• BlueLineBae@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    3 months ago

    In the Art History courses I’ve taken, they usually talk about nudity in the realm of “it represents fertility” or something like that. Yeah sure… Venus of Urbino is totally about “fertility” and she’s definitely not touching herself for any other reason.

    • MonkeyDatabase@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      3 months ago

      The pose was copied from Dresden Venus. Where it’s much more obvious that she’s touching herself. Likely whoever commissioned it requested her to be like that.

      Art History courses I’ve taken seem to gloss over the fact that most famous artwork is commissioned. The patrons of 1000 years ago are the same as the patrons of today. They’re down bad and want titties & ass.

      Maybe in 1000 years ahegao catgirls will “represent fertility”

    • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      3 months ago

      and she’s definitely not touching herself for any other reason.

      How dare you, the ancients weren’t tainted with the same levels of sexual proclivities found in modern society. They weren’t just grooming those boys because they just wanted to fuck them, they were engaging in pedagogy, not pedophilia! It’s why all my twink TA’s are underclassmen, someone must teach the youth. - every male art history teacher