Kerri (solan_t) wrote,
Kerri
solan_t

Question completely out of left field

Or left in a field.

Or something.


Anyway, I picked up this little (5 x 5 x 2 in. heh.) book full of all sorts of pretty pictures of oil paintings from, like, 1500s to 1800s or so. But one picture made me notice something. I mean, I am used to seeing women with lengths of cloth falling off them, while clinging to their curves a la Catwoman and her navel. I tend to do a O.o to the breasts, but I figure maybe it's a model (or lack thereof) issue.

BUT. This particular picture was of Moses defending the daughters of J.... J... shoot, can't remember which J name that was. Jethro? Hrmph. Well, both Moses (oh, now I am questioning if it was even Moses. I don't remember the story at all) and the maurading shephards are pretty much naked and the genitals are on conspicuous display.

But, can anyone tell me why those obvious genitals are so very, very SMALL? I mean, really, BABIES have bigger genitals. Is the artist trying to flatter every male that looks at the picture, or something? If they were minimized to make them less of a focal point, why make them visible at all?
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 18 comments