 
Balletlover - Balletmania
written by Dep on 16.02. at 06:32:58 - as answer to: Re: superheroes by herocrusher at >>>I actually know a little bit about this! A lack of genitals is, oddly enough, a prerequisite for superheroes, at least in a convoluted sense. See, there's one major reason why tights are the normal uniform for superhero characters. Everyone who blares away about the "homosexual subtext" is missing the point.>>>Which is this: People in tights are easier to draw.>>>Take it from a cat who's spent hour after hour studying surface anatomy and drawing the human figure: drawing a nude human and then drawing his realistically hanging loose clothing is orders of magnitude more difficult than drawing a nude human, slapping a cape and mask on him or her, then coloring the musculature to indicate skin-tight clothing. Of course now, tights have become an inextricable part of the stigmata of superherodom. The "tradition" flourishes because, frankly, the american comic-book artist (I'm talking the monthly guys here, not giants like Alex Ross or Geoff Darrow) has to draw loads of human figures every month, as well as perspective backgrounds, etc. Is it any wonder why most artists are glad that the look of the superhero started the way it did? (some of those guys can't even get bodystockings to look right!). The look of Spiderman is pretty ingenious, by the way-an artist drawing the web-slinger doesn't even have to draw a mouth or nose on the guy!>>>Enter the comics code. Code books (fewer and fewer now, but in the fifties and sixties, you carried the code or didn't publish comics-thank you, Dr. Wertham) have a long list of things that they cannot print and retain that little "It's okay for junior to read this" stamp. Believe me, realistic treatments of human genitalia under thin, stretchy fabric is definitely verboten to a mainstream superhero artist.>>>The upshot is, you may be able to fly, Captain Amazing, but you sure as hell can't get down!-Depon Answers to this message: |
