11 Replies to “Honey, I Finished The Internet”

  1. Oh, in fairness, there are some horrible-looking babies from renaissance and medieval paintings. Wizened, unnatural creatures.
    John Lewis – is it only blasphemy if the babies are meant to be Jesus? Is any negative criticism of a painting blasphemous if the subject matter of the painting is ostensibly religious?

  2. Babies were painted to be little adults. Hell one of them looked like they had a 6 o’clock shadow.
    Honestly they do look ugly.

  3. What about no.5? That herd of naked six-month-olds(?) by Titian. Normally good stuff, Titian, but that’s just terrible. One of them is firing into the baby-crowd, and another is climbing an effing tree like a lemur, left-hand corner. Two of them are making out; I know it’s “The Worship of Venus”, but that’s still just not right.

  4. The only outrage here is that of the crappy artists. I guess they were present in the renaissance as well.

  5. I apologize for the double post.
    Black Mamba – rightly or wrongly, I had the impression that the comments were not simply an attempt to point out poor painting techniques, but also an attempt to mock the Madonna and child. The exception being the “Worship of Venus” which I agree is especially disturbing.
    It’s interesting that the children were painted to look like miniature adults given that’s exactly what the prevailing belief was at the time in respect to children. Our current attitudes about children and childhood is a fairly recent/modern phenomena.

  6. Be aware that artists of the time mostly painted a portrait of a sitting subject, or used sitting models for scenes. Babies, being what they are, would not sit still for such an endeavor, forcing the artist to improvise. Hence the results you see.

  7. If Renaissance artists needed to know what a baby looks like, they should have, you know, gone out and looked at one.

Navigation