ADAM HUGHES ON THE MARY JANE STATUE

[MattBrady]

It was something that came from nowhere, really.

Last week, bloggers started in on it and ran, and then, impossibly, the story made its way to The New York Post Fox News, MSNBC and other outlets. And it was about comics – kinda.

It’s Sideshow’s Mary Jane statue, based on a design by Adam Hughes. The statue was announced and made available for pre-order, with a release date of the third quarter. Like many of Sideshow’s collectibles, it was a limited edition, with an unspecified number being produced.

The issue about it – take your pick: opinions ranged from outrage to seeing it as no big deal, and everything in between, with the majority (or at least the majority talking about it) leaning towards outrage.

And then things got weird – the bloggers fire over the statue was enough to catch the attention of major media…well, The New York Post, Fox News, MSNBC and others, who reported with their own spins which ranged from close to representative of fan outrage to downright embarrassing (MSNBC called in Feedback, winner of Who Wants to be a Superhero as an “expert.” Warning – wear your anti-stupid helmet when you watch the MSNBC video clip – otherwise, you’ll get a welt from banging your head on your desk.)

Why was this news at all? After all, if you’ve been collecting comics for any length of time, you’ve seen worse – you’ve probably even seen worse with the aforementioned Mary Jane Watson. Well, more than anything else, think news cycle. Were the major media outlets worried about a Mary Jane statue designed and manufactured for a small cohort of hardcore Spider-Man fans? Nope. Spider-Man 3 had opened, was doing pretty darn well, and anything with a Spider-Man image on it was likely to pull in eyeballs and viewers…even if you were then going to trot out a costumed adult as some kind of “expert.”

That’s not to say that those critical of the statue’s points weren’t valid. For some, the statue was an overt sexualization of a comic book character (who, to be fair, has spent the bulk of her four-plus decades in comics as a sex symbol of some kind or another), while for others, it was a degradation of a female in comics. And to some…well, they just saw it wrong.

How so?

Originally, one of the views of the statue that took hold was that it showed Mary Jane physically washing Peter Parker’s laundry, which served as a foundation of a litany of complaints and assumptions. As others have since pointed out, that’s not what’s going on, given, for one, Sideshow’s description of the statue on their website:

The Mary Jane Comiquette was designed by artist Adam Hughes, who's critically acclaimed realistic illustration meets "good-girl" pin-up style art has made him one of the comic book industry's most sought after artists and a perennial fan favorite. The consummate "girl next door," Mary Jane discovers that her superhero husband has slipped some of his laundry into the mix, but she's not looking too displeased about Peter's naughty little transgression.

Once voice that hasn’t been heard from in all of this – even in the major media reportage – designer Adam Hughes. We spoke with Hughes about the first statue in the series, the White Queen, and caught up with him to talk about the response to the Mary Jane statue.

Newsarama: Did the furor about the statue come as a surprise to you?

Adam Hughes: Yeah, pretty much. There are always people who don’t go for that sort of thing, and there’s nobody amongst us who has a 100% approval rating with consumers and the public, so normally, it’s just a matter of if people don’t like your stuff, they don’t have to buy it. But yeah, this is one of those times where a brushfire has turned into an entire state aflame, I guess. I’d been trying to keep an eye on it, but…wow.

NRAMA: Let’s go back to your concept of the piece, when you designed it and sketched it out. On your side of things, what is the piece about? Obviously, various interpretations have been taken and run with…

AH: Yeah, I think that when people started looking at the statue, some started getting the wrong idea, and a lot of other people springboarded off of that. Whether that’s our fault or somebody else’s, who knows? If I thought that my idea could have been misconstrued, I would’ve thrown a few more things in there so you could tell exactly what’s going on.

My idea was pretty simple, I thought – classic Mary Jane, from the days when Peter and MJ were boyfriend and girlfriend, and she’s found his Spider-Man costume in the laundry basket. It’s the weird little secret that couples have from each other that gets discovered. For me, the gag was that this was the moment when Mary Jane found out that her boyfriend is Spider-Man. She’s not doing his laundry, because I don’t know anybody that does laundry in a basket on a table. Even if you don’t have a washing machine, you’d do the laundry in the sink. This was MJ spotting something in the basket, pulling it out, and doing the “What’s this?” with a look back to Peter over her shoulder.

NRAMA: Still – why this pose and this look?

AH: Well, Mary Jane isn’t a superhero, so you can’t really do anything with her that’s not some version of her just standing there. On top of that, they’ve already done a fantastic statue of her first appearance of “Face it Tiger, you just hit the jackpot!” So – with that gone, what do you do with her? My thought was to do something that hearkens back to the good old days of the Brown and Bigelow pinup calendars, which is why I put her in the straight-leg bent over pose. It was supposed to be her pulling the shirt out of the laundry basket with a knowing look over her shoulder. Somebody also made a big deal that she was conspicuously not wearing her wedding ring. It’s the iconic look, not the current status, which changes daily. Mary Jane, for the majority of her life as a character, was Peter Parker’s girlfriends. Mary Jane’s life as Mrs. Peter Parker has been the minority of her years. I was going for the iconic look, the iconic era MJ.

Also, if it was Mary Jane doing the laundry, there would’ve been suds everywhere, and I would’ve done a better job of doing it, so there would be no question – that would be Mary Jane doing the laundry. I thought it was a kind of cute, funny, “discovery” moment with a classic pin-up feel. That’s pretty much all I was shooting for. Yeah, she’s sexy, yeah, she’s dressed like a sexy chick…but look at her history – that’s how she’s been portrayed for years, even when she’s not doing chores. Mary Jane is a bit of a bimbo. She’s been a supermodel and a dancer, an actress and a model…so I gave her a cute, sexy moment.

If you misinterpret that, at the ground level, then you’ve got an escalating series of perceived “affronts” and it’s not helping anybody, I don’t think.

NRAMA: But still, this isn’t the first time your art has received this kind of attention, but this is probably the loudest it’s been in…what…ever?

AH: It’s the loudest and probably the meanest. To be honest, I’ve had more than a few feminists come up to me at conventions, and, without exception, the conversations always go something like this: a woman will come up and tell me that, as a feminist, they’re usually appalled by the way women are portrayed in comics, but there’s something about the way I do them that’s not offensive, and I thank them.

I think that people have gotten so used to being offended and getting their Irish up over perceived affronts and transgressions to their group or their gender, or whatever. I think we’re at a place and time where some people look for it, even when it’s not there.

This is probably going to open up a whole other can of worms, but it’s something like using the “n-word.” Even when I’m sitting and having a discussion about how horrible that word is, I can’t even use that word in a clinical discussion about how horrible it is. I have to say, “n-word” instead. But Dave Chappelle can use it all day long, and nobody gets offended. So – is it actually an offensive word, or is the context offensive? Is it offensive when it’s used by a racist individual as a slur?

NRAMA: Care to dig yourself out of that hole? How does that relate to the Mary Jane statue?

AH: Well, that’s how I end up looking at this – is it really a sexist or misogynistic act if it wasn’t intended that way on the part of the people doing it? If you perceive something that way, but it wasn’t meant to be that way, and it’s not sending people back to the stone age, is it really a sexist or misogynistic thing that’s going on, or are you seeing something that’s either not there, or that the artist never intended to be there?

NRAMA: So what’s the proper resolution to that?

AH: Good question. Do you just sit and say, “Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, thank you very much for your concern,” or do you change the way you act? So that you basically are creating work in order so it’s not perceived as being something by a certain segment of the audience?

There was a story about an aide to the Mayor of Washington, D.C. a few years back who used the word “niggardly” to describe a budget, and people didn’t understand the word, only heard what they wanted, and he was forced to issue an apology and ultimately resign for a perceived insult that he never came close to making. It had nothing to do with African Americans or anything racist, but he had to apologize, and ultimately resign because of the perception of the word. And there have been other times that has happened as well. An virtually all cases, you had an educated individual having to apologize - or worse – for using a word that was a little too expensive for the average person to pick up on. Rather than try to find perhaps what the word meant, the easiest way out was to take offense, and protest against the perceived insult, even when it didn’t exist.

I just feel that we’re getting into dangerous territory. We’re a country that loves to be offended, litigate and sue people. I’ve had people who’ve had their complaints about my work before, and that’s fine – please don’t buy it if it bothers you.

NRAMA: There has also been a line of criticism over the statue and its perceived sexual nature. I believe one comment was that Mary Jane was shown in a pose of “sexual availability…”

AH: Well, she’s bending over. Pin-up girls do that. But by that argument – if we take bending over to be a sign of sexual availability, every woman who bends over to pick up something should be chastised, while any woman who eats an ice cream cone or banana in public should have it smacked out of their hand because it’s far too suggestive, and people will be hurt if they see it.

But seriously, as for that comment, I think that, if you’re trying to make an argument, whether if it’s legitimate or not, you try to come up with as many possible things that back up your argument. I think the whole “sexual availability” claim comes from trying to back up the argument that this is the most awful thing to hit mankind since the Holocaust.

In the end, you know, we idealize things for entertainment value, women as much as men – in comics and everywhere else. Marriages aren’t usually as funny in real life as they are on television. It’s not really how it is, but it sure is funny and entertaining to exaggerate for effect. I sort of thought that’s what I was doing all along.

NRAMA: Getting back to the reaction, what were your thoughts when it moved from a tempest in the blog teacup to mainstream media?

AH: My first thought was: aren’t there other things that Fox News, The New York Post and MSNBC have to worry about? But then, a few years back, when Walt Simonson had Wonder Woman cut her hair so that she could disguise herself, and I was still doing covers for the series, I was on the news talking about Wonder Woman’s haircut. I mean – Wonder Woman’s haircut. That was around the same time the US invaded Iraq, and people wanted to talk to me about Wonder Woman’s haircut.

I understand that there will always be the man bites dog aspect to journalism and the news companies think that people want to hear about the offbeat stuff since we live in a time where car bombs going off are daily events and people are dulled to the same horror of life in the news every day. For all I know, major news sources wanted to run with this because Spider-Man 3 came out recently. For five minutes, everybody – or at least a lot of people flipping by their channel or surfing by their website will remember the name “Mary Jane Watson,” and would know what the story was about.

When you have 24/7 news and online sites that have to fill their news stories hourly, you have to fill the hours. If we were back to three networks with only morning and evening news, I’m thinking this wouldn’t have passed muster for a news story. Edward R. Murrow has been dead long enough so it’s been forgotten, so now, the rule is, if you can spin a mediocre story into an interesting story, it helps your revenue and sales.

But to be clear, I do take this seriously, but in my opinion, it’s a non-issue. There are actual, genuine examples of what myself and Sideshow has been accused of.

NRAMA: Has this response led to any changes in your design or release plans?

AH: We’re not changing any of our plans on the subsequent statues, but we’ve gone through and looked at the other designs to see if we’re doing something that could be misconstrued as sexist or misogynistic.

NRAMA: But isn’t that a slippery slope? Isn’t that in a way going back toward self-censorship in order not to offend a segment of the audience who the product’s not aimed at who are going to be offended by a thousand differing degrees?

AH: It’s not self-censorship, but rather, we’re flirting with self-awareness. Self-censorship would be us looking at the plans for Aunt May cleaning Uncle Ben’s toilet in a teddy for the next statute, and then change that to her doing something assertive, and not doing chores. It’s self-awareness if we look at the designs and see something on the next statue that could possibly bring about the same amount of negative attention from the same people, so that we can prepare for the possible repercussions, whether legitimate or otherwise.

NRAMA: But not change the design?

AH: No. It doesn’t hurt to be prepared, though. The Boy Scouts have been doing it for years, and they’re still here. The next one doesn’t seem to have anything that’s out of the norm, and the next ones…I wouldn’t want to change anything anyway – as I said, that would be self-censorship. It would be like the politician who apologized for using an obscure, non offensive word. It would be apologizing just to smooth things over, and would be going through the motions on our part. We’re just looking to be prepared.

Regardless of opinion on the statue, the attention seems to have paid off for Sideshow - Sideshow is not taking any further pre-orders for the statue, as the entire production run is sold out.

[LunarDaydreamer]

I must admit I really like the statue, but then again I love Adam's art.

[stiltman6969]

my whole point of offense is... there's looking sexy, and then this. i've always generally supported his work, but this just came off kind of tacky. mostly it's the thong coming out of the pants and the incredible cleavage.

then again i can only assume this statue wouldn't sell whatsoever without either of the two. i put much less blame on Hughes than i do on the environment that fosters the necessity for stuff like this.

[Uncle Jawa]

All this furor is ridiculous. It's a freaking statue, and it's not like it's being sold on the shelves at Target next to My First Spider-Man.

[Excelsior!]

I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the obvious problem with that statue - it's nothing like Hughes' pics! Hell, MJ's giving Supertorso a run for her money in the "lookit me - I've got no internal organs!" stakes!!

And as for the subject matter, it's ironic that you can have all the crap like 'Sins Past' that's been in the Spider-books for some time now (and it's not just limited to the Spider-Man titles - ASBAR anyone? Or the 'tentacle-rape-pr0n' cover for the latest 'Heroes for Hire'?), and yet it's this that gets people up in arms...

...oh yeah, I forgot - regular people don't buy comics...

[Salieri]

Originally Posted by stiltman6969

my whole point of offense is... there's looking sexy, and then this. i've always generally supported his work, but this just came off kind of tacky. mostly it's the thong coming out of the pants and the incredible cleavage.

then again i can only assume this statue wouldn't sell whatsoever without either of the two. i put much less blame on Hughes than i do on the environment that fosters the necessity for stuff like this.

Exactly. It's the consumers who are to blame, not the designers.

[ParisCub]

Please give us a break!
This is a beautiful homage to the cheesecake art of the 50s and it's very cheeky, there's notnhing more to it.

As for the panties and cleavage, well, you see more on the streets on a Saturday night.

[comet-comics]

I really can't see what all the fuss is about this. It's a great statue of a character that is known for her 'hot' looks. What's a guy to do?
Comics are FANTASY and this particular product is intended for adults. Pin-up art has been around forever and Adam Hughes is internationally recognised as one of the best..... and people want to censor that? Artists should be allowed to create whatever they like..... if people like it, they can buy it.

[troutx]

The part I don't get is AH refering to the non married MJ as "iconic" version, Spidey was created in 1963 and they've been married since the late 1980's. So for pretty much half of the character's life, they have been married.

[MurrayC]

I especially like MJ's pearl necklace

[Northstar04]

I don't know......

To each their own.

If you love it, buy it, and put it proudly on your shelf.

If you don't love it, skip it, and the sun still rises tomorrow.

It's yet another interpretation of MJ. There will be more in the future. It's what keeps the character alive.

[deathmasterj]

I just watched the MSNBC clip, the ironic thing being the advert you have to watch before the clip.... with a woman in a towel about to steal her husbands deodrant.

[J. Wilson]

Must be a slow darn news day if this statue grabs mainstream attention. Typical overreaction from everybody involved.

[JoeZhang]

Originally Posted by troutx

The part I don't get is AH refering to the non married MJ as "iconic" version, Spidey was created in 1963 and they've been married since the late 1980's. So for pretty much half of the character's life, they have been married.

I think they have now been married longer than they were boyfriend and girlfriend - who's knows the numbers?

They got married in 1987?

[cyberv]

Good lord. This is... What's the word I'm looking for? Oh, yes... Retarded.

Bloody retarded. It's a STATUE. Not a statement. Sheesh.

[Namora]

I am not offended by this statue. But I'm also not very impressed with it either. As cheesecake it's only so-so. The figure of MJ is cute, but her expression is pretty vapid. And the narrative the statue is trying to express is jumbled. MJ's expression doesn't really denote anything. It is generic I can't tell if she just discovered the Spidey suit in the laundry, for the very first time, or if she has washed it a thousand times already and is just doing housework. I think if she just discovered the outfit wouldn't she have more of a "gosh-wow" expression? The table, the basket, and the laundry soap don't completely properly set the stage. Is MJ sorting laundry? Why is it on a table and not the dryer? Did she just find Spidey's suit in the laundry for the very first time? It doesn't help that there isn't a figure of Peter Parker included showing his expression to complete the entire scene.

I think I'll save my outrage for something else.

[Icemizer]

Where was the furor of the White Queen statue? Much more overtly sexual than MJ. I have the White Queen and have the MJ exclusive pre-ordered. Reminds me very much of the pinups from the 40's and 50's.

I sure wish this country would get its head out of the Puritan ruled 1700s to all things sexual and move at least into the 20th century!!

[Alexjh]

Saying 'well, sure its like this, but thats worse so it must be ok' is an incredinly slippy slope - if everyone is comparing things to the worst possible version of something to make it look good in comparrisson, then everything except the worst as the normal, and so we all get desensitized to what is already a very big issue.

I'm not saying that this statue is going to cause any damage really because it is quite an obscure object to either own or compare someone too. However, the context I do find it worrying in is that its a sign of the times - symptomatic rather than a cause. Much as its probably not going to cause problems by itself, the issues that it demonstrate do cause a lot of both chauvenism and body image issues. If everyone just goes, 'but they are doing it worse' then everyone does get worse.

For me its not so much solely the washing aspect (but if she's getting clothes out a basket theres going to be washing somewhere in the process) because technically someone must do the washing (time for a Spider-man doing his own washing statue?) but more the whole top-heavy, painfully thin aspect of it. True there is far worse in many comics, but as I said, just because thats accepted doesn't make it right either there or in the statue.

I'll stop now before I go off on one, but lastly, I never have understood peoples infatuation with thongs,I know that they are supposedly 'sexy' so its meant to appeal but whenever I see one my first thought it 'that looks really uncomfortable'

Its not the abomination people are making it out to be (and taken purely on technical merit is very good) however its just a sign of times we live in.

[spiderrob8]

Hughes: Somebody also made a big deal that she was conspicuously not wearing her wedding ring. It’s the iconic look, not the current status, which changes daily. Mary Jane, for the majority of her life as a character, was Peter Parker’s girlfriends. Mary Jane’s life as Mrs. Peter Parker has been the minority of her years. I was going for the iconic look, the iconic era MJ.

Just for the record, though it may seem like it, it's not really true. Pete and MJ married in 1987. August 1987. This year is the 20th anniversary of their marriage.

She first appeared in Amazing 42-November 1966. So she was around a bit less than 21 years before the marriage (20 years 9 months) and they've been married 20 years (19 years and 9 months). However, she wasn't his girlfriend for much of those 21 years. He mostly dated Gwen, and then there was a period of 5 years where she disappeared from the comic completely, and he dated Black Cat and others.

and given the proliferation of Spider titles since 1987, there's been undoubtedly far more Spidey issues published while married, then not married, since she was introduced. Including more Amazing Spider-Man issues, the core book.

There are 540 issues of Amazing. Of those, 498 since MJ appeared. Of those, they are engaged in Amazing 292, the wedding occurs, and then by Amazing 293, they are married. So that's 250 issues of Amazing not married, and 247 issues of Amazing married.

So it's basically a tie at this point. However, add in all the other Spidey titles, and it's far more issues married.

[Lord Jason]

Quite a curious interview, and an interesting issue. The reaction to the assumed context of the piece is definitely over the top, but there are subtle undertones which could cause people to misconstrue the particular action implicit in the statue. Mary Jane is sifting through the laundry and finds Peter Parker’s Spider-Man costume. Now, the context is this: Spider-Man is a secret identity. Peter has secretly stashed his costume in the laundry. Mary Jane finds it. It’s humorous, light and mischievous. It is a typical Adam Hughes scenario and very much his style. I do not believe it is sexist or chauvinistic. As Hughes states, there are a limited number of poses available to a character who is essentially a leading character’s girlfriend. Iconic, yes, but an iconic girlfriend. If there was a statue of, for example, Wonder Woman washing, or ‘finding’ Superman’s trunks, or even to a lesser extent, someone like the Black Cat finding Spider-Man’s, then you are talking issues of inequality. But this is not the case. Personally, in the age of sexual equality, I find it offensive that there’s such stigma attached to the implication that a girl does the laundry. Why shouldn’t she? I’m married. My wife is a lawyer, earns more than me, and does the laundry. I’m an artist, and I do the laundry. I cook, but she cooks more often because she likes experimenting and honing her culinary skills. I just like to eat, but take pride in the dishes I do prepare. She’ll wash the bed sheets more often because she loves fresh sheets, and I’ll empty and fill the dishwasher more regularly because I personally like to keep everything organised and put away. These are chores, people, and grown-ups share chores. Even if Mary Jane is actually intended to be doing the laundry, why shouldn’t she? Does this mean that this is her defined purpose in life?

Now, to the interview. Adam Hughes throws up a few reaching arguments in his defence, and he really shouldn’t bother. With his work, with the ‘pin-up’ style that he is famous for (I come from Ireland, and ‘pin-up’ is very much part of American culture, and our culture has only been Americanised for the last 20 odd years. There would’ve been no ‘pin-ups’ in the Catholic Ireland of yester-year, I can tell you!), there is of course a sexual objectification of these characters. I appreciate he does it with good humor and he also celebrates the characters, and on it’s merits, sexuality is a good thing. But let’s be honest, Adam Hughes has a sketch knocking around somewhere with Princess Leia in her undies. It’s what he does. I’m sure if he drew Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz, she would be very sexual. There is an element of objectification. But the thing about Hughes’ art is the humor – it’s never crass or exploitative. He’s taking these female characters that we grew up with, who we now find sexy in the same way as literary or movie heroines are sexy, or indeed computer game characters, and he’s giving them back to us, as adults, in a highly sexualised, sensualised, and knowingly humorous way. He celebrates the feminism of the characters, he objectifies them, and he gives you stunningly beautiful illustrations.

It’s a contentious issue because much of this art form is for kids. That’s why we loved it when we were kids. Most of us grow out of it, and some of us don’t. Now, my wife doesn’t mind all the comics and Star Wars figures lying about (although she does prefer I keep them in my studio) but hey, I’m an artist and this is my thing. However she would object to an overtly sexual (and expensive) MJ statue, but that’s ok, because whilst I definitely admire it, it wouldn’t really have a place in my home. I’d consider it overly self-indulgent and tacky, she’d consider it a bit pervy, and the neighbours would probably think it’s a bit weird. But I do like the fact that if you open the press in my kitchen for a cup, you’ll find a Stormtrooper. There’s a certain idiosyncrasy about it. I also have to sleep with teddy-bears, so fair is fair.

One final note: If Adam Hughes has to go on air to talk about Wonder Woman’s hair, that’s a good thing. Comics are culturally important, an art form and as such part of the mainstream. That’s probably what the fuss is about: those kids that grew up and out of comics are flocking to the movies to relive their childhoods, and with them go the people who see Mary Jane as an important character as played by Kirsten Dunst and, when seen as such, take Adam Hughes portrayal very much out of the context in which it set.

[spiderrob8]

BTW, if that was his intent, it's poorly designed. The way the costume looks, it looks wet, and coupled with the detergent, it does look like she's washing it, with a come hither look.

What it doesn't look like is that she is making a discovery. That didn't come across to me at all.

[purplerocket]

Originally Posted by troutx

The part I don't get is AH refering to the non married MJ as "iconic" version, Spidey was created in 1963 and they've been married since the late 1980's. So for pretty much half of the character's life, they have been married.

For alot of people the non married MJ is the iconic version just as non-married Peter is the iconic version. I dont think it matters how long a character has been portrayed a certain way people will always have thier own view of a character for example I prefer human Beast but he hasn't been portrayed that way since before I was born.

[spiderrob8]

Originally Posted by purplerocket

For alot of people the non married MJ is the iconic version just as non-married Peter is the iconic version. I dont think it matters how long a character has been portrayed a certain way people will always have thier own view of a character for example I prefer human Beast but he hasn't been portrayed that way since before I was born.

He also states the marriage is the minority of years, implying that they were girlfriend/boyfriend much onger than married.

Which is simply false. Not that big a deal though, but a lot of people don't realize just how long they've been married. Almost half her existence, and of the time they've been romantic, far more was married than not.

[purplerocket]

Originally Posted by spiderrob8

He also states the marriage is the minority of years, implying that they were girlfriend/boyfriend longer than married.

Which is simply false. Not that big a deal though, but a lot of people don't realize just how long they've been married.

Fair enough good point.

I like that theres a furor over this statue as firstly his art is fantastic. Secondly after Spiderman 3 I started to get the impression that no-one liked MJ but this argument shows that there are alot of people who care about her. Personally I prefer Gwen and love reading those old issues but I'm a fan of MJ as well and think shes a massive part of Marvel U

[pez dispenser]

Damn, just how puritanical are things down there now?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, it would have been better if she had her jeans down around her ankles, dammit!