>While looking for another entrant in my fanartist hall of shame, I happened to stumble across an artist whose work I had not been familiar with – Hyung Tae Kim. I initially found him when I stumbled across this image:
/sigh. Distorted anatomy? Check. I mean, even more so than usual. Improbably large breasts that defy physics? Check. Lovingly detailed ladybits? Cheeeeeck. This guy is a charmer all right.
When I did more research I discovered that HTK is actually a pretty influential artist in the Asian gaming industry. He’s worked as lead character design on a huge number of roleplaying games, including the War of Genesis series (3 games), the Magna Carta series (2 games), and Blade and Soul online. And while normally, I wouldn’t tackle an artist like HTK because of the fact that he does work primarily in the Asian games industry, the fact remains that he does have a HUGE following here in North America and does occasionally work over here. That blue crotch-floss with butterflies? The cover for an Exalted sourcebook. So I figure that makes him fair game.
Amusingly, one of the first articles that I found about HTK that tipped me off to what a following he had over here was this one. The headline image shows a totally cleavagey chick, but don’t worry folks. She’s just an exception!
If this is an exception, why go to the effort of picking out this one? Methinks thou doth protest too much, sir… Anyhow. Mr. Mahan is mostly correct in that yes, a lot of HTK’s women don’t display actual cleavage. No, instead they have impossibly large, impossibly pointy breasts that flop around like distended lemons. I mean, seriously. Look at these things:
LEMON BOOBS AHOY!
So, I’m guessing he would feel quite a bit of affinity with the WoW artist who did that infamous ladybit assassin picture I mocked a while ago… Another pose that’s way too freaking common is the “please do me from behind” school of posing:
Come on. It doesn’t get less subtle than this!
Seriously? Talim is totally underage! That’s just gross.
The thing that makes me most sad is that Blade and Soul seems to have adhered to HTK’s designs pretty slavishly in the rendering of their character models. I mean check this out! We have actual modeled camel toe:
Go Make Me a Sandwich 
>I recently played MagnaCarta2 and was put off by the cover art. The in-game models are very similar to the concept art. The hype around the game seemed entirely based around HTK's art, even the back of the box praises it. It's almost hard to look away from the bizarre anatomy, especially the hips. It's like an odd curiosity for me, not even sexual because it's so unrealistic.
>that first image…yikes. i mean, 1. that looks painful as hell, and 2. it is not even possible for that thing to ride that far up her ass. there's actually a connection up in there; it's not empty space!also, i think i love you for the phrase "lemon boobs."
>Yeah.. it doesn't really matter that you don't show cleavage (what, were they expecting applause?), when the clothes on the women literally look like they were painted on. Boobs do not work that way.. unless you have iron-tipped nipples there really /won't/ be that much definition. I mean dear lord man, if you want to draw soft-core porn then go draw that (It looks like that 2nd picture is already attempting though. Is that a nipple sticking out under her clothes?).Can we please stop calling this 'art' though while we're at it? It's not art, it's creepy. Does anyone else think the whole 'shiny skin' thing makes them look like plastic dolls? Again, creepy. For people who want games to be taken more seriously (as in, as a 'true art form') this is the worst kind of way to get that to happen.
>This is a bit nitpicky, but the Magna Carta series actually has 3 games. There's also a PC game that never came to the US — despite having the same main character, it's entirely different from the PS2 game. As for his art being downright weird and sometimes completely creepy… can't really argue with that.
>Lilith: I get where you're coming from, but as someone who went to school for fine art, I'm going to keep calling this stuff art. "Art" is neither good nor bad, it just is. As much as I loathe the content, there is a huge level of craft and aesthetic in each of these pieces. Is it a case of an artist using his powers for evil? ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY. But I do have to acknowledge that the guy is very skilled. So, yeah. Unfortunately, still art imo. Disgusting art, but art none the less.Megmouse: Thanks for the correction.
>Does all of his stuff have the same face?
>Hrm, okay I see what you mean, Anna. I guess I can see some good qualities of them to point out.. but there's just so much bad to sift through before you can really get to it. Can I still call it soft-core porn art or maybe fap art (little catchier)? XD I feel like it really deserves some kind of title like that attached onto it.
>Really, Lilith? It's not art because it offends you? Gosh, that doesn't sound fascist or totalitarian at all! Is there any additional editing to the first amendment that would please you?What a bait and switch these games are. Cover art has nothing but women on them, despite the plot focusing on the male (main) characters.
>The Talim picture has me wondering….have you considered examing lolicon art and the culture that surrounds it? I realize that it's much more prevelant in anime than it is in games and is more of a Japanese thing in general, so it might be a little off-topic for this blog, but it is related to some of the stuff that you cover here.
>The thing which gets me is that so many of these hyper-real female images are depicted from an angle which implies the viewer is lying on the ground. So we get the view of the undersides of the breasts, the visual distortion which makes the thighs look huge, and the reduction of the figure's face (which is, let's admit it, where most of the indications of personality come from) to a distant item, the least visually interesting thing on the screen. Even the picture of Talim has her leaning back, making her face and head much less important than her thighs, breasts and torso.Does he draw male figures at all? And if so, do they have the "tomato on a coffin" look of a small head perched atop giant shoulders? Or does he go for the Liefield style hyper-muscularity?
>"Really, Lilith? It's not art because it offends you? Gosh, that doesn't sound fascist or totalitarian at all!"I think you need to look up the definitions of those two words, because your statement makes no kind of sense at all.
>@Megpie: He does draw Men… and actually, he tends to draw them hyper-feminine, to the point that I actually had to ask whether Calintz (The male lead of Magna Carta PC and PS2) was actually a female in the original version and was just changed to male for the US because of his interest in girls.
>As for the "tomato on coffin" bit… haven't checked his male art (or any of his art, really) recently enough to be sure.
>I think the most disturibing thing is the third lady in your fifth image. The whole massive butt and hips with the tiny, thin, twisty torso that's torqued around to show off the boobs as well… on top of the fact that she seems to be covered in clothing-eating microbes halfway through their meal.I don't see by what school of aesthetics this could be considered 'good' art even if there's a lot of technical skill in the crafting.
>Yeah, I was confused by those use of words too, Pai. Maybe the anonymous was just looking for some words to throw out at me that sounded 'bad' enough? Or something?Anyway, defensive anonymous person, I don't think criticizing someone for showing that the sum of worth he seems to express women as having is as.. sexual parts is exactly wrong of me. Nor is calling it out for the disgusting fap material it is. It's not about 'just offending me', it's about sexism and dehumanizing women. Silly me though, I forgot I'm apparently being oppressive to expect people like Hyung to actually respect women as human beings. Pull your head out, please.
>I love what you are doing and saying on this blog. Too many gamers & geeks let themselves be brainwashed by these fetsihized and sexualized images, then wonder why they can't deal with girls.Some other media I'd like to hear you opinion on:Dragon Half – A mid '90s Japanese comedy manga about a D&D troperrific world. There are some interesting interviews with the creator who talks about how the success of DH allowed him to get out of drawing hentai porn manga, which he felt soul crushing. Still, that didn't stop him from filling DH with enough mini-lemon boobs (the modern big lemon drawing style hadn't been invented yet, nor had the contortionist poses). If you haven't read it, it'll illuminate a lot of what came after it in gamer culture.
>It's a common phenomenon to say the least. It would be interesting to get a sense on how many do it to get a foothold in the industry.
>So the blog is more about online art then about published role playing games art?
>It's just a general gaming art critique blog along with some occasional fan art as well as other topics like Jim Sterling.
>Sorry ladys but I think HTK doesn't care about your critics. Why should he stop? He is successful and he is a good artist.
>-looks up at Anonymous above-There are not just, um, 'ladys' here. And I'm not so sure about that, apparently one of his fanbois care enough to come over here and talk about how much he /doesn't/ care. So that's interesting.Also, he should kind of stop because it's degrading to women and because he's basically expressing that his 'artistic' view of them is as sexual parts. But, y'know, if he's cool and complacent with being a woman-hating, sexist douchebag then that's really just showing what a horrible person he would be. And you're just as bad for making excuses for it. Yay For Mindless Conforming! Anywho, I won't be defining 'good' as anything he does though.
>@wundergeekWould you agree with everything LilithXIV said in the comment right above this one?(3 above, if you ignore the typo ones I just deleted.)
>"Also, he should kind of stop because it's degrading to women and because he's basically expressing that his 'artistic' view of them is as sexual parts."Okay, question for you: Is the "degrading to women" part concomitant from the "view of them as sexual parts?" That is to say: Is the depiction of a woman as sexually appealing and receptive always degrading? This is not a loaded question. I'm just interested in this blog and wondering what sort of feminism you guys operate on.Also, please don't put quotes around artistic just because the art is morally repellent to you. Morality is irrelevant to the quality of art because quality of art is a function of artistic skill. Great art is often morally repellent. (The entire Futurist movement, for example). Do note that I'm not saying you can't criticize on moral grounds, but you criticize the artist for how they use their views conveyed through the art, as Wundergeek is doing. Hold art to morality and you are indeed being totalitarian. (Google "degenerate art" if you need a refresher on that)
>Is the "degrading to women" part concomitant from the "view of them as sexual parts?" That is to say: Is the depiction of a woman as sexually appealing and receptive always degrading? "Sexually appealing and receptive" is not the same as "viewed as only sexual parts."What's degrading about the latter is that everything else about the woman is minimized and made completely irrelevant. Hyung Tae Kim is a great example of that, as seen above — his women are all breasts, hips, thighs, and ladybits, as if nothing else matters (and his lineart is hideous because of it).A woman who was sexually appealing and receptive but managed to retain her personhood would be significantly less degrading than that (though every other woman in the whole medium certainly shouldn't be like that, either).
>I'm not really going to speak for Wundergeek or what kind of feminism she operates on. That's not really my place to talk for her, especially when it's on her blog. But basically.. Ikkin said it all for me really. Better than I could have. It's not really about being sexually appealing.. it's when it's emphasized so much to the point of focusing on women as blow-up dolls x.xI mean lemon boobs? Painted on clothes that literally show every crack and crevice and shape for no reason other than 'this is hawt'? Also, on the artistic thing I was mostly just criticizing him. But personally, and perhaps this is because I do not have knowledge of art like Wundergeek's nor the eye for it, I have a hard time seeing past it's bad spots. So in the end I still think it's bad art, because of what it represents.
>I wasn't trying to speak for anyone. My point is that valuing morality as an artistic technique is, as you've pointed out a substitute for an actual artistic critique. Fortunately, you can still criticize the artist for what they choose to make even if you've no knowledge of the artistry, much like how we can for example, criticize nuclear proliferation without PH.Ds in psychics or claiming atomic bombs are magic because they're evil.As to my question, like I said, I'm not trying to attack you. There are actual feminists that weren't made up by Fox News or whoever that hold that a sexualized woman in media is inherently sexist. Others, like yourselves, have different ideologies. I just wanted to know what the party line is here. On that note:" "Sexually appealing and receptive" is not the same as "viewed as only sexual parts." "Okay, so you're holding that something mostly sexual doesn't belong in genres that don't have sexuality as the primary purpose (i.e. porn, fan-fiction, etc.). Am I correct? If so, my next question is: given that sexuality is literally the central part of human existence, and therefore all narrative inevitably involves sexuality in some part (even if you tried to avoid it: Rule 36), at what point do you hold that something goes from erotic (acceptably sexualized) to pornographic (too sexualized for anything not explicitly focused on evoking lust) and why?
>Hi, folks. I've been really sick, so I haven't been watching the comment threads too closely. Apologies.Sam: The problem isn't with sexual depictions of women, per se. Humans are sexual beings, so I'm not going to decry every sexual depiction of a woman ever. However, what I will decry is 1) when EVERY depiction of women is a sexual depiction 2) depictions that dehumanize women to the point of being ONLY sexual beings. HTK's art fits squarely into the second category. None of his women resemble human beings. There is no space for internal organs, they have all these freakishly bouncy distended lemons for boobs, and they have impossibly flexible hips designed for the purpose of thrusting their ladybits at the camera. Everything about these women that could cause them to be seen as people and not objects of sexual pleasure has been removed, and THAT is what I object to.That being said, the art that HTK makes is still art. Art is neither good nor bad – it just is. A lot of the time people say art is "good" when it displays an impressive level of craft or when we have a strong favorably reaction to it, but that can be a misleading way to look at art. Art exists to elicit an emotional response in the viewer, so technically any art that does so is "good" art. Therefore, I think it's much more useful to look at art like HTK's art in terms of why it is offensive or degrading. Certainly from a level of craft, I will admit that his art is "good" – his compositions, technique, and color choices are all solid.
>Hey, thanks for all of the new fappable material!I'm adding this blog's rss in the "sex" folder in my google reader!
>@wundergeekI still wanna know, would you say:"it's degrading to women and because he's basically expressing that his 'artistic' view of them is as sexual parts." and that he's" a woman-hating, sexist douchebag then that's really just showing what a horrible person he would be. "
>@Zak S: Y'know, we're not some kind of hive mind or something. I'm the one who said it, so if you have issue with it (I'm confused as to whether you do or not) you should probably just take it up with me.Frequently framing women in sexually objectifying ways, constantly overemphasizing and focusing on it as if that is their only value in completely unnecessary context.. cannot be anything but sexism, and to a certain level, woman-hating. Can it? I mean, even if it's outright maliciousness toward women, it's still thoughtlessness and apathy toward their humanity. It's still treating as if they're only there to be shiny objects.
>I should proofread more closely sometimes. Even if it's not* outright maliciousness toward women
>@LilithI'm not assuming you're a hivemind, that's why I'm asking Wundergeek if she agrees with you or not. You've made your opinion clear, I appreciate that. I am not even saying I disagree with it. I know where you stand. I am wondering if the person who runs this site feels the same way. That's an ok and not-offensive thing to want to know, right?
>@Zak S: I'm just rather puzzled as to why her agreeing with me, one commenter of many, would really mean anything. It just seems rather odd.
>@lillithShe's the reason we're here, right? She's the philosophy of Go Make Me A Sandwich. People ask her what she thinks all the time, right? I'm asking.
>You would think, from the post itself, you would get her general opinion on HTK though. I mean, a desire to punch someone in the pills seems like a good sign of their feelings toward that person. It just seems like an unnecessary question, perhaps you could elaborate on your intent more? It seems rather vague and you're not really explaining.
>@LilithSaying art makes you mad is different than saying the artist should probably stop making it and that x,y,and z conclusions are drawable about their personality.It may seem like a subtle distinction to you, but I kinda would like to know where the line is.
>@Zak S: How else would you draw conclusions to their personality? How else would you draw a conclusion to HTK's view of women if not from the art he's pushing? If not from the objectifying images he takes part in perpetuating? If not then there's no need to do it.This stuff is damaging to women, especially in gaming culture where women are largely looked as having a sole or primary purpose of decorations and objects for men.. not people or anyone equal. Even if that wasn't his intent, it's still sexism. And note, I said if he's cool and complacent with that, even after being aware of that? Then yes that makes him a pretty horrible person. Because this is some harmful stuff.I guess if there was ever a line.. he'd be on the very wrong side of it.
>@lilithYeah, i got that. You are exceptionally articulate on this here point.I wanna know if Wundergeek would agree.
>Wundergeek: Oh wow, after spending ten years listening to "game journalists" (and a thousand years of fellow "philosophers") bitch and whine about whether or not something is art, or how much it is art, I think I love you right now. You are possibly the only person talking about games right now that actually understands what the words you're using mean. (besides Alex Kierkegaard, unfortunately) I was initially worried by some of the comments here, but It figures that an actual artist would see through the nonsense.As for myself, I don't hold that a distorted perspective of human beings is wrong, (I recall that someone suggested that VG artists' drawing of only the appealing parts of women is really just modern Expressionism), but it gets so boring when that's the only thing there. Media has, until very shortly in a historical persceptive, privileged love and the chaste over lust. Now it seems as though in our giddiness to paint with a new colour, we've forgotten that any others exist. It's not just men or even our culture either: look at the 90% female Japanese fan-base that Sengoku Basara that plays that game entirely for the yaoi. Society is positively fixated, and I'm growign increasingly annoyed with it.
>Hazmat Sam: I don't think a distorted perspective of human beings, in and of itself, is necessarily wrong (basically, Expressionism isn't bad).But, when that distorted perspective encourages existing misogynistic attitudes in the audience it's intended to attract — an audience that already mistreats any women involved in their hobby — propagating it seems irresponsible at best. =/
>Misogynistic? Depending on your definition, I'm not entirely sure if that's the case.Here's the problem: These companies started from, or inherited the culture of, nerds and geeks that were positively exiled by regular society and went out of their way to carve a unique space, and with a unique people comes a unique culture that was mostly ignored by society until the video-game matured. Now, of course, the rest of the world wants in because they've realized that the things they've invented are the best form of entertainment on Earth. This gave rise to a real industry, not just a cottage industry, and real industries are forever seeking to expand profit.So on the one hand corporations make these games and corporations want to see more people playing games. Women, Hispanics, blacks, whatever. If they find that they will gain more money than they lose by doing something, they will do it. This is why Pepsi was marketing specifically to black people before we even fought the Nazis: a market existed and was courted. Most companies are smart about this.But on the other hand, the the industry, the developers and programmers and designers etc. is one that comes from the people with the most passion for games and hence is traditional in its culture. Thus it is intolerant, elitist, and quite frankly terrified of women (something the fact that black people make up the plurality of the American fighting game scene while there are still women-only tournys attests to.) To them, anyone playing Farmville do not merely have shitty taste* but are an infection that is trying to invade their safe space and reduce the sophistication of their passions to Jersey Shore. Because they have defined themselves in opposition to mainstream society, being inclusive would destroy their identity. So when someone normal tells the corporations to change gamer culture to be more like normal, (Yes, I know feminism isn't the status-quo, but anything not gamer is "normal" to these guys, remember?) they fight like hell, especially if women say it because they see women as arbiters of normalcy. This is why the Sci-Fi chanel specifically cancelled The Dresden Files: for having too many (women) viewers watching it, something that's anathema from a corporate mindset.Of course, what these people don't realize is that, to continue on the Sci-Fi metaphor, Octavia Butler not being run out of town is not going to keep them from their Star Trek. Being woman firendly will not force them out (well, unless it's yaoi fangirl friendly. See: Final Fantasy's escalatingly-cartoonish attempts at token fanservice to keep the boys interested.) and is generally willing to let them have a private space. But humanity grew up in a world that was very much a zero-sum game and that's a very difficult to break vital habits once they become toxic. (see also: human prioritization of fat and sugar.)* Seriously, Farmville takes no skill to play at all and Farmville actually rewards you for playing Farmville by letting you play less Farmville. That says it all.
>Hazmat Sam: I highly doubt that what we're seeing is a result of a geeky fear of the mainstream, for one reason — the "hardcore" game companies have always tried to expand by positioning themselves as more mainstream (in the 18-25 male demographic sense of the word). Sony's biggest push when they entered the gaming market was to the MTV crowd; Microsoft's was to the frat boys.And, honestly, it's the Xbox Live frat boy culture that demonstrates the worst treatment of women, out of the American gamer types. (Japan is a bit of a different issue)That really suggests to me that it's misogyny, not a fear of normalcy — the thing that gets the biggest backlash isn't popularity, it's the inclusion of women in particular. It's a result, more than anything, of the (mainstream) macho attitude that anything women like is Unmanly and to be avoided at all costs.
>Zak: Do I want HTK to stop making art now and forever? No. That would be censorship. Do I think, based on his artwork, that HTK is a douchebag? …maybe. Being an artist, I've known a lot male artists who work in this vein. They can be super-charming, some of them, when they feel like it. But they can also be huge douches. I'm really hesitant to point at this guy's work and say AHA! This man is a waste of space! But at the same time, the sheer volume of his body of work gives a pretty good idea about his attitudes of women. So… Who knows, maybe he's not a complete asshole. I'd still be super-leery of meeting him in person.And yeah, I do think his art is degrading of women.
>Sam: Ikkin's been pretty much saying everything I've wanted to. Like it or not, video gaming IS mainstream. Look at the success of the Wii, the Kinect, of games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero. Look at the success of FarmVille and PopCap. Look at the sales figures of big release games like Halo. Video gaming, unlike many other aspects of gaming) has become a mainstream activity, so I don't really buy the "fear of the mainstream" argument here.Also, I don't agree with your comparison to Expressionsim. When you look at art forms like Expressionism or Cubism, you often see distortion of the human form, sure. But the purpose of presenting this distorted form is to convey an emotional message to the viewer. What message is HTK conveying to the viewer with his distortion besides "THIS CHICK IS HAWT". There is no attempt being made to elicit an emotional response. This is base pandering, a transparent effort to elicit the sexual arousal of men by offering up visions of women who have been reduced to their most pleasing parts – AS DEFINED BY MEN – and who are depicted as sexually available. Note that I didn't say sexually available and willing – not all of these women look willing; some of them look distinctly unwilling.That is why I classify HTK's art as offensive. It systematically dehumanizes the women that it depicts for the purpose of titillating a male viewer. Furthermore, he universally depicts these women as sexually available REGARDLESS OF CONSENT. Now, I may defend the right of HTK to call his work art, but I still find his art offensive as hell. HTK does not get to claim the artistic high ground, because the distortion that he offers has nothing to do with conveying emotional truths and everything to do with dehumanizing women for personal profit.
>@WundergeekI appreciate the subtlety of the distinctions you're making.I feel like when this blog talks about how the industry is imbalanced in its representation of women (especially when it's about avatars that real people actually have to play in games) I am completely behind it. The industry is grotesquely imbalanced in its sexualization of women.If the blog would go so far as to speculate about an individual artist's specific real-world personality, that seems extreme. And to assume he's a dick because he's intentionally doing something damaging to women, he'd have to be aware of and share the view expressed here that hypersexualized images automatically hurt women in the context their being shown in.i.e. in order for him to be necessarily a douche, he'd have to:-know your logic, and-agree with it and not have a counterargument he believes to be trueNot to mention the fact that all 3 HTK fans I know in real life are bisexual women.
>"they're"
>Being a woman who likes or isn't bothered by problematic art doesn't really mean anything. It's not as if being a woman who is not offended by it somehow legitimizes it or something.I don't think it's extreme to hold someone to their actions. Your actions define you and you have to be responsible for those. Ignorance can only be an excuse for so long. I wasn't saying that people should be written off as horrible people forever and then dismissed as such but.. eventually there has to be some accountability. Otherwise how will it ever change?
>I would say people who hire artists for projects should be accountable to hire a balanced group of artists. That's how.Those people should be accountable, those people should be judged.
>Also, just because a woman likes a picture doesn't mean it's not problematic.HOWEVER, it DOES mean that describing the image as "only an object for male sexual consumption" is inaccurate.
>Zak S:Even if I agree for the sake of argument that HTK can't be held responsible for making sure his artwork isn't harmful if he doesn't believe it is, that doesn't necessarily mean his artwork can't imply he's a jerk.The biggest reason to think he's a jerk, in my opinion, is the implied apathy towards consent that his artwork displays. The overtone of this sort of drawing — that women are really sexy when they're receptive to sex without actually seeming to want it — is seriously problematic regardless of the intentions of the artist, and it's hard to believe he'd be so consistent about it if he didn't actually believe it.
>Mm, I'll have to think more about weighing responsibility of the employers versus the employees I suppose. I can certainly understand that sometimes things are not so simple in those types of situations. I'm not sure if I agree entirely.. but it's definitely something I should think on.As for the 'object for male sexual consumption' being inaccurate, I think that only goes so far. I certainly wouldn't want to exclude or treat bisexual and lesbian women as invisible in this sense. But the gaming culture and other forms of media itself largely /does/ treat them as invisible. When you hear people making excuses for cheesecake and the like it's often talking about the 'male demographic' or about how 'sex sells, tits or gtfo, men like boobies so there, male sex drives'. Basically the people running this stuff inevitably make it clear the women are being represented this way for male titillation, by the various ways they use to justify doing it again and again and the way it's presented. It's an industry assumption that the default audience is male.
>"What message is HTK conveying to the viewer with his distortion besides "THIS CHICK IS HAWT". There is no attempt being made to elicit an emotional response."Lust is an emotional response. It is no more or less authentic than any other emotion. The problem is that, much like how humor would normally detract out of place from a horror movie, lust is usually counter-productive to evoke in a your action movie/game. (Not that its impossible: the Witchblade anime put its entire focus on the blood/lust duality and was better than it's source material for it.)And yes, gaming is mainstram. I didn't say it wasn't. What I did say was that it has inherited the culture from before this was the case, and culture by definition is anti-contextual and requires people to either change it forcibly, not likely any time soon because women put up with too much to frighten corporate and thinking of yourself as "everyone hates and is jealous of us because we're too smart" is a one hell of an addictive victim-complex.Also, we have an entirely different definition of hardcore. I'm thinking of people that post on Shoryuken, Dustloop, ParadoxPlaza, Insomnia.ac (holy god will that trigger you), etc. These people are soaked the culture I mentioned, and their utter passion with games often leads them to make up a disproportionate numer of industry elites (Paradox already spawned five new developers spawned this way!). They also tend to spawn the majority of the "Games Journalism" field because GJ is really just enthusiast press, and no one is more enthusiastic. Either way, they're totally out of touch with the average person on Xbox live (not the least because the prevalence of black people in the fighting game community makes "nigger" much less likely used as an insult.) and they take pride in this fact. These are the people I'm talking about.
>@IkkinWell I think you'd have to take up the "consent" issue up with the artist's female fans. @lilithIt's true that Blizzard, etc. creates a context where the implied audience is male and that this is total suck and helps no-one (including the guys, frankly) and they need to do something about that.However, I feel like a lot of the discussion here seems to be unaware or at least unconcerned with the fact that many women–some of whom are gay or bisexual–have an interest in sexualized images in women and that this interest is not just because they've been brainwashed by the patriarchy (otherwise how would you explain gay men who are interested in seeing themselves as "bottoms").i.e. Video game companies ignore gay, bisexual, and lesbian women (and perhaps also straight women who identify sexually, in a way they like, with women in pin-uppy pictures), I feel like, in critiquing Blizzard, etc., people should be careful not to make that same mistake.I feel like the larger project of equality would be better served if the context-that-causes-these-pictures-to-be-viewed-as-boys-clubhouse-decoration was attacked rather than the images themselves.
>Obviously I don't speak for other people but as a lesbian I don't particularly feel (fan)served by most of the art in the gaming world. I like hot women as much as the next gynephile but too often the anatomy is far too distorted from reality to be attractive (especially the stuff in this post, seriously wtf is with those breasts?). Aside from that, the submissive poses don't do anything for me, pictures that imply things with a phallic object don't do anything for me, and 99% of them are "conventionally attractive" (long hair giant breasts skinny no muscle) which is fine but there's other body types and looks that are also attractive that we never get to see. Why can't these women ever have muscle?So yeah. I want titilation and I'm only getting it in a narrow way. Show me two modestly dressed androgynous women making out (or just being in a scene together with implied sexy interest in each other) in gaming art and then we can talk about "lesbians like this stuff too"(which I hear occasionally from men defending this stuff).
>I just want to point out that nobody in my example is fictional. I know real women who like HTK and can give you their names and facebook pages if that's the only way anyone will believe me.Obviously, not all lesbians are going to like a given erotic image, just as not all straight men are either.
>Zak, the images are problematic if for no other reason than the distorted anatomy gets internalized. Women see this stuff and it warps your perception of how you're supposed to look, and I know people find this very hard to believe but it happens. I myself lost 40 pounds recently (entirely due to health problems) and was shocked to find out that my ribcage poked out when I got skinny. Even though I knew that women's ribcages are photoshopped down and even though I've done it myself and even though I've seen a hundred of the before/after photos, the mental image I had of myself as a skinny person was still far removed from reality and closer to the distorted anatomy that's the norm in art. And yeah the anatomy itself isn't so much the problem as half the problem (the other half being the saturation is has) but the anatomy depicted is problematic in itself so I'm not willing to relinquish criticizing it.Having that said, attacking the underlying boys club is what Wundergeek is doing as far as I can see.
>I actually wasn't responding to you with the first comment, heh. You were writing that post the same time I was writing mine. And no, given that so much of this stuff is MADE by women, I have no reason to assume you're lying about knowing women who like it.
>@theminaoflifeYeah, we know why the images are problematic.The question I want to raise is whether all the assumptions about the artist and his audience made in the critique are justified or not. And where to lay blame for the problematicness.
>@ Zak S (Well I think you'd have to take up the "consent" issue up with the artist's female fans.):I'm not really sure how him having female fans changes that in any significant way? There's nothing to say they weren't just distracted by the sexy (and therefore didn't notice that the characters' expressions suggest discomfort), or that being a woman makes one immune from finding dubious consent attractive.We can probably assume that HTK himself wasn't just distracted, though, considering he actually has to plan out what he's going to draw.
>@ikkinSeriously, dude, ask a female HTK fan about the "dubous consent" issue. They can probably tell you more than me. I have no idea what said person will say. Go: http://www.mandymorbid.blogspot.comAll I can say is: that "since he seems to me be unconcerned with expressions of consent in the pictures, he must be, in real life, unconcerned with consent" is basically saying "because of the range of expressions in the pictures he draws, this guy must be pro-rape" seems singularly over-the-line.
>Did anybody actually say that? His art is bad regardless of whether it's damaging to women, and it's sexist regardless of whether HTK is himself mysoginist. Art that depicts women as butts and boobs with a few other unimportant parts attached leads to the implication, intentional or not, that women exist only to be fap material.
>@chaitabIkkin actually said that:"The biggest reason to think he's a jerk, in my opinion, is the implied apathy towards consent that his artwork displays. The overtone of this sort of drawing — that women are really sexy when they're receptive to sex without actually seeming to want it — is seriously problematic regardless of the intentions of the artist, and it's hard to believe he'd be so consistent about it IF HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT."(emphasis mine)In other words: Ikkin has a hard time believing this artist is not a rapist or at least pro-rape.
>Post 1@Wundergeek:I'm more perplexed by the notion that someone finds these caricatures sexy, than the fact someone draws them, but It Takes All Kinds, I Guess. I personally think that the weird pointy tits and the outthrust pelvises and especially that distorted crouches are all kinda disturbing, but the vapid stares(those huge eyes!), and the the appearance of the same childface across many of the pics is borderline creepy, imo. And on a petty note, I don't like the 'candy coated'(applique by spray?) look of the figures clothes, nor the choice of colors for the attire, but that's me… Does Dude draw anyone else?(I hope so…) Not my kind of art, so I'm not the audience, and I doubt my input matters to him and his fans.As to his proclivities towards anything, I hesitate to guess his dispositions solely through a limited selection of his art, I'd rather see some interviews with him, read his musings on the subject, and if possible, talk to the guy. That said, in these images, it seems he prefers to distort the secondary sexual characteristics and adjust(almost)warp the body of his figures to draw attention to them.(See the Cammy pic in particular!) Which brings to my mind '90's' comic book artists like Deodato and Liefeld(*shudder*) I wouldn't say you could effectively tell anything about HTK from these other than he draws shit like this for money! But if this doubles as his Ideal of the Female(or if it's his indicative of his spank material) it would reveal that he loves the lower section of the ladies…. After all the Titty Art over the years, this is really a change of pace, though. And, of course, the obligatory: I've Seen Worse! As an aside, none of the females in these pictures is represented as being powerful(muscularity notwithstanding) or dangerous, and most don't appear to be very confident, from what I see.(Regardless of the inclusion of weapons). Odd in that these epics are supposedly about 'Kick Ass Chix'! But that goes to the heart of the issue, a male like Solid Snake(he being one of the few males in recent years to undergo a process of sexualization) can be 'Bad Ass' and 'Sexy'(even the Guys want him meme, which is now largely un-satirical) without being diminished by it. Whereas females can seemingly be only be one or the other(See the Samus Aran debacle, Lara Croft redesign, Ivy and the Crew in SC, Jill Valentine/Claire Redfield in RE, etc)…, with Bad Ass being in scare quotes for them, as some don't believe females CAN be Scary/Dominant/Effective. This misogynist attitude is of course, like misogyny in general, found amongst male and females, ime.
>Post 2:(Sorry, for double, but the full post was too long!)@Hazmat Sam:By video game 'maturity', I assume you mean mass market profitability? 'Best form of entertainment' is entirely subjective, I'd say, especially if you believe entertainment could/should have any socially beneficial effects.'Most companies are smart about this.':Assuming the only thing that (most/any)companies care about is money is historically short-sighted, imo; especially discounting religious/social(and financial) ideology.(Just to use one example familiar to Americans: Racial Segregation.[Pepsi's appeals to the black community were a rarity in an age where everything was considered from the perspective of ethnicity/gender/religion/social uprightness in the light of religious revelation, etc…])Video game audiences:The commensurately largest bloc of gamers with money are straight, lower middle class, white guys(who coincidentally are the majority for street fighting game players, though they are popular among all segments of black male gamers, from the data I've seen), so games are made for them in the main. Video game representation in-game of other demographies lags behind egregiously, like in SF movies and novels.(Though humanity is majority brown and significantly female!)Note Rockstar games and similar companies creating 'urban'-type games heavily dependent on Hollywood stereotypes. And non-hetero depictions are in their infancy, even in Bioware titles. Hell, even blonde white women generally fit in recognizable roles and are not generally as varied as their counterparts of the same ethnicity!Tourneys:As to the 'female only tourneys', that's just to show the industy recognizes that Females Do Exist! Holding a Black or Gay Tourney(what about those who are both? And Asians? And Asexuals? And so forth…), though these 'groups' do game in large numbers, would be considered a bit unnecessary, and prone to being labelled as 'politically correct' quota representation.(Unlike the Women's Events, due to cognitive dissonance.)XBoxLive/Internet Gabble:I regularly hear the word 'nigger' and its like bandied about! Regardless of whether the other white players think a black person is playing/within earshot! This is a common complaint.(With good reason, it's fucking disgusting to hear bullshit like this, but there's a general level of ignorance one has come to expect with respect to hurtful words/phrases online.[One day hopefully people will become more enlightened!]) @Zak S:'I feel like the larger project of equality would be better served if the context-that-causes-these-pictures-to-be-viewed-as-boys-clubhouse-decoration was attacked rather than the images themselves.':I'd substitute the word artist for images, myself.(At least until he were to make his position clear by saying something detestable or the like. And I am by no means suggesting he's a dickweed. :-)) And if the pics are considered inappropriate, disgusting, hurtful, etc… by someone, then they'd naturally be denigrated, wouldn't you say? 'It's true that Blizzard, etc. creates a context where the implied audience is male and that this is total suck and helps no-one (including the guys, frankly) and they need to do something about that.':I'm trying to find a way I could agree with you more! :-)Great post!
>No, Ikkin said he was apathetic towards consent. Which.. a lot of people are right now in the world unfortunately. You should go look up rape culture sometime, Zak, it's a deeply embedded thing in our society. You're sort of exaggerating Ikkin's stance.And I'm honestly I'm a bit worried you're minimalizing any criticism toward HTK. You cannot criticize the art without criticizing the artist, and you can't just pretend artists drawing that kind of stuff isn't perpetuating any damaging issues. It doesn't matter if some women like it too, great for them, a bunch of other women do not and don't like a lot of the other misogynistic vibes throughout gaming culture. Misogyny and sexism and sexual harassment that women /in/ the gaming culture have to deal with. From, largely, men. Someone's sexual drive doesn't negate the fact that plenty of women don't like constantly being presented as sex objects.Also, I didn't make any assumptions about the audience. I commented toward that anonymous because of the defense of the art was severely lacking and basically implied that HTK shouldn't care because he's 'successful'. Who cares if something's perpetuating an ongoing problem.. I mean it's /successful/ right? Like it if you want, it doesn't mean it doesn't represent something ugly.
>'He' being HTK, typo'd in that deleted one.
>@lillithI feel like we have 2 choices to enforce equality here:1.-Not sexualize anybody in the game art, period. I think this is a good idea in some games (and other places), but not all. Maybe you disagree. I'd like to hear everybody's opinion on the "don't sexualize anybody in games ever" option.2. Balance the sexualization of women with all of the following:-sexualization of men-various different kinds of sexualization of both women and men-nonsexualized imagesso that someone like HTK is just one voice among many.In option 2, HJK isn't the problem, nor are his fetishes. The problem is that he gets hired more than he should. That is: the art directors. Critique THEM, unless you are going for option 1.Also, please don't do the "you should go look up rape culture sometime" thing. It's condescending. I'm not trying to be a dickhead troll (like a lot of other anonymous people commenting here) I'm trying to engage in what I see as a real conversation about something important. I'm trying to show respect, I would appreciate it if you do the same.
>Actually I wasn't intending to be condescending. It's just kind of an extensive subject and it'd be hard to explain. I think that's what Ikkin was talking about really, not calling him 'pro-rape' but more talking about how we all can reinforce rape culture because it's so normalized. Whether we are aware of it or not.I think there was just some miscommunication there. Also, your option 2 doesn't actually exist right now. It's not the state of the things as they are. I'm not saying HTK is like the one true problem or anything, that he's the largest force behind the problems women face today.. that would be kind of silly. But he doesn't have to be, he's adding to the pile anyway. And that's a fact. He's not the only one who should be criticized, surely, but no criticism at all? I don't know about that.
>@lilithwe are either working toward option 1 or option 2, which is it?
>Making it simplistic to the point of deciding it's option 1 or 2.. an either/or, is not something I'm really going to agree with. It sounds like a false dilemna actually. Especially if working toward option 2 somehow means I can't criticize HTK for contributing to a problem that's already pretty huge. To work toward a solution, you sort of have to stop doing that.Because in that lies no responsibility.
>Option 2½:'Sexualizing' them only when thematically appropriate, like say, never, for a kid's character like Princess Peach, a character like Jill Valentine only when she's dressed provocatively for storyline reasons(realistic ones, not just to change the image of the character to appeal to supposed prurient interests[TOGTFO types]) like in RE3 where she's caught unawares going to a party, otherwise she's dressed like a Green Beret, and the whole cast of Dead or Alive for…. whatever reason that game series has to exist. 😀 Male rationales would be a bit more problematic, I'd say, but the same principle would apply.(Link in a mankini? Duke Nukem in a business Suit? Master Chief in something other than the Mjolnir?) Leisure Suit Larry and the such could still co-exist with for example, Mirror's Edge, with the former preference being catered to as 'economically necessary' for however long it hangs around.(Though I'd rather superficial physical fixations on body parts, juvenile attitudes towards female competency, and out right disgusting harmful images of any sort meant to titillate misogynists disappear forever[and overnight! :-)], it'll take a lot of doing. Work well worth it, however.)@LilithXIV:'It's not the state of the things as they are. I'm not saying HTK is like the one true problem or anything, that he's the largest force behind the problems women face today.. that would be kind of silly.':Death of A Thousand Cuts? IME, that appears to be the way the females I'm acquainted with seem to take it.(It's very disconcerting, but all I can do is be supportive as best I can.[Barring any issues I have, of course. I have my own fetishes that I try not to let get in the way of acting like a human :-)] The wheel of progress/time seems to turn so slowly, but with more people putting their shoulder to the wheel…'talking about how we all can reinforce rape culture because it's so normalized. Whether we are aware of it or not.':And most people really aren't, imo. I've found many do try(and there are those who don't, forcefully, of course 😦 TOGTFO types, who really mean it!) to think it through if given a chance to learn.(At least in conversation with people; hopefully they actually do try to adjust hurtful behaviors. I no longer use certain slurs, due to pondering their significant and a few interesting talks) But nobody really wants to think they contribute to horrific social problems.Very trenchant points you raise! Great post!
>LilithXIV said what most of what I wanted to say about what I meant to argue in regards to the consent thing. It's not about whether or not he's pro-rape (considering that all of the women are drawn to look willing, I'd say he probably isn't), it's about whether his attitude towards consent is problematic.And, honestly, I think the phrase "rape culture" itself kind of muddies the issue in this case. Whether or not the attitude that it's good enough to get consent of the "well, okay" sort contributes to rape (which it probably does, considering what some people will take as "well okay"), or even whether anyone ever overrides anyone's "no," that attitude would still be a problem.Because people will agree to things that they're really not happy with, because they feel like they have to, and that hurts too. Ignoring the emotional consequences that could have on one's partner and taking advantage of the "well, okay" is a jerk thing to do (even if it has nothing to do with rape).And that just makes the apparent promotion of the idea that partners of that type are better even skeevier.
>Holy crap, people. I spend the evening downing cold medicine and people go crazy!Zak: Okay. Where to start. Let's start with consent. HTK has drawn a fair number of pieces in which women are offering up their ladybits in such a way that seems non-consensual. Is there actual rape depicted? No. Does this automatically make HTK "pro-rape"? For fuck's sake, no. "Pro-rape" is just a straw man, something used to defend against accusations of misogyny. Do I honestly think that HTK is "pro-rape"? No. Rape is horrific and most people who are functional human beings will tell you so. So please don't equate the statement that HTK is ambivalent toward consent to mean that he is PRO-RAPE, bcause they're not even in the same ballpark. The reason that it's important is because of its context in the larger rape culture. And if you don't know what I'm talking about, then please go here because rape culture is like the basics of the basics of feminism, even if I make a point of avoiding theory here on my blog.Second: Great! So you know some lesbians who like HTK's artwork! That doesn't mean you can wave a wand and declare it suddenly NOT misogynist. It's not surprising that there are some lesbians who find his work appealing, though as theminaoflife said earlier in the comments it certainly doesn't have a universal lesbian appeal. The fact remains that these women were designed to appeal to a MALE audience. When they were drawn, they were drawn with MEN in mind – they're practically the definition of the male gaze! The fact that there are some women who are lesbians and also happen to like distended lemon boobs and outthrust ladybits doesn't change the fact that every single one of these women has been dehumanized to the point of being nothing more than a collection of body parts meant to titillate the male viewer. The fact that some women enjoy it too is just splash damage, if you will. But being a woman doesn't mean we're all part of some female hive mind. Some women can like his artwork, and it will STILL BE MISOGYNIST.Thirdly, with your two choices their. Ikkin and Lilith are right – you're vastly oversimplifying here. Any rational person when presented with your first choice will say that it's a stupid idea. Humans are sexual beings, so to completely refuse to explore that in our media is to completely ignore a fundamental part of the human condition. So you're correct – what we want is balance. But some sexualized depictions of women are too harmful NOT to speak out against, and HTK's work is one of them. The ambivalence towards consent, the distortion of anatomy being presented as something women should aspire to, the complete removal of anything resembling agency or humanity… This is harmful shit we're dealing with here and it needs to stop. There's a difference between sexual depictions of women AS PEOPLE and sexual depictions of women AS THINGS. The depictions of sexy women AS PEOPLE can stay. The depictions of sexy women AS THINGS need to GTFO.
>@wundergeekOn this:"The fact that there are some women who are lesbians and also happen to like distended lemon boobs and outthrust ladybits doesn't change the fact that every single one of these women has been dehumanized to the point of being nothing more than a collection of body parts meant to titillate the male viewer…Some women can like his artwork, and it will STILL BE MISOGYNIST."My suggestion ISN'T that the art ceases to be problematic here.(I've said this several times.)My suggestion is that, in addition to that, it is doing whatever it is art is supposed to do for an audience that includes not just men but also women and that, therefore, suggesting it should be changed or removed from the dialogue (or in any way "less out there") is ALSO problematic for people with genuine humanistic concerns, including women.I mean, there are women who will tell you that taking away the fetishistic erotica they love is discriminatory to THEM.I am not saying "do this/do that". I am saying that simply saying "this is the bad kind of art, something should be done about it" isn't an omelette that can be made without breaking someone's eggs, and those eggs do NOT just belong to a bunch of horny dudes somewhere.
>@wundergeekWhat would you tell a woman who had an HTK art book lying on her coffee table? Literally, what words would you say?
>@wundergeek…and would equally fetishistic erotica of men be just as dehumanizing?If no, then are you saying gay men can unproblematically look at a kind of image that you would say gay women can't?
>velaran:About the corporate thing: Corporations do only care about money. They are legally required to, and anyone in a corporation that puts anything ahead of that is swiftly removed. The reason that most corporations did not market to black people pre 70's is that most white people, who had more numbers and more money, would not have put up with it. It's the same reason you don't see men fetishized in (western!) games: straight men would not put up with that sort of thing, and you cannot, at present, make moeny without them. If you want to know how much corporations respect 'conservative' values when independent of coercion, ask yourself who exactly all those illegal immigrants are working for. Lok at the Libertarians, the evangelicals of corporate ideology, and ask yourself exactly what 'traditional' or 'religious' values they hold.Also people, YOU CANNOT CREATE AN UN-SEXUALIZED ANYTHING because PEOPLE ARE SEXUAL. Anything you make will inspire someone to masturbate to it. There are no exceptions. What you are trying to ask for is something that fits your sexuality and not the majority's. I am not attacking you for that, because the majority's sexuality is sentimental cliched glurge, but don't kid yourself and pretend you've somehow transcended your own brains. You guys are some of the better people on the Internet, and I'd hate for you to slip into mystical nonsense.Also, funny story: Exalted fans actually begged White Wolf to get HTK to work on the line. They (shallowly) reasoned that a series about oversexual beautiful demigods inspired by Asian mythologies would be perfect for HTK's masterful, oversexual Asian-style art. Needless to say, shallow people do not understand that there are pluralities of sexuality and they clash quite loudly.
>Zak: Dude, what? Like… what?If no, then are you saying gay men can unproblematically look at a kind of image that you would say gay women can't?WTF? I have no idea what you're trying to imply. In answer to your question, if I was at a woman's place and she had an HTK artbook on her coffee table, I'd roll my eyes and not mention it. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I'M NOT OUT TO JUDGE PEOPLE FOR THEIR TASTES. I am judging the people who perpetuate sexist and misogynist stereotypes FOR PERSONAL PROFIT. Does your hypothetical female with an HTK artbook fit that standard? Unless she's getting paid to model for HTK, no. In which case, I'M NOT JUDGING HER. So, I get that you have lesbian friends that like HTK. I don't give a shit. Really. Good for them.Sheesh.As for whether he should keep making this stuff… I am NOT against erotica that treats people like PEOPLE. I am against erotica that treats women like THINGS and implies consent is not important to sexual pleasure. I literally cannot state it more clearly than that, so please STOP asking me to clarify what I mean. That's what I mean! Sexy women as people = okay. Sexy women as non-consenting things = not okay.
>@wundergeekSo, to be clear, you -do- feel he should -stop making- his stuff?If so, all these people who you are not judging for their taste, you've just cut them off from the supply of their stuff. Is their no humanistic twinge of guilt there?
>@wundergeekI'm not trying to be a dick. There's something I don't understand:You said:"Do I want HTK to stop making art now and forever? No"But you say you're "against" it. What then are you suggesting he himself actually do? Or that other people do about it?Are you just saying he should keep making it and people should just keep complaining about it until he's unpopular?
>Zak, I'm done arguing with you. I'm sick and I have a whole lot of unfortunate personal shit I'm dealing with right now and I don't have time to keep answering an endless spiral of questions that revolve around the same answer. I'm sorry, but the mental bandwidth to value ratio just isn't favorable right now.
>@wundergeekHey, ok. Sorry.If you ever do get a minute to turn around and take a look, I'd appreciate it. I'm an artist and these kinds of things matter to me.I'm not trying to be an arguing troll. I'm trying to figure out some stuff.
>@ Zak S:I won't presume to speak for Wundergeek, but here's my own thoughts on the question of how to deal with people who like this stuff.It's really an issue of context, in my mind. Under some contexts, what they're doing is clearly unproblematic (eg. the BDSM subculture, which from my understanding is very concerned about issues of consent and meta-consent despite the lack of consent being a turn-on), and under some contexts, it clearly is (eg. the jerk who really doesn't care whether partners are hurt or not, as long as there aren't legal repercussions).It's really impossible to say which group the people who like HTK's artwork fall under, so we can only roll our eyes at their bad taste.HTK himself, on the other hand, is much easier to condemn, because his choice to aim his artwork at an audience composed largely of young males whose lust for compromised female bodies is not anchored by a strong foundation of respect for women's meta-level wishes implies that he doesn't see a need for context in the first place.What should be done about it seems to follow naturally from the idea of context — kick it out of the mainstream, where it's likely to be misinterpreted, and allow it to be provided in spaces where the necessary context is known and agreed upon. That's probably still not ideal for its fans, but the level of harm that could be done by it seems smaller than the level of harm done by the perpetuation of consent brinksmanship.(And, to answer your question about whether a compromised male figure should be treated the same way — yes, it should. The mainstream cultural attitudes towards men and women are different, so the context is different, but it still seems skeevy to suggest "content doesn't matter" outside of a group that knows the restrictions on that)
>Ikkin: Yes. That. Thank you.Zak: Cool. Thanks for clarifying. I'm not trying to be a jerk and, like, take my ball and go home. I'm just, yeah, dealing with a lot of horrific shit that piled up all at once.
>@Hazmat Sam:'They are legally required to, and anyone in a corporation that puts anything ahead of that is swiftly removed.':Religious/social ideology can easily trump this, there are a number of business large and small that support fringe causes or are hardcore one-party backers for reasons ranging from the abolishment of abortion, reduction of environmental regulation, tax breaks, returning to the 18th century for worker protections, etc… Like the Christian business Chick-Fil-A, for example, biblical quotes in corporate literature, difficulty with non-Christian beliefs(employees that were Muslim, etc..) and being closed on Sundays!their statement of purpose: official statement of corporate purpose says that the business exists "to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A." This doesn't seem to be about profit! Then look at the Libertarian ethos, some oppose mainstreaming of gays/lesbians/transsexuals, etc…, are hostile to abortion, and fanatical against government charity. This is found across the corporate sector, but the Kochs, Bradleys, Coors, are particularly prominent.Oh, and the fact small and large business bowed to the will of the whites in the Segregation days proves it wasn't about the cash, they could've pushed for reforms, and thereby made more jack! Instead non-profit oriented people did that.'If you want to know how much corporations respect 'conservative' values when independent of coercion, ask yourself who exactly all those illegal immigrants are working for.':Using low-wage, no-insurance, easily replaced labor not subject to payroll taxes is not against 'Conservative' ideals(which can vary in their specifics by individual, of course), I'd say.'Lok at the Libertarians, the evangelicals of corporate ideology, and ask yourself exactly what 'traditional' or 'religious' values they hold.':Ask say, Ron Paul, about that. Specifically his stance on abortion.(Quite a few have similar agenda.)'Anything you make will inspire someone to masturbate to it':Totally. I think the objection for most here is art(mostly of females) that seems to solely consist of the loving detail of conglomerations of body parts(usually secondary sexual characteristics) with the subject lacking a sense of agency.(Especially if they're supposed to represent someone independent and intimidating, but look like fucktoy simulacra) Especially when it is is produced for commercial display; even more so when it is argued that this is 'normal' or a Perfect (Human) 'Ideal'. This art style by no means has to disappear(and never will totally, imo.), I would say it simply should be relegated to fanboy/girl fantasies(the occasional cover wouldn't be out of place if that's what the product was about. i.e. 'thematically correct) and it shouldn't be considered illogical/asinine to disagree with the depictions of the subject. 'but don't kid yourself and pretend you've somehow transcended your own brains.':I'd like to think! 🙂 But I know I haven't!@Wundergeek:Hope things (and you) get better soon!
>@Ikkin@wundergeekI'm going to assume Ikkin speaks for you here. If so, then ok, I'm done.Ikkin, thanks for giving such an exhaustive answer.
>oh, p.s. @everybodyIf you could hurry up and make the game world non-sexist, I'm sure we artists would appreciate it, because then we could make and sell our work to whoever we wanted without having to worry if our paycheck and artwork are accidentally promoting misogyny.
>I'm not quite sure I'd apply the word 'accidentally' in every case.But anyway, centuries of oppression might take more than a while to overcome. But, you know, it'd be a lot easier if artists and other people behind the scenes would help more with it I bet.
>@LilithWhat if we help this way:"We have all these smutty pictures we made that we'll let you look at once all you prove you can handle them."
>Mm, sorry, but I'm not quite catching the drift of that. You'd have to elaborate further, it's really late here you see and I'm kind of tired.
>@Zak S:'If you could hurry up and make the game world non-sexist':(This kinda sounds exasperated to me. :-/)What game world? The world 'gamers' inhabit?(That's quite a project!) And what about artists who WANT to create and sell misogynistic art?(Cause the artist hates/fears/is contemptuous of females and/or recognize that others with cash have these feelings.) That would put a crimp in their business plan, I'd say.'because then we could make and sell our work to whoever we wanted without having to worry if our paycheck and artwork are accidentally promoting misogyny.':Most people don't worry, from what I can tell.(Working in marketing, in particular, you notice this.) And that goes for ANY product and potential societal impact. That's entertainment, folks! And, I'd say an enterprising and smart fellow like you would know whether your art was promoting hateful and/or disturbing vibes towards females in the main, though some people may, as is the case with humanity, see it differently.(To various degrees, of course, subtlety may come into play.)'"We have all these smutty pictures we made that we'll let you look at once all you prove you can handle them."':That's a perception issue. Your 'smutty' may not be everybody's. See the hardcore/softcore porn definition among say, Evangelical Christians(but not liberal and otherwise, whose standards are different) and most everyone else in America."We have all these smutty pictures we made that we'll let you look at once all you prove you can handle them."(It kinda sounds like you're saying only 'immature' people make someone's art a problem…[Which I definitely do not agree with personally.] But I might be 'hearing' this wrong.)Are you referring to stuff like HTK's art, above? They may not be considered smutty by most, but many would say they're problematic(see the fixation on 'ladybits'), as opposed to like, Fredrick K.T. Anderson, whose pictures are generally considered smutty but not demeaning, ime. And some people get off on denigrating pics, of course. It's more an issue of being able to avoid this stuff and trying to minimize/neutralize its negative impact, I'd say, rather than shitcanning it outright.
>Zak: If you don't want to create sexist art, then don't create sexist art. Don't claim that the market is forcing you. There's this thing called free will that we all possess. If you don't want to make money off of producing sexist art, THEN DON'T MAKE IT.
>Oh, and also re: hurry up and make the world less sexist… Don't you think that's what we're trying to do? Only I called fat/ugly/ignorant/arrogant/a slut/cunt whenever I say something that strikes a nerve with the subset of male misogynist gamers who have no interest in changing a system that benefits them. If you want things to change, then do your part to change things too. Speak out. If you want to see change, don't put all the responsibility on "us feminists".
>"whenever I say something that strikes a nerve with the subset of male misogynist gamers who have no interest in changing a system that benefits them."Sorry but if you call people who draw sexual pictures of women "pro rape" I understand that people will insult you.
>She didn't say that, if you read some of her comments she specifically said that there's a difference between being "pro-rape" and drawing sexualized women with non-consenting faces. The issue with this HTK guy's stuff is that he combines sexualization with distorted anatomy and the previously mentioned non-consenting expressions, that and the fact that this is pretty much all that he draws, if he didn't distort the bodies so much and if he had more variety in his work Wundergeek probably wouldn't have a problem with him.
>Anon: Wow. Misquoting much? Here's what I actually said:"Pro-rape" is just a straw man, something used to defend against accusations of misogyny. Do I honestly think that HTK is "pro-rape"? No. Rape is horrific and most people who are functional human beings will tell you so. So please don't equate the statement that HTK is ambivalent toward consent to mean that he is PRO-RAPE, bcause they're not even in the same ballpark.Copy and paste ftw. *sigh*
>@wundergeek"don't claim the market is forcing you…"etc.I made a joke, you replied. Do you really want to talk about these things? Because if you do, I'll go there. If you don't I'll shut up. But let me know.
>ZakBetter shut up, really, you are just spamming to no end. You are not a damn Socartes to ask thousneds questions to prove your point and convince others to your point of view, so stop it really. You have answers and clear wundergeek's statments, you don't have to agree but deal with it quaietly like me. (Anyway HTK and other cheesecake isn't going anywhere so you can sleep well at night but let people like wundergeek do what she is passionete about without spamming her blog to the next life).
>@Zak S:Btw, your "transcending your human mind" bullshit is tired. Have you ever heard of asexuals? You know, people who genuinely don't have the desire or need for sex?
>Your blog is pretty good in general, so are your posts and the points you make.Even though your blog opened my eyes about how umbalanced is the representation of the sexes in the videogame industry, I have one little problem with it that I can't ignore, the fact that you keep pointing the distorted/stylized anatomy as a fault and something inherently evil.I'm sure that as an artist is not your intention to say that but using the search function for the word "anatomy" on your posts tagged as "doing it wrong" and "fanart hall of shame" I noticed that every time you mention the word it reads as if no artist should ever make art for a game or anything at all, specially females, if it doesn't follow proper, realistic proportions and every artist should strive for photorealistic perfection in every work, even though one has to know all the rules before start to breaking them and create a unique style (not just in drawing).Yeah, you pointed out that Street Fighter 4 doesn't have a realistic art direction and it has exagerated bodies for males and females but that was in the comments section of the post lost between who knows how many other comments and not everybody reads the comments. I also got the message that Chun Li design is distorted to emphasize her attributes, same with other female characters but that's what the post should say instead of looking like you detest any piece of art that doesn't have a realistic aproach and having to clarify the intentions of your comments on a response to the post.Keep the good work.
>"I also got the message that Chun Li design is distorted to emphasize her attributes, same with other female characters but that's what the post should say instead of looking like you detest any piece of art that doesn't have a realistic aproach and having to clarify the intentions of your comments on a response to the post."Except she points this out all the time, how the distorted and disturbing anatomy is directly used to objectify and sexualize the women in the art. If you don't read the comments to get better clarification then that sounds like more your fault than hers.
>I notice someone used the term "choice" in a non-sardonic matter.Read some modern neurioscience journals. You will note that bodies prepare for action up to ten seconds before the conscious so-called-mind (actually a reification of the symphony and oblivious of instruments) even knows that there are actions to be made. The body will do what it wills and then "you" (an equally refied thing) will rationalize what it did.Choices aren't.
>As I said is just a little criticism, not a fatal problem for the blog and if she wants to take it into account or not is up to her, I'm not trying to take any merit from her work, but it still reads as if having art out of natural proportions was something bad.The criticism to the anatomy of Chun Li in Street Fighter 4 was kind of pointless too, the game has never aiming to make the characters realistic but to make a varied cast of unintentionally stereotyped national reprresentatives and as she admited in the comments, the game is equally freakish for males and females in regards of the anatomy because the art is stylish and not realistic.Street Fighter art has always been like that, is ridiculous and exaggerated on purpose and all the classic characters have been distorted since their first appearance in Street Fighter 2 so there's no point in saying it has surreal anatomy when it never tried to be accurate, for example:Is that you Guile, I didn't noticed you behind your gigantic bicep.http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100612200541/streetfighter/images/3/34/Guile-t3.jpgLook at Ryu's hands and arms here, his fist is bigger than his head, I know they are closer to the viewer but still perspective doesn't work like that, his arms are not that far away from his body to justify that as foreshortening.http://images.wikia.com/streetfighter/images/8/86/Evilryuportrait.jpgHere is another case that can't be justified by perspective, his arms are gigantic because they are closer, still his head that is at almost the same distance as his body still is too small for him.http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080508041813/streetfighter/images/1/17/BalrogPortraitSFIIDT.jpgJust look at Bison from the Alpha games, he is all kinds of wrong, he looks like a mini Hulk.http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100515085360/streetfighter/images/b/b9/M._Bison_%28SFA2%29.pngVega looks pretty thin here, yet his arms are half the size of his torso.http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080506062918/streetfighter/images/d/df/VegaSFA3Max.jpgAgain, small head, huge muscles in the arms and lets just ignore the impossible hairstyle.http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080508043424/streetfighter/images/6/68/BirdieSFA.jpgI'm sure is impossible to survive being twisted like that.http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100929001313/streetfighter/images/9/9c/Dhalsim-ex3.jpgRyu not only has giant fists and small head, the reason he is barefoot all the time is because nobody makes shoes his size, his feet are almost the size of his shins.http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100515030217/streetfighter/images/a/a2/Ryu_%28Contemplate%29.jpgBut all of those are old, lets look at Ryu from Marvel vs Capcom 3 that just came out this tuesday.http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100426071748/streetfighter/images/7/73/Ryu_%28MvC3%29.pngStill a freak.I'm not saying that stylish art shouldn't be criticized, I'm saying that if is not made with realistic proportions then one doesn't focus in pointing out how surreal it is and just limit to the content instead of the style. In fact, in my opinion, she made a great job at pointing out how the distortion is used to emphasize her attributes but she was looking for a realism that just doesn't belongs to the series.Pointing how bad is Chun Li's anatomy is as pointless as saying the same for Rao from Okami.http://images.wikia.com/okami/images/4/46/Rao.jpgAnd just for the hell of it, a more realistic looking Chun Li from Capcom vs SNK.http://creativeuncut.com/gallery-02/capsnk-chun-li1.html
>Thanks for the link spam and all but you're not really the first one to point any of this out, Qki. I will simply again say that the whole point of criticizing the Street Fighter women was that they were distorted to better look fuckable (I mean seriously.. those SF4 promo shots). I don't really consider looking like you're on steroids (as most of the guys do) to be anything even comparable. So no, it is in no way 'equally' freakish. And we are never gonna agree it is, as shown in that thread where I posted a borderhouse post.I think you're just completely missing the point, perhaps of the entire blog..
>If you're not happy with people disagreeing, why not add that to your signature, Lil? I think perhaps you're missing the point, perhaps of the entire comments..kthx
>Qki: The Street Fighter men aredistorted to look strong, powerful, and competent. The SF women are distorted to look WEAK (look at the waifish arms) and sexually alluring. Their sexy bits are emphasized, their fighty bits are DE-emphasized.Again (Jesus, I hate repeating myself) – distortion of the human form is not in and of itself a bad thing. See Cubism, Expressionism, etc etc. When it becomes bad is when female figures are distorted in such a way that dehumanizes them. When a figure is seen as a collection of bits and not as A PERSON, that is bad because people can get in the habit of seeing REAL women that way too. Does that make sense?
>Citation please. Seriously. I'd love to do more reading on this and haven't found much.
>Again, I'm not saying that your comments on the content are wrong, you are pretty much spot on while talking about the female characters being conceived to appeal to the males, just to look pretty, more often than not looking weak in compraison to the males, the lack of diversity in designs and roles, et cetera.I'm saying that you are giving too much weight on the style while talking about the designs, there's no point in stating the inaccuracies of the anatomy of a game listed herehttp://creativeuncut.com/game-art-galleries.htmlas stylish among the likes of Wind Waker, Viewtiful Joe and Okami, is redundant. Your comments on how the artistic liberty were taken to oversexualize a character were good but there was no need to show how the design should be made anatomically correct if the game in general has ridiculous art.Please don't think I'm trolling.
>In my personal experience, distorted anatomy has made me develop a 2D complex rather than seeing real women that way. I obviously can't speak for everyone who likes these idealized lady fighters, but I think it's fair to say that we see them as more than just sex objects. We tend to develop emotional bonds with these characters and look forward to seeing them again in each successive game. Not to say that your criticisms are necessarily invalid, but I just wanted to throw that out there because most of the time when I see these sorts of criticisms, they tend to see and dismiss it as a sort of "Playboy Lite" when I don't think that's an accurate assessment.
>Thanks for the strawman and all, Anonymous, but it sounds like you're the one who doesn't like to see me disagreeing. It's not a valid point that she focuses 'too much' on distorted and anatomy and not on how it sexualizes. Because she doesn't and that Street Fighter example is a bad one. As already pointed out. I think Qki is wrong, I don't have to ask permission to state this. And Qki, if you're not trolling then what's your point? Especially since everything you're saying seems to come down to 'why aren't you doing it this way? My way? The right way?'. Wundergeek already explained what she was criticizing."I obviously can't speak for everyone who likes these idealized lady fighters, but I think it's fair to say that we see them as more than just sex objects."If you saw them as more you'd probably stop representing them as less. And even if you, personally, see them as more, does not negate the fact that they are presented as fap material anyway. If it was really about more than that then there would be no need for the objectification at all. Right? Huh.
>"And Qki, if you're not trolling then what's your point? Especially since everything you're saying seems to come down to 'why aren't you doing it this way? My way? The right way?'. Wundergeek already explained what she was criticizing."I alrady said and I qoute "…is just a little criticism, not a fatal problem for the blog and if she wants to take it into account or not is up to her, I'm not trying to take any merit from her work".Even critics have someone who is going to criticize them, I'm just giving a point of view, blogs are not made only to expect every single reader to agree with you in every single thing.No piece of work is flawless and not everybody thinks the same,I didn't tried to tell anybody what to do, is her blog and she can write whatever she wants in every way she wants, but I think the real questions are: what are you expecting?, that nobody gives ever an antagonistic point of view with the author?, do you think of the comments section as something designed only for praise?, have you ever seen anything wrote in this blog and disagreeing or do you read every post and think they are perfect as they are without any room for improvement?I think I'm being polite, I'm seriously not trying to destroy this blog (not that I could) and I think she's making something positive with it.
>I never said they were, I am simply disagreeing with /your/ criticism and calling it a faulty one that doesn't make a good point. She's an artist, naturally she will comment on other art and it's structure.. but she doesn't really ever let that get in the way of calling it out for how it presents women as sexual objects. In fact, the sexism is touched on /more/. So, again, I don't get what your criticism is or even if it's valid.What are you expecting? That you won't be called out on anything like that? As you said, sometimes critics are criticized. You, too, are not immune to that.Anywho, I never said you were trying to 'destroy' anything, I never said you had to agree. I'm not sure why you continue to pretend as if I am. It seems more like you're upset I'm poking holes through your arguments. You're the one getting defensive and accusing me of accusing you of trying to 'destroy the blog'.
>I'll concede that there is no need for objectification, I am sorry if I caused any offense with my post.
>I'm not upset, and may I ask which holes did you poke?, how is not redundant to point out that something that wasn't drawn realistically doesn't have perfect proportions? and why to fix the proprtons of it? Is okay if she wants to take out the sexism out of it but if Capcom wants to made characters with tiny heads and huge muscles that's it's desition on the art direction.
>I mean't to write decision.
>@Qki: I don't know, why is Rob Liefeld's art made fun of all the time? XD
>Yeah, people mock hbim now but don't forget he was huge in the '90s, also, one needs to know the rules before breaking them, that's something a lot of people don't know.An artist has to experiment and create an unique style, not only sticking to the realism makes you an artist.
>Something else, Liefield's art may suck, not every artist is good but think about him this way, his art didn't only made him popular for a while, it's also pretty distinguishable style, one can recognize his art easily, is part of his identity and that must count for something.
>As computer art student, I may only say one thing: Would you please all try and draw something that wouldn't end like a crappy stickman before to criticize with your short minded opinion someone else's works?'Cause in my opinion, it is utterly pitiful to criticize something you will never be able to do even with ten thousand years of work.Not only you criticize because it is not your way of doing thing, but you are also forgetting the essential part: the author has his success, absolutely doesn't care about you, and already won his life with the art he loves to draw.In your case, regarding your comments, I doubt you have something to show and I doubt that any game designer would take you seriously if you were to try and show something.Get a life, dude, and stop considering that your opinions are something when it comes to the work of someone that have started to draw before most of you was even born.And respect other's works. Until you become something.
>Moreover, if you had a bit of culture, you would ask yourself what was the Manhwa style and if you had the slightest knowledge of eroticism in art, I doubt you would open your mouth and show so much stupidity in your so-called critic of the artist…Open a book, learn something and then try and talk.Unless you do have some knowledge to begin with, you sir are nothing but an ignorant. Not that I tell you known nothing, but when it comes to art, YES, most of you know nothing, until they studied it.And yet.
>^Please……just stop it, this has all been gone over and the author does have some kind of degree in art. So yeah, don't be startin' shit.
>There is not shit here; There are either truth either truth you is rejecting because the author the art level of the author, which isn't getting far enough in order to allow him to insult the work of a professional and a master of his style.We'll wait and see where YOU will end.
>Woah there, take it easy I wasn't necessarily taking sides there, hell I may not like HTK's art in particular but I like some pervy anime stuff. I was just saying that restarting an argument that has been done to death isn't going to help anyone, not you nor the author and regular visitors of this blog. I can understand being upset over the stuff written here but it's not something worth fighting over. So just let it be, live and let live.
>As computer art student, I may only say one thing: Would you please all try and draw something that wouldn't end like a crappy stickman before to criticize with your short minded opinion someone else's works?Translation: As a computer art student, I don't want to be criticized by people and have my feelings hurt so SHUTUP ABOUT STUFF! Go Complacency! Clearly people can only criticize things when I give them permission to do so! This is not at all egotistical!"Not only you criticize because it is not your way of doing thing, but you are also forgetting the essential part: the author has his success, absolutely doesn't care about you, and already won his life with the art he loves to draw."Translation: So his images may dehumanize women, so they may cause them harm in how they continue to be treated and discriminated against. I mean, really, what's the big deal about sexism when you're successful? Women don't matter more than money!"Get a life, dude, and stop considering that your opinions are something when it comes to the work of someone that have started to draw before most of you was even born."Translation: You have so little life and what you say matters so little that I'm.. taking time out of my schedule to tell you how much it doesn't matter. So, wait, apparently it /does/ matter. Oops. Also, omg he's older so therefore better!!11one!!!"And respect other's works. Until you become something."Translation: Kiss their asses, never call them out on anything, including what horrible effects they serve to perpetuate against half the population. Because… yeah!I find it rather funny that the pompous anonymous is accusing other people of being ignorant while having no knowledge at all of sociology. It's like you're in a completely different conversation. Hilarious.
>1. "Let's see you do better!" is not a reasonable argument, you ignorant subhuman swine. The blog author is a published artist. She has every right to complain about bad art.2. "But I like it my way!!!!!1!" is not a reasonable argument you ignorant subhuman swine. If everything really had equal value then you would not do anything because you wouldn't be able to choose! But you have chosen, haven't you? That means that, shock, some things are better than others! The author has given her EXPERT argument on why this tripe is tripe and all you can do is sputter "It's, like, all relative, man" like a braindead hippie. An expert critic has told you that your taste is bad. Either accept it and go back to your helium boobs or make a fucking argument.Also: "There are either truth either truth you is rejecting because the author the art level of the author"Please stop murdering my language, you subhuman swine.
>Sam: I appreciate the sentiment. Perhaps not calling people subhuman ignorant swine next time would be great, thanks. The stupidity of Anon's position (the dumb one, not the polite one) is perfectly self evident, and I want to keep this an insult-free space (or relatively so).Anon: "As a computer art student"… seriously? I happen to have a Bachelor of Fine Arts in Cyber Art – which I received Magna cum Laude. So I think my credentials trump yours, Mr(s) Anonymous Troll. So finish your degree and then we'll talk.
>"As computer art student, I may only say one thing: Would you please all try and draw something that wouldn't end like a crappy stickman before to criticize with your short minded opinion someone else's works?"That argument appears all the time around negative criticism, the problem is that one doesn't need first hand experience to have an opinion about something, movie critics are not movie directors, food critics aren't chefs, et cetera. Of course, one needs to know what he/she is talking about, have arguments and know how to present them.Here's a guy who can explain negative criticism better than I ever could, is about web comics but I think it works about critics in general.http://webcomicoverlook.com/2009/01/30/captain-nihilist-asks-why-do-negative-reviews/I truly respect the author of this blog, she's showing the blatant sexism in the videogame industry in general and she knows the risks about it but she doesit because she knows it's worthit.
>I wonder what HTK would say to all this. He would probably laugh and go on.
>Wundergeek: Understood.Fin: If you're complaining that this blog is just useless whining, don't. I live in Academia, so believe me when I say that I know what useless whining is. Wundergeek has actually talked directly to several people in the industry, and gotten some of them to agree with her, as documented on this very blog.
>But HTK draws the things he enjoys -_- he said in an interview that he illustrates not to be realistic but to emphasize what he finds attractive in the female figure! 0_0 His men are just as unrealistic but OMG if we were to all share your bland and very shallow approach to art and restrict ourselves to fine art portraits, how boring would the world be? He designs incredible outfits and who cares if his women are sexy and warped? This is just a long retarded rant kicking out at a very popular and talented artist, I can see you spilling over your office chair with donuts on one side and a brand new polo neck jumper on the other you prude -_-
>Um… I'm female and I think HTK is incredibly skilled and he appeals to the market he works for! He's a guy and if he wants to draw sexy ladies then he should go ahead! And others on here are perfectly correct in pointing out that his men are not exactly true to life either! You really should lighten up and appreciate the artistry rather than the content, having attended a demo of his and read heaps of articles on him I know HTK to be a very dedicated and earnest worker~guh… rants like this ….and most of this blog make me sick~ he's very good at what he does and all you can do is pull out the 80's feminazi act and cry about how sexy the girls are! Its conceptual, ha… I doubt highly that he would ever;a. take pleasure in drawing some dumb t-shirt and jeans sporting blogger sat on her soapbox and bitching about his personal tastesb. get very far in the games industry if he gave all his women jerseys, ironing board chests and a nice pair of jogging bottoms.bitch please!
>Oh God you are a twat
>Looked @ your work. Honey, nobody wants to look at women who have the face of a man. HTK is so good at drawing and his women are attractive and many of them in the games have very empowering strong characters. You lack both the talent and argument to make this blog viable. Get a life and maybe put more time into your work rather than crying about attractive female illustration, its like standing in front of a freight train to tell the human race to stop being drawn to sexy things!
>OMG found your pic! SEXY!!!! http://www.browserbeware.com/information.htmlIts never a skinny beautiful woman who complains when the female form is celebrated since your form is seemingly gender non-specific. I am a girl and what this is is you reacting to the sad truth that you are far from what is appealing in the female body. You pick out successful artists who are also I will add, much more skilled than you, and then use morality as a veil to cover your bitterness at the fact that the only peen that will ever touch you is your dads when you were being conceived.Go and practice your drawing some more and cut HTK some slack! lol not that he needs my protection really, he'd never give somebody like you the time of day let alone be brought to tears by your juvenile tantrum!
>re: the recent anonymous comments: i think we have anti-feminist bingo here.
>WTF? What's with all the anonymous comments? And really, couldn't you try a little harder to not sound like a complete moron? How many times have I said that I acknowledge that craft-wise, HTK is superior to me. I GET IT KNOW STFU THAT DOESN'T INVALIDATE WHAT I'M SAYING.Also, oh noes! A picture of me exists on the internet! And I'm, like, technically 5 pounds overweight for my height! Clearly I am a shambling drooling horror who needs a good dicking to put her out of her misery.To quote you, anon: "bitch please".
>Wow, some comments are incredibly awful and sad :(As a professional working in comic and animation industry ( as it seems on vogue to reveal the personal working status ) I´d like to say that I love how much effort you put into this blog to make things a better. Please keep doign what you are doing !
>Also this post somehow makes me want to try a HTK genderbend too, if I find some time, haha.
>Saskia: Thanks! It's nice to hear I didn't completely piss off everyone in comics by now. 🙂 And yeah, it's interesting to see that the posts the trolls jump on aren't necessarily the ones I would have predicted.
>I´m not completly surprised cause HTK is so popular and widely accepted since so many years. I have barely seen any criticism of his works, which I find pretty revealing about the tolerance level towards such extreme sexist natured images. On the other side I´m extremly sad that its most likely that the people don´t think about the harm theese images do and I´m a bit ashamed that in my younger years I´ve been a huge fan of HTK aswell ( until I stumbled about the Talim image ). In general I´vee been producing images that have the male gaze and did contain sexism without knowing why I did that, simply thinking that this was normal :/It´s sites like yours that did helped me to understand the nature of sexism in gaming ( and in general ), in that regard I´m even more thankful for your hard work 🙂
Ran in to this blog because I was google imaging “vapid”. Or, rather, a picture of a vapid person. Why it directed me here, I don’t know, but I felt possessed to comment. So here it is: I honestly think this blog falls under “bad feminism” and I kind of wish you would just stop. Video games are not really marketed to females in the first place, they are marketed to young males. Why a whole blog devoted to an industry pandering to its demographic’s hormones and biological urges is pointless. I don’t know what you *think* you are doing, but you are *actually doing* is a disservice to feminism. I can rail off a list of reasons, but I’ll just say repression of the female form- however scantily clad, unrealistic or fantastical- is actually a mark of old world thinking. And last I checked the old world didn’t really favor the female gender. Just, can you maybe reconsider blogging about this particular subject?
Hear hear. I think blog article such as this is what gives modern feminists a bad name.
Hello, I just stumbled across your blog while searching for Westerners’ reaction to Blade & Soul.
While I do wish well to feminist activism in general, this article seems to clearly miss the point.
Blade and Soul. A game that was developed by an artist who’s signature style is severe deformation of human anatomy and uber-exaggeration of female thighs; a game that was made to sell that particular artstyle to the fans of that particular artist, can’t really be blamed under ‘demeaning to women’ label. That seriously wouldn’t persuade anyone, but only would provoke hostility from the loyal fans of that artist.
I am not a kind of guy who would say to his girlfriend ‘make me a sandwich, WOMAN!’. No, quite the contrary; I would make not just a sandwich but a nice course of Italian Cuisine for her. Yet I feel this article is just.. wrong.
[…] Industry artist fail: Hyung Tae Kim (so VERY VERY nsfw!) […]
[deleted]