This may not be what a mermaid would actually look like, but it is what we want her to look like.
Now that’s art.
The goofy statue in Italy looks like something a thirteen year-old boy would make in his first pottery class.
I’ve never seen a real mermaid, but every vertebrate with a tail has the tail behind the anus (presuming that this creature’s anus is between her butt cheeks). And butt cheeks are, themselves, muscles that are very specifically developed for bipedal-walking legs. I mean, maybe Mermaids Are Different (heck, maybe those aren’t butt-cheeks at all, but a mimickry feature to make it easier for that creature (who may not even be female) to prey on horny sailors), but it’s still a bizarre artistic decision.
I’m not offended by the ass or the breasts, but it’s an ugly statue. And I guess it’s an, ah, interesting artistic choice to go with the badonkadonk like that on a mermaid since the fish part typically starts at the waist.
It’s just T&A with a fish part added. Yawn.
Have you ever been at sea for 5 months? After a while even the manatees start looking good.
Fry would disagree with you.
Of course they are. It’s a human woman jammed onto a fish. They’re fantastical imaginary creatures that exist however the artist decides they exist for that depiction. Just like classical angels can’t fly with their relatively puny pectoral muscles and them and dragons have too many limbs that would never work, etc.
The big butt mermaid actually looks more “mermaid” to me than the Copenhagen statue which is just a woman with two vaguely fishy legs. And whose lower legs fins look amusingly like she’s wearing high heels.
For the record, I’m ambivalent about the Italian statue itself. I wouldn’t cover my children’s eyes as we passed nor would I go a block out of my way to see it. I’m vaguely amused that Italians are flustered by it given the usual canards about Europeans being blasé about such things.
To me, the butt didn’t immediately strike me as bad, but the breasts do look weird. They probably looked better on the smaller model. Perhaps it’s like how Barbie (the Mattel doll) looks okay at her size, but would look ridiculous full sized. And I agree she still looks skinny.
Also, with it being that new, does that mean the cracks are all to make it artificially look old, or just remnants of the process?
I’m with @Chronos . Mermaids and other fabulous creatures usually follow the basic rules for vertebrates. Those butt cheeks are just weird.
Do i think it’s obscene and should be censored? No. But it’s not a statue i can admire. It just looks wrong.
I expect biologists to know something about evolutionary embryology, but not art students. No one is saying this should make it to Uffizi. But as a harmless seaside attraction, it is adequate, not astounding, and not worth much fuss, unless the publicity is the point.
Like six limbs including two coming out of a single set of shoulder blades? Or a centaurs probable jumble of mishmashed organs? 
If you’re going to follow real-life rules for vertebrates, you’re pretty much down to just popping off and mixing arms, legs and heads. Anything past that is breaking the rules and a question of how much you want to complain. There’s no realistic way for any classic euro-dragon, fairy, griffon, angel, centaur, harpy, etc to exist based on the “basic rules” of the real world. Minotaurs and unicorns are cool though.
Interestingly, a LOT of mermaid art has them with hips and knees. Or very definite places where their tails bend sharply while they sit on seaside rocks and spend the hours. So it may well make sense for them to have hips and butts if they’re essentially humans wearing body-sock fish bottoms. This specific mermaid seems a bit more sinuous in tail but I doubt many of the “Mermaids can’t have butts!” people would seriously change their minds if she had knees anyway.
I don’t expect at students to know evolutionary biology, but i do expect them to be masters of the forms of humans and any animals they portray. To know how the joints articulate. To have a good sense of scale. That’s what makes the difference between art that draws you in and leads you to the image, and art that looks “off”.
Some masters, like Picasso, intentionally violate the rules. But they are looking to create specific effects when they do that.
Ever seen a cat with extra toes? The extra limbs don’t bother me at all. I have wondered about a centaur’s internal organs, but all the visible pieces fit pretty well.
Anyway, i give this piece a “meh”.
Ever see one with wings? Or even extra workable legs?
Even animals with extra fingers or toes often can’t move them independently because the muscles aren’t right. Now try adding extra limbs.
Manatees were thought to be mermaids by early sailors, so I don’t think they cared much about aesthetic appeal.
This isn’t someone I’d take out on dates in public…maybe a booty call, I dunno.
I agree it’s fine as a seaside attraction. It doesn’t appeal to my tastes particular, but it’s not out of line with other works of art depicting humans or chimerical creatures. Art students usually study the human skeletal-muscular system and that is reflected in the human portion of the statue.
LOL. She’s not curvy. She’s just had butt and breast implants.
It’s really an ugly statue, though. Poorly sculpted with almost no details. It’s just crudely done (in the sense of lack of skill, not taste) and boring.
Absolutely. If they have a real life mermaid to copy, then I insist upon verisimilitude.
Humans in general kind of run afoul of the rules. What other mammal has prominent breasts when not nursing or pregnant? And on that mermaid in particular and most mermaids in general, breasts would be more of an inconvenience, creating unnecessary drag while swimming.