Improving Aphrodite

[daphnep]

At work, I was flipping through catalogs of fine-art reproductions, admiring the good ones, and groaning over the poor ones, when I noticed a trend that stopped me and sent me furiously turning pages back, saying "oh my god! Look what they're doing!"

Here, let me show you.

This is a resin model one can buy of the "Venus with Apple" in the Thorvaldsen Museum in Copenhagen:




Look familiar? Not quite?

Here's another, from Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" (one of my personal pet peeves is when companies take paintings--2 dimensional art--and turn them into models, 3D, as if the painter really was trying to express themselves in sculpture, he just didn't have the right materials, or something....but I'll try to put that aside for the moment.)



Okay, these are hideous reproductions any way you look at it, I admit. But WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO VENUS, the !@#$&! Goddess of BEAUTY, for crying out loud?









See this? It's not just the supermodels on the cover of Cosmo, it's not just Oprah, it's not just Kira Knightly or whatever her name is, being stretched and elongated on her movie posters. Oh, no! Even Botticelli's Venus and the Thorvaldsen Aphrodite are "too fat" and not bobble-headed enough to sell in today's market. They've been Slim-fasted and Photoshopped (or had ribs removed) because in someone's opinion, even neo-classic art lovers who would be looking to decorate their homes with reproductions of their favorite pieces would not want to look at such chubby women as artists like Botticelli chose, as models.

Can you BELIEVE this? The catalog is full of these, the "Three Graces", Rodin's women, and a poor "Hebe, Cupbearer of the Gods" who looks like she's been given silicon breast implants.

This is hilarious: it's revisionist art history, as done by the Photoshop-happy editors of Vogue.

[EDITED: If you're coming here linked from another post, I would ask you to please take a moment to read my follow-up post, here: http://daphnep.livejournal.com/420538.html]

[EDITED one more time to add: before you dash off an impassioned email to the manufacturer, ask yourself this question: IF the company were to refigure the statuettes to fix the problems, would you be willing to make a commitment to support their business by placing an order, and enlisting your friends and family to support their business as well?* By all means, use these images for educational purposes, and to help increase our cultural "visual literacy". But remember that outrage comes cheap on the internet--finding constructive solutions to problems is harder. Are you a part of the solution, or merely venting personal frustrations?

*Keep in mind that it's a manufacturer, with quantity wholesale requirements.]

Comments

[kemidra.livejournal.com]

That's even weirder when you consider that the two people who made blatant sex comments (I'm leaving out briansiano because I think he does get that and was talking about how OTHERS would perceive it) are both queer. One's a lesbian and the other is a former MtF transgender who now prefers androgyny. I don't know what that signifies but it's... interesting, at least.

You've discussed this thing about equating beauty with sexuality before. I'd be interested in having a conversation about that sometime - it's not something I've really thought about before.

[daphnep.livejournal.com]

There's more than two. I'm counting even things like "Do Not Want." because that implies they do want the other options. I mean, I know they're trying to be cool and everything, but honestly I'm a little skeeved.

I mean, who wants to fuck Botticelli's Venus? Who even thinks about fucking Botticelli's Venus?

[kemidra.livejournal.com]

I get what you're saying, but I'm honestly not really surprised. When a society not only sexualizes nudity, but treats it as one of the worst taboos, (most parents are more upset about their 15 year old seeing naked breasts on TV than they are with him seeing a murder) than ANY nudity is automatically sexual. Even when it's artistic. Maybe you have more artists or art enthusiasts on your journal than I do - it seems to me that people who really look at and appreciate art are probably more likely to be able to separate beauty from sexuality.

[daphnep.livejournal.com]

No, I've put it badly. They read it as if you posted those pictures--or those pictures were made--soley for their personal sexual gratification. In spite of your comments, they react as if the only merits worth judging both the originals and the reproductions by are how well they succeed in that singular purpose. Not looking at any broader cultural implications, just "does it get me off, or not?"