Let's bring Ian Gibson back in the from the cold.

[BPP]

Sexy is one thing. Exploitative pseudo-porn bollocks (Red) or 'glamour' model Page-3 poses (Halo) is another. Not least in an industry that still has massive problems with representation, and from a publication that has historically been very male.

Such a weirdly conservative Anglo Saxon view of sex and erotica. One highly prescriptive of women’s views on their representation and ability to be portrayed as sexual beings. One that also denies the proven popularity of sexual imagery through millennia. I realise twitter might be on the side of your argument but twitter is about as representative as the people’s front of Judea.

Not sure what ‘an industry that still has massive problems with representation’ has got to do with this unless of course you’re arguing that Ian Gibson and Carlos Ezquerra have somehow limited the participation of women in the comics industry. And that we should pulp vast works of many of the greats of comics or let Alex di Campi decide whether Manama is beyond the pale but Crepax okay.

[Modern Panther]

The participation of women in the industry is not helped by overtly sexualized imagery produced by men, for men.  When women are producing art in to express their own sexuality they rarely paint women on their knees.

[TordelBack]

The main issue here for me is not that sexy art has no place in comics (there's a full spectrum of comics from cheery cheesecake through the hardest of porn, that's true of ANY medium), but that Halo is a fully-rounded, highly regarded and largely unsexualised female character, one of the first in 2000AD's almost-all-male history - slapping her name on (to my mind) an unconnected bit of boob art to sell more prints is just very poor form. 

Halo's other creator has written more than his share of pornography, both explicitly (Lost Girls) and implicitly (LoEG I'm looking at you), with other writers' characters that were never intended for that purpose.  But with Halo Jones, a regular woman in a milieu desperately short of them, it just seems wrong.

[BPP]

if one of Halo Jones creators what’s to depict her as having a sensual side, a violent side, a maternal side, a fetishistic side, a nasty side, a narcissistic side... that’s their right and quite why anyone else feels entitled to delineate what side is / isn’t acceptable is beyond me.

Much like those twats complaining about a female doctor who... if you don’t like it you know what to do.

[BPP]

The participation of women in the industry is not helped by overtly sexualized imagery produced by men, for men.  When women are producing art in to express their own sexuality they rarely paint women on their knees.

That’s a nifty slogan but it’s not exactly true. The history of erotica has many women wanting to and exercising creative control of hetero-normative imagery. Plenty of which includes women being on their knees.

Kinda funny 2000ads best cheesecake droid is female. Maybe she should take a long hard look at how’s shes oppressing women in the industry.

[Tiplodocus]

And even though I have previous in the opposite camp, me too.

[Richard]

I don't think there's a genuine equivalence between drawing Halo Jones with her tits out and casting a woman as Dr Who.

[BPP]

I don't think there's a genuine equivalence between drawing Halo Jones with her tits out and casting a woman as Dr Who.

No, you’re right - Ian Gibson actually co-created Halo Jones so he has even more license to do with the character what he wants than the custodians of the current run if Dr Who have. But in terms of fandom dictating to a creator the point stands. Anything else is conflicting the instance with the principle and imposing your / fanboys own whims over a creators.

[Funt Solo]

None of these ‘controversies’ matter.

Except that they actually do matter, because they have a studied material effect. 

[GordonR]

As for this “as the co-creator of Halo Jones, his depiction of the character must be accepted as completely valid” shite....well, Alan Moore didn’t seem so impressed:

According to Moore, Halo Jones – cited as one of one of the top 50 comic characters by Empire magazine in 2008 – was conceived as "an attempt to introduce a realistically observed and realised female character into the alpha-male dominated line up of 2000AD".

"I fail to see how my original intentions for the character are served by a long-lens shot of her with her 50th-century tits out," he added. "In fact, rather the opposite." 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/21/halo-jones-topless-row-ian-gibson

Whose creative opinion seems more valid here: the guy who thought up the character and her world, or the guy who drew her after someone else had thought her up?

[Modern Panther]

Maybe we could ask some of the many women who post on this forum...

[BPP]

As for this “as the co-creator of Halo Jones, his depiction of the character must be accepted as completely valid” shite....well, Alan Moore didn’t seem so impressed:

According to Moore, Halo Jones – cited as one of one of the top 50 comic characters by Empire magazine in 2008 – was conceived as "an attempt to introduce a realistically observed and realised female character into the alpha-male dominated line up of 2000AD".

"I fail to see how my original intentions for the character are served by a long-lens shot of her with her 50th-century tits out," he added. "In fact, rather the opposite." 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/mar/21/halo-jones-topless-row-ian-gibson

Whose creative opinion seems more valid here: the guy who thought up the character and her world, or the guy who drew her after someone else had thought her up?

Both equally. It’s not antithetical for Gibson to do one thing with halo and Moore another.

Unless you’re advocating returning to the idea of the artists simply being guns for hire and the writer as the sole creator. Which is a whole different kettle of fish.

[IndigoPrime]

I don't think there's a genuine equivalence between drawing Halo Jones with her tits out and casting a woman as Dr Who.

Quite. I'm finding bits of this thread baffling. The entire point of the issues people have about these images is they're entirely about male gaze. It's nothing to do with women, bar as objects for blokes to get off on. And especially in Halo's case, the fact Gibson cannot see why people were annoyed is astonishing. (As for Red, the image Ezquerra created was grim on several levels, but also we're into Smurfette territory there. She was the only female character of note in the vast majority of Strontium Dog, and was throughout dressed in 'something for the boys' garb. So the obvious next thing to do, clearly, is draw her tits-out, ready to be consumed by two slavering beasts.)

[Modern Panther]

Near as I can tell, the idea is that plenty of women like being portrayed as sex objects, as evidenced by there being some women who work in comics. Not portraying women in this way is sexist, slavishly following cultural norms.  Creators can do what they want with their creations, even if its entirely counter to the original concept and the view s of co-creators.  And if you don't like women being set free in this way, that's just like the people who think women shouldn't be involved in DrWho, and you just should buy the art, just like they shouldn't watch the show. Also, you probably think that all Ian Gibson art should be pulped. Is that what you want? Well? Is it?!

[IndigoPrime]

Yes, that all sounds about right. It's certainly an interesting angle to suggest the agency of women is somehow reduced by people suggesting it's distasteful and not a good idea to title a picture of a semi-random bit of glamour-model art after a feminist comics icon, in order to drum up press and sell a few extra prints. And that this is somehow sexist and basically the same as people who can't stomach a female Doctor. (Mrs IP silent stare after I ran the above past her. Clearly, she's anti-women as well or something.)