Lisa Yuskavage’s painting emulates the soft focus, warm lighting, and the impossible combination of voluptuous and skinny beauty in the female body the same way that men’s magazines did in the 1960s and 1970s. She also directly mimics the sexist cartoons still found in the pages of Playboy. Their apple cheeked, elf-nosed, lingerie-clad blondes, brunettes, and redheads are obvious sources for her paintings.

Link to an interesting Art in America article:
Lisa Yuskavage: Fleshed Out

artnet’s Jerry Saltz gets all uppity about the direction Yuskavage’s work has gone in over the last few years. He thinks her allegiance to Feminism has lapsed: Female Trouble - artnet Magazine

Jerry, I am going to address you directly here: I think Lisa knows what she’s doing. She’s moved on from the gaudy colors and in-your-face subjects to subtler critiques of the same subjects. Do you truly think her political alignment has made a polar reversal? Do you think she looks on her past work as misguided and naive? Is she embracing a woman’s role as a sex object in a male-dominated world, or is she honing her message to have an edge so sharp that you don’t feel it cut until you’re already bleeding?

The NYT (Lisa Yuskavage: Bad-Girl Painter) got it more right in 2001 than Jerry did in 2006. Roberta Smith seems to have predicted Yuskavage’s trend towards subtlety and saw no contradiction with a Feminist P.O.V. in her art, but not without one misstep:

But beneath the veneer of unity, it is equally polyglot and pieced together, and it is full of fissures and contradictions. Is the blonde in “Day” undressing for the viewer’s delectation or actually getting dressed, quietly observing the familiar terrain of her body?

Huh!? Does a woman in a Playboy or Penthouse magazine’s photo appear to be torn between taking off or putting on her clothes??? The difference is irrelevant because it is a purely mental construct that only an intellectually-hamstrung, politically-correct retard would make.