I’m kind of torn between thinking they’re cute and thinking they’re sexist. I’m sorry, I can’t help it! They’re well drawn and attractive, but something about them bugs me! (That’s not saying anything to detract from this guy’s talent, mind you!)

Wow, sweet!

Well, of course they’re sexist. They’re a tribute to an entire genre of art that’s sexist by design. As good-girl art goes, this is pretty innocuous stuff.

I like his art a lot. It’s simple and stylized without that overly-sanitized digital look. I particularly like his handling of flat areas of watercolor —inspiring!

What exactly do you find sexist in his art? Does his work personally offends you? Would you think the same if this artwork was created by a female artist? And what is your definition of “sexist”?
Sorry, but such kind of comments really annoys me. In these days of political correctness, people are too casually applying the term “sexist” to everything, sometimes rightly so, but often without any reason or justification. Personally, I admire Bill’s art, and find absolutely no problem with it.

Sexist?!?! It’s just fun 40’s and 50’s style pinups. All the women are fully clothed and most have quite a bit of class. I love them and will be getting myself a copy of this to go with his last book and the wonderful, classy bookplate I received last year. Go Bill!

All fully clothed, Dan? Really? Just in the samples on the blog, there are at least three examples where the girl doesn’t fit that description. Look before you leap, and all that…

These are nice and all, but they look pretty much like every other “pretty girl” sketch you see these days.

Please lay off Carolita, y’all. Her point of view is valid, even if you don’t share it.

All graven images of women are sexist! Don’t you jerks know that by now? How many Elks clubs have to be burned to the ground before you “men” get it?

I’m getting a headache from rolling my eyes so much.

For my part, it’s sexist only in the broadest sense of the term: it’s “boys-club” art. It’s a caricature of 40’s style pinup art, which did objectify women somewhat, but not to the point where you could call it misogynistic. Nina and carolita, what do you think of Madonna? Salma Hayek? Janet Jackson? Susan Sarandon? They’ve all exploited their good looks to get where they are.

I find the art more peanutheadist than sexist, but the point is valid.

Chuck R. is the new voice of reason here.

I hope people on either side don’t get too riled up over this issue, because I think this is a topic that honestly merits a thoughtful debate.

Amid, Jerry, care to weigh in?

Hah, oops. That was my bad, Paul N. It was early and more of a typo than a mistake. Believe me, I’m a huge fan of Bill’s and know what is in the book. In any case, those that are or are not clothed are all pretty tasteful.

Bill Presing’s girls are far too cheeky to be sexist.

I agree that they’re very tastefully done.

Although I respect one’s opinion…
What’s wrong with attractive girls? Some women are uncomfortable with being sexy, and that’s too bad IMO! I think Bill’s women have innocence and character, and they seem more real than real pin-up models that I saw at Glamourcon!
Well rest assured that Bill himself, is not sexist. He just likes women in general, because they’re nice and sweet, and fun to draw. He likes to draw exaggerated proportions in his works, but constrast in form is what makes drawing interesting.
In real life, Bill appreciates “real” female forms, belly pooch and all. And I’m darn glad that he finds women sexy, or our realtionship will be very,very boring.