This is a very sexy picture, and therin lies the problem. WW has such a sexy look yet her personality belies that, pure so she is. And I hate htose kind of pics where Diana is overly-sexualized, as that isnt what shes all about imo. Amanda Conner...is she the artist who draws Power Girl in such an overt way? If so, Im surprised [maybe I shouldnt be] a female artist draws such sexualized characters, considering the furore when it actually happens.This pic here is typically Nineties; the tiny tiara, the large crescent girdle,the yellow earrings, the tiny bird-like double-W [ I much prefer a larger double-W, and the Messner-Loebs art of that period insisted on doing down her double-W logo so it wasnt so prominent, a mistake imo] and her star-shorts, cut very high up on the bias, Baywatch-style like a thong [the French call it the 'French cut'].The lasso is cutely held and has that golden glow which highlights her face superbly. She has a lovely smile tho, but thats a given where the fragrant Diana is concerned; she ALWAYS has a lovely smile!
Yeah, I also see WW as a heroine, not a sex object. That's what '80s Donna Troy is for. ;)Part of what gained Connor her fame was being a woman who could illustrate in a style palatable to male readers, which included cheesecake. They could point and say, "see-- she can do it, why not us?" Actually, there's truth in that, because Connor's command of her gender's anatomy means that she can construct sexy women with weight-bearing frames.I'm not big on the Wonder Thong, but here it works well because it highlights Diana's athletic build. I like a bold WW, so this lingerie version isn't my bag. Conner's technique is really nice, but that pose seems so silly for this character. I'm ambivalent, clearly.
I rather like Conner, and this is a nice, if cutesy image.@Karl: I don't see any problem with Diana having a sexuality, since, you know, everybody has one. Still, that waist is just a hair too thin to get my full defense.
Post a Comment