Around the net I've seen more than once illustrators take flack for their portrayal of female figures: no faces, impossible contortions and the like, you all know the drill.
Well, a few days ago, right on the heels of a successful commission for the same client, an art director from a big publishing house called T. inquiring about his availability, the commission was the cover for the newest instalment in a quite popular series.
T. was on Cloud Nine, this is to be his third cover for them, a great feather in his cap and a big validation for his work, he accepts, there is more talk with rough guidelines and some reference material, intense brain-storming follows and he offers three sketches for consideration, one more dynamic, one where the MC is more pensive and one more light-hearted (all in slight three-quarter view given that the girls on the two previous covers in the series are profile and frontal)..
Today T. hears back from the art director (a woman, BTW): " Yes, ok, more dynamic is fine but...I'll send you an image to make clearer the pose we were thinking of, it is a bit exaggerated, but..."
And, of course, the girl in the image is in a torsion no human body could tolerate, with her behind pointed straight at the viewer and her boobs in three-quarter view.
Never mind me while I cry quietly in the corner.
Comments
Do you follow Jim C. Hines? He's an American fantasy writer, and he's also talked quite a bit about female poses on book covers, going so far to imitate the poses himself just to show how horribly wrong they truly are.
I remember a couple of posts on the topic (with photos), they were magnificent and hilarious (in a 'gallows humor' way)
How maddening.
Feel free, Janet, I edited out the country and will unlock the entry.
Sadly I don't think that would have held much sway with the AD, Jim C. Hines isn't even translated over here (something I hope will change sooner rather than later).
Thank you for unlocking and sharing this story.
I have mild scoliosis, which makes it somewhat easier to twist in one direction, and I still can't make both breasts and both butt cheeks visible from the same angle at the same time. There is NO good reason for that kind of nonsense in a book cover at all.
I'm seconding the Iron Man idea, of showing what really happens if you twist somebody that far. :) Maybe that'll get it through to them. Given the fact that I've seen good book covers of Strong Women replaced with book covers of the same strong characters in Weak, Sexy, And Helpless poses...I don't have much hope, but I don't want to give up altogether.