Jabrosky's Crimes Against Fantasy Art

[Tom]

I know. I just needed to do that for myself.

 

[Devor]

We'll give it a few days so that people understand a little about what just happened, and I think maybe on Wednesday we'll delete this thread.

 

[Philster401]

If I might ask why does the the whole thread have to be deleted, the thread itself contains good artwork while some of it is sexist, that doesn't mean the whole thread should be deleted. Even though I hold no power he I would think that thing thread should be closed not deleted. But again I say it's not my choice or decision.

 

[Devor]

If I might ask why does the the whole thread have to be deleted, the thread itself contains good artwork while some of it is sexist, that doesn't mean the whole thread should be deleted. Even though I hold no power he I would think that thing thread should be closed not deleted. But again I say it's not my choice or decision.

To be honest, we haven't talked about it yet. We might not delete it. But I wanted to post ahead of that discussion to give Jabrosky a heads up in case there is anything in the thread he wants to save - I'm fairly sure he can still view the thread. But I also understand why many people have come to feel very uncomfortable about the artwork here. The art forum moves very slowly, and I'm not sure it's worth giving people the willies now that he's been banned.

 

[Philster401]

I agree that some of these posts do come close if not completely break the forums rule only now do I relize(because my internet is slow and some of the newest images didn't load properly the first-time) that some of these posts need to be deleted.

 

[Nimue]

...I was actually going to say something in support of not deleting it, because I know some artists rely on forum threads as indexes of old artwork that they might not have saved elsewhere. As much as I might not like it...it is someone's art. But if you're letting him know if it's going to be deleted, I think that'd be a good compromise. And it's a good point about the pace of the art forum, and how long this would be hanging around.

 

[Philster401]

Here! Here is some lovely fantasy art of attractive black women doing badass things. Please, tell me again that we should settle for jungle warriors in bikinis.

Those are amazing painting.

 

[Devor]

...I was actually going to say something in support of not deleting it, because I know some artists rely on forum threads as indexes of old artwork that they might not have saved elsewhere. As much as I might not like it...it is someone's art. But if you're letting him know if it's going to be deleted, I think that'd be a good compromise. And it's a good point about the pace of the art forum, and how long this would be hanging around.

If that's that common of a practice with artists then I don't want to mess with it. 45 pages is a lot for him to go through in any amount of time. Maybe we'll move it to a faster forum like Writing Questions or Chit Chat so it's there for him while still sinking through the pages.

 

[Nameback]

@Nameback: Thank you for lecturing me on why I'm so wrong.

This seems unnecessary? I kept it 100% civil in my post and didn't impugn you personally in any way so I don't understand why you are registering indignation that I disagreed with you. You seem to be suggesting that I did something rude just by disagreeing with you, which I don't get, nor do I understand the need for starting out with a hostile barb!

I'm aware of African clothing conventions, and that African clothing is traditionally more revealing than European (due to climate differences), but that's no excuse for blatant sexualization. One element of a composition is not enough to consider; you have to look at the whole thing--the clothing, the figure beneath, the way the artist presents the figure, the intent behind the scene.

Indeed, although I think I addressed that also. This was merely one point, mainly because you mentioned drawing women in armor.

Many of Jabrosky's female characters are drawn with the focus on their breasts or buttocks, or in sexy poses. There's nothing wrong with that in the right context, but an artist should be able to depict a female character in a non-sexual way when there's nothing sexual in the context. If you can't tell the difference between wholesome sexuality and fetishization/sexual objectification, I'd recommend heading over to Escher Girls or Bikini Armor Battle Damage. Many of the pictures they feature and deconstruct deal with the fetishization/sexual objectification of female characters.

I understand your argument, but I disagree that Jab has never done that. Some of his drawings are definitely sexualized, but not all of them are. I'm familiar with both those tumblrs (and I like them) and the general discussion around objectification in fantasy, but the line between "wholesome sexuality" and objectification is not necessarily bright and obvious in every instance, and I think even most people who ardently oppose rampant objectification will agree with that. Yes, a lot of Jab's work is sexualized, but personally I see that balanced by his stories and settings. He's not just posting some T&A and leaving it at that, but crafting characters and stories, which for me, and given what I see as agency in those stories goes a long way towards avoiding objectification. I'm not saying you must agree with me, but that I have a different interpretation.

I'm not arriving at my disagreement with you out of ignorance of concepts like objectification, and I thought my post made that clear; I simply stated that I didn't feel Jab's work met the criteria in the way that you did.

You seem to be projecting racism on me--I don't consider a black beauty standard wrong in any way. Where the hell could you have taken that from in my post? Just because I disagree with someone's depiction of black women does not mean I don't consider black women beautiful. I don't like Jabrosky's portrayal of black women, because I consider it racist, sexist, and disrespectful.

Plus, you seem to be under the impression that I disagree with interracial couples. No. I simply find it off-putting that Jabrosky depicts his self-insert in sexual situations with fetishized black women. That's what I mean by depicting women as sexual objects. They are accessories for the male character's enjoyment.

I didn't suggest that you don't consider black women beautiful. I suggested that you may have a problem with a black "beauty standard" (or at least Jabrosky espousing one), meaning that black women set a standard or ideal of what is beautiful. The difference being that someone with no beauty standard would find black and white (and NBPOC) women equally beautiful, whereas someone with a black beauty standard would consider their ideal of beauty to be black. Of course, many people have a beauty standard that is similar to themselves or the people they grew up with, so in turn many people have a black beauty standard.

I'm suggesting the same concept as a Eurocentric beauty standard--the one that I am sure you would rightfully decry because it is the socially dominant beauty standard that acts as a part of white supremacy in a way that, say, a black beauty standard does not. Like white pride vs black pride--one is unacceptable, one is acceptable. I'm suggesting that, analogous to the white person who gets upset at the notion of black pride, you may being reacting negatively to the idea of a black beauty standard, at least when such a standard is espoused by a non-black person.

You post, to me, suggested discomfort with the idea that someone who is not black may find black women to be especially or ideally beautiful. Presumably you'd be OK with someone who is black expressing that opinion, although I can't know for certain. In any case, to me there seems to be an embedded assumption--it's healthy or acceptable for black people to find black people especially beautiful, but deviant and unacceptable for non-black people to find black people especially beautiful. I don't think that's true, and I do think it's implied in the way you raised the issue, and I do think it implies that there must be something deviant or sick about having preferences outside one's own race. I don't think you intended to make such an implication, but good intentions alone do not mitigate problematic statements. I was suggesting that your statement was indeed problematic, intentions totally irrelevant.

I also already explained that I disagree that Jab's female characters are all subordinate to male characters' desires, so I won't reprise that here. Suffice to say I understand your argument, but I interpret the evidence differently--I agree that what you are alleging would be bad if it is true of someone's work, but I disagree that it is true in the case of Jab's work.

Please discover the difference between "preferring a black female standard of beauty" and "exclusively fetishizing black women". Maybe then you'll see why Jabrosky's artwork bothers me so very much.

Ta. I need to take an aspirin.

This is pretty condescending! I'm not coming at this out of ignorance. I assure you that I'm plenty well-versed in intersectional thought--maybe not as much as you, but maybe I am! I think the line between fetishization and preference is treating people (or characters) like objects, not like human beings. Now, clearly you think Jab treats his characters like objects, and I think he treats them like human beings. That is a disagreement about the common evidence--not a disagreement of values, nor a disagreement based in differences in understanding of intersectional issues, feminism, or anti-racism.

I don't appreciate the condescension or the hostility, to be totally honest. I didn't condescend to you at all in my initial reply, and I didn't impugn your character. I disagreed with you and said your statements and arguments were problematic. And, no, this is not tone-policing; I'm not using this to derail or invalidate your argument at all. I'm not substituting a critique of tone for a critique of content--I'm critiquing your content, but I am also making a separate statement that I feel like I'm receiving some really unprovoked rudeness. I'm spelling this out so explicitly (as I have all my arguments thus far) not out of condescension, but because social justice conversations can be very difficult and very personal, and I want to be as clear as possible to avoid being misconstrued. I have trouble being both brief and clear, and my length of reply is not meant to impugn anyone else.

 

[Nameback]

Honestly, I could go on about this. I could bring in things that Jabrosky has said elsewhere that seriously make me doubt the intentions behind the artwork.

Bringing in outside context is of course important--part of the reason I defended Jab is because I've always thought he was pretty darn invested in rebutting white supremacy, especially in historiographic terms. He's always made a point of rendering Ancient Egyptians as black, talking about the historical crime that is the Hamitic Hypothesis, and pointing out the cultural achievements of pre-colonial African civilizations. He also has made a point of knocking down white supremacist narratives of European history by emphasizing the "barbarian" past of Northern Europe.

I have a lot of the same hobby-horses as Jab (white supremacist mis-renderings of African history is something I am forever talking about, because it plays a huge role in maintaining white supremacy in my opinion), so I've always appreciated his mildly Afrocentric stance on history.

But you're posing the question as though the only options are these sexualized images of black women, or nobody will ever draw black women again! I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this argument, sorry. We'll just break this down.

I never suggested that. I only suggested that sexualized images of black women are not, in and of themselves, bad things, nor is it bad for a non-black person to find black women especially beautiful. And I argued that Tom's initial critique did kind of imply those things, albeit unintentionally.

You had that strawman up in a jiffy. You're saying that if someone doesn't like Jabrosky's drawings of "sexually attractive" black women, they must, by deduction, dislike ALL depictions of attractive black women? That's, uh, that's pretty ridiculous. The logic in the rest of the post is somewhat along those lines.

Not at all. I said that black women can't win in the West. White supremacy so often renders them as totally undesirable, unfeminine, unattractive, etc. But, when individuals who are non-black buck that trend and instead see black women as especially attractive, a lot of folks rush in to say that's also white supremacy. And most of those folks are white feminists, to be totally frank. I think it's a bit of a blind spot that grew out of an over-zealous desire to combat fetishism but which has become something of a catch-22. It's gotten to the point where any praise of black female beauty by a non-black person comes under suspicion, which I don't think actually serves black women. I think it's problematic, and white feminists who want to be allies need to be aware of it.

Good thing these boobs aren't being drawn by a Western white male in a sexual way! Wait, um...

Are the boobs drawn sexually, or are they being interpreted that way because of Western context?

Right, he's just made every single one of his main characters and every female character's love interest into a white man. In African settings.

Every female character? Pretty sure this is not true. Definitely some, but also isn't there something to be said for wanting to represent your own experience when it's underrepresented? White male/black female pairings are one of the rarest pairings represented in fiction. On network TV, we've only had one lead-character BW/WM pairing ever, and that was on Scandal (When White Men Love Black Women on TV | tressiemc -- this source is from a black female sociologist who examined this issue on her blog). If this is your lived experience, of course you're going to want to fill in the gap. I'd love to see more BW/WM pairings in fiction, along with East Asian male/non-EA female pairings, which are also sadly too rare (East Asian men in general get terrible short shrift when it comes to being cast as romantic leads, Glenn from the Walking Dead being notable for being such an outlier).

What makes them valuable is that white men want to have sex with them! Of course.

I...I just can't. I can't.

Well that's an extremely uncharitable interpretation of what I said. First of all, I pointed out that Shonda Rhimes, a black woman, has made a theme of it in her television shows--perhaps for a good reason. Second, this is very straight-forward: If society says "only black men find black women desirable," then that's clearly meant to be a damaging stereotype. Portraying a non-black man finding a black woman desirable is a direct refutation of that particular narrative. It's not saying that black women are valuable because white men want them--it's a rebuttal to a specific white supremacist narrative that does exist.

And, as I said to Tom, I don't appreciate the condescension.

EDIT: let me add this real quick to the conversation as a whole: I think that if you're a white feminist who wants to be an ally to women of color, you have to be open to the possibility that your statements, made with the intention of defending women of color, may themselves be problematic. And another ally may point that out to you. Automatically assuming a defensive stance when someone critiques you and says you are being problematic is not good allyship. Of course I'm not suggesting you must agree with anyone who critiques you in order to be a good ally, but I think it's necessary to be at least open to the possibility, and I feel like I'm not really seeing that here and it's kind of a bummer.

 

[Philip Overby]

Just a reminder: if you're going to have a discussion here, please do so without snide comments or attacking any other members. Not saying anyone is doing that, but be aware of how your post might sound to other people before you post it.

Again, this isn't directed at any one person. Just a heads-up.

 

[Nimue]

Automatically assuming a defensive stance when someone critiques you and says you are being problematic is not good allyship.

Dude. Well, that's a good description of how Jabrosky responded to things. And frankly, as far as "problematic" issues go, when the argument is between a white guy who wants to draw sexualized pictures of black women in tribal getup and a white woman who's saying that's kind of gross and not a good representation of anyone... I don't think the problematicness is evenly distributed.

Look, this discussion is kind of over. Jabrosky is banned. For like the fourth time, apparently. For posting inappropriate and offensive things. Again. Not interested in reading a couple thousand words of argument over how MAYBE he's actually RIGHT about everything and not racist AT ALL and really I'M the one being racist deep down. ...Yeah, um, I'm gonna go to bed.

 

[Philip Overby]

I'm going to lock this thread for now.