When the cover art for Catwoman #0 was released it was severely criticized, and Guillem March caught a bunch of flack for both the unnatural pose of the character and the supposedly exploitative nature of the illustration.
Well, Guillem apparently had a good sense of humor about the whole "controversy", and decided to answer back with another version in the style of Robert Crumb.
So why was the obviously comical version generally well received while the original version was vilified?
Link --via ComicsAlliance
What a disingenuous question. The parody is funny because it's a parody. The actual art is pathetic because it was approved and published by people who feel that it's more important to show the T and the A in the same frame than it is to have a Catwomen free of severe spinal defects.
In the Catwoman cover, her chest, shoulders and arms are drawn as if she were leaning backwards, while the rest of her is drawn as if she were leaning forwards. She also seems to have an extra joint in her hips.