How do we know baroque art depicted obese ladies because of a different ideal of beauty?












23














I've often heard that the obesity of women in baroque art signs that such women were the ideal of beauty? How could we know that? And how could we know it wasn't just "cultural rationalization" of a standard physical appearance of higher classes?










share|improve this question




















  • 9




    I took the liberty of editing out "prehistorical art" because I think, due to the vast gap in time and space between it and Baroque art, this is something that should be explored separately.
    – Semaphore
    19 hours ago








  • 4




    There's considerable evidence that cultural standards of beauty reflect how that society's wealthy look. Until a couple of hundred years ago malnutrition was a constant threat and being fat was a sign of a comfortable level of wealth. Being thin was not. But for the last couple hundred years, starvation has not been a continual problem in the West, so few are malnourished -- but today having the time, money and inclination to stay fit is a mark of the wealthier parts of society.
    – Mark Olson
    17 hours ago






  • 2




    @MarkOlson - Also, this was before modern medicine. If you read biographies from that era, pretty much everyone eventually died of disease (usually TB), at seemingly random ages. So if you saw someone with little body fat back then, one good illness would be likely to finish them off, and there's a passable chance they already have that illness. A thin person likely looked sickly.
    – T.E.D.
    16 hours ago


















23














I've often heard that the obesity of women in baroque art signs that such women were the ideal of beauty? How could we know that? And how could we know it wasn't just "cultural rationalization" of a standard physical appearance of higher classes?










share|improve this question




















  • 9




    I took the liberty of editing out "prehistorical art" because I think, due to the vast gap in time and space between it and Baroque art, this is something that should be explored separately.
    – Semaphore
    19 hours ago








  • 4




    There's considerable evidence that cultural standards of beauty reflect how that society's wealthy look. Until a couple of hundred years ago malnutrition was a constant threat and being fat was a sign of a comfortable level of wealth. Being thin was not. But for the last couple hundred years, starvation has not been a continual problem in the West, so few are malnourished -- but today having the time, money and inclination to stay fit is a mark of the wealthier parts of society.
    – Mark Olson
    17 hours ago






  • 2




    @MarkOlson - Also, this was before modern medicine. If you read biographies from that era, pretty much everyone eventually died of disease (usually TB), at seemingly random ages. So if you saw someone with little body fat back then, one good illness would be likely to finish them off, and there's a passable chance they already have that illness. A thin person likely looked sickly.
    – T.E.D.
    16 hours ago
















23












23








23


1





I've often heard that the obesity of women in baroque art signs that such women were the ideal of beauty? How could we know that? And how could we know it wasn't just "cultural rationalization" of a standard physical appearance of higher classes?










share|improve this question















I've often heard that the obesity of women in baroque art signs that such women were the ideal of beauty? How could we know that? And how could we know it wasn't just "cultural rationalization" of a standard physical appearance of higher classes?







cultural-history art women social-class sociology






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 19 hours ago









Semaphore

74.7k14282325




74.7k14282325










asked yesterday









ProbablyProbably

558521




558521








  • 9




    I took the liberty of editing out "prehistorical art" because I think, due to the vast gap in time and space between it and Baroque art, this is something that should be explored separately.
    – Semaphore
    19 hours ago








  • 4




    There's considerable evidence that cultural standards of beauty reflect how that society's wealthy look. Until a couple of hundred years ago malnutrition was a constant threat and being fat was a sign of a comfortable level of wealth. Being thin was not. But for the last couple hundred years, starvation has not been a continual problem in the West, so few are malnourished -- but today having the time, money and inclination to stay fit is a mark of the wealthier parts of society.
    – Mark Olson
    17 hours ago






  • 2




    @MarkOlson - Also, this was before modern medicine. If you read biographies from that era, pretty much everyone eventually died of disease (usually TB), at seemingly random ages. So if you saw someone with little body fat back then, one good illness would be likely to finish them off, and there's a passable chance they already have that illness. A thin person likely looked sickly.
    – T.E.D.
    16 hours ago
















  • 9




    I took the liberty of editing out "prehistorical art" because I think, due to the vast gap in time and space between it and Baroque art, this is something that should be explored separately.
    – Semaphore
    19 hours ago








  • 4




    There's considerable evidence that cultural standards of beauty reflect how that society's wealthy look. Until a couple of hundred years ago malnutrition was a constant threat and being fat was a sign of a comfortable level of wealth. Being thin was not. But for the last couple hundred years, starvation has not been a continual problem in the West, so few are malnourished -- but today having the time, money and inclination to stay fit is a mark of the wealthier parts of society.
    – Mark Olson
    17 hours ago






  • 2




    @MarkOlson - Also, this was before modern medicine. If you read biographies from that era, pretty much everyone eventually died of disease (usually TB), at seemingly random ages. So if you saw someone with little body fat back then, one good illness would be likely to finish them off, and there's a passable chance they already have that illness. A thin person likely looked sickly.
    – T.E.D.
    16 hours ago










9




9




I took the liberty of editing out "prehistorical art" because I think, due to the vast gap in time and space between it and Baroque art, this is something that should be explored separately.
– Semaphore
19 hours ago






I took the liberty of editing out "prehistorical art" because I think, due to the vast gap in time and space between it and Baroque art, this is something that should be explored separately.
– Semaphore
19 hours ago






4




4




There's considerable evidence that cultural standards of beauty reflect how that society's wealthy look. Until a couple of hundred years ago malnutrition was a constant threat and being fat was a sign of a comfortable level of wealth. Being thin was not. But for the last couple hundred years, starvation has not been a continual problem in the West, so few are malnourished -- but today having the time, money and inclination to stay fit is a mark of the wealthier parts of society.
– Mark Olson
17 hours ago




There's considerable evidence that cultural standards of beauty reflect how that society's wealthy look. Until a couple of hundred years ago malnutrition was a constant threat and being fat was a sign of a comfortable level of wealth. Being thin was not. But for the last couple hundred years, starvation has not been a continual problem in the West, so few are malnourished -- but today having the time, money and inclination to stay fit is a mark of the wealthier parts of society.
– Mark Olson
17 hours ago




2




2




@MarkOlson - Also, this was before modern medicine. If you read biographies from that era, pretty much everyone eventually died of disease (usually TB), at seemingly random ages. So if you saw someone with little body fat back then, one good illness would be likely to finish them off, and there's a passable chance they already have that illness. A thin person likely looked sickly.
– T.E.D.
16 hours ago






@MarkOlson - Also, this was before modern medicine. If you read biographies from that era, pretty much everyone eventually died of disease (usually TB), at seemingly random ages. So if you saw someone with little body fat back then, one good illness would be likely to finish them off, and there's a passable chance they already have that illness. A thin person likely looked sickly.
– T.E.D.
16 hours ago












4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















34














Art does not exist in a vacuum, but is rather only one part of the historical record. Just as people comment on our modern standard of beauty today, so does early modern writers on theirs. Fortunately, Baroque art dates from a recent enough period that the historical record is extensive.



For example, a 17th century commentary on a Van Dyck portrait of a heavier women states:




William Sanderson in the treatise Graphice, published in 1658, noted that a beautiful woman was to have "a noble neck, round rising, full and fat . . . brawny arm of good flesh. Such a lady possesses a goodly plump fat."



Wind, Barry. A Foul and Pestilent Congregation: Images of Freaks in Baroque Art. Routledge, 2018.




Beyond artistic contexts, we also find examples of beauty being explicitly attributed to body fat:




The use of fat is . . . It fills up the empty spaces between the Muscles, Vessels, and Skin, and consequently renders the Body smooth, white, soft, fair, and beautiful . . . Persons in a Consumption and decrepit old women are deformed for want of Fat.



Bartholin, Thomas, Caspar Bartholin, and Johannes Walaeus. Bartholinus Anatomy: Made from the Precepts of His Father, and from the Observations of All Modern Anatomists. John Streater.




Historians, on the basis of information like this, therefore argue that people of the period - at least in some countries - considered it desirable for women to have a bit of plump.





As for "rationalisation" - of course, you can definitely make the case that they only considered chubbiness beautiful because of the association with wealth. However, does that necessarily invalidate their standard of beauty? I believe this delves into a philosophical realm over how beauty should be defined, which is beyond the scope of history.






share|improve this answer



















  • 7




    @pipe The wording seems confusing, but it sounds like they are saying that people suffering from consumption or decrepit old women want to be fatter; but their conditions prevent it. They were considered deformed because they were lacking fat. To me, that seems fairly clear it was showing the thinking at the time.
    – JMac
    16 hours ago






  • 2




    @JMac It just shows that they thought very skinny people weren't beautiful and would be more beautiful if they had more body fat; it doesn't say how much more. Maybe enough to make what would today be considered a "healthy weight". Maybe enough to make them what would today be considered morbidly obese. It simply doesn't say.
    – David Richerby
    15 hours ago






  • 8




    @pipe It shows a difference in attitude. Today people praise well toned muscles and low levels of body fat. Rarely do we feel the need to point out fatty tissues are needed (at least, not without euphemising it as "meat" or "weight") - it is assumed most are fatter than the ideal and wants to lose it. The quote however expresses the opposite; it praises the fat and cautions against having too little fat as being "deformed" - it saw no need to mention being too fat. Which implies their ideal beauty is more plump than ours, as the art shows. That is the argument being made by historians, anyway.
    – Semaphore
    15 hours ago








  • 4




    @TVann it's worth pointing out that there are currently cultures in the world were fat (in the western sense) is beautiful. Noone seems to have have mentioned that here as it doesn't strictly add to the argument for history but it shows that beauty is certainly cultural. It seem very likely that "beauty" is a proxy for something when we choose a mate and long term health seems to be the goal (for men choosing women).
    – DRF
    12 hours ago






  • 2




    “you can definitely make the case that they only considered chubbiness beautiful because of the association with wealth” ... which is the same, strong argument you can make about most every standard of beauty. Be it tans indicating enough wealth to vacation in tropical paradises (~19th c), porcelain white skin indicating a person who was able to avoid manual labor outdoors (~17th and 18th c), or today’s lean, sculpted body indicating wealth and lesuire time to spend on that, etc., there’s a strong correlation between what the wealthy look like and what is considered physically attractive.
    – HopelessN00b
    6 hours ago



















16














A lot of the paintings were commissioned as portraits, why would people pay for themselves to be depicted in an ugly way?



Wealth nowadays is associated with a slim, tanned, and shaped body because those are traits of people who have enough free time, and money to achieve it. In that period, it would be the reverse, being more on the fat side would require wealth, and more refined foods which were more expensive, while majority of commoners would be slim, tanned (for working in the sun) and toned due to hard work.



It makes sense based on those, that it must have been acceptable to be fat back then, even desirable.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




user36167 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • While the first statement makes sense, it is dependent on the subjective nature of what is considered "ugly" - which varies by fashion, culture, time period and even person to person.
    – Steve Bird
    18 hours ago










  • Not forgetting that the distribution of wealth explains a sample bias. The surviving pieces of art do not portray the commoners. Only upper class models. In more modern times, most notably after the invention of photography, a wider range of socio-economic classes is included.
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    17 hours ago






  • 3




    @JyrkiLahtonen That's not really true though. There are a number of paintings of commoners from the baroque era - consider Vermeer's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_with_a_Pearl_Earring and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milkmaid_(Vermeer), for example. Named individuals are upper-class, certainly, but that does not mean that paintings of unnamed lower-class individuals were not painted from life.
    – Graham
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    Don't forget that a lot of baroque paintings of women aren't portraits, but still show chubby ladies. For example, Rubens's mithological scenes.
    – Pere
    14 hours ago






  • 6




    Agree with @Pere; Baroque paintings of Venus (who is surely one of the all-time Western standards of beauty) are much less sleek and toned than a modern depiction would be. Ditto Cleopatra and Helen of Troy. Baroque artists didn't have to render them that way; that was an artistic choice they made when deciding what body type their audience would consider appropriate for a famous beauty.
    – 1006a
    10 hours ago



















4















Q How do we know baroque art depicted obese ladies because of a different ideal of beauty?




Really?

We don't. The anthropological constant is: "woman are considered 'attractive' if: young and healthy" (both more or less relating to fecund; Whether socio-biological, evolutionary, cynical):



Differences in the historical record in the form of paintings of women –– meaning that not L'art-pour-l'art pictures show not that much variation in 'considered" beautiful'. Archaeological, that is more material evidence – like statues – does not support major shifts of aesthetic preference or judgement, before the 20th century.



There is the obvious tendency to ascribe a cultural preference for heftier women in baroque times. "Just look at the paintings!" And while it's certainly true that people come in all shapes and sizes, so it is equally true that people come with all kinds of tastes in all times: some preferring slender shapes, some going for the voluptiuos.



The "obvious" conclusion is that in times when all kinds of illnesses, harsh winters and not in the least quite frequent real hunger catastrophes were just around every corner, people with a little reserve in body fat are indeed more likely to survive that, be more fecund in the case of women. Just more robust.



Added to that is the status appeal: you have to be able to afford so much eating.



But with this "tastes" comes a tiny little problem: we have alsoat least three selection biases at work here:




  1. When Henry VIII was young and coming, he was the sporty guy with not much fat on him. As he aged he became fat, like the tendency to observe in every last one of us today: as we age, the body needs less energy, but habits change slowly and for most average it gets harder with every year to keep the same weight. But those people who could afford being painted tended to be slightly older as well.



  2. With differing tastes there is then this personal preference thing again. Rubens for example. He was indeed a chubby chaser, preferring the looks of some women painted being even above what we thing to be the norm in his age. (But also look at Karolien De Clippel: "Defining beauty: Rubens’s female nudes", (PDF) ––/––
    Leah Sweet: "Fantasy Bodies, Imagined Pasts: A Critical Analysis of the “Rubenesque” Fat Body in Contemporary Culture", Fat Studies:

    An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society
    Volume 3, 2014 - Issue 2: Reflective Intersections, (DOI))




    Strong versions of evolutionary psychologists have proposed that men possess perceptual mechanisms that engender a preference for women with low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR), typically 0.70, as this is considered maximally healthy and fertile. This has taken to be culturally and temporally invariant. In the present study, two semi-expert and two non-expert judges made measurements of the WHR of nude females in paintings by Pieter Pauwel Rubens. The results showed that the mean WHR of Rubens’ women was 0.776, significantly higher than the reported preference for WHRs of 0.70. Possible non-adaptive explanations for this result are proposed in conclusion.

    For example, the present study assumes that Rubens portrayed women for their physical beauty, but it may also be possible that he portrayed them to exemplify other traits such as wealth and abundance, that is, things other than beauty and fertility. Finally, although Rubens is perhaps the most well-known painter to depict voluptuous nudes (hence the term ‘Rubenesque’), future studies should examine the stylised depictions of other artists and artistic eras.
    Viren Swami et al.: "The Female Nude in Rubens: Disconfirmatory Evidence of the Waist-to-Hip Ratio Hypothesis of Female Physical Attractiveness", Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Vol. 26(1-2) 139-147, 2006-2007.





  3. The current Western ideal – as propagated in most media, and now internalised – is sick!

    While it is quite consensual that too much body fat is unhealthy, it is also quite clear that anorexia, bulimia, orthorexia, surgery, pills, and propaganda are sick as well.




    By observing the art of different eras, as well as the more recent existence of the media, it is obvious that there have been dramatic changes in what is considered a beautiful body. The ideal of female beauty has shifted from a symbol of fertility to one of mathematically calculated proportions. It has taken the form of an image responding to men’s sexual desires. Nowadays there seems to be a tendency towards the destruction of the feminine, as androgynous fashion and appearance dominate our culture. The metamorphosis of the ideal woman follows the shifting role of women in society from mother and mistress to a career-orientated indi- vidual. Her depiction by artists across the centuries reveals this change in role and appearance that should be interpreted within the social and historical context of each era with its own theories of what constituted the ideal female body weight.

    Did medical science contribute to today’s accepted BMI? Obesity has been regarded as a condition that increases the risk of many diseases only in recent decades, when evidence-based medicine took the lead, and scientists discovered saturated and transfats and their relationship with metabolic and cardiovascular diseases. Evidence of the change this may have had on society can be seen in the more prevalent occurrence of eating disorders in the latter half of the 20th century. The advice to lose weight and reach a BMI comprised between 18 and 24 therefore might have accelerated the process of the ideal figure tending towards thin bodies, in particular in professions where there is a strong pressure to control body weight such as athletics and dance. The media brought the relationship between an ideal figure and evidence-based medicine to extreme consequences, presenting exaggeratedly thin figures as symbols of health, while in reality being the opposite as shown by data reporting female athletes with higher rates of eating disorders.

    The metamorphosis of the ideal woman follows the shifting role of women in society from mother and mistress to a career-orientated individual. Her depiction by artists across the centuries reveals this change in role and appearance. Unfortunately, today, beauty (and the ideal body weight) is not exactly in the eye of the beholder, but in the body image presented by the media and sold to a malleable public.
    B. A. Bonafini & P. Pozzilli: "Body weight and beauty: the changing face of the ideal female body weight", Obesity Reviews, Volume12, Issue1, 2011
    Pages 62-65. (DOI)





So yes: until just a few decades ago average heterosexual men preferred healthy looking women. Really obese women were always well liked by 'specialists'. But our current understanding of past preferences of beauty seem to be much distorted by what we call now "obesity".



Having a look, I do not see "obese ladies":




enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here (he & his wife!)
enter image description herePortrait of Marchesa Brigida Spinola-Doria




Shoot me, but I believe 'the Aliens' reading it, would tend to agree, that quite recently, the meaning of "obese" seems to encroach on what we once thought of as normal:




enter image description here(Jake Rosenthal • January 20, 2016
The Pioneer Plaque: Science as a Universal Language)




Now compare the to:




Aphrodite or 'Crouching Venus' Second century AD
Marble | 125 x 53 x 65 cm (whole object) | RCIN 69746:
enter image description here




If the original model for that would be laser-scanned and then 3-D-printed while calculating here insurance-premium based on BMI: then you know that StackExchange policy probably prohibits commenting on it, but I am certain that you have made up your modern mind on that?






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    If you don't see obese women in the unclothed pictures, your eyes need checking :-) Only the leftmost of the three in the first picture would seem to have a healthy body weight - and all of them need some serious gym time! As for the clothed ones, who knows what corsetry lurks under those layers of fabric?
    – jamesqf
    12 hours ago










  • @jamesqf Maybe it is (in) the eyes ;) Two things: you are aware that even the stupendously defined BMI only talks of "obesity" > 30? The conversion accuracy from oli-on-canvas to kg/m<sup>2</sup> is not known for astrophysical precision. And sidenote: corsets can only slim down faces, legs and fingers so much… Any doctor now advising those girls to diet because of obesity should in all probability have his licence revoked.
    – LangLangC
    12 hours ago










  • "A few decades" is about ten of them: during the 1920s, the ideal woman was a teenage boy.
    – Mark
    9 hours ago












  • @Mark Yes. First in behaviour, then compared to previous (their mother's) matrons in size Absolutely, for the media. Now, Marylin Monroe is frequently depicted as "plus sized" despite never being above a calculated BMI of 25 (going by numbers from coroner's report) (Although I'd say "ten" wasn't continuous for Europe at least: WW2+aftermath often had "let's eat again" waves following, for US-'Great Depression' I'd be willing to give leeway as well?)
    – LangLangC
    9 hours ago










  • If any of those people are "obese" you've never been to a Walmart.
    – Mazura
    3 hours ago



















1














This aesthetic relativism is also confused by the fact that for most of the history of Western art, women weren't able to model so the artist often just changed male bodies (from his/her model) into female bodies by adding breasts or extra fat or whatever.



Here's a source: https://renresearch.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/men-with-breasts-or-why-are-michelangelos-women-so-muscular-part-1/



Which references Gill Saunders' The Nude: A New Perspective (1989)






share|improve this answer








New contributor




devinr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 2




    Your source (blog article) however seems to debunk the idea that women were not available to model in the Renaissance. It's also doesn't cover "most of the history of Western art" as you suggest.
    – Steve Bird
    12 hours ago










  • For most of the history of Western art, painting (as far as we know) wasn't done from models at all. The Renaissance practice of drawing women based on male models was only a very brief part of history.
    – Mark
    9 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50562%2fhow-do-we-know-baroque-art-depicted-obese-ladies-because-of-a-different-ideal-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









34














Art does not exist in a vacuum, but is rather only one part of the historical record. Just as people comment on our modern standard of beauty today, so does early modern writers on theirs. Fortunately, Baroque art dates from a recent enough period that the historical record is extensive.



For example, a 17th century commentary on a Van Dyck portrait of a heavier women states:




William Sanderson in the treatise Graphice, published in 1658, noted that a beautiful woman was to have "a noble neck, round rising, full and fat . . . brawny arm of good flesh. Such a lady possesses a goodly plump fat."



Wind, Barry. A Foul and Pestilent Congregation: Images of Freaks in Baroque Art. Routledge, 2018.




Beyond artistic contexts, we also find examples of beauty being explicitly attributed to body fat:




The use of fat is . . . It fills up the empty spaces between the Muscles, Vessels, and Skin, and consequently renders the Body smooth, white, soft, fair, and beautiful . . . Persons in a Consumption and decrepit old women are deformed for want of Fat.



Bartholin, Thomas, Caspar Bartholin, and Johannes Walaeus. Bartholinus Anatomy: Made from the Precepts of His Father, and from the Observations of All Modern Anatomists. John Streater.




Historians, on the basis of information like this, therefore argue that people of the period - at least in some countries - considered it desirable for women to have a bit of plump.





As for "rationalisation" - of course, you can definitely make the case that they only considered chubbiness beautiful because of the association with wealth. However, does that necessarily invalidate their standard of beauty? I believe this delves into a philosophical realm over how beauty should be defined, which is beyond the scope of history.






share|improve this answer



















  • 7




    @pipe The wording seems confusing, but it sounds like they are saying that people suffering from consumption or decrepit old women want to be fatter; but their conditions prevent it. They were considered deformed because they were lacking fat. To me, that seems fairly clear it was showing the thinking at the time.
    – JMac
    16 hours ago






  • 2




    @JMac It just shows that they thought very skinny people weren't beautiful and would be more beautiful if they had more body fat; it doesn't say how much more. Maybe enough to make what would today be considered a "healthy weight". Maybe enough to make them what would today be considered morbidly obese. It simply doesn't say.
    – David Richerby
    15 hours ago






  • 8




    @pipe It shows a difference in attitude. Today people praise well toned muscles and low levels of body fat. Rarely do we feel the need to point out fatty tissues are needed (at least, not without euphemising it as "meat" or "weight") - it is assumed most are fatter than the ideal and wants to lose it. The quote however expresses the opposite; it praises the fat and cautions against having too little fat as being "deformed" - it saw no need to mention being too fat. Which implies their ideal beauty is more plump than ours, as the art shows. That is the argument being made by historians, anyway.
    – Semaphore
    15 hours ago








  • 4




    @TVann it's worth pointing out that there are currently cultures in the world were fat (in the western sense) is beautiful. Noone seems to have have mentioned that here as it doesn't strictly add to the argument for history but it shows that beauty is certainly cultural. It seem very likely that "beauty" is a proxy for something when we choose a mate and long term health seems to be the goal (for men choosing women).
    – DRF
    12 hours ago






  • 2




    “you can definitely make the case that they only considered chubbiness beautiful because of the association with wealth” ... which is the same, strong argument you can make about most every standard of beauty. Be it tans indicating enough wealth to vacation in tropical paradises (~19th c), porcelain white skin indicating a person who was able to avoid manual labor outdoors (~17th and 18th c), or today’s lean, sculpted body indicating wealth and lesuire time to spend on that, etc., there’s a strong correlation between what the wealthy look like and what is considered physically attractive.
    – HopelessN00b
    6 hours ago
















34














Art does not exist in a vacuum, but is rather only one part of the historical record. Just as people comment on our modern standard of beauty today, so does early modern writers on theirs. Fortunately, Baroque art dates from a recent enough period that the historical record is extensive.



For example, a 17th century commentary on a Van Dyck portrait of a heavier women states:




William Sanderson in the treatise Graphice, published in 1658, noted that a beautiful woman was to have "a noble neck, round rising, full and fat . . . brawny arm of good flesh. Such a lady possesses a goodly plump fat."



Wind, Barry. A Foul and Pestilent Congregation: Images of Freaks in Baroque Art. Routledge, 2018.




Beyond artistic contexts, we also find examples of beauty being explicitly attributed to body fat:




The use of fat is . . . It fills up the empty spaces between the Muscles, Vessels, and Skin, and consequently renders the Body smooth, white, soft, fair, and beautiful . . . Persons in a Consumption and decrepit old women are deformed for want of Fat.



Bartholin, Thomas, Caspar Bartholin, and Johannes Walaeus. Bartholinus Anatomy: Made from the Precepts of His Father, and from the Observations of All Modern Anatomists. John Streater.




Historians, on the basis of information like this, therefore argue that people of the period - at least in some countries - considered it desirable for women to have a bit of plump.





As for "rationalisation" - of course, you can definitely make the case that they only considered chubbiness beautiful because of the association with wealth. However, does that necessarily invalidate their standard of beauty? I believe this delves into a philosophical realm over how beauty should be defined, which is beyond the scope of history.






share|improve this answer



















  • 7




    @pipe The wording seems confusing, but it sounds like they are saying that people suffering from consumption or decrepit old women want to be fatter; but their conditions prevent it. They were considered deformed because they were lacking fat. To me, that seems fairly clear it was showing the thinking at the time.
    – JMac
    16 hours ago






  • 2




    @JMac It just shows that they thought very skinny people weren't beautiful and would be more beautiful if they had more body fat; it doesn't say how much more. Maybe enough to make what would today be considered a "healthy weight". Maybe enough to make them what would today be considered morbidly obese. It simply doesn't say.
    – David Richerby
    15 hours ago






  • 8




    @pipe It shows a difference in attitude. Today people praise well toned muscles and low levels of body fat. Rarely do we feel the need to point out fatty tissues are needed (at least, not without euphemising it as "meat" or "weight") - it is assumed most are fatter than the ideal and wants to lose it. The quote however expresses the opposite; it praises the fat and cautions against having too little fat as being "deformed" - it saw no need to mention being too fat. Which implies their ideal beauty is more plump than ours, as the art shows. That is the argument being made by historians, anyway.
    – Semaphore
    15 hours ago








  • 4




    @TVann it's worth pointing out that there are currently cultures in the world were fat (in the western sense) is beautiful. Noone seems to have have mentioned that here as it doesn't strictly add to the argument for history but it shows that beauty is certainly cultural. It seem very likely that "beauty" is a proxy for something when we choose a mate and long term health seems to be the goal (for men choosing women).
    – DRF
    12 hours ago






  • 2




    “you can definitely make the case that they only considered chubbiness beautiful because of the association with wealth” ... which is the same, strong argument you can make about most every standard of beauty. Be it tans indicating enough wealth to vacation in tropical paradises (~19th c), porcelain white skin indicating a person who was able to avoid manual labor outdoors (~17th and 18th c), or today’s lean, sculpted body indicating wealth and lesuire time to spend on that, etc., there’s a strong correlation between what the wealthy look like and what is considered physically attractive.
    – HopelessN00b
    6 hours ago














34












34








34






Art does not exist in a vacuum, but is rather only one part of the historical record. Just as people comment on our modern standard of beauty today, so does early modern writers on theirs. Fortunately, Baroque art dates from a recent enough period that the historical record is extensive.



For example, a 17th century commentary on a Van Dyck portrait of a heavier women states:




William Sanderson in the treatise Graphice, published in 1658, noted that a beautiful woman was to have "a noble neck, round rising, full and fat . . . brawny arm of good flesh. Such a lady possesses a goodly plump fat."



Wind, Barry. A Foul and Pestilent Congregation: Images of Freaks in Baroque Art. Routledge, 2018.




Beyond artistic contexts, we also find examples of beauty being explicitly attributed to body fat:




The use of fat is . . . It fills up the empty spaces between the Muscles, Vessels, and Skin, and consequently renders the Body smooth, white, soft, fair, and beautiful . . . Persons in a Consumption and decrepit old women are deformed for want of Fat.



Bartholin, Thomas, Caspar Bartholin, and Johannes Walaeus. Bartholinus Anatomy: Made from the Precepts of His Father, and from the Observations of All Modern Anatomists. John Streater.




Historians, on the basis of information like this, therefore argue that people of the period - at least in some countries - considered it desirable for women to have a bit of plump.





As for "rationalisation" - of course, you can definitely make the case that they only considered chubbiness beautiful because of the association with wealth. However, does that necessarily invalidate their standard of beauty? I believe this delves into a philosophical realm over how beauty should be defined, which is beyond the scope of history.






share|improve this answer














Art does not exist in a vacuum, but is rather only one part of the historical record. Just as people comment on our modern standard of beauty today, so does early modern writers on theirs. Fortunately, Baroque art dates from a recent enough period that the historical record is extensive.



For example, a 17th century commentary on a Van Dyck portrait of a heavier women states:




William Sanderson in the treatise Graphice, published in 1658, noted that a beautiful woman was to have "a noble neck, round rising, full and fat . . . brawny arm of good flesh. Such a lady possesses a goodly plump fat."



Wind, Barry. A Foul and Pestilent Congregation: Images of Freaks in Baroque Art. Routledge, 2018.




Beyond artistic contexts, we also find examples of beauty being explicitly attributed to body fat:




The use of fat is . . . It fills up the empty spaces between the Muscles, Vessels, and Skin, and consequently renders the Body smooth, white, soft, fair, and beautiful . . . Persons in a Consumption and decrepit old women are deformed for want of Fat.



Bartholin, Thomas, Caspar Bartholin, and Johannes Walaeus. Bartholinus Anatomy: Made from the Precepts of His Father, and from the Observations of All Modern Anatomists. John Streater.




Historians, on the basis of information like this, therefore argue that people of the period - at least in some countries - considered it desirable for women to have a bit of plump.





As for "rationalisation" - of course, you can definitely make the case that they only considered chubbiness beautiful because of the association with wealth. However, does that necessarily invalidate their standard of beauty? I believe this delves into a philosophical realm over how beauty should be defined, which is beyond the scope of history.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 16 hours ago

























answered 19 hours ago









SemaphoreSemaphore

74.7k14282325




74.7k14282325








  • 7




    @pipe The wording seems confusing, but it sounds like they are saying that people suffering from consumption or decrepit old women want to be fatter; but their conditions prevent it. They were considered deformed because they were lacking fat. To me, that seems fairly clear it was showing the thinking at the time.
    – JMac
    16 hours ago






  • 2




    @JMac It just shows that they thought very skinny people weren't beautiful and would be more beautiful if they had more body fat; it doesn't say how much more. Maybe enough to make what would today be considered a "healthy weight". Maybe enough to make them what would today be considered morbidly obese. It simply doesn't say.
    – David Richerby
    15 hours ago






  • 8




    @pipe It shows a difference in attitude. Today people praise well toned muscles and low levels of body fat. Rarely do we feel the need to point out fatty tissues are needed (at least, not without euphemising it as "meat" or "weight") - it is assumed most are fatter than the ideal and wants to lose it. The quote however expresses the opposite; it praises the fat and cautions against having too little fat as being "deformed" - it saw no need to mention being too fat. Which implies their ideal beauty is more plump than ours, as the art shows. That is the argument being made by historians, anyway.
    – Semaphore
    15 hours ago








  • 4




    @TVann it's worth pointing out that there are currently cultures in the world were fat (in the western sense) is beautiful. Noone seems to have have mentioned that here as it doesn't strictly add to the argument for history but it shows that beauty is certainly cultural. It seem very likely that "beauty" is a proxy for something when we choose a mate and long term health seems to be the goal (for men choosing women).
    – DRF
    12 hours ago






  • 2




    “you can definitely make the case that they only considered chubbiness beautiful because of the association with wealth” ... which is the same, strong argument you can make about most every standard of beauty. Be it tans indicating enough wealth to vacation in tropical paradises (~19th c), porcelain white skin indicating a person who was able to avoid manual labor outdoors (~17th and 18th c), or today’s lean, sculpted body indicating wealth and lesuire time to spend on that, etc., there’s a strong correlation between what the wealthy look like and what is considered physically attractive.
    – HopelessN00b
    6 hours ago














  • 7




    @pipe The wording seems confusing, but it sounds like they are saying that people suffering from consumption or decrepit old women want to be fatter; but their conditions prevent it. They were considered deformed because they were lacking fat. To me, that seems fairly clear it was showing the thinking at the time.
    – JMac
    16 hours ago






  • 2




    @JMac It just shows that they thought very skinny people weren't beautiful and would be more beautiful if they had more body fat; it doesn't say how much more. Maybe enough to make what would today be considered a "healthy weight". Maybe enough to make them what would today be considered morbidly obese. It simply doesn't say.
    – David Richerby
    15 hours ago






  • 8




    @pipe It shows a difference in attitude. Today people praise well toned muscles and low levels of body fat. Rarely do we feel the need to point out fatty tissues are needed (at least, not without euphemising it as "meat" or "weight") - it is assumed most are fatter than the ideal and wants to lose it. The quote however expresses the opposite; it praises the fat and cautions against having too little fat as being "deformed" - it saw no need to mention being too fat. Which implies their ideal beauty is more plump than ours, as the art shows. That is the argument being made by historians, anyway.
    – Semaphore
    15 hours ago








  • 4




    @TVann it's worth pointing out that there are currently cultures in the world were fat (in the western sense) is beautiful. Noone seems to have have mentioned that here as it doesn't strictly add to the argument for history but it shows that beauty is certainly cultural. It seem very likely that "beauty" is a proxy for something when we choose a mate and long term health seems to be the goal (for men choosing women).
    – DRF
    12 hours ago






  • 2




    “you can definitely make the case that they only considered chubbiness beautiful because of the association with wealth” ... which is the same, strong argument you can make about most every standard of beauty. Be it tans indicating enough wealth to vacation in tropical paradises (~19th c), porcelain white skin indicating a person who was able to avoid manual labor outdoors (~17th and 18th c), or today’s lean, sculpted body indicating wealth and lesuire time to spend on that, etc., there’s a strong correlation between what the wealthy look like and what is considered physically attractive.
    – HopelessN00b
    6 hours ago








7




7




@pipe The wording seems confusing, but it sounds like they are saying that people suffering from consumption or decrepit old women want to be fatter; but their conditions prevent it. They were considered deformed because they were lacking fat. To me, that seems fairly clear it was showing the thinking at the time.
– JMac
16 hours ago




@pipe The wording seems confusing, but it sounds like they are saying that people suffering from consumption or decrepit old women want to be fatter; but their conditions prevent it. They were considered deformed because they were lacking fat. To me, that seems fairly clear it was showing the thinking at the time.
– JMac
16 hours ago




2




2




@JMac It just shows that they thought very skinny people weren't beautiful and would be more beautiful if they had more body fat; it doesn't say how much more. Maybe enough to make what would today be considered a "healthy weight". Maybe enough to make them what would today be considered morbidly obese. It simply doesn't say.
– David Richerby
15 hours ago




@JMac It just shows that they thought very skinny people weren't beautiful and would be more beautiful if they had more body fat; it doesn't say how much more. Maybe enough to make what would today be considered a "healthy weight". Maybe enough to make them what would today be considered morbidly obese. It simply doesn't say.
– David Richerby
15 hours ago




8




8




@pipe It shows a difference in attitude. Today people praise well toned muscles and low levels of body fat. Rarely do we feel the need to point out fatty tissues are needed (at least, not without euphemising it as "meat" or "weight") - it is assumed most are fatter than the ideal and wants to lose it. The quote however expresses the opposite; it praises the fat and cautions against having too little fat as being "deformed" - it saw no need to mention being too fat. Which implies their ideal beauty is more plump than ours, as the art shows. That is the argument being made by historians, anyway.
– Semaphore
15 hours ago






@pipe It shows a difference in attitude. Today people praise well toned muscles and low levels of body fat. Rarely do we feel the need to point out fatty tissues are needed (at least, not without euphemising it as "meat" or "weight") - it is assumed most are fatter than the ideal and wants to lose it. The quote however expresses the opposite; it praises the fat and cautions against having too little fat as being "deformed" - it saw no need to mention being too fat. Which implies their ideal beauty is more plump than ours, as the art shows. That is the argument being made by historians, anyway.
– Semaphore
15 hours ago






4




4




@TVann it's worth pointing out that there are currently cultures in the world were fat (in the western sense) is beautiful. Noone seems to have have mentioned that here as it doesn't strictly add to the argument for history but it shows that beauty is certainly cultural. It seem very likely that "beauty" is a proxy for something when we choose a mate and long term health seems to be the goal (for men choosing women).
– DRF
12 hours ago




@TVann it's worth pointing out that there are currently cultures in the world were fat (in the western sense) is beautiful. Noone seems to have have mentioned that here as it doesn't strictly add to the argument for history but it shows that beauty is certainly cultural. It seem very likely that "beauty" is a proxy for something when we choose a mate and long term health seems to be the goal (for men choosing women).
– DRF
12 hours ago




2




2




“you can definitely make the case that they only considered chubbiness beautiful because of the association with wealth” ... which is the same, strong argument you can make about most every standard of beauty. Be it tans indicating enough wealth to vacation in tropical paradises (~19th c), porcelain white skin indicating a person who was able to avoid manual labor outdoors (~17th and 18th c), or today’s lean, sculpted body indicating wealth and lesuire time to spend on that, etc., there’s a strong correlation between what the wealthy look like and what is considered physically attractive.
– HopelessN00b
6 hours ago




“you can definitely make the case that they only considered chubbiness beautiful because of the association with wealth” ... which is the same, strong argument you can make about most every standard of beauty. Be it tans indicating enough wealth to vacation in tropical paradises (~19th c), porcelain white skin indicating a person who was able to avoid manual labor outdoors (~17th and 18th c), or today’s lean, sculpted body indicating wealth and lesuire time to spend on that, etc., there’s a strong correlation between what the wealthy look like and what is considered physically attractive.
– HopelessN00b
6 hours ago











16














A lot of the paintings were commissioned as portraits, why would people pay for themselves to be depicted in an ugly way?



Wealth nowadays is associated with a slim, tanned, and shaped body because those are traits of people who have enough free time, and money to achieve it. In that period, it would be the reverse, being more on the fat side would require wealth, and more refined foods which were more expensive, while majority of commoners would be slim, tanned (for working in the sun) and toned due to hard work.



It makes sense based on those, that it must have been acceptable to be fat back then, even desirable.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




user36167 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • While the first statement makes sense, it is dependent on the subjective nature of what is considered "ugly" - which varies by fashion, culture, time period and even person to person.
    – Steve Bird
    18 hours ago










  • Not forgetting that the distribution of wealth explains a sample bias. The surviving pieces of art do not portray the commoners. Only upper class models. In more modern times, most notably after the invention of photography, a wider range of socio-economic classes is included.
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    17 hours ago






  • 3




    @JyrkiLahtonen That's not really true though. There are a number of paintings of commoners from the baroque era - consider Vermeer's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_with_a_Pearl_Earring and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milkmaid_(Vermeer), for example. Named individuals are upper-class, certainly, but that does not mean that paintings of unnamed lower-class individuals were not painted from life.
    – Graham
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    Don't forget that a lot of baroque paintings of women aren't portraits, but still show chubby ladies. For example, Rubens's mithological scenes.
    – Pere
    14 hours ago






  • 6




    Agree with @Pere; Baroque paintings of Venus (who is surely one of the all-time Western standards of beauty) are much less sleek and toned than a modern depiction would be. Ditto Cleopatra and Helen of Troy. Baroque artists didn't have to render them that way; that was an artistic choice they made when deciding what body type their audience would consider appropriate for a famous beauty.
    – 1006a
    10 hours ago
















16














A lot of the paintings were commissioned as portraits, why would people pay for themselves to be depicted in an ugly way?



Wealth nowadays is associated with a slim, tanned, and shaped body because those are traits of people who have enough free time, and money to achieve it. In that period, it would be the reverse, being more on the fat side would require wealth, and more refined foods which were more expensive, while majority of commoners would be slim, tanned (for working in the sun) and toned due to hard work.



It makes sense based on those, that it must have been acceptable to be fat back then, even desirable.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




user36167 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.


















  • While the first statement makes sense, it is dependent on the subjective nature of what is considered "ugly" - which varies by fashion, culture, time period and even person to person.
    – Steve Bird
    18 hours ago










  • Not forgetting that the distribution of wealth explains a sample bias. The surviving pieces of art do not portray the commoners. Only upper class models. In more modern times, most notably after the invention of photography, a wider range of socio-economic classes is included.
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    17 hours ago






  • 3




    @JyrkiLahtonen That's not really true though. There are a number of paintings of commoners from the baroque era - consider Vermeer's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_with_a_Pearl_Earring and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milkmaid_(Vermeer), for example. Named individuals are upper-class, certainly, but that does not mean that paintings of unnamed lower-class individuals were not painted from life.
    – Graham
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    Don't forget that a lot of baroque paintings of women aren't portraits, but still show chubby ladies. For example, Rubens's mithological scenes.
    – Pere
    14 hours ago






  • 6




    Agree with @Pere; Baroque paintings of Venus (who is surely one of the all-time Western standards of beauty) are much less sleek and toned than a modern depiction would be. Ditto Cleopatra and Helen of Troy. Baroque artists didn't have to render them that way; that was an artistic choice they made when deciding what body type their audience would consider appropriate for a famous beauty.
    – 1006a
    10 hours ago














16












16








16






A lot of the paintings were commissioned as portraits, why would people pay for themselves to be depicted in an ugly way?



Wealth nowadays is associated with a slim, tanned, and shaped body because those are traits of people who have enough free time, and money to achieve it. In that period, it would be the reverse, being more on the fat side would require wealth, and more refined foods which were more expensive, while majority of commoners would be slim, tanned (for working in the sun) and toned due to hard work.



It makes sense based on those, that it must have been acceptable to be fat back then, even desirable.






share|improve this answer










New contributor




user36167 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









A lot of the paintings were commissioned as portraits, why would people pay for themselves to be depicted in an ugly way?



Wealth nowadays is associated with a slim, tanned, and shaped body because those are traits of people who have enough free time, and money to achieve it. In that period, it would be the reverse, being more on the fat side would require wealth, and more refined foods which were more expensive, while majority of commoners would be slim, tanned (for working in the sun) and toned due to hard work.



It makes sense based on those, that it must have been acceptable to be fat back then, even desirable.







share|improve this answer










New contributor




user36167 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 18 hours ago





















New contributor




user36167 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 18 hours ago









user36167user36167

1613




1613




New contributor




user36167 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





user36167 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






user36167 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • While the first statement makes sense, it is dependent on the subjective nature of what is considered "ugly" - which varies by fashion, culture, time period and even person to person.
    – Steve Bird
    18 hours ago










  • Not forgetting that the distribution of wealth explains a sample bias. The surviving pieces of art do not portray the commoners. Only upper class models. In more modern times, most notably after the invention of photography, a wider range of socio-economic classes is included.
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    17 hours ago






  • 3




    @JyrkiLahtonen That's not really true though. There are a number of paintings of commoners from the baroque era - consider Vermeer's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_with_a_Pearl_Earring and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milkmaid_(Vermeer), for example. Named individuals are upper-class, certainly, but that does not mean that paintings of unnamed lower-class individuals were not painted from life.
    – Graham
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    Don't forget that a lot of baroque paintings of women aren't portraits, but still show chubby ladies. For example, Rubens's mithological scenes.
    – Pere
    14 hours ago






  • 6




    Agree with @Pere; Baroque paintings of Venus (who is surely one of the all-time Western standards of beauty) are much less sleek and toned than a modern depiction would be. Ditto Cleopatra and Helen of Troy. Baroque artists didn't have to render them that way; that was an artistic choice they made when deciding what body type their audience would consider appropriate for a famous beauty.
    – 1006a
    10 hours ago


















  • While the first statement makes sense, it is dependent on the subjective nature of what is considered "ugly" - which varies by fashion, culture, time period and even person to person.
    – Steve Bird
    18 hours ago










  • Not forgetting that the distribution of wealth explains a sample bias. The surviving pieces of art do not portray the commoners. Only upper class models. In more modern times, most notably after the invention of photography, a wider range of socio-economic classes is included.
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    17 hours ago






  • 3




    @JyrkiLahtonen That's not really true though. There are a number of paintings of commoners from the baroque era - consider Vermeer's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_with_a_Pearl_Earring and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milkmaid_(Vermeer), for example. Named individuals are upper-class, certainly, but that does not mean that paintings of unnamed lower-class individuals were not painted from life.
    – Graham
    16 hours ago






  • 3




    Don't forget that a lot of baroque paintings of women aren't portraits, but still show chubby ladies. For example, Rubens's mithological scenes.
    – Pere
    14 hours ago






  • 6




    Agree with @Pere; Baroque paintings of Venus (who is surely one of the all-time Western standards of beauty) are much less sleek and toned than a modern depiction would be. Ditto Cleopatra and Helen of Troy. Baroque artists didn't have to render them that way; that was an artistic choice they made when deciding what body type their audience would consider appropriate for a famous beauty.
    – 1006a
    10 hours ago
















While the first statement makes sense, it is dependent on the subjective nature of what is considered "ugly" - which varies by fashion, culture, time period and even person to person.
– Steve Bird
18 hours ago




While the first statement makes sense, it is dependent on the subjective nature of what is considered "ugly" - which varies by fashion, culture, time period and even person to person.
– Steve Bird
18 hours ago












Not forgetting that the distribution of wealth explains a sample bias. The surviving pieces of art do not portray the commoners. Only upper class models. In more modern times, most notably after the invention of photography, a wider range of socio-economic classes is included.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
17 hours ago




Not forgetting that the distribution of wealth explains a sample bias. The surviving pieces of art do not portray the commoners. Only upper class models. In more modern times, most notably after the invention of photography, a wider range of socio-economic classes is included.
– Jyrki Lahtonen
17 hours ago




3




3




@JyrkiLahtonen That's not really true though. There are a number of paintings of commoners from the baroque era - consider Vermeer's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_with_a_Pearl_Earring and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milkmaid_(Vermeer), for example. Named individuals are upper-class, certainly, but that does not mean that paintings of unnamed lower-class individuals were not painted from life.
– Graham
16 hours ago




@JyrkiLahtonen That's not really true though. There are a number of paintings of commoners from the baroque era - consider Vermeer's en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_with_a_Pearl_Earring and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milkmaid_(Vermeer), for example. Named individuals are upper-class, certainly, but that does not mean that paintings of unnamed lower-class individuals were not painted from life.
– Graham
16 hours ago




3




3




Don't forget that a lot of baroque paintings of women aren't portraits, but still show chubby ladies. For example, Rubens's mithological scenes.
– Pere
14 hours ago




Don't forget that a lot of baroque paintings of women aren't portraits, but still show chubby ladies. For example, Rubens's mithological scenes.
– Pere
14 hours ago




6




6




Agree with @Pere; Baroque paintings of Venus (who is surely one of the all-time Western standards of beauty) are much less sleek and toned than a modern depiction would be. Ditto Cleopatra and Helen of Troy. Baroque artists didn't have to render them that way; that was an artistic choice they made when deciding what body type their audience would consider appropriate for a famous beauty.
– 1006a
10 hours ago




Agree with @Pere; Baroque paintings of Venus (who is surely one of the all-time Western standards of beauty) are much less sleek and toned than a modern depiction would be. Ditto Cleopatra and Helen of Troy. Baroque artists didn't have to render them that way; that was an artistic choice they made when deciding what body type their audience would consider appropriate for a famous beauty.
– 1006a
10 hours ago











4















Q How do we know baroque art depicted obese ladies because of a different ideal of beauty?




Really?

We don't. The anthropological constant is: "woman are considered 'attractive' if: young and healthy" (both more or less relating to fecund; Whether socio-biological, evolutionary, cynical):



Differences in the historical record in the form of paintings of women –– meaning that not L'art-pour-l'art pictures show not that much variation in 'considered" beautiful'. Archaeological, that is more material evidence – like statues – does not support major shifts of aesthetic preference or judgement, before the 20th century.



There is the obvious tendency to ascribe a cultural preference for heftier women in baroque times. "Just look at the paintings!" And while it's certainly true that people come in all shapes and sizes, so it is equally true that people come with all kinds of tastes in all times: some preferring slender shapes, some going for the voluptiuos.



The "obvious" conclusion is that in times when all kinds of illnesses, harsh winters and not in the least quite frequent real hunger catastrophes were just around every corner, people with a little reserve in body fat are indeed more likely to survive that, be more fecund in the case of women. Just more robust.



Added to that is the status appeal: you have to be able to afford so much eating.



But with this "tastes" comes a tiny little problem: we have alsoat least three selection biases at work here:




  1. When Henry VIII was young and coming, he was the sporty guy with not much fat on him. As he aged he became fat, like the tendency to observe in every last one of us today: as we age, the body needs less energy, but habits change slowly and for most average it gets harder with every year to keep the same weight. But those people who could afford being painted tended to be slightly older as well.



  2. With differing tastes there is then this personal preference thing again. Rubens for example. He was indeed a chubby chaser, preferring the looks of some women painted being even above what we thing to be the norm in his age. (But also look at Karolien De Clippel: "Defining beauty: Rubens’s female nudes", (PDF) ––/––
    Leah Sweet: "Fantasy Bodies, Imagined Pasts: A Critical Analysis of the “Rubenesque” Fat Body in Contemporary Culture", Fat Studies:

    An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society
    Volume 3, 2014 - Issue 2: Reflective Intersections, (DOI))




    Strong versions of evolutionary psychologists have proposed that men possess perceptual mechanisms that engender a preference for women with low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR), typically 0.70, as this is considered maximally healthy and fertile. This has taken to be culturally and temporally invariant. In the present study, two semi-expert and two non-expert judges made measurements of the WHR of nude females in paintings by Pieter Pauwel Rubens. The results showed that the mean WHR of Rubens’ women was 0.776, significantly higher than the reported preference for WHRs of 0.70. Possible non-adaptive explanations for this result are proposed in conclusion.

    For example, the present study assumes that Rubens portrayed women for their physical beauty, but it may also be possible that he portrayed them to exemplify other traits such as wealth and abundance, that is, things other than beauty and fertility. Finally, although Rubens is perhaps the most well-known painter to depict voluptuous nudes (hence the term ‘Rubenesque’), future studies should examine the stylised depictions of other artists and artistic eras.
    Viren Swami et al.: "The Female Nude in Rubens: Disconfirmatory Evidence of the Waist-to-Hip Ratio Hypothesis of Female Physical Attractiveness", Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Vol. 26(1-2) 139-147, 2006-2007.





  3. The current Western ideal – as propagated in most media, and now internalised – is sick!

    While it is quite consensual that too much body fat is unhealthy, it is also quite clear that anorexia, bulimia, orthorexia, surgery, pills, and propaganda are sick as well.




    By observing the art of different eras, as well as the more recent existence of the media, it is obvious that there have been dramatic changes in what is considered a beautiful body. The ideal of female beauty has shifted from a symbol of fertility to one of mathematically calculated proportions. It has taken the form of an image responding to men’s sexual desires. Nowadays there seems to be a tendency towards the destruction of the feminine, as androgynous fashion and appearance dominate our culture. The metamorphosis of the ideal woman follows the shifting role of women in society from mother and mistress to a career-orientated indi- vidual. Her depiction by artists across the centuries reveals this change in role and appearance that should be interpreted within the social and historical context of each era with its own theories of what constituted the ideal female body weight.

    Did medical science contribute to today’s accepted BMI? Obesity has been regarded as a condition that increases the risk of many diseases only in recent decades, when evidence-based medicine took the lead, and scientists discovered saturated and transfats and their relationship with metabolic and cardiovascular diseases. Evidence of the change this may have had on society can be seen in the more prevalent occurrence of eating disorders in the latter half of the 20th century. The advice to lose weight and reach a BMI comprised between 18 and 24 therefore might have accelerated the process of the ideal figure tending towards thin bodies, in particular in professions where there is a strong pressure to control body weight such as athletics and dance. The media brought the relationship between an ideal figure and evidence-based medicine to extreme consequences, presenting exaggeratedly thin figures as symbols of health, while in reality being the opposite as shown by data reporting female athletes with higher rates of eating disorders.

    The metamorphosis of the ideal woman follows the shifting role of women in society from mother and mistress to a career-orientated individual. Her depiction by artists across the centuries reveals this change in role and appearance. Unfortunately, today, beauty (and the ideal body weight) is not exactly in the eye of the beholder, but in the body image presented by the media and sold to a malleable public.
    B. A. Bonafini & P. Pozzilli: "Body weight and beauty: the changing face of the ideal female body weight", Obesity Reviews, Volume12, Issue1, 2011
    Pages 62-65. (DOI)





So yes: until just a few decades ago average heterosexual men preferred healthy looking women. Really obese women were always well liked by 'specialists'. But our current understanding of past preferences of beauty seem to be much distorted by what we call now "obesity".



Having a look, I do not see "obese ladies":




enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here (he & his wife!)
enter image description herePortrait of Marchesa Brigida Spinola-Doria




Shoot me, but I believe 'the Aliens' reading it, would tend to agree, that quite recently, the meaning of "obese" seems to encroach on what we once thought of as normal:




enter image description here(Jake Rosenthal • January 20, 2016
The Pioneer Plaque: Science as a Universal Language)




Now compare the to:




Aphrodite or 'Crouching Venus' Second century AD
Marble | 125 x 53 x 65 cm (whole object) | RCIN 69746:
enter image description here




If the original model for that would be laser-scanned and then 3-D-printed while calculating here insurance-premium based on BMI: then you know that StackExchange policy probably prohibits commenting on it, but I am certain that you have made up your modern mind on that?






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    If you don't see obese women in the unclothed pictures, your eyes need checking :-) Only the leftmost of the three in the first picture would seem to have a healthy body weight - and all of them need some serious gym time! As for the clothed ones, who knows what corsetry lurks under those layers of fabric?
    – jamesqf
    12 hours ago










  • @jamesqf Maybe it is (in) the eyes ;) Two things: you are aware that even the stupendously defined BMI only talks of "obesity" > 30? The conversion accuracy from oli-on-canvas to kg/m<sup>2</sup> is not known for astrophysical precision. And sidenote: corsets can only slim down faces, legs and fingers so much… Any doctor now advising those girls to diet because of obesity should in all probability have his licence revoked.
    – LangLangC
    12 hours ago










  • "A few decades" is about ten of them: during the 1920s, the ideal woman was a teenage boy.
    – Mark
    9 hours ago












  • @Mark Yes. First in behaviour, then compared to previous (their mother's) matrons in size Absolutely, for the media. Now, Marylin Monroe is frequently depicted as "plus sized" despite never being above a calculated BMI of 25 (going by numbers from coroner's report) (Although I'd say "ten" wasn't continuous for Europe at least: WW2+aftermath often had "let's eat again" waves following, for US-'Great Depression' I'd be willing to give leeway as well?)
    – LangLangC
    9 hours ago










  • If any of those people are "obese" you've never been to a Walmart.
    – Mazura
    3 hours ago
















4















Q How do we know baroque art depicted obese ladies because of a different ideal of beauty?




Really?

We don't. The anthropological constant is: "woman are considered 'attractive' if: young and healthy" (both more or less relating to fecund; Whether socio-biological, evolutionary, cynical):



Differences in the historical record in the form of paintings of women –– meaning that not L'art-pour-l'art pictures show not that much variation in 'considered" beautiful'. Archaeological, that is more material evidence – like statues – does not support major shifts of aesthetic preference or judgement, before the 20th century.



There is the obvious tendency to ascribe a cultural preference for heftier women in baroque times. "Just look at the paintings!" And while it's certainly true that people come in all shapes and sizes, so it is equally true that people come with all kinds of tastes in all times: some preferring slender shapes, some going for the voluptiuos.



The "obvious" conclusion is that in times when all kinds of illnesses, harsh winters and not in the least quite frequent real hunger catastrophes were just around every corner, people with a little reserve in body fat are indeed more likely to survive that, be more fecund in the case of women. Just more robust.



Added to that is the status appeal: you have to be able to afford so much eating.



But with this "tastes" comes a tiny little problem: we have alsoat least three selection biases at work here:




  1. When Henry VIII was young and coming, he was the sporty guy with not much fat on him. As he aged he became fat, like the tendency to observe in every last one of us today: as we age, the body needs less energy, but habits change slowly and for most average it gets harder with every year to keep the same weight. But those people who could afford being painted tended to be slightly older as well.



  2. With differing tastes there is then this personal preference thing again. Rubens for example. He was indeed a chubby chaser, preferring the looks of some women painted being even above what we thing to be the norm in his age. (But also look at Karolien De Clippel: "Defining beauty: Rubens’s female nudes", (PDF) ––/––
    Leah Sweet: "Fantasy Bodies, Imagined Pasts: A Critical Analysis of the “Rubenesque” Fat Body in Contemporary Culture", Fat Studies:

    An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society
    Volume 3, 2014 - Issue 2: Reflective Intersections, (DOI))




    Strong versions of evolutionary psychologists have proposed that men possess perceptual mechanisms that engender a preference for women with low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR), typically 0.70, as this is considered maximally healthy and fertile. This has taken to be culturally and temporally invariant. In the present study, two semi-expert and two non-expert judges made measurements of the WHR of nude females in paintings by Pieter Pauwel Rubens. The results showed that the mean WHR of Rubens’ women was 0.776, significantly higher than the reported preference for WHRs of 0.70. Possible non-adaptive explanations for this result are proposed in conclusion.

    For example, the present study assumes that Rubens portrayed women for their physical beauty, but it may also be possible that he portrayed them to exemplify other traits such as wealth and abundance, that is, things other than beauty and fertility. Finally, although Rubens is perhaps the most well-known painter to depict voluptuous nudes (hence the term ‘Rubenesque’), future studies should examine the stylised depictions of other artists and artistic eras.
    Viren Swami et al.: "The Female Nude in Rubens: Disconfirmatory Evidence of the Waist-to-Hip Ratio Hypothesis of Female Physical Attractiveness", Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Vol. 26(1-2) 139-147, 2006-2007.





  3. The current Western ideal – as propagated in most media, and now internalised – is sick!

    While it is quite consensual that too much body fat is unhealthy, it is also quite clear that anorexia, bulimia, orthorexia, surgery, pills, and propaganda are sick as well.




    By observing the art of different eras, as well as the more recent existence of the media, it is obvious that there have been dramatic changes in what is considered a beautiful body. The ideal of female beauty has shifted from a symbol of fertility to one of mathematically calculated proportions. It has taken the form of an image responding to men’s sexual desires. Nowadays there seems to be a tendency towards the destruction of the feminine, as androgynous fashion and appearance dominate our culture. The metamorphosis of the ideal woman follows the shifting role of women in society from mother and mistress to a career-orientated indi- vidual. Her depiction by artists across the centuries reveals this change in role and appearance that should be interpreted within the social and historical context of each era with its own theories of what constituted the ideal female body weight.

    Did medical science contribute to today’s accepted BMI? Obesity has been regarded as a condition that increases the risk of many diseases only in recent decades, when evidence-based medicine took the lead, and scientists discovered saturated and transfats and their relationship with metabolic and cardiovascular diseases. Evidence of the change this may have had on society can be seen in the more prevalent occurrence of eating disorders in the latter half of the 20th century. The advice to lose weight and reach a BMI comprised between 18 and 24 therefore might have accelerated the process of the ideal figure tending towards thin bodies, in particular in professions where there is a strong pressure to control body weight such as athletics and dance. The media brought the relationship between an ideal figure and evidence-based medicine to extreme consequences, presenting exaggeratedly thin figures as symbols of health, while in reality being the opposite as shown by data reporting female athletes with higher rates of eating disorders.

    The metamorphosis of the ideal woman follows the shifting role of women in society from mother and mistress to a career-orientated individual. Her depiction by artists across the centuries reveals this change in role and appearance. Unfortunately, today, beauty (and the ideal body weight) is not exactly in the eye of the beholder, but in the body image presented by the media and sold to a malleable public.
    B. A. Bonafini & P. Pozzilli: "Body weight and beauty: the changing face of the ideal female body weight", Obesity Reviews, Volume12, Issue1, 2011
    Pages 62-65. (DOI)





So yes: until just a few decades ago average heterosexual men preferred healthy looking women. Really obese women were always well liked by 'specialists'. But our current understanding of past preferences of beauty seem to be much distorted by what we call now "obesity".



Having a look, I do not see "obese ladies":




enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here (he & his wife!)
enter image description herePortrait of Marchesa Brigida Spinola-Doria




Shoot me, but I believe 'the Aliens' reading it, would tend to agree, that quite recently, the meaning of "obese" seems to encroach on what we once thought of as normal:




enter image description here(Jake Rosenthal • January 20, 2016
The Pioneer Plaque: Science as a Universal Language)




Now compare the to:




Aphrodite or 'Crouching Venus' Second century AD
Marble | 125 x 53 x 65 cm (whole object) | RCIN 69746:
enter image description here




If the original model for that would be laser-scanned and then 3-D-printed while calculating here insurance-premium based on BMI: then you know that StackExchange policy probably prohibits commenting on it, but I am certain that you have made up your modern mind on that?






share|improve this answer



















  • 1




    If you don't see obese women in the unclothed pictures, your eyes need checking :-) Only the leftmost of the three in the first picture would seem to have a healthy body weight - and all of them need some serious gym time! As for the clothed ones, who knows what corsetry lurks under those layers of fabric?
    – jamesqf
    12 hours ago










  • @jamesqf Maybe it is (in) the eyes ;) Two things: you are aware that even the stupendously defined BMI only talks of "obesity" > 30? The conversion accuracy from oli-on-canvas to kg/m<sup>2</sup> is not known for astrophysical precision. And sidenote: corsets can only slim down faces, legs and fingers so much… Any doctor now advising those girls to diet because of obesity should in all probability have his licence revoked.
    – LangLangC
    12 hours ago










  • "A few decades" is about ten of them: during the 1920s, the ideal woman was a teenage boy.
    – Mark
    9 hours ago












  • @Mark Yes. First in behaviour, then compared to previous (their mother's) matrons in size Absolutely, for the media. Now, Marylin Monroe is frequently depicted as "plus sized" despite never being above a calculated BMI of 25 (going by numbers from coroner's report) (Although I'd say "ten" wasn't continuous for Europe at least: WW2+aftermath often had "let's eat again" waves following, for US-'Great Depression' I'd be willing to give leeway as well?)
    – LangLangC
    9 hours ago










  • If any of those people are "obese" you've never been to a Walmart.
    – Mazura
    3 hours ago














4












4








4







Q How do we know baroque art depicted obese ladies because of a different ideal of beauty?




Really?

We don't. The anthropological constant is: "woman are considered 'attractive' if: young and healthy" (both more or less relating to fecund; Whether socio-biological, evolutionary, cynical):



Differences in the historical record in the form of paintings of women –– meaning that not L'art-pour-l'art pictures show not that much variation in 'considered" beautiful'. Archaeological, that is more material evidence – like statues – does not support major shifts of aesthetic preference or judgement, before the 20th century.



There is the obvious tendency to ascribe a cultural preference for heftier women in baroque times. "Just look at the paintings!" And while it's certainly true that people come in all shapes and sizes, so it is equally true that people come with all kinds of tastes in all times: some preferring slender shapes, some going for the voluptiuos.



The "obvious" conclusion is that in times when all kinds of illnesses, harsh winters and not in the least quite frequent real hunger catastrophes were just around every corner, people with a little reserve in body fat are indeed more likely to survive that, be more fecund in the case of women. Just more robust.



Added to that is the status appeal: you have to be able to afford so much eating.



But with this "tastes" comes a tiny little problem: we have alsoat least three selection biases at work here:




  1. When Henry VIII was young and coming, he was the sporty guy with not much fat on him. As he aged he became fat, like the tendency to observe in every last one of us today: as we age, the body needs less energy, but habits change slowly and for most average it gets harder with every year to keep the same weight. But those people who could afford being painted tended to be slightly older as well.



  2. With differing tastes there is then this personal preference thing again. Rubens for example. He was indeed a chubby chaser, preferring the looks of some women painted being even above what we thing to be the norm in his age. (But also look at Karolien De Clippel: "Defining beauty: Rubens’s female nudes", (PDF) ––/––
    Leah Sweet: "Fantasy Bodies, Imagined Pasts: A Critical Analysis of the “Rubenesque” Fat Body in Contemporary Culture", Fat Studies:

    An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society
    Volume 3, 2014 - Issue 2: Reflective Intersections, (DOI))




    Strong versions of evolutionary psychologists have proposed that men possess perceptual mechanisms that engender a preference for women with low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR), typically 0.70, as this is considered maximally healthy and fertile. This has taken to be culturally and temporally invariant. In the present study, two semi-expert and two non-expert judges made measurements of the WHR of nude females in paintings by Pieter Pauwel Rubens. The results showed that the mean WHR of Rubens’ women was 0.776, significantly higher than the reported preference for WHRs of 0.70. Possible non-adaptive explanations for this result are proposed in conclusion.

    For example, the present study assumes that Rubens portrayed women for their physical beauty, but it may also be possible that he portrayed them to exemplify other traits such as wealth and abundance, that is, things other than beauty and fertility. Finally, although Rubens is perhaps the most well-known painter to depict voluptuous nudes (hence the term ‘Rubenesque’), future studies should examine the stylised depictions of other artists and artistic eras.
    Viren Swami et al.: "The Female Nude in Rubens: Disconfirmatory Evidence of the Waist-to-Hip Ratio Hypothesis of Female Physical Attractiveness", Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Vol. 26(1-2) 139-147, 2006-2007.





  3. The current Western ideal – as propagated in most media, and now internalised – is sick!

    While it is quite consensual that too much body fat is unhealthy, it is also quite clear that anorexia, bulimia, orthorexia, surgery, pills, and propaganda are sick as well.




    By observing the art of different eras, as well as the more recent existence of the media, it is obvious that there have been dramatic changes in what is considered a beautiful body. The ideal of female beauty has shifted from a symbol of fertility to one of mathematically calculated proportions. It has taken the form of an image responding to men’s sexual desires. Nowadays there seems to be a tendency towards the destruction of the feminine, as androgynous fashion and appearance dominate our culture. The metamorphosis of the ideal woman follows the shifting role of women in society from mother and mistress to a career-orientated indi- vidual. Her depiction by artists across the centuries reveals this change in role and appearance that should be interpreted within the social and historical context of each era with its own theories of what constituted the ideal female body weight.

    Did medical science contribute to today’s accepted BMI? Obesity has been regarded as a condition that increases the risk of many diseases only in recent decades, when evidence-based medicine took the lead, and scientists discovered saturated and transfats and their relationship with metabolic and cardiovascular diseases. Evidence of the change this may have had on society can be seen in the more prevalent occurrence of eating disorders in the latter half of the 20th century. The advice to lose weight and reach a BMI comprised between 18 and 24 therefore might have accelerated the process of the ideal figure tending towards thin bodies, in particular in professions where there is a strong pressure to control body weight such as athletics and dance. The media brought the relationship between an ideal figure and evidence-based medicine to extreme consequences, presenting exaggeratedly thin figures as symbols of health, while in reality being the opposite as shown by data reporting female athletes with higher rates of eating disorders.

    The metamorphosis of the ideal woman follows the shifting role of women in society from mother and mistress to a career-orientated individual. Her depiction by artists across the centuries reveals this change in role and appearance. Unfortunately, today, beauty (and the ideal body weight) is not exactly in the eye of the beholder, but in the body image presented by the media and sold to a malleable public.
    B. A. Bonafini & P. Pozzilli: "Body weight and beauty: the changing face of the ideal female body weight", Obesity Reviews, Volume12, Issue1, 2011
    Pages 62-65. (DOI)





So yes: until just a few decades ago average heterosexual men preferred healthy looking women. Really obese women were always well liked by 'specialists'. But our current understanding of past preferences of beauty seem to be much distorted by what we call now "obesity".



Having a look, I do not see "obese ladies":




enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here (he & his wife!)
enter image description herePortrait of Marchesa Brigida Spinola-Doria




Shoot me, but I believe 'the Aliens' reading it, would tend to agree, that quite recently, the meaning of "obese" seems to encroach on what we once thought of as normal:




enter image description here(Jake Rosenthal • January 20, 2016
The Pioneer Plaque: Science as a Universal Language)




Now compare the to:




Aphrodite or 'Crouching Venus' Second century AD
Marble | 125 x 53 x 65 cm (whole object) | RCIN 69746:
enter image description here




If the original model for that would be laser-scanned and then 3-D-printed while calculating here insurance-premium based on BMI: then you know that StackExchange policy probably prohibits commenting on it, but I am certain that you have made up your modern mind on that?






share|improve this answer















Q How do we know baroque art depicted obese ladies because of a different ideal of beauty?




Really?

We don't. The anthropological constant is: "woman are considered 'attractive' if: young and healthy" (both more or less relating to fecund; Whether socio-biological, evolutionary, cynical):



Differences in the historical record in the form of paintings of women –– meaning that not L'art-pour-l'art pictures show not that much variation in 'considered" beautiful'. Archaeological, that is more material evidence – like statues – does not support major shifts of aesthetic preference or judgement, before the 20th century.



There is the obvious tendency to ascribe a cultural preference for heftier women in baroque times. "Just look at the paintings!" And while it's certainly true that people come in all shapes and sizes, so it is equally true that people come with all kinds of tastes in all times: some preferring slender shapes, some going for the voluptiuos.



The "obvious" conclusion is that in times when all kinds of illnesses, harsh winters and not in the least quite frequent real hunger catastrophes were just around every corner, people with a little reserve in body fat are indeed more likely to survive that, be more fecund in the case of women. Just more robust.



Added to that is the status appeal: you have to be able to afford so much eating.



But with this "tastes" comes a tiny little problem: we have alsoat least three selection biases at work here:




  1. When Henry VIII was young and coming, he was the sporty guy with not much fat on him. As he aged he became fat, like the tendency to observe in every last one of us today: as we age, the body needs less energy, but habits change slowly and for most average it gets harder with every year to keep the same weight. But those people who could afford being painted tended to be slightly older as well.



  2. With differing tastes there is then this personal preference thing again. Rubens for example. He was indeed a chubby chaser, preferring the looks of some women painted being even above what we thing to be the norm in his age. (But also look at Karolien De Clippel: "Defining beauty: Rubens’s female nudes", (PDF) ––/––
    Leah Sweet: "Fantasy Bodies, Imagined Pasts: A Critical Analysis of the “Rubenesque” Fat Body in Contemporary Culture", Fat Studies:

    An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society
    Volume 3, 2014 - Issue 2: Reflective Intersections, (DOI))




    Strong versions of evolutionary psychologists have proposed that men possess perceptual mechanisms that engender a preference for women with low waist-to-hip ratios (WHR), typically 0.70, as this is considered maximally healthy and fertile. This has taken to be culturally and temporally invariant. In the present study, two semi-expert and two non-expert judges made measurements of the WHR of nude females in paintings by Pieter Pauwel Rubens. The results showed that the mean WHR of Rubens’ women was 0.776, significantly higher than the reported preference for WHRs of 0.70. Possible non-adaptive explanations for this result are proposed in conclusion.

    For example, the present study assumes that Rubens portrayed women for their physical beauty, but it may also be possible that he portrayed them to exemplify other traits such as wealth and abundance, that is, things other than beauty and fertility. Finally, although Rubens is perhaps the most well-known painter to depict voluptuous nudes (hence the term ‘Rubenesque’), future studies should examine the stylised depictions of other artists and artistic eras.
    Viren Swami et al.: "The Female Nude in Rubens: Disconfirmatory Evidence of the Waist-to-Hip Ratio Hypothesis of Female Physical Attractiveness", Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Vol. 26(1-2) 139-147, 2006-2007.





  3. The current Western ideal – as propagated in most media, and now internalised – is sick!

    While it is quite consensual that too much body fat is unhealthy, it is also quite clear that anorexia, bulimia, orthorexia, surgery, pills, and propaganda are sick as well.




    By observing the art of different eras, as well as the more recent existence of the media, it is obvious that there have been dramatic changes in what is considered a beautiful body. The ideal of female beauty has shifted from a symbol of fertility to one of mathematically calculated proportions. It has taken the form of an image responding to men’s sexual desires. Nowadays there seems to be a tendency towards the destruction of the feminine, as androgynous fashion and appearance dominate our culture. The metamorphosis of the ideal woman follows the shifting role of women in society from mother and mistress to a career-orientated indi- vidual. Her depiction by artists across the centuries reveals this change in role and appearance that should be interpreted within the social and historical context of each era with its own theories of what constituted the ideal female body weight.

    Did medical science contribute to today’s accepted BMI? Obesity has been regarded as a condition that increases the risk of many diseases only in recent decades, when evidence-based medicine took the lead, and scientists discovered saturated and transfats and their relationship with metabolic and cardiovascular diseases. Evidence of the change this may have had on society can be seen in the more prevalent occurrence of eating disorders in the latter half of the 20th century. The advice to lose weight and reach a BMI comprised between 18 and 24 therefore might have accelerated the process of the ideal figure tending towards thin bodies, in particular in professions where there is a strong pressure to control body weight such as athletics and dance. The media brought the relationship between an ideal figure and evidence-based medicine to extreme consequences, presenting exaggeratedly thin figures as symbols of health, while in reality being the opposite as shown by data reporting female athletes with higher rates of eating disorders.

    The metamorphosis of the ideal woman follows the shifting role of women in society from mother and mistress to a career-orientated individual. Her depiction by artists across the centuries reveals this change in role and appearance. Unfortunately, today, beauty (and the ideal body weight) is not exactly in the eye of the beholder, but in the body image presented by the media and sold to a malleable public.
    B. A. Bonafini & P. Pozzilli: "Body weight and beauty: the changing face of the ideal female body weight", Obesity Reviews, Volume12, Issue1, 2011
    Pages 62-65. (DOI)





So yes: until just a few decades ago average heterosexual men preferred healthy looking women. Really obese women were always well liked by 'specialists'. But our current understanding of past preferences of beauty seem to be much distorted by what we call now "obesity".



Having a look, I do not see "obese ladies":




enter image description hereenter image description hereenter image description here (he & his wife!)
enter image description herePortrait of Marchesa Brigida Spinola-Doria




Shoot me, but I believe 'the Aliens' reading it, would tend to agree, that quite recently, the meaning of "obese" seems to encroach on what we once thought of as normal:




enter image description here(Jake Rosenthal • January 20, 2016
The Pioneer Plaque: Science as a Universal Language)




Now compare the to:




Aphrodite or 'Crouching Venus' Second century AD
Marble | 125 x 53 x 65 cm (whole object) | RCIN 69746:
enter image description here




If the original model for that would be laser-scanned and then 3-D-printed while calculating here insurance-premium based on BMI: then you know that StackExchange policy probably prohibits commenting on it, but I am certain that you have made up your modern mind on that?







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 6 hours ago

























answered 14 hours ago









LangLangCLangLangC

21.9k370116




21.9k370116








  • 1




    If you don't see obese women in the unclothed pictures, your eyes need checking :-) Only the leftmost of the three in the first picture would seem to have a healthy body weight - and all of them need some serious gym time! As for the clothed ones, who knows what corsetry lurks under those layers of fabric?
    – jamesqf
    12 hours ago










  • @jamesqf Maybe it is (in) the eyes ;) Two things: you are aware that even the stupendously defined BMI only talks of "obesity" > 30? The conversion accuracy from oli-on-canvas to kg/m<sup>2</sup> is not known for astrophysical precision. And sidenote: corsets can only slim down faces, legs and fingers so much… Any doctor now advising those girls to diet because of obesity should in all probability have his licence revoked.
    – LangLangC
    12 hours ago










  • "A few decades" is about ten of them: during the 1920s, the ideal woman was a teenage boy.
    – Mark
    9 hours ago












  • @Mark Yes. First in behaviour, then compared to previous (their mother's) matrons in size Absolutely, for the media. Now, Marylin Monroe is frequently depicted as "plus sized" despite never being above a calculated BMI of 25 (going by numbers from coroner's report) (Although I'd say "ten" wasn't continuous for Europe at least: WW2+aftermath often had "let's eat again" waves following, for US-'Great Depression' I'd be willing to give leeway as well?)
    – LangLangC
    9 hours ago










  • If any of those people are "obese" you've never been to a Walmart.
    – Mazura
    3 hours ago














  • 1




    If you don't see obese women in the unclothed pictures, your eyes need checking :-) Only the leftmost of the three in the first picture would seem to have a healthy body weight - and all of them need some serious gym time! As for the clothed ones, who knows what corsetry lurks under those layers of fabric?
    – jamesqf
    12 hours ago










  • @jamesqf Maybe it is (in) the eyes ;) Two things: you are aware that even the stupendously defined BMI only talks of "obesity" > 30? The conversion accuracy from oli-on-canvas to kg/m<sup>2</sup> is not known for astrophysical precision. And sidenote: corsets can only slim down faces, legs and fingers so much… Any doctor now advising those girls to diet because of obesity should in all probability have his licence revoked.
    – LangLangC
    12 hours ago










  • "A few decades" is about ten of them: during the 1920s, the ideal woman was a teenage boy.
    – Mark
    9 hours ago












  • @Mark Yes. First in behaviour, then compared to previous (their mother's) matrons in size Absolutely, for the media. Now, Marylin Monroe is frequently depicted as "plus sized" despite never being above a calculated BMI of 25 (going by numbers from coroner's report) (Although I'd say "ten" wasn't continuous for Europe at least: WW2+aftermath often had "let's eat again" waves following, for US-'Great Depression' I'd be willing to give leeway as well?)
    – LangLangC
    9 hours ago










  • If any of those people are "obese" you've never been to a Walmart.
    – Mazura
    3 hours ago








1




1




If you don't see obese women in the unclothed pictures, your eyes need checking :-) Only the leftmost of the three in the first picture would seem to have a healthy body weight - and all of them need some serious gym time! As for the clothed ones, who knows what corsetry lurks under those layers of fabric?
– jamesqf
12 hours ago




If you don't see obese women in the unclothed pictures, your eyes need checking :-) Only the leftmost of the three in the first picture would seem to have a healthy body weight - and all of them need some serious gym time! As for the clothed ones, who knows what corsetry lurks under those layers of fabric?
– jamesqf
12 hours ago












@jamesqf Maybe it is (in) the eyes ;) Two things: you are aware that even the stupendously defined BMI only talks of "obesity" > 30? The conversion accuracy from oli-on-canvas to kg/m<sup>2</sup> is not known for astrophysical precision. And sidenote: corsets can only slim down faces, legs and fingers so much… Any doctor now advising those girls to diet because of obesity should in all probability have his licence revoked.
– LangLangC
12 hours ago




@jamesqf Maybe it is (in) the eyes ;) Two things: you are aware that even the stupendously defined BMI only talks of "obesity" > 30? The conversion accuracy from oli-on-canvas to kg/m<sup>2</sup> is not known for astrophysical precision. And sidenote: corsets can only slim down faces, legs and fingers so much… Any doctor now advising those girls to diet because of obesity should in all probability have his licence revoked.
– LangLangC
12 hours ago












"A few decades" is about ten of them: during the 1920s, the ideal woman was a teenage boy.
– Mark
9 hours ago






"A few decades" is about ten of them: during the 1920s, the ideal woman was a teenage boy.
– Mark
9 hours ago














@Mark Yes. First in behaviour, then compared to previous (their mother's) matrons in size Absolutely, for the media. Now, Marylin Monroe is frequently depicted as "plus sized" despite never being above a calculated BMI of 25 (going by numbers from coroner's report) (Although I'd say "ten" wasn't continuous for Europe at least: WW2+aftermath often had "let's eat again" waves following, for US-'Great Depression' I'd be willing to give leeway as well?)
– LangLangC
9 hours ago




@Mark Yes. First in behaviour, then compared to previous (their mother's) matrons in size Absolutely, for the media. Now, Marylin Monroe is frequently depicted as "plus sized" despite never being above a calculated BMI of 25 (going by numbers from coroner's report) (Although I'd say "ten" wasn't continuous for Europe at least: WW2+aftermath often had "let's eat again" waves following, for US-'Great Depression' I'd be willing to give leeway as well?)
– LangLangC
9 hours ago












If any of those people are "obese" you've never been to a Walmart.
– Mazura
3 hours ago




If any of those people are "obese" you've never been to a Walmart.
– Mazura
3 hours ago











1














This aesthetic relativism is also confused by the fact that for most of the history of Western art, women weren't able to model so the artist often just changed male bodies (from his/her model) into female bodies by adding breasts or extra fat or whatever.



Here's a source: https://renresearch.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/men-with-breasts-or-why-are-michelangelos-women-so-muscular-part-1/



Which references Gill Saunders' The Nude: A New Perspective (1989)






share|improve this answer








New contributor




devinr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 2




    Your source (blog article) however seems to debunk the idea that women were not available to model in the Renaissance. It's also doesn't cover "most of the history of Western art" as you suggest.
    – Steve Bird
    12 hours ago










  • For most of the history of Western art, painting (as far as we know) wasn't done from models at all. The Renaissance practice of drawing women based on male models was only a very brief part of history.
    – Mark
    9 hours ago
















1














This aesthetic relativism is also confused by the fact that for most of the history of Western art, women weren't able to model so the artist often just changed male bodies (from his/her model) into female bodies by adding breasts or extra fat or whatever.



Here's a source: https://renresearch.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/men-with-breasts-or-why-are-michelangelos-women-so-muscular-part-1/



Which references Gill Saunders' The Nude: A New Perspective (1989)






share|improve this answer








New contributor




devinr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • 2




    Your source (blog article) however seems to debunk the idea that women were not available to model in the Renaissance. It's also doesn't cover "most of the history of Western art" as you suggest.
    – Steve Bird
    12 hours ago










  • For most of the history of Western art, painting (as far as we know) wasn't done from models at all. The Renaissance practice of drawing women based on male models was only a very brief part of history.
    – Mark
    9 hours ago














1












1








1






This aesthetic relativism is also confused by the fact that for most of the history of Western art, women weren't able to model so the artist often just changed male bodies (from his/her model) into female bodies by adding breasts or extra fat or whatever.



Here's a source: https://renresearch.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/men-with-breasts-or-why-are-michelangelos-women-so-muscular-part-1/



Which references Gill Saunders' The Nude: A New Perspective (1989)






share|improve this answer








New contributor




devinr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









This aesthetic relativism is also confused by the fact that for most of the history of Western art, women weren't able to model so the artist often just changed male bodies (from his/her model) into female bodies by adding breasts or extra fat or whatever.



Here's a source: https://renresearch.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/men-with-breasts-or-why-are-michelangelos-women-so-muscular-part-1/



Which references Gill Saunders' The Nude: A New Perspective (1989)







share|improve this answer








New contributor




devinr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






New contributor




devinr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









answered 12 hours ago









devinrdevinr

111




111




New contributor




devinr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





devinr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






devinr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 2




    Your source (blog article) however seems to debunk the idea that women were not available to model in the Renaissance. It's also doesn't cover "most of the history of Western art" as you suggest.
    – Steve Bird
    12 hours ago










  • For most of the history of Western art, painting (as far as we know) wasn't done from models at all. The Renaissance practice of drawing women based on male models was only a very brief part of history.
    – Mark
    9 hours ago














  • 2




    Your source (blog article) however seems to debunk the idea that women were not available to model in the Renaissance. It's also doesn't cover "most of the history of Western art" as you suggest.
    – Steve Bird
    12 hours ago










  • For most of the history of Western art, painting (as far as we know) wasn't done from models at all. The Renaissance practice of drawing women based on male models was only a very brief part of history.
    – Mark
    9 hours ago








2




2




Your source (blog article) however seems to debunk the idea that women were not available to model in the Renaissance. It's also doesn't cover "most of the history of Western art" as you suggest.
– Steve Bird
12 hours ago




Your source (blog article) however seems to debunk the idea that women were not available to model in the Renaissance. It's also doesn't cover "most of the history of Western art" as you suggest.
– Steve Bird
12 hours ago












For most of the history of Western art, painting (as far as we know) wasn't done from models at all. The Renaissance practice of drawing women based on male models was only a very brief part of history.
– Mark
9 hours ago




For most of the history of Western art, painting (as far as we know) wasn't done from models at all. The Renaissance practice of drawing women based on male models was only a very brief part of history.
– Mark
9 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f50562%2fhow-do-we-know-baroque-art-depicted-obese-ladies-because-of-a-different-ideal-of%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How to reconfigure Docker Trusted Registry 2.x.x to use CEPH FS mount instead of NFS and other traditional...

is 'sed' thread safe

How to make a Squid Proxy server?