Frank Cho Walks off Wonder Woman - Claims Censorship

[Overhead]

Well firstly, it's not censorship. DC owns Wonder Woman. Cho is an artist for hire who was hired to commission a series of covers. It's not free-speech when you're working on commission to draw a copyrighted character owned by your employer.

Secondly, Cho quit, he wasn't fired.

Three, what he quit over seems really minor. A slight cropping of one cover so that a small portion of Wonder Woman's bum and pants aren't shown.

Fourth, on model isn't the same as appropriate context. If you drew Wonder Woman on model but directly from above so you could see her breast and nipples pressing against her breastplate, that wouldn't be okay as an appropriate comics cover. Similar if you drew her from directly below so you could look up her skirt and drew a detailed outline of her vagina pressed against her knickers. Now Cho's drawing was nowhere near as bad as either of those example, but then the reaction of slightly cropping the image to take away the bit that was objected to was hardly extreme either.

Taking all these points into consideration, unless something new is revealed then based on the information available Cho is pretty much just a whiner.

 

[McMarbles]

Never judge something from only one side of a story, it's just a shortcut to a bad decision.

But it fits his narrative!

 

[DefunctTheory]

It's appears that Cho is being nothing more then an unprofessional dick here.

He was hired to draw pictures. The people who he reported to didn't like the final product, and so changed it. That's pretty much the end of it.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

I like Frank Cho's art, and the way he loves to make fun of how people have such a problem with how he draws his women sexy. But yeah, it's pretty obvious he is a bit too full of himself.

OT: Well, we have only one side of the story. Though Cho is not exactly making himself look good.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

It's appears that Cho is being nothing more then an unprofessional dick here.

He was hired to draw pictures. The people who he reported to didn't like the final product, and so changed it. That's pretty much the end of it.

Yeah, artistic integrity doesn't apply to commission work. If they're paying Cho for a product he's not producing and complain, that's not censorship. That's just business. Literally, its a business arrangement.

 

[SirSullymore]

Never judge something from only one side of a story, it's just a shortcut to a bad decision.

But it fits his narrative!

Are you talking about me?

 

[axlryder]

Having worked on commission doing graphics for several different companies (mostly cleaning products, but also a few pop culture things), I will say that it can be very frustrating when you're known for doing things in a certain style, someone hires you on who you know is aware of said style, and then they ask you to do something that runs totally counter to said style. An extreme example would be having attempted to higher the late H.R. Gigir and then asked him to emulate Lisa Frank (though to be fair, they both tended to draw abominations).

Obviously there is room for flexibility, and sometimes they're just trying to throw the artist a bone if they haven't worked in a while. Occasionally you get people hoping you might fuse your style with a different style or topic than what you're accustomed to in order to create a unique look.

I bring this up because, as far as I understand it, variant covers are really meant to reflect the artist's particular style more so than be in-keeping with the rest of the comic, and creative decisions are typically are left in the hands of the artist. Obviously the more controversial content is a grey area, but that brings me back to the initial paragraph. If you hire an artist known for cheesecake, it could be seen as a bit rude to fight them on any inclusion of that every step of the way (especially if they're explicitly trying to "play nice and not rock the boat").

That said, we don't even know who hired Cho on for this project or what he was told upon getting hired. If he was told "full creative control" or to just "do his thing" then I'd say this is on DC and possibly Rucka. If they didn't even bring it up then I'd say everyone is at fault, as that would imply Cho didn't think to ask or try to get any protection in his contract.

We know that Cho says DC was "accommodating", but that doesn't really mean anything. The fact that Cho himself didn't disclose anything about the hiring process (and possibly any complaints made to the higher ups about Rucka) makes me more wary of Cho's side of the story, but it's possible Cho doesn't want to completely burn that particular bridge.

That aside, it doesn't seem unlikely that Cho was pestered about quite a bit more than simply the third cover being cropped awkwardly, but IF it was cropped without even notifying him, and he found out after the fact, then I'd say he has a right to be very pissed about it (even though I'm sure Cho's contract favor's Rucka here). To alter an artist's work without notifying them in a collaborative environment is just a huge middle finger.

That's pretty much just to play devil's advocate here. I tend to agree with a lot of what the people above me have said against Cho. The fact that he called it censorship in this sort of a business context is very cringe inducing.

 

[The Lunatic]

The guy can choose to walk away from jobs he no longer feels comfortable doing.

Admittedly, the allegations of censorship and so on have to be taken with some salt and I'd have to wait for more information before I really judge too much.

However, as an artist, you're not required to draw art you don't want to, or don't feel comfortable with the usage of.

Unless you're binded by a contract, in which case, GG.

 

[Ryotknife]

Well, I can not spot a difference between the first two. The third one the difference is quite moot. That said, I can see how tiny minor seemingly frivolous changes can irritate someone to the point where they snap (however, that is life). Its not like they said "draw a different pose" or some major changes, they just zoomed in a little bit and moved it ever so slightly to the right. I mean, I had to pull a ruler out to tell the difference and it is quite minor.

But, this is art, which is like 90% bullshit anyways.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Apparently he talked to The Mary Sue to give more in depth information on the subject.

http://www.themarysue.com/frank-cho-wonder-woman/

Spoiler

Since you?re asking me a straight question, I?m going to answer honestly as possible from my point of view.
Wonder Woman was my dream job at DC Comics. I love and respect the character very much. When I was invited by DC to draw the 24 variant covers for Wonder Woman, I was ecstatic. I was told that I had complete freedom on the variant covers and the only person in charge of me was the senior art director, Mark Chiarello, who I greatly respect. Win-win for everyone.
Now the variant covers are handled by entirely separate editorial office than the rest of the books. I was given assurance that I would not have to deal with the Wonder Woman book writer or editor at all, and were told I would only be dealing with Mark Chiarello. So I came onboard and started working right away.
Everything went smoothly at first. I turned in my first batch of cover sketches and Chiarello approved them, and I started finishing and inking them ASAP since these were biweekly covers and we had limited time. Then Chiarello started getting art notes from Greg Rucka ordering him to tell me to alter and change things on the covers. (Remove arm band, make the skirt longer and wider to cover her up, showing too much skin, add the lasso here, etc.) Well, Chiarello and I were baffled and annoyed by Greg Rucka?s art change orders. More so, since the interior pages were showing the same amount or more skin than my variant covers. (For example: Issue #2, panel One, etc.) I requested that Greg Rucka back off and let me do my variant covers in peace. After all, these were minor and subjective changes. And let?s face it, being told by a non-artistic freelancer what I can and cannot draw didn?t sit too well with me.
Then things got ugly. Apparently unbeknownst to Chiarello and me, DC, for whatever reason, gave Greg Rucka complete and total editorial control on Wonder Woman including variant covers by contract. My promises of creative freedom were verbal. I think this is a case of complete miscommunication and things falling through the crack during the post-DC headquarter move to LA. Had I?ve known Greg Rucka had complete editorial control over the variant covers, I would have never came onboard Wonder Woman.
Since we were on the same team with the same goal ? making great Wonder Woman comics, Mark Chiarello and I tried to reason with Greg Rucka to back off and let me do the variant covers in peace. But Rucka refused and tried to hammer me in line. Things escalated and got toxic very fast. The act of a freelance writer art directing me, overruling my senior art director, altering my artwork without consent was too much. I realized after Rucka?s problems with my Wonder Woman #3 variant cover, my excitement and desire for the project have completely disappeared and I decided to bow out quietly after I finish my Wonder Woman #4 variant cover. (This was around end of May.) But DC wanted me to stay and finish out #5 and #6 covers to give them some time to find my replacement.
So I stuck it out and tried to deal with the flagrant disrespect for six issues, and quietly stepped off until Bleeding Cool gave me little choice but to respond. They caught wind that there was some discord in the Wonder Woman office over my covers and was about to cast negative light on the wrong people. So I went public yesterday and set the story straight, correctly naming Greg Rucka as the source of the problem before the wrong information was published.

Take that for what you will.

 

[Pseudonym]

I don't know what happened, but it looks to me like creative and personal differences exploded in a rather embarrassing way. In any case, if you cooperate with other artists you can't always have your way and while walking away when things don't go your way and you feel disrespected is fine as far as I'm concerned, calling it censorship or anything like that is just kinda dumb.

 

[Wintermute_v1legacy]

Never heard of any of these guys, didn't see anything wrong with the covers. Googled Frank Cho, found some of his pictures funny, that's about it. Beyond that it's all internet conspiracy theory.

 

[SirSullymore]

Take that for what you will.

Hmm, interesting. Again, its all from his POV, so I assume the truth falls more towards the middle, still, that's about what I pictured going down (with Rucka being a bit more reasonable and Cho being less).

Good for The Mary Sue for publishing this. The comment section has me loling a bit though.

 

[Redryhno]

snip

Eh, generally I'm inclined to believe the guy at this point considering Rucka's said this is a-ok

Spoiler

But these are overly sexualised

Spoiler

Keep in mind that the first is the basic cover, while the second are Cho's variant covers that people largely have to go looking for. And the first of Cho's covers with the deflections was apparently after an edit, she did have her butt shorts under her skirt showing in the original.

Now she apparently wears a thong under that or nothing. Not that I have a problem with it, but it's sorta weird to say that basic short skirt garb is more sexual than a bare butt or less clothing.

Now, whether Rucka actually thinks that or just hates Cho for a variety of reasons that could be apparent to anyone that looks around and is just looking for reasons to justify it, I dunno.

As an aside, I"m surprised nobody's posted his covers yet if for no other reason than to showcase, the guy's really done WW justice I think. Or at least largely drew her in a way that I envision her to be.

Take that for what you will.

Hmm, interesting. Again, its all from his POV, so I assume the truth falls more towards the middle, still, that's about what I pictured going hone (with Rucka being a more reasonable and Cho being less).

Good for The Mary Sue for publishing this. The comment section has me loling a bit though.

It's the Mary Sue, you expecting something more than a bunch of guys jerking each other off for how progressive they are for pointing out vague similarities?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

So, guy with contractual editorial control exercises it, second guy who was promised first guy didn't have editorial control was unknowingly lied to.

 

[Overhead]

snip

You've got some bits wrong.

The complaint isn't that Rucka thought they were all overly sexualised (regarding your claim that he thought 'these' were overly sexualised and included two covers), but rather specifically the #3 variant (The first of the two Cho covers). There have been no claims from Cho that he had similar complaint about the other covers, though he did ask for other general changes like arm bracers or the lasso to be added and what have you which Cho also objected to.

Secondly, Rucka never said that the cover from his previous run is fine. Rucka's Wonder Woman run is thought of as one of the best ever and he was given editorial control when he was lured back for the current run. As far as I know, there is absolutely no suggestion that he had any say in the first of the three covers you have images for which is from 2004 so the comparison about what Rucka approved of is moot.

Thirdly, even if he did have a say 12 years ago that wouldn't account for the fact that clothing isn't only an issue of being on model, but also the pose and context. To use the example I gave earlier in the thread:

"(O)n model isn't the same as appropriate context. If you drew Wonder Woman on model but directly from above so you could see her breast and nipples pressing against her breastplate, that wouldn't be okay as an appropriate comics cover. Similar if you drew her from directly below so you could look up her skirt and drew a detailed outline of her vagina pressed against her knickers. Now Cho's drawing was nowhere near as bad as either of those example, but then the reaction of slightly cropping the image to take away the bit that was objected to was hardly extreme either."

 

[axlryder]

so that extra info sort of falls in line with my hypothesis as to why Cho could be seen in a more empathetic light here, but more because of DC's incompetence than Rucka's maliciousness. That said, we still are only hearing Cho's side of things; I'd like to get everyone's take on this. The workplace dynamic that was going on here has a pretty substantial bearing as well. If Rucka pretty much gave zero leeway or kept asking Cho to make more and more adjustments instead of just giving him a flat list of dos and don'ts then I'd be pretty annoyed too, especially because someone in his role isn't typically given such complete creative control over the entire comic. If Rucka was pretty upfront and reasonable about the whole thing then it was Cho's problem to deal with at that point. Rucka's actual justifications would also matter (such as "it doesn't fit tonally" vs "it's offensive"). Of course, it's not as though this whole thing is a huge deal in the first place. Cho doesn't look to be starving for work.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I think these people are acting like babies and not putting their art before their egos. The censored image was the least sexy shot with underwear in it ever drawn so to cause an argument over it is ridiculous but on the same token being told your art doesn't meet the writer's vision (however stupid his objection) is not somethig to quit over.


Though I will say that cropping the image as opposed to having him draw a different one crosses unto censorship. Having the artist alter the work according to his vision is one thing and having someone else alter it but present it under the artist's name is another, I can see being angry over it. Still too immature to quit over it though.

 

[mecegirl]

I think these people are acting like babies and not putting their art before their egos. The censored image was the least sexy shot with underwear in it ever drawn so to cause an argument over it is ridiculous but on the same token being told your art doesn't meet the writer's vision (however stupid his objection) is not somethig to quit over.


Though I will say that cropping the image as opposed to having him draw a different one crosses unto censorship. Having the artist alter the work according to his vision is one thing and having someone else alter it but present it under the artist's name is another, I can see being angry over it. Still too immature to quit over it though.

I wouldn't say quitting is the issue here. Making a stink over it is just unnecessary. He really could have just quit if he wanted his images to be used unedited.

 

[Lacedaemonius]

Never judge something from only one side of a story, it's just a shortcut to a bad decision.

But it fits his narrative!

You'd think that the very act of scraping the barrel to find something that does fit said narrative, would undermine his faith in it.

But no.

Never judge something from only one side of a story, it's just a shortcut to a bad decision.

But it fits his narrative!

Are you talking about me?

If you have to ask...