity in terms of body shape and adherence to conventional beauty ideals. On top of that, the mechanics explore the sexism that Soviet airwomen faced, and encourage players to include content about gender and sexuality when they run the game.
I've also only recently become more aware of these issues (interestingly, introduced to me by my cishet partner). Until now, I've primarily painted females, ones based on the media perception of attractiveness. Probably because these are the images I saw the most, and "learned" that this is what constitutes as an attractive painting. In many ways, being exposed to this media molded my conscious "understanding" of what is attractive, even though, with any amount of casual introspection, I've personally always been physically attracted to androgyny, and yet, having met my partner I am now attracted to whatever it is that he is.
I think being exposed to, and indeed experiencing the fact that attractiveness is not definitive or permanent, made me realize, genuinely realize, not just acknowledge, that regardless of colour, shape, or gender, if a design tells a story, if a character is unique, believable, or interesting, and most importantly, a PERSON, not just sexy, or ugly, or whatever, brainless shape, then that design becomes something more than an empty avatar, and to me, that is a successful design. Everything else is ornamental, satirical, or adequate at it's best, maybe a necessary filler, or at its worst, cliched and repetitive.
The main thing that shapes are good for is speedily describing character when we don't have the luxury of time. A square jaw holds enough meaning to it due to generations of storytelling and stereotype that reinventing that wheel becomes impractical unless entirely necessary. Any "character design" course will tell you "draw shapes". That inverted triangle suggests heroism, that bean shape suggests playfulness, etc. These are in fact stereotypes. How many bean shaped people have you really met who are playful? But in many ways, I see how these tropes can be necessary, and how, only because of the existence of these tropes, it can be possible to create something contrary.
But these are all things that we learn, and then must unlearn. Something unique and interesting only really stands out if it is surrounded by the mundane. The frail unlikely hero becomes a Cinderella trope. The boisterous female becomes a "strong female character" trope. It's literally impossible to ever really be free from these concepts that have to exists in order to create something "unique".
I guess what I'm really trying to figure out here, digging around in my own head while typing this, is that maybe it's ultimately about honesty. We work in a field saturated in fantasy and fiction, but what we need to add to that to give it that extra level of depth is honesty. Grounding the fiction in genuine, observable truth, not just attempting to replicate what we have been taught to be true without applying any actual personal experience or perspective. If your character "reminds you of someone" then I think that's probably a good start. Alternatively, perhaps your character can be completely absurd that you WISH you knew someone like that, or are really glad you DON'T know anyone like that, etc. There have been several great examples of that in this thread. If a character is genuinely believable enough that you could imagine their impact on your life if they really existed...THAT is a successful design.
SO! Having said ALL that (sorry), looking through my past work, the only one I honestly still enjoy and can be applied to this thread, is this: Fanart, a concept concieved by a greater conciever than I am. Granny Weatherwax.
Drow based on D&D Drow, where they originate in our popular culture, If I am not mistaken. I recall that 5e did wonders in their art department, in general Wizards of the coast artistic direction has become immensely inclusive more recently, with characters displaying massive diversity from both D&D and Magic respectively, My problem comes from the illogical representations of how cultural symbols are born and that a simple obvious answer runs along the same line as designs are based around a male heterosexual perspective, for a matriarchal race. By all means D&D5e is doing good things from what I see and I hope that it shall continue as is. Also posted a piece on the recent inclusion of a trans woman for one of the major story characters recently.
Thanks for posting, as said I see these topics arise again and again, and a lot of relevance was explored in this thread.
For content's sake: People should check out Steven Universe. Other than having superb sensibility for colour work, their sensitivity towards gender and racial diversity is exceptional and introducing young audience to a phenomenally inclusive world.
Man, I am always up for well done genderswapped reimaginings of Zelda. Speaking of which, Aaron Diaz (writer artist of Dresden Codak) did some great concept art for such an idea, which I'm kind of surprised I haven't posted yet.
A lot of game press have been touting it as "less sexualized" female characters, but it's really the same level of sexualization with more diverse and realistic body types.
I don't think this thread should ever not be revived. :P
I saw that linked a bunch in the game art circles, but with ridicule. :( Whoever shopped that stuff wasn't very good (at anatomical landmarks and rendering). It's one of the reasons why I felt super pressured in the mascot painting, because I feel the alternative that's offered has to be at least on par in execution to be convincing, especially when you're editing the work of someone more skilled/experienced and thereby forcing a comparison. (I know their target there is people suffering eating disorders and the aim is to show that video game characters aren't realistic, and not artists themselves, but it unfortunately gets used as a counterexample instead, i.e. Don't let them have diversity because this is the crap you'll get.)
I can't get over how great Steven Universe is, it has to be the most progressive cartoon on tv right now. Here's a reall interesting video on how it subverts traditional ideas around family structure, which is a type of diversity that often goes overlooked.
I wonder if it might be a good idea to create some mascots for the (recently announced and upcoming) rAge in CPT expo - just so that the people in charge have some references *before* making another roxy?
Yes!! When I got to "Alone Together" and it hit me what it was actually referencing, I was floored. They actually managed to get the topics of gender identity, consensual sex, sexual assault, puberty, objectification etc. into a Cartoon Network morning cartoon. Amazing.
I wonder if it might be a good idea to create some mascots for the (recently announced and upcoming) rAge in CPT expo - just so that the people in charge have some references *before* making another roxy?
Well we do have a couple handy in another thread ;)
A lot of game press have been touting it as "less sexualized" female characters, but it's really the same level of sexualization with more diverse and realistic body types.
One of the people I shared this with did actually make the argument that the mistake the article I linked made was that they should have used athlete's body shapes, so thanks for that :)
I don't necessarily agree with him, since I understand the point to be to illustrate just how unrealistic the expectations set by the stereotypes are, but it would be interesting to see something similar done with realistic athletic body shapes.
Comments
so here we go again: some recent work by me...
and lastly: recently kinda gained the dream to work against the stereotypes around the Drow
(for those that don't know, the drow in D&D are the dark elves, they are a 100% matriarchal society, yet they somehow insist on dressing themselves dictated by the male gaze.)
PBS Idea Channel made this wonderful video applying queer theory to The Sims. It's not perfect, but for an eight minute video where a cishet dude explains Judith Butler, it could be significantly worse.
I'm kind of hesitant to talk about D&D 5E, because some thoroughly vile human beings worked on that product, but the art in the Player's Handbook seems terrific, and features a ton of women and people of colour. On that note, Jason Morningstar (he made Fiasco) recently released Night Witches, a game about women who were enlisted into the WWII Soviet bomber regiment. The art is great (Kickstarter link, probably the best place to actually see the art outside of the book), and features a lot of diversity in terms of body shape and adherence to conventional beauty ideals. On top of that, the mechanics explore the sexism that Soviet airwomen faced, and encourage players to include content about gender and sexuality when they run the game.
Probably because these are the images I saw the most, and "learned" that this is what constitutes as an attractive painting. In many ways, being exposed to this media molded my conscious "understanding" of what is attractive, even though, with any amount of casual introspection, I've personally always been physically attracted to androgyny, and yet, having met my partner I am now attracted to whatever it is that he is.
I think being exposed to, and indeed experiencing the fact that attractiveness is not definitive or permanent, made me realize, genuinely realize, not just acknowledge, that regardless of colour, shape, or gender, if a design tells a story, if a character is unique, believable, or interesting, and most importantly, a PERSON, not just sexy, or ugly, or whatever, brainless shape, then that design becomes something more than an empty avatar, and to me, that is a successful design. Everything else is ornamental, satirical, or adequate at it's best, maybe a necessary filler, or at its worst, cliched and repetitive.
The main thing that shapes are good for is speedily describing character when we don't have the luxury of time. A square jaw holds enough meaning to it due to generations of storytelling and stereotype that reinventing that wheel becomes impractical unless entirely necessary. Any "character design" course will tell you "draw shapes". That inverted triangle suggests heroism, that bean shape suggests playfulness, etc. These are in fact stereotypes. How many bean shaped people have you really met who are playful? But in many ways, I see how these tropes can be necessary, and how, only because of the existence of these tropes, it can be possible to create something contrary.
But these are all things that we learn, and then must unlearn. Something unique and interesting only really stands out if it is surrounded by the mundane. The frail unlikely hero becomes a Cinderella trope. The boisterous female becomes a "strong female character" trope. It's literally impossible to ever really be free from these concepts that have to exists in order to create something "unique".
I guess what I'm really trying to figure out here, digging around in my own head while typing this, is that maybe it's ultimately about honesty. We work in a field saturated in fantasy and fiction, but what we need to add to that to give it that extra level of depth is honesty. Grounding the fiction in genuine, observable truth, not just attempting to replicate what we have been taught to be true without applying any actual personal experience or perspective. If your character "reminds you of someone" then I think that's probably a good start. Alternatively, perhaps your character can be completely absurd that you WISH you knew someone like that, or are really glad you DON'T know anyone like that, etc. There have been several great examples of that in this thread. If a character is genuinely believable enough that you could imagine their impact on your life if they really existed...THAT is a successful design.
SO! Having said ALL that (sorry), looking through my past work, the only one I honestly still enjoy and can be applied to this thread, is this: Fanart, a concept concieved by a greater conciever than I am. Granny Weatherwax.
I recall that 5e did wonders in their art department, in general Wizards of the coast artistic direction has become immensely inclusive more recently, with characters displaying massive diversity from both D&D and Magic respectively, My problem comes from the illogical representations of how cultural symbols are born and that a simple obvious answer runs along the same line as designs are based around a male heterosexual perspective, for a matriarchal race.
By all means D&D5e is doing good things from what I see and I hope that it shall continue as is.
Also posted a piece on the recent inclusion of a trans woman for one of the major story characters recently.
Thanks for posting, as said I see these topics arise again and again, and a lot of relevance was explored in this thread.
For content's sake:
People should check out Steven Universe. Other than having superb sensibility for colour work, their sensitivity towards gender and racial diversity is exceptional and introducing young audience to a phenomenally inclusive world.
Been painting Panda More. really need to do more with this delightful creature
NSFW Nude
Continuing my tradition of just painting non-white people where white faces would conventionally be... s'what i do these days...
Todd Keller
http://www.bulimia.com/examine/video-games-realistic-body-types/
A lot of game press have been touting it as "less sexualized" female characters, but it's really the same level of sexualization with more diverse and realistic body types.
I saw that linked a bunch in the game art circles, but with ridicule. :( Whoever shopped that stuff wasn't very good (at anatomical landmarks and rendering). It's one of the reasons why I felt super pressured in the mascot painting, because I feel the alternative that's offered has to be at least on par in execution to be convincing, especially when you're editing the work of someone more skilled/experienced and thereby forcing a comparison. (I know their target there is people suffering eating disorders and the aim is to show that video game characters aren't realistic, and not artists themselves, but it unfortunately gets used as a counterexample instead, i.e. Don't let them have diversity because this is the crap you'll get.)
--
I enjoyed this (given that Steven Universe is wildly popular):
http://gemanthem.tumblr.com/post/124771592982/justangrymacaroni-animators-female-characters
I don't necessarily agree with him, since I understand the point to be to illustrate just how unrealistic the expectations set by the stereotypes are, but it would be interesting to see something similar done with realistic athletic body shapes.