The Washington Post published an article about Martha Washington’s wedding shoes being displayed at Mount Vernon this month. The subtitle was “Less First Frump, More Foxy Lady.” (Gosh, that just makes you want to break out Jimi Hendrix’s rendition of the “Star-Spangled Banner” at Woodstock, doesn’t it?) The shoes didn’t much interest the Guardian, which entitled its piece “Martha Washington – a Hot First Lady?”
The reason is this picture: a computerized “age-regression portrait” by Michael Deas that purports to show what Martha Washington looked like in her twenties. (Could The Sun be far behind in picking up this story?)
Jeff will probably hate me for posting this: it’s Founders Chic run amok! Why do we care how attractive past first ladies were, anyway?
On the other hand, something tells me that age-regression portraits could be a big business, if it makes everyone look THAT good. I want them to make one of me when I was in middle school.
(Hat tip Ralph Luker and IBM.)