Draw Harley Quinn Naked, Killing Herself, To Win DC Artist Contest

[Lilani]

If this were batman, or the Joker. The outrage wouldn't be over sexualizing male suicide. it would be, because they were killing batman/joker!

Though I have a feeling if they were asking for illustrations of Batman or the Joker committing suicide in a bathtub, and made sure to explicitly state that they must be naked even though as much is implied by their simply being in the bathtub, I'm sure that would have raised more than one eyebrow.

 

[AlexReynard]

"but the main thrust of the response was that a strong female character was being reduced to a sexualized nothing"

And here we have definitive proof that the people complaining about this are reactionary idiots who have no idea what they're talking about. Apparently all female characters are "strong female characters" now, otherwise the people complaining about this might have noticed that Harley's entire purpose is a punching bag for the Joker. Her existence is a sick joke about domestic violence. And while, yes, the character may have evolved beyond that, there's no denying that's what she was created as. So, what, all of a sudden violence happening to her is a bad thing? When the Joker flings her out a window in Mad Love, that's just fine. But her killing herself is a big deal? And it'd be nice if this article wasn't blatantly dishonest in pretending that nudity is a requirement of the contest.

Here's my point: either dark humor is funny or it isn't. Either be offended consistently or be ignored.

 

[Lilani]

Also Never even heard of this "suicide prevention week". Then again there are literally THOUSANDS of made up weeks and other crap made by cities, organizations, governments, businesses EVERY DAY! And last I checked does anyone know hwo created the whole suicide week? Personally I'm quite apathetic to when people make up weeks and such but hey I guess I should celebrate Smurf week in Los Angeles cause of The Smurfs 2 coming out soon. Seriously go out and ask people if they even know what week this is and chances are the amounts known and the fucks given would be equal, none.

I can get why people wouldn't like it but it's just a stupid contest. It's not canon or anything. Hell if you really cared so much about the suicide prevention then you could easily meet their criteria by DC and give the opposite message within the work. Nowhere in their guidelines are they endorsing or making light of suicide so that is literally you interpreting the contest the way you want it to mean to be offended.

National Suicide Prevention week has been going on since 1975. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Suicide_Prevention_Week] It is held in the week which surrounds World Suicide Prevention Day, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Suicide_Prevention_Day] which is hosted by the International Association for Suicide Prevention, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Suicide_Prevention] World Health Organization, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization] and the World Federation for Mental Health. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Federation_for_Mental_Health] These organizations join forces to hold events, rallies, and seminars to spread awareness and outreach about suicide prevention, to provide people resources and information on what to do if a loved one tries to commit suicide or if they suspect they might, and to provide resources those who are themselves contemplating suicide.

Unless you are the almighty and omniscient Keeper of All Knowledge, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[AlexReynard]

Allright, I was wrong. I looked over the description quoted here and the nudity seemed pretty clearly a suggestion. But when I was linked to the DC page describing the four panels, it was definitely mentioned. STILL, it is nonetheless irresponsible for this writer to act as if that is the FOCUS of the contest.

 

[The Deadpool]

That description was from the first panel.

I know. She is standing in a rooftop trying to attract lightining and failing. She has this "I can't believe this shit!" look on her face.

And if that's what they want, maybe they should have mentioned it?

Nope. This was likely not written as a contest. This is likely Palmiotti's instructions to his artist that DC just took and made into the contest.

Part of an artist's job is to gleam meaning for his writer. Some writers make this easy with painstakingly detailed instructions (Moore, Gaiman) others give just the bare bones (Stan Lee), but most are in the middle. Being able to draw the meaning from that is a key part of the job. It's not just "drawing pretty things."

And made the description of last panel NOT over-the-top, and very simple, maybe depict her slitting her wrists?

It's still a comic. If I were to hazard a guess here, Palmiotti pictures her standing on the bathtub, holding all that crap over her nakedness.

Although I don't think that's the tone they wanted, but this just proves they should have mentioned it in the description.

They could have wanted a different tone. But here's the thing: Nothing there is inherently sexual nor objectifying. You read the tone you want to read into it. The question isn't "Why did DC write a sexist description of a comic panel?" It is "Why are you incapable of imagining a naked woman NOT being sexualized?

 

[Imp_Emissary]

You mean like what you said about fictional characters? Or even that very sentence above?

Look. Here's why I don't like this whole idea;

1. The way they're going about this is kind of making light of suicide, with no context as to why she is committing it.
2. They are doing such a thing at about the worst time they could have picked(right before Suicide Prevention week).
3. I like the Character, and don't appreciate how they are using her, symbolically.

Do I think fictional characters should be treated like real people? No more than I think businesses should be treated like people[sub](the answer is no, not at all)[/sub]

Do I think they can show more respect to a character who is important to a lot of people, and an issue that affects probably even more people? Yes. Yes indeed.

I'm pretty sure the guidelines are simple criteria to be met but the context is still in control of the artist. Also Never even heard of this "suicide prevention week". Then again there are literally THOUSANDS of made up weeks and other crap made by cities, organizations, governments, businesses EVERY DAY! And last I checked does anyone know hwo created the whole suicide week? Personally I'm quite apathetic to when people make up weeks and such but hey I guess I should celebrate Smurf week in Los Angeles cause of The Smurfs 2 coming out soon. Seriously go out and ask people if they even know what week this is and chances are the amounts known and the fucks given would be equal, none.

I can get why people wouldn't like it but it's just a stupid contest. It's not canon or anything. Hell if you really cared so much about the suicide prevention then you could easily meet their criteria by DC and give the opposite message within the work. Nowhere in their guidelines are they endorsing or making light of suicide so that is literally you interpreting the contest the way you want it to mean to be offended.

If the best thing you can say about something you're defending is that it's "a stupid contest", I don't think the thing is very redeemable.

That said, it is very possible that they didn't know Suicide Prevention Week was coming up(though this is the 39th Annual year of the event, so it is hardly a new thing out of the blue). http://www.suicidology.org/resources/nspw

As for me interpreting the contest the way I want to so I can be offended? That is ridiculous.
I'm offended because they have made it clear they are trying to make light of suicide with the depiction details of Harley's suicide.

I don't believe that their intentions were ill. Just like with many PR problems gone belly up, I'm sure it was started as just a nice way to give some artistic fans something neat to do.
In this case, they shit in the bed.

Suicide is an issue that affects almost everyone at some point or another. If you're going to make light of it, you should have a good reason/cause. In this case, I don't see any.

You could argue a good joke could be worth it, but in this case the joke isn't all that good. Without much narrative context it just doesn't work when using a well established character.

 

[The Deadpool]

Okay, the reason people are angry about that fourth panel is not JUST because she is naked.

It's why SHE complained. Even if it isn't YOUR complaint.

That entire paragraph is, in contrast to the three previous panels, telling a fairly more realistic version of suicide.

That'd be the point, wouldn't it? They are all zany, and crazy, and done by Harley in full zany costume.

The seriously, realistic, depressing one? Is done by the woman beneath the mask. Remember that naked means more than just nude. It means exposed and vulnerable.

After all, if you're going to state the obvious,

But it isn't obvious. She is a lunatic trying to kill herself with electricity. Taking her costume off isn't a requirement. It would have been perfectly legitimate to draw her in her unniform.

It doesn't matter that naked is only one word in that sentence, its the fact that it is included in that sentence at all.

It matters that her THOUGHTS and FEELING in the scene are given far more attention than her appearance.

When a writer wants cheesecake, they ASK for cheesecake. There was no mention of poses, or curves, or anything. One word for appearance (naked) and TWO SENTENCES WORTH OF EMOTIONS.

Objectifying is taking away all personality traits (emotions, thoughts and feelings) and replacing it with physical gratification. Something to look at.

I am a horrible grammar person so ask if things are confusing. The fact that this disclaimer is becoming more required on forums is sad indeed.

Your grammar is fine. I do feel bad you find the need to add the disclaimer. I never assumed otherwise.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

I think we should wait until we can see the contest entries before we lay down the judgement.

 

[Lieju]

That description was from the first panel.

I know. She is standing in a rooftop trying to attract lightining and failing. She has this "I can't believe this shit!" look on her face.

Not what it says. The words are 'She is looking at us like she cannot believe what she is doing. Beside herself. Not happy.'

What kind of mood and expression that makes you think of?

And if that's what they want, maybe they should have mentioned it?

Nope. This was likely not written as a contest. This is likely Palmiotti's instructions to his artist that DC just took and made into the contest.

Part of an artist's job is to gleam meaning for his writer. Some writers make this easy with painstakingly detailed instructions (Moore, Gaiman) others give just the bare bones (Stan Lee), but most are in the middle. Being able to draw the meaning from that is a key part of the job. It's not just "drawing pretty things."

So? That just means the fault of this is not the one's who originally wrote the description but the one who decided to take it out of context to make a contest out of it.

If this were an actual script the context would presumably be more clear, but seeing as no-one agrees on what the meaning of mood should be, are you expecting your artist to be a mind-reader?

If I were to hazard a guess here, Palmiotti pictures her standing on the bathtub, holding all that crap over her nakedness.

So, you are a mind-reader! Especially when the description especially says she should be sitting in the tub, the appliances hanging above her.

They could have wanted a different tone. But here's the thing: Nothing there is inherently sexual nor objectifying. You read the tone you want to read into it. The question isn't "Why did DC write a sexist description of a comic panel?" It is "Why are you incapable of imagining a naked woman NOT being sexualized?

Because US superhero-comics (and especially DC lately) have a bad track-record of it. (Nudity doesn't equal sexual or objectifying for me personally.)

So they might have wanted to put it in the description. Or not mention specifically they want her naked.
Or put in some totally different scenario that doesn't include nakedness. I can think of a lot of ways of killing yourself that don't include stripping down.

Not that electrocuting yourself does either.

 

[Lilani]

And yet I'm still not giving a fuck. Nor have I heard of ANY of that having actually spent a younger part of my youth actually working with people who considered suicide. So yeah sounds like a nice cause but also sounds like it's just in it's own little echo chamber.

No really I've already expressed my opinion on the matter that it really isn't a big deal at all. Also love the quip at the end. Cause it's this stuff that really has made me stop posting or even dealing with these forums.

I only added the quip on the end because your post was dripping with a desire to put down the poster you were talking to. You were using your assumption that the event is fake or new as a device to gain superiority and thus "win," and now that that's been taken away you're resorting to the "I win because I give no fucks" strategy. I too am tired of seeing this sort of attitude on these forums.

 

[subtlefuge]

I think this whole situation is just weird.

That said, if I were drawing a comic book character in the bath, I think that saying that that character is not wearing the costume that is covering their entire body head to toe at all times might be an important distinction.

I guess this is one of those things where there's not way to really judge the intentions fairly without knowing what the creators were thinking at that exact moment. Not that that prevents everyone from just assuming and going bat-shit crazy over this.

 

[JaredXE]

but the main thrust of the response was that a strong female character was being reduced to a sexualized nothing, and put in a situation that is, at best, unpleasant.

Since when was Harley a "strong female character"? She's nothing without "Mista J", her entire creation and focus of her existence is to be a sexual butt-monkey to a rampaging lunatic. Hell, her whole backstory boils down to: "Bright young woman earns a doctorate in psychology and throws it all away for a man."

Sorry to be a nit picker, I love Harley, but I would never characterize her as a strong female character.

 

[Abomination]

Oh dear, a woman who has been depicted as being completely devoted to a homicidal maniac and is clinically insane is offing herself in a bathtub.

Clearly this is sexist that someone would dare draw an insane WOMAN doing something insane while being NAKED involving SUICIDE.

WOMAN
NAKED
SUICIDE

Ignore everything else. Those are the triggers of these social justice warriors.

Forget the other things like

FICTIONAL
INSANE
CARTOON
VILLAN

 

[unacomn]

Reading the title really made me thing "Wth is wrong with you DC!?"
But reading the actual post on the DC website, with Harley in a bathtub, with water, and a ton of electrical appliances, that's not as creepily deranged as the title makes it out to be.
But I am upset they're offing Harley. Unless they turned her into Deadpool, or something, or the power goes out when she tries to drop them.

 

[Thoric485]

Breaking news: When people go to art school is highly likely they'll be forced to draw nude female models. Call the authorities.

 

[-Dragmire-]

So why should we be outraged again? It's not even canon and it's a fictional person.

"The sexualisation of suicide is something I will not be putting effort into"

Newsflash: Not all nudity is sexual and sometimes nudity is appropriate given the context, like say for example a bath.

Seriously show that description to a nudist and ask them to find anything sexual about it. They'll either go for the chicken bikini or give you a disturbing stare like you get off on people killing themselves.

I've found that certain cultures have quite a bit of difficulty separating nudity and sexuality. Not too sure why but it's not that uncommon to find people who can't seem to separate them. On the other hand, comics have often sexualized female characters which could lead people to the assumption that DC wanted the character to be depicted that way.

I don't know how I feel about some of the debates brought up by this controversy but I do feel that this is a pretty dumb contest.

They never specified if it should be sexual so that's left up to the artist to decide.

I realize that, I'm just saying that it's not far fetched for people to assume that a sexual aspect to the picture is expected based on comics' track record when depicting their female characters. People tend to shape their understanding of new information to fit with preconceived notions.

 

[Psychobabble]

Oh dear, a woman who has been depicted as being completely devoted to a homicidal maniac and is clinically insane is offing herself in a bathtub.

Clearly this is sexist that someone would dare draw an insane WOMAN doing something insane while being NAKED involving SUICIDE.

WOMAN
NAKED
SUICIDE

Ignore everything else. Those are the triggers of these social justice warriors.

Forget the other things like

FICTIONAL
INSANE
CARTOON
VILLAN

Yes exactly Abomination! Thank you for pointing out so succinctly why this contest should be banned.