i am an alien
i am an alien
Last edited by Quit; May 16th, 2010 at 04:39 PM.
Because they are beautiful lol But if you want more elaborate answer i'll try to pull one out of nowhere. Historically art has always been man's occupation, from Antiquity until at least 19/20st century. And men like women Today i'd say it's 50/50 male/female artists, but most women still paint/draw women, because our societies got used to the idea that women are beautiful and simply look better
For me it is because they are designed in a more aesthetic way than men, I heard a woman say once: "women are built like a Lamborghini, while men are built like a Jeep, they are designed in a more utilitarian way, not to be beautiful".
There are exceptions of course, but no man can be as beautiful as the most beautiful of women, but of course I`m biased because I'm an heterosexual male and I'm naturally attracted to the female form.
Also, to get biological on you, the main reason is usually fertility. Men are mammals and mammals are attracted to the most attractive specimens of their species because that is what will most successfully further the species.
AND they're better balanced. Widest around the center of gravity, tapering off at top and bottom. Men always look so unbalanced to me, with their wider shoulders and total lack of hips... Women generally have their bulk centered around the hips, regardless of whether they're skinny or plump. When men have any bulk, it's either all up around the shoulders or sticking out in front in the form of a potbelly with no hips to support it. I often wonder why they don't keep falling over.Well, yes but to further break down THAT reasoning, I believe the simple reason is curves. Women generally have flowing curves from their shoulders to their breasts to their hips and thighs. Men do as well, but not to the degree that women do.
Last edited by QueenGwenevere; May 10th, 2010 at 02:05 PM.
I think the larger question is, what makes something beautiful? Why do we naturally (is it natural or learned) like the look of certain things, and dislike others? Why do children cringe at photos of spiders, yet "aww" at photos of kittens? I used to think a lot of it had to do with symmetry. If you look at anything made by people it's either a box or a circle. It's very rare to find anything assymetrical made by man. You can find symmetry in nature, but it's usually of a more complex variety, and there are repeated rhythms such as the curve of a person's spine and the curve of the back of their head.
That's why I was surprised when a good professor of mine stated that beauty lies in asymmetry - the variety of the body, and how it changes from one part to another. So I guess it depends on how you look at it. A worldwide scientific study in beauty found that different cultures find almost every body type beautiful. The only things that are standard are youth, good health, and unblemished skin.
Another factor may be how we relate to things. We can like the way dogs and cats run because they have four limbs like we do. We can go on all fours and pretend to act like them. But an eight legged spider with eight glassy eyes is just too far removed from our physiology to relate. Not only that, but there's a sensual aspect to beauty. Whether something is pretty doesn't just rely on how it looks but how we know it feels. Hence, soft breasts and hair are beautiful, while hairy, scruffy spiders with sharp pincers freak us out, along with slimy newts and scaly snakes. Add to this that a woman's body is designed for sex with a man, they're our natural partner and all the feminine features are meant as advertisements for procreation, so there's the urge to use what you have, and complete the design, as it were. Awhile ago I had to laugh when I realized you could make the most beautiful landscape with a sunset, trees, hills, clouds, the works. But, so long as there's one nude, that'll be the focus that draws everyone's eye, even if he/she's in the background, off the the side, whatever. All the complexity of nature can't compete with one person. It'd be worth experimenting, kinda like when you hold two treats in your hands and test a dog to see which one it wants.
At any rate, we're geared biologically to find at least something attractive, however arbitrarily, and once that choice is made, we respond to it when we see it. The vast majority find women attractive, so we make art about it. It's the next best thing to actually being with one (still a far cry). Now, what I don't understand is how women could ever be attracted to men, and don't say it's our mind, please. The only thing going on in a man's mind is the sound of two flies buzzing around a lamp, while we wonder what's for dinner and where to put our ------.
Last edited by TASmith; May 10th, 2010 at 02:48 PM.
I read somewhere about the evolution of beauty. Statistics show that beautiful women have more children (and daughters) than less beautiful women, so therefor women get prettier and prettier with each generation. However good looking men didn't have more children than non-good looking men...
As for why children are cute... I think it has to do with survival. If a kid looks super cute it has a larger chance of survival because the predator will be disarmed by it's cuteness. I have no idea if that's true, but it makes sense I think
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and no sex has a monopoly on that. However, art has been a male preserve for most of history, and was closely kept as such for a long, long time. There are always exceptions, thank goodness. So women are more frequently romanticized and idealised, and because historically it was male eyes art was created for, women are presented as beautiful, generally passive, and most of the time characterless. They are the ‘muse’ for men’s creativity: the inspiration and the desire. ‘The Mother, The Crone or The Virgin’, and with two of those you have the muse of nearly every medieval artist, Mary, The Virgin Mother, and no artist is going to present her as ugly. As for the ‘crone’, well she doesn’t stand a chance next to youth really does she?
Look at greek sculpture... the male body was celebrated as much as female (and not simply in a "manly" way which a few more recent cultures have perverted into some hyper-masculine animalistic stereotype).
Look at this stance for instance... if it were made in todays society, it would be seen as very feminine and soft or "unmanly". Even the natural curvature of the male body is now seen as something "girly".
or this? even though the original was with him leaning against a spear, the pose isn't very "masculine" ...even though he is obviously a man? Hmm, something is a little strange when that is the case....
or how about this? Again, very muscular and obviously the body of men... but it is not the type of dominating superhero hyper-masculine presentation that you would probably have today if it were made again.
or this? hands on the hips?! ....
Or how about this? Again, not the type of beauty that we are comfortable attributing to males. It is strange to see men depicted free of their normal "manly" activities or strutting in a "manly" way... simply the male body for what it really is, without all the macho overcompensation....
Wasn't always this way. The male figure used to have the glory in that department. But things changed.
Lucian Freud's $33 Million Painting Sets Sale Record for Living Artist
And I'd take this any day over a lovely looking figure:
I say when the reality of a figure(male or female) is twisted either way, towards beauty or ugliness - the painters(sculptors, whatever) idea is what's beautiful. Context over content. But that's only my view of beauty. (personally I dislike the Freud)
Last edited by Ryan K; May 10th, 2010 at 07:17 PM.
Well, that first statue stance actually looks Power Ranger-ly to me, rather than specifically girly. Admittedly Power Rangers have a major color coordination thing going on, so maybe they are girly in general.
From SeinfeldElaine: "Well, the female body is a... work of art. The male body is
utilitarian, it's for gettin' around, like a jeep."
Jerry: "So you don't think it's attractive?"
Elaine: "It's hideous. The hair, the... the lumpiness. It's simian."
Because we have come to know what we like about them.
I allways thought it was skinnyness untill I got a chart of fat distribution in the body. It's all those spot's that get monitored. Hehehehe!!
Obviousely these rounds corners combined with female skin that's just not replicatable to the male brain.
Overweight is not pretty and is an indication of ill health, especially cellulite but I do believe the ideal weitght charts are a bit extreme, woman looks good when they feel good and healthy and that includes a little plumpyness or nature's jewelry.
Some muscle tone is OK, anything that doesn't look like woman thats wasting away in bed everyday.
The rest is just cultural and trends, decoration and theme's of decoration. Classic female floral femminine themes are not as popular today as they used to be.
Last edited by George Abraham; May 11th, 2010 at 05:50 AM.
Scetchbook: View the exhibitionist's stuff.
Well, yeeeeah, but Michelangelo wasn't exactly into women...Michelangelo would disagree with most of you.
(That's probably one of the reasons his women all look like men with a couple of small grapefruits stuck on.)
Classical Greek statues look like natural people, period. The men look like natural men, and the women look like natural women. Actually, natural-looking people were more or less the ideal in art up until recent times. (Though, oddly, natural proportions weren't always the ideal in fashion.)Again, very muscular and obviously the body of men... but it is not the type of dominating superhero hyper-masculine presentation that you would probably have today if it were made again.
If you did "ideal" men or women now, they might be weird overmuscled superhero males or weird spineless gigantoboobed superhero females. Figures like nothing on Earth. I'm honestly not sure why this is.
As far as predators are concerned, kids are snacks. I've always thought people people are instinctively wired to see kids as "cute" so that they'll take care of them and be willing to raise them no matter how annoying they get. Otherwise, who knows, they might just leave their kids to the lions, which wouldn't be so good for survival of the species...As for why children are cute... I think it has to do with survival. If a kid looks super cute it has a larger chance of survival because the predator will be disarmed by it's cuteness. I have no idea if that's true, but it makes sense I think
Last edited by QueenGwenevere; May 11th, 2010 at 06:23 AM.
Wow, I didnt realize I would receive this kind of response, I'll have to get reading Thank you all for your thoughts
"If you did "ideal" men or women now, they might be weird overmuscled superhero males or weird spineless gigantoboobed superhero females. Figures like nothing on Earth. I'm honestly not sure why this is."
It's allways been like that. Look at Venus statues for example. Also, during the renaissance and earlier body fat was a sign of wealth. So looking more natural or slightly overweight would have been an ideal. Today being fat is something that's almost seen as a disease at times, so the ideal would be to be skinny instead.
And the over sized muscles are mainly an american thing...
well, I would say that women are portrayed as beauty because since form the beggining of "art", they are seen as the givers of life.
IN prehistory, they believed women were superiors to men cse the babies came from women, but the aesthetics of beauty in that time was different.
We have the sculptures of fat women and so...
when time came, they discovered that man and women together created babies, but i believe that as man used to be artists, they painted more women, but i once read that they(da vinci, mich) believe the male body was better than the female (I discord ;D).
in fact, the taste of things change with time.
as kandinsky says:
each art is daughter of its time
and mother of the pples feelings XD
PS:sorry for my english, Im not american ;D
"If you did "ideal" men or women now, they might be weird overmuscled superhero males or weird spineless gigantoboobed superhero females. Figures like nothing on Earth. I'm honestly not sure why this is."EH...? But it hasn't always been like that. At least, as far as I can tell. I look at "ideal" nude women in classical Greek art, renaissance art, baroque and rococo art, and assorted nineteenth century art, and for the most part they all have normal-size boobs. And normal-size waists, and normal-size hips, and some evidence of having an actual skeleton (usually - there are exceptions, but the majority look fairly normal)... These freaky women with no bones, no waist and gigantoboobs seem to be a newish thing in art as far as I can tell.It's allways been like that. Look at Venus statues for example. Also, during the renaissance and earlier body fat was a sign of wealth. So looking more natural or slightly overweight would have been an ideal. Today being fat is something that's almost seen as a disease at times, so the ideal would be to be skinny instead.
Unless you go back to the stone age or thereabouts. Some of that might have gigantoboobs.
(Though like I said, fashion is another thing entirely. Corsets, anyone? Bustles?)
Actually, I can't help noticing quite a lot of women in pre-twentieth-century art don't look either skinny or fat (though some do go in for overabundance, of course - hello, Rubens) - they just look, well, average medium weight. Most classical Greek Venuses look like average medium-sized women. Which I guess by today's fashion-magazine standards is seen as "fat". Hooray for progress.
Uuummmm, I would take anything Da Vinci or Michelangelo said about women with a grain of salt. They were both more into men, if I'm not mistaken.but i once read that they(da vinci, mich) believe the male body was better than the female