I backed it already for the exact reason the art looked good and I know Zack's a decent Indie tier writer. He at least beats the Volume 1 Thing writer, who was awful and the only reason I like said work being the very good art quality for that book.
If she had a partial redraw so it had a better cartoon anatomy and so on, I'd be fine with it. I'm not really asking for masterwork given I did have fun with Order of the Stick, a pretty simple artstyle that had good writing to back it up. But as it stands for 25 bucks it just isn't worth it since I believe visuals are a major part of a comic's potency and I've not seen enough of her writing to see if it balances out in anyway.
yeah, on one hand I can't knock her art completely because it's just her, and she's clearly not a seasoned artist. She's a mom. I would be more willing to back the project if the art was a little nicer, because in the long run, I am what I would consider myself a competent artist, and I can just make my own storytime book... So why pay for this one in particular?
Nothing against her, I don't know her. Congrats for her making her money, but this one is a skip. - and that in of itself is Comicsgate.
Tutor article
'Author' Iris Lei
Putting aside my yellow fever, and how much I would want to bed and wed her... This is the article Yaboi and
@FROG commented on today's live stream. All 'bad touch' jokes aside, the article is such a fucking joke and a perfect SJW catalog of ideas.
Now, I know I am just some fuck from the internet, I don't have any art degrees, I don't have awards, I don't have articles on
The Lily with titles like: "I work with my friend at a garage and sometimes he says things that are really problematic and only promote toxic masculinity" or "I was once a teenage Mexican-American without a care in the world, but Trump showed up and now I'm afraid I'll get deported to Sri Lanka." Seriously, what is with these titles that are just the opening sentence?
"
For me, illustration should be used as a visual tool for communication and self-expression; therefore, it is vital to portray accurate representations of oneself. A number of my students illustrate female bodies in unrealistically distorted, sexualized ways. It’s distressing to realize that those bodies are what they project onto themselves — and that they don’t realize the problem at hand. "
The problem here is that it's subjective what she feels, what art is to one person is different from another person. While I agree that art does require some set of boundaries, telling children to draw the way YOU want to is not your job. She feels like illustration should be a visual tool for communication and that's pretty much correct, but how can you tell another person their communication is incorrect? Say a fat lard sits down and he draws Superman, muscular, strong features, handsome, etc. How can she claim that it's not how the artist themselves view their body, I thought body positivity was important? This goes to the whole SJW talking point of what society deems attractive, but she still is determined to change his/her idea and that's dangerous - that's SJWism.
"
Often, I find it difficult to talk to my students about how to draw realistic female bodies"
Here's the problem. She deems slender, athletic, round, fit, tall, handsome, beautiful women and men as unrealistic. She's de-personing anyone who takes time out of their day to keep themselves their idea of healthy and fit. We are all individuals, what I find fit, might be different from someone else, and that's fine. It sounds like she wants to control, again, what her students believe to be realistic, or beautiful by their own personal standards.
"
I try to tell my students: 'You may want to draw nude bodies based on observation rather than imagination. Nobody has a perfect body, and imperfection helps the audience relate to your work'."
This isn't inherently true. Yes, small imperfections can get an artist or audience's excitement up. But people do exist in the inverse. I myself find facial moles gross, unless they meet certain size, and location on the face. For example, a lip mole (like Marilyn Monroe) is absolutely gross to me. But take that mole, size it down and put it under the eye, and I'm a little more accepting. I'm also not fond of overly large breast on women, a lot of weebshit art has their women with giant tits - doesn't work for me, but it does for the artist. Some people love scars on a person, others don't. Tattoos, etc. But again, everyone is different - no artist is going to convince everyone their work is good, and it has nothing to do with imperfections, or "muh perfect unrealiztic bodie"
"
I like your comic, but have you tried drawing characters that are not so skinny? Not so perfect, like a Barbie doll? - Your comic is about self-expression, so what does your body look like? Does it look this way? - Art can go beyond pretty. - You should be drawing a normal realistic person: somebody you would see walking down the street."
This is a hypothetical conversation that has a lot to unpack. Iris is once again pinning the idea of perfection on this person. She herself sees no flaws in the character's appearance, but who is to say the perfection itself isn't it's imperfection? Does the artist in question view her as perfect? What if that's what the artist views THEMSELVES? She assigns the subject matter of the comic "it's about self-expression" but that's not always true either. Even if we give her the benefit of the doubt and it IS about self-expression why can the artist not be conveying that through the character? It's a weird off-handed insult. 'does your body look this way' fuck off. Telling the artist to draw who they see walking down the street, maybe they have, they saw someone who looked like that and said "this would be perfect for my comic" or project, whatever.
Like the last point, draw bodies based on observations, are you telling them that they have only observed fat out of shape Laurens? Not everyone wants to draw that way, it's not up for you to tell them what to draw.
And here is the worst thing she's said. "It's much more difficult to change their minds" As a teacher, and more importantly, an art teacher - you shouldn't be changing people's minds. You should encourage them to broaden their skills, instead of saying 'draw more """realistic""" people, draw more fat people, draw this draw that' she should encourage artists to broaden their character models. Somehow I think these students DO, but she's so broken that she sees everything under 'Plus sized' as "unrealistic" or "too skinny" etc.
Her art isn't bad, I did some digging. She's pretty good when she isn't doing the little cute doodle characters [Though they aren't bad either] - there is importance in artists to be able to draw and paint different people, environments, subjects etc. Never ever limit yourself as an artist, but don't let people tell you what you DO draw, is wrong. If you find skinny women with giant titties attractive, draw it. You think a skinny twig of a man is artistic, go do it.
Just thought I'd rant - this isn't directly related to comicsgate, but a lot of artists currently drawing MARVEL right now come from this school of thought. That's where Yaboi came up with 'approved body type' when talking about flat, or fat, unattractive bodies.
Edit: fixed Iris's photo
