(untitled)

Was anyone wondering why old/ancient drawings are so much more ugly than modern one's? Did previous generations have impaired sense of physical attractiveness and overal visual quality? Not only women look uglier than on modern photography and art but the proportions and objects are warped

They didn't invent pornhub and hentai back then so they had different standards.

>>64130 Probably this, combined with just not being overwhelmed by media in general. (As much, depending on time period, part of the world, social class, etc) Not to mention that every culture has it's own standards of beauty and sexual desirability that vary greatly from one another. But that's probably obvious. It's only starting to seem weird now that the world is starting to homogenize.

>>64131 >Wamen must have straight hair and huege asses, boobs are a plus, but as long as she has a high hip to waist ratio it's all good Thanks instagram and tiktok for telling women how to behave and whats beautiful. I can't imagine a world where people create their own beauty standards. >>64130 lol pic related was literally made to be increasingly provocative over normalization of nudity and sexuality in art. The same artist did a lot of pornographic art as a side gig to his more famous works. >>64128 You wouldn't know what ugly is because beauty and ugliness are all relative The women in your picture seem like an average attempt of illustrating attractive women. probably not the best artist, but semiprofessional artists used to feed themselves by drawing adverts before modern camera technology allowed people to just show others what they wanted. Your "ugliness" as you call it was actually just looking at what was widely available for graphic design. People who went to art school and were good made a lot of money, and charged a lot for their services. You can still pay a soykafty hentai artist $5 commission to draw your waifu getting fuarrrked. Calling it an impaired seems of attractiveness almost sounds like bait or that you are really young. Biologically hip to waist ratio has always been relevant (childbearing features) but body fat, cheekbone, skin tone, brow height, hair length, and even height characteristic are all culturally defined attractiveness. The concept of the "ideal" beauty may cause a warped view of proportion, There is an argument that pornhub and insta have ruined beauty because it homogenized global impressions of attractiveness and limits them to the characteristics of porn stars. This also contributes to risky sexual behaviors to seem attractive, and even hazardous beauty trends (at least people aren't drinking uranium water again, yet). Makeup and deodorant were sold to play off of peoples insecurities and that contributed even more to changes in beauty standards. Body hair grooming is also culturally relevant.

>>64138 """"""ItS InStagraM whO TEACHED them to LiKe iT..."""" Huh, so it's Instagram who TOLD me to like all this BEFORE I'd even known I like this? And it isn't just a projection of what most people like due to high demand for this typa content? You know its demand which creates offer not the other way around, know what I mean here man? Damn dude, so childish take. Reminds me of "everyone is beautiful" cliche people use to console ugly people by saying "you are not ugly, because beauty standards do not exist". It may sound a bit cynical but: 1. Beauty standards do exist. 2. If you are ugly according to them then you are just ugly in general, simple as! Beauty standards are rather innate hardwired and rooted deeply in our brain understandings of what a healthy and fertile female body looks like. And surprise surprise it happens to be just the way you described. Anything other body is inferior. What else is beauty if not being satisfying to [generally: interact with] {for music: listen; for a pic: to look at; for a game: to play} And there are general rules and design standards needed to be studied if you plan to work as a designer. General rules of what is satisfying to look at and what isn't really, certain combinations of colors, certain lighting, certain contrast ratios, certain proportions. If you neglect those or deviate from them too much people won't find your picture satisfying to look at.

>>64142 >Reminds me of "everyone is beautiful" cliche people use to console ugly people by saying "you are not ugly, because beauty standards do not exist". I never implied that they don't, that's why they are "standards." But its pretty laughable seeing women go to the gym for 3 hours to get the perfect ass when their upper body strength is nonexistent. People often take standards too far, and they overinflate the value of a standard. Why are there happy and healthy couples with people who seem incompatible by the "standard"? because the interaction with them is not superficial. When the interaction you have with others is just a flat piece of glass, of course there isn't any depth and beauty is limited to being skin deep. Most people generally don't want to look at a woman who is +10% overweight and has a 5head, but very few people actually look like the top 10% of 'beautiful people" so most people interact IRL with average or ugly people. Personality and compatibility also influence the appeal of people. Design standards are based on either natural aesthetics, or are set by social trends. Fashion is notorious for this. With all the self love bullshit, fatshaming is wrong and now "ugly" normal or average people are told they are beautiful, because if you can quantify beauty then it can be sold for profit. Same way Botox, weight loss, and makeup are used. Ideally, healthiness is beauty, because it results in viable biological offspring. Ass fillers and artificial breasts are a mere simulation of healthy biological design features.

>>64138 >>64144 Women don't need anything. If they want the maximum amount of male attention, that's how to get it, but they aren't entitled to any male attention. Also, it's obvious attractiveness shouldn't matter in unrelated careers. Like >>6412 said, my tastes weren't created by Instagram. >very few people actually look like the top 10% of 'beautiful people" Androids are the solution to this problem. They'll have better personalities too.

>>64145 >Also, it's obvious attractiveness shouldn't matter in unrelated careers. Should not and does not are two very different things. Your lizard brain tells you to put your dick into holes, and that makes you susceptible to marketing, manipulation, and propaganda.

>past generation's aesthetic sense fail to conform to present-day aesthetic sense. >Why is X worse than Y [according to unspecified standard]

beauty and attractiveness are basically good things. If I'm going to hire a plumber, I'd preffer the more attractive one, all other things being equal. Should always encourage and support beauty and other virtues, and certainly never ever do the opposite. >>64128 I think its worth pointing out that modern art is much more easily mass duplicated. If I want a decent faximalie of any old rennaisance painter's best works, or some modern highschoolr or anything, on my wall nowadays I can get one pretty cheap. Prints have really changed the world, the Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been incredibly far reaching even if you don't consider them disasterous. The effort it takes to produce a print is triffling. So if you're an ancient Roman, every fresco you want on your walls is going to have to be hand painted by someone. Someone who, if they really were the best might not be cheap enough for you to afford and instead would be off doing commissioned statues of the Emporer or something like that. And some of those statues are really quite incredible.

>>64150 >And some of those statues are really quite incredible. ngl before teenage me had the internet, I used to jerk it to art history textbooks

>>64150 another point: Photography (part of the industrial revolution) has REALLY changed drawing and sketching in a big way. At least some modern portrait painters don't actually paint the person, but paint photos of them, maybe on a sketch done in person. Anyone remotely interested in drawing figures or persons nowadays can just look up very good photos of all sorts of people from all sorts of positions (or make their own photos using ubiquitous tools) that hold more still than any artists model could ever do. Paper is free, good pigments in all colours are widely available. All the aspiring artist needs to do is find a little time and draw.

Visit a museum just once. Plenty good looking women including naked. Especially angels were naturally painted as perfect as possible to convey the divine origin.

>>64145 Androids are based. But if they are conscious then they would realize that they have been created specifically to appeal to people which would make them question worth of their life and some of them may even commit suicide

>>64159 Anatomical models have changed too, painters were limited by who would either volunteer or be paid to stand there naked. Unless you were well known, getting some floozy to stand around for hours on end would be limited to hiring literal whores and presumably not fuarrrking them, at least at first. Now you can download terabytes of posed nudes softcore or hardcore for artistic reference. >>64161 Robosexuals are fake and gay, they will never be real, just get a mannequin or doll for an art reference and spare the poor robots.

>>64154 Mh yeah I busted so many nuts to Chronos eatinghis children.

>>64144 >fatshaming is wrong What's wrong with giving people motivation to improve by explicitly stating what is wrong woth their bodies? It is not normal to be fat, it is normal and desirable to be fit. When you see a person that has unhealthy obesity and its in their power to change that why not take a chance and try to convince the person to make their body better? Objectively better, because it is rather delusional to deny that "standard" body shape is the only one that is both healthy and attractive for most normal people. >when their upper body has no strength Why should it? Big and beautiful ass is a feminine feature. It works just the way you think it does and we both know it to be true deep down: the more a woman makes it visible she is a woman the more men find her sexually attractive. Having muscles and strength isn't a feminine feature. It is rather a niche fetish to like musculine women. >people overinflate value of standards Well, I don't think they do. If beauty is not adherence to those standards and something "more" then what is it? Now, I guess by that point you are thinking I am shallow minded and unwilling to accept alternative opinion right? Well, hold your horses, it's not really that simple. >because interaction with them is not superficial Yeah, that is how finding a partner different from maintaining relationships with them. Physical attractiveness isn't everything though it certainly makes people like tou more at a first glance and opens many doors before you... Now, I guess by that point you are thinking I am shallow minded and unwilling to accept alternative opinion right? Well, hold your horses, it's not really that simple. Damn, I didn't plan this thread to be a discussion of what beauty is and whether it is subjective. I just wanted to know why women on older drawings (including but not limited to mona lisa) weren't as sexualized as they are on contemporary art some might even consider "mediocre". Even ancient stuff that can be classified as pornographic is gnikcuf ugly, don't you see?

>>64149 >past generation's aesthetic sense fail to conform to present-day aesthetic sense. It hasn't changed since (at least in terms of human sexuality and physical attractiveness [like facial features]). Look at ancient greek statures. >Why is X worse than Y [according to unspecified standard] It's pretty obvious and strictly specified and we all have inner sense of it

>>64164 If you understand motivation, motivating people positively through behavior reinforcement works better than negatively, like shaming them. People are too coddled, and if people keep having to buy larger clothes then it's just more money in your pockets. Add on celebrities advocating for skinny people to STFU and check their privilege and you get the perfect combo of being fat is both normal, healthy, and attractive in their own minds. Most people will fuarrrk anything that moves, so body weight is really not a deal breaker for hookups, which means dating services and mental health providers have repeat customers. >It is rather a niche fetish to like musculine women. I see a lot of women who can squat +100kg but could barely do anything remotely upper body related. Modern femininity focuses on large toned asses. Lack of proportionality is like men skipping leg day. This point is really irrelevant as its about the equivalent of trying to argue foot binding. Realistically, what makes pic related objectively attractive aside from monke brain neuron activation? It's no argument that she isn't seen as attractive/beautiful in present time. Sexuality itself is not the same as beauty. Beauty is a deeply internalized emotional response. As >>64142 points out. What people determine to be beautiful I think is partially measured by what they find obscene. Think beauty is not being ugly. >I just wanted to know why women on older drawings (including but not limited to mona lisa) weren't as sexualized as they are on contemporary art some might even consider "mediocre". Even ancient stuff that can be classified as pornographic is gnikcuf ugly, don't you see? Already been answered by multiple lains. Imagine being a painter in the 1200s like "I need a reference for some porn" so now you have to find some people to fuarrrk while you draw them, and then if you get caught, you get killed for pissing off some religious authority for degeneracy. Now you go to pornhub, take a screenshot and trace over it with your anime characters, simple as.

>>64167 >Already been answered by multiple lains. Imagine being a painter in the 1200s like "I need a reference for some porn" so now you have to find some people to fuarrrk while you draw them, and then if you get caught, you get killed for pissing off some religious authority for degeneracy. Still doesn't answer why facial features were ugly too. This messy "realistic" drawing every wrinkle and every imperfection not-really-flatting-out-anything

>>64168 Not sure I understand? you mean like why did some artists decide to include realistic features like peoples wrinkles, or other artists who depict features like porcelain without any flaws? post an example and show what you are talking about.

>>64161 >which would make them question worth of their life and some of them may even commit suicide An android would have no reason to be "bothered" by that. You're projecting human sensibilities onto something inhuman. Humans are not only conscious, they're also incredibly biased due to evolution.

Models today are actually more attractive than they were in the past. 1) general nutrition and sanitation wasn't as good. Attractiveness is directly correlated with good health and cleanliness for obvious reasons. Therefore people are on average more inherently attractive now than they were in the past. 2) there are all kinds of products people use now to artificially increase attractiveness, such as bras, makeup, and lotions. Not so back then. 3) If you consider the rate at which population has grown, the number of attractive people per unit area has simply increased, which means it's easier for artists to find attractive models. The other reason is that lots of painting techniques and theories weren't invented yet, and the materials weren't as good either. Making something good required a lot of effort as well as unusual insight and a master to teach you. Today you can buy pencils and paper for dirt cheap and read guides online for free. If you want to see the really beautiful people in ancient art look at sculpture. Indians especially are extremely horny and love to sculpt ladies with big booba and tiny waists doing erotic dances. Greeks and by extension romans were more skilled but they were also more interested in men mostly. >>64164 >What's wrong with giving people motivation to improve by explicitly stating what is wrong woth their bodies? shame is a pretty awful motivator. A lot of fat people are fat precisely because eating is how they deal with stress. Stressing them out more doesn't help, it's just mean. Also, being non-thin is not the same as being fat. Many women are just naturally stout, and depending on the woman that can actually be really hot. The point isn't that "there is no such thing as beauty standards" more that there are multiple ways to be beautiful, not everyone has to be skinny and have big tits.

Paint fades in time from UV rays so you lose some of the original details and vibrancy.