Mad Woman

Nov 09, 2012 16:49


Before you all tell me how sexy I am in this painting created for this year’s NoirCon, give me a chance to explain how I feel about it.


Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 63

It's in the smile anonymous November 10 2012, 01:17:17 UTC
which does nothing, here.

IF the artist had given you an "oh shit, see what I have to put up with" expression, then the irony could shine through.

As is, nah.

Reply

jonathankorman November 10 2012, 01:39:50 UTC
Good point, an eye-rolling expression would have been better.

As it is, the smirk it give you does disarm it a bit for me. You're not panting and helpless; it seems like you could shrug your way out of those bonds if you felt like it. So I think the artist was really trying for some clever irony.

Only they didn't succeed so much with the clever ... or really even the irony.

Reply


WTF? anonymous November 10 2012, 01:36:14 UTC
One of the main things is that you don't appear to be at Noircon. You mention seeing this online, and you sent an email, and then received a phone call.

Why put you on the cover for an event you aren't at? Why do that without your consent? That seems incredibly questionable, all on its own.

Alleged intent does not excuse actual effect. As a parent, you might mean to make a rebuke gentle or even funny, but the words might come off with more edge or negative emotion than you intend, and you still have to own that and apologize... or you're a jerk. Our society seems to be mastering the non-apology.

And, as Michelle said, they shouldn't have even represented you without your approval... especially if this is an event you aren't attending. I don't want to say this from the perspective of simply criticizing Noircon, but I say this from the perspective of supporting you as a person who's been misrepresented and offended. (And I am not convinced of the alleged attempt at irony at all.)

Reply


whiskeychick November 10 2012, 01:58:18 UTC
I think it's both, honestly, Christa. I looked at the image a good long while before I even read your post below it and the first thing I thought is: Well the dude in the green and blue has about two seconds before he's where Ms. Faust is. So, yeah, there's irony there. But....

I believe you likely are also going to NoirCon to make connections with folks who don't know your work yet, right? So in that regard it may give off the damsel in distress perception.

However, I think given your gut reaction, you go with that. My gut never steers me wrong. And let me validate that your gut reaction is probably the smart move.

Are they willing to redesign? I can't imagine that NoirCon is represented in whole by this art as it is anyhow.

Regardless, happy they had the response they did and you, the artist & the organizers can come to an agreement.

Reply


Nope Don't Agree with You anonymous November 10 2012, 02:11:00 UTC
The artist used your likeness to stand in for an archetype, Christa. It's not about you. It's about the iconic noir female APPEARING helpless and in distress while she smiles to indicate it's all an act. I would love to be in your place in that painting.

Reply

Re: Nope Don't Agree with You faustfatale November 10 2012, 02:20:08 UTC
I see your point, and maybe I would feel better about if if multiple female archetypes were displayed, like the femme fatale, the gun moll, etc. As it stands the only female author is a damsel in distress, smiling or not, and that's an archetype that can't die soon enough in my opinion.

Reply

Re: Nope Don't Agree with You agent_mimi November 10 2012, 03:25:35 UTC
Of course it's about Christa! It deliberately used her likeness and was meant to represent her; the artist himself said the damsel archetype was used to invoke irony based on Christa's personality. It is all about her. The only way it could be more about her is if someone wrote "Christa Faust" in a yellow box with an arrow pointing directly toward her.

Reply

Re: Nope Don't Agree with You inkgrrl November 12 2012, 20:33:47 UTC
This was definitely about Christa - in case you hadn't noticed, it *is* her face/body on the page. That's about as about Christa as it gets. If "non-identifiable female" were used as the damsel in distress then your argument for archetype might have some validity, but that's clearly not what we're looking at. Trying to gaslight us into agreeing with the in-joke and chuckling and slapping each other on the back about the intended irony is just as offensive as the actual image itself. And if Christa's image was only used by the artist as a stand-in for an archetype, that makes it even more insulting, especially in light of how she found out about it. What I find hard to believe is that neither the artist nor the event folks understand how disrespectful this is - if we're going to employ tropes to tell a story, then we damned better get the tropes right. Damsel in distress is hardly a noir trope, so the artist got that flat wrong no matter whose likeness he used. This was poorly done by the artist and whoever okayed that cover. And I'ma ( ... )

Reply


Nice save but... ext_1487873 November 10 2012, 02:13:35 UTC
No.
I'm with you Faust. This is no bueno.
Irony (ha!) or not, I don't like it.
You should be center in that pic wielding an uppercut (or holding a pen and a glock).

Reply


Leave a comment

Up