Saturday, April 21, 2007

Since this wang thing seems to have legs...

Here's a project for someone more tolerant of Alex Ross than I am. I've read several arguments that Ross painted Colonel Steel with a bulge only because his model had one. I have no idea if this is true, because I really don't pay much attention to Ross' art. (I mean, at the risk of undermining my credibility I will admit to owning a copy of Kingdom Come, but I don't feel like spending Saturday afternoon looking at Ross' drearily realistic depictions of intellectual properties who have no place in reality.) But for those of you who do pay attention to Ross' art (or who are willing to do so), I have formulated a rough plan for a study of his phallic leanings (does that count as a pun?):

1. Does Ross have a habit of painting men with realistic genitalia, or was the current painting in question an aberration?

2. Is there any pattern to his depiction of bulges?

3. If there is a pattern, does it reflect the genitalistic diversity of his models, or does it reflect Ross' perception of which characters should be well-endowed? If my suspicion is correct, I'm guessing that a certain Green Lantern is putting this Steel fellow to shame.

(I suppose it's also possible that Ross has simply become more comfortable with the male body over time, or perhaps has developed a sense of humor, or has become sympathetic to those of us who are annoyed with the depiction of women in comics, or maybe he's just looking to bait some fanboys. But I'm betting on the Hal Jordan Hypothesis)

Let me know if any of you are interested! I'll send my copy of Kingdom Come as a reward for the first person who produces a study that meets my approval.

7 comments:

Dave said...

I know he put a pretty prominent bulge on the artwork he did for the Ambiguously Gay Duo a while back, but honestly, I really don't have much motivation to attempt a more exhaustive research campaign than that.

Alex! said...

Is this really all we have to talk about?

I'm sad now.

Steve Flanagan said...

Can't be unintentional. See here for why.

Dick Hyacinth said...

Alex!, I just can't understand where you're coming from. This is the biggest story of the year. It will undeniably reverberate in the years to come. If Dan Clowes was named the new writer of Aquaman, I would still be more interested in the wang story. If Joe Quesada showed off his own wang, leading to Jesse Baker being named EiC of Marvel, it would still pale in comparison. If I had the incredibly unlikely privilege of interviewing Steve Ditko for this stupid little blog, the first thing I would ask him is for his take on Corporal Steel's package. Is it erect? Is it not erect, but simply big? How do you envision it comparing to Spider-Man's penis? (This would lead into a question about the depiction of Peter Parker's penis in Reign, which I can't imagine was Ditko's vision of what Spider-Man's penis should represent.) In fact, I don't think we've said half of what needs to be said about the phallic implications of this painting, which otherwise would be just another fucking boring Alex Ross painting.

Mr. Flanagan, I will be sure to link to your analysis tomorrow. Do you need a copy of Kingdom Come?

Steve Flanagan said...

Thanks, Dick, but I've already got one.

So far as Steel-wang and Spider-wang comparisons go, have you visited Mike Sterling today?

Alex! said...

If the amounted of energy spent discussing this boring, static image of a third rate nothing of a character was instead spent, say, promoting good comics, the world would be a better place to live and comics would supplant TV as the dominant media in America.

I know this to be true!

The only good thing that has come of it is that we now have a pretty good idea of who among us is obsessed with comparing genitalia.

Matt said...

In answer to #1:

http://luchins.com/wwtt/?p=296