Maybe they’re just being accurate. When unaroused, penises can become quite small. And perhaps emphasising a large penis would add an element of sexual arousal that perhaps was not the focus of these sculptures, unlike the herms, satyrs, etc.
Personally, I think David’s penis is fairly respectably sized. At when compared to mine and many others I have seen (yes I do look). What I’m not sure of is why David is uncut. He was the King of the Jews, after all.
Bob
[sub]who has a 4’ statue of David in his bedroom[/sub]
They look quite large to me, I can’t imagine why.
They are probably grow-ers, not show-ers.
I seem to recall reading (maybe from The Agony and the Ecstasy, but I don’t think so) that Michelangelo believed masculinity resided in the testicles rather than the penis, so he gave David larger than usual testicles.
No idea how that relates to any other artist’s take on penis size.
Hijack: The plural of “penis” is “penes”. In general, you only use -i for the plural if the singular ends in -us
And I’m going to weigh in with the “because it’s realistic” camp. Most peni aren’t nearly as large as their owners think, much less so when they’re flaccid.
Well, since a google search for “testicles michelangelo david masculinity” gets only 11 responses, maybe that’s a bunch of crap.
(And yes, I realize The Agony and the Ecstasy is historical fiction…)
I think I read somewhere that the plural is penes
The way it was explained to me is similar to Archernar’s explanation - that a small penis identified the ideal or intellectual aspect of the human male, whereas a larger penis identified the subject as more animal and consequently less sophisticated.
This site suggests that the Greeks used penis size as a convention to distinguish between ordinary mortals and fertility symbols such as satyrs.
Either way I think it’s a mistake to read general Classical sculpture as either portraiture or as historical journalism for future generations to use to compare their dicks to ours.
Stop saying “small”! They’re “normal”!
Listen, I didn’t link to the David statue because I thought his schlong was outrageously small, I linked to it because I only know of two statues that feature naked guys on it-- One is David, and the other one is Zeus tossing the thunderbolt. Outside of that, I don’t know any classic art that has naked guys in it. If someone could help me out and at least mention the name of a different sculpture, painting, or something else that has depicts naked guys in it, I’d appreciate it, because if my theory holds true, the guy featured would have a less than beefy unit.
But even given the two limited examples so far, you have to admit, the guys aren’t exactly packing (From what I seen and believe to be the average these days). It looks like they just hopped out of a cold shower.
Can someone explain to me why at least two posters to this thread think that uncircumcised = smaller looking penis? I mean, just exactly how do you think it is that by chopping a bit off it gets bigger?
Perhaps in reaction to the massive propaganda efforts of Jack Dean Tyler to explain how every evil in society was a direct result of circumcision?
IOW: inside joke.
Huh?
Man, I can’t wait to get old…
“Yes dear, I know my hair has fallen out, and I’m overweight, and I can’t dial long-distance without getting winded… but look at this!”
zip
THUD
Perhaps the artists made their model’s manhood purposely small to create a false public perception of average penis size, so when the artists themselves got nude, all the “innocent” girls would think they had huge ones! You can just imagine the artist’s thinking, “I’m the artist, I wield the power, and no b*****d is allowed a bigger penis than me!” 
I’m such a cynic. 
Where do we get our ideas of what a “normal” penis looks like in our culture?
The Greeks had no problem with male nudity, so in the baths and such they saw other men and knew what normal looked like in various states of boredom and excitement. So…
- The ancient Greeks had small dicks, or
- They were making a statement of serious vs. humorous statuary via the dick length
- Hi, Opal!
- They were “growers” not “showers”
- The culture valued large testicles over large dicks, just like some folks value a large ass over large tits, or prefered compressed crippled feet to the normal foot or like women with 15 inch necks rather than normal necks, or think an animal bone inserted through the nasal septum is attractive.
But back to where we get our ideas… where? Porn flicks using guys with abnormally sized schlongs that would be more appropriate for inseminating water buffalo than human women? Gosh, no wonder the average guy feels inadequate.
Hate to break it to you fellows, but the unarounsed male penis is usually not at all impressive. I’ve known too many men who thought they were seriously undersized when, in fact, they’re perfectly normal.
Proportion meant at least as much then as it does now. Realism meant one could not mess with the relative proportions of various parts too much, but the various famous artists of the high classical period did think a great deal about the proportions of their statues. So it would have been common to alter the size of some body parts slightly to get the desired overall synergistic effect about the “perfect” body.
Having said that, know that ancient Greece did not have porno movies, nor (as mentioned in earlier posts) was a big crank thought to be a good thing. Again, proportion of body parts comes into play. A proportionate body is a harmonious one, and gives a balanced life. A big “animal” part would mean you had animailstic tendencies and thus were not the wise and balanced man you should be. And of course, as the purpose of a man was not just sexual pleasure, so he should not be a giant penis with a puppet attached. Hesphateus/Vulcan is mentioned as a “deformed” god with a club foot and large penis; both were curses set on him by Zeus & Co.
Consider also that female satisfaction was not a big deal in ancient Greece. It was very much a man’s world, with females playing a very secondary role. The penis was for satisfying the man’s needs: pleasure and producing heirs. A woman’s satisfaction was supposed to be in taking care of her man/master and his home and children.
As to the young-man-small-schwanz/old-man-big-schwanz thing, yes it is so (in classical art). Youth was as now conisdered desirable, and youthful features mark one as youthful. The best example of the young-smaller old-bigger I can think of off of the top of my head (so to speak) is in the old staduim in Athens: the starting/finishing posts are double-sided (I suppose you could say Janus-headed) herms with a young beardless youth on the starting side and an older bearded man on the finish side. The young side has a flaccid, small penis, while the older man has a fully erect and rather big one. (I don’t think you were supposed to “high five” it if you came in first, though.)
FWIW, the National Archelogical Museum in Athens also has some herm-type sculptures from the later classical days; these are of famous academics and so on. They are pretty clearly portrait heads on the herm-type square column, and they still have the male genitals on them, but not erect (IIRC).
OK, I dug up two more. Their not the best examples of what I’m talking about (I’m actually thinking of paintings), but I think it’s a better example of how the male members are… ummm… overlooked in classical art.
Now, come on, these guys aren’t exactly packing. In fact, they look like they’ve been purposefully given a small peenie- the proportions are all wrong.
And I guess that’s what I keep coming back to- they just don’t look proportional to the rest of the body. You’d think if they got the rest of the body right, they’d get that part right too. Unless, of course, they wanted to undersize the willy for some odd kind of reason. And if that’s true, I’d like to know why. Why?
If there’s ever a symbol that best represents man’s virility, strength, and sexual prowess, I’d think it’d be his penis. Given that, or taken that as at least a basis, it makes me wonder why these artists seemed to go to great lengths to… ahh… reduce the length, so to speak, doesn’t it?
There’s probably a lot more to this question than even I realize, but there’s got to be a reason why others see this too (I’m not the only one, am I?).
(*And let me tell you, it’s an odd day in Chris’ history when he spends the better part of his morning sipping coffee and cruising around Google looking for classical art so he can eye up the male members. I don’t know if it’s progress, or regression).
Dammit all- it just occurred to me that all my examples are Michelangelo’s.
I know there are other artists who did this, and it wasn’t limited to just him, but my examples sure don’t show that well.
Great. Now I get to go back and search Google some more.