There is a lot being said about the inappropriateness of the Housewife Gone Wild Mary Jane Watson-Parker Comiquette that is being advertised and I can't really defend it, much as I would like to. Looking at the statue from the perspective of someone who appreciates the classic Good Girl Art of the 40s and 50s I can understand the statue's place in the genre, but I also get why so many find it offensive, though some the reactions from both the pro and anti-statue factions is equally bizarre.
The statue and others like it are being produced right at a time when, like the in the 60s, comic books are supposedly going through a period of growth and maturity as an art form. The statue represents a big step backwards for those concerned about the state and future of comic books. It could be worse, though. Fans should be grateful that MJ isn't portrayed in the style of an Art Frahm pin-up, tangled in the leash of the Spectacular Spider-Dog with her panties fallen down around her ankles while carry a bag of groceries.
Why do I think the term "Comiquette" is soon going to be co-opted and mean something else entirely?
Janet Van Dyne: "Oh, my gawd. Did you see She-Hulk today?"On the other hand, if the statue was of Mary Jane Watsow-Porker washing out the costume of the Spectacular Spider-Ham, I'd buy it in a second.
Carol Danvers: "Yeah, she's turned into such a Comiquette."
Tags: Spider-Man Seduction of the Innocent
20 comments:
Wowsers.
I was about to use the No. comment for your previous Wonder-Man art badness post...
Glad I saved it.
*Ahem*
No.
I'm also a fan of that 30s-50s (and Betty Page) good/bad-girl style artwork. Heck, I hang out regularly with a freckin' Roller Derby team...
But, No. Bad attempt at the style, and badly executed.
I think I have finally figured out why we Americans are one of the most aggressive nations in history! We are TERRIFIED of sexuality! In most of the civilized world, this statue would not prompt the perverted, blue-balled, artificially hysteric revulsion to playful erotica as it does here in the good old USA. Is it "feminism's" fault? "Puritanism's" fault? I don't know, but "I tremble for my country" and all that...
Maybe so, Anon. But I'm always wary of any claim that a country or society is better when it is considered okay to treat women as meat-spittoons.
This just strengthens my belief that there is nothing Marvel won't license.
And frankly I think this over-merchandising stinks.
I'd be willing to bet your Spider-Ham version would outsell the original. It's far more clever, yet would retain at least a certain segment of the pervy market.
Marvel isn't that bad. Now McDonald's or Hello Kitty, they will license anything.
Well, she may be haning out and she may be barefoot but she aint pregnant yet
I think I hurt myself laughing at your she-Hulk quote. As for MJ - excessive? Signs point to yes!
"The statue and others like it are being produced right at a time when, like the in the 60s, comic books are supposedly going through a period of growth and maturity as an art form."
Ah, right...like Marvel Zombies...gotcha.
Mostly. There is always that "10%".
Ok, this whole thing about Mary Jane's statue being an affront to comic books and all that is complete garbage. It's a comic book, and guess what? Mary Jane is not a superhero, she is the superhero's girlfriend, and she is nothing out of the ordinary. What did you expect? A picture of Mary Jane lifting weights and beating up Spider-man? If this was Wonder-woman doing laundry I could see people being upset. The reality is, women can do laundry and have rights at the same time. No, really. Feminists attacking every piece of culture that shows women doing something domestic is really getting old, if you don't like it don't buy it. Stop whining.
It isn't about being domestic.
It's hot, she's married, and at $125 it's for adults. Don't see the problem.
A big step backwards for those concerned about the state and future of comicbooks? Is this to say there's actual concern that this statue may be a defining moment leading to the fall of comics? Am I reading that correctly? I must not be, because that sounds ridiculous.
It's a statue of Mary Jane pulling a Spider-man costume from a laundry basket. Peter Parker and MJ are married, so is it really that offensive for a man's wife to be washing his laundry? Seriously? I've read a huge chunk of the Amazing Spider-man comics, and I've seen Peter doing laundry. Hell, I've seen him cooking for MJ and wearing an apron. I think I've also even seen him barefoot! Oh no! The sexist horror!
What a very lame thing to get worked up about.
Hello, anonymous troll with stunted social skills.
Sleestak said, "Hello, anonymous troll with stunted social skills."
I see, so if someone says something you don't like or is contrary to your opinion, then freedom of speech doesn't apply and allows you to engage in personal attacks.
Yet you have a problem with *my* free speech? How ironic.
I have little to zero respect for Anonymous cowards.
"I have little to zero respect for Anonymous cowards."
And I have no respect for those who safely hide behind a computer and bash other.
Very brave of you.
Who's hiding?
I am more worried about the state and future of softcore statuettes. The presence of an obviously Tide-influenced bottle of liquid detergent is THIS CLOSE to being product placement. What'll it be next time, a 2-liter bottle of of "Doctor Pep-Up"?!
The ONLY thing that should concern the artist sculpting a 3-D centerfold should be how to craft her boobs so that they're quite big but not TOO big, but just ALMOST too big, so you'd start to think they're too big but then you realize, no that's just right.
And worrying about inserting brand-name consumer goods can only distract the artist from that serious business of showcasing the non-consumer goodies.
Post a Comment