The Superhero Fashion Show

[kent_allard_jr]

On Saturday I went to the Metropolitan Museum with friends to see Superheroes: Fashion and Fantasy. It was OK -- if nothing else, it was cool to see the costumes from Hollywood superhero movies -- but as I noted in my comment to trinityvixen, the text was Oh-Fucking-God awful, an appalling bastard child of Anna Wintour and some pretentious English-department windbag. There was nothing about the technique behind comic illustration, no historical context, no information of any kind, really, just a combination of banal observations and silly conjectures that would've been laughed off the walls if they weren't filled with $5 words. Seriously, the museum should be ashamed of itself for associating with such stupid nonsense.

It was too bad, because there were lots of issues the exhibition could have addressed but seemed to be beneath its notice:

• They could have compared comic-book superheroes with their predecessors: Zorro, the Shadow, the Lone Ranger, and other masked vigilantes of radio and pulp fiction.
  
• They could have told us what inspired Superman's costume, pointed out that it wasn't part of Schuster's first sketches.
  
• They could have discussed the ways costumes changed -- and in many ways became more uniform -- as time progressed. The Golden Age costumes weren't always skin-fight, as you can see by looking at the Golden Age Flash and Green Lantern. Why did this change in the Silver Age?
  
• There have been experiments in abandoning costumes all together; the original Fantastic Four just wore street clothes, for instance. Why did the FF change?
  
• They could have written about color issues, both aesthetic and technical. Mentioned that Robin was introduced to add bright colors to a comic filled with blacks, blues and grays, and told us why the Hulk shifted from gray to green.
  
• They could have also talked about the way Hollywood's depictions have changed over the years. Batman's costume in the TV show looks a lot like the comic, but Tim Burton abandoned it for a kind of rubbery armor that's now standard for the character. Why the change?

There was plenty the curators could have talked about, as you can see, instead of comparing the Hulk to a giant erect penis. Too bad it was run by a pack of morons.

Comments

[bigscary.livejournal.com]

Compare the Reeves, Reeve, Cain, and Routh costumes. Hell, compare the hair styles.

Book length treatises could be written about the above.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

I think the problem is that you're attacking the exhibit for not being more interested in the superheroes than the fashion. Like I said, this is about the fashion and its inspiration. As far as fashion is concerned, the history of the comics is less important than the aesthetic. Superhero costumes are different and varied, but they still obey an aesthetic that Michael Chambon revealed in his essay and that easily translate to fashion even if the reference isn't always clear. (The plastic dress has what to do with the Flash again?)

Again, I think the book did address the questions you have--why the change in costumes for Batman? Because people don't look imposing in tights that bunch at the armpits. Because the rubber is sexier. The colors--which communicate patriotism, which difference, which post-modernism? Answer: red, white, and blue (and sometimes black, white, and gray so long as the shapes are right); anything covering the skin that isn't skin colored--green, blue, red, etc.; and black and chrome, for the most part.

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

Hulk as giant penis probably has some reality, but nearly as much as the TV Ad Mr. Clean as giant penis. Especially the 1960s/early 70s Mr. Clean.

[wellgull.livejournal.com]

Wow... hearing your comments about it (and Trin's responses) just makes this entire exhibit sound impossibly tedious to me.

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

If you ever want to hear a fascinating talk on the history of superhero comics, get in touch with womzilla.