"Something about this poster really rubs me the wrong way (and it ain't just the daisy dukes wedgie). People can draw whatever they want and Frank Quietly is a great artist, but honestly this makes me want to avoid that event like the plague."—Lisa Hanawalt
"I think if this flyer wasn't representing a girl cartoonist I would not be annoyed like I am now. I'm just mildly annoyed. Also it made me laugh a lot because the women cartoonists I know are way sexier than that."—Domatille Collardey
The cartoonists behind such books as I Want You and What Had Happened Was... respectively take issue on their Twitter accounts with the promotional art for a rare stateside appearance by Batman and Robin artist Frank Quitely tomorrow night, the proceeds from which will be donated to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. Please note that neither person is saying it's the worst thing in the world or that Quitely's some kind of creep, just that it's an odd and off-putting choice of image for the event. I was taken aback by it myself, and I say that as someone who admires Quitely's art generally and his sexy-ish art specifically. Maybe it's the visible underwear, giving me flashbacks to every superhero artist who's drawn some poor woman's thong sticking out of her jeans? Or maybe, as Collardey argues, it has something to do with the fact that the woman in question is, apparently, a cartoonist herself? This also makes me wonder how much our reaction to a given image has to do with who made it. If this had been done by, say, Greg Horn, would I be at all tempted to defend it? Does the quality of the artist's overall body of work, or even of his depictions of women in particular aside from this one image, factor into the equation? Am I using rhetorical questions in order to avoid taking a coherent position?