Whether or not it's art or even good art would not reveal whether it's sexist. Calling something art does not immunize it from being sexist.

Good art, art, bad art, art, non-art... it all can be sexist. Arguing about the point of art or good art is irrelevant. The images themselves do matter for a discussion about evaluating whether this project was a good vehicle for conveying his message. The fact that so many people voted for "misfire" in the comments…

Alternatively...

I'm not really sure where you're going with this or why you responded this way. Bad art can make someone think, and a thinking person does not make something art or good art. Using sexism to reveal sexism isn't necessarily a subversive tactic. Trumble selected several women to turn into princess cartoons for the…

Yup, turning these women into cartoons to prove a point is offensive.

Anne Frank's story could be told by way of a cartoon. A cartoon can convey a serious story. But, the medium isn't the problem. Part of storytelling involves picking which details to include and which to exclude. It just so happens that the stories US history found in textbooks exclude a lot of important women because…

Abe Lincoln the vampire hunter is different from Harriet Tubman the vamp.

Part of its cringe-worthiness stems from the fact that women frequently aren't taken seriously and as an artist he can draw famous women as princess cartoons as he fancies. It's not like he's placing these cartoons with statements about these women or the obstacles his chosen women had to face in the world. There's…

'Nuff said.

Yup. Plus, regardless of the author's motivation for making those images, we also can assess (as you invited readers to do at the end of your article) whether his tactic was appropriate for his end goal of revealing the princess gloss on heroines. I think he misfired. It's not news that women are objectified regularly…