Art: Embarrassed Load Screen

i would rather her HAVE nipples and be covering them than have people think it's okay to show her breasts as long as she's been mutilated.

 

I agree to the extent that it looks natural, otherwise the awkwardness of it is worse than the distortion.

 

I get that; I merely disagree. If he was covering them up due to some form of unease/censorship, the artist wouldn't have drawn the crotch area the way he did...

 

I don't understand you. The crotch is covered with clothing:

 

maybe she's just cold.

 

Yes, its an interesting irony when moralists etc. demand that certain parts to be covered; its only draws more attention to these areas. Something that
artists, ungodly womyn, and other blasphemers take full advantage of.

 

So much turmoil over nothing.

 

It feels like some people are fairly emotional about my criticism.

 

Yes, indeed. It is on page 116 of the hard back print version of the The Sword of Midras.

 

Ah...Botticelli's The Birth of Venus...this is by far and away the most beautiful piece of art I have ever been honored with seeing in person. I can still taste the mustiness of the Ufizzi in Firenze (that's Florence for all you Plebs ), gifting my palate with an acrid sense of hundreds of years and millions of memories.

I can still remember the near meltdown I had when I saw that the Botticelli exhibition hall was closed for restoration (along with my wife's horrified face at my reaction ). I can still remember yet my elation when my wife found out that The Birth of Venus and The Primavera were still on display just down the hall.

Finally, I will always remember the hour I stood, dead center, gazing at this masterpiece of human achievement. Taking in every golden lock of her hair as it tousled about her shoulders, every contour of every curve of her body, to the melancholy in her smile and the loneliness in her eyes never quite meeting my gaze. It is a beauty for which there are no words and I dare not try.

I mention all this because it is important to remember that most of Botticelli's work would never have come to pass if it wasn't for both the patronage and protection of Lorenzo the Magnificent. Although commissioned by Lorenzo di Pierfrancesco de Medici, it was Lorenzo's the Magnificent's (head of the Medici family) power and wealth that made it possible. Furthermore, remember the time at which this was painted. Although at the height of the Renaissance (1450-1520 CE) the Catholic church still adamantly frowned upon paintings of this nature. Not only was it NOT modest by showing nudity and female nudity at that, but it was also an example of iconography deifying a Roman goddess. This was all but considered blasphemy at the time by the Church. Regardless, despite the Church's adamant demands that Lorenzo the Magnificent destroy these works of art, he refused. Allowing us the opportunity to enjoy the beauty which is Botticelli's The Birth of Venus.

EDIT: I think the bigger question to be asking is, "Who is this statue of and what was her purpose?" If memory serves and at my age it might not, we are never given a clear answer to that in Blade of the Avatar. Though I could be wrong.

 

That art a depiction from a scene in the Sword of Midras novel. It is described as such:

Spoiler: excerpt from the novel

"The statue of a woman was over a hundred feet in height, though only the form above her hips remained exposed above the surrounding lava field. She had been built of carefully fitted stone with a craftsmanship beyond anything Aren had seen in his time. The stone carving had been fashioned so expertly that it gave the illusion that one could see through diaphanous fabric to her beautiful figure beyond. Her left hand rested casually against her hip, although a section of it was entirely missing just below the elbow. The right bare arm was only slightly damaged, shaped as though crossing her bare chest, her hand covering her left breast in a fashion both modest and alluring." (The Sword of Midras, Hickman 93)

 

@Cordelayne,

The issue in question is Venus' modesty, not the artists There are also Greek statues showing Aphrodite in the nude covering herself, so Boticelli continued from this practice from the Greeks.

Btw, to veer off into an art history discussion a bit, you might like appreciate this link. In Greek art, up until a certain point, female nudes were rare and restricted to depictions of immodesty, and even Aphrodite was shown wearing a gown, while male nudes were common. This practice was changed by a famous statue around 350 BC by Praxiteles. Romans also had a thing about modesty, to the point that there was a cult around it. While there were many examples of Roman nudes, especially in bath houses, it also depended on the social context a lot; the city of Rome had two temples to the goddess Pudicitia, who represented modesty and chastity (from pudicity, which literally means something like "shame-facedness"). There was one shrine for the elites and one for the commoners, and respectable Roman women would visit it. The goddess in sculpture is shown draped heavily, including her hair. Brief summary at this link.

 

@redfish Thank you for the links I found them an interesting read.

I completely agree. Botticelli was definitely influenced by the Greco-Roman style of art and sculpture, hearkening back to the days of antiquity. To that point, The Venus’ gesture to cover her private parts is one favored in the Capitoline Venus, for example, a category of statue that specifically depicts her in this way. Many of those works are believed to date back to the second or third century BCE.

However, Botticelli's Venus was groundbreaking in that Christian inspiration at the time was dominant in the art of the Renaissance, so nudity was rarely portrayed. Moreover, the emergence of Botticelli's humanism in The Birth of Venus led to a renewed interest in the myths of ancient Greece and Rome, and with it a resurrection of nudes. All of which the church decried as blasphemy and impious. So the lack of modesty is both Botticelli's and the Venus, they are one in the same. Botticelli knew this would draw the ire of the church but painted her in this manner anyway, as if to provoke the church by saying, "What are you gonna do about it?". This of course is my own interpretation. The complex meanings and ambiguity surrounding the The Birth of Venus have been debated by scholars for centuries and will continue to be debated for centuries to come. All of which adds to its inherent beauty don't you think? What makes it beautiful to me, might not be the same to you, but we both can agree it is simply breathtaking.

Another favorite of mine is this bad boy:

 

@Cordelayne

A firefighter and a romantic? Be still my heart!

 

I prefer them clothed ughhhhh

 

For some brief insight on this magnificent art piece by Stephen Daniele:
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=7250

 

I agree that statue is weird for that reason. Its like "oh we have to keep art G-rated, cuz female form is naughty" which I find mildly offensive. Breasts arent a crime.

 

Not so fast Mr. Tortoise:

 

If you don't want to see topless women, don't view paintings, television, YOURSELVES, medical journals,etc. It's so weird that people who don't want to see or do something feel the need to mandate that noone else do it either. I respect your decision to not do anything that you aren't comfortable with, unless your decision to not do something infringes on the rights of others. I swear, some people are incredibly stupid! Further more, I would sincerly like to understand why some people have such an issue with the naked human body(and preventing everyone else from viewing it!)

 

I think the statue is fine as it is.
I also think the greco-roman statues which are uncovered are fine.

Does everything have to make a political statement? Can't some things just be what they are?