Are Comic Art Porn Commissions A Big Thing? 0

[John E.]

24 minutes ago, Bronty said:

I mean, I'd love to be proven wrong but from reading that the impression I get is that the legal case and precedent would be more interesting than the comic books.

Yes, the case and the precedent is the interesting part. 

[ESeffinga]

A topic I am very familiar with, as a supporter of the CB LDF as this was all playing out in the courts, we got regular newsletter updates.

Diana’s “art” was the juvenile equivalent of a horrific junior high schooler. Both in execution and intellectual capacity. He was a turd, and so was his “work” but the CBLDF stood up to protect free speech rights for comic artists and all of us who read them.

Long and short of it. His comics were not ever worth discussing here. So it was only ever of interest as an intellectual legal exercise.

Over time he has sought to soften his image, to explain away much of his early comics as Some form of artistic exercise with allegory, and challenging authority, waking people up, etc. 

Truth is, he was an insufficiently_thoughtful_person kid who drew ridiculous and occasionally abhorrent things for his own amusement.

Pheh!

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by ESeffinga

[John E.]

7 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

A topic I am very familiar with, as a supporter of the CB LDF as this was all playing out in the courts, we got regular newsletter updates.

Diana’s “art” was the juvenile equivalent of a horrific junior high schooler. Both in execution and intellectual capacity. He was a turd, and so was his “work” but the CBLDF stood up to protect free speech rights for comic artists and all of us who read them.

Long and short of it. His comics were not ever worth discussing here. So it was only ever of interest as an intellectual legal exercise.

 

 

Yeah when my friend showed me the sketches he scored full of glee (he’s a big indie art collector particularly of the macabre) my first reaction was “This stuff is terrible.”

I’m curious though why you refer to Mike Diana as a “turd?” I certainly see the juvenile aspect of his work. Wiki is obviously objective with the subject’s character. 

[ESeffinga]

Rape. Incest. Cannibalism. Not in the horror comic way but either it was more sadistic, or it was infantile done for attention in that look at how “cool” I am kind of way. I’ve not read it all, but I’ve seen more than enough. Not subjects he utilized for thought proving or dramatic purpose. He did it because he got off on it. He was a turd. He’s tried to play up his CBLDF victory by positioning himself as an Indy “artiste”, when he was just a insufficiently_thoughtful_person peddling garbage who was lucky that some legal folks were willing to defend us all, by defending him.

 

I’ve no position on his current work. Maybe he has achieved Travis Charest level skills. Though I sincerely doubt ot.

 

If you Google Boiled Angel and find some certain pieces of it, I don’t think you’ll have to ask.

Edited December 15, 2019 by ESeffinga

[theflashunc]

The most particular one I've seen is the the seasonal Kellogg's Halloween cereal characters -- Frankenberry, Count Chocula, Boo Berry -- turned into topless pin-up ladies. 

I'm horrified but also applaud anyone who's found their extremely specific niche interest. Topless Count Chocula, who'da thunk. 

 

[ESeffinga]

To me, that’s just silly fun and I have no beef with that at all,  no matter how weird it is. I’m thinking more of things like rape party, or the illustration of the dad setting his enormous engorged member on his very young daughter’s head, at the family barbecue. 

But hey, naked Boo Berry is fun too, right? 

[John E.]

1 hour ago, ESeffinga said:

Rape. Incest. Cannibalism. Not in the horror comic way but either it was more sadistic, or it was infantile done for attention in that look at how “cool” I am kind of way. I’ve not read it all, but I’ve seen more than enough. Not subjects he utilized for thought proving or dramatic purpose. He did it because he got off on it. He was a turd. He’s tried to play up his CBLDF victory by positioning himself as an Indy “artiste”, when he was just a insufficiently_thoughtful_person peddling garbage who was lucky that some legal folks were willing to defend us all, by defending him.

 

I’ve no position on his current work. Maybe he has achieved Travis Charest level skills. Though I sincerely doubt ot.

 

If you Google Boiled Angel and find some certain pieces of it, I don’t think you’ll have to ask.

Ok that makes sense. I think even the wiki entry, in summarizing the prosecution, writes that Diana’s work didn’t even have anything satirical about it; it was obscene for the sake of being obscene. There was no redeeming value. 
 

I don’t recall how old he was when it went down but I hope he’s matured since. In high school I remember my friend and I churning out sick stuff for the sake of it (he more than me because he actually had the drawing chops) so I’m not one to cast the first stone. We all grew up to live normal lives. 

[ESeffinga]

He was a kid. Barely into his 20s. Which would make things somewhat forgivable, with immaturity and all. Except today he is 50, and he still peddles reprints of his early work. It’s his claim to fame after all.

 

[vodou]

9 minutes ago, Jay Olie Espy said:

redeeming value

God forbid the Thought Police are ever again able to get traction on this. I don't care what the "law" is.

I'll go on the record: some art (note: no quotations marks) Mike Diana does nothing for me (one way or the other) and other art I find runs the gamut of mildly amusing to outright humorous. I've yet to run into the piece that makes me decide to never look again. Again: there are real, actual, horrible things happening involuntarily to real people out there...real victims. I put this entire subject (thread overall and today's posts) in the same category as parking tickets when ranking the "evils" of the world and what good "law enforcement" actually does in relation to how much I'm paying them in the form of taxes and fees.

[theflashunc]

23 minutes ago, ESeffinga said:

To me, that’s just silly fun and I have no beef with that at all,  no matter how weird it is. I’m thinking more of things like rape party, or the illustration of the dad setting his enormous engorged member on his very young daughter’s head, at the family barbecue. 

But hey, naked Boo Berry is fun too, right? 

I just don't understand the need to sexualize a cartoon character on a cereal box aimed squarely at kids. But hey, formative years and all that. Agreed, on the spectrum, quite harmless compared to some of the other stuff out there. 

 

[John E.]

4 minutes ago, vodou said:

God forbid the Thought Police are ever again able to get traction on this. I don't care what the "law" is.

I'll go on the record: some art (note: no quotations marks) Mike Diana does nothing for me (one way or the other) and other art I find runs the gamut of mildly amusing to outright humorous. I've yet to run into the piece that makes me decide to never look again. Again: there are real, actual, horrible things happening involuntarily to real people out there...real victims. I put this entire subject (thread overall and today's posts) in the same category as parking tickets when ranking the "evils" of the world and what good "law enforcement" actually does in relation to how much I'm paying them in the form of taxes and fees.

Yeah totally agree. I’ve not read any of his zines so I’m not in a position to judge either. And like you say, the world is full of crimes of exploitation (and other horrors) that this shouldn’t even register as a blip (though these types of commissions may be a symptom of all that.)

I’m not qualified to speak about the legality of the representation of a Wolverine/X-23 coupling, but I am qualified to be a juror if this ever went to trial. The prosecution has a huge burden to prove to me that such a commission is a crime (in poor taste, yes). 
 

I also keep in mind that when it comes to s-e-x the U.S. clutches the pearls; but when it comes to violence, it shrugs. 

[vodou]

37 minutes ago, Jay Olie Espy said:

but I am qualified to be a juror if this ever went to trial.

I'm a big fan of jury nullification btw, with the added bonus of reminding the judge and prosecution who's the boss

[Brian Peck]

On 12/2/2019 at 9:35 AM, Rick2you2 said:

I don’t understand why an artist would consider his reputation damaged by drawing comic porn, unless it’s bad art. Looking at some of the stuff on Comic Art Tracker there seems to be a lot of lousy pornography type drawings. Maybe it’s hard to draw for some reason.

 I would much rather have something like Mad Dog giving a Wolf Whistle to a poodle walking by. 

You have a big name artist who is known for drawing Batman series. Then he or she draws some of the characters from the comic having graphic sex. If someone at DC gets wind of the artwork could effect if they are hired on future high profile books. Remember, technically commissions of trademarked characters are illegal and DC or Marvel can take the artists to court for infringing on the characters they own. Comic book companies do not mind the artist doing con drawing or commissions because it good for their business. But drawing characters in situations that are detrimental to who the character is can effect the companies product.

Artist work on characters owned by big companies and make money from it. Doing commissions portraying those characters in an extreme sexual situations that the companies wouldn't approve of could effect their future working relationships.

[Brian Peck]

A while back on the CAF a collector posted (not sure if its still in CAF) artwork on female superheroes getting beat up. It wasn't that they were in a fight to save someone or take down a villain but purely violence against the women being depicted. Seemed like some collector's rape/assault fantasy came out in his commissions. Now that was disturbing.

[comix4fun]

1 hour ago, Brian Peck said:

A while back on the CAF a collector posted (not sure if its still in CAF) artwork on female superheroes getting beat up. It wasn't that they were in a fight to save someone or take down a villain but purely violence against the women being depicted. Seemed like some collector's rape/assault fantasy came out in his commissions. Now that was disturbing.

I remember that. 

[Bird]

17 minutes ago, comix4fun said:

I remember that. 

I do as well. He tried to defend it but when that it your only focus something is askew to say the least.

[Rick2you2]

2 hours ago, Brian Peck said:

You have a big name artist who is known for drawing Batman series. Then he or she draws some of the characters from the comic having graphic sex. If someone at DC gets wind of the artwork could effect if they are hired on future high profile books. Remember, technically commissions of trademarked characters are illegal and DC or Marvel can take the artists to court for infringing on the characters they own. Comic book companies do not mind the artist doing con drawing or commissions because it good for their business. But drawing characters in situations that are detrimental to who the character is can effect the companies product.

Artist work on characters owned by big companies and make money from it. Doing commissions portraying those characters in an extreme sexual situations that the companies wouldn't approve of could effect their future working relationships.

How is it detrimental to show characters having sex? I guess we are supposed to think that the super-sons came from the stork?

There is an old saying: there is no such thing as bad publicity. They ought to lighten up. 

Or would it be okay if someone like Jim Lee drew pornography of no name characters he made up. Is that better? 

1 hour ago, Brian Peck said:

A while back on the CAF a collector posted (not sure if its still in CAF) artwork on female superheroes getting beat up. It wasn't that they were in a fight to save someone or take down a villain but purely violence against the women being depicted. Seemed like some collector's rape/assault fantasy came out in his commissions. Now that was disturbing.

This I do have a problem with, but more so because it is posted than done. Now, it is intruding on other people's space and its conduct is offensive to say the least. So if someone wanted it, that's there business; but sharing it? No. 

[Brian Peck]

17 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

How is it detrimental to show characters having sex? I guess we are supposed to think that the super-sons came from the stork?

There is an old saying: there is no such thing as bad publicity. They ought to lighten up. 

Or would it be okay if someone like Jim Lee drew pornography of no name characters he made up. Is that better? 

This I do have a problem with, but more so because it is posted than done. Now, it is intruding on other people's space and its conduct is offensive to say the least. So if someone wanted it, that's there business; but sharing it? No. 

I think Disney would be pissed off if they found artists drawing Frozen characters having graphic sex. 

[comix4fun]

1 hour ago, Rick2you2 said:

How is it detrimental to show characters having sex? I guess we are supposed to think that the super-sons came from the stork?

 

Brilliant Idea!! 

There can be an entire sub-genre of super-hero bowel movements, super-hero laundry folding, super-hero law maintenance, super hero waiting at the atm, etc etc etc. 

Ever notice how in movies and tv shows that "supes never poops", what's up with that !?!

All the mundane day to day stuff that really makes for riveting imagery.  

[GeneticNinja]

I thought the nude or superhero sex was mostly a Japanese anime / video game thing. I remember hearing that the last Japanese warrior girl video game release was one of those nude things. I didn't want to see that at all. Also, I stumbled on to some Japanese anime heroes in a manga or other book that were nude. I think I was just looking for character art or books. I know many Japanese figures are sexually posed. But I haven't seen any American stuff like that. I thought the majority of artists wouldn't cross that line.

 

The only examples of comic art that are close are Ed Benes commissions from a while back. He would draw someone like MJ in bed and Spider-Man would be in the doorway. I remember Gail Simone saying something about the type of shots Ed Benes would use in Birds of Prey. I guess she wasn't storyboarding the comic as well as writing it. Or Ed Benes would just ignore her notes. But still if you are drawing women basically in swimsuits, you can't get upset about low angles or rear shots. It's almost the same as going to a swim or tennis match and saying don't look at the women that are wearing revealing clothing.

 

Also I remember the blowup over that Spider-Gwen or Spider-Woman cover with her butt sticking out even though she was in a Spider type pose. Frank Cho made a whole drawing series about it. Perhaps because I've seen pinup art that is in good taste versus sex pose art / photos, that I can usually tell the difference in what is going on.