"Realism" in Fantasy Setting Artwork

[Twisted Crow]

From 'chain mail bikinis and boobplate' to unwieldly weapons. Are there any things that drive you up a wall about fantasy art or critics of it? I was sparked to make this topic for fun after a certain find in the Private areas of the site. This one neat picture made me think of a painting this friend had completed that was strangely similar. It had this woman bearing a body comparable to Jessica Alba. Clad in bikini mail and silky loin-cloth, she had a zweihander-like blade slung casually, draped over a naked shoulder. She (the artist) showed her finished masterpiece to me and a few other acquaintences of hers. We all agreed that it was a superb painting. I was absoluely in love with it. But then came the critics on the "realism" of it.

The weird thing is that all of the criticism came down to her choice of attire. It was either way impractical, overly sexual, created body image issues, etc. After a while, I got irritated that nobody seemed to object to the fact that (barring any magical assistance) she wouldn't be picking up this weapon. Much less actually swing it (effectively) too many times without getting exhausted. A common thing I find funny in this artwork is the over-sized weapon being ignored while the attire is always picked at. Anime gets away with all of this because it is generally not aiming for realism. But the more photorealistic-styled art has its share of silliness that we either ignore completely or (worse, in my opinion) cherry-pick.

So, I brought this up:

"Hold up. You guys are going to bitch about the armor, or lack thereof, and not talk about how she wouldn't be able to pick this up like it's just a goddamn fishing rod? Forget about swinging it around, how is she even picking the weapon up?"

The amount of steel in the blade and the distribution of weight by it's length and girth would make it hellaciously unwieldly. Nobody was swinging this weapon without magical help. Not Jessica Alba. Not Lucy Lawless. Not Brock Lesnar. Not J.J. Watt or Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime. Nobody.

"Well, it could be magical, Dallas. It could have magically-reduced weight."

I counter with: "Okay... so why can't the armor be magical (like many protective magic spells and wards, it could produce some inertial barrier)? Why are we cherry-picking realism in a fantasy world when said world could easily dictate what is 'realistic' within its own setting?"

As Bob Ross had a habit of saying for aspiring painters: "This is your world."

[Twisted Crow]

Let me be clear, though. I am mostly talking about art and it's portrayals therein. But even still, my feelings are typically in favor of the attempt to humor/entertain it. Whatever world one could be picturing as it is being brushed into a given canvas (as opposed to the one we might know and live in). 

[Beorning]

Personally, I don't like either absurdly-oversized (or absurly-shaped in general) weapons, as well as "chainmail bikini" type of armour.

The reason why the issue of armour may irk people more is, I think, because it's easier to spot impractibility of an armour as opposed to the weight of a weapon. How much strength would be needed to swing a big sword isn't necessarily obvious, as most of us don't have experience in sword-fighting. On the other hand, we can immediately imagine that a chainmail bikini just... wouldn't work as any kind of protection.

There's also the issue of this kind of armour being prevalent on female characters in fantasy art - which does tie to oversexualization of women and similar issues... Many people are just annoyed by it.

[rou]

The weird thing is that all of the criticism came down to her choice of attire. It was either way impractical, overly sexual, created body image issues, etc. After a while, I got irritated that nobody seemed to object to the fact that (barring any magical assistance) she wouldn't be picking up this weapon.

There's nothing inherently harmful about oversized weapons. Oversized weapons aren't insulting or derogatory to normal, realistic weapons. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Contrary to what seems to be popular belief at some times, women are people (with feelings) and not sexual objects. Unlike a sword, who doesn't even have eyes to see other portrayals of it's "kind", I as a woman can look, interpret, and react to an image of a woman.

When everywhere I look, people like me are reduced to eye candy and sexual fetishes, yeah, I care a lot more about that than Cloud Strife's silly Buster Sword. (Did I get that reference right?)

[Oniya]

When everywhere I look, people like me are reduced to eye candy and sexual fetishes, yeah, I care a lot more about that than Cloud Strife's silly Buster Sword. (Did I get that reference right?)

Yep - or Sephie-boy's 'my penis sword is so long it won't fit in my pants sheath.'

Truth be told, I'm more interested in accuracy when the portrayal is putting some effort into being accurate.  If you show me a character who purportedly just hacked their way out of a burning, besieged town (as evidenced by the flames in the background and the distraught profile post), but they still look like they stepped off the cover of a fashion magazine, I'm going to be miffed.  One does not come through high adventure without a single hair out of place!

(Also, authors?  Please consider your characters' vocabularies when they observe things as well as when they speak.  No one describes a dusty canvas tent as 'taupe'.  Taupe is for shoes and bathroom accessories.)

[Sain]

My personal opinion is that. Artists do what artists like. I personally don't critique the artists drawing this into comics or artwork. They're free to explore their fantasies and fetishize whatever is their preference. It's their work, they set the theme. If it looks cool and sexy that's all it needs to be. Much of the time the artists don't really have any message behind it after all, they just draw whatever is visually appealing to them. In my view this kind of ideologically blind pure pursuit of aesthetic that pleases the artist's inner eye is the purest and most wonderful form of art, whether that be a fantasy scenery without any message, a bikini clad girl holding a wrist breaking sword, or a crazy looking monster that shouldn't be possible and has no place in any setting. There are a ton of artists out there who don't sexualize but instead pursue a more "graceful" aesthetic appeal and that's totally just as valid, oftentimes much more evocative. That still won't reduce my appreciation for silly smutty sketches drawn in 30 minutes with nothing but passion and the artist's wish to see a boob or cock in a funny angle.

[Mantis Shrimp Prime]

The reason they don't complain about characters fighting with giant pizza slicers is because they don't have a problem with unrealism, they have a problem with the objectification of women's bodies.
Which I wish they would just say straight up because I think that's legit reason to be put-off by something.
People do get a little hyped up about it, though, as though their personal reactions should be some kind of . Especially in your case, it's a bit strange to tell a female artist's painting is "sexist" (which is perhaps why they didn't say that specifically).



Now, on the realism angle... I would say skimpy armor (armor outfits specifically, not necessarily someone fighting in a skimpy non-armor outfit) is in fact unrealistic to the point it damages verisimilitude. You can fudge the unwieldiness and other issues with a weapon, but armor by nature is supposed to cover stuff up. You can justify not having armor at all, but when you have someone wearing a thong and some bigass pauldrons, it does seem a bit silly.
And that metal thong can't be terribly comfortable...

And if you explain the armor as having a force field or being, I dunno, transparent, you can get points for that but it usually doesn't come up and feel like it's trying too hard. (Kind of like saying your scantily clad woman has to be near naked because she breathes through her skin or somesuch).
Really, one should just admit they designed it for sexiness reasons and take the flak that will come with it.

In a story, it'd be something to think about. Unless it's a really stylized story, or if you're just doing it to look cool for an art piece and the ramifications for how it fits in the setting aren't really important.

[rou]

I will say that the arguments about whether something is realistic is like arguing semantics.

I'd much prefer to say, "Stop over-sexualizing women because it's harmful to women" than to say "Stop over-sexualizing women because chainmail bikinis just aren't realistic."

[Capone]

I selected that I'm a mix, because it all depends on the context and tone of the story being told. If you are trying to have a grounded, realistic world, then everything about the characters must reflect that. If you are going for stylized, then everything should be stylized to a consistent degree.

My feelings on sexualization are probably unpopular and would spawn an argument. As an overweight guy with an extraordinary amount of body hair, Hollywood does me no favors by shaving every man to be as smooth as a baby's bottom with six-packs so well-packed you can use them to wash your clothes. I also have no interest in looking like Chris Hemsworth as Regular Thor, nor did his being Fat Thor seem more relatable. Of course, while I want to empathize with fictional characters, I don't want to project onto them beyond philosophically or ideologically. I'm no idealized version of a man, but I also don't have an idealized version of man or myself. So I don't care if all the Marvel heroes look astronomically better than I do, especially in the comics.

Honestly, I'm only now getting over the damage to my self-esteem a lot of women's fantasies of "the ideal man" have done, because effectively Elliquiy taught me that I'm no one's fantasy or ideal. Maybe society has been easier on me, teaching me I don't need a great physique to be successful (just money), the many fantasies of women here have taught me nothing but even my own interpretation of the idealized self isn't good enough for them. And society has, honestly, convinced me of that, too. Emotionally, philosophically, ideologically... there's plenty of people that aren't valued out there, and it sucks.

But should I be angry at all those women on E for their fantasies? Or should I recognize what I already know about my own? Yeah, I like women with big ol' breasts, but the women in real life I've crushed on and pursued have had a variety of bodies, from fit, to stick then and flat-chested, to chubby-wubby. Which returns me to the point of the artwork.

If your goal is realism, then let all armor and weaponry be realistic. Game of Thrones may have had magic and dragons, but those things still played by a set of rules that never violated the grounded nature of the rest of the story (well, the books... the show, meanwhile, started teleporting whole armies and fleets left and right). If you want to be totally stylized, then go totally stylized. If you want to be somewhere in-between, then be somewhere in-between. Just be consistent. If your men have completely realistic armor obeying realistic laws, including the inability to be truly effective in water, then your women better have equipment that sports those same rules. If your guy is wearing bulky armor that turns him fifteen feet tall and he's swimming across the stream in a deadly pursuit of the goblins, then whatever, man. Have some escapist fun.

If the problem is too much of the unrealistic armor, then the response shouldn't be to get rid of it completely (after all, Dallas notes that the artist was a woman herself, indicating the artist finds an appeal in this sort of thing. Not all women have the same feelings on things, it turns out!). It should be to find a balance, so more types of stories are available rather than just the one. And if the spectacular or skimpy isn't your aesthetic, that's fine, too. Not everything needs to be for everyone, and art that does nothing but try to please everyone is either boring or fails.

So TL;DR: the setting should be internally consistent with itself, there should be variety in entertainment, and everyone's escapist fantasies, kinks, and fetishes are not reflective of their reality (see: the vast number of women whose "ons" include "non-con" on this very site).

[rou]

But should I be angry at all those women on E for their fantasies? Or should I recognize what I already know about my own? Yeah, I like women with big ol' breasts, but the women in real life I've crushed on and pursued have had a variety of bodies, from fit, to stick then and flat-chested, to chubby-wubby. Which returns me to the point of the artwork.

...

So TL;DR: the setting should be internally consistent with itself, there should be variety in entertainment, and everyone's escapist fantasies, kinks, and fetishes are not reflective of their reality (see: the vast number of women whose "ons" include "non-con" on this very site).

Basically.

I have a "type" in my fantasies, and that doesn't have to (or even shouldn't) be my reality. I actually get awkward when trying to talk sex with people, because they'll ask what I like, and lacking extensive real-world experience, I can only really speak to what sounds sexy in prose.

I'm curious whether a woman's fantasy, or the collected fantasies of women, are harmful to men as a whole? I wouldn't want to be insensitive to a man's feelings. I'm more likely to put down my romance novel, though, when men are willing to stop watching porn.

I'm one of those women who loves skimpy armors on women. I think it often looks cool and sexy. I don't know if that has anything to do with the fact that I am bisexual. What I don't like is that such skimpy armor is typically made with the male viewer in mind — it's a tricky subject, really, and I don't think you can separate it from the cultural context of today's world.

Really the only reason I replied to this thread is because I thought attributing skimpy armor arguments to "realism" arguments is just silly.

[Mantis Shrimp Prime]

I'm curious whether a woman's fantasy, or the collected fantasies of women, are harmful to men as a whole? I wouldn't want to be insensitive to a man's feelings. I'm more likely to put down my romance novel, though, when men are willing to stop watching porn.

Like, everybody is vulnerable to body image issues and such due to idealized expectations put forth in the media. It's still something to think about on an individual level (i.e. if you are trying to be sensitive to a given person who might struggle with it, don't tell them they don't have it that bad because they're a man, or whatever).

On a cultural level, it's not the same. Media has more stories of unattractive men scoring hot chicks because their swell guys, culture still values women for their beauty and men for their everything else, and attractive women are still harmed by objectification in a way attractive men aren't. (And even if they're an attractive women, they'll still be critiqued and nitpicked).

So yeah, not something to dismiss, but when people are like, "Men have it bad too!" it comes off as a bit disingenuous.

[Inkidu]

Though I've said it elsewhere and I'll say it again. Boob plate is not actually a determent in armor design; it could be seen as realistic. For me the key points of realism in fantasy are: Does it match the consistency of the world I'm trying to create. Like for instance, it'd be stupid with a capital S to give a woman a warbow and expect her to do anything of note with it, even if she was very strong, because warbows had draws in the range of 70lbs. There are guys who can't do that, but if you give a woman a large crossbow, that'd do the job just fine.

Also, we like the idea of women using rapiers because we think they're dainty and nimble blades, when people without a lot of strength in a single arm should not wield rapiers. They way as much as a medieval arming sword (the one-handed non-quite shortsword you see). Women and those without a lot of single-arm strength would be betters served wielding (as counter-intuitive as it might seem) longswords in both hands. It'd divide the weight and better let women use their legs to absorb blows and do footwork around strikes.

At the end of the day it's about the logic you present to the viewer and reader, and staying consistent in your reasoning and logic.

[Oniya]

Wielding a long-sword two-handed (especially if you have slightly smaller-than-male hands) isn't really that out of line.  Give it a longer hilt, and you have a 'hand-and-a-half' sword.  The thing that Dallas was talking about was the full-on two-handed sword

I'm imagining something like in this picture.

I can't see the woman in this image wielding that blade.  Then again, the image doesn't seem to present her as being inclined to wield it, or even carry it for very long - it's almost as if she's dragging away the sword of someone who has fallen.  (Also, disheveled.  No fashion-mag looks here.)

[Inkidu]

Wielding a long-sword two-handed (especially if you have slightly smaller-than-male hands) isn't really that out of line.  Give it a longer hilt, and you have a 'hand-and-a-half' sword.  The thing that Dallas was talking about was the full-on two-handed sword

I'm imagining something like in this picture.

I can't see the woman in this image wielding that blade.  Then again, the image doesn't seem to present her as being inclined to wield it, or even carry it for very long - it's almost as if she's dragging away the sword of someone who has fallen.  (Also, disheveled.  No fashion-mag looks here.)

Oh I know, there are giant swords throughout history but like the dane-axe the're closer to pole arms. The problem with artists is that they generally go with what's pleasing (and there's nothing inherently wrong with that) but there are big-ass swords of history like the swordstaff!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xIhCesfbYA

[Twisted Crow]

I am not entirely without compassion on unfortunate sexual image aspects because I can relate to that feeling on other media occasionally tugging at my own self-image and worth. Doesn't happen all the time because I often don't let it. But it still happens when I cannot cage that elephant.

In a way, I feel that countless romance stories, movies often put men in situations (and celebrate them) dehumanizing themselves for the sake of a relationship. Or teach men dangerous expectations of masculinity and can be perceived as making demands that not only are unreasonable, but can even encourage dangerous messages despite intention. The Notebook, for example, has an unfortunate message that one can derive from it: "It is never stalking or obsession, fellas... if it is for the sake of love and devotion!"

It is also a shame that those issues can't ever be talked about by someone with a penis without being shamed for it. But it is a bit easier for me to cultivate a sense of humor and cope with when I acknowledge that it is simply fiction.

Still, with all this being said? I am primarily in the camp of preserving artistic rights. Even if they run the risk of making others feel insecure. Yes, even if they stir up my feelings of insecurity because of the notion that "men shouldn't feel things". So yes... make Notebooks and Twilights. If I want to make my anti-heroine wear a flowing waistcloth, lacy bodice and cape because I find that sexy and/or it exudes her coincidence in my eyes... then it is my character. I will do what I desire with it. People are not objects, no. Characters, however, absolutely are objects no matter how convincing the illusion might be. They are pieces created to tell whatever story one wants to tell. Should I be mad at books made exclusively for horny teenage girls? Really, when I look at it through those lens... it becomes rather silly to let fiction threaten my "manliness", even if simple people do take that unrealistic expectation and run with it.

As an artist, I feel that I should be able to create what I want without fear if being socially policed. Criticize my work, sure. But nobody gets to police or bully my creative vision and I do not get to do the same with theirs. This same standard that I expect, I apply with other men and women. If I want to show what my perception of what love/sexy/beauty/heroism/villainy/etc. is to me, people shouldn't have any business telling me what I can and cannot create. Just as I can't tell you not to make your characters misandrists or xenophobic elves just because I think they "encourage" real world issues like sexism or racism (I don't, but just an example). It is simply our own collective works that belong to us the moment we create it. If people do not like them, they don't have to support them. I mean... aside from rules protecting us from doing so in the first place, I wouldn't harass other members on Elliquiy about characters and stories they create for this very reason. Because I expect to be granted the same artistic freedom to create any sort of fiction or tale that I wish.

Heh. Whenever I have similar talks about that regarding fictional worlds, art or what have you... I always end up linking this:

https://youtu.be/0nVGCVlCzL0

[rou]

I am not entirely without compassion on unfortunate sexual image aspects because I can relate to that feeling on other media occasionally tugging at my own self-image and worth. Doesn't happen all the time because I often don't let it. But it still happens when I cannot cage that elephant.

In a way, I feel that countless romance stories, movies often put men in situations (and celebrate them) dehumanizing themselves for the sake of a relationship. Or teach men dangerous expectations of masculinity and can be perceived as making demands that not only are unreasonable, but can even encourage dangerous messages despite intention. The Notebook, for example, has an unfortunate message that one can derive from it: "It is never stalking or obsession, fellas... if it is for the sake of love and devotion!"

It is also a shame that those issues can't ever be talked about by someone with a penis without being shamed for it.

Have you heard of toxic masculinity...? That's a thing us feminists are pretty against.

EDIT: Also, I don't think we want to shame anybody for talking about those things. But when people are talking about women's issues, and a man goes "But what about the MEN!"

......

[Inkidu]

Have you heard of toxic masculinity...? That's a thing us feminists are pretty against.

EDIT: Also, I don't think we want to shame anybody for talking about those things. But when people are talking about women's issues, and a man goes "But what about the MEN!"

......

As someone who has been told that chianmail bikinis are sexist male objectification yet muscle bound men with swords, sandals,  and bare naked chests are not female objectification but instead male power fantasies and are always male power fantasies full stop. The implication being that women don't have power fantasies, women don't ever objectify, or that men cannot ever be made to feel insecure because they don't live up to female fantasies I get where Dallas is coming from. And to lump all of this underneath the banner of toxic masculinity is disingenuous discourse at best. I don't believe in toxic masculinity, I don't believe in toxic femininity. I believe that there are bad people who are looking to use any avenue or excuse to justify their bad actions and they use the worst parts of society in general to further their goals.

[rou]

As someone who has been told that chainmail bikinis are sexist male objectification yet muscle bound men with swords, sandals, and bare naked chests are not female objectification but instead male power fantasies and are always male power fantasies full stop. The implication being that women don't have power fantasies, women don't ever objectify, or that men cannot ever be made to feel insecure because they don't live up to female fantasies I get where Dallas is coming from. And to lump all of this underneath the banner of toxic masculinity is disingenuous discourse at best. I don't believe in toxic masculinity, I don't believe in toxic femininity. I believe that there are bad people who are looking to use any avenue or excuse to justify their bad actions and they use the worst parts of society in general to further their goals.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

My interpretation of Dallas' comments were that he is harmed by the ideas he described, and yet he thinks he has no voice in which to bemoan that harm. That "people with penises" are shamed for taking issue with stuff that is harmful to them.

I believe the ideas he described are, more or less, toxic masculinity at work, and to that end I say "No, Dallas, you are not alone in thinking that is a Bad Thing, and whoever might shame you for taking issue, there are many on your side."

I don't think that men can't be objectified, and I hope it wasn't construed that I said anything of the like.

Just that, "Well women do it to men, too!" isn't a good argument for why it's okay to oppressively objectify women.

[Twisted Crow]

This is not exclusively a problem for one sex or another, really. We do these kinda things to ourselves as much as we do it to each other, unfortunately. That was the point I was trying to get at, but I can only safely speak from a Man's point of view.

One of the most active forums on E are the NC Solos thread, for example. Generally, we know how to seperate real life from fiction on this front. Looking at things this way is kind of my way of dealing with these things. Affirming fiction for what it is. I won't say it is harmless, but it is just as harmful to invest too much ti a point where it creates that harm all over again. All I am saying is that we enforce this as much as "the other side" does if we allow it and get stuck in drawing those lines in the first place.

Besides, that's getting off the rails. Art is not exclusive to one sex or another. I am sorry, but it just isn't.. We equally have a voice on it. Therefore we should be able to equally discuss our own problems with it when we feel that we have them. Even if they are internalized subjectivity or what have you. Even if that is, in my case, sometimes putting too much into artistic visions that a viewer cannot see when the author or designer can.

To a point I do understand that some assholes will go for the "Pfft. X has it worse." Both sides in truth have assholes and bad apples that do this. But art also means a lot to me, so yes.

.. Let's try to keep this on the rails.

[rou]

.. Let's try to keep this on the rails.

Sure thing.

You asked why on earth anyone would be upset over a chain-mail bikini, but not a sword that's too heavy. While it's not necessarily on topic to discuss the nuance of gender politics, to ignore the cultural relevance of gender and objectification the question implies would be, well, you know.

[Twisted Crow]

It isn't so much about her sex, if we are talking about that painting. More so, the dimensions of the weapon being unwieldly for people that are maybe 100 lbs soaking wet and standing about 5'7 while the sword is larger than most NBA Basketball players.

I am a man, and I can't lift the sort of beast of a weapon she was carrying. Because I have a similar body type. I was more lamenting teasing how people overlook certain weapon properties, which are things that even I as a D&D player continue to do. So, I am definitely not without sin as many already know by now. Anyone that has been to a Ren Fair and picked up any forged weapons can have this sort of artwork ruined for them, unfortunately.

Inkidu's mention of the war bow is another example. How tightly wounded the bow is alone. You need a Scorpion King sized person to draw the arrow back. So it isn't hating on ladies with bows (which I like) anymore than its looking at your Legolas archetype elf with suspicion when he has a similarly unwieldly bow.

Ren Fairs ruin some fantasy tropes, I realize.

[Twisted Crow]

This guy... whom I think was already linked earlier...

https://youtu.be/_6_dmFDU7C0

...I don't have his expertise on these types of weapons, admittedly. But I am of the sort in his camp with what little I do know despite still embracing my love for fantasy even when they "get it wrong". Arming swords? Still gonna call them longswords even if he is correct. Am I going to roll my eyes and laugh when I see it impractically used in a movie or something? Most likely...

[Cold Heritage]

As along as the aesthetics's consistent. Like a dude from World of Warcraft next to a dude from a Frank Franzetta painting set on a Looney Tunes background just doesn't work for me.

A single, jarring out of place element bothers me. But I can accept how, say, Warhammer Fantasy (pre-Age of Sigmar) has the semi-realistic soldiers of the Empire going up against the pauldron-core forces of Chaos.

And in a setting like D&D I can accept some waif going full Joss Whedon television series protagonist because I've already bought into the idea that some rando can read a book really hard and be able to warp the fabric of reality to their will.

[Azuresun]

Yep - or Sephie-boy's 'my penis sword is so long it won't fit in my pants sheath.'

[Twisted Crow]

As along as the aesthetics's consistent. Like a dude from World of Warcraft next to a dude from a Frank Franzetta painting set on a Looney Tunes background just doesn't work for me.

The portrait art styles clashing in Neverwinter Nights bugged me for a while. Dunno if this is thr same thing, but that is what i think of.