Wizard Cover: Ross Superman & Power Girl

[nightwing]

Criadoman writes:

Ultimately I found if you're going to be skilled at this aspect of anatomy, you need to constantly retrain your eyes to stay more anatomically correct.  However, puritan hypocritical mores we are sometimes a little too guilty of in the US tends to make this natural attribute a very unpopular subject to study.  However, I can see where an artist in this field would be rather compelled to follow suit as to what seems is appropriate in print, television and movie mediums, i.e. "hey - they all got 'em", and there very well could be some marketing/editorial pressure to ensure that is the case.  I mean where would good girl art be without Vampirella?  I'm fairly certain part of PG's genesis had visions of Vampi floating around.

Even Vampi's cup size has gone up and down over the years; she wasn't always a Dolly Parton type.

What's rather more disturbing is that life is trying to ape art, as women purposely alter their breasts to look more like artistic renditions that weren't accurate in the first place.  With that kind of inverted logic in play, an artist needn't bother learning anatomy; he can just invent his own anatomy and define "beauty" for a society divorced from reality.  If a woman doesn't look the way he draws them, it's the woman's fault, not the artist's. 


Michel Weisnor writes:

The top cover, rendered by Michael Turner, is blatantly misproportioned and very Rob Liefeld. Bottom Cover, by Phil Jimenez, portrays Power Girl as a square jaw bodybuilder boxom woman. Understand, I am not saying Power Girl should be drawn without her original look, just at least with some anatomical correctness.

Yes, there seem to be two ways of drawing PG these days; vapid model with balloons attached, or mannish thug with balloons attached.  Neither is very sexy in my opinion, whereas Wood's original version -- which I would describe as a bit zaftig and decidedly underage -- had loads of appeal.  Until she opened her FemiNazi mouth, anyway.  Plus, there's just something fascinating about the visual dissonance of a porn-star body topped with a Florence Henderson hairdo.

Anyway, getting back to Ross, his women look like the old East German swim team.  The boobs "prove" they're women, but they have zero sex appeal.  Well, okay, so that "NightStar" or whoever (Dick and Kori's daughter) was pretty cute, but otherwise these girls are in serious need of some makeup at the very least.  I mean, I feel kind of bad harping on this because I know Alex Ross uses models for everything so these women must really exist somewhere, but honestly, has anyone besides Ross himself ever imagined Kara Zor-El looking as plain and ungirly as this:

[Permanus]

I mean, I feel kind of bad harping on this because I know Alex Ross uses models for everything so these women must really exist somewhere

That's partly the problem, actually - I've seen the photos he uses for the covers on Astro City, for instance, and he never seems to be able to get away from the model's expression, which is inevitably going to be a bit distanced. Basically, he draws what he sees. I'm sure the models he uses are very attractive people usually, but he poses them for the lighting and stuff, then just renders their vacuous expressions, which doesn't really contribute to making them sexy. Ross only seems to do a few facial expressions, by the way (pleasant surprise, unpleasant surprise, not very happy, amused, and quite cross); this might be because his style of painting seems directly lifted off 1950s advertising.

[Criadoman]

In re: Wally Wood - this story was soooo oft repeated, I sincerely doubt it is urban legend.  But this would be a great for that Comic Urban Legends revealed thing on CBR.

In re: Jayne Mansfield - never heard this one.  Someone should submit these to the above.

In re: No symbol - there was something I think in Infinity Inc where she decided not to wear the symbol til she earned it. In JSA I know for certain she flaunted it on purpose, and some reasoning being that it symbolized strong and liberated feminine hero - but I'd have to reread the story.  Obviously it didn't stick with me.

[Criadoman]

this might be because his style of painting seems directly lifted off 1950s advertising.

Funny you should mention this.  I've read where Alex studied the heck out of Andrew Loomis (I think it's Andrew - I've got some of his books) who was very big in 1950's advertising illustration and painting to my understanding.  If I'm not mistake, I believe Alex's mom was also an artist working in advertising during that time.

I personally like Alex's stuff outside of the PG, WW and a few other pics I've seen of other characters.  I have to give the guy credit for the impact he did make on the comics scene and a lot of the reinvigoration he introduced during the 1990s dark times.

[Super Monkey]

ok, Adam Hughes draws her the best other than Wally Wood, I don't like it when artists draw her looking like a she-male:




More AH! here: http://www.justsayah.com/

[Criadoman]

Oh wow, I just realized I was saying Andy Ha I was meaning Adam Hughes.  Color me stupid.  This is the guy I meant.  Thanks Super-monkey.

[dto]

Nightwing, I never particularly cared for that Alex Ross Supergirl poster.  Kara looks absolutely bored, exhibiting no personality whatsoever.  One of Supergirl's endearing qualities was that she was far more approachable and engaging than her oftentimes "stiff" older cousin.  But Ross' portrait radiates none of Kara's warmth and sparkle.  In comparison, Ross' smiling Batgirl poster is definitely more appealling.

[nightwing]

Good point about Ross painting his subjects exactly as they appear in real life.  In other words, bored, uncomfortable and embarassed to be wearing a goofy costume in Alex Ross' study.

It extends to other elements of his drawings; the costumes look like just what they are: cobbled-together outfits made of impractical materials, complete with seams, gaps and other imperfections.  It works to some extent on Superman because we're already used to seeing real human beings in that outfit, but many heroes just come off as ridiculous.  Green Lantern, for example, had one of the sleekest and most elegant costumes ever as designed by Gil Kane, but once translated to real life it's just spandex and cloth booties...a cross between pajamas and a ballet outfit.  And Barry Allen's Flash outfit, so revolutionary and exciting in 1956, just looks ridiculous, including seams in the cowl that make it look like his mom sewed it for him for Halloween.  And don't even get me started on Green Arrow, whose outfit seems to have been assembled from Hefty trash bags!

Can Alex Ross draw people?  Unquestionably, yes.  Can he make superheroes look real?  You bet.  But in the end his art just exposes the elephant in the room; in real life, superheroes look like pathetic clowns.

One good thing about it, though; having taken "realism" to its logical extreme, Ross has given me a new appreciation for the cartoony, stylized work of Segar, Gould, Crane, Kirby and Sprang.  Whatever Ross' style is, it's not comics.

Oh, and as for PG not wearing a Kryptonian symbol, don't forget for 20+ years she wasn't Kryptonian, and given DC's slippery grasp on continuity, it's probably better they leave themselves an "out" for the next time they change her origin, probably by Christmas.