(no subject)

[coraa]

Linked from several different places, but I think I saw it first linked from elisem:

Do you see something wrong with these reproductions of classic works of art?

Good grief. It's not all that common that I can get my feminist rage on and my historian rage on at the same time!

Comments

[porfinn.livejournal.com]

Actually, if we are going with modern "improvements" perhaps certain aspects of him should be more well-endowed. Size might not matter, but women are portrayed as sticks, with guys certain types of skinny are not currently in vogue. But an EMO-boy David is much, much funnier.

[coraa.livejournal.com]

Yeah -- I think a really clear parallel to this would be if reproductions of classical statues of naked males appeared where said classical statues were suddenly, inexplicably hung like horses.

[maggiedacatt.livejournal.com]

Or at least like male porn stars. :)

Or, in some cases, like real men--some classical works (my mental-picture examples seem to be primarily statues and line drawings) have men with inexplicably tiny penises, like the artist is embarrassed that he has to include it and is making it as small as possible.

[coraa.livejournal.com]

I have a vague memory from one of my Classics courses (great source, I know) that it wasn't embarrassment so much as a distinctly different aesthetic of male genitalia -- which is why I picked it as a parallel to the skinny-fying of the female figures. Idealizing one type of body vs. idealizing another.

[porfinn.livejournal.com]

You picked it? I believe the theory was that flaunting a big dick was considered something symbolic of more primitive cultures, so the kind of thing only a buffoon would do. I'm too sexy for my penis, seemed to be the mentality.

[coraa.livejournal.com]

You picked it! Sorry, I should have said 'why I agreed with it.'

But yeah, that.

[coraa.livejournal.com]

Where by "why I picked it" I mean "why I concurred with CJ," obviously. Oy.

[porfinn.livejournal.com]

You really shouldn't apologize to pompous, persnickity persons such as myself-- it just encourages me. Besides, my guess is that you would have made that comparison soon enough, I just beat you to the punch (penis? whatever).
It is curious how fashion dictates style. Small, fig-leaf sized genitalia use to be "in". Round, wonderfully well-fed women were the thing, once upon a time. So...in some Greek cultures men were attracted to men, now we have gay fashion designers making clothes for female models that look, not surprisingly, like adolescent boys. Then Playboy gets its hands on that look, but looks for woman with a more pneumatic image-- lower half seems to retain the fashion model thin, but the top half gets a lift. I can't help wondering what non-gay, non-fashion designer men like, besides warm and breathing...or, maybe, that's all that really matters once upon a mattress.