Thursday, February 26, 2026

VIVACIOUS WOMEN

 


In the years before Google searches, stock images and photo banks, every illustrator compiled their own personal collection of reference pictures.  They'd clip images they found useful or inspiring from magazines, newspapers and books-- good examples of hands or childrens' faces or dry brush technique or architectural perspective. 

Old timers lovingly collected tens of thousands of these pictures. They loaned them to friends for assignments.  Sometimes they left preliminary pencil sketches in the margins, or jotted down phone numbers on the back, or used the paper to blot excess casein from a paint brush.  These hard working images often ended up tattered, yellowed and crumbling. 

These collections were already obsolete by the time I came along.  Nobody had any use for the clippings anymore.  Nobody had much use for the retired illustrators either.  

But I met illustrators who couldn't bear to throw their collections in a dumpster before moving into a hospice. Their art careers were done but they remained fond of the files they'd curated over a lifetime.  Personally, I was curious about what these artists saw in the pictures they selected and how the pictures were used.  For example, below we see how cartoonist Leonard Starr borrowed an interior from an illustration by Robert Fawcett:



These artists were grateful they could extend the useful life of their clippings by handing them off to a younger person who still cared.  

When I opened the large boxes they shipped to me, clouds of studio dust and paper chips emerged, along with the intoxicating aroma of old paper.   Skimming through the pictures, decades of art flew by-- old Saturday Evening Post covers, art deco pictures, horribly racist illustrations, World War II pictures, 1950s glamour illustrations, 1960s bursts of psychedelic colors... it was like being in a time machine:


  
I encountered all kinds of micro trends or styles reflecting the popular taste of their time.  For example,  In the 1940s and early 1950s, there seemed to be a fashion where women were portrayed with insanely animated expressions on their faces-- their eyebrows raised, their eyes popping out of their heads.
  
To modern audiences this woman might seem like a psychopath who would slip rat poison
in your butter pecan ice cream, but 1940s audiences loved this look.









Norman Rockwell said one of his favorite models during this time was Mary Whalenwho “could... raise her eyebrows until they almost jumped over her head.”  He was known to apply tape to raise the eyebrows on other models.


These women were often portrayed in the throes of ecstasy over a new product such as a girdle or a Kelvinator appliance.






The art history books are silent on why 1940s audiences found raised eyebrows so appealing.  It's part of the cultural record that might go undetected by anyone who didn't happen to be sifting through an illustrator's clipping file and suddenly encounter the geological layer where women (never the men) all had raised eyebrows.



These pictures of vivacious women are just one among dozens of stylistic eccentricities that come and go in the historical clipping files of old illustrators.  Why did people like this style?  I can't explain it.  That's a chore for future art historians.

19 comments:

  1. There’s a good chance you’re the last person in history to ever remark on this ephemeral trend, before it slips the grasp of our collective memory—so thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hilarious. I think this was their way of making women look doe-eyed and innocent. Those eyebrows make them look surprised. That's not a popular look for women today.

    JSL

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reminiscent of stage makeup, where the intent is to exaggerate and increase readability of facial expression over distance.

    Here, the intent is clearly to capture the potential buyer’s gaze by outcompeting everybody else’s clown faced hottie.

    - - -
    Postmodern Anonymouse

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ooooh I know I know! American housewives in the 50s? Amphetamine!
    https://scibabe.com/mos-the-meth-fueled-1950s-housewives/
    Before that good old cocaine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Weird go-to. Usually projection. Are you telling us that your mother was a drunk? Were your parents substance-abusers?

      Delete
    2. I'm not American, sorry. We didn't have lynchings either.

      Delete
    3. You seem to take Uruguayan slavery and drug use lightly. That speaks of your racism and ignorance.

      Afro-Uruguan culture was completely wiped out. So you have no idea what crimes were perpetrated against blacks in your country. That history was probably suppressed or lost. Or people couldn't read or write about it because in the time period half of Uruguay was illiterate. The Massacre of Salsipuedes being an outstanding exception. Afro-Uruguans still live in humiliating circumstances and are currently still subject to racism in your country.

      In terms of human trafficking to this day Uruguay is Tier 2. (U.S. is Tier 1.)

      Andean-produced cocaine is the primary drug trafficked through Uruguay. Local consumption of the highly addictive and inexpensive cocaine base product, known as “pasta base,” remains a serious problem. Uruguayans get high a lot. They're always topping the Latin American charts for cocaine, alcohol, and weed use. They say, "It's just something you gotta do to get by living here."

      Delete
  5. The craze for this sort of exaggerated expression seems to have begun in the early 1940s. I haven't seen it much in earlier decades. The schtick had quite a run, lasting at least into the early 60s. Recently a lot of 40s-50s pinup paintings have surfaced on the auction sites. I'm struck by how often one cliched expression shows up: lips pursed and slightly parted, making an "O." It's represented here by the Stanley Hostess Party ad, though this woman's expression is a bit less exaggerated than in pinup art. The situation portrayed is usually a woman embarrassed by some "cute" exposure of her underwear, her legs, etc.. She reacts to the camera with wide eyes, elevated brows, and the "O" mouth. To look at the auction examples it seems some pinup artists painted nothing but "O" mouth pictures.

    ReplyDelete
  6. There was a viral AI app called FaceApp that was popular with teenagers a few years ago. It used artificial intelligence to make imperceptibly small changes to a face that rendered the person remarkably better looking. Even with the before and after pictures side by side, you simply could not identify any significant differences. It was rather uncanny because the two pictures looked like copies of each other, and yet in one, a woman looked average and in the other, she looked like a supermodel.

    It was really remarkable how microscopic changes could not only be perceived by the lizard brain but would dramatically affect a person's appearance. To make sense of what I was seeing, I imported these pictures into Photoshop, toggling layers to isolate exactly what the AI was changing.

    While I discovered many nanoscopic changes made by the AI, I found that one stood above the rest in terms of its ability to affect attractiveness: the distance from the eyebrow to the eye. Invariably, raising a woman’s eyebrows or lowering a man’s would dramatically improve their attractiveness without fail, even by the slightest amount. The difference in effect is staggering. Plastic surgeons are wasting their time with noses and lips and hairlines. The difference between you and George Clooney is your eyebrow to eye distance.

    I dug into the research a bit and found that, from what scientists report, the distance of the eyebrow to the eye is the single clearest marker of sexual dimorphism on the face. It is heavily linked to the levels of major sex hormones and is therefore the most reliable facial measure of fertility. We have evolved to find these markers singularly attractive.

    Suffice it to say, I suspect that 1940s and 1950s models, by making surprised expressions, were essentially trying to hack the brain into reading these as the same sexually dimorphic markers of fertility. Everything old is new.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I thought it obvious that these ads were directed at women. The marketing and art direction departments had become quite operationally sophisticated by this time.

    Women readily catch moods, emotions, mental states, and opinions. They’re high in empathy, agreeableness, and unconscious imitation. Thus programmability. (Generally speaking; in the normal distribution.) This was known long before scientists discovered mirror-neurons and that women had far greater activity in those brain cell types than men.

    Which is to say, these wide-eyed illustrations aren’t just aspirational, peppy, buouyant and silly. They are trying to actively induce a positive disposition in the target female demographic toward their magazine and its advertised products. Moreover, a positively ecstatic one, as bright and appealing with alertness and engagement as a guileless infant. (I think we all mirror the alertness instinctively/unconsciously when seeing all the wide-open eyes in these illos. They are very effective in that regard.) The slick women’s magazines were AD’d front to back with positive manipulative appeal to induce a healthy, clean buying state of mind.

    As with all overused mass manipulation fads, eventually it gets tiresome and becomes a big joke, a tragedy to some, and then nostalgia down the road.

    Elvgren’s O-mouthed sky-browed cheesecake babes look guileless for a different reason. More than fertile. Different demo.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Where will these collections end up ? Are they worth digitising/copying before they disintegrate to powdery dust ? Are what survives linked to any notable artists, and should they then be deserving of legitimate study (as scholars pore over the records of Rembrandts bankruptcy sale and try to recreate the costumes, prints and miscellania of his studio) ?
    It amazes me that there doesn't seem to be proper interest in this, and in the great American illustrators generally in the larger US museums (correct me if I'm wrong about this). Edwin Austin Abbey is represented in the Met, but no Coll or Gruger. Compare this to the scope of the V&A in London, where the collection runs from Blake to mass-produced illustration, design and toy theatre.
    What was the name of the large illustration collection, (the Kelly ? ) which I think got sold off (not sure about this). Great for buyers, but at least some pieces should have been bought by the Met.
    I was amazed by the collection of Walt Reed's clippings online, but that seems to be the exception. Nuts that this stuff isn't given its due place, nothwithstanding the healthy collector's market, in a prominent public collection.
    Bill

    ReplyDelete

  9. (I started drafting this yesterday, but Kev has already made the same point):

    This isn't very psychologically complex; The expression is a mixture of surprise, excitement and optimism (about the potential of the new product) that the advertiser hopes will transfer to the viewer of the advert. Similar to the way parents will over-perform a facial expression to indicate to a confused baby how to feel about a new situation.

    Also, Richard isn't wrong about eyebrow height and attractiveness on women, which is why in the 1920s-50s it was common for women to pluck eyebrow hair out (toward the outer corners) and re-draw the brow with an exaggerated, higher arch. However, there is a trend now for thicker, lower, more 'masculine' brows on women, and female models with a stern / predatory eye look (sometimes called 'hunter eyes'). You don't need a phd in women’s studies to guess why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, conversely, there's an uncanny pantomime-dame look arising in men in some neighbourhoods, their brows hoisted by the tautness of their facelifts. See it in some actors. Undermines contemporary westerns. Voices goin' up all California, too. Must be the water.
      Bill

      Delete
  10. Any researcher interested in this subject should also examine photographic headshots from the same era. It’s worth considering whether similarly lively expressions appeared in photography, and whether illustrators were simply following an emerging trend. I can easily imagine promotional photo‑shoots for Hollywood comedies where actresses pose with exactly this sort of exaggerated expression. Of course, one could argue the reverse (the photographers were taking their cues from illustrators).

    Personally, I like to think that artists genuinely enjoyed drawing such spirited females precisely because there was little to no precedents in visual art. A choice dictated not only by etiquette and prevailing tastes (showing one’s teeth in a smile, for example, might have been considered vulgar in past centuries, I’m not sure), but also by simple practicality: it’s almost impossible for a model to maintain an exaggerated expression for long.

    I once posed for a session where the artists asked me to “pull funny faces,” and holding such expressions for one or two minutes was HARD.

    https://downtheguts.blogspot.com/2019/01/serge-part-2.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. I wonder if, in 80 years or so, people will have similar questions about so-called "soy face," the mouth-agape expression that is ubiquitous on YouTube thumbnails; or the pursed-lips that so many people nowadays put on when taking selfies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The infantilization of women in ’50s illustration: men are rugged, well-dressed hunks brooding over cars and cigarettes, while women are reduced to wide-eyed rapture over a self-cleaning oven.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude, read the room. There’s no mentally unwell college girls around here who will be fooled by your basic male-feminist rhetoric. Try your kleptogamy tactics somewhere else.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Rugged men brooding over products

      Oh my gosh so cool

      Beautiful women wide-eyed for products

      Oh my god this is literally the Handmaids Tale

      Delete