In defense of boob-cup armor and chain-mail bikinis. Â (Just kidding.)
So…  This is a topic that comes up a lot in fantasy art.  With rare exception, we nerdgeeks of the world want much the same thing.  Caffiene.  Wait, no!  Immersive, intriguing stories, with characters we can relate to and grow with, and if there are some epic visuals to boot, all the better.
Though most of us don’t want to seem shallow, we also respond to visually idealized characters.  We like our Superman rippling with muscles.  Even though if we think about it, he’s so immensely strong from a Kryptonian body under a yellow sun, that there’s not much that will stress his body enough to stimulate that kind of muscle growth.  Realistically, he should look weak.  Nobody is really opposed to a shredded, bodybuilding contest ready Superman or Conan.  And why should we be?  They’re our myths and legends.  They’re supposed to be larger than life.  Larger than us.  They’re supposed to lead the way through challenges we fear we may not be capable of overcoming.
So what about heroines?  We’re so much more sensitive about what our heroines look like.  Why? Â
First, we’ll just get it out of the way.  Yeah, sometimes it’s juvenile pandering.  But those are pretty obvious.  For the purposes of what I’m going to talk about, we’ll dismiss the “not even trying" Juggella Blooddeather types.
When you’re creating the visual of a character, there’s a lot to consider.  You’re trying to tell a story with no words, no movement, no before and after.  Just a still moment in the life of the character.  And you want your audience to connect.  To know something about them, and to want to know more. If you’ve done things right, upon seeing your work, you’ll hear one or more of “Who are they?  What’s going on here?  What just happened?  What’s going to happen next?"
So how do you do it? Â And how am I going to eventually get back to chainmail bikinis?
First, let’s get the idea of exposure = bad out of the way.  There are a lot of folks who misunderstand context, and boil things down to objective rules.  Stuff like if there’s X amount of skin showing, then it’s sexist and/or obscene.  End of story.  Well, that’s nonsense.  It’s all about context and story.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with skin, the human form, or nudity.
But it’s easy to understand where the notion comes from.  Often times, showing a little skin is pure marketing.  Sex sells.  Take some clothes off, pose all contorty-like, and that’ll get more young fellas interested.
It’s also easy to understand the reasons for covering up a character.  It’s safer, you’ll widen your audience, and usually fits better with the story.  Unless of course the story is about a peddler selling magical medieval lingerie.Â
But what legitimate reasons could there possibly be to show skin, if not for shock and sex-appeal?  Broken record here: story.  The frozen moment in time that an artist has.  Telling that story with a mix of realism and symbol.  Why do we all depict Superman with gigantic, carved out of wood arms?  Not because it makes sense.  Because it’s a symbol of his strength.  His sacrifice and discipline.  Symbolism doesn’t have to be crazy weird stuff that only makes sense to people with doctorates in art history.  It’s everywhere.  For good and bad.  That’s more of the reason most of us oppose the chainmail bikini.  Even before we go “hey, that doesn’t make sense, from a tactical combat perspective!" we react to it’s symbolism.  Which is saying “I’m not here to be part of an introspective journey into the human condition, I’m here to look hot and get men to notice me."  That’s really what bothers many of us.  That the character is reduced.  Shallowed.
So then, chainmail bikinis: never ever, right?  Well…  Let me bring up a mildly controversial one.  Princess Leia’s slave costume.  Opinions are divided.  But why do so many girls want to cosplay as Leia?  Why do we remember that costume over so many others she had?  Are we all sexist pigthings?  Do the girls just want an excuse to strut around Comic Con half naked?  Do the boys just want yet another skimpy pinup girl?  HELL NO.  Not even close. Once again, it’s all about story.  Character.  Let’s look at what that costume means to Leia’s character.
Throughout the trilogy, Leia kicks ass.  She takes approximately zero crap from anyone.  She stands up for what she believes, even in the face of death and stinky old creeper generals.  She fights for and defends her friends.  That’s why we love her.  So why do we want to “debase" that amazing character by showing her enslaved and powerless?  Because what comes next is what it really means to us.  The scene in Jabba’s palace was Leia’s defining moment.  She was literally stripped of everything.  She had no militia to command, she had no weapons, her political power meant nothing.  She didn’t even have her friends.  She was there, the darkest, most desperate moment of her life.  The most frightening, the most at risk.  The tiniest chance to turn it around.  Her actions would decide the fate of her friends, herself, and ultimately, a galaxy.  And she OWNED IT.  She took the symbol of her captivity and “defeat" - the chains - and changed everything with them.  With nothing but her own will, her own hands, her own courage.  That is her moment.  That is when she faces it all, and proves herself.  The bikini in this case is a contrast, and a catalyst.  She’s supposed to have been humiliated, rendered powerless, with some silly outfit.  Instead we’re shown that she needs nothing but herself to carve her name in destiny.  Jabba mistook her for weak, claimed her as a spoil, and dressed her as a trophy.  Whether you consciously realize it or not, that costume represents Leia seizing her place in history, being tested and acing the crap out of it.
Seriously.  Re-imagine the scene in your head.  Have her dressed as the bounty hunter, just shackled and standing against the wall or something.  Doesn’t work as well, does it?  Something’s missing.  She’s still protected.  She’s still seen as a threat.  That would make her defining moment, well, undefined.  It’d be the same as when she fights storm-troopers or races a speeder bike.  Still cool, just not “TREMBLE, FOR THIS IS THE TRUTH OF LEIA."
In pure illustration, we can’t rely on the audience already knowing the story.  Usually the whole idea is to get you interested in it in the first place.  So sometimes, it’s more direct symbolism.  Look at Brom’s work.  Tons of skin.  You never feel like it’s somehow pandering to a lowest common denominator.  Mostly you feel awe.  His characters are dressed in a sort of tribal, ritualistic way, that makes you think that “whatever is going on here, it’s powerful.  And every stitch of outfit, every stroke of body-paint, means something."  It activates something instinctual and primitive in you.
But, though he does it infinitely better than I do, I can’t really talk about his process, because I’m not him. Â
There are two of my pieces that get more… scrutiny than others.  Liliana of the Veil, and the Obsidian Champion.  The second is easier to talk about, so we’ll start with that.  She’s what most people would say is my most blatent “backwardsly armored" female.  http://steveargyle.com/gallery/artwork/?artwork_id=100Â
Whether I succeeded or not is subject of much internet debate, but here was the idea:  Her character is an absolutely loyal, incredibly deadly bodyguard to the demi-god-trapped-in-a-body ruler of the Shadowlands.  She’s actually not so much about using that sword, as she is about intimidation, misdirection, sorcery, and manipulation of fear.  So while the more accurate costume would be more like the second painting I did of her (once folks knew the character,http://steveargyle.com/gallery/artwork/?artwork_id=360) for the first image, I opted to use more emotional symbolism.  Black and red, glossy armor. Borrowed from black widow spiders.   Pale skin with deep red patterns.  A soft target with a warning, like poisonous animals, or those that lure prey.  Her eyes are completely covered.  You can’t read her.  And somehow, she still sees you.  She’s obviously just taken a victim, licking their blood from her fingers.  Which adds a little bit of creepy glee to her duty.  She is good at what she does, and she enjoys it.  The background shows a radial window, another nod to a spider.  So the whole idea was to craft her around predators that signal.  So even if you might say “hey, that wouldn’t protect you in a fight!" the first thing you get is an uneasy feeling.  A little twinge of “she’s scary…"  Because that’s what she’s about.  Her job is to scare, and keep attention away from the fella she guards.
I don’t think she’d look as scary in full armor.  She’d certainly look more militarily capable.  More protected, more professional, more serious.  But not as predatory.  Not as dangerous.  That exposed, literal soft underbelly, says “there’s more to this."  It makes you stop for a second, because it doesn’t make sense.  It says “something is wrong."
Not everyone sees it like that. Â Even the folks at AEG eventually killed her off by just unceremoniously having her stabbed in the gullet, with a quip about her incomplete armor.
But hey, that’s the path, right?  Keep trying, keep learning.  One of these days, I’ll get it.  :)
So, this post is getting rediculously long.  If anyone has bothered to read this far, and isn’t annoyed they did, we can chat more.  I didn’t really cover even a fraction of the topic.  Like some legitimate reasons for boob-cups.  (Though there aren’t a ton…)
Anyhow, talk to you next time!
pixelskylines
2087
stormborns
areudirty
dailybridgerton
