Renaissance masters did not paint fat women as art, they were the world's first cartoons

:dumbnig:

Beauty standards are different in different cultures dude.

[link to www.thailand-kennenlernen.de]

I think people were just fat which showed their wealth and prestige hence why they could afford to get painted.

Show me all the skinny starving portraits...

The aristocrats could afford to eat like pigs and tubby up for their portraits and who knows maybe even wanted to appear fatter. The paintings could add like 20 lbs.

Good point. Plus people who could barely afford to pay for food could not afford a painting most of the times.

I was at the Louvre on Monday. Seriously. Saw many of those paintings. I think that is just what women looked like. They are sculpted that way too. I really don't think the artisans wasted time on cartoons.

Saw many paintings of women with very fat babies berast feeding also. This was what women were admired(can't think of the right word)for....giving life. And a healthy (fat) woman would probably have had better change of raising a healthy child.

It is a well known fact that a larger stature was a sign of wealth. If you were heavier set, it meant you had money for food. People wanted to be fat, and yes believe it or not, they even liked their women with a little meat on their bones. Very hard for the modern man to comprehend, I'm sure.

Yeah, they are definitely not cartoons, but meant to be beautiful

Because wealthy people were fat (could afford the food) it became a component of ultimate beauty/luxury, as much as the silks and the pearls they were wearing (if silks and pearls were so common that every peasant wore them, but potato sacks were rare, that's what they would have painted them wearing instead).

Now that in many countries, even poor people can get fat, fatness is no longer a sign of wealth and luxury. For some reason we made starving-thinness a sign of luxury for women. Not sure why we did that. To show how little work they have to do, maybe? You know like historical Chinese foot binding? "Look how sickly and frail my wife looks. It's clear she doesn't wash a single dish in our house, as that may fracture her premature-osteoporotic wrist. Clearly we have servants for that. Yes, I have the HOTTEST wife."

Biologically, I think it was always true throughout history for males and females, that we as a whole will be attracted to people who are healthy looking, including of a healthy weight that is neither too frail or too chub. Our vision then bends based on what we perceive to be signs of luxury and wealth, but our true nature likes the healthy middle ground the best.

Hey, I love curves, and yes, a "little meat" rocks.

But these chicks are mudslides of cellulite thighs and hamhock arms.

And to top it all off, dudes were short and small in those days.

How do you grind against a buttress of butter-but when you've got a starvation-pecker?

More money and power = money for food and art -> request to the artist to paint them showing all their luxury, in this case, fat


Obesity was not desired for the look rather the concept. This woman was spoiled with wealth, which appealed to the aristocracy of the time. You can be certain they didnt do it because cellulite resembles marble


Also, they couldnt possibly have been cartoons as artists didnt have time for their own adventures, work was commissioned to them, by the men of these women for example.

Any woman with any type of real curves is going to have some cellulite. It's perfectly normal. I weight a whopping 114 lbs. and have some cellulite.

And the masters of the same time period painted the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene as shapely, normal-sized women.

No crushing thighs for our Mother of Jesus, nor any muffin top for Mary Magdalene.

During the middle ages these two women were taken most seriously, and were portrayed as lovely.

The huge fat women were some kind of joke.

I said mudslides of cellulite, not a little dopple here and there.

Not at all, most real men prefer curves.

Thread: 1950s Pinup Girl Was Truly Amazing

You can't tell me these fat women were admired when Leonardo Da Vinci had drawn the portrait of a perfectly-proportioned man.

In fact, I know having a body that was well=proportioned was considered the golden ratio and was to be strived for.

Fat men were rare and considered deviant--why were not fat women?

Okay, well then I'm curious as to what a "dopple" is considered? [link to www.women24.com] Scarlett Johansson has arguably one of the best bodies in Hollywood, and as this pic shows, also has quite a lot of cellulite. Is this a dopple, or a mudslide?

I dunno man, I looked up MAry Magdalene and this is what I get:

[link to upload.wikimedia.org]

I'd say she looks not exactly stick thin, except in comparison to the cherubs around her.

Also she seems to be covered in fur except for her boobs? ????? Was body hair just the bee's knees or, wtf is that about?

Good Lord man, where did you find that?

That looks to me like a new Da Vinci Code artifact that explains how redheads are the descendants of Neanderthals.

You guys must not have looked very far back in history.

Venus Figurines, some of the oldest depictions of the female body almost all depict women as having swollen breasts and large midriffs.

Are you telling me that has been using the absolutist latest technology for 35,000 years to make fun of women? Or do you think that man has worshiped the female figure and has been proud to preserve that through out time, regardless of how it's changed over time?

[link to en.m.wikipedia.org]

Why don't you ask WHAT allows celebrities to be skinny and commoners not skinny. Maybe then you might understand how the game works. And believe me, it is a game.

Because since times of old, men how shown off their wealth by "decorating" their women with signs of luxury.

Sometimes they "wore" those signs of luxury themselves, but for whatever reason, a lot of how men have always communicated their wealth was through the luxury they could afford to have their women display.

So, David could be perfectly fit (most healthy looking), but still be wealthy. He could show off his ability to get massive amounts of food by his ginormous, silk-wrapped, pearl-covered wife.

But David is supposed to be more mythical, like an ideal male, not a specific rich guy. Kind of like female mythical creatures, like the 3 graces. The 3 graces weren't usually *that* large either, because they didn't necessarily need wealth, since they were spirits, and not people. Generally nude "ideal" figures are different from images of well-dressed wealthy people.

And I've seen plenty of fat rich guys in paintings.

That's perfectly normal. Hollywood and celeb magazines give us the warped impression that all these actresses are completely flawless without any wrinkles, scars, cellulite, fat etc. I bet even the most beautiful actress on set looks pretty damn normal when she gets out of bed in the morning. It's all that makeup, lighting and visual editing that does the trick.

Okay, hear me out people.

These lounging fat women in the paintings would look like shit standing up.

They would look like old matrons with no waistlines, weird, huge bottoms, out of proportioned old ladies.

Matronly, in other words.

that's not fuckin' hot.

Look, I don't like skinny myself.

I love curves, shapely.

But these obese chicks lounging with apples and cherubs are NOT shapely, they are mudslides.

Chubby with a good shape is IDEAL to me.

Big sloppy masses of layered gout luxury is not.

Who'll five-star me for the boo-yah

All of the queens of Europe were thin, very, very petite.

Flat-chested, stick figured.

And these were in the commissioned paintings, so if fat equated to wealth and stature than wouldn't the artists paint them heavier?

No, because fat women were not desired, and the paintings of fat women were comparable to watching Jerry Springer.

:youreafag:

Real women have curves and a little extra to hold onto.

Just,admit you hate women and prefer 12 year old boys.

Most of the queens of Europe were fugly.

Except for the Polish ones.