|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 28, 2016 10:45:49 GMT -5
I shared this poster on my fb yesterday, and it caused chaos and controversy, and got me blocked by an fb friend. lol. That's pretty terrible, i suppose they find the message of Dr. Seuss' "The Sneetches" to be controversial as well? On the subject of the superman poster, snopes believes its legit, which makes it pretty surprising. Well, I shared it to have a discussion about certain inequalities that were missed in being mentioned in the poster. Also, that poster is something that when you look at it, if you don't look at it very carefully, you miss things on it. For example: I missed the black boy because he's hidden off to the side, in the back I missed the second girl because she's hidden in the back. I missed the fact that Superman is seemingly lecturing the girl in front by pointing at her. And I TOTALLY missed the Asian boy whose face Superman is holding in the poster. I know times were different back then. Everyone knows that. But he went full-on fanboy on me, condescendingly lectured me, told me how lucky we were to even have mention of anti-racism on the poster because the artist could have gone to jail for mentioning that back then (okay? Never argued that). I don't need someone Supermansplaining to me on my own wall. lol. It got ugly, and he blocked me. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 28, 2016 11:02:33 GMT -5
It seems like he's delivering a lecture to the whole group to me rather than the blond girl in the foreground as they are all gathered around Superman and his finger is pointed in a general upwards position rather than in anyone's specific direction. And I suppose you could look for ulterior motives in the placement of the children, but what is there to support such suppositions when such motives contradict the message? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar after all.
I'm in no way excusing the other commentator, if he needlessly agitated you then blocking him is totally the way to go and I would have done the same in your shoes, I'm just presenting my own reaction to your thoughts on the poster.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 28, 2016 11:16:24 GMT -5
It seems like he's delivering a lecture to the whole group to me rather than the blond girl in the foreground as they are all gathered around Superman and his finger is pointed in a general upwards position rather than in anyone's specific direction. And I suppose you could look for ulterior motives in the placement of the children, but what is there to support such suppositions when such motives contradict the message? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar after all. I'm in no way excusing the other commentator, if he needlessly agitated you then blocking him is totally the way to go and I would have done the same in your shoes, I'm just presenting my own reaction to your thoughts on the poster. I did not block him, he blocked me. He decided it was too frustrating to discuss the poster any longer with me. I am not going to protest the poster. I am not going to boycott DC or comics over this poster. It is, however, interesting to discussand to consider what was worth standing up for vs. what was acceptable to allow to slide by back then. I like the message, I just think there are a couple mentions missing.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 28, 2016 11:53:36 GMT -5
It seems like he's delivering a lecture to the whole group to me rather than the blond girl in the foreground as they are all gathered around Superman and his finger is pointed in a general upwards position rather than in anyone's specific direction. And I suppose you could look for ulterior motives in the placement of the children, but what is there to support such suppositions when such motives contradict the message? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar after all. I'm in no way excusing the other commentator, if he needlessly agitated you then blocking him is totally the way to go and I would have done the same in your shoes, I'm just presenting my own reaction to your thoughts on the poster. I did not block him, he blocked me. He decided it was too frustrating to discuss the poster any longer with me. I am not going to protest the poster. I am not going to boycott DC or comics over this poster. It is, however, interesting to discussand to consider what was worth standing up for vs. what was acceptable to allow to slide by back then. I like the message, I just think there are a couple mentions missing. Ah, my bad for that misunderstanding. I'm not reading any of those first two points into your views on the poster so no worries there, and I agree on the third point that it is an interesting topic to discuss( I mean, I'm interested after all). I'm just not sure anything was "allowed to slide" in the above image, and if done today I think if a similar message were to be presented things like sexual orientation, gender and age would need to be included but that the absence of such issues in the original 1950's version isn't really a strike against it, because at the time it was produced those were the most in your face, striking inequities present. Was it a terrible time for gay rights and women's rights? Absolutely. But those weren't the issues that your everyday kids were aware of, so their absence then in this artifact is excusable, as they wouldn't have delivered the message they were trying to convey in a quick and easily digestible way. Heck even if those issues weren't specifically mentioned in a modern version, I think I'd be inclined to cut the artist and writer a modicum of slack as it would seem pretty clear that their choice in verbiage was meant to convey a message that we're all equal, no matter how superficially different we may appear. It's a poster and it's message needs to be conveyed as quickly as it can so the fewer words the better, so an omission of some issues can be forgiven in the name of brevity. Now if there was some concrete, outlying reason to suspect that the writer or artist might intentionally leave out a group like past sexist or homophobic comments then I'd say that the absence of mention of those groups would be very telling. But with out that kind of evidence? Such assumptions would seem to be overly speculative to me.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 28, 2016 12:39:24 GMT -5
I did not block him, he blocked me. He decided it was too frustrating to discuss the poster any longer with me. I am not going to protest the poster. I am not going to boycott DC or comics over this poster. It is, however, interesting to discussand to consider what was worth standing up for vs. what was acceptable to allow to slide by back then. I like the message, I just think there are a couple mentions missing. Ah, my bad for that misunderstanding. I'm not reading any of those first two points into your views on the poster so no worries there, and I agree on the third point that it is an interesting topic to discuss( I mean, I'm interested after all). I'm just not sure anything was "allowed to slide" in the above image, and if done today I think if a similar message were to be presented things like sexual orientation, gender and age would need to be included but that the absence of such issues in the original 1950's version isn't really a strike against it, because at the time it was produced those were the most in your face, striking inequities present. Was it a terrible time for gay rights and women's rights? Absolutely. But those weren't the issues that your everyday kids were aware of, so their absence then in this artifact is excusable, as they wouldn't have delivered the message they were trying to convey in a quick and easily digestible way. Heck even if those issues weren't specifically mentioned in a modern version, I think I'd be inclined to cut the artist and writer a modicum of slack as it would seem pretty clear that their choice in verbiage was meant to convey a message that we're all equal, no matter how superficially different we may appear. It's a poster and it's message needs to be conveyed as quickly as it can so the fewer words the better, so an omission of some issues can be forgiven in the name of brevity. Now if there was some concrete, outlying reason to suspect that the writer or artist might intentionally leave out a group like past sexist or homophobic comments then I'd say that the absence of mention of those groups would be very telling. But with out that kind of evidence? Such assumptions would seem to be overly speculative to me. I don't know, I kind of think that gender inequity and inequality would have been pretty in-your-face to children back then. I mean, girls were mostly pretty obvious that they were girls by looking at them, just as well as people of different races were pretty obvious by looking at them (in most cases, for both). It's just that women have been the most oppressed group the longest, so it was probably more of an accepted and ingrained behavior. I am not sure who is responsible for the creation of that poster, but I do know that certain specific Superman writers/editors/creators at that time wrote a pretty jerky Superman, I would have no problem in believing gender equity and equality would be intentionally left out of that poster. I mean, placement of the two women in the poster can tell me that, even if you want to allow the non-mention of gender inequity/inequality. As I said, though, I am not certain who created the poster physically, or who even might have had a hand in the making/design of it. I don't dislike, or wish to bash, the actual words he is saying in the poster, because I agree with being anti-racist and calling out racism; I think that message is good. But it comes across to me as: Racism was not okay (because it's not), but gender inequality was okay to allow to slip by. But this is my opinion, and I am glad that you are respectfully discussing it with me, and not bashing me for how I view the poster. I hope others who wish to discuss can do that same.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 28, 2016 13:21:03 GMT -5
Ah, my bad for that misunderstanding. I'm not reading any of those first two points into your views on the poster so no worries there, and I agree on the third point that it is an interesting topic to discuss( I mean, I'm interested after all). I'm just not sure anything was "allowed to slide" in the above image, and if done today I think if a similar message were to be presented things like sexual orientation, gender and age would need to be included but that the absence of such issues in the original 1950's version isn't really a strike against it, because at the time it was produced those were the most in your face, striking inequities present. Was it a terrible time for gay rights and women's rights? Absolutely. But those weren't the issues that your everyday kids were aware of, so their absence then in this artifact is excusable, as they wouldn't have delivered the message they were trying to convey in a quick and easily digestible way. Heck even if those issues weren't specifically mentioned in a modern version, I think I'd be inclined to cut the artist and writer a modicum of slack as it would seem pretty clear that their choice in verbiage was meant to convey a message that we're all equal, no matter how superficially different we may appear. It's a poster and it's message needs to be conveyed as quickly as it can so the fewer words the better, so an omission of some issues can be forgiven in the name of brevity. Now if there was some concrete, outlying reason to suspect that the writer or artist might intentionally leave out a group like past sexist or homophobic comments then I'd say that the absence of mention of those groups would be very telling. But with out that kind of evidence? Such assumptions would seem to be overly speculative to me. I don't know, I kind of think that gender inequity and inequality would have been pretty in-your-face to children back then. I mean, girls were mostly pretty obvious that they were girls by looking at them, just as well as people of different races were pretty obvious by looking at them (in most cases, for both). It's just that women have been the most oppressed group the longest, so it was probably more of an accepted and ingrained behavior. I am not sure who is responsible for the creation of that poster, but I do know that certain specific Superman writers/editors/creators at that time wrote a pretty jerky Superman, I would have no problem in believing gender equity and equality would be intentionally left out of that poster. I mean, placement of the two women in the poster can tell me that, even if you want to allow the non-mention of gender inequity/inequality. As I said, though, I am not certain who created the poster physically, or who even might have had a hand in the making/design of it. I don't dislike, or wish to bash, the actual words he is saying in the poster, because I agree with being anti-racist and calling out racism; I think that message is good. But it comes across to me as: Racism was not okay (because it's not), but gender inequality was okay to allow to slip by. But this is my opinion, and I am glad that you are respectfully discussing it with me, and not bashing me for how I view the poster. I hope others who wish to discuss can do that same. They'd certainly be in the face for those on the receiving end of the discrimination, but in terms of media spotlight and awareness in the general population at the time they weren't seen as being as big as issues like racism, religious intolerance and nationalism(though the latter is a little funny as it's cloaked in the idea of it being "un-american" which is an appeal to nationalism). And I don't know if you can draw any inferences from the general tone that some creators were using in the 50's to make any assumptions about the message either as not only is it's exact provenance of it's writer and artist unknown making any claims based on the norm in the comics tenuous as best but there is also the matter that according to the Huffington post it was commissioned and distributed by The Institute For American Democracy( an offshoot of the Anti-Defamation League) in 1949 to promote equality, so it was most likely drawn up by some ad agency artist rather than someone at the then National Comics so a connection between the tone of the comics and the poster itself would seem fallacious. Further I don't think you can dry any real, concrete conclusions to the placement of the children either. Although some of the people are in the back of the image, and thus appear to be further away from Superman which one might see as them being marginalized, in actuality the image is a crude attempt at portraying the children as encircling Superman on a two dimensional field. So while some figures seem to be further away they are meant to be equidistant to him around the circle which if one wanted to bestow meaning based on placement would seem tome to be a purposeful metaphor of what the message was attempting to convey rather than a slight. So, historically issues of sexism and homophobia, though indeed present in society, didn't have the same footprint in the minds of Americans in 1949 making their absences less than telling as far as the image is concerned. Further there is no concrete evidence that the creators held homophobic or sexist opinions, so nothing can be drawn from the absence of such issues and finally there are too many alternate ways of interpreting placement to assign any meaning to it. You're obviously free to interpret it as you will, and as an art form it is certainly open to many different and diverse interpretations( yours and mine being but two among a countless sea of others) but I just don't see why your interpretation could be the reality of the situation based on the points put forward here.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Dec 28, 2016 13:39:34 GMT -5
AFAIK, all DC PSAs were written by Jack Schiff, and this article suggests that this particular one was drawn by Al Plastino.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 28, 2016 13:50:35 GMT -5
Thwhtguardian-
I would quote you, but I am on my phone, and I think it would get messy, plus, I am working.
1. I never mentioned homophobia?
2. Of course I cannot prove my opinion in the court of comics law (lol), but sexism and misogyny, and inequity/inequality for women were a very real thing (and inequality still is in many ways), and they were pretty real in our comics, and only recently have they really tried correct the bulk of that, but I will have to look up the Huffington post to see the details of the creation of poster.
Please do not try to tell me Superman was not a super jerk during the silver age. We all know he was. Because his writer and/or editor wrote him that way/put stories through like that/sign of the times, what have you.
It was there. And it was there, IMO, in the poster. You may not see it, but to some of us, it is there.
You can no more say the intentions of what is not in the poster than you claim I can't.
What is said is good. Things were left out, though. Very real and recognized things, even then. Maybe not recognized as well as they are now, I will give you that. Women knew of their inequities and inequalities back then. They just did not speak as openly about them as they did a decade later.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 28, 2016 14:52:46 GMT -5
Thwhtguardian- I would quote you, but I am on my phone, and I think it would get messy, plus, I am working. 1. I never mentioned homophobia? 2. Of course I cannot prove my opinion in the court of comics law (lol), but sexism and misogyny, and inequity/inequality for women were a very real thing (and inequality still is in many ways), and they were pretty real in our comics, and only recently have they really tried correct the bulk of that, but I will have to look up the Huffington post to see the details of the creation of poster. Please do not try to tell me Superman was not a super jerk during the silver age. We all know he was. Because his writer and/or editor wrote him that way/put stories through like that/sign of the times, what have you. It was there. And it was there, IMO, in the poster. You may not see it, but to some of us, it is there. You can no more say the intentions of what is not in the poster than you claim I can't. What is said is good. Things were left out, though. Very real and recognized things, even then. Maybe not recognized as well as they are now, I will give you that. Women knew of their inequities and inequalities back then. They just did not speak as openly about them as they did a decade later. I mentioned homophobia because I saw it as a particular issue that was not mentioned specifically in the poster but need not be thought to be absent in spirit. As for Superman being portrayed as a dick in the 50's, you're right and it's fair to say that characterization could be a reflection of the writers behind him but as this was a commissioned piece you can't draw a line from that directly to the poster because it comes from a completely different place. And as I said, yes misogyny and sexism certainly existed but at the creation of the poster they were not the issues thought to be the most pressing so that they weren't mentioned specifically does not necessarily mean that the creators of the poster thought that women did not deserve equality along with those of different religions, nationalities or races and barring direct evidence that the creators thought other wise and would thus intentionally not include women in their message as a slight the absence does not in any way prove that the message was not inclusive. And you're right about artistic interpretation, but that was my point. You see the placement of certain characters in the ad as one way, and i clearly see it as another so it cannot be said to be anything close to definitive.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 28, 2016 14:56:41 GMT -5
It seems like he's delivering a lecture to the whole group to me rather than the blond girl in the foreground as they are all gathered around Superman and his finger is pointed in a general upwards position rather than in anyone's specific direction. And I suppose you could look for ulterior motives in the placement of the children, but what is there to support such suppositions when such motives contradict the message? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar after all. I'm in no way excusing the other commentator, if he needlessly agitated you then blocking him is totally the way to go and I would have done the same in your shoes, I'm just presenting my own reaction to your thoughts on the poster. Not to me. But I still get patronized regularly, have had someone wag their finger disapprovingly at me recently, and am still often treated like a child. It would be nice if I could say it's just because of my height or because of how young I can appear to some people, but that would not be entirely true. That's what I was feeling when I posted those panels. As i said previously, art is open to interpretation...but in this case I don't think your feeling is a true representation of the actual work as the very text itself begins with, " Remember,Boys and Girls" which directly refutes that he's unfairly singling out the blond girl in the foreground. Further, it becomes even less an uncomfortable situation for that little girl if you view it as a poorly actualized depiction of a group of children encircling Superman as he delivers his message to them thus taking her further away from the actual focus. That of course says nothing to your personal experiences, it's only to say that it needn't be felt that it's reflected in this image, especially if the link that Rob Allen provided is correct and Al Plastino penciled the image and it's hard to imagine that the man behind Superman's Mission for President Kennedy would want you to feel hurt by his work.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 28, 2016 15:39:06 GMT -5
As i said previously, art is open to interpretation...but in this case I don't think your feeling is a true representation of the actual work as the very text itself begins with, " Remember,Boys and Girls" which directly refutes that he's unfairly singling out the blond girl in the foreground. Further, it becomes even less an uncomfortable situation for that little girl if you view it as a poorly actualized depiction of a group of children encircling Superman as he delivers his message to them thus taking her further away from the actual focus. I didn't use words in my first post, because I couldn't. I can't just "stop" feeling the way that I do, when I look at. I'm not really interested in the condemnation or punishment of anyone or anything; I'm interested in letting people know how I feel and that I am made to feel this particular way almost everyday: that I don't matter. There's no condemnation or punishment here, i'm just saying that in this case the image in question shouldn't make you feel that way if you look at it in its entirety.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 28, 2016 15:56:15 GMT -5
Okay, wait: Just because Superman appears to be addressing both boys AND girls because of the wording, does not that the type of "left out", that I believe Sorceress and myself are talking about, is being addressed by the poster's message itself.
Just because the word "girls" is tossed in there does not mean that it's okay that the poster made no mention of gender inequity or inequality.
"As i said previously, art is open to interpretation...but in this case I don't think your feeling is a true representation of the actual work"
That is slightly dismissive and invalidating of feelings and interpretations of the poster, thwhtguardian, and I know that you do not mean to do that because I know you are not malicious or mean. It comes across as dismissive, though. You don't know what the true representation of the poster is because none of us do. All we're doing is pointing out how it was obvious that gender inequality was left out, AND Superman is looking at the girl, can be seen as pointing at her, can be seen as lecturing her because he seems to look like he's looking directly at her, and the only other girl in the poster is seriously hidden, and I missed her until someone pointed her out. Several of my fb friends missed the second girl in the poster as well, and I had to draw a line to her before they could even see her. When you add those things up, it's can seem like sketchy representation. The fact that he's making an anti-racist statement is totally awesome. I love it. I think that was huge for back then, so I do take "those were the times" and "That was back then" into consideration when looking at the poster.
Truth is, none of know. It would have been nice to have some gender inequality mention since, yeah, it was a thing. But I guess, a decade later, we had our time. Or, wait, when did this poster come out? I've read a few different dates. I read 1949, 1956, and 1959.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 28, 2016 16:34:35 GMT -5
Okay, wait: Just because Superman appears to be addressing both boys AND girls because of the wording, does not that the type of "left out", that I believe Sorceress and myself are talking about, is being addressed by the poster's message itself. Just because the word "girls" is tossed in there does not mean that it's okay that the poster made no mention of gender inequity or inequality. "As i said previously, art is open to interpretation...but in this case I don't think your feeling is a true representation of the actual work"That is slightly dismissive and invalidating of feelings and interpretations of the poster, thwhtguardian, and I know that you do not mean to do that because I know you are not malicious or mean. It comes across as dismissive, though. You don't know what the true representation of the poster is because none of us do. All we're doing is pointing out how it was obvious that gender inequality was left out, AND Superman is looking at the girl, can be seen as pointing at her, can be seen as lecturing her because he seems to look like he's looking directly at her, and the only other girl in the poster is seriously hidden, and I missed her until someone pointed her out. Several of my fb friends missed the second girl in the poster as well, and I had to draw a line to her before they could even see her. When you add those things up, it's can seem like sketchy representation. The fact that he's making an anti-racist statement is totally awesome. I love it. I think that was huge for back then, so I do take "those were the times" and "That was back then" into consideration when looking at the poster. Truth is, none of know. It would have been nice to have some gender inequality mention since, yeah, it was a thing. But I guess, a decade later, we had our time. Or, wait, when did this poster come out? I've read a few different dates. I read 1949, 1956, and 1959. I think there are two discussions going on here. You're right when you say that the addressing of both boys and girls line doesn't support the inclusion of gender equality but that wasn't why I brought it up, rather I mentioned it because Sorceress believed that Superman was singling out and patronizing the girl in the foreground and that it caused her to remember many occasions where the same was done to her which was why she felt negatively about the image, and that line was evidence that the girl in the foreground didn't appear to be being treated that way so she shouldn't need to feel poorly because of this poster but rather should see the positive of the message. And I don't see another way to believe it to be other wise, if we are meant to think that Superman is patronizing the girl in the foreground why wouldn't he address just her? Why not, "Remember, Sally..." instead of "Remember, Boys and Girls.."? And the finger isn't pointed at her either but rather vaguely upwards: Which is much different than a confrontational point such as this one: Rather than that kind accusitory finger pointing or paternalistic finger waving it seems more to be borrowing from the iconography commonly associated with Christ in his sermons: Likewise, I don't think Superman is focusing his gaze on her but rather he seems to be holding the gaze of the whole group as all the participants sight-lines are inclined towards his own which fits with good public speaking. Which again goes to my point that the visual cues can't be used as evidence as purposeful under-representation unless there is reason to believe the artist felt that women shouldn't be treated equally. And per the huffpost it is a reproduction from 1949.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 28, 2016 16:55:40 GMT -5
I think there are two discussions going on here. You're right when you say that the addressing of both boys and girls line doesn't support the inclusion of gender equality but that wasn't why I brought it up, rather I mentioned it because Sorceress believed that Superman was singling out and patronizing the girl in the foreground and that it caused her to remember many occasions where the same was done to her which was why she felt negatively about the image, and that line was evidence that the girl in the foreground didn't appear to be being treated that way so she shouldn't need to feel poorly because of this poster but rather should see the positive of the message. And I don't see another way to believe it to be other wise, if we are meant to think that Superman is patronizing the girl in the foreground why wouldn't he address just her? Why not, "Remember, Sally..." instead of "Remember, Boys and Girls.."? And the finger isn't pointed at her either but rather vaguely upwards: His gaze was directly AT her, though. It could be the way the group was drawn, but she appears directly center, and the others appear more off to the sides, or at least not directly in front of him like she is. I'm not talking about proving a possible interpretation of the poster, as I'm not asking you to prove any interpretations to me. I'm telling you that it is possible to interpret it as I have. No, I cannot say for sure that is how it was meant. But you cannot either. We see it differently. I can understand why you interpret it how you interpret it. As you said, it's art, it can be seen differently by many. Why wouldn't he address just her if he was meaning to be patronizing towards her (or the creator towards women, in general)? I don't know. Obviously the other girl in the poster knows her proper place for the time, as she is hidden and barely in view. Which again goes to my point that the visual cues can't be used as evidence as purposeful under-representation unless there is reason to believe the artist felt that women shouldn't be treated equally. And per the huffpost it is a reproduction from 1949. No, they can't. However, you cannot say, with 100% certainty, that how I interpret the poster is incorrect for the same reason. Sure, you can continue to use terms like "I don't see any reason to believe it otherwise" to make it seem like my interpretation of the poster is preposterous. But you cannot say I am wrong. lol.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 28, 2016 19:36:13 GMT -5
Thank you. *sniffle* K. <3
|
|