Supervenus – An Anatomical Journey Through Perfection

Supervenus is a humorous, if not tragic, view into contemporary female beauty standards. Experimental filmmaker, Frederic Doazan and sound editor, Vandy Roc created this film. They begin with the surface anatomy of a woman in an anatomical text that looks to be from the 1800s. We then see the gloved hands of a surgeon meticulously cutting, plumping, and stretching the female figure from her standard healthy size down to ridiculous proportions. When you think there are no more modifications left to make, the surgeon does a little more, goes a little further, and gets a lot more ridiculous. Until everything starts to fall apart…

Supervenus Frederic Doazan

Supervenus Frederic Doazan

Supervenus Frederic Doazan

Supervenus Frederic Doazan

It’s an absurd analysis on the objectification of the female form. Yet, it’s not so far fetched when you consider that historically, anatomical illustrations of the female form went from this…

Valverde de Amusco Juam 1560

Valverde de Amusco, Juan ‘Anatomia del corpo humano’ 1560

…to this.

Anatomical Basis of Medical Practice Becker Wilson Gehweiler

A real medical textbook titled “The Anatomical Basis of Medical Practice” featured photographs of voluptuous models to depict female surface anatomy in the 1970s. Read more about this fascinating medical textbook in our article, “The OBJECTIFICATION of Female Surface Anatomy.”

View more of Frederic Doazan’s films on Vimeo!



3 thoughts on “Supervenus – An Anatomical Journey Through Perfection”

  1. @Logician The first illustration is that of a pregnant woman because most of the illustrations in the history of anatomical illustration were of pregnant women. The male body has for the majority of the history of anatomy been the standard anatomical model. The female body was seen as a deviation of the male body. At one point the vagina was even thought to have been an inverted penis.

    If it was as simple as a pregnant woman vs a non-pregnant woman this wouldn’t be an issue. But the second photograph is that of a woman in a seductive pose, not the standard forward facing arms supinated anatomical pose found in most anatomy texts. That textbook was aimed at the pleasure of men because the authors thought that male medical students would rather look at pretty pin up girls when they’re studying anatomy. So it has nothing to do with a feminist bias. It is simply a logical observation.

  2. Maybe it would help if you could keep your feminist bias out of this ? The first sketch is that of a pregnant woman while the second pictorial is that of an nonpregnant woman. Of course, and of course, would not you have thought they would look different ? No, because feminist ideology has stripped you of logic. Pregnancy causes womans weight to increase with development of edema in extremities and modern pictorial would represent it as such so. Your

Comments are closed.