I was pursuing an old comic the other day and it struck me that this was one of the few times I had ever seen an artist actually portray how a skimpy “action” costume would work IRL on a realistically voluptuous woman with a large bust, and also portray the plastic nature of female breasts. He didn’t shown any naughty bits, but it was striking how different this portrayal was form 99.99 percent of even fairly adult themed superhero comics where the female anatomy is apparently comprised of foam rubber.
That doesn’t look realistic to me; that looks like she has implants. I’ve certainly seen real women with big breasts in skimpy outfits that don’t do that to their breasts.
I guess I should be more specific. I’m taking about the panel where she is being carried over the man’s shoulder, and her breasts are being somewhat squashed by her weight. I’ve rarely seen action costume female breasts in comics portrayed as anything other than very firm, non-pliable objects.
Actually, I’m rather shocked (the last comic I read was in the early 90’s.) With the Internet, there’s really no reason to portray women as sex objects anymore.
There are plenty of artists who delight in the softness and somewhat separate inertia of breasts, but most of those artists are probably mostly in Japan (where the outfits aren’t superhero-style) and probably mostly in the fan-service and porn areas of artistry. Outside of that, you’re generally just more focussed on being consistent to really worry about getting it right. You really have to be able to think of where the flesh connects (at the shoulder and bottom, not the top or sides really), how the torso and other items are situated in 3D, gravity, inertia, etc. And if you get all that wrong, it will look just as “off” as drawing them like perfectly round balls. If everyone’s used to an art style where they don’t change, in fact, they’ll notice it less if you just do that than if you try to get fancy and fail.
I can’t think of any examples that jump out at me of something so specific. But I definitely can see what you are referring to, with regard to realism and plasticity.
In terms of general anatomical realism, there was the first Annual issue of the original Outsiders for which the guest artist (Kevin Nowlan) drew the characters particularly realistically, including their hair and costumes.
Not superheroes but I’m a big fan of Terry Moore’s StrangersInParadise. A great comic and Moore was exceptional with anatomy. (I particularly like that last picture for some reason.)
The book’s run ended a couple of years ago, but it’s highly recommended.
I know nothing at all about the book, but those images scream “lesbian lit!” to me. Am I wrong?
(Don’t get me wrong, I really like them, they just don’t look like anything else I’ve ever seen, and not what I expect in comics for red blooded hetero males.)
You question is valid, and you’re not wrong from a particular perspective, but I honestly find it somewhat hard to answer. The core of the book concerns a “love triangle”* between three characters who are all close friends and are dealt with equally. (That’s the trio in the second picture.)
The guy, (David), is in love with the blond, (Katina), who in turn is a lesbian who’s in love with the brunette, (Francine), who’s notoriously indecisive about her desires and goes back and forth. It’s very “soap opera-ish”, but in a good way. The three love and depend on each other despite the romantic conflicts.
Spoilers…
David ends up dying and Katina and Francine wind up together. But David’s emotions are never dismissed as misguided or “not real”. In the end they honor his memory and what he did for them.
I don’t know if that qualifies as “lesbian lit”, I only know I really liked the series.
(Not a classical triangle, but it’s best way I could think of to describe the dynamic.)
Most comics artists draw a single female body, and the costumes and hairstyles are the only way to tell the characters apart. Among superhero artists, a notable exception is George Perez, especially at the peak of his Teen Titans popularity. Starfire, Raven and Wonder Girl had very distinctive faces and physiques. Outside the superhero realm, look at Love and Rockets: Both Gilbert and Jaime gave their female characters distinctive and believable figures, and not always idealized.
To be fair, similar stuff happens to the male anatomy. How can the muscles be so prominent even when they are relaxing? And where do the guys hide their junk?
I’ve been saying that for years, except that I say most MALE comics artists. I first noticed this in the Archie and superhero comics I read as a preteen in the 60s. All the teen girls, except for one (the short one) had the same face and figure, in Archie and the spinoffs. And in the superhero comics, all of the women who were supposedly in the 20-35 age range also had the same face and figure…even the ones who were superheroes. The males had decidedly different faces and body builds.
There’s a greater acceptable variety with men. They can have squared off chins, squared off jaws, rounded jaws, rounded chins, pointed chins, lowered eyebrows… They can be slender, muscular, or overweight. Women, on the other hand, have to be good looking. A woman with a squared off chin doesn’t look particularly beautiful. If her eyebrows are low and bushy, again it’s not particularly beautiful.
This isn’t to say that one can’t vary the way that he draws different women, but the differences are much more subtle and harder to accomplish if you want to continue having them all still be within the range of good looking.
Yes, I think the simplification of the female form seems very recent. Imho, maybe this stems from the fact that artists and writers today are grown-up comic book fans, with a definite lack of maturity.
You realize that the American comic book industry is almost 80 years old? People who enter the industry will almost always be fans so it’s fairly well a given that the last three generations of comic book artists were fans as a child.
