Im not 100% sure if this is the right place but i couldnt find an art forum so i figured id put it here.
I find this new trend of making the females all covered up and ugly really dumb. As a female player i dont really get what this i seven supposed to achieve. i started playing a month or two before return to Ravnica came out and ive never had a problem with the "sexualized" as some people put it art work. In fact some of my favorite pieces were and still are Innistrad vampires ,Liliana of the veil and Teysa envoy of ghosts(one of my top 5 favorite mtg arts) among others. And they looked good and we rent afraid to show some skin. Since a lot of these artworks showed creatures that were cool and at least somewhat powerful(not necessarily game play wise) i just kind of saw them showing of there body as a way to visually show that they were confident in themselves. Also having some characters in sexier out fits can be used as a design choice when creating characters to convey other things as well. Like not every female character needs to show some skin to look good but if theres no major reason they shouldn't then i dont see how its a problem. I always thought characters like Teysa and Liliana were really cool and probably how female characters should be designed for fiction in general. they were attractive with well designed art powerful confident and cunning but they still had flaws.
Ive been annoyed with the way theyve changed the art work were they feel a need make a lot of female art work bland and make them less beautiful. Also making Its not all bad like i really like Judith's and the new teysas art but there just seems to be alot more bland pieces nowadays and some are even cards like legendary creatures like new radha or admiral Becket brass. Also the whole thing where a bunch of female characters look like dudes i dumb to. like Why would even feminists want the girls to look like dudes dont they want more female representation. I just find the decline in art kindof sad because the cool art was part of what drew me in. And i also really liked the cool female character but im much less likeley to care about characters whose cards have bland art and design.
But the thing that maid me salty enough to make this post is the new teysa art work for the guild kits. Im not sure how they managed to mess it up is beyond me seeing how all her other arts have been good. Like they completely changed her design. her face looks wierd and not like teysa. They completely changed her outfit. All her other artwork gave the impression she was confident, charismatic, cunning, enigmatic and an aristocrat. Like she looked like she new she was better than everyone and liked it. now she looks like generic wizard.
Im just not sure why there changing it like this. i was never even aware this was a problem until they started changing it. Like even if they want cover up female characters to appease well certain demographics i see no reason why this should also involve bland composition and design.
Also just to be clear i really dont want to direct the criticism at the artists. Ive always had a huge respect for what they do. More so i think this change is the fault of art directors.
On topic: Its because of oversexualization/objectification in the past, and an open and admitted desire to show diversity in ethnic/body types.
Simple. I got ripped by some guy on Twitter because I mentioned I dont like how the art has been getting 'samey' and I wish we had more stuff like Topplegeist and Growth Spiral, well...this new art isnt meant to appeal to you, but in today's social media climate? Judith, the Scourge Diva is about as good as you are going to get again.
Wizards is really trying to make Magic more accepted and accessible to everyone. (ex. M A G I C F E S T ) And changing the art style is one of their big steps in that direction. I don't particularly agree with it, but it is going to be like this moving forward.
My problem with Judith is the art is great but shes so small on the card! I wish they could have made it so I don't have to squint to see her face or the details on that chain.
I find this new trend of making the females all covered up and ugly really dumb.
Covered up, maybe... ...but ugly? I don't know about your standards, but I don't think the new designs are "ugly".
First of all, I don't think it is a "trend" to cover females up in MtG now, because I don't think this is very new. Sexualization maybe has been a problem with other fantasy fiction products, but MtG has been pretty "clean" the last 10-20 years. Hell, the card with the most cleavage is Mokrut Banshee.
I don't think this is a new trend or a big problem.
Its because of oversexualization/objectification in the past, and an open and admitted desire to show diversity in ethnic/body types.
When was that, the 1990s?
Many have been complaining about WOTC going 'woke' (and thereby probably broke) and these nuns in armor are merely the latest effect of that political strategy. They'll learn their lesson when people quit playing the game.
I never thought a female player would have a problem with a more diverse cast of female character art. I mean, why would it make sense for a female knight/warrior/etc be dressed so scantily clad if the male equivalent is suited up? Why would it be okay some male characters to be ugly but all female ones have to be sexy?
Its because of oversexualization/objectification in the past, and an open and admitted desire to show diversity in ethnic/body types.
When was that, the 1990s?
Many have been complaining about WOTC going 'woke' (and thereby probably broke) and these nuns in armor are merely the latest effect of that political strategy. They'll learn their lesson when people quit playing the game.
Which is a comical take, held only by a certain sub culture that is easily ignored.
Nobody is going to quit the game over the art not being sexy enough with tits everywhere.
Covered up women doesn't mean they can't be beautiful; if there's something off about the art, I would suggest blaming something other than modesty: this would be like blaming a lack of candy for causing a poorly cooked meal.
Now to actually express some of my own opinion: I love the new direction away from bikini armor and towards actual armor/clothing, some cards just looked awkward, whereas the new look is awesome. OTOH I've been disappointed with the general look of some recent sets, and in the realm of fantasy I see no particular reason to make mundane what could be (unrealistically) beautiful.
As a related train of thought, I play this game to celebrate the beauty of its art, and agree that it could serve to be more beautiful than it has been lately.
Thats an argument, that the art could be more evocative, I can get behind.
Personally, I'm very pleased with a lot of the stuff lately, but thats because Seb is amazing and is right there with the kind of art I want to have in my deck.
If you disagree with the art direction, you could always be "that" person who sleeves their cards in sleeves with busty women/characters on them, which would then still give you something to look at, even if it's less deep than a connection to a strong female character that is also visually portrayed in a sultry manner.
2011: Best Mafia Performance (Individual) - Best Newcomer
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Now to actually express some of my own opinion: I love the new direction away from bikini armor and towards actual armor/clothing, some cards just looked awkward, whereas the new look is awesome.
Let's not forget that "breast"plate would be more costly to produce than actual breastplate armor (both in effort and materials), and would actually endanger the wearer, since it would deflect blows towards the heart rather than away.
It might be a fantasy game in a fantasy world, but I still want a bit of realism. We have a storyline, and a sense of immersion with these characters and worlds.
Sure, Liliana has a "seductress" quality to her, and doesn't wear armor. Showing a little skin and going out of her way to be attractive fits her motif. If it fits and is realistic, I'm fine with it.
That said, no right minded warrior is going to charge into battle wearing a metal bikini. That's absurd, ridiculous, and absolutely destroys the immersion.
It's just politics, and everyone knows the best way to solve perceived but unproven and dubious problems, while virtue signalling, is to go full reverse on whatever the "problem" is.
I grew up looking at semi naked, or just plain naked women on Frazetta's art and never saw (and will never see) the problem. In fantasy all the warriors are impossibly muscled, the rogues impossibly dexterous and the women impossibly beautiful. Conan and Red Sonya are two sides of the same coin. It is literally the way the genre works and it neither pretends to have nor has any bearing on reality. Or even intent to affect it.
However, the people who are imposing this discussion on everyone do and the rest of us have to suffer through their ideological militancy, and all the absurdity it comes with.
Now to actually express some of my own opinion: I love the new direction away from bikini armor and towards actual armor/clothing, some cards just looked awkward, whereas the new look is awesome.
Let's not forget that "breast"plate would be more costly to produce than actual breastplate armor (both in effort and materials), and would actually endanger the wearer, since it would deflect blows towards the heart rather than away.
If you want my personal opinion, you shouldn’t try to “indentify” with any character in a fictional setting. Simply because it is just that, a work of fiction. It’s not reality. Which is the point of fantasy.
I think the worst offender was the new Radha. It’s one thing to create for the sake of diversity, but retconning because of it? Yuck.
What was retconned about Radha? Isn't she just older? Is it that her belly's not showing? If I wear different clothes when I'm older, or gain weight, was I retconned?
Anyway, I think this whole thing is a non-issue that's been blown way out of proportion. I'm fine with more Knight Exemplars and fewer Vampire's Bites.
Generally speaking, if people are actually mad about more women, people of color, or non-binary people being depicted on cards, those people can quit the game if it means that much to them. Much like the recent Gilette ad that has sparked so much "controversy," the company has crunched the numbers and have come to the conclusion that inclusion is more profitable. So, if you're the kind of person that uses 'SJW' as a pejorative, frequently calls people 'cucks,' or are just plain obvious in your bigotry, your presence is not required, wanted, or financially meaningful.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Can you name all of the creature types with at least 20 cards? Try my Sporcle Quiz! Last Updated: 6/29/20 (Core Set 2021).
What was retconned about Radha? Isn't she just older? Is it that her belly's not showing? If I wear different clothes when I'm older, or gain weight, was I retconned?
Anyway, I think this whole thing is a non-issue that's been blown way out of proportion. I'm fine with more Knight Exemplars and fewer Vampire's Bites.
Generally speaking, if people are actually mad about more women, people of color, or non-binary people being depicted on cards, those people can quit the game if it means that much to them. Much like the recent Gilette ad that has sparked so much "controversy," the company has crunched the numbers and have come to the conclusion that inclusion is more profitable. So, if you're the kind of person that uses 'SJW' as a pejorative, frequently calls people 'cucks,' or are just plain obvious in your bigotry, your presence is not required, wanted, or financially meaningful.
My problem with Judith is the art is great but shes so small on the card! I wish they could have made it so I don't have to squint to see her face or the details on that chain.
This is a much more serious issue with MtG art than is the trends of the portrayal of women, and it's a constant mistake that is made by individual artists, but on the macro scale must be attributed to the art director. Many many cards have really cool and rich art if you see them blown up to full size, but shrunk down to a little more than a postage stamp, they fall flat. Card art should be evocative from far away and across the table.
With regards to the topic of the thread, it's all about tone. Sexy is okay as long as it's in good taste. Throughout fantasy art, it has mostly been in poor taste. The current phase may be a slight overcorrection, but it's not really unreasonable. Basically, a Bant knight should be armored head to toe, but a Gruul woman needn't wear all that many clothes.
What was retconned about Radha? Isn't she just older? Is it that her belly's not showing? If I wear different clothes when I'm older, or gain weight, was I retconned?
Anyway, I think this whole thing is a non-issue that's been blown way out of proportion. I'm fine with more Knight Exemplars and fewer Vampire's Bites.
Generally speaking, if people are actually mad about more women, people of color, or non-binary people being depicted on cards, those people can quit the game if it means that much to them. Much like the recent Gilette ad that has sparked so much "controversy," the company has crunched the numbers and have come to the conclusion that inclusion is more profitable. So, if you're the kind of person that uses 'SJW' as a pejorative, frequently calls people 'cucks,' or are just plain obvious in your bigotry, your presence is not required, wanted, or financially meaningful.
Personally I'm a huge fan of female characters finally wearing proper and practical clothing and armor. Conspiracy's Adriana as mentioned in this thread is amazing artwork, both displaying as clearly female and a powerful knight. I wouldn't mind a single more suggestive piece every once in a while, but it's great to not have it the default. It's a huge pet peeve to me in many brands.
What was retconned about Radha? Isn't she just older? Is it that her belly's not showing? If I wear different clothes when I'm older, or gain weight, was I retconned?
Personally? I find her to be bloated in her new iteration, not even buffer. It just looks like a forced ascetic. No defining feminine feature, even for a Keldon warlord. While you may get older, and dress differently, that doesn’t not make you what you are, or were. I just don’t think her new art did her justice.
As for the other stuff? People can be passionate about the portrayal of their fantasy without ever falling into one of those categories. That is one of the biggest problems with people these days. Labeling.
Covered up women doesn't mean they can't be beautiful; if there's something off about the art, I would suggest blaming something other than modesty: this would be like blaming a lack of candy for causing a poorly cooked meal.
Now to actually express some of my own opinion: I love the new direction away from bikini armor and towards actual armor/clothing, some cards just looked awkward, whereas the new look is awesome. OTOH I've been disappointed with the general look of some recent sets, and in the realm of fantasy I see no particular reason to make mundane what could be (unrealistically) beautiful.
As a related train of thought, I play this game to celebrate the beauty of its art, and agree that it could serve to be more beautiful than it has been lately.
I tend to agree with your post.
Seasoned Marshal I like this Angelic Page I also like this /// Edit: These two cards are supposed to be the Urza's saga version, I don't know how to control the image given
I have to admit that I don't really know what people are talking about when they say that female representation has changed. Could example #2 still exist in today's game? It's a pretty iconic style in the history of this game. One thing for sure, the art direction has become bland overall. Though Ravanica Allegiance has a lot of good pieces in it.
I find this new trend of making the females all covered up and ugly really dumb. As a female player i dont really get what this i seven supposed to achieve. i started playing a month or two before return to Ravnica came out and ive never had a problem with the "sexualized" as some people put it art work. In fact some of my favorite pieces were and still are Innistrad vampires ,Liliana of the veil and Teysa envoy of ghosts(one of my top 5 favorite mtg arts) among others. And they looked good and we rent afraid to show some skin. Since a lot of these artworks showed creatures that were cool and at least somewhat powerful(not necessarily game play wise) i just kind of saw them showing of there body as a way to visually show that they were confident in themselves. Also having some characters in sexier out fits can be used as a design choice when creating characters to convey other things as well. Like not every female character needs to show some skin to look good but if theres no major reason they shouldn't then i dont see how its a problem. I always thought characters like Teysa and Liliana were really cool and probably how female characters should be designed for fiction in general. they were attractive with well designed art powerful confident and cunning but they still had flaws.
Ive been annoyed with the way theyve changed the art work were they feel a need make a lot of female art work bland and make them less beautiful. Also making Its not all bad like i really like Judith's and the new teysas art but there just seems to be alot more bland pieces nowadays and some are even cards like legendary creatures like new radha or admiral Becket brass. Also the whole thing where a bunch of female characters look like dudes i dumb to. like Why would even feminists want the girls to look like dudes dont they want more female representation. I just find the decline in art kindof sad because the cool art was part of what drew me in. And i also really liked the cool female character but im much less likeley to care about characters whose cards have bland art and design.
But the thing that maid me salty enough to make this post is the new teysa art work for the guild kits. Im not sure how they managed to mess it up is beyond me seeing how all her other arts have been good. Like they completely changed her design. her face looks wierd and not like teysa. They completely changed her outfit. All her other artwork gave the impression she was confident, charismatic, cunning, enigmatic and an aristocrat. Like she looked like she new she was better than everyone and liked it. now she looks like generic wizard.
Im just not sure why there changing it like this. i was never even aware this was a problem until they started changing it. Like even if they want cover up female characters to appease well certain demographics i see no reason why this should also involve bland composition and design.
Also just to be clear i really dont want to direct the criticism at the artists. Ive always had a huge respect for what they do. More so i think this change is the fault of art directors.
On topic: Its because of oversexualization/objectification in the past, and an open and admitted desire to show diversity in ethnic/body types.
Simple. I got ripped by some guy on Twitter because I mentioned I dont like how the art has been getting 'samey' and I wish we had more stuff like Topplegeist and Growth Spiral, well...this new art isnt meant to appeal to you, but in today's social media climate? Judith, the Scourge Diva is about as good as you are going to get again.
Spirits
My problem with Judith is the art is great but shes so small on the card! I wish they could have made it so I don't have to squint to see her face or the details on that chain.
BGGRock
Modern
BRGJund
BBGRock
Covered up, maybe... ...but ugly? I don't know about your standards, but I don't think the new designs are "ugly".
First of all, I don't think it is a "trend" to cover females up in MtG now, because I don't think this is very new. Sexualization maybe has been a problem with other fantasy fiction products, but MtG has been pretty "clean" the last 10-20 years. Hell, the card with the most cleavage is Mokrut Banshee.
I don't think this is a new trend or a big problem.
When was that, the 1990s?
Many have been complaining about WOTC going 'woke' (and thereby probably broke) and these nuns in armor are merely the latest effect of that political strategy. They'll learn their lesson when people quit playing the game.
Standard: BG Golgari Midrange
Modern: U Merfolk GWUBR 5 Color Humans UBW Esper Gifts GW Bogles
Which is a comical take, held only by a certain sub culture that is easily ignored.
Nobody is going to quit the game over the art not being sexy enough with tits everywhere.
Spirits
Now to actually express some of my own opinion: I love the new direction away from bikini armor and towards actual armor/clothing, some cards just looked awkward, whereas the new look is awesome. OTOH I've been disappointed with the general look of some recent sets, and in the realm of fantasy I see no particular reason to make mundane what could be (unrealistically) beautiful.
As a related train of thought, I play this game to celebrate the beauty of its art, and agree that it could serve to be more beautiful than it has been lately.
Personally, I'm very pleased with a lot of the stuff lately, but thats because Seb is amazing and is right there with the kind of art I want to have in my deck.
Spirits
{мы, тьма}
2012: Best (False?) Role Claim - Worst Town Performance (Group) - Best Mafia Performance (Group) - Best SK Performance - Best Overall Player
2013: Best Non-SK Neutral Performance
2014: Best Town Performance (Individual) - Best Town Performance (Group) - Most Interesting Role - Best Game - Best Overall Player
2015: Worst Mafia Performance (Group) - Best Read
2016: Best Town Performance (Group) - Best Town Player - Best Overall Player
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Sure, Liliana has a "seductress" quality to her, and doesn't wear armor. Showing a little skin and going out of her way to be attractive fits her motif. If it fits and is realistic, I'm fine with it.
That said, no right minded warrior is going to charge into battle wearing a metal bikini. That's absurd, ridiculous, and absolutely destroys the immersion.
No longer staff here.
I grew up looking at semi naked, or just plain naked women on Frazetta's art and never saw (and will never see) the problem. In fantasy all the warriors are impossibly muscled, the rogues impossibly dexterous and the women impossibly beautiful. Conan and Red Sonya are two sides of the same coin. It is literally the way the genre works and it neither pretends to have nor has any bearing on reality. Or even intent to affect it.
However, the people who are imposing this discussion on everyone do and the rest of us have to suffer through their ideological militancy, and all the absurdity it comes with.
That is true. 16th century depictions of Joan of Arc clearly show her in, what I assume, is standard armor for the day. Whether she was voluptuous or flat is largely irrelevant.
But this is a fantasy world filled to the gills with Magic. It wouldn't be unreasonable to see full close fitting body armor or a flat chested snake.
Magic doesn't have to have all the women be voluptuous, but there is no reason to try and completely wipe them away either.
I think the worst offender was the new Radha. It’s one thing to create for the sake of diversity, but retconning because of it? Yuck.
Anyway, I think this whole thing is a non-issue that's been blown way out of proportion. I'm fine with more Knight Exemplars and fewer Vampire's Bites.
Generally speaking, if people are actually mad about more women, people of color, or non-binary people being depicted on cards, those people can quit the game if it means that much to them. Much like the recent Gilette ad that has sparked so much "controversy," the company has crunched the numbers and have come to the conclusion that inclusion is more profitable. So, if you're the kind of person that uses 'SJW' as a pejorative, frequently calls people 'cucks,' or are just plain obvious in your bigotry, your presence is not required, wanted, or financially meaningful.
My 720 Peasant Cube
Huh? What character is non-binary?
This is a much more serious issue with MtG art than is the trends of the portrayal of women, and it's a constant mistake that is made by individual artists, but on the macro scale must be attributed to the art director. Many many cards have really cool and rich art if you see them blown up to full size, but shrunk down to a little more than a postage stamp, they fall flat. Card art should be evocative from far away and across the table.
With regards to the topic of the thread, it's all about tone. Sexy is okay as long as it's in good taste. Throughout fantasy art, it has mostly been in poor taste. The current phase may be a slight overcorrection, but it's not really unreasonable. Basically, a Bant knight should be armored head to toe, but a Gruul woman needn't wear all that many clothes.
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Ashiok, Nightmare Weaver is non-binary. Alesha, Who Smiles at Death is a trans character, which isn't the same as non-binary I know, but still tangentially relevant.
My 720 Peasant Cube
Personally? I find her to be bloated in her new iteration, not even buffer. It just looks like a forced ascetic. No defining feminine feature, even for a Keldon warlord. While you may get older, and dress differently, that doesn’t not make you what you are, or were. I just don’t think her new art did her justice.
As for the other stuff? People can be passionate about the portrayal of their fantasy without ever falling into one of those categories. That is one of the biggest problems with people these days. Labeling.
I tend to agree with your post.
Seasoned Marshal I like this
Angelic Page I also like this /// Edit: These two cards are supposed to be the Urza's saga version, I don't know how to control the image given
Prime Speaker Vannifar This not at all.
I have to admit that I don't really know what people are talking about when they say that female representation has changed. Could example #2 still exist in today's game? It's a pretty iconic style in the history of this game. One thing for sure, the art direction has become bland overall. Though Ravanica Allegiance has a lot of good pieces in it.
Art is life itself.
i scoff at sexualization for no reason (see some cards, or most anime)
but going completely nun style fashion is another thing ,
i don't mind having ugly characters, fat,sexy,****ty,bulky, whatever
i would make some mermaid characters topless or Circe super seductive
why must the scales be always tipped?
it's always funny to think how sex is demonized while brutal killing, zombies and stuff are perfectly okay
Δε φοβάμαι τίποτα...
Είμαι Άνεργος.
Grimstringer on Cockatrice, add me if you wanna
She's not sexy, but still beautiful in her simic clothes.
Voted no.
Nexus MTG News // Nexus - Magic Art Gallery // MTG Dual Land Color Ratios Analyzer // MTG Card Drawing Odds Calculator
Want to play a UW control deck in modern, but don't have jace or snaps?
Please come visit us at the Emeria Titan control thread