Porn or Art?

There is the age old debate between porn and art and what qualifies as each. Recently DC comics have come under scrutiny for some portrayals of some of their female characters in the relaunch of the new 52. But should they be?

I have talked about this topic before but since the last time there have been a few changes in how the media has portrayed DC comics in regards to sex. The debate is as old as art and naked pictures themselves. What is too far, what is too provocative, what is too explicit and what is just a picture of an imaginary character? The main cause of all this is the now infamous Catwoman #1 as well as Red Hood and the Outlaws #1.

Many parents and readers took up arms against “sex” in the comic and the portrayal of women as scantly clad heroines fighting in battles that sometimes result in torn clothing. Sure, most of these are valid cases, but what the media tend to look past is the changes DC has made as well as some other stories they are telling or have told.

Look at this selection from Batwoman #4. I would argue it is more provocative than any scene in Catwoman #1, it has a real sense of passion to it and reading the scenes in context makes it feel even more like a splash of erotica in the superhero universe. This would seem to be a media goldmine if they wanted, a lesbian superhero having sex in a book under the larger Batman banner.  But we never saw it mentioned in the Fox News report or on CNN. It was as if it never happened, why?

One could argue that more than a quicky on a rooftop, drawn by a known erotica artist, Guillem March who has done illustrations for european Playboy and more, that it was artistic in nature. JH Williams III has a true artistic style and chose to depict this scene with a soft hand and a reserved approach to the actual sex. Everything is implied and there is never any question what is happening. Yet no coverage was given. Is this simply because of the style?

Sex is not new in comics, but it seems like suddenly we are more concerned as to what is being shown. Few can argue that nothing in the comics is any worse that what can be seen on basic cable around 9pm at night, but we still see comics as a child’s product and something that can never be true art.

Look at Alex Ross, JH Williams III, Gabriele Dell’Otto or Marko Djurdjevic‘s illustrations and tell me they are not art. Yet all of them, with the possible omission of Ross, can draw a stunning woman who can be as scantly clad as any heroine and make you take notice to the beauty she is emitting.

There is a clear distinction between cheesecake and art and I wish more people would understand that aspect of the medium.

DC is even a leader in changing this approach, look at the old DCU versus the DCnU.

DC is the company that once had Superman make a porno, Powergirl’s chest grow bigger with every appearance, Mary Marvel become a dominatrix and have Wonder Woman be a bondage fan’s wet dream. Now in 2012 when other companies are pushing the sex aspect of their characters to new levels, where Grimm Fairy Tales has covers with naked characters going for $300 and where we can have a slutty Dorothy of Oz book, DC chose to cover most of their female characters up when they relaunched. About 90% of the female heros shown in the DCnU have had pants, less exposed cleavage and no “wonder thongs”. Yet again there is almost no media coverage for this change in business, and IT IS a change in business.

Zatanna was a character in the 90’s Batman: The Animated Series and she had her traditional fishnets and corset, if she were to appear in the cartoon today she would have on pants. Halle Berry’s Catwoman was wearing a lot less than Anne Hathaway will be in the upcoming Dark Knight Rises movie. They are changing the images of these characters they have used for years. They are going against the cheescake poses and are focusing on character first.

Sure there are a few books that are exceptions to this rule, but for the most part DC is really working towards creating art, something that can be used in any media and not raise as many eyebrows. They are rebranding characters for a new generation in a way that tends to skew in a more conservative nature than other forms of media are going.

But we dont see reports on any of that. We don’t see news about Alex Ross getting a spotlight at the Warhol Museum or the changes DC has made to its heroines in regards their costumes. All we see is stories on Superhero sex, slutty heroines in torn costumes and the negatives of the art in the medium. It’s a shame because I think comic art and DC in general are making real progress to reach a more refined level of art for the medium, but it seems like I am the only one who cares.