Humanism is a philosophy consisting in ‘a perception of the dignity of man as a rational being apart from theological determinations’ (Symonds, 1898). The modern notion of human individuality that authors like Davies (2006) demonstrate ‘shaped by and inseparable from nineteenth-century conditions and concerns’ was preceded in the Renaissance by the revival of Greek-Roman art and values. During this period, scholars, patrons and artists began to concern about humanity and the idea of the self-awakening of humans. This bled into art reminiscent of the ideal beauty and harmony of ancient Greece and ancient Rome, and the aesthetic of elegance, natural magnificence and rationalism. (Yan & Fei, 2018). Renaissance pieces like Michelangelo’s marble sculpture David celebrate, therefore, beauty, rationality and self-reliance, thus becoming an embodiment of ideal masculinity to the humanistic standards. Ever since, representations of masculinity in Western culture have been influenced by these neoclassical conceptions, so much that values traditionally associated with the ‘ideal man’ like rationality and strength can be easily identifiable in characters from the twentieth century like Superman. Created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, Superman first appeared in 1938 Action Comics n.°1, and fits into the long tradition of representations of the humanistic ‘perfect man’ because he embodies rationality, self-reliance and beauty just as Michelangelo’s David.

Superman embodies rationality and self-reliance in his actions the way the sculpture does in its composition. Michelangelo was revolutionary in representing the Bible character before battle rather than victorious over the giant Goliath’s head, as artists like Donatello had sculpted him. Captured at this moment, David is shown fully concentrated, his muscles tensed, ready to jump into action, yet his sling hidden emphasizes that his victory over his opponent was intellectual and not through physical strength. Superman, too, subjects his use of physical (and out-worldly) strength to previous thought across different iterations, takes time to meditate on matters, as seen in Superman IV: the Quest for Peace (1987), and finds solutions (and saves the world) mostly by himself. Another example: in My Adventures with Superman (2023-) season 1 finale, Clark Kent decides to confront an invasion by an unidentified enemy all alone, even if the only weapon able to stop the foe could also kill him; by sacrificing himself, the character displays trust in his own instincts and abilities, as well as a strong moral code. These deeds celebrate individual potential and man’s agency given by the use of rational capacities.

The hero also follows after the Florentine sculpture in representing beauty because of his fit, slim and overall anatomically ideal physique. His tight suit displays a flawless body – muscular and lean – reminiscent of David’s. Even though Superman transcends the limitations of normal male bodies (Schumm & Koosed, 2009) – because he flies, has laser eyes, has super strength, breathes ice and seems to have an indestructible skin… –, the character still demands an ideal look and physical preparation from the actors that incarnate him. Yet not really Superman, the various actors that have given life to him achieved at some point of their careers the broad shoulders, the sharp jawline and the strong, athletic build associated with him; with that, these characteristics presume being ‘achievable’, humanly possible. This stereotype of the ‘ideal body’ (which is also a fully abled body) roots in the Ancient Greek canon model of beauty revived in the Renaissance’s neoclassicism and embodied by David.

But Superman is just as much the exaltation of the humanistically ideal masculinity as a reflection of the societies that write his different incarnations. In Superman III (1983), the hero fights himself as his identity is split into two: one is rational, focused, healthy, confident and duty-driven, while the other is irrational, undisciplined, naughty and passion- (also sex-) driven. Just as expected, the first one prevails and mends his opposite’s mistakes. Nevertheless, in the most recent adaptation, My Adventures with Superman, Clark, though still rational and disciplined, is also allowed to be clumsy with his superpowers, unsure about his identity and his place among those around him, and vulnerable with his loved ones. Moreso, in Superman and Lois (2021-2024), he also assumes the role of a father, being present, firm yet not perfect. All of these representations are a testimony to the values that their societies add upon the concept of the ‘perfect man’: while Christopher Reeve’s Superman submits his dreams and passions to duty and responsibility, contemporary takes focus on him balancing both, and depict a vulnerable man who does not have it all figured out or who makes mistakes when striving for the best.

Conclusion

The writing of a hero like Superman implies the representation of values that society considers admirable. The notions embedded into the character can be traced back to the philosophy of humanism that was preceded by the Renaissance, a period prolific in art that exalts the rationality, the self-reliance and the beauty of humans, especially males. Michelangelo’s sculpture David becomes archetypical of such values, and many characteristics of his coincide with many of the twentieth-century character. To begin with, Superman, though impossibly strong, prefers thought over violence, fights the enemy when needed, trusts his agency and abilities to defeat it and is even willing to sacrifice himself. His fit and slim physique is also comparable to that of the Florentine art piece, and his features follow the Greek canon beauty. Perhaps the supernatural abilities deviate from the humanistic ideal, however, his look is still held up to the long tradition of ultimate representations of attractiveness. Nevertheless, throughout different iterations of the character, some points of his personality differ slightly: for instance, in the seventies and eighties, Superman was shown more confident and less vulnerable than in recent incarnations. This suggests that the values associated with the concept of an ‘ideal man’ are dynamic, although these shifts do not undermine his status as a morally good character, as a hero written to be looked upon. Superman is still a super man – he is archetypical of the ideal male human that the humanistic philosophy conceived, and as such can be compared to other representations like David. This analysis has some limitations to be considered in the subsequent evaluation of its arguments. Aspects that have not been observed are the evolution of the character’s writing throughout his almost a-century-long history as well as his innate relation to the history of the United States of America. Moreover, the scope can be broadened, and further similarities and differences between various representations of masculinity throughout art history provide a possible point of departure for subsequent studies.

Bibliography

Davies, T. (2006). Humanism. In Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203129722

Schumm, D., & Koosed, J. L. (2009). From Superman to Super Jesus: constructions of masculinity and disability on the silver screen. Disability Studies Quarterly, 29(2). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v29i2.917

Yan, L., & Fei, C. (2018). Analysis on the characteristics of the neoclassical art. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management, Economics, Education and Social Sciences (MEESS 2018). https://doi.org/10.2991/meess-18.2018.13