Art & Photography

Who better to channel Esther Williams than Natalie Coughlin? The connection is so obvious: two fantastically gifted athletes in the same sport, and camera friendly as she is, we should expect that someday Natalie will have a movie career to match Esther's as well.

So, recently Natalie took on the role of Esther Williams with the help of award-winning make-up artist Melanie Mills. The results, needless to say, are stunning. What is more, the photo shoot was itself eventful, as seen in this cleverly edited footage:

March is Women's History Month. Right in line, literally and figuratively, with this year's theme ("Our History is Our Strength") is David Chapman and Patricia Vertinsky's new book, Venus with Biceps: A Pictorial History of Muscular Women.

I can't review Venus with Biceps in this post, as I haven't gotten my hands on a copy yet (though it seems to get generally positive reviews—even the New Yorker). Its having been published alone warrants attention here—for books exploring this neglected and marginalized aspect of women's lives and history are few and far between. Put this special book in your to-read list.

You probably wouldn't as a rule expect to find photographic portraits of female bodybuilders featured in a dignified art exhibition, much less their carrying the name of a celebrated artist whose work is part of the Permanent Collection of the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery. But that is exactly what you will find at Hasted Hunt Kraeutler, which is hosting Martin Schoeller's "Female Bodybuilders" through August 27. (Location: 537 West 24th St, Ground Floor; Chelsea, New York City 10011.)

Judging by not only his work but also his words, Schoeller's appreciation of female bodybuilders is paired with a keen awareness of what they can teach the rest of us.

I've always admired Jenny Thompson. It could probably go without saying that she is one of the greatest female athletes ever. But Thompson—a bright, independent-thinking woman—also helped cultivate a new archetype for the 21st-century athletic woman; for example, when she challenged male chauvinists and priggish faux feminists alike with a seminude Sports Illustrated photo. Her response to her critics merits repeating: "I think that women have made great strides in the world of athletics and showing bodies -- the essential element in athletics -- is part of that. It's not about sex, it's about strength. Both physical and mental."

And though her Olympic days are behind her, she is still that same strong, resolute woman today—something two thugs learned by experience last week:

As a rule I don't pay much attention to the photoshopped creations of fanboys. More often than not they look horribly disarranged, as should be expected. This work by "LEEE777" is a striking exception, however. It has a naturalness to it (as long as you don't look too close, that is). Moreover, it captures the essence of Wonder Woman, she standing strong after what was no doubt a great ruckus.

But the credit, I suspect, goes mostly to the star of this digital embellishment. We talked before about Jodi Lyn O'Keefe; her name comes up often when the subject is a live-action Wonder Woman film. Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos seem to have destined O'Keefe to play the mighty Amazon, so ideally suited is she for that role.

We are told that soon we can expect (fingers crossed!) to finally learn of definite plans for a Wonder Woman film. Rumors will fly once the casting frenzy starts, most awful to imagine being true. But Jodi Lyn O'Keefe should not be overlooked, for she is among a select few qualified to assume the mantle of Wonder Woman.

Yesterday, I predicted the Lindsey Vonn-SI cover controversy, despite a brief lull, wasn't over yet. And you're about to see why. Say what you will about Vonn, but she is making the most of her "Olympic moment"—as well she should. This is a clever woman who knows how to take advantage of opportunities; earlier this month, she opened, in timely fashion, her own online store.

What sparked the controversy was a cover. But what stirs the embers now is inside; namely, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. I'm not naive enough to think for a moment that sexuality and aesthetics have ever been divorced from athletics, or that they should be. Thus I'm more often than not pleased when SI includes female athletes in its swimsuit edition (which is usually dominated by hackneyed images of weedy, yet nonetheless busty, "supermodels").

But neither am I naive enough to think that female athletes, when they do appear, are always presented fairly, that is, in a way consistent with their status as world-class athletes: photos airbrushed to hide muscles, submissive poses, and so forth are forever a problem. Diversity (are all great female athletes blond-haired and white?—sometimes one wonders) has been a problem too; but not one without welcome exceptions, e.g., Venus and Serena Williams.

So what to make of all this? It isn't so much that female athletes are being "sexualized" (for you can't make one what one already is), it is the way in which their sexuality is presented. Too often their athleticism and strength is downplayed, or hidden altogether. It's as though we as a society still can't, in 2010, appreciate that a woman can be attractive and powerful both at once.

A few thoughts to keep in mind, anyway. Now may the tumult resume:

Sufficiently hyped, ESPN The Magazine's "Body Issue" hit newsstands Friday. The issue features several male and female athletes in various "nude" poses (PG-13 stuff, perhaps). Predictably, this has sparked some little controversy, much of it unwarranted, but not all of it.

First I of course refer to the prudes. They are animated, whether they admit to it or not, by a worldview quite uncomfortable with sexuality and the human body. (One is tempted to ask if they understand how they came to be.) Thus, to them, an athlete's appearing nude is a dirty, low thing that depreciates the athlete's athleticism. Never mind that sport is in fact all about bodies, and that the nude athletic form has been admired since antiquity.

Second is a slightly more nuanced scrutiny. Here the critical eye looks to see if female athletes are therein portrayed fairly, especially compared with how their male counterparts are portrayed. In other words, are they presented as strong, dynamic, potent—all the things we most associate with elite athletes? Such scrutiny can be overdone, but isn't entirely without justification. For example, we know that female athletes often feel pressured to present a softer look. (Serena Williams, one of the athletes featured on a "Body Issue" cover, recently admitted as much.) And I don't know how many times I've seen photos of a female athlete that had obviously been airbrushed (or the digital equivalent) to soften her look, whereas had the subject been a male athlete, the photos would have been, if anything, sharpened for the opposite effect.

Often, however, this scrutiny betrays a provincial worldview. It is generally white, middle- or upper-class, heterosexual, and of that authoritarian mindset which ironically passes for liberalism these days. Nor is it without its own streak of Puritanism (common in the US, not so much in Europe). Here one often finds subtleties overlooked in a rush to judgment. As one example, a strictly male-female sexual dynamic is taken for granted, overlooking the appeal erotic images of female athletes might hold for lesbians. Another, the classism on which most prudery is actually based.

So where does the "Body Issue" fall in my view? Well, I can't say. I don't have a copy yet. What I've seen (sample gallery) is, I think, tastefully enough done. (The Sarah Reinertsen cover, in particular, I find affecting and gorgeous.) Judge, then, for yourself; only do so with an open mind.

I'm guessing that many of you do your holiday shopping online nowadays (some of it anyway). I don't blame you—why fight traffic and crowds if you don't have to? Besides, you find things online that you just wouldn't in stores, like these beautiful prints from AllPosters.com:





See you in a few days. Have a great Thanksgiving!

I've noticed that sexism in comics has been a frequent blog topic lately. And there are good reasons for why that is so.

For example, it's fairly easy to see that female superheroes don't get their due. They're rarely given the status and careful development that male superheroes receive, and depictions of them are often so absurd it would be impossible to think of them as formidable characters anyway.

Female superheroes should be depicted appropriately. We instinctively equate muscles and physical stature with strength, because that's how things generally work in the real world. That is why Superman and like-powered male superheroes are almost always shown having powerful-looking physiques, even though few superheroes actually get their superstrength in the weight room. It's unfair and self-defeating to treat superstrong female characters so differently. Thus, for me, Alex Ross's version of Power Girl is a vast improvement over Michael Turner's (which is awful no matter how you dissect it).

I'm looking at this from the perspective of Amazon feminism, so I'm most bothered by simplistic binary representations of gender and gender role stereotyping; but there are quite a few other concerns being expressed about the treatment of female characters in comics, and most are legitimate.

However, I don't like to see feminism confused with prudery and sexual puritanism, as so often happens when topics such as this come up. Which is why C. L. Hanson's superbly written "Questioning Objectification" (and her follow-up here) is such an important contribution to the overall discussion. I heartily recommend it, especially to feminists.