bikiniarmorbattledamage:

ria-rha:

fandomfumblr asked:

So i’ve come across this blog of yours, and i can’t help but notice you seem to hold this ideal that showing skin is bad. I’m not saying there’s not a time and a place for everything, and i’d be quite warm to a game where someone in skimpy or silly armor got their just desserts. But i don’t see why you think these designs inherently wrong on such a level. Designers designed them for a reason. They had a vision of the character and made them a certain way. No “change” needs to be made.
You’re right, designers did design them that way for a reason: to be sexy. And that’s where a change needs to be made. When everyone is “sexy”, no one is. There needs to be more variety in female character designs.
You see, women are like onions. But not because they turn brown and start sprouting little white hairs if you leave them out in the sun too long: because they have layers (didn’t you see Shrek, geez). They’re also all different, though you wouldn’t guess so based on media representations of them. I’ll start accepting a designer’s vision for a sexy lady, the minute that stops being the only vision they ever have.*
*Also what we get isn’t always the original design as there’s sometimes pressure from editors or other outside influences to make the character “sexier”.
-Staci

Bolded for emphasis.

Funny how no-one who says “Designers had a vision of the character and made them a certain way.” ever notice that said vision is pretty much always the same.

As a designer myself I’m REALLY tired of this argument. Art and design does not exist in the vacuum.
An idea being the artist’s “vision” does not make it inherently good or creative, in fact the first ideas that come to a designers mind tend to be the most derivative and uninteresting.

On the other hand, as Staci notes, lots of designs RHA, BABD and related sites comment on aren’t actually a result of concept artist’s original idea, but a product of many revisions from the executives. And executives (unlike artists they hire) are the people whose “vision” is usually the farthest from creative.

No matter how you look at the “artist’s sacred vision” logic, it’s flawed and in no way justifies a cliched, unresearched, insonsistent design.

~Ozzie

Bringing this back as a reminder that “an artist created it, therefore it’s creative is NOT a valid rhetoric to justify bikini armors… or anything, for that matter.

~Ozzie

more about bikini armor rhetoric on BABD

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

ria-rha:

fandomfumblr asked:

So i’ve come across this blog of yours, and i can’t help but notice you seem to hold this ideal that showing skin is bad. I’m not saying there’s not a time and a place for everything, and i’d be quite warm to a game where someone in skimpy or silly armor got their just desserts. But i don’t see why you think these designs inherently wrong on such a level. Designers designed them for a reason. They had a vision of the character and made them a certain way. No “change” needs to be made.
You’re right, designers did design them that way for a reason: to be sexy. And that’s where a change needs to be made. When everyone is “sexy”, no one is. There needs to be more variety in female character designs.
You see, women are like onions. But not because they turn brown and start sprouting little white hairs if you leave them out in the sun too long: because they have layers (didn’t you see Shrek, geez). They’re also all different, though you wouldn’t guess so based on media representations of them. I’ll start accepting a designer’s vision for a sexy lady, the minute that stops being the only vision they ever have.*
*Also what we get isn’t always the original design as there’s sometimes pressure from editors or other outside influences to make the character “sexier”.
-Staci

Bolded for emphasis.

Funny how no-one who says “Designers had a vision of the character and made them a certain way.” ever notice that said vision is pretty much always the same.

As a designer myself I’m REALLY tired of this argument. Art and design does not exist in the vacuum.
An idea being the artist’s “vision” does not make it inherently good or creative, in fact the first ideas that come to a designers mind tend to be the most derivative and uninteresting.

On the other hand, as Staci notes, lots of designs RHA, BABD and related sites comment on aren’t actually a result of concept artist’s original idea, but a product of many revisions from the executives. And executives (unlike artists they hire) are the people whose “vision” is usually the farthest from creative.

No matter how you look at the “artist’s sacred vision” logic, it’s flawed and in no way justifies a cliched, unresearched, insonsistent design.

~Ozzie

Bringing this back as a reminder that “an artist created it, therefore it’s creative is NOT a valid rhetoric to justify bikini armors… or anything, for that matter.

~Ozzie

more about bikini armor rhetoric on BABD

There are rumors Princess Leia’s Return of the Jedi bikini costume is being “retired.”

There are rumors Princess Leia’s Return of the Jedi bikini costume is being “retired.”

There are rumors Princess Leia’s Return of the Jedi bikini costume is being “retired.”

There are rumors Princess Leia’s Return of the Jedi bikini costume is being “retired.”

So this rumor has been circulating wildly and creating a lot of discussion, and we weren’t really jumping on it simply for the fact that the gold bikini of Leia the Huttslayer is not even vaguely armor.

However, this happened:

image
image

Yes, J Scott Campbell is deeply concerned that he will no longer get paid to draw sexy Leia. Why?

Because despite being an artist in the comics industry for nearly as long as Daisy Ridley (who’ll be playing the female lead in the upcoming movie) has been alive, he still can’t draw any woman any way that’s not hypersexualized. That’s it, his whole bag of tricks he’s acquired from twenty-two years of working as a professional artist in comics and merchandise.

image
image

So I’m not going to shed any tears for yet another tacky statue of Leia in a deliberately degrading costumes that she was forced into against her will (yet so often depicted as posing like a pinup model). 

image

I’m going to first cry for all the great comic projects that might have been but were cast aside in favor of yet another J Scott Campbell pin-up.  That and all the comics that were never read because the editor hired J Scott Campbell to present them as softcore porn (especially in cover art).

If the rumor is true and Disney is stopping this kind of production, it’s worth celebrating simply because it signals a decades overdue change: Companies considering that maybe tacky hypersexualized imagery doesn’t sell everything.

Maybe compelling plots, great storytelling and interesting characters do.

– wincenworks

As a side note, even if Disney officially announces “ban” on licensing Slave Leia merch, it won’t all be gone overnight. Let’s not act as if we didn’t have a surplus of official Star Wars bikini products for over 30 years. 

Maybe, just maybe, realize for once that it’s time that demand for different depictions of Leia was met. Because many of her fans can testify how hard to get that sort of merch always was compared to slave-themed ones.
Disney’s push to restore Leia’s image as something else than sexual object should be welcomed.

And if you ever need new post-ban slave-kini products, fanart and bootlegs will always be around. Or, you know, you can stop complaining and make one yourself 😉

~Ozzie

(h/t: @catawampuscreations)

more on Star Wars | more on princess Leia Organa | more on J. Scott Campbell

flowersoficetor:

@bikiniarmorbattledamage

So a friend recently asked me what I thought about this outfit:

I said that I dont understand the panties or the thigh-highs, or why she has random skin windows, or why she seems to have better protection on her forearms than her vitals, but aesthetically it’s nice.

What do you think?

When it comes to “reasoning” behind the costume’s skimpyness and random holes, I suppose the trite “Tamaraneans are solar powered” excuse is still canon. And still bullshit, as long as Star’s fellow solar-powered alien Superman doesn’t dress like this. Or that. Or THAT.

As far as official Starfire outfits go, this is maybe the second (non-cartoon) one I recall that actually looks wearable, which is a big plus, considering the alternatives:

image

Guess my standards for this character’s look are just ridiculously lowered at this point, but I really do think that new outfit is an improvement and hope Starfire doesn’t revert to some sort of impossi-bikini anytime soon.

~Ozzie

more Starfire on BABD | more superheroes on BABD

flowersoficetor:

@bikiniarmorbattledamage

So a friend recently asked me what I thought about this outfit:

I said that I dont understand the panties or the thigh-highs, or why she has random skin windows, or why she seems to have better protection on her forearms than her vitals, but aesthetically it’s nice.

What do you think?

When it comes to “reasoning” behind the costume’s skimpyness and random holes, I suppose the trite “Tamaraneans are solar powered” excuse is still canon. And still bullshit, as long as Star’s fellow solar-powered alien Superman doesn’t dress like this. Or that. Or THAT.

As far as official Starfire outfits go, this is maybe the second (non-cartoon) one I recall that actually looks wearable, which is a big plus, considering the alternatives:

image

Guess my standards for this character’s look are just ridiculously lowered at this point, but I really do think that new outfit is an improvement and hope Starfire doesn’t revert to some sort of impossi-bikini anytime soon.

~Ozzie

more Starfire on BABD | more superheroes on BABD