This is hard for me to post but I feel like it is important.
I remember hating my face and hating my skin and looking at all the girls around me in middle school and on TV and in ads and feeling like I was a monstrosity in comparison. But I remember the first time I realized women plucked their eyebrows. And wore concealer. And foundation. And powder. I felt like I had been lied to about what women look like. After modeling and realizing when photographers asked for no makeup, they really meant the photo on the right. I started realizing that the photo on the right was what was in skincare ads and posted by people claiming in the caption to be wearing no makeup some of the time. The photo on the right is the bare minimum of what we expect women to look like when they wake up in the morning.
Thought this would be of interest to some people, especially since the topic of how women’s faces in video games, comics, etc being depicted as smooth with no lines (even for facial expressions) has come up before. Also, how often women will be drawn with default eyeliner, eyeshadow, lipstick, etc even if there should be no reason for them to wear it because they have been living in the wild, or they’re warrior women who have expressed no interest in it, or etc…
It’s part of how what women look like in people’s minds is constructed in our society and by our media; that what is supposed to be something we put on to ‘enhance’ appearance end up being part of the default way women are expected to look. Even if the characters are supposed to be “plain” or “practical” in context, they’ll still be drawn as if they’re wearing some base amount of make up, because that’s how we’re conditioned to see women in our imaginations. And stuff like airbrushing, photoshop, and advertisers using made up faces to represent ‘no make up’ can skew how we perceive what the ‘normal’ or ‘average’ woman is supposed to look like.
So I’ve seen a whole bunch of posts about body positivity. And it would be great, but they’re really bad at actually representing different body types; big girls in particular. So I’ve drawn a comparison.
I’m tired of seeing posts that totally miss the point. Those posts are supposed to make you feel good about your body. But it’s hard for bigger girls to feel good about themselves if they’re represented by women that aren’t big. Fat is okay. But here’s some things that people almost always ignore when drawing bigger ladies:
- Stretch marks
And some misconceptions/ common mistakes:
- Larger breasts ( a LOT larger)
- Wider hips
- Same size waist as girls with less body fat
I’m going to put it bluntly: I’m sick of seeing fatter girls be misrepresented. I’m tired of seeing posts getting glory for drawing bigger girls when they don’t. I have yet to see a body positivity post that shows cellulite, stretch marks, folds, and spillage. These things are real, and they’re beautiful.
So try and remember these things next time you try and represent fat girls. Because if you’re not thinking about the “ugly” stuff, you’re doing it wrong.
This is something I think a lot about when I moderate this blog. We get a lot of submissions depicting fat people who aren’t really… well, fat.
Fatter than what we see in a lot of art, sure. And I know for a lot of the artists submitting work, this might be the fattest person they’ve ever drawn, their first dipping of a timid toe into new waters. And I never want to discourage that. And there’s more than one way to be fat.
But we are still often seeing a fairly narrow representation of fat people in the artwork that gets submitted, and it gives me pause to think of this blog being used to reinforce this narrow representation.
I want to encourage artists to stretch themselves in their subject matter. Go further than “slightly rounder.” Find references, do some studying, figure out the way fat really looks.
I find that there are fewer resources for drawing fat people than there are of thin people. Due to societal pressure, many fat people are unwilling to model, many photographers taking reference photos exclude fat people from the artistic conversation, and it can be very rude to approach someone unsolicited and say “Can I study your fat?” It’s part of why I started this blog in the first place. We can learn from each other’s art, techniques that are harder to find in the mainstream art world.
I wonder sometimes if I should start another tumblr looking for artistic resources of fat people. User submitted reference photos of fat people in various poses to be used for artistic study. There are other blogs showcasing wonderful arrays of various body types, but sometimes you need specific poses, closeups of a shoulder blade or an ankle, you know? Perhaps it’s time to make this happen.
I think this is relevant and important commentary given that this blog talks about body diversity in art, and how even when people are drawing big women, they still may be adhering strongly to a certain way society believes women should appear.
(Note: to clear up a misconception, I believe the posts are talking about how there’s a certain body type that is used constantly to depict big women, not that it’s “wrong”, but that it’s a narrow type and a restrictive standard.)
Just when you thought you knew everything about boobs… NSFW?
My darling friend Chizzi mentioned that there are a lot of booby tutorials out there are just predrawn boobs with the artist going HEY LOOK! HERE ARE SOME BOOBS! but not many that actually talk about the anatomical structure, and where to put the lines. I was like, “Hey, I can probably whip something up.” And so I spent my thanksgiving making this.
Proportions probably aren’t exact, but I did my best. I also didn’t explore the various body types, but perhaps I could do a separate tutorial someday. I hope you find this tutorial useful :)
All photo references used in the tutorial were found on The Drawing Script. Credits to each photo belong to their respective owners.
A tutorial on the placement and movement of (non-augmented) breasts that might be of interest to people. :)
With theaters â particularly larger theaters â chock full of men’s stories, where did the women go?
An interesting piece on NPR about this writer noting that the vast majority of movies out right now are about men or ensembles of men with women in a supporting role.
I also thought this was of note:
They put up Bridesmaids, we went. They put up Pitch Perfect, we went. They put up The Devil Wears Prada, which was in two-thousand-meryl-streeping-oh-six, and we went (and by “we,” I do not just mean women; I mean we, the humans), and all of it has led right here, right to this place. Right to the land of zippedy-doo-dah. You can apparently make an endless collection of high-priced action flops and everybody says “win some, lose some” and nobody decides that They Are Poison, but it feels like every “surprise success” about women is an anomaly and every failure is an abject lesson about how we really ought to just leave it all to The Rock.
Part of the problem with the “they’re just doing what sells” argument is the assumption that comics/movie/gaming industries are all made of purely objective beings of energy and thought rather than human beings who come with their own biases, and who can also tend to prefer the safe status quo that are affected by those biases. If a Catwoman or Elektra flops, it’s chalked up to people not wanting to watch movies with women in them, but if a Jonah Hex or Green Lantern do poorly, that’s not assumed to be the fault of those movies having male leads. As the piece says for men, a movie failing can be seen as the cost of doing business, rather than an indictment of the movie having a lead of a certain gender. If the “common knowledge” in Hollywood is that movies with women don’t sell, it can lead to confirmation bias, where ones that do are flukes (or not about having a female lead), and ones that don’t are proof that people don’t want to see women in lead roles (and not about the promotion of the movie, or the writing, or the acting, or etc).
Anyway, I wanted to share this because I thought some people might find it of interest. :)
A couple years ago I was in talks to option a Dresden Codak film, and was politely told that “female leads are a hard sell,” and asked how married I was to the fact that my protagonist is a woman. Suffice it to say, I ended up not wanting to make a Dresden Codak film.
What bugs me about “women don’t sell” is that not only is demonstrably not true, even if it were true, that’s not a valid excuse! If filmmakers discovered that the best selling movie concept was just 90 minutes of a puppy being beaten, I’d hope they’d at least give a pause.
Once again, women are subjected to a double-standard. If a male-led film fails, it’s because the film is bad. If a female-led film fails, it’s because “women don’t sell.”
In short, screw you, Hollywood, my lady-hero comic is successful, and it’s hardly the only one!
Sharing this too because I didn’t know this happened and it’s an actual example of somebody being told “female leads don’t sell.”
Cinco erros de beleza cis que detonam a imagem masculina cisgênera
Unhas roídas e pelos saindo do nariz são alguns dos deslizes mais comuns.
Por mais que os homens cis não operados estejam cada vez mais vaidosos, a turma dos machões ainda acha que as mulheres igualmente cis gostam mesmo é de…
Straight from the 80s, a rare beast indeed - video game cover art featuring two sensibly-dressed warrior women and an Escher Boy! Impractical armor, twisted pose, broken feet, and all. It’s like an artifact from some kind of alternate universe.
Phantasy Star was apparently the Hawkeye Initiative before the Hawkeye Initiative. xD
Edit: The character in the white cloak is a man and not a woman as the OP said, the only woman in the picture is the one at the front, thanks to sandy-cooca for writing in. :)