|
Post by The Captain on Dec 29, 2016 10:53:18 GMT -5
It's not ridiculous to think that it should have been mentioned, but it's also not damning that it wasn't specifically listed given the greater context and limitations of a medium that necessitates brevity. And just to think, given current trends in advertising today it would be even briefer if done today. Ads are much more visual and much less textual than they once were, so while back in '49 you had a speech bubble and a further blurb at the the bottom today all you'd get is a big glossy image and a one or two word slogan to sell the message. Instead of this: you'd get this: I said I thought the message was great. It was just leaving out some mentions. I have seen advertisements before, this isn't particularly impressing me. Only imagine that it's an image of Superman with a line up of kids of various ethnicities and a fair representation of gender and the slogan is maybe "Justice For All" or "Truth, Justice and the American Way" but no matter which way you slice it, whether it's the '49 version or the hypothetical modern take I just proposed, when you get down to it the message that is meant to be understood is discrimination is wrong. Could it have been expressed more explicitly? Sure...but it doesn't need to as it's much easier to rely on your audience to see a more universal message. But "fair representation of gender and other ethnicities" could easily be debatable, though. That's part of the argument. lol. This is the part that we do not agree upon AT ALL. lol. And it will keep coming back to this. You see fair representation because you are seeing it on a basic level of "Oh, there's two girls, a black boy and an Asian boy. That meets the requirements of having non-white males represented on the poster." Until you look at the placement of these non-white males. Do I think it was pretty decent for the representation of different ethnicities for 1949? Probably. I mean, considering the strength of white supremacy at the time, sure thing. Superman is gently holding the small Asian boy's face in his hand. For 1949, that was pretty gigantic, I get it. The black boy is all the way off to the side (don't worry, I expect the two dimensional art argument again), almost as hidden as the second girl, who is like a Waldo in a "Where's Waldo?" poster. The other girl, is dead center, and from a perspective of someone who is not educated in the finer details of comics art, appears to be being stared directly at my Superman who is lecturing about recognizing and calling out racism. You wish to remove any speculation that this was done intentionally. I understand that. But it's speculation and interpretation. Since neither of us know what exactly the artist of this poster meant. It's not foolish for anyone to think it could be done intentionally. It's not in all in our minds. Discrediting our interpretation or any speculation of this poster by using the ability to read art or not, is unnecessary, really. Because it's art. I think you have some undying love for Superman. Or so it seems that way with your defending this poster. It's not necessary to defend a fictional character, though. He's not real. So, it comes down to the creative team. We do not know who did this poster. Could it have been, at the time, the current Superman team? Sure. But we don't know. But given the patriarchy, the way society viewed women, the fact that it just got worse for them until women's lib, the fact that Superman was written even more from a patriarchal standpoint during the silver age, to think it might have been the creative team who maybe left out gender inequality, and/or had a say in the layout of this poster, is not completely out of reach. I get that this poster was created FOR an anti-racism message. It was specific to THAT. I get it. But toss in the art, and it just messes up the perspective for me. I even liked the poster until I started looking at it more, and I noticed the placement of the kids. I've stayed out of this discussion to this point because I personally believe it is much ado about nothing, but seeing as I'm a 43 year-old middle class, straight, gender-confirming, Christian, white male, I've come to understand that my opinion on any topic is invalid because of "white privilege" or "male privilege" or some other privilege that I somehow have that makes me automatically wrong. From what I understand, one of your two main issues with the poster is how the children are placed in reference to both Superman and each other. That said, I ask you this question: taking the fact that they didn't specifically mention "gender inequality" out of the equation and simply addressing the poster as it is, how could the artist have drawn it to arrange the children in a way that wouldn't offend you? I'm not trying to be argumentative, because I can certainly understand, although not necessarily agree with, your stance regarding the poster, but it would be interesting and instructive to know your thoughts on that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 11:26:54 GMT -5
Haven't paid much attention to this foofaraw over a poster from nearly 7 decades ago, lest I become very depressed over the sort of thing that pushes people's buttons, so don't know if this has been mentioned (surely it has, though), but saying that the girl facing Superman is the sole female in the image is of course inaccurate. The figure shown between said girl & the boy leaning on his bike is also female; her dress is visible. Or I suppose the figure could be intended to represent transvestites or transsexuals; I have my doubts, though, given the era we're talking about. lololol, oh, Dan. So much love to you. The second girl being in the poster has already been addressed. She's the Waldo of the poster. LOL. Feh. Waldo is about 15 miles west of my hometown. Not the nicest place on the planet, I have to admit.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 29, 2016 11:31:36 GMT -5
lololol, oh, Cap. You automatically have those privileges, but they do not automatically make you wrong, nor is it my intent to silence you. ♡ However, those privileges do mean you should probably listen before weighing in. Which you have done, and you even politely asked my opinion, explained your stance, and did not ridicule my thoughts and other interpretations of the poster. Thank you. I think if the black boy could be moved closer in, the Waldo girl in the back to be brought more to the front side, and one of the white boys placed directly in front of Superman where the first girl is, would be far more appropriate placement, especially given his message. I am unsure about the Asian boy, though. Something about his current placement bothers me somehow, but until I can put a firm finger on it, I remain undecided on it. Bring on the arguments!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2016 11:40:40 GMT -5
His message was awesome. It just could have included more. It is not ridiculous, or crossing some absurd line, to think that gender inequality could have been mentioned. Saying he could have made all those other mentions is pretty mocking of something that has occurred longer than any other inequality in the history of man. But mentioning that is over-doing it. Okay. There's no doubt more could have been addressed, but it is very easy for us in the present to criticize those in the past for not standing up for everything we want to support today. It does a disservice to them and disrespects the courage they showed standing up for what they did stand up for. We live in a world where it is a given for most (still not all) that there should be a level playing field for all, and that anyone can stand up and voice their support of such a cause. If it were easy, folks like Harvey Milk, Martin Luther King Jr. Rosa Parks, Gloria Steinheim and others wouldn't be heroic figures, they would be part of the crowd doing what everyone else did. It's easy for us to say they should have done more, but we need to step back and understand how hard it was for them to do even the little bit they did. It was a risky venture for a major American publisher to make what was a very bold statement for the time in the wake of the McCarthy era where anyone stepping out of line was shot down, denounced and blacklisted. Where businesses and politicians lost careers supporting the Civil Rights movement, and where people were lynched for voicing such opinions in places in America. There's always more to do, but I prefer to appreciate what people have done to help pave the way to where we are today than to hammer them for not doing more. Sometimes you have to pick one battle and fight it instead of trying to fight every battle at the same time. That's not to say the other battles aren't worth fighting just as much as the one chosen, but sometimes you have to walk instead of run. I's a nice poster, with a nice sentiment. It was a very risky thing to do in the 1950s. If it were the 2000s, it probably doesn't do enough, but doing what it did in 1950 was a pretty big deal. The sad part is we still need reminding of the gains we made in the 1950s because those are being taken for granted and lost in many cases, and those are the battles that laid the foundation for the fights we are still fighting today. Without those battles having been fought then, we wouldn't even be having this discussion today. Sure it's easy for me to say as a white male who hasn't been on the wrong side of the gender divide, but posters like these, and the fights for equality they addressed were the wake up bell that started the process of making equality a real thing for all people. We aren't there yet, far from it, and in some ways it feels like we are moving backwards this decade while in other ways there have been some major victories, but it had to start somewhere and it had to start small. People like to use the "phrase" the wrong side of history" when talking about regressive knee-jerk reactions trying to stifle progress, but that is only hindsight. There is no inevitability for all this. There is no side of history when you are in the moment, there is only the reality and what you do to try to change it one small bit at a time. And there is no guarantee the steps forwards will not be pushed back in the future and any gains made could be lost. Instead of focusing on what could have been done differently in the past, I would rather spend my energy focusing on what needs to be done in the present and the future, and when I look back, it's to see what has been done so I can take heart and fortify myself to do what needs to be done moving forward. But that's me, y'all are free to look at things however you want. -M
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 29, 2016 11:42:43 GMT -5
It's not ridiculous to think that it should have been mentioned, but it's also not damning that it wasn't specifically listed given the greater context and limitations of a medium that necessitates brevity. And just to think, given current trends in advertising today it would be even briefer if done today. Ads are much more visual and much less textual than they once were, so while back in '49 you had a speech bubble and a further blurb at the the bottom today all you'd get is a big glossy image and a one or two word slogan to sell the message. Instead of this: you'd get this: I said I thought the message was great. It was just leaving out some mentions. I have seen advertisements before, this isn't particularly impressing me. Only imagine that it's an image of Superman with a line up of kids of various ethnicities and a fair representation of gender and the slogan is maybe "Justice For All" or "Truth, Justice and the American Way" but no matter which way you slice it, whether it's the '49 version or the hypothetical modern take I just proposed, when you get down to it the message that is meant to be understood is discrimination is wrong. Could it have been expressed more explicitly? Sure...but it doesn't need to as it's much easier to rely on your audience to see a more universal message. [/div][/quote] But "fair representation of gender and other ethnicities" could easily be debatable, though. That's part of the argument. lol. This is the part that we do not agree upon AT ALL. lol. And it will keep coming back to this. You see fair representation because you are seeing it on a basic level of "Oh, there's two girls, a black boy and an Asian boy. That meets the requirements of having non-white males represented on the poster." Until you look at the placement of these non-white males. Do I think it was pretty decent for the representation of different ethnicities for 1949? Probably. I mean, considering the strength of white supremacy at the time, sure thing. Superman is gently holding the small Asian boy's face in his hand. For 1949, that was pretty gigantic, I get it. The black boy is all the way off to the side (don't worry, I expect the two dimensional art argument again), almost as hidden as the second girl, who is like a Waldo in a "Where's Waldo?" poster. The other girl, is dead center, and from a perspective of someone who is not educated in the finer details of comics art, appears to be being stared directly at my Superman who is lecturing about recognizing and calling out racism. You wish to remove any speculation that this was done intentionally. I understand that. But it's speculation and interpretation. Since neither of us know what exactly the artist of this poster meant. It's not foolish for anyone to think it could be done intentionally. It's not in all in our minds. Discrediting our interpretation or any speculation of this poster by using the ability to read art or not, is unnecessary, really. Because it's art. I think you have some undying love for Superman. Or so it seems that way with your defending this poster. It's not necessary to defend a fictional character, though. He's not real. So, it comes down to the creative team. We do not know who did this poster. Could it have been, at the time, the current Superman team? Sure. But we don't know. But given the patriarchy, the way society viewed women, the fact that it just got worse for them until women's lib, the fact that Superman was written even more from a patriarchal standpoint during the silver age, to think it might have been the creative team who maybe left out gender inequality, and/or had a say in the layout of this poster, is not completely out of reach. I get that this poster was created FOR an anti-racism message. It was specific to THAT. I get it. But toss in the art, and it just messes up the perspective for me. I even liked the poster until I started looking at it more, and I noticed the placement of the kids. [/quote] It's not meant to impress you, but rather to highlight the issue of brevity in advertising. There is only so much space on a page, only so much time that the audience is going to spend on viewing the ad and you have to take into account the understanding of your intended audience; which in this case is school aged children in 1949. With all that taken together brevity is important and that's a fact, not an opinion so I felt it necessary to illustrate it. And again, you can only take placement in the image seriously if there is a concrete reason to believe that the people who created the image were sexist or racist. And the point about the limitations of a two dimensional field in depicting a figure surrounded by a crowd isn't an argument, like the need of brevity in advertising that's just a flat fact and you can either take that into your considerations when reevaluating the image and alter your perceptions or simply move past it and find another element to support your continued belief but it's not admissible in supporting your claim once it's been highlighted. It is a crowd around superman, the people in the back ground aren't meant to be seen as further away or more hidden from Superman than the people in the foreground. Superman clutching the Asian boy's head, that person is behind his right shoulder and the gap between the girl with her back to the front and the boy with the bat to the side is left open because that's where "we" are standing in the crowd. That's not interpretation, that's structure. You can point out that it may appear that it's a lecture unfairly focused on a lone girl, and you're welcome to share how certain life experiences that i will never know caused you to react negatively when you first saw the image, but the fact remains that you're no longer fully uneducated in form now and because of that knowledge your original point about how it appears to you can no longer stand in the new found light of that knowledge. It appeared that way at first, and that's understandable, but structurally that personal appearance was not supported. And yes, if you wish to have a discussion beyond an initial gut reaction and exchange ideas in a fair and open fashion you do have to set speculation aside and go with verifiable elements. And all though we do not know for sure who drew the image, although there are reasons to believe it may have been Al Plastino as Rob Allen pointed out earlier, we do know that it was commissioned by a group that was very anti-discrimination so again I say you cannot point to all those terrible Superman images made by DC and say, "That's why this should be thought to be the same." And other than saying the same thing again you haven't showed further evidence for why people should believe otherwise. And no, this isn't going on because I have some undying love for Superman, I've always liked Batman more hence my groovy 70's noir Jim Gordon avatar...but really that's besides the point as not only would I be arguing the point just as passionately if the image was a snow man lecturing the kids, or a generic looking teacher or police officer but even if I was a die hard Superman fan you'd gain nothing by pointing that out as that is solely your speculation on my personal character and has nothing at all to do with the ideas I have expressed. We've all thus far avoided ad-hominem arguments in our discussion and I was exceedingly pleased with that. In addition to being disrespectful, as we all know,they add nothing to the discussion so they should be avoided at all times.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Dec 29, 2016 11:43:16 GMT -5
lololol, oh, Cap. You automatically have those privileges, but they do not automatically make you wrong, nor is it my intent to silence you. ♡ However, those privileges do mean you should probably listen before weighing in. Which you have done, and you even politely asked my opinion, explained your stance, and did not ridicule my thoughts and other interpretations of the poster. Thank you. I think if the black boy could be moved closer in, the Waldo girl in the back to be brought more to the front side, and one of the white boys placed directly in front of Superman where the first girl is, would be far more appropriate placement, especially given his message. I am unsure about the Asian boy, though. Something about his current placement bothers me somehow, but until I can put a firm finger on it, I remain undecided on it. Bring on the arguments! Fair points all. Thanks for answering, and you'll get no arguments from me. Love ya!
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 29, 2016 11:50:29 GMT -5
I am beginning to see the point of this discussion now: To wear me out so I stfu. lol.
I will try to address these, or at least reply again, during my lunch break.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 29, 2016 12:26:07 GMT -5
okay:
1. I have, repeatedly, expressed that I liked the anti-racism message. Just that I think things like gender inequality could have been mentioned. ESPECIALLY when you look at the placement of the two girls on the poster.
2. I have also expressed that I am not going to boycott DC over the poster, nor am I going to be marching out in the streets to have this poster removed from history. lol. I'm not that bent about this poster. I was just wanting to discuss what I see and what others have shared to have noticed when looking at the poster.
3. I am not focusing on the past. I'm discussing this poster, which is from the past. And, yes, I am using today's perspective to address those things, because by reflecting on history, we can see the awesome changes made, but we can also see how they still were not the best, and they were still lacking. And I expect that. I mean, come on guys, I read romance comics sometimes. I comment on the patriarchal garbage in those, too, but I still read them because they sometimes make me laugh, and it's nice to see how far we have come (and the art and the settings, and the history in them, all fascinate me).
I am not going to discuss how I need to back my argument if I want to have a discussion beyond gut reaction, or whatever, because I'm not doing this for that. I've made my argument. It's art. Since we don't know the true intentions-not the complete true intentions-of the poster, all we are going to do is just harp on our various points to our opinions on that. I am done doing that because we are just repeating ourselves, just sometimes we word it a little differently.
No hard feels on not having the same opinion about the poster. No one has to like it; no one has to dislike it. It's whatever you want it to mean to you. It's whatever you take away from it, just like any other piece of art. I see odd placement in the poster, but no one else does (except for Sorceress). And that is fine.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 29, 2016 15:57:50 GMT -5
I don't see any of this as a reason to condemn the people responsible for the poster, BTW. I just think it's an interesting reflection of how attitudes have changed in the decades since.
|
|
|
Post by Lolatadatodo on Dec 29, 2016 16:07:31 GMT -5
I don't see any of this as a reason to condemn the people responsible for the poster, BTW. I just think it's an interesting reflection of how attitudes have changed in the decades since. Well, clearly I look too into things, don't know anything about art, assume the worst, reach to be offended, and I condemn everyone. lol.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 29, 2016 16:25:02 GMT -5
I don't see any of this as a reason to condemn the people responsible for the poster, BTW. I just think it's an interesting reflection of how attitudes have changed in the decades since. Well, clearly I look too into things, don't know anything about art, assume the worst, reach to be offended, and I condemn everyone. lol. Not at all. Actually, I thought you were condemning the attitude rather than the individual. I think most likely the artist was just unthinkingly reproducing what was normal for the time. He might even have thought he was being progressive by including any girls at all. It doesn't make it right, but probably most other artists at the time would have produced a similar image. If a similar poster was made today it would almost certainly include a more equal balance of girls and boys and list gender along with race, national origin, etc, just because we've slowly become more aware in the 60 or 70 years since. Back then I imagine it was only a few exceptional people who would have thought of it. Even now race seems to trump gender in the American psyche, so there's still work to be done.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Dec 29, 2016 16:41:02 GMT -5
This seems relevant:
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,762
|
Post by shaxper on Dec 29, 2016 17:18:10 GMT -5
This seems relevant: LOVE Dinosaur Comics! I actually did two guest strips for them over a decade back, but I can't find them on the site anymore. One was surprisingly similar to the one you posted...
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Jan 6, 2017 12:49:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 6, 2017 16:11:07 GMT -5
That's a shame. I feel for the guy.
|
|