![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hi there. One of the items in your catalog caught my eye and left me very confused. I don't mean to be sarcastic or troublesome (I know it's hard to tell in plain text) but I'm bemused enough that I had to ask.
It's about Item# 80-017652. The DC Super Heroes pop-up book paired with the reversible cape.
The book is officially licensed DC merchandise. It seems a little odd for the Met to be selling it, but I did see your reimagined superheroes exhibit a couple of years back and, as a comic book fan, I can't exactly complain that the medium isn't art. I'd be more likely to associate the term with the works of, say, Alex Ross than with a pop-up book, but if the pitch here is to get kids interested in art, the popup book does make more sense.
What gets me is the cape. First off, Spider-Man does not wear a cape. I can think of over a dozen variations of his costume, and not one includes a cape. Not even the pro wrestler outfits. (Heck, not even his Prodigy costume. but that's a whole other story.) More to the point, Spider-Man is a Marvel Comics character, not DC.
Which brings me to the next point. The cape is not licensed merchandise. The reason there are spiders on one side, despite everything, is that you can't trademark bats and spiders. They couldn't get away with using any of the real logos, so they very cleverly made do. As a knockoff Halloween item (sold by any number of online retailers), it makes a certain amount of sense.
What doesn't make sense (at least to me) is what you've done here. You've paired a branded and licensed product with a cheap knockoff that doesn't even match the brand (at least, half of it doesn't). And, even though you're one of the most famous art museums in the world, you're selling what is, again, a cheap knockoff. And you've described it as featuring the "iconic bat logo" when, again, being a knockoff, it actually just has a generic bat (which looks almost more like a bee than a bat). You've also described it as "unique" even though half a second with Google brings up at least 15 different stores selling it. Though I do have to give you amused credit for mentioning that the cape is (*ahem*) "imported." (I can guess from where.)
So, with context out of the way, I guess I'm left with only one actual question, even though it incorporates many different aspects and angles.
"What the heck?"
I sincerely look forward to your response. Thank you for your time.
Paul
P.S. To the specific person who ended up having to deal with this one: I'm sorry. I don't want to put you in a difficult or awkward spot. But I really had to ask.
It's about Item# 80-017652. The DC Super Heroes pop-up book paired with the reversible cape.
The book is officially licensed DC merchandise. It seems a little odd for the Met to be selling it, but I did see your reimagined superheroes exhibit a couple of years back and, as a comic book fan, I can't exactly complain that the medium isn't art. I'd be more likely to associate the term with the works of, say, Alex Ross than with a pop-up book, but if the pitch here is to get kids interested in art, the popup book does make more sense.
What gets me is the cape. First off, Spider-Man does not wear a cape. I can think of over a dozen variations of his costume, and not one includes a cape. Not even the pro wrestler outfits. (Heck, not even his Prodigy costume. but that's a whole other story.) More to the point, Spider-Man is a Marvel Comics character, not DC.
Which brings me to the next point. The cape is not licensed merchandise. The reason there are spiders on one side, despite everything, is that you can't trademark bats and spiders. They couldn't get away with using any of the real logos, so they very cleverly made do. As a knockoff Halloween item (sold by any number of online retailers), it makes a certain amount of sense.
What doesn't make sense (at least to me) is what you've done here. You've paired a branded and licensed product with a cheap knockoff that doesn't even match the brand (at least, half of it doesn't). And, even though you're one of the most famous art museums in the world, you're selling what is, again, a cheap knockoff. And you've described it as featuring the "iconic bat logo" when, again, being a knockoff, it actually just has a generic bat (which looks almost more like a bee than a bat). You've also described it as "unique" even though half a second with Google brings up at least 15 different stores selling it. Though I do have to give you amused credit for mentioning that the cape is (*ahem*) "imported." (I can guess from where.)
So, with context out of the way, I guess I'm left with only one actual question, even though it incorporates many different aspects and angles.
"What the heck?"
I sincerely look forward to your response. Thank you for your time.
Paul
P.S. To the specific person who ended up having to deal with this one: I'm sorry. I don't want to put you in a difficult or awkward spot. But I really had to ask.