I have never noticed this but you're absolutely correct. I wonder if it has anything to do with the move away from fertility cults to more masculine dominated religion? Depicting a woman without sex organs is certainly one way to downplay the importance of childbirth.
mentally screaming YES all through reading this!!!!! you are doing God's scholarly work, please never stop. can't wait to dig into all the sources and further reading you recommended!
The depiction of the miniscule penis, was apparently to distance Romans & Greeks from the "Barbarians", it was political as much as artistic. The absence of female genitalia may have the same origins. Regardless, artists have to tow the line and abide by the prevailing moral climate, to get commissions and payment, so are rarely explicit in their public works.
Wondered for sometime about the same thing. My guess was that you can’t really see vulva if a woman doesn’t shave, which I imagine was and still is the majority of women , so artists had to approximate how it should look like without pubic hair. So in the end it returns to good old gender neutral question of why artists hate body hair (my favorite explanation is that it is just hard to depict hair and everyone just agreed to ditch them and call it a day)
When exactly in history did the effacement occur? I have seen neolithic "venus" with quite a distinctive labidinal cleft as well as the "sheela na gig" here in ireland. So at what point did the vulva disappear in the statuary?Are we are looking at some kind of reproduction from an original more accurate model?I find it hard to believe that the priappic greeks would forget to compensate for the distaff organ. If women in general, were so ohysically repulsive to them, why bother sculpting the female body at all? Truth is complicated and this issue, if you want actual resolution, needs more research and an accurate timeline.
Classical Greek statuary & paintings of men typically display tiny, pre-pubescent genitalia. Romans, on the other hand, were not so constrained, and appear to have insisted on genitalia conforming to the age of their subjects.
Interesting piece. I wonder if some of the less artistic and more pornographic art of the era is a contrast? It makes me think of how this era depicted small penises as it was seen as more artistic and not pornographic but there is pornographic art of the era with large, erect phalluses.
I’ve always wondered if it partially has to do with the models remaining covered to maintain modesty and or the (I assume) predominately male sculptors not spending enough time down there to know how to sculpt a labia. I assume there were differences in the acceptance of real life exposed breasts vs labia? Were ancient men not familiar enough to sculpt it?
Oddly, that's something I've always wondered about as well. I mean, even that dude who hangs a the Academia has got his, sadly miniscule, junk.
If women are supposed to be the epitome of lush beauty, why delete any part of them (much less that part). How can you be a deity of erotic love and fertility when you're lacking certain, er, qualifications...
Another thing that confuses me is: What's with the seeming pandemic of headless/armlessness?
BTW You posted a painting or at least a section of a painting by by Ingre (I think) "Angelica saved by Ruggiero" I believe. That was painting in a period when the male genitalia would be hidden by drapes, cloak fig leaf, whatever so at that period it was taboo to paint the genitalia of both sexes.
I have never noticed this but you're absolutely correct. I wonder if it has anything to do with the move away from fertility cults to more masculine dominated religion? Depicting a woman without sex organs is certainly one way to downplay the importance of childbirth.
Just so you know, this article made me subscribe! Fantastic headline! Brilliant article.
Oh I’m so glad ! ❣️❣️
Same here! I did smash the subscribe button because I am here for the mix of culture, outrage and humor you display!
mentally screaming YES all through reading this!!!!! you are doing God's scholarly work, please never stop. can't wait to dig into all the sources and further reading you recommended!
I’m so glad!!!!! I would die for Michael squire, pls buy his book and lmk what you think!!!
The depiction of the miniscule penis, was apparently to distance Romans & Greeks from the "Barbarians", it was political as much as artistic. The absence of female genitalia may have the same origins. Regardless, artists have to tow the line and abide by the prevailing moral climate, to get commissions and payment, so are rarely explicit in their public works.
Wondered for sometime about the same thing. My guess was that you can’t really see vulva if a woman doesn’t shave, which I imagine was and still is the majority of women , so artists had to approximate how it should look like without pubic hair. So in the end it returns to good old gender neutral question of why artists hate body hair (my favorite explanation is that it is just hard to depict hair and everyone just agreed to ditch them and call it a day)
When exactly in history did the effacement occur? I have seen neolithic "venus" with quite a distinctive labidinal cleft as well as the "sheela na gig" here in ireland. So at what point did the vulva disappear in the statuary?Are we are looking at some kind of reproduction from an original more accurate model?I find it hard to believe that the priappic greeks would forget to compensate for the distaff organ. If women in general, were so ohysically repulsive to them, why bother sculpting the female body at all? Truth is complicated and this issue, if you want actual resolution, needs more research and an accurate timeline.
Classical Greek statuary & paintings of men typically display tiny, pre-pubescent genitalia. Romans, on the other hand, were not so constrained, and appear to have insisted on genitalia conforming to the age of their subjects.
Interesting piece. I wonder if some of the less artistic and more pornographic art of the era is a contrast? It makes me think of how this era depicted small penises as it was seen as more artistic and not pornographic but there is pornographic art of the era with large, erect phalluses.
Could you find any examples of the Sumerian usage?
Hilarious. I am no expert but were there not many sculptures of men at the time that had very detailed genitalia?
Maybe they just didn't want men to try and hump the statues or jerk off in public?
I mean, put a clit on that thing and the average museum goer is liable to jizz right in his pants!
Maybe men regard the female body as more elegant streamlined and beautiful and want to keep/perfect it that way?
From the other side of this discussion, an interview with Egon Schiele would be quite interesting.
https://www.egon-schiele.com/
https://www.egon-schiele.com/the-embrace.jsp
I’ve always wondered if it partially has to do with the models remaining covered to maintain modesty and or the (I assume) predominately male sculptors not spending enough time down there to know how to sculpt a labia. I assume there were differences in the acceptance of real life exposed breasts vs labia? Were ancient men not familiar enough to sculpt it?
Oddly, that's something I've always wondered about as well. I mean, even that dude who hangs a the Academia has got his, sadly miniscule, junk.
If women are supposed to be the epitome of lush beauty, why delete any part of them (much less that part). How can you be a deity of erotic love and fertility when you're lacking certain, er, qualifications...
Another thing that confuses me is: What's with the seeming pandemic of headless/armlessness?
Oh, and best headline. Ever.
BTW You posted a painting or at least a section of a painting by by Ingre (I think) "Angelica saved by Ruggiero" I believe. That was painting in a period when the male genitalia would be hidden by drapes, cloak fig leaf, whatever so at that period it was taboo to paint the genitalia of both sexes.