Representation Is Not A "Fetish"

DISCLAIMER: this is a somewhat mature conversation. if you think "i might be too young to have this conversation," then please leave and click on another blog. if you're about to open the comments and yell at me for discussing a mature topic, then you're probably also too young to be having this conversation (if not, definitely too immature), and i suggest you also leave and click on another blog. i dont have an issue with people who might not want to talk about topics like this, as your discomfort is valid, but i will have an issue with attacking others for having that conversation. youre allowed to be uncomfortable, but you are obligated to be respectful. thanks.

anyways, to get to the actual blog, the art community online has always had its ups and downs. you have your good moments, like getting to see people make art of your chatacters during ArtFight every year, and your bad moments, like artists being outed for horrendous things. well, theres been a recent trend of people who are very quick to call out artists for what they think are "horrendous things." because i can already feel some people taking this in the worst possible way, im gonna add another quick disclaimer: i am not saying that it's a bad thing to want to hold people accountable for their harmful actions, but some people tend to blur the line between art that is genuinely problematic in nature, and art they just dont want to see... which brings us to the phenomenon this post is addressing. if youve ever seen anyone draw or write content of a character that interprets or reimagines them as queer, disabled, fat, or a person of color, then you're bound to have also seen hateful comments given to those works- comments telling the creators that if they want characters like that, they should just "make their own characters." now to a certain extent, i agree- creating your own characters and stories to better represent your experiences arguably does add more representation than simply reimagining an already existing character as some form of marginalized group. however, i also think that the hate towards people sharing their own reimaginations of characters with their own traits and labels is over dramatic- i dont think the people complaining about new takes on existing characters inherently changes their canonical states of being at all, nor do they realize that the assumption that their favorite characters are cishet and will always be able-bodied is also an interpretation in itself, not to mention that almost any non-human character can be interpreted as any race or ethnicity. regardless of your personal thoughts on new reimaginations of fictional characters, the usual negative response to it is to "make your own characters," and the funny thing about that is the same people telling you to do so always seem to complain when you do. while im sure you've definitely seen the "forced diversity" response to this, there's another response that's become increasingly popular that almost seems to fall on the other side of the coin: accusing the artist of "fetishizing" that group.

another disclaimer, because i can already sense that some people will try to play the devil's advocate here: there isnt anything necessarily wrong with calling out art that is harming people. however, this is a moreso "boy who cried wolf" situation- the art being accused of fetishization in question is rarely ever fetishization (let alone sexual at all), and the people who appear to be bringing awareness to it never seem to be a part of the group they think is being fetishized. it often feels like people just use the word to sound morally justified in their harassment, especially when you consider that the fact that immediately assuming any art showcasing queer characters, poc characters, disabled characters, fat characters, etc. is inherently fetishized for the mere depiction of those groups only shows that you assume that those groups can only be enjoyed if from an inherently sexual point of view. in addition, if youll shoot down any original representation of queer characters, poc characters, disabled characters, fat characters, etc. because you think the person representing them is inherently "fetishizing" them, then you're just repackaging the "forced diversity" argument with a progressive twist to it. if you want to argue against me with this, go ahead, but as a black queer writer myself i can assure you im not writing characters that are heavily based on my friends because i (a repulsed asexual???) find it attractive, im writing those characters because i think my friends and people like them deserve to be able to see themselves in the stories they engage with. a vast majority of the people writing and creating queer, disabled, poc, and fat characters are of those groups themselves, so implying that they cant even write stories about their experience without those stories being labeled as a fetish is extremely disenheartening. meanwhile, when someone who isnt part of those groups actually does draw art fetishizing the, its treated as a joke. marginalized people cant even create characters or stories surrounding their experiences without being accused of fetishizing themselves and harassed as a response, but someone who isnt marginalized can create fetish content of those groups and the worst punishment they recieve is getting laughed at for it.

to conclude as best i can, if the person an artwork depicts isnt calling it out on being a fetish, theres a good chance it isnt. claiming any art inovlving original fat/queer/poc/disabled characters by fat/queer/poc/disabled artists is inherently fetishistic and thus the artist must be "held accountable" (see: bullied and harassed by thousands online) is just the progressive way of complaining about "forced diversity." in any case, if your discord group chat isnt memeing the shit out of whatever art your claming is a "fetish," it probably isnt fetish art anyways.