Thanks to Twoheadedboy for mentioning this story. It's eight months old now but, following my Powerpuff Girls posting yesterday, it all fits nicely in place.
I do have to admit that it might work if the characters were supposed to be teens but WTF were IDW thinking? I guess it's all those US TV shows and events where moms and dads "paint up their daughters of 5, 6 and 7 years of age like street whores" -NOT my words.
I guess some pervert enjoyed the art! The characters in the comics are 5-6 years old and no amount of getting on a high horse nor publishing a photo of her accuser in a strip club -I'm sorry, the artists get high and mighty about how she drew little girls in this way and a photo of a guy in a strip joint smashes his arguement??? I'd be asking "how long did it take you to find a photo of him in a strip club? to defend yourself?"
Comics gone nutty.
I wrote porno comics at one point. Never do it again but I know that men AND women go to strip joints.....sigh.
I really, really am growing tired of stupidity in comics.
Publisher IDW just announced that it would not go forward with a variant cover some found objectionable of ‘Powerpuff Girls’ #6 illustrated by female artist Mimi Yoon. We previously reported that comic shop owner Dennis Barger took to Facebook to vent “Are we seriously sexualizing pre-teen girls like perverted fan fiction writers on the Internet???? Is that what this s*** has gotten to? DISGUSTED!” He further went to add, “taking grade school girls and sexualizing them as way older… they are wearing latex bondage wear mini dresses, which on an adult would be fine but on the effigies of children is very wrong… especially on an ALL AGES kids book marketed for children. These characters are supposed to be 6-7 years old, aren’t they?” (Actually they’re in kindergarten so more like 5-6.)
‘The Powerpuff Girls’ comic is presumably aimed at children along with IDW’s other licensed properties such as ‘My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic’. IDW’s VP of Marketing Dirk Wood stated that the variant cover was intended as a collectible for adult fans and that Cartoon Network itself had requested the variant and selected Mimi Yoon as the artist. (The regular cover features artwork that emulates the normal style of the original cartoons.) The publisher then announced that it would not publish the racy variant.
Some have defended the cover by pointing out that should the characters exist in real time, they would be in their late teens or early twenties now. (Feel old?)
Yoon has since taken to Facebook herself to defend her illustration, stating “I find all of the accusations for my Powerpuff Girls image sexualizing minors not only ridiculous but also embarrassing for the accusers… When any girl who has interest in Powerpuff Girls (sees the controversial IDW cover) and grows up to be like the ‘ladies’ in the pictures… That would be one serious tragedy, wouldn’t it?… I’m curious to know why are all the arguments about trying to keep the image away from the girls? What about the boys?” She then followed up by posting photographs of her accuser, Dennis Barger, at a strip club. Zing!
Fans
have also rallied around Yoon and have posted encouraging messages to
the artist. Someone going by the nickname “Holly Golightly” posted
“I’ve been defending your Beautiful Artwork from the Ridiculousness of
Men (who) tell us Gals what we should be offended by or what is
appropriate for us…Nutty and Silly- your work is hauntingly feminine and
sly…I love it!”
Fellow comic artist Jenny Frison posted, “Just wanted to say that I thought your PPG cover was super cute and fun and sassy and totally appropriate for youngsters! Sorry some people’s negative opinions totally overshadowed how much hard work and love you put into that cover. Don’t let this make you second guess yourself. You are very talented and did a beautiful job!”
Yoon responded by posting “I promise this will no way deter me from doing what I love doing or change my views and ways, and I will always and forever passionately despise perverted, corrupted, and twisted minds and acts.”
Clearly neither party is willing to “agree to disagree.” Is Yoon’s image inappropriate? Or is it cheeky fun with a female empowerment message? Yoon obviously aged the characters, so it’s not like she depicted them as five year olds in sexy clothing. But considering that this book is aimed at a younger audience, is the Yoon variant cover too much?
Feel free to sound off below in the comments!
Source: GMA Network
I do have to admit that it might work if the characters were supposed to be teens but WTF were IDW thinking? I guess it's all those US TV shows and events where moms and dads "paint up their daughters of 5, 6 and 7 years of age like street whores" -NOT my words.
I guess some pervert enjoyed the art! The characters in the comics are 5-6 years old and no amount of getting on a high horse nor publishing a photo of her accuser in a strip club -I'm sorry, the artists get high and mighty about how she drew little girls in this way and a photo of a guy in a strip joint smashes his arguement??? I'd be asking "how long did it take you to find a photo of him in a strip club? to defend yourself?"
Comics gone nutty.
I wrote porno comics at one point. Never do it again but I know that men AND women go to strip joints.....sigh.
I really, really am growing tired of stupidity in comics.
Publisher IDW just announced that it would not go forward with a variant cover some found objectionable of ‘Powerpuff Girls’ #6 illustrated by female artist Mimi Yoon. We previously reported that comic shop owner Dennis Barger took to Facebook to vent “Are we seriously sexualizing pre-teen girls like perverted fan fiction writers on the Internet???? Is that what this s*** has gotten to? DISGUSTED!” He further went to add, “taking grade school girls and sexualizing them as way older… they are wearing latex bondage wear mini dresses, which on an adult would be fine but on the effigies of children is very wrong… especially on an ALL AGES kids book marketed for children. These characters are supposed to be 6-7 years old, aren’t they?” (Actually they’re in kindergarten so more like 5-6.)
‘The Powerpuff Girls’ comic is presumably aimed at children along with IDW’s other licensed properties such as ‘My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic’. IDW’s VP of Marketing Dirk Wood stated that the variant cover was intended as a collectible for adult fans and that Cartoon Network itself had requested the variant and selected Mimi Yoon as the artist. (The regular cover features artwork that emulates the normal style of the original cartoons.) The publisher then announced that it would not publish the racy variant.
Some have defended the cover by pointing out that should the characters exist in real time, they would be in their late teens or early twenties now. (Feel old?)
Yoon has since taken to Facebook herself to defend her illustration, stating “I find all of the accusations for my Powerpuff Girls image sexualizing minors not only ridiculous but also embarrassing for the accusers… When any girl who has interest in Powerpuff Girls (sees the controversial IDW cover) and grows up to be like the ‘ladies’ in the pictures… That would be one serious tragedy, wouldn’t it?… I’m curious to know why are all the arguments about trying to keep the image away from the girls? What about the boys?” She then followed up by posting photographs of her accuser, Dennis Barger, at a strip club. Zing!
The Regular Cover For ‘Powerpuff Girls’ #6
Fellow comic artist Jenny Frison posted, “Just wanted to say that I thought your PPG cover was super cute and fun and sassy and totally appropriate for youngsters! Sorry some people’s negative opinions totally overshadowed how much hard work and love you put into that cover. Don’t let this make you second guess yourself. You are very talented and did a beautiful job!”
Yoon responded by posting “I promise this will no way deter me from doing what I love doing or change my views and ways, and I will always and forever passionately despise perverted, corrupted, and twisted minds and acts.”
Clearly neither party is willing to “agree to disagree.” Is Yoon’s image inappropriate? Or is it cheeky fun with a female empowerment message? Yoon obviously aged the characters, so it’s not like she depicted them as five year olds in sexy clothing. But considering that this book is aimed at a younger audience, is the Yoon variant cover too much?
Feel free to sound off below in the comments!
Source: GMA Network
I do like Mimi Yoon's work, but there's a time and a place for images like that one... And that time/place is NOT on the cover of a comic aimed at kiddies. Especially as it's apparently under IDW's "Little" banner.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, maybe it's healthy? Subversive, yes, but a youngster's not going to look at that and think "Ooh, bondage!". They're more likely to think "Ooh, shiny!". That was certainly my reaction when ten-year-old me first saw a certain Spice Girls video way back when.
I don't think it should've been withdrawn, until maybe perhaps seeing if anyone buying the thing actually complained. Maybe even keep it "behind the counter" for the "collectors"?
It's nice art and there is no denying that but on a kiddies comic and labelled as much? I actually wonder whether a boss at IDW let this slip through and then on seeing the cover and the complaint realised there might be a problem? You would expect them to wait until publication and to see if there were any complaints -hence my thinking it was someone at IDW who realised. Spice Girls. hehehe.
ReplyDelete