The Renaissance artists repeatedly did something that we balk at today – they painted children like miniaturized old men. This was probably due to the fact that the concept of childhood is a relatively recent trend in history, but in some 15th and 16th century works, it looks like the painter never laid eyes on a baby.
Lets be honest – most of them weren’t very good at adults either.
The 4th last one honestly looks good to me.
Not much good at hands either
Stuff of nightmares
I agree with ‘a person’. The rest is truly hideous. Most are pre-renaissance, though. Curiously enough, most of these artists were extraordinary sketchers. However, mastering the brush is a different story, particularly if you have to work on large panels and walls in churches and cathedrals.
There was the assumption that only the father had a real role in procreation/inheritance. He plants the seed. Perhaps they modeled off of rather homely patrons?
OMG these are indeed scariest babies ever! Especially the ones with…teeth! Yikes.
Pre- renaissance cartoons.
Or maybe children really did look like that in that epoque? How do you know..
🤪
Maybe these artists were not that good at painting babies. ..Or babies were just butt ugly back than…
Maybe that’s how they looked, back then?
You mean before humans evolved?
To be fair, most of these pictures are of one particular baby. If one artist makes you look ugly, maybe it’s the artist’s fault. If they all paint you ugly, maybe you ugly.
i think humans look this way in the eyes of EVERY OTHER SPECIES on t he PLANET. cuz humans deserve to DIE
well, (slaps knees), best be off.
When the master leaves their student to finish off the paintings …
i didn’t like this very much but the last comment before mine made was just pure gold LMAO
Pic #2 is the ugliest group of people I’ve seen in a while, and I’ve actually been to a Wal-Mart.
The baby in #5 looks like Joe Biden.
The one with the hOle in the mom is absolutely terrifying!
The second one is also borderline ok. 4th from the end is positively cute. But have you considered the average person who paints (religious) pictures in the middle ages?
Of course the painter is a monk and really has more experience with buttlicking cats and evil rabbits than the visage of a baby.
Umm…
omg they look like little middle-aged men and it is hilarious
They had drunk adults like models
Plus all babies are boys
hello master give me your teeth
The reason they did this is twofold:
1) The church insisted on having Baby Jesus (which most of these are images of) look like a miniature version of his adult form. This is mainly because…
2) Medieval scholars believed in the theory of the homunculus, that either the woman carried a tiny man in her egg or the man carried one in his sperm, and each needed the other to make a fully fledged human. To them babies really were just adult humans in miniature.
There’s a video by the Youtube Channel Weird History that goes into this. Recommended viewing for sure.
Not sure these folks ever got a good look at *any* human.
Fruit. They did fruit OK.
LOL… stuff of nightmares for sure. For the most part they are not babies but cherubs. So what species are cherubs? Are they related to dwarfs? For that matter what species are the oddly faced luminescent white skinned people in most of the Renaissance art? They almost look human but not quite. There are a few different species depicted throughout. We have just reasoned it away as the artist just suddenly didn’t know how to do a certain person yet can do amazing work with the rest…not. Btw, why do quite a few Renaissance works look like photos? Why can’t they be replicated exactly today? The lies are thick people.