Something about that picture didn’t seem right, but it took me about 5 minutes to figure it out. There are no areolae. What kind of wierdo paints boobies but doesn’t paint them right? It looks more like the breasts of a fat man.
What, you mean you DON’T take baths with your sisters and pinch their nipples?
What I can’t wrap my mind around is that they knew how to play “tune the radio” 400 years before the radio was invented!!
. . . and now I’ve totally lost the mental image of me and the Coors Light twins. Suddenly it’s me and two George Costanzas.
So, hey, thanks for that.
There is an almost identical picture (http://www.culture.gouv.fr:80/documentation/joconde/TOP100/top_100-6.htm - scroll to bottom of page) identified as “Gabrielle D’Estrees Au Bain”. At first I thought it was the same painting, but if you look closely you can see some slight differences.
My vote’s with Panache’s explanation.
Could it have been for shock value, perhaps to break into the world of art? Is this ever considered when we look at art? Heck, after Dale Earhart Jr’s little stunt…is anything sacred anymore? - Jinx
I like this. (And kudos to Manduck too for that link.)
Does anyone know if giving a woman a ring had the same meaning in the late 1500s as it does today? Did it symbolize the promise of a long-term relationship or No. 1 status (while necklaces/bracelets etc. were less desirable)?
I don’t think that painting is of Gabrielle D’Estrees, it is widely said to be of Diane de Poitiers, see APB’s post below, which is about the same exact painting. I think the website Manduck points to identifies the painting incorrectly.
OOPS sorry Manduck, I misread your post at first. You’re right! Those paintings are almost identical! It was like the second artist tried to copy the first painting. They are clearly different, but practically identical. Does anyone know anything about this?
The first painting is by by François Clouet and hangs in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, and the second is anonymous, and hangs in the “musée Condé” in Friance.
So strange!! I am intrigued! Good catch, Manduck.
Well I sort of answered my own question. A note with the second painting says:
Which translated means, roughly:
So it really is a copy…interesting.
The explanation I read years ago about this weird painting was that one woman was pinching the other’s nipple to make it pinker. It was just a cosmetic thing.
Uh huh.
And just to complicate things further, the identification of the Washington painting as Diane de Poitiers has in recent years been challenged, mainly on the grounds that it was probably painted several years after her death.
This page has a portrait (said to be) of Gabrielle D’Estrées with her clothes on. It could conceivably be the same woman as in the Louvre painting, although facial comparisons are notoriously unreliable as a method for identifying sitters.
Yet another example of the genre, which probably alludes to this, even more famous painting.
Maybe nipples were map units. She could just be figuring out how far Tuscany is from Paris.
Areolae vary in size. If you feel like it, check out some porn with models from the former Soviet states. You’ll see a lot of very pale models with small, pink nipples and very little visible areolae.
One thing I’ve always noticed about these old paintings: small breasts. Are large breasts a more modern phenomenon? I imagine that typical breast size would be affected by diet - I know that breast size has been increasing among Japanese women as the Japanese adopt more Western-style diets.
Or could the small breasts indicate that the models in these old paintings may have been young teenagers?
Wolfman and Phase42: if you look at more pre-modern art you’ll see that painters often got the breasts (and a lot else besides) really wrong. Partially because there was not a premium placed on photographic perfection, partially because they were often not painted from life.
Many old paintings of naked women look like male bodies with two breasts stuck on like scoops of icecream (Caravaggio, for instance). The point was not so much a perfect physical likeness but just as a signal to indicate “this is a woman”, in the same way many odd objects are included in the visual field of a painting to symbolise various virtues or qualities.
That said, I have no idea what the OP painting is about 
[Skimmerhorn]
“Tits make lice?”
[/Skimmerhorn]
BEEEEoooop!
Come in Tokyo!
BEEEEoooop!
Toyko? Come in Preese!