I don't normally chime in on this stuff, but this thread is a great example of how people don't understand art. The replies are full of people talking about "punching down" and the "male gaze", and it's frankly quite bizzarre.

A thread. https://twitter.com/JScottCampbell/status/1389726872120926212

First off, there are at least two major varieties of comic art (there are more, but there are two "poles' that they vacillate between), stylized and realistic. That's an oversimplification, but it is still important. Campbell is a "stylized" artist, that means his art...

... has aspects that are realistic, and aspects that are not. STYLIZED ART DOES NOT NEED TO BE "FIXED". It's not "broken", it's stylized. Stylized art empahsizes or distorts some aspect of a realistic figure to create mood or feel . You can of course like a different...

... style, but that doesn't make a style you don't like "broken". Art that is NOT explicitly sexualized in any way can still be stylized, and therefore can still "distort" the figures in various ways. So the art isn't "broken" and doesnt' need "fixing".

To suggest it does just shows ignorance. If the "fixer" had just said that they didn't like that style of art, or that they redrew it for "fun", that would be fine. No one has to like a style of art. But redrawing it to "fix" the art is just obnoxious and petty.

Now on to the other two points. The "male gaze" is one of those terms that elides it's cisgender perspective. You see a picture of say a woman with her legs spread open and you think "male gaze", and of course men like to look at these kinds of pictures

But a woman with her legs spread open is also alluring to... other women. I get the feeling that many of the "feminists" who critique this sort of thing don't know that many lesbians or bi women. I am very fortunate in that I do.

And many of them love "good girl" sexy art just as much as men do. Not all do of course, let's not overgeneralize, but many do. So "male gaze", yes, but "female gaze" also applies. Every time I hear this "male gaze" argument all I hear is "lesbian and bi erasure".

Do better.

Then there is the fact that MEN are also portrayed in sexualized ways in comics, bare chested, rippling with muscles, portrayed in hypermasculinized poses. "So what" people cry, women suffer from oversexualization, men do not. But of course this is also false, ANY...

... group that is hypersexualized, or portrayed in one way only, will be harmful to that group, as it promotes generalizations and preconceptions. It isn't fashionable to point this out, but portraying men as hyperphysical and masculine all the time does damage to men...

... as well. Really, to be consistent and analytically clear about this, it would make sense to rail against the hypersexualization and victimization of women and the hypersexualization and hyperphysicality of men in comics. But I don't see any of that being discussed.

There is an argument to be made that the comic art world could use more art that isn't in this style, I think that's fair. But that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with this style, just it's dominance of the field. There is also an undercurrent of puritanism...

... in all of this, any art that has a sexual overtone to it of any kind is called out as "sexist". Sexual isn't "sexist", "sexist" implies reducing everything to sexuality, or focusing on sexuality only. But that oversimplifies the art. Yes, Campbell's art is "sexy"...

... but it conveys more than that. Art is rarely one dimensional, even comic art. Campbell is a terrific action artist, and great at conveying emotions. It's sad to see that commentators can look at a picture of a character that is sexy and ONLY SEE THAT. It's reductive.

The last point I wanted to make was this "punching down" business. Yes, Campbell is a well known and established artist. So the assumption seems to be that he should just suck it up and take the "criticism".

No.

A comic artist, just like any other creative person...

... gets to defend themselves when called out for a lack of skill. And despite what the commentators were saying in this thread, Campbell wasn't being called out just for the sexuality of his figures, he is regularly called out for his figures "lacking internal organs"...

... and other things suggesting that Campbell can't draw. As artists themselves should know, Campbell has put hundreds of hours of study and work into his craft, you can tell this just by looking at the WHOLE PICTURE, not just the pretty lady in the front.

When someone comes along and suggests that an artists doesn't get anatomy or figures when that's their job, well, of course they are going to get defensive. What blows me away is that people feel free to take shots at someone and expect them to take it...

... But when they respond with critique it is "punching down". In short, people expect to be able to say whatever they want without any expectation that their work might need improvement, just because the artist they are critiquing is successful.

What arrogance.

You really see this when you look at the comments. He mentioned that the clothing on the "corrected" version lacked any sense of the body beneath, and lacked wrinkles or folds. People made that into a comment about breasts. It wasn't, it was a valid comment about the fact that..

... the "corrected" version seemed flat and two dimensional. Even if the figure was drawn with a completely flat chest the problem would remain. These "corrections" aren't coming from people with legitimate art concerns, they are coming from people who don't like sexualized art.

Which is fine, you don't have to like sexualized art, and you can even think the PERVASIVENESS of sexualized art is harmful as it creates unrealistic gender expectations, which I think is 100% true. But to suggest that an artist lacks skill because they draw this way...

... and that they need to be "corrected" is just nonsense. Campbell wasn't "punching down", he was responding to someone calling his art out to be corrected for technical problems that don't exist. When people start calling out both sides of this issue...

... for how both men and women are portrayed, when they address how hypersexualization and hypermasculinization of men is equally part of the patriarchy, and also harmful, and when they start to separate "sexy" from "sexist", I think these arguments will be worth considering

But until then, this is nothing but noise. By all means redraw art if you want to, there is nothing wrong with taking art and changing it, new artists have been messing with old art for years. But "correcting" artists for a style you don't like is obnoxious and arrogant.