A thought about that picture. And, actually, a thought about much art from before recently.
It seems fairly obvious from recent imagery that a substantial portion of the population is interested in big tits. The existence of the Wonderbra (or, perhaps sales of it) show that women know this.
OK, so why in all of those centuries upon centuries of paintings are there few to no representations of big tits? It can’t be that all artists ever were gay, like the fashion designers of today.
My best guess is that nutrition meant that substantial embonpoints simply were not a thing until recently.
So, why am I wrong?
Stays. It results in a very different shape.
First relevant link I find in google, so might not be the most informative: https://thedreamstress.com/2013/08/terminology-whats-the-difference-between-stays-jumps-a-corsets/
First off, define “big”. More that a ‘C’ cup and you’re into unappealing swinging dug territory. Modest is more aesthetic. See runway models, beauty queens, movie stars, etc.
Botticelli (and several other Florentine painters) based a lot of his females on one particular model, Simonetta Vespucci, so luck of the draw. Rubens, a century and a bit later liked them larger and I doubt whether nutrition had increased that much.
No bras in that age… And nursing does a job on tiddies…
In them olden days peeps went lyric about the firmness of breasts, not the size of them as such.
In fact, if you see “big” breasts in art of those days, it’s generally in the context of nursing, not as a symbol of beauty. That’s where the youthful, firm, teenage titties come in.
A big hint towards the attitude of peeps in that time comes from around the time when the first brassieres made their appearance in the early to mid-15th C.
The earliest extant examples of shaped undergarments to lift them boobies into a second youth were found in Austria, dated to about that period. Possibly late 14thC according to some dating methods, but the layer where they were found discarded in was early to mid 15thC.
And at the same time the godbotherers and moralists of the age had a thing or two to say about them, oh boy did they… Much spitting of bile with froth-speckled lips about the “pretense of youth to turn men’s heads from God” and all that. Interestingly they aimed their barbs at both noble ladies and prostitutes, so both ..professions.. made use of them, it seems.
But it confirms that at the time it was firmness and shape, not size, of boobies that mattered in the then-valid beauty ideal. That whole fad of Staying Young Forever (and doing everything in your power to present as Youthful) isn’t something new..
Private Eye had a spoof book of art criticism onReubens by Clive James entitled The Bloke What Painted Naked Sheilas.
Anyway as Arthur points out, tastes changed. I think the increasing amount of sugar available helped the weight fetish of the 17th and 18th Cent. Before then it was fashionable to have as thin a waist as possible. Of course we are dealing with portraits of elites and professional models . Look at Brueghel’s pictures, everyone in it is a heffalump.
You’re mention of the Wonderbra is probably your explanation. The big norks of your imagination rarely exist. I can only remember one girl, back in the days long before silicone enhancements, who had a big pair that stuck out the front.* Generally, the bigguns don’t stick out, they droop. And without constant support, gravity & time will make them droop more.
So it depends what your artist is trying to say with his painting. Big pendent ones can be mumsy or harlot. Cleavage & dark shadows under the breasts. But if he wants fit young innocent, they’re going to be small. Anything else wouldn’t be lifelike to the viewer.
Of course now we have different metrics. The underwired support bra that pushes them up & out. The prevalence of silicone that does the same thing.
*I’ve no idea how she managed that. It wouldn’t have been a question I’d have been asking myself at the time. From today’s perspective & experience… gym bunny long before gym bunny was fashionable? Very unfashionable then. Well developed pecs would certainly assist. Or just unusual genetics?
It is quite fascinating how metrics change. Try & find some footage of Butlin’s beauty contests from the early days. The shapes of the girls.
What “people are interested in” is not fixed or standard. Botticelli for those interested in how the female form can be portrayed so as to hint at a transcendent order; Erica Roe et al for the rugby blokes.
Good point you’ve made there Sam. With the art Tim’s talking about, consumer preference is going to be a big factor. The artists were selling to pretty narrow spectrum of the public at large.
Bis: Agreed. The Sabrina-esque double-gunners are entirely mechanical. Find a pic of her without a jumper and she’s almost flat chested.
The Catholic Church was a major patron of artists, so nobody wanted to offend the hand holding the purse strings.
“Try & find some footage of Butlin’s beauty contests from the early days. The shapes of the girls”
It’s not just the girls – I’ve seen several pictures published on US sites lately showing a typical street or beach scene from the 50’s & 60’s, and there are NO fat munters of either* sex, or women with ginormous fake tits…
*Obviously before mass gender bending and pronouns…
@Dave Ward
But on the other hand, the general stockyness. You see a lot less of what nowadays might be described as the “model look”. The why? Diets are much more important now. In both directions. But I suspect women then were carrying much more muscle. Not gym muscle with is different. But the sort of muscle comes from constant exertion. Women walked a lot more, lifted a lot more, carried a lot more. I can remember my grandmother’s generation. Short & solid. You could pull wagons with them.
An ideal bride is a pretty girl who can lift a pig in each hand. 🙂
I remember reading that female nude models were not available/allowed for artists like michaelangelo, so he used male models, and added breasts. The result being some pretty muscular ladies with very unnatural looking bumps added on.
I find it odd that it’s so rarely remarked upon that Botticelli didn’t draw from nature. Who on earth has ever been able to hold their head in the way that Venus does in the picture? Tain’t natural! (And no good will come of it 🙂 )
I discovered only a couple of days ago that Paul Cezanne never worked with a live model for his many nude works. He found it too embarrassing, so he used photographs and sculptures instead.
Even Rubens, who is usually regarded as specialising in voluptuous nudes only portrays moderately-titted ladies.