I think maybe a link is missing, but it sounds interesting.

Shouldn't there be a link somewhere? Sorry, just asking.

I wonder whether this is confusing what an artist could paint with what an artist wanted to paint. Before the 19th century, the only people who had enough free time to pose for an artist -- and who had enough money to fund artistic enterprises -- were wealthy people. Consequently, what we see may have more to do with the economics of art than with artists' perceptions of beauty.

As a woman who is somewhat zaftig, I had a guy tell me in high school that if I had lived "in the Renaissance period," I would be very beautiful. Um. Thanks. I think.

As a woman who is somewhat zaftig, I had a guy tell me in high school that if I had lived "in the Renaissance period," I would be very beautiful. Um. Thanks. I think.

I remember one of my friends being complimented, by an eightysomething (female) classics professor, on her "pre-Raphaelite beauty." To this day, I don't know if la profesora was being sweet or being catty.

Cheers,

TH

I don't think it was industrialization or advertising. It's mostly that plumpness is no longer associated with prosperity, since everyone in the US can eat. Beauty standards are very much about which people are powerful enough that people want to imitate their looks.

It has to do with the visual that is achievable due to wealth. The era of that painting, not doing manual labor and being well fed were the domain of the wealthy. Everyone else had to do manual labor to survive. Being in the sun was part of work. As workers were more and more put in side, being tan was seen as a feature of the rich. You had to have free time to go be outside, beyond the grasp of the person working 40+ hours inside. Now tan and anorexic skinny are pushed as the desired look. Tans take time in a booth or a beach. That means money and free time. Being skinny means you have money and time for a gym, personal trainer, quality low calorie food. The average schmoe is stuck in a cube farm eating Mcdonalds or Budget gourmet with little time to attend to working out or making healthy food. Healthy food is also expensive.

in todays news and relevent here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6247625.stm

I like the fact that really they only concentrated on a few hundred years of work, and only some of the literature was not western.

Innnnteresting. You know whats sad? I am not particularly thin, I probably resemble more those women then whats considered attractive now, I know that the standards of beauty are unrealistic, but I still find those women in that picture unnattractively lumpy. (that being said, I dont want to be as thin as what beauty standards today say is attractive).

Healthy food IS more expensive, and in general the food supply in america is horrible. however, you dont HAVE to eat mcdonalds or other extremely bad food for you everyday, I don't like that cop-out either.

Another interesting twist on this issue has to do with power and legal rights. As health and body weight were symbols of class larger and stronger was considered the ideal. It was safe for women to be strong and healthy in body since there were so many laws and customs to restrict any power they might gain. As women progress and gain more rights this becomes threatening and as legal restrictions declined further cultural restrictions were imposed to keep women weak in body and mind. This leads us to the here and now, a time in which so many of us are too preoccupied and starving to think straight, let alone organize and gain real power. Apparently, we are even passing out on subway trains and making all those men late for work.

I don't think it was industrialization or advertising. It's mostly that plumpness is no longer associated with prosperity, since everyone in the US can eat. Beauty standards are very much about which people are powerful enough that people want to imitate their looks

I think explanations along these lines are a) radical oversimplifications and b) little more than post hoc just so stories. If pale blondes were the current trend, people adhering to this belief would just be saying "oh, it's because wealthier people are more likely to have managerial positions and are more likely to afford bleaching. Therefore, people are just trying to imitate those higher on the social ladder."

Could you post the link?

Lnik please :)

I also think it’s fascinating to look at all the nudes of supposedly non-white women done by painters during a time when a contemporary white woman could not be depicted nude without being pornographic, but anything 'eastern' mythological or historical was fair game:
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/museum_template.asp?aid=9&page=1
or even..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Ingre,_Grande_Odalisque.jpg/300px-Ingre,_Grande_Odalisque.jpg

Sorry folks, I'm trying to get the link...Samhita is in CA so it's still before 9am her time so she prolly hasn't seen that the link is missing yet.

diddakoi writes:
I also think it’s fascinating to look at all the nudes of supposedly non-white women done by painters during a time when a contemporary white woman could not be depicted nude without being pornographic, but anything 'eastern' mythological or historical was fair game ...

Oh, good point. Re "foreign" bodies as safe nudes: This arguably continued through the late 1970s. Roots and Gauguin included topless scenes; heck, Gauguin was almost entirely made up of topless scenes. Both made it past the FCC 25 years ago, but wouldn't today. I'm not 100% sure if that's progress, but I'm leaning towards a mild yes.

One thing I find interesting in your first example, i.e. Monsieur Gerome, is the fact that although his "Arab" women look caucasian, his Arab men actually look like Arabs. Women, no matter the context, have to be adapted a little bit more than the men so as to better fit the artist's idea of feminine beauty. This is true whether you're talking about Gerome's alleged Middle Easterners, female robots with augmented breast plates, or Smurfette. Maleness is simple humanity, but to be female is to be gender-plus-one and has to be specially designated. I find that very telling. Nobody would think of giving Smurfs penises, would they? But Smurfette needs big blond hair and a skirt.

Cheers,

TH

The entire premise of "foreign' bodies as safe nudes really fits quite well into the entire post colonial view (and of simone de beauviors view to a certain extent) of everyone who isnt white as "other". Just like TH said, maleness is humanity, being female is "other" (that is definitly simone de beauvoir). if you are a non-white female, your degree of otherness increases even more. hence uses of the word "exotic" to describe non white women.

Well, Smurfette got high heels and gobs of long blonde hair after Papa Smurf waved his magic wand and made her good. Back when she was first made by Gargamel, as a spy and a trap for the smurfs, and she was evil, she had short brown hair.

Not that I was deeply upset by this when I was in 3rd grade or anything. It's not like I immediately stopped watching the smurfs after I saw that episode and then threw out all my smurf stickers.

Anyway, back on topic, I don't think the nudity is just a matter of other-ness. Especially in this period, it's a matter of high culture vs. low culture, very similar to the way it is now. Goddesses from Greek myth were not considered to be racially other; rather, it was one of the legitimate ways you get away with doing female nudes, in a "it's not obscene, it's art" sort of way, because classical myth was high culture, and Greek goddesses were not considered to be the same as, well, actual Greeks, in the same way that Mary and Joseph weren't considered to be like actual contemporary Jews.

"Consequently, what we see may have more to do with the economics of art than with artists' perceptions of beauty."

No, I don't agree with this. Part what these artists were expected to do is to make their subjects look as beautiful as possible, so what we're seeing is probably a heightened representation of beauty ideals rather than a strictly accurate representation of what portrait-sitters looked like. And it was almost never the rich ladies who were posing nude.

Since Samhita forgot the link I sent her here it is.

1639? That's the beginning of the modern period (almost), innit? ;)

Nope, you're off by about 200 years. The modern period didn't phase in until the late 19th century (1880-1890). For reference -- Rembrandt was still around in 1639.

Tonuge in cheek comment. I was thinking that 1639 is a late start for a piece on the changing shape of "ideal women" in art. Why not some Greek statues, or Venus of Willendorf?

"Tongue" - my bad.

Modern era is generally considered late 18th century, not 19th century. 1639 would be early modern, FWIW.

Oh, and Tom: I really hope your friend took the "pre-Raphaelite" comment as a compliment. From an octogenerian, I suspect it was. In any case, I know I'd be flattered.

I'm pretty sure it was intended as a compliment, but this was a delightfully blunt octogenarian.

We belonged to the same poetry society. I still remember one exchange: A visitor spent 15 minutes slowly reading an excruciatingly bad poem aloud (as I recall, it included a seven-minute hummingbird/explicit sex parallel and the phrase "mother load" with the asterisked line "this is a pun / on the death of my son"--oh, and did I mention it all RHYMED?).

After we'd suffered through it, yonder classics professor told her: "That was very nice." After our hummingbird-eroticizing friend left, la profesora turned to me and added: "I don't know why I said that. It was a dreadful poem."

But I think "pre-Raphaelite" was definitely a compliment. :o)

Cheers,

TH

I have to say, that link isn't very good. For one thing, it is only showing one picture for most of the decades, and certainly not all of history. It could be a fascinating thing to look at, but the author only put up about 10 pictures and therefore wants us to make assumptions about 400 years of history? I think not.

There are many, many more art pieces from that time period that would show different body types, as well as the way that clothes restricted women into certain shapes. The shapes of the clothes throughout history are fascinating as well- you can generally tell what men and women were wearing (within the last, oh, 700 years or so) because both genders keep the same basic shape.

I think the author comes down too hard on white people. If I was a white person living in Africa where they have their own standards of what is beautiful for a woman I might be ostracized. Also, what with the advent of better medical knowledge-it's NOT healthy to be huge. I don't see where the white correlation fits in.

I agree with JenLovesPonies-we in America are quite ignorant when it comes to European culture. To distill it down to white vs Everyone Else is distorting. There's alot more than just the superficial.

“Also, what with the advent of better medical knowledge-it's NOT healthy to be huge.�

Is that so? I suppose it is healthy to be underweight. In any case none of the women in those paintings (or any classic paintings I’ve ever seen) are “huge� enough to be “Not healthy�. As a matter of fact they look like a lot of women I see in the locker room.

Stupid question of the day:

In Renaissance Europe, there were mostly only white people around, right? Europe did not really become racially diverse (if it can even so be called that now) until the modern era.

If there are only white people around, most art will feature white people... kind of like why Revolutionary War-era art doesn't feature many Eskimos.

Often, our modern conception of "beauty" is radically different from what people consider to be beautiful. Many men would consider the women in the picture to be damn sexy and are truthfully turned off by the waif look. The subjects of the picture look like women, not boys.

get off your high horse oenophile.The whole world is not racially 'diverse,' and that goes for Africa, the middle east, and asia. Many other cultures have rascist attitudes, but because Europe is the only other one the west identifies with excessive pressure is put on them to fit the racially diverse ideal. It is backbreaking for a country to have that kind of idealistic pressure on them particularly when others aren't contributing.We must remember Europe is a native culture not the other, other America.

also, why base our concept of what looks good based on what men appreciate?
Like the Cistine Chapel many of the women depicted in the past were based on models of men rather than actual women-so if that is true for this picture then what exactly are you seeing? There is much evidence to point out that being overweight contributes to a variety of health problems.

F.Y.I. sojourner, yea they look like alot of the women you see in the locker romm, cuz were America, everyone's fat here.

Is nadskckr the same poster as freewmn? I'm noticing similarities.

EG, don't cry I know it hurts to be pointed out your wrong so often by an articulate, intelligent forward thinking women.
What are you gonna do bout it?

What on earth are you talking about?

And, since you're sinking to personal attack (for no real reason that I can see), I might as well point out that "articulate" women usually know the difference between "your" and "you're," as well as how to use punctuation properly. And spell.

nads, interesting that you opine that a white person in Africa would be ostracized. Of course, history has borne out that in fact the opposite is true.

As for the "poor Europeans" argument, I think the current trend is to criticize the entire "western world" -- which includes the USA, Canada (although their track record on these issues is far better than ours), Australia, and arguably Japan as well (although Japan is not "western" it embraces many western values) -- for racial strife. The reason for this is obvious: we're wealthier. That means we have a greater obligation to the rest of the world, period. Do unto others, to whom much is given, etc., etc. We're better able to do anything about racial tension, which makes it our responsibility. Also, much racial tension in "less developed" nations tends to be, if I'm not mistaken, more reactionary -- disdain for whites because white westerners are selfish and greedy. Frankly, as a white westerner, I can't say I blame them too much. (note also that the inclusion of Japan in my list jives well with the model minority myth).

The women in the pictures are not "fat." They're fat by modern standards, but modern standards prefer the skeletal look. In general obesity is a problem and it is unhealthy, yes, but it is no crime and it hurts no one simply not to match up with the prevailing beauty standard. That you find other women in the locker rooms unattractive has nothing to do with their health -- in fact, if they're in gym locker rooms chances are they're doing all right. Studies routinely show that people of any size who exercise regularly have fewer heart and cholesterol problems and better overall health, not to mention that they are less likely to suffer from that dreaded "mental health" problem of depression. I'm skinny and I have high cholesterol (it's a genetic thing) and have suffered from moderate clinical depression. I have a friend who's my height and who has about 60 pounds on me whose cholesterol, iron, etc., are all great, and who's never had to take medication just so she can face the world. She's "fatter" than me and also a lot healthier. So you can't go around judging books by their covers.

I'm talking about the fact that I'm smarter than you.

Whats your point about bringing the comparisons up for anyways?
You sound scared or something.

"EG, don't cry I know it hurts to be pointed out your wrong so often by an articulate, intelligent forward thinking women.
What are you gonna do bout it?"

hah! that and the "smarter" comment just came out of left field didnt it? people are weird on the internet.

That is painting a giant racist brush stroke to say all white westerners are selfish and greedy.
Second, have you ever visited Africa, the Middle East, Yemen, ect. You just get your opinions based on the days you sit on the couch channel surfing. There is only 12% of Europeans in the world, and only 66% are white in America. Also the fact that Asians make up the highest income level, as well as the educated level in America I think you just said Asians are selfish and greedy.

Doesn't it sound stupid to say in Africa there were mostly black people around-duh its africa. Saying that there were mostly white people around in Europe is like saying there's arabs in the middle east-DUH!

Wow,is this the fairy tale "The Three Billy Goats Gruff"?
'Cause there's an awful lot of Trolls around here!

yea, DUUUUHHH!

hahah

the word that always screams "intelligence"

ok im out of troll food

That is painting a giant racist brush stroke to say all white westerners are selfish and greedy.

That's an interesting and bizarre take on what I said. Being selfish and greedy has nothing to do with being racist. Everyone is selfish and greedy -- it just so happens that white westerners have the bulk of the wealth and are unwilling to share it with anyone. This happens to coincide with a lot of racism, but I never suggested the two are the same.

Like I said, *everyone* is selfish and greedy. If you're human, you're selfish and greedy on some level. Have any cites for your random statistics, and any actual cohesive analysis about what they're supposed to mean?

As for your couch potato remark -- why such animosity toward me? I never said anything rude to you. Or is it... how did you put it?... the pain of having it "pointed out your [sic] wrong so often by an articulate, intelligent forward thinking women [sic]"?

I think I like the paintings of whores(not performing their profession, but as models). Picasso has a really nice one, in his style, of a room full of whores. There is also another painting, the artist's name I cannot remember, is a picture of a whore, lying on a love seat, being given flowers by a dark skinned maid. I think it's one of my favorite realistic paintings in the world.

Weight seems to be a big issue in our country. We should all turn into vegetarians and learn to love tofu in all of its tasteless glory. I actually like tofu, and when my husband and I get our own place again, I told him we're going almost vegetarian. it seems more economical and healthier than eating meat. I love sushi and fish too much to give them up (hence the almost).

Beauty, no matter which gender, is in the eye of the beholder. We all have our likes and dislikes in the same and opposite sex (we are constantly judging one another). Some guys love us BBWs, others rather have stick figures that have to have surgeries to make them large in certain areas of their bodies.

What are we seeing in these paintings? I think it's the artist's perception of beauty. But painting isn't like photography. Photos can be altered, but there is an original somewhere. Paintings are created and the artists adds and subtracts what ever they see fit.

I would model either way.

In response to your not silly question, Oenophile,
while Europe is certainly more ethnicially diverse now than it was during the Renaissance, there was still alot of interaction throughout Europe with the top of Africa, (think of Othello), the Middle and Far East, and even within the ethnic variation of Europe itself. Certainly modern migration is more intensive than it would have been then, but it wasn't just Caucasians living in Renaissance Europe.

Completely unrelated, but it drives me CRAZY that people like freewmn and nads are walking around out there, sharing their thoughts with the world as feminism. It makes us look bad! And back up, nads. No one insults my girl EG. I'm small, but I'm scrappy.

I would comment on the actual topic, but I'm really not sure what to say. It's somehow easier when the topic is troll-free.

trnds are often instituted without much depth to them.Pointing out that its a trend is also pinpointing its flippancy.
Its a little ignorant to give more credence to a bunch of women-hating, uneducated, racist middle easterners, africans, and others who do not like our country and are going through certain flucuations in their own cultures-things we dont even understand?Very biased and uninformed.

You copied Jessicas words, I bet you can't even think for yourself. This is just a sorority to you.
You can't comment on the topic at hand because this isn't feministingwhitebashing, its feministing. I think your at the wrong site.

also law fairy, in case you forgot-Europeans hate us too. Because our media is so crappy its hard to gauge whats really going on. We also have to take into consideration our own limits as Americans. Even this site isnt that good, the exposure to other goings on in the world is limited for many Americans.

"also law fairy, in case you forgot-Europeans hate us too."

um, i just got back from visiting 7 diffrent places in europe and the delusion that europe hates americans just isnt true. people could TELL i was american and only one snooty waitress in paris didnt like me for my american-ness, but other than that no one gave a shit. mostly because they realize all americans dont = bush. sooo id at least GO there before spouting off ridiculous opinions

p.s. prairielily, I aint small, an' I aint scrappy.

Ah! freewmn is back! Seig Heil!

A friend recently told me that her little sister was having self esteem issues. I told her to get her an art history book. Art History brought my first eating disorder to an end the second I saw the Venus of Urbino and realized that I looked just like that.

wow, nads.

I think you might even steal today's rambling incomprehensible incoherence award straight out of Nancy Levant's nutty conspiratorial hands! Nicely done!

Whats incomprehensive law fairy?
Thats also what they say about Iran. I've read many books where the travelers who visited Iran thought the natives would be hostile, but turned out to be completely the opposite.
Like I said, just shows you how inhibiting our media can be.
Also electrodot just because you didn't experience any anti-americanism, doesn't mean others didn't as well. Very close-minded of you.

And I think if anyones going to win the Incomprehensive Award it should go to the Law Fairy what with her racist rantings, n'all, particularly when they are not re-enforced with stats, and actual facts.

I think lily, and fairy are just a little tissy cuz I'm not a religious zealot like they are.
Does prairielily even know what scrappy means? According to the American Heritage online dictionary it means fragmented-so your small and weak? I thought Muhammed prohibited such speech, particularly by a female.

Aiya! It's freewmn the racist anti-feminist. For what it's worth, there is a misconception Asians make the most money. There are simply more working members in Asian households than white. In other words, a white household has an average of two working members and in Asian families, three.

This timeline skips a lot of more thought-provoking images of the female nude. Why no Picasso's Desmoiselles d'Avignon? Why no Manet's Olympia? Why none of Michelangelo's sibyls from the Sistine Ceiling?

The comparison of a Rubens or a Renoir to the cover of Cosmopolitan is a gross oversimplification. These paintings were certainly not the Baroque and Late Impressionist equivalents of wide-distribution magazines. Certainly, we can all follow the argument of artists represented what was valued at the time, just like contemporary magazines. But, sadly, that's another easy statement that we learn in high school that isn't always true.

Art was created for a lot of reasons, and most of them weren't to sell the latest makeup, fashion hints, or celebrity.

“I thought Muhammed prohibited such speech, particularly by a female.�

Wow! Jut wow! I don’t think prarielily ever said anything about being religious. In any case you do really exhibit your illiteracy. Scrappy mean feisty. She is small but fiesty.

Thanks, Anorak. :-) (I was, not eloquently, trying to tease out the difference between
Western beauty = Caucasian and
Western beauty = the beautiful people in Europe, most/all of whom happen to be Caucasian.)

Agree with The Law Fairy about the low correlation between health and weight. Despite this, the general correlation may be strong enough so that we are programmed to find healthy (i.e. thinnish) people attractive. The strongest correlations are in skin tone, hair, and facial symmetry. The first two correlate with health and nutrition (people know I'm a vegetarian by my skin, incidentally); the second represents a good, diverse gene pool. (The genetic advantages to having a not-inbred gene pool have been well documented.)

So ends the nerdiest explanation of the ideals of beauty.

Nadskckr: As for my high horse - ahem, excuse me. Any population must be in the same climatic area for roughly 20,000 years for skin colour to change. Given that, we can assume that, for large parts of human history, populations have remained in one area with little interaction (in terms of intermarriage) with each other. Modern transportation and technology does not make the entire world racially diverse, but allows us to at least SEE people of other races - a basic requirement for painting them. The fact that you take this to mean that I'm on my "high horse" says a helluva lot more about you than it does about me. Claer, babycakes?

You know what, nads? Fuck you. I will detail why.

Its a little ignorant to give more credence to a bunch of women-hating, uneducated, racist middle easterners, africans, and others who do not like our country and are going through certain flucuations in their own cultures-things we dont even understand?Very biased and uninformed.

I lived in the Middle East for six years. I would say I understand it a lot better than you, and I wouldn't go labelling them all as "women-hating, uneducated, and racist." The country I was in was extremely proud of the accomplishments (educational, especially) of the local Arab women. There were even female paramilitaries in the army! The prevailing sense was often that the education of women was going to lead the country. Even in Iran, over 50% of college students are women.

You copied Jessicas words, I bet you can't even think for yourself. This is just a sorority to you.

You may be shocked to know that sororities were founded so that those ground-breaking women attending university could support each other. Things have evolved badly in a lot of places, but some sororities do, in fact, still support those feminist ideals. I went to a school where the women in one specific sorority were extremely involved in organizing Take Back the Night. And even detractors of traditional sororities often note the positive aspects of black and service sororities. Come up with a new cheap shot to take.

And so what if someone copied Jessica's words? She's bright. Anyone who copied her is smart enough to pick the right person to emulate.

also law fairy, in case you forgot-Europeans hate us too. Because our media is so crappy its hard to gauge whats really going on. We also have to take into consideration our own limits as Americans. Even this site isnt that good, the exposure to other goings on in the world is limited for many Americans.

Europeans don't hate Americans. Europeans hate obnoxious Americans who act like everyone unjustifiably hates them.

And we? I'm not American. A lot of the posters here aren't American.

The posts here often cover events in other countries. If you feel uninformed, that is your own fault. The media doesn't have to lay every piece of information at your feet for you to find it, although that would be nice. Independent research is a good thing.

p.s. prairielily, I aint small, an' I aint scrappy.

I never said you were small, nads. I said I was small.

And now, something pseudo-intelligent (so I'm not completely spamming):

Yes, all the pictures are of white women, but the white ideal of beauty has been exported all over the world. When I was on the Japanese exchange, I was struck by how obsessed all the girls were with the blonde, blue-eyed ideal of beauty. They told me that Japanese faces were "monkey faces."

What I'm wondering is whether we can even extricate modern ideals of beauty from "white" ideals of beauty. They're often so pervasive that they take over everything else, especially in a world where satellite images of Hollywood are shown in villages in India.

I also don't think that Marilyn Monroe was a healthy beauty ideal. She had a tiny waist and curvy breasts and ass. That's probably even more rare than being naturally skinny all over.

Lastly, the flapper girl... didn't flapper girls flatten down their breasts so they could wear those outfits?

PS. Esme, I love that story. I'm going to keep it in the back of my mind in case I meet a young lady with poor self-esteem.

Prairie Lily: yes, the blonde, blue-eyed model of beauty is pervasive everywhere. Just look at the Japanese girls who dye their hair (and often look the worse for it). Despite this, there are a LOT of people who have different ideals of beauty, such as interracial people.

Re: Marilyn. Actually, her waist-to-hip ratio is about 1:1.5, which is the "ideal," and correlates very strongly with fertility.

(I swear, I'll stop taking art and seeing science and we can return to an analysis of Renaissance Italy. ;) )

sojourner, I think (if we assume that it's NOT freewmn) it's because of that other thread where I defended religion because the crazies would find something else to use to oppress others?

But since it is, it dates back to that argument we had long ago where I called her racist for saying that Italians and other Europeans could learn not to be sexist and mysoginist, but that Muslim and Mexican folk could not.

I like you too, btw. I like a lot of the posters around here.

The "whitening" of beauty ideals is certainly a real phenomenon in many countries.

I don't know whether it pre- or post-dates the modern era, but it certainly quacks like neo-colonialism.

I'm reasonably new to this site, certainly to posting comments, so without fanning the flames of fury (ha!), can someone sensible tell me whether or not Nads is a joke? I mean, surely all the recent trolls (nads, modern man, knightwhoever) are just the same person? Surely? Please?!

anorak, there was this crazy poster a while back named freewmn, who got banned, and then came back repeatedly. She's showed up a few more times since then.

Since this poster can't spell or word sentences properly and the arguments tend to be racist, nonsensical, or both, it's generally quite easy to tell when she's back.

Trolls are just here to entertain us. Here, have some flavoured-with-butter, trans-fat free popcorn and enjoy the show.

Oh Thanks Renee! Those were the names of the paintings I was thinking about. I really need to get with it when I post on here. I keep forgetting the names of things I know.

Prairelily, I like your style!
Seeing as it's almost 5p.m. here in New Zealand, I might think about an organic pilsner to go with that popcorn!

You know prarielily, I have often found It is completely useless to try argue with people about what anything in the middle east is like. It is like something people heard on TV is more credible than our lived experiences. I have found that to be true even with people a lot more rational and less racist than freewmn/nads, even about things that are a lot more tangible than say whether or not Middle-easterners hate women. A very funny example is that when I tell people that I used to go skiing in Iran or that it snows in Tehran, or that I just talked to my mom and she said it is snowing there right now, people look at me with this incredulous look and say “But I heard it’s really hot in Eye-ran� or “But how come it doesn’t snow in Saudi Arabia?�

I like you too prarilily and I like a lot of the posters here too. There are lots more interesting people here than at my engineering department.

darko,
show me proof

sojourner,
check the quiverfull segment.
sojourner,
check the american heritage dictionary, it knows more than you.

oeniphile,
explain further...

prairielily,
I was remarking that I aint small, as in I'm bigger than you and I don't care, I know you werent calling me small...
and oh yea..ass-kisser.
Second of all prairielkily, before you start giving your interpretations of comments madfe, you need to post them on this site. I NEVER said only white people could learn not to be misogynistic.That was a discussion a long time ago where I said Europeans had learned ahead of others how not to be as misogynistic as the other cultures.You need to find the entire post and [aste it here before you start making half-baked accusations.

and the last post sojourner,
I know it snows in Iran, the women have to wear chadors to ski!
stupid, stupid, stupid.

Because you've been to the middle east why don't you tell us what it was like then?

lily,
If your going to denounce me for making exagerations about other cultures reactions, I was responding to the Fairy who said that everyone hates us. She showed one lame example of apartheid which only happened in a small segment of Africa. Being as I was talking about TODAY, notyesteryear it wasn't even applicable.

odiwhatever,
my comment was about your critiscm of Europe not being racially diverse. You sound like your some high falutin judge over them, dictating the proper mixture of races in their country to discern whether they are evaluated to be possibly racist or not. Like you 'know it all.'

I think none of you (the ones I've wrote to) know what your talking about.If I let you go on like this, this post will end up discussiong the middle east, or Iran. I think the models behind these paintings were probably men, as in the cistine chapel. The overweight women sojourner saw in the locker room were probably in there to LOSE weight. I wouldn't want to be fat, and it shows that when standards of beauty are taken to extremes and when women don't question them, they become negative. Weither waif, or exteme whales.Also, during the Roman days, it was considered 'beautiful' for a woman to be fat, or plump because it showed that she was well-off. Americans often learn a superficial understanding of Europe and its history.
Where is the proof that this painting shows what European society thought was beautiful? Also,many posters may mix their contemporary interpretations of what is considered beautiful when applying them to the past.

sojourner you may feel comfortable with cellulite all up your body, but uh...I wouldn't.
Also don't be so judgemental about people who think its hot in Eye-ran, according to your everyday American, they may be privy to those kinds of ideas. Instead of lamenting how much they DONT know, why dont you just educate them. I'm sure there were plenty of iranians who had assumptions about Americans, did you roll your eyes at them too?

Being somewhat agnostic on popcorn (butter-flavoured or not), may I bring SnowCaps?

I was responding to the Fairy who said that everyone hates us.

Point me to a quote where I said this. As I recall, YOU are the one who said this, not me.

In fact, why yes. Here is where YOU said it:

also law fairy, in case you forgot-Europeans hate us too. Because our media is so crappy its hard to gauge whats really going on. We also have to take into consideration our own limits as Americans. Even this site isnt that good, the exposure to other goings on in the world is limited for many Americans.

Posted by: nadskckr | January 10, 2007 09:14 PM

Still wondering why I said your posts are incomprehensible?

Oh, so as not to be incomplete. Here's where you started it:

Many other cultures have rascist attitudes, but because Europe is the only other one the west identifies with excessive pressure is put on them to fit the racially diverse ideal. It is backbreaking for a country to have that kind of idealistic pressure on them particularly when others aren't contributing.We must remember Europe is a native culture not the other, other America.

Posted by: nadskckr | January 10, 2007 07:48 PM

To which I noted that to the extent non-western countries dislike us westerners, I can't say I blame them much:

As for the "poor Europeans" argument, I think the current trend is to criticize the entire "western world" -- which includes the USA, Canada (although their track record on these issues is far better than ours), Australia, and arguably Japan as well (although Japan is not "western" it embraces many western values) -- for racial strife. The reason for this is obvious: we're wealthier. That means we have a greater obligation to the rest of the world, period. Do unto others, to whom much is given, etc., etc. We're better able to do anything about racial tension, which makes it our responsibility. Also, much racial tension in "less developed" nations tends to be, if I'm not mistaken, more reactionary -- disdain for whites because white westerners are selfish and greedy. Frankly, as a white westerner, I can't say I blame them too much. (note also that the inclusion of Japan in my list jives well with the model minority myth).

Please note, as well, that criticism and hate are two importantly different things.

darko, when have I made any anti-feminist statements?
You can't find even one.
As for your commenst about asians have bigger families, yes, but that affects their income level, meaning it would be bigger than what it already is, according to wikipedia. Their higher income levels are attributed to higher education.So, you made a blatantly false statement, trying to prove all us whites are big bad people in the world. Pathetic, it took me 1 minute to research that.You reveal yourself to be diminished in any inhibition regarding your crusade to depict white people as big, bad racists.

Law fairy,
you wrote that white people were selfish and greedy you didn't bother to say they 'perceived' white people as selfish and greedy. You just wrote that it was because white people are selfish and greedy. That is racist, and also racist against another high income race; the asians, who make more income than the rest of americans. The reasons why other cultures critisize us has nothing to do with white people being greedy and selfish (we donate 200 or so millions of dollars to charities every year). The reasons they dislike America are very complex and vary according to country. Even Europe and Japan have their critisms of us.

you're anti-feminist because you attack feministing and commenters. you're 19 years old, live in the southwest and are racist to escape your own problems. your racism disqualifies you as a feminist. welcome to the 21st century.

asian families aren't bigger. more live at home and contribute financially to the household. so it really skews the data. an asian household will account for three wage earners whereas the typical white household accounts for two.

I really, really don't want to put myself in the middle of this because I don't like bashing other people or being bashed(and I'm not attacking anyone)
.... but since we're getting excited about which of the races has the highest income, I'm going to say it would be the latinos. Now, before anyone jumps down my throat, this is just an observation I've made living in an area that has a diverse amount of asians, latinos, blacks (I can't say african american, because we have a lot of jamaicans here and they get very ticked off when you use that term) and caucasians, the eastern indian population is starting to boom too. It's fantastic to be able to meet people and learn about where they're from.
Donna has a good point saying that most caucasian families only have two incomes and asian families tend to have three. However, I have noticed that many of the spanish speaking people who have moved in the area, and we'll say they share a 2 bedroom apartment and have 4 adults. Some times I wonder if there are more than those 4 people living there, but it's none of my business. The more people you have contributing to bills like rent/utilities/food the more income you are going to have in that house hold. Their culture is different from ours in that they (well most) are very family oriented and they take care of one another.

But everything shouldn't be a contest. Who cares what race makes the most money? Everyone is just trying to get by. It drives me insane when I see the "White man" stereotype. But it bugs me even more when people start using race as a reason to not like someone, or as a weapon to hurt someone. It's ridiculous.

you were doing fine with women's issues but i think your namecalling (not to mention your extreme racism) got you banned. if i may speak to you as a fellow human being, shape up, freewmn!

mande, even with the numbers of workers in the household, blacks and latinos make less than whites and asians. latinos may even be fourth in that list due to racism. ethnicity/religion wise, i believe asian indians make the most, jews are second.

Ah. I just see that they have better stuff than me. :)
But I also know they bust their asses and work long hours to get that stuff.

Well, it's a matter of averages, right? I remember when Samhita posted about the Pakistani-American community in Lodi, California, and I was completely shocked at how different they were from the community in my hometown. The difference was that they were all working in factories, and in my hometown when I was growing up, all the brown people worked at either the university or the hospitals.

Prairie Lily: yes, the blonde, blue-eyed model of beauty is pervasive everywhere. Just look at the Japanese girls who dye their hair (and often look the worse for it). Despite this, there are a LOT of people who have different ideals of beauty, such as interracial people.

Re: Marilyn. Actually, her waist-to-hip ratio is about 1:1.5, which is the "ideal," and correlates very strongly with fertility.

(I swear, I'll stop taking art and seeing science and we can return to an analysis of Renaissance Italy. ;) )

Oh, definitely. There will always be diverse notions of beauty as long as there individual people. But I believe that the spread of Western beauty ideals is really having an affect on those diverse notions of beauty. Sometimes this is positive, like if people practicing FGM decide that intact genitalia is better. Sometimes, it is not so positive, like Bollywood actresses becoming thinner, like their Hollywood counterparts. I'm just saying that yes, all the pictures are white, but because of the pervasiveness, that may no longer be as limited a notion of beauty as we think.

Overall, I think that's a bad thing. I'm a fan of diversity.

I just wanted to take note of the fact that "white" ideals of beauty are very pervasive, and affect other cultures as well.

And yes, you can bring SnowCaps. I'm not exactly a foodist. ;)

sojourner, you're right as well. It's just so easy to make an assumption when things are so much more complex than that. (I wanted to be an engineer when I started university. I think I still want to be an engineer, but I'm kinda stuck in science right now.)

And I was totally enjoying the art discussion at the beginning of the thread. It's something I really don't know anything about. Come back, artsy posters!

dear lord, how i did miss the troll?! sorry about the folks.

Aw, prairielily, thanks! (And my how this topic grew, eh?) I keep coming back to this website in large part because of the great commenters here: you, donna, sojourner, Tom, TLF, etc.

I love you guys! ::slobber::

Ah. I just see that they have better stuff than me. :) --mandeville

Maybe you live on Wisteria Lane.

Part what these artists were expected to do is to make their subjects look as beautiful as possible, so what we're seeing is probably a heightened representation of beauty ideals rather than a strictly accurate representation of what portrait-sitters looked like. And it was almost never the rich ladies who were posing nude.

I apologize for being a bit late; I was out of town.

If I recall correctly, the wealthy women were the models for the face, and prostitutes with similar body proportions were used for the nude portion. It was essentially a Renaissance body double chosen on the basis of resemblance.

As for the question of what was altered, this is precisely why you look at the artists' correspondence and not just the paintings themselves. (Which most art historians apparently don't like to do.) Yes, there was some alteration. However, if I remember correctly teeth and skin were the most commonly altered traits. On the occasions when weight was altered, it was usually to hide the signs of aging and childbearing (i.e., sagging breasts).

Finally, the Renaissance and Modern artists' contemporary criticism can be insightful. Pels, for example, criticized Rembrandt for using "flabby" women as models. Muscular seemed to be good, but fat wasn't acceptable if it went beyond the Greek archetypes.

Part what these artists were expected to do is to make their subjects look as beautiful as possible, so what we're seeing is probably a heightened representation of beauty ideals rather than a strictly accurate representation of what portrait-sitters looked like. And it was almost never the rich ladies who were posing nude.

I apologize for being a bit late; I was out of town.

If I recall correctly, the wealthy women were the models for the face, and prostitutes with similar body proportions were used for the nude portion. It was essentially a Renaissance body double chosen on the basis of resemblance.

As for the question of what was altered, this is precisely why you look at the artists' correspondence and not just the paintings themselves. (Which most art historians apparently don't like to do.) Yes, there was some alteration. However, if I remember correctly teeth and skin were the most commonly altered traits. On the occasions when weight was altered, it was usually to hide the signs of aging and childbearing (i.e., sagging breasts).

Finally, the Renaissance and Modern artists' contemporary criticism can be insightful. Pels, for example, criticized Rembrandt for using "flabby" women as models. Muscular seemed to be good, but fat wasn't acceptable if it went beyond the Greek archetypes.

why hasn't there been any comparable male "beauty" guideline?

I'll second the request for a male beauty guidline.
The timeline was interesting, although I don't think putting Karen Carpenter in there made a lot fo sense as she was considered abnormally thin at the time.
It's interesting to look at oneself and see which "time" one most resembles. I look most like the picture of Marilyn, which is interesting as by modern standards she would be considered "fat" and she was a sex symbol in fairly recent memory. I'm not convinced that many men don't still prefer that look, actually.
It is kind of sad that the bodies in the first painting look grotesque to me, and yet I know that they aren't necessarily unhealthy bodies. What I think is most interesting about the modern body ideal is how poorly it correlates to actual health, and yet "healthy" is still code for "skinny".

As someone who has actually studied history I'll also second the idea that what is considered beautiful ALWAYS correlates strongly with what implies wealth. In the Renaissance period being very very skinny meant you were very very poor, hence it was not glorified by artists who mostly worked for the wealthy. Nowadays being thin and toned in a way that fits the ideal requires a "good" diet, which isn't cheap, and time spent at the gym. I suspect that a lot of the sneering directed at fat people is class-based.
Also, since someone mentioned the exporting of Western beauty standards...I'm pretty plugged in to Japanese pop culture, and a thing I find interesting is that although the ideal for women there is definately slim the hard-body thing doesn't seem to have taken hold. What I mean is that you don't see women with 6 pack abs and muscular arms and thighs the way you do here - the women look like women, not like teenage boys with breast implants. It's interesting to me the way some parts of the Western beauty standard take hold in other cultures and other parts don't.
In fact in terms of Japanese pop culture what's rather surprising is how thin the standard for men is. There's a band I love one of who's members has been criticised for years for being "too fat". He's 5ft10 and maybe about 140 pounds, or less (at one point MUCH less). In America that would be considered a bit on the thin side for a man, but in Japan it's "fat".
What all this proves is that ideas about beauty are completely malleable and that the idea that there's some "natural" ideal of beauty is kind of silly.

As someone who has actually studied history

So have I. My expertise is history of medicine, but similar just-so stories pop up all the time. From what I can tell, your explanation is no different than the b.s. "men's attraction to women with big hips and breasts is ultimately due to evolutionary pressures."

Merely stating "I'm a historian, and it's true because I say so" doesn't adequately account for the fact that a large portion of wealthy women in the 19th century were overweight, yet the beauty standards began shifting to stick figures. Nor does it adequately account for the procedures artists actually used and their actual interests during these eras. Until you can develop an explanation that adequately incorporates these facts, my point stands.

Meredith, what point is it that you think I'm trying to make? And what is it that you're trying to say? Because from your last comment neither is clear, and I'm not sure what it is that I said that you're objecting to so strongly.
For the record, what I was actually saying is that what is considered "beautiful" often correlates with what is considered "wealthy" (and not just in Western cultures, either), and that I don't think there is any such thing as a universal standard of beauty that has always been and will always be the same.

Meredith, what point is it that you think I'm trying to make?

I thought you were making the same point SDstuck and EG made earlier. It's the conventional feminist explanation for changing beauty standards, isn't it?

nd what is it that you're trying to say? Because from your last comment neither is clear

It's clear in the context of the thread. SDstuck and EG made points virtually identical to yours.

what I was actually saying is that what is considered "beautiful" often correlates with what is considered "wealthy" (and not just in Western cultures, either)

I know that's what you're saying. What I'm saying is that this argument is flawed on a couple of levels. For starters, I think it's flawed because the vast majority of art historians analyze art -- not other contemporary artists' criticisms, the artists' records, nor the artists' daily lives. Consequently, they mistakenly assume what they see is almost exclusively due to the artists' ideal, and not due to some other external constraint.

Further, the class explanation of beauty standards is ultimately a "just-so" story. Tan, anorexic blondes in fashion? Of course it's because only wealthy individuals can afford extended vacations in tropical locations and three hours of gym time. Pale brunnettes in vogue? Of course it's because white brunettes constitute the bulk of law firm partners, Silicon Valley executives, and other members of the upper crust. It wouldn't matter what the trend was; you can always come up with some way to retroactively chalk it up to upper class preferences. What I find jarring is that feminists are usually really good at critiquing cultural just-so stories. When it comes to body size, however, they're creating and perpetuating them. Relying on false causal mechanisms will ultimately frustrate any efforts to change the status quo.

I don't think there is any such thing as a universal standard of beauty that has always been and will always be the same.

I agree. However, I don't think class enters into the equation the way the conventional historical explanation suggests it does.

And I apologize if I came off a little harsh. I read blogs while petsitting chinchillas, so I'm a teensy bit distracted.

I don't think that's the point I was making, Meredith. I didn't say anything at all about how or why standards of beauty develop.

I didn't say anything at all about how or why standards of beauty develop.

If you're saying that beauty standards reflect wealth, then you're also making an implicit argument about how and why they develop.

But I didn't. What I said was that portrait-painters were expected to make their subjects look as beautiful as possible, and so we're likely to be seeing a heightened version of "beauty."

I know that's what you said. However, if there were no causal mechanisms for the relationship (i.e., how and why), the correlation between wealth and beauty would be an isolated fad -- not something you'd see repeatedly in multiple cultures.

But I didn't posit a relationship. I didn't claim that the idea of beauty to which portrait-painters tried to match the looks of their sitters came from wealth. Acknowledging the existence of a beauty standard/ideal does not equate putting forth a theory about how it came to be.

I didn't claim that the idea of beauty to which portrait-painters tried to match the looks of their sitters came from wealth.

You're claiming the beauty ideals come from Greek culture, right? In Renaissance Europe, Greek aesthetics were with both material and cultural wealth. It's the same concept as the SD and Brit Girl, only with a slightly different cultural emphasis.

No. I'm not. I'm making no argument whatsoever about where ideals of beauty come from. I talked about the use of classical mythology in art with respect to legitimizing paintings of naked women (i.e. it's not porn, it's Venus and Adonis!). It was a separate and unrelated point.

Legitimation is the how, with "it's Venus and Adonis" (i.e., Greek wealth) constituting the why.

I don't understand what you're saying. My discussion of classical myth had nothing to do with beauty standards, as far as I know. It had to do with which kinds of bodies and scenes were acceptable to depict naked in respectable society, and which weren't. My argument was that depicting a naked woman as simply a contemporary naked woman was unacceptable, as the associationw would be to prostitutes and other such loose women (and thus the uproar over Dejuner sur l'Herbe. But by calling your picture something like "Venus attended by the 3 graces," you could get away with displaying four naked women, because classical myth had cultural capital. It's not a point that has much of anything to do with ideals of beauty.

Just to underline: it's not an argument about how the naked woman in question should look. It's an argument about the context required to depict any naked woman at all.

because classical myth had cultural capital. It's not a point that has much of anything to do with ideals of beauty.

The problem that the distinction between cultural capital and beauty is artifical in practice.

I'm not convinced it is. The myth itself doesn't encode any definition of beauty, certainly not one that can't be altered according to prevailing cultural norms or personal taste. It's certainly not my argument.

My point is, if you want to make that argument, by all means do so. But I did not, and I have not, so please don't ascribe it to me.

The myth itself doesn't encode any definition of beauty

1) I don't speak Greek, but the most faithful English translations my profs assigned certainly encoded specific definitions of beauty.

2) That said, the problem is that artists weren't looking exclusively at the poems and prose versions of the myths. To them, the myths also included the sculpture of the era. Beauty standards may be altered according to prevailing cultural norms, but the development and contemporary discussion of Renaissance art demonstrates that Renaissance artists were importing Greco-Roman aesthetics. In their worldview, Greco-Roman art was the pinnacle of culture, and the best they could hope for in terms of technique and aesthetics were to equal their predecessors.

But I did not, and I have not, so please don't ascribe it to me.

Maybe not consciously, but I don't see how your posts' conceptual basis is different from anyone else's here. It seems to be a more sophisticated version of the conventional feminist explanation.

Meredith - Now I understand the testyness, but I'm still not getting what your theory is. I think the reason the beauty=wealth explanation appeals to so many people is that it does seem to maybe account for the fact that beauty ideals shift over time even within the same society. The only other theory I've seen that could account for the fact that the ideal keeps shifting is tht we value that which is scarce, therefore the more rare a particular "type" is the more we value it. I'm not really buying that theory.
What's your theory on why the ideal keeps shifting?
Another point that's vital to this discussion is does art actually reflect the beauty ideal of it's time, or does it SHAPE that ideal. Ie, in which direction is the influence going, or does it go both ways in a kind of feedback loop?
Eh, hope that makes sense, I'm lacking sleep.

Meredith, I'm going to say this one more time, and then if we still don't understand each other, we should just call it quits.

I am not making an argument about beauty standards. My argument re: classical myth has nothing to do with what the naked bodies in question look like. It is about ways to make the display of naked bodies respectable.

I'm not making an argument about the origin of beauty standards consciously. I'm not making one unconsciously. I'm not making one subconsciously. The argument I'm making is this: you could display naked women to respectable people if you claimed that they were characters from classical myth. Whether the artist then hewed to classical description or classical sculpture and what the results of that hewing (or skewing) were is an entirely different question, and I really don't understand how you get what you're saying out of what I'm saying.

Certainly classical sources discussed the beauty of their women in detail, but that has never stopped any visual artist from representing Helen of Troy, for example, as he or she sees fit.

I'm still not getting what your theory is.

My theory's still undergoing revision, so it hasn't been published yet. (I'm not in women's studies, so I doubt it'll ever reach this audience anyway.) My main point is that feminists are excellent at rigorous analysis of other theories, but most of us have a blind spot with this one.

I am not making an argument about beauty standards. My argument re: classical myth has nothing to do with what the naked bodies in question look like. It is about ways to make the display of naked bodies respectable.

I know this is what you're saying. What I'm saying is that this doesn't withstand scrutiny because it's ultimately based on a false dichotomy.

You know, Meredith, when you first posted about this issue, I (silently) agreed and thought "Yes, this is a bit of a just-so story, and the truth probably is more complicated."

So I genuinely am confused. I truly don't understand how you're getting from what I'm saying to the wealth-equals-beauty argument. I'm very smart, and cultural criticism is one of the things I'm good at (modesty is not), so I'm not used to being confused about these things. Will you help me out? I'm genuinely asking, rather than being tendentious now: please, if you don't mind breaking it down, would you walk me through the steps of how what I'm saying leads to what you're saying I'm saying? At this point, I am truly curious, and I'm truly not getting it. And I'd like to.

When I stumbled on this site it was as a college student writing a research paper.

I haven't known any feminists before, but I didn't want to dismiss this discussion because of a stereotype I had developed via the media, etc.

The first posts were very intriguing and I was generally interested in what was said. However, I thought that most of the posts were wasted. The fact that two women would attack one another so brutally on these grounds is ... disappointing. You lost the entire point of this discussion board.