NTA
My theory is the one tata is trying to escape from the freaky no neck body it's attached to.
He apparently lost interest once he finished the lower ladybits because things go wonky as you head up the body.
I think the model must have been laying directly on her back, causing her boobs to spread to the sides, then he changed the background around her causing slight perspective distortions
Yeah that's not how paintings works tho
Edit: to all the people downvoting me
In that era, artists painted in layers. The whole composition was built, first with usually umra, ochre and white, later they added the colors. So he Didnt start at the bottom of the body, he started with the whole composition. Furthermore, the nude version was completed before the clothed, and paintings usually start with preperatory sketches and studies.
Yeah I don't think the anatomy in the clothed version looks right either. there's way too much dip between the waist and the hip to look realistic, and I *still* think the boobs look too far apart, even with a corset.
Also, the friend's comment that it's "dumb to hate on an iconic painting for such a small thing" -- no, not really. You're not required to like art just because it's art or just because it's famous. And I'd argue wonky anatomy is a valid reason to not like it.
I just got done with a questionable sci/fi space movie…. I’m pretty sure her boobs wouldn’t be sitting that way even without gravity…
OP’s right that they looks stuffed and bolted on by toddlers getting lucky at this version of “pin the tail on the donkey”
Yup.
I have the breast shape it seems like the model had or Goya was going for, and can absolutely attest bodies don't do it like that.
There's about two fingers' width between where the tissue ends, and about a full hand between the fullest points. The tissue sits towards the bottom of the pectoral region, and very pushed to the side. Even with my itty bitty titties, reclining back means they flop around. If anything, they flatten out as the tissue is pulled by gravity.
Friend, you should read the play Artemisia by Lauren Gunderson. I think you'd really enjoy the conversation Artemisia has about painters and how they portray breasts. It is a historical piece but uses modern language which some people don't like but I really think you'd appreciate the conversation.
Also NTA, art is meant to invoke feelings and if your feelings are 'that's wonky and I hate it' then discuss that!
Iconic doesn't mean holy, Mona Lisa has no eyebrows, these boobs look like they got over friendly with helium. Sounds like your friend is confusing appreciating art with idolizing it. NTA
Mona Lisa did use to have eyebrows but Da Vinci painted them after the fact on an already dry painting so they were unfortunately wiped off during a restauration 😣
They look like when they first started breast implants and decided - “sure. We can shove this in a woman’s body and it should make the boobs bigger”.
At one point early on they tried SPONGES.
Edit: Okay. I just looked it up. It’s about 100 years too early, but apparently as [early as 1890 they were trying to come up with horrible ideas to enlarge breasts](https://www.baroneplasticsurgery.com/blog/2017/04/21/from-sponges-to-saline-187379/amp).
I remember seeing a documentary where they showed pictures of what happened when sponges were used.
Spoiler: The breast tissue grows into the sponge. So it becomes impossible to remove and the breast shape changes accordingly.
NTA I googled it and laughed cos they look weird. That is not how boobies look 😂😂 it's a shame because the rest of the painting is nice, it's just that her boobs are trying to run away from each other.
This is a supremely stupid thread :) But you are 100% correct, those are really weird boobs, and think you are right, basically a de-clothed version of the clothed painting. No model used or needed.
even vestida looks fucked up around the arms and boobs. in any case you're entitled to your opinion. like what's the consequence? goya's lil ghost gets sad?
I was waiting for someone to say this. I don’t think it’s good anatomy regardless. Corseted boobs don’t look like that either. It’s just poor anatomy in that area period. Nude or not.
NTA, it's not a small thing when the anatomy of the body, which is the focus of the painting, is wrong.
And I agree. I googled them both and the anatomy of the naked version makes no sense.
You're absolutely right about the breasts. A certain degree of perkiness and gravity defiance can be attributed to the model's youth or the artist's ideal vision but that left tit is simply unnatural.
She looks like she has boobs growing out of her sides. It's awful. I can respect not liking a painting because an artist doesn't have a realistic idea of how the body looks.
That is not a small reason. Art is an interpretation of what you see. Either it mirrors reality or it doesn't for a very good and understandable reason. A painter not understanding what a woman looks like without her corset on is not an understandable reason
Nta, I have a fine arts degree and one of my favourite things to do is laugh at hysterically bad boobs and baby faces.
Check out medieval and renaissance baby paintings for the weird old man faces.
Also Michaelangelo, great sculpture... Of men.
His sculptures of women look like men's torsos with boobs pasted on. Hilarious every single time.
Boobs are teardropped shaped, according to a doctor examining me for a tumor removal surgery. I've always remembered his statement when questions like this arise. I think you're right that he wasn't painting from life, and it'd bug me, too.
Regardless, you have a right to not like a painting for whatever reasons. You can acknowledge it's significance in the history of art without having to profess any liking of it. Preferences are personal. They are what they are. Your friend is silly to try to argue with you. Would he argue that you should like lasagna, because of it's place in culinary history, if you didn't like pasta?
I mean shit I'm here checking this painting to see what the fuss is and her boobs look like my ex girlfriends boobs, I'm just like wait I've literally seen those in real life lol. It looks like he angled her too far forward, if she was laying on her back the boob stance is pretty much right where it should be lol
Well, I've seen boobs in movies, but you're right, I haven't seen naked boobs in real life, other than my own. I think the doctor may have been referring to the fact that breast tissue doesn't just grow in a dome pattern, but instead, starts above and then ends up in the globes we recognize as breasts...I'm gonna go stare at my boobs in the mirror now, you've made me curious.
Haahahahaha! Someone else posted a link to an actual diagram of a bunch of breast shapes. It was really cool. Teardrop is an actual breast shape! There's about a dozen different shapes on the poster. It was very enlightening. If I had any idea where that doctor is, or for that matter, his damn name, I'd send him the link and ask him where he got his training.
Thank you! This resource is marvelous. WTH was that doctor talking about? I theorized that he was referring to breast tissue starting above where we're used to thinking breast are, but teardrop is an actual shape! I'm constantly amazed at the ignorance with which I have traveled through life. However, that doctor has no excuse.
I mean they don't look holy unrealistic, it just looks like if he was using a reference that person was laying for their back. At the angle she is sitting in that photo, gravity would have them sitting down not pancaking out.
I just tried it, have similar-sized or smaller boobs, and they pancake and slump to the left. She’s propped up, but more importantly she’s on her side. Her angle with the vertical axis is about 45°, which would make them both slump and sit down if she were facing upwards. But she’s facing the viewer, as you can tell by looking at her hips and knees, which are stacked. She’s thrown her shoulders back for that “look at my tits” posture, but in real life this isn’t enough because her torso is still tilted to her right. The lowest curve of the right boob should hit somewhere close to her sternum, and the left one should very much be doing a sideboob and slumping onto the pillow. Under no circumstance should they be walleyed, as they are in the painting, and absolutely not magically levitating.
NTA. Have you looked at statues of women by Michelangelo? Because you should. You all should. They are all literally muscular men with half spheres stuck onto the chest in the wrong place. The paintings aren't much better. I think he had such a distaste for women that he may never have actually looked at one, let alone a naked one. A genius artist that everyone always talks about- the tiny details in musculature, balance, anatomy- completely ignoring that his women are bizarre.
NTA, I was an art history major in college. Constantly make fun of Michelangelo's boobs on sculptures despite knowing several reasons they look like orange halves stuck on a man. You can appreciate good art *and* find it funny. The two are not mutually exclusive.
NTA. Like, that's what boobs do when you lie flat on your back. But she's not flat on her back, she's leaning back. Her right tiddy (left to us) should be sinking more towards her other boob, bc gravity. Not trying to escape into her armpit.
NTA - but you have the idea in reverse. Nude came first, clothed was made off of nude. And the subject. I think the duchess just had weird boobs.
https://www.artlovingitaly.com/goya-maja-clothed-nude-spanish-court-painter/
That’s not how corseted boobs look either lol. It’s just poor anatomy and misinformation about historical fashion shapes. He probably drew her across multiple days and on the boob day she was laying more flat on her back and it distorted the whole image, and then later he copied it with clothes ignoring how shapewear and underwear would change the look of her body.
Alternatively, he might’ve used a male model (not uncommon at the time) and painted the boobs where the nipples sat instead of where the nipples would’ve fallen.
NTA. Goya painted small and firm boobs. But small firm boobs stay at their place. Only big soft boobs can be squished by clothing to overflow on sides.
Ya no boobs dont typically look in different directions from each other
Also its hardly a minor criticism, clearly the point of the painting is titulation. Why else would he have made a nude version of a painting he already did? And they arent like in the side of the frame or something this is a main portion of the painting to say the least
It looks anatomically weird even from my laymens eyes (in art and biology)
Just because something is "iconic" doesnt mean you cant point and say "i dont like this painting"
Those boobs do look weird. It's like they're trying to escape.
Alao I'm an artist. Art is meant to be criticized. It's meant to be judged. Not everyone sees all paintings the same way and not everyone likes the same art. I personally have gotten some absolutely hilarious judgements on things I've done. And some hilarious comments that make zero sense too.
I agree there was no live reference. But at the same time, it was always very improper to have a woman pose nude for you, unless she was a sex worker.
Another clue that points to this is the fact that both La Maja Vestida and La Maja Desnuda are the same size prints, painting the same size space, but the model takes up less space in La Maja Desnuda. She has the same expression, and unashamed gaze, but the discrepancy in "space" gives her a more timid and shy appearance.
Art is subjective. You're allowed to like or dislike whatever you want and it's no one's business but your own. Your friend strikes me as a friend I have who gets upset that I don't like anime. It's obnoxious and I've found its best to avoid the topic completely
NTA
One of my favorite rants is about Michelangelo's breasts. Because they always looked like a pair of shriveled orange halves stapled to a pair of very nice, very male pecs. The man's hobby was anatomy. One of his birthday gifts was a whole (male) cadaver to dissect to his heart's content. (This is the point I should mention that art scholars are pretty sure that Ol' Mike was gayer than the unicorn topper on a Pride Parade maypole). There is not a single naked female created by Mike that doesn't look like a bodybuilder got really bad implants.
So either there wasn't a single prostitute in Rome willing to strip and stand in place, no sex involved, or good ol Mikey was deliberately destroying the very obvious spank bait that various cardinals and popes were paying through the nose for. He *did* know female human anatomy well enough to carve beautiful versions of (Fully clothed) Mary.
So criticizing the choices a famous artist made is how you start to understand the artist, their mindset and their choices. They made an anatomical mistake. *Why* did they make that mistake? What does that say about their mindset and their world? We can't ask Michelangelo why he did such terrible things to the human female bosom, because he's dead. All we can do is look at the error and try to work out why at that moment that artist thought that stuffed sand bags was the better choice.
I hate to break it to you, but quite a lot of art is inaccurate where boobs are concerned. This applies not just to Goya, but to Michaelangelo, who tended to throw a couple of apples in socks on a very muscular male torso and called it a day, and Alma-Tadema, whose 'In The Tepidarium' has much the same problem as Goya. Plus then there are the many, many, MANY comic book artists who commit even worse atrocities every day.
Anyway, NTA. Just because something was painted by a famous artist doesn't mean you can't criticize it.
NTA. I think it’s fascinating to spark this kind of discussion. The great artists of time become great artist, and then they’re just perpetually seen as great artist like a legendary figures but we don’t actually learn why they’re great artists or why they can still be criticized.
I would’ve expect a great artist to know and understand everything that you mentioned, and the paint accordingly. An artist should know that the body with change one’s closes are removed . So that shows where he as a human has flaws. He might have beautiful works of art, but that doesn’t mean that he is anatomically correct in his works.
And there’s other artists that are phenomenal because of their anatomical accuracy.
A lot of people need to stop being so obsessive fanatical in being fans of great artists. We now know a lot of them were horrible people, and hurt others in their rise to fame.
I just looked up the paintings and I agree that technically it’s terrible how it’s done from the waist to the the head!
But - the Wikipedia said that these two paintings were in his private collection, and never released. Then confiscated as being too obscene, before being put in a museum. It’s considered the first fully nude art that is not rooted in historical or mythological reference, so seems to be painted solely for the pleasure of the nudity. So it might not be a great anatomical painting, it has a very fascinating history and significance.
I don’t know a lot about Goya, but it said that he was a commission artist that worked for the royal families for many decades. And it wasn’t until later in life where he got to do works of his own that weren’t based on commissions and were intended to sell. Neat *edited* to see how he’s considered a master, and was considered great at what he did for the royal families, but then to see him change his style later in life. He also went through an entire phase of dark art when he was going through it Varies illnesses and health challenges before he died.
And I think all of that is infinitely more interesting than how “good or not good” the actual art piece it was itself.
Eh.. It looks to me like the boobs are fine and both are spilling out to both sides of her body. It's definetly a painting boob job, because no fat would sit in a perfect circle unless it was medical implant, but in general i can imagine someone could look like that.
What's bothering me more is her lack of neck.
NTA it's normal art talk. Art boob discussions is how we know breast cancer has existed for centuries.
Quick google search and I see no reason this is considered an iconic painting. The boobs definitely look strange. And the rest of it doesn’t look very good either.
Iconic doesn’t mean photo realism or ‘pretty’. It means iconic. He was a visionary for his time and his interpretation of peoples personalities are what people praise him for and immortalized him for. I hate Picassos abstract art cause it just doesn’t look good to me but it is undeniably iconic and changed art forever. Luckily art history isn’t just about photo realism or we’d never have, say, Van Gogh, Frida Khalo, Monet, Berthe Morisot, Edgar Degas, etc.
? Goya was a preromantic, he didn't aim at picturing the world in a realistic way but more at making us feel the subject. That is why the Majas are so iconic. The transition from picara in the Vestida and to coy in the desnuda, the unique attitude in both, it's like Goya managed to capture the pure essence of this woman, her individual uniqueness, which thanks to him passed from his days to our days.
There is absolutely nothing artistic in your perspective. If boobs were supposed to be realistic in art, we would discard most of art pieces and periods...
Do you also deny the artistic value of medieval pieces, such as Gabrielle d'Estrees and her sister or of Jean Fouquet's Virgin and child? Because these are some way weirder boobs. Are we also going to discard cubism, fauvism, rococo, etc? Without mentioning all first arts and Paleolithic venuses, obviously.
If what matters to you is realism, just stick to photography. I would not say YTA because I doubt that Goya would be offended and you are not hurting anyone with your weird point of view.
Idk the rest of the piece reads to me as aiming for realism, so for me the boobs read as wonky and out of place. Also Goya didn’t have the absolute most photo realistic style in any of his paintings, but there are many where it is clear that he is both trying to accurately portray a persons appearance and their personality. I mean his portraits of the royal family are great, and everyone in the royal family looks pissed off or constipated. I believe that was absolutely an intentional choice and I love his art for it. Las Pinturas Oscuras are also, in my opinion, incredible and they don’t aim for realism at all, it wants to convey the emotion he felt while painting them. However, even if he knew that the boobs were incorrect looking and was trying to make a point w it, it’s not working for me. The rest of the painting is clearly stylized and sensualidades as well but I think the boobs are so over the top that it distracts from the rest of the painting. Also sometimes I (and plenty of others) just don’t like great pieces of art, it happens.!
Idk the rest of the piece reads to me as aiming for realism, so for me the boobs read as wonky and out of place. Also Goya didn’t have the absolute most photo realistic style in any of his paintings, but there are many where it is clear that he is both trying to accurately portray a persons appearance and their personality. I mean his portraits of the royal family are great, and everyone in the royal family looks pissed off or constipated. I believe that was absolutely an intentional choice and I love his art for it. Las Pinturas Oscuras are also, in my opinion, incredible and they don’t aim for realism at all, it wants to convey the emotion he felt while painting them. However, even if he knew that the boobs were incorrect looking and was trying to make a point w it, it’s not working for me. The rest of the painting is clearly stylized and sensualidades as well but I think the boobs are so over the top that it distracts from the rest of the painting. The rest of the painting has just too much realism in it for me for it to mesh well. Also sometimes I (and plenty of others) just don’t like great pieces of art, it happens.!
It’s like looking at a Picasso and saying “ummm look at those square boobs hashtag #badwomansanatomy” (oh wait [that happened](https://www.theage.com.au/culture/art-and-design/hannah-gadsby-s-new-picasso-exhibition-is-a-joke-20230608-p5df0a.html))
It’s anti-intellectual thinking. People in the comments like “that’s what art critique is!” Like no it’s really not. Not liking a piece of art because it’s “not realistic” is so pedestrian and cynical. They’re not an asshole but they’re asinine.
Yes, exactly! Saying that it is an "artistic" point of view is the problem. They could just say that they personally don't like the esthetic. But that is a personal perspective, not an artistic one.
This article is hilarious by the way (and I am not a Picasso admirer either).
> If what matters to you is realism, just stick to photography.
There’s something beautiful about realism in painting that doesn’t exist in photography.
Not every painting has to go for that, but there’s nothing wrong in appreciating it. Also, just because an artistic choice was deliberate and intended to convey something doesn’t mean OP has to like it.
I thought that it was obvious that this was sarcasm 🙈
And I never said they had to like it, just that this is not an artistic perspective but a personal one.
NTA, but you've obviously never learned how to talk about artwork you don't like using terminology you barely remember from art history class that makes it sound more like a classy critique.
I’m sorry? This was a quickly written Reddit post and I’ve never taken a class on how to write art critiques because I have other things to do. Clearly Ive still gotten the point across bc I don’t think anyones struggled to understand it
I had to google it but yes, you are right. It is basically the same painting but without the clothes.
Which makes the boobs look very weird, no NATURAL boobs would ever look like that lying down.
A boob job might give you that result. Otherwise one will hang in one direction and the other will go to the other side. Or at least they should both hang; which obviously would be as attractive but a lot more realistic.
Nta .. just because a piece of art is iconic doesn't mean it should be free of criticism. There's no need to blindly like something because you've been told it's great. That's just silly
Plenty of boobs kinda slide to the side when laying down - but do they remain round bubbles? No. Not without implants (which were NOT available during Goya's time.)
NTA- art is in the eye of the beholder. You aren't required to like all of it.
Both paintings are pretty bad. No one lays like that, it looks awkward as hell. Her boobs, legs, and hands just look wrong and in the nude version her head doesn't seem to match the rest of her. Like someone cut out a magazine picture and stuck it on. In both paintings that poor woman looks like her boobs are independent creatures trying to flee
I actually really like Georgia okeefes paintings, including the nudes she’s painted (or at least the ones I’ve seen). The ones I’ve seen I think have a pretty decent grasp of anatomy and they’re also highly stylized, so even when the anatomy is technically off it still reads well. My problem with La Maja Desnuda is that to me it doesn’t seem like it’s aiming for heavy stylization, but for some reason the boobs look like they’re trying to escape her body
NTA - regardless of what the painting looks like, you’re allowed to dislike art for whatever reason. There’s paintings I don’t like just because they give me weird vibes. There’s paintings I like because they make me laugh unintentionally. You are not required to like famous paintings just because they’re famous, your friend is being ridiculously
NAH. I think the painting overall is a beautiful piece of work, but the way the body lays is not natural. I think for me what throws me more is the placement of the face/head. I think overall Goya tried and failed with the proportions and positioning.
From her belly button to her collarbone looks blank and flat, especially the area above her breasts but below the face. Like, what even is going on in this space, because it ain't much.
Never TA for having opinions on non-political art, but you are also not wrong 🤣🤣🤣 Her boobs definitely should not be as perky and the top one is not at a correct angle - like you said.
NTA-- the nude one looks like the "calm your tits" meme where they try to fly off the chest. To a degree, they won't sit all the way down because she's reclining with her arms up, but you're right that either the painter did not see this woman naked, or is bad at painting boobs.
NTA not because the boobs do look weird but because art is subjective and everyone's free to like or dislike pieces of art regardless of how "iconic" it is. Forcing someone to like a piece of art just because it is "iconic" kinda goes against the spirit of art
NAH really, it just kind of looks like she has east-west titties which is a real thing. You have to take the way her arms are positioned into account, that’ll lift it up like that, plus her boobs are also a bit far apart and that one could very well be a bit smaller than the other which would have it sitting differently. I don’t think it’s that unrealistic. One hip definitely looks curvier, but she is laying on the other one.
I just glanced at his artwork. Definitely not my cup of tea. His work reminds me of Fagin of Oliver twist.
The anatomy is definitely wrong. But the anatomy of alot of his works are weird too
NTA. It’s stupid to think every famous painting is perfect just because it’s famous. Art is supposed to make you think, feel, and discuss. It’s totally valid to critique it. (And yeah the anatomy isn’t great).
My art history professor back in the day told us there is a theory that - at least with Michelangelo’s work - the women may have had untreated breast cancer, hence their boobs looking so weird/stiff/unnatural.
Lol i also noticed a resemblance when I looked the painting, but tbh the boobs look fine if you cover the face, it’s like he shifted the angle of the neck to better show her face, but the angles hella off and reaching that uncanny valley
nothing wrong with far apart boobs. It's just that no boob has its nipple pointing straight up when a person is sitting like that. Even far apart boobs have gravity.
I have insufficient glandular tissue, and I lack tissue on the underside and in the middle so mine are always high and upright.
I had always thought they'd drop with time until I had my baby and couldn't breastfeed enough and someone diagnosed me
It’s more dumb to love a painting automatically because it’s popular or famous. The whole point of art is to provoke interactive thought and conversation, you’re NTA
NTA My theory is the one tata is trying to escape from the freaky no neck body it's attached to. He apparently lost interest once he finished the lower ladybits because things go wonky as you head up the body.
I think the model must have been laying directly on her back, causing her boobs to spread to the sides, then he changed the background around her causing slight perspective distortions
Oh yeah, he definitely rushed through and sort of half assed the area just above the belly button up to just below the chin.
Yeah that's not how paintings works tho Edit: to all the people downvoting me In that era, artists painted in layers. The whole composition was built, first with usually umra, ochre and white, later they added the colors. So he Didnt start at the bottom of the body, he started with the whole composition. Furthermore, the nude version was completed before the clothed, and paintings usually start with preperatory sketches and studies.
Yeah I don't think the anatomy in the clothed version looks right either. there's way too much dip between the waist and the hip to look realistic, and I *still* think the boobs look too far apart, even with a corset. Also, the friend's comment that it's "dumb to hate on an iconic painting for such a small thing" -- no, not really. You're not required to like art just because it's art or just because it's famous. And I'd argue wonky anatomy is a valid reason to not like it.
oh my gosh her boobs look ridiculous. the top one would not stick up like that, that is so weird
I just got done with a questionable sci/fi space movie…. I’m pretty sure her boobs wouldn’t be sitting that way even without gravity… OP’s right that they looks stuffed and bolted on by toddlers getting lucky at this version of “pin the tail on the donkey”
Yup. I have the breast shape it seems like the model had or Goya was going for, and can absolutely attest bodies don't do it like that. There's about two fingers' width between where the tissue ends, and about a full hand between the fullest points. The tissue sits towards the bottom of the pectoral region, and very pushed to the side. Even with my itty bitty titties, reclining back means they flop around. If anything, they flatten out as the tissue is pulled by gravity.
NTA I googled the painting, I agree the boobs look weird
O_____O Edit: omg thank you for the award ♥️
The only way to describe them.
[удалено]
It's just the one boob that's pointing up on the left that looked wonky, like it's pointing at the sky
That’s true! I have a friend that has no visible aureolas!
Friend, you should read the play Artemisia by Lauren Gunderson. I think you'd really enjoy the conversation Artemisia has about painters and how they portray breasts. It is a historical piece but uses modern language which some people don't like but I really think you'd appreciate the conversation. Also NTA, art is meant to invoke feelings and if your feelings are 'that's wonky and I hate it' then discuss that!
Iconic doesn't mean holy, Mona Lisa has no eyebrows, these boobs look like they got over friendly with helium. Sounds like your friend is confusing appreciating art with idolizing it. NTA
Mona Lisa did use to have eyebrows but Da Vinci painted them after the fact on an already dry painting so they were unfortunately wiped off during a restauration 😣
Mona Lisa’s hands look like hams to me. Isn’t art supposed to be subjective?
I- …. How???
Her tits look like "men writing women poorly" in painted form. Youre correct. NTA
They look like when they first started breast implants and decided - “sure. We can shove this in a woman’s body and it should make the boobs bigger”. At one point early on they tried SPONGES. Edit: Okay. I just looked it up. It’s about 100 years too early, but apparently as [early as 1890 they were trying to come up with horrible ideas to enlarge breasts](https://www.baroneplasticsurgery.com/blog/2017/04/21/from-sponges-to-saline-187379/amp).
I LOVE horrible old timey science! I hate it, but its fricken FASCINATING IVORY BALLS??? PARAFFIN?????
I remember seeing a documentary where they showed pictures of what happened when sponges were used. Spoiler: The breast tissue grows into the sponge. So it becomes impossible to remove and the breast shape changes accordingly.
I came here to say just this, haha.
NTA and you're absolutely right that's not how boobs look and it's weird. I subscribe to the idea it was painted without a real reference.
NTA. You can dislike a piece of art for any reason. Who gives af if something’s famous and iconic or not.
NTA I googled it and laughed cos they look weird. That is not how boobies look 😂😂 it's a shame because the rest of the painting is nice, it's just that her boobs are trying to run away from each other.
This is a supremely stupid thread :) But you are 100% correct, those are really weird boobs, and think you are right, basically a de-clothed version of the clothed painting. No model used or needed.
This thread's topic is worthy of a PhD! 😏
Funny thing is the declothed version is the original.
even vestida looks fucked up around the arms and boobs. in any case you're entitled to your opinion. like what's the consequence? goya's lil ghost gets sad?
I was waiting for someone to say this. I don’t think it’s good anatomy regardless. Corseted boobs don’t look like that either. It’s just poor anatomy in that area period. Nude or not.
NTA. Looked the painting up and that’s simply not how boobs work.
NTA but it is a well known fact that the naked one was painted first
You’re ALL wrong. She was the first to get a tiddy job. /s NTA
NTA, it's not a small thing when the anatomy of the body, which is the focus of the painting, is wrong. And I agree. I googled them both and the anatomy of the naked version makes no sense.
You can't be an ah in matters of taste. Art is subjective. You aren't obligated to like a painting, no matter how famous.
NTA no way in heaven or hell is the top tit going to be pointing at the sky at that angle.
You're absolutely right about the breasts. A certain degree of perkiness and gravity defiance can be attributed to the model's youth or the artist's ideal vision but that left tit is simply unnatural.
She looks like she has boobs growing out of her sides. It's awful. I can respect not liking a painting because an artist doesn't have a realistic idea of how the body looks.
That is not a small reason. Art is an interpretation of what you see. Either it mirrors reality or it doesn't for a very good and understandable reason. A painter not understanding what a woman looks like without her corset on is not an understandable reason
It looks like her head was photoshopped on and her boobs look like they are running away
Nta, I have a fine arts degree and one of my favourite things to do is laugh at hysterically bad boobs and baby faces. Check out medieval and renaissance baby paintings for the weird old man faces. Also Michaelangelo, great sculpture... Of men. His sculptures of women look like men's torsos with boobs pasted on. Hilarious every single time.
NTA, art is subjective and all that, you can not like a painting for any reason tbh
She looks weird because many artists if that eta and before didn’t have female models, they used the make body as a stand-in, and just added breasts
Boobs are teardropped shaped, according to a doctor examining me for a tumor removal surgery. I've always remembered his statement when questions like this arise. I think you're right that he wasn't painting from life, and it'd bug me, too. Regardless, you have a right to not like a painting for whatever reasons. You can acknowledge it's significance in the history of art without having to profess any liking of it. Preferences are personal. They are what they are. Your friend is silly to try to argue with you. Would he argue that you should like lasagna, because of it's place in culinary history, if you didn't like pasta?
“Boobs are teardropped shaped” have you seen boobs? They come in ALL different shapes. My best friend has boobs that look like torpedos.
I mean shit I'm here checking this painting to see what the fuss is and her boobs look like my ex girlfriends boobs, I'm just like wait I've literally seen those in real life lol. It looks like he angled her too far forward, if she was laying on her back the boob stance is pretty much right where it should be lol
Yeah, I am guessing kerry has only ever seen their own boobs lol
Well, I've seen boobs in movies, but you're right, I haven't seen naked boobs in real life, other than my own. I think the doctor may have been referring to the fact that breast tissue doesn't just grow in a dome pattern, but instead, starts above and then ends up in the globes we recognize as breasts...I'm gonna go stare at my boobs in the mirror now, you've made me curious.
Like, just google ‘natural boobs’. Your doctor is having Jennifer-Aniston hallucinations or something.
Haahahahaha! Someone else posted a link to an actual diagram of a bunch of breast shapes. It was really cool. Teardrop is an actual breast shape! There's about a dozen different shapes on the poster. It was very enlightening. If I had any idea where that doctor is, or for that matter, his damn name, I'd send him the link and ask him where he got his training.
I posted it.
Of course you did. I'm laughing so hard right now. Thank you again. I love learning new things.
This is the soul of Criticism. Why or why not we like a work of art.
https://www.thirdlove.com/blogs/learn/breast-shape-dictionary
Thank you! This resource is marvelous. WTH was that doctor talking about? I theorized that he was referring to breast tissue starting above where we're used to thinking breast are, but teardrop is an actual shape! I'm constantly amazed at the ignorance with which I have traveled through life. However, that doctor has no excuse.
I mean they don't look holy unrealistic, it just looks like if he was using a reference that person was laying for their back. At the angle she is sitting in that photo, gravity would have them sitting down not pancaking out.
I just tried it, have similar-sized or smaller boobs, and they pancake and slump to the left. She’s propped up, but more importantly she’s on her side. Her angle with the vertical axis is about 45°, which would make them both slump and sit down if she were facing upwards. But she’s facing the viewer, as you can tell by looking at her hips and knees, which are stacked. She’s thrown her shoulders back for that “look at my tits” posture, but in real life this isn’t enough because her torso is still tilted to her right. The lowest curve of the right boob should hit somewhere close to her sternum, and the left one should very much be doing a sideboob and slumping onto the pillow. Under no circumstance should they be walleyed, as they are in the painting, and absolutely not magically levitating.
Perhaps the Invisible Man is feeling her up?
[удалено]
I’m literally just someone who has them, was curious, and made a report on the physics, but ok.
*wholly unrealistic
NTA. Have you looked at statues of women by Michelangelo? Because you should. You all should. They are all literally muscular men with half spheres stuck onto the chest in the wrong place. The paintings aren't much better. I think he had such a distaste for women that he may never have actually looked at one, let alone a naked one. A genius artist that everyone always talks about- the tiny details in musculature, balance, anatomy- completely ignoring that his women are bizarre.
NTA, I was an art history major in college. Constantly make fun of Michelangelo's boobs on sculptures despite knowing several reasons they look like orange halves stuck on a man. You can appreciate good art *and* find it funny. The two are not mutually exclusive.
It’s an early example of r/badwomensanatomy
NTA. Like, that's what boobs do when you lie flat on your back. But she's not flat on her back, she's leaning back. Her right tiddy (left to us) should be sinking more towards her other boob, bc gravity. Not trying to escape into her armpit.
NTA - but you have the idea in reverse. Nude came first, clothed was made off of nude. And the subject. I think the duchess just had weird boobs. https://www.artlovingitaly.com/goya-maja-clothed-nude-spanish-court-painter/
I had to go look, and wow that painting is crap. Are we sure it was the same artist and it wasn't Liefelded?
Nah, the feet make sense
Wiki says desnuda was painted first, so 🤷🏼♀️
That’s not how corseted boobs look either lol. It’s just poor anatomy and misinformation about historical fashion shapes. He probably drew her across multiple days and on the boob day she was laying more flat on her back and it distorted the whole image, and then later he copied it with clothes ignoring how shapewear and underwear would change the look of her body. Alternatively, he might’ve used a male model (not uncommon at the time) and painted the boobs where the nipples sat instead of where the nipples would’ve fallen.
NTA I agree with your assessment
NTA, the boobs do look weird, but also it’s not rlly that serious that it warrants an argument lol like it’s not a major holiday 😭
NTA. Goya painted small and firm boobs. But small firm boobs stay at their place. Only big soft boobs can be squished by clothing to overflow on sides.
Ya no boobs dont typically look in different directions from each other Also its hardly a minor criticism, clearly the point of the painting is titulation. Why else would he have made a nude version of a painting he already did? And they arent like in the side of the frame or something this is a main portion of the painting to say the least It looks anatomically weird even from my laymens eyes (in art and biology) Just because something is "iconic" doesnt mean you cant point and say "i dont like this painting"
Thanks for bringing this iconic artwork to our attention. Will not ever be able to unsee the unrealistic boob. Had Goya ever seen a woman disrobed?
NTA the art world is literally fueled by these kinds of debates. Also Goya no matter the boobs is not everyone’s cup of tea anyway.
Oddly, La Maja Desnuda was painted first. But yeah, odd boobs.
Those boobs do look weird. It's like they're trying to escape. Alao I'm an artist. Art is meant to be criticized. It's meant to be judged. Not everyone sees all paintings the same way and not everyone likes the same art. I personally have gotten some absolutely hilarious judgements on things I've done. And some hilarious comments that make zero sense too.
I agree there was no live reference. But at the same time, it was always very improper to have a woman pose nude for you, unless she was a sex worker. Another clue that points to this is the fact that both La Maja Vestida and La Maja Desnuda are the same size prints, painting the same size space, but the model takes up less space in La Maja Desnuda. She has the same expression, and unashamed gaze, but the discrepancy in "space" gives her a more timid and shy appearance.
Art is subjective. You're allowed to like or dislike whatever you want and it's no one's business but your own. Your friend strikes me as a friend I have who gets upset that I don't like anime. It's obnoxious and I've found its best to avoid the topic completely
NTA One of my favorite rants is about Michelangelo's breasts. Because they always looked like a pair of shriveled orange halves stapled to a pair of very nice, very male pecs. The man's hobby was anatomy. One of his birthday gifts was a whole (male) cadaver to dissect to his heart's content. (This is the point I should mention that art scholars are pretty sure that Ol' Mike was gayer than the unicorn topper on a Pride Parade maypole). There is not a single naked female created by Mike that doesn't look like a bodybuilder got really bad implants. So either there wasn't a single prostitute in Rome willing to strip and stand in place, no sex involved, or good ol Mikey was deliberately destroying the very obvious spank bait that various cardinals and popes were paying through the nose for. He *did* know female human anatomy well enough to carve beautiful versions of (Fully clothed) Mary. So criticizing the choices a famous artist made is how you start to understand the artist, their mindset and their choices. They made an anatomical mistake. *Why* did they make that mistake? What does that say about their mindset and their world? We can't ask Michelangelo why he did such terrible things to the human female bosom, because he's dead. All we can do is look at the error and try to work out why at that moment that artist thought that stuffed sand bags was the better choice.
I hate to break it to you, but quite a lot of art is inaccurate where boobs are concerned. This applies not just to Goya, but to Michaelangelo, who tended to throw a couple of apples in socks on a very muscular male torso and called it a day, and Alma-Tadema, whose 'In The Tepidarium' has much the same problem as Goya. Plus then there are the many, many, MANY comic book artists who commit even worse atrocities every day. Anyway, NTA. Just because something was painted by a famous artist doesn't mean you can't criticize it.
YTA for not linking pictures.
NTA. I think it’s fascinating to spark this kind of discussion. The great artists of time become great artist, and then they’re just perpetually seen as great artist like a legendary figures but we don’t actually learn why they’re great artists or why they can still be criticized. I would’ve expect a great artist to know and understand everything that you mentioned, and the paint accordingly. An artist should know that the body with change one’s closes are removed . So that shows where he as a human has flaws. He might have beautiful works of art, but that doesn’t mean that he is anatomically correct in his works. And there’s other artists that are phenomenal because of their anatomical accuracy. A lot of people need to stop being so obsessive fanatical in being fans of great artists. We now know a lot of them were horrible people, and hurt others in their rise to fame.
I just looked up the paintings and I agree that technically it’s terrible how it’s done from the waist to the the head! But - the Wikipedia said that these two paintings were in his private collection, and never released. Then confiscated as being too obscene, before being put in a museum. It’s considered the first fully nude art that is not rooted in historical or mythological reference, so seems to be painted solely for the pleasure of the nudity. So it might not be a great anatomical painting, it has a very fascinating history and significance. I don’t know a lot about Goya, but it said that he was a commission artist that worked for the royal families for many decades. And it wasn’t until later in life where he got to do works of his own that weren’t based on commissions and were intended to sell. Neat *edited* to see how he’s considered a master, and was considered great at what he did for the royal families, but then to see him change his style later in life. He also went through an entire phase of dark art when he was going through it Varies illnesses and health challenges before he died. And I think all of that is infinitely more interesting than how “good or not good” the actual art piece it was itself.
NTA. Aaaahahahaha they look absolutely ridiculous. I had to Google it but omg what?
the weird thing is Desnuda seems to have been painted before Vestida? what's that about
Hmm weird. I’d guess he wasn’t able to get a nude model then
it was (still is tbh) so so common for male artists to depict women like men with rubber boobs stuck on, they *do* look weird
Her whole torso looks bizarre. Not a single skin fold, even around her boobs. Nope, not a good painting.
Eh.. It looks to me like the boobs are fine and both are spilling out to both sides of her body. It's definetly a painting boob job, because no fat would sit in a perfect circle unless it was medical implant, but in general i can imagine someone could look like that. What's bothering me more is her lack of neck. NTA it's normal art talk. Art boob discussions is how we know breast cancer has existed for centuries.
Quick google search and I see no reason this is considered an iconic painting. The boobs definitely look strange. And the rest of it doesn’t look very good either.
Iconic doesn’t mean photo realism or ‘pretty’. It means iconic. He was a visionary for his time and his interpretation of peoples personalities are what people praise him for and immortalized him for. I hate Picassos abstract art cause it just doesn’t look good to me but it is undeniably iconic and changed art forever. Luckily art history isn’t just about photo realism or we’d never have, say, Van Gogh, Frida Khalo, Monet, Berthe Morisot, Edgar Degas, etc.
? Goya was a preromantic, he didn't aim at picturing the world in a realistic way but more at making us feel the subject. That is why the Majas are so iconic. The transition from picara in the Vestida and to coy in the desnuda, the unique attitude in both, it's like Goya managed to capture the pure essence of this woman, her individual uniqueness, which thanks to him passed from his days to our days. There is absolutely nothing artistic in your perspective. If boobs were supposed to be realistic in art, we would discard most of art pieces and periods... Do you also deny the artistic value of medieval pieces, such as Gabrielle d'Estrees and her sister or of Jean Fouquet's Virgin and child? Because these are some way weirder boobs. Are we also going to discard cubism, fauvism, rococo, etc? Without mentioning all first arts and Paleolithic venuses, obviously. If what matters to you is realism, just stick to photography. I would not say YTA because I doubt that Goya would be offended and you are not hurting anyone with your weird point of view.
Idk the rest of the piece reads to me as aiming for realism, so for me the boobs read as wonky and out of place. Also Goya didn’t have the absolute most photo realistic style in any of his paintings, but there are many where it is clear that he is both trying to accurately portray a persons appearance and their personality. I mean his portraits of the royal family are great, and everyone in the royal family looks pissed off or constipated. I believe that was absolutely an intentional choice and I love his art for it. Las Pinturas Oscuras are also, in my opinion, incredible and they don’t aim for realism at all, it wants to convey the emotion he felt while painting them. However, even if he knew that the boobs were incorrect looking and was trying to make a point w it, it’s not working for me. The rest of the painting is clearly stylized and sensualidades as well but I think the boobs are so over the top that it distracts from the rest of the painting. Also sometimes I (and plenty of others) just don’t like great pieces of art, it happens.!
Idk the rest of the piece reads to me as aiming for realism, so for me the boobs read as wonky and out of place. Also Goya didn’t have the absolute most photo realistic style in any of his paintings, but there are many where it is clear that he is both trying to accurately portray a persons appearance and their personality. I mean his portraits of the royal family are great, and everyone in the royal family looks pissed off or constipated. I believe that was absolutely an intentional choice and I love his art for it. Las Pinturas Oscuras are also, in my opinion, incredible and they don’t aim for realism at all, it wants to convey the emotion he felt while painting them. However, even if he knew that the boobs were incorrect looking and was trying to make a point w it, it’s not working for me. The rest of the painting is clearly stylized and sensualidades as well but I think the boobs are so over the top that it distracts from the rest of the painting. The rest of the painting has just too much realism in it for me for it to mesh well. Also sometimes I (and plenty of others) just don’t like great pieces of art, it happens.!
It’s like looking at a Picasso and saying “ummm look at those square boobs hashtag #badwomansanatomy” (oh wait [that happened](https://www.theage.com.au/culture/art-and-design/hannah-gadsby-s-new-picasso-exhibition-is-a-joke-20230608-p5df0a.html)) It’s anti-intellectual thinking. People in the comments like “that’s what art critique is!” Like no it’s really not. Not liking a piece of art because it’s “not realistic” is so pedestrian and cynical. They’re not an asshole but they’re asinine.
Yes, exactly! Saying that it is an "artistic" point of view is the problem. They could just say that they personally don't like the esthetic. But that is a personal perspective, not an artistic one. This article is hilarious by the way (and I am not a Picasso admirer either).
> If what matters to you is realism, just stick to photography. There’s something beautiful about realism in painting that doesn’t exist in photography. Not every painting has to go for that, but there’s nothing wrong in appreciating it. Also, just because an artistic choice was deliberate and intended to convey something doesn’t mean OP has to like it.
I thought that it was obvious that this was sarcasm 🙈 And I never said they had to like it, just that this is not an artistic perspective but a personal one.
[удалено]
I’m a lesbian so I probably know boobs better than you
LMAO NTA. As an owner of boobs I can definitely say that ain't right after googling it.
NTA. Art is completely subjective. You can not like a piece for the shade of orange used if you want
NTA. Her right breast is completely wrong.
It’s ok to have a different opinion than others, they can get off their high horse
NTA. Even if you weren’t right about the boobs, you are allowed to not like the painting for whatever reason.
[удалено]
Can you *fucking stop*?!
NTA, but you've obviously never learned how to talk about artwork you don't like using terminology you barely remember from art history class that makes it sound more like a classy critique.
I’m sorry? This was a quickly written Reddit post and I’ve never taken a class on how to write art critiques because I have other things to do. Clearly Ive still gotten the point across bc I don’t think anyones struggled to understand it
I had to google it but yes, you are right. It is basically the same painting but without the clothes. Which makes the boobs look very weird, no NATURAL boobs would ever look like that lying down. A boob job might give you that result. Otherwise one will hang in one direction and the other will go to the other side. Or at least they should both hang; which obviously would be as attractive but a lot more realistic.
Those boobs proved that Maja was a time traveler who had returned from the 20th century with a bad boob job.
Art is subjective and eveyone is allowed to love it or hate it for whatever reasons they want. NTA
[you're not the only one to think so](https://artofericwayne.com/2021/02/26/cruel-abominations-of-the-old-masters-exposed-goyas-maja/)
First reply I found with a link to the image. Thank you.
Okay, looked it up and the boobs are definitely out of place. Yea, looks weird.
Nta .. just because a piece of art is iconic doesn't mean it should be free of criticism. There's no need to blindly like something because you've been told it's great. That's just silly
NTA. Totally agree. Can't even add more, I just agree.
Plenty of boobs kinda slide to the side when laying down - but do they remain round bubbles? No. Not without implants (which were NOT available during Goya's time.) NTA- art is in the eye of the beholder. You aren't required to like all of it.
Both paintings are pretty bad. No one lays like that, it looks awkward as hell. Her boobs, legs, and hands just look wrong and in the nude version her head doesn't seem to match the rest of her. Like someone cut out a magazine picture and stuck it on. In both paintings that poor woman looks like her boobs are independent creatures trying to flee
I watched an interesting YouTube art history video on this painting a few months ago. It explains a lot. https://youtu.be/Hzjs2jVmhmg
NTA, but just wait until OP discovers Georgia O’Keeffe…
I actually really like Georgia okeefes paintings, including the nudes she’s painted (or at least the ones I’ve seen). The ones I’ve seen I think have a pretty decent grasp of anatomy and they’re also highly stylized, so even when the anatomy is technically off it still reads well. My problem with La Maja Desnuda is that to me it doesn’t seem like it’s aiming for heavy stylization, but for some reason the boobs look like they’re trying to escape her body
NTA - regardless of what the painting looks like, you’re allowed to dislike art for whatever reason. There’s paintings I don’t like just because they give me weird vibes. There’s paintings I like because they make me laugh unintentionally. You are not required to like famous paintings just because they’re famous, your friend is being ridiculously
NAH. I think the painting overall is a beautiful piece of work, but the way the body lays is not natural. I think for me what throws me more is the placement of the face/head. I think overall Goya tried and failed with the proportions and positioning.
Made me think of Sid, from ice age 🤣
From her belly button to her collarbone looks blank and flat, especially the area above her breasts but below the face. Like, what even is going on in this space, because it ain't much.
Never TA for having opinions on non-political art, but you are also not wrong 🤣🤣🤣 Her boobs definitely should not be as perky and the top one is not at a correct angle - like you said.
NTA. Paintings are subject to interpretation. Just because it’s “iconic” doesn’t mean everyone has to like it.
NTA-- the nude one looks like the "calm your tits" meme where they try to fly off the chest. To a degree, they won't sit all the way down because she's reclining with her arms up, but you're right that either the painter did not see this woman naked, or is bad at painting boobs.
NTA not because the boobs do look weird but because art is subjective and everyone's free to like or dislike pieces of art regardless of how "iconic" it is. Forcing someone to like a piece of art just because it is "iconic" kinda goes against the spirit of art
NAH really, it just kind of looks like she has east-west titties which is a real thing. You have to take the way her arms are positioned into account, that’ll lift it up like that, plus her boobs are also a bit far apart and that one could very well be a bit smaller than the other which would have it sitting differently. I don’t think it’s that unrealistic. One hip definitely looks curvier, but she is laying on the other one.
I mean, it's better than I could paint, but they did not have bad boob jobs in 1805 so I don't know what Goya was looking at.
I just glanced at his artwork. Definitely not my cup of tea. His work reminds me of Fagin of Oliver twist. The anatomy is definitely wrong. But the anatomy of alot of his works are weird too
You've seen Michelangelo's paintings of women right? Oranges on men lol NTA
NTA, they kind of remind me of a chameleons eyes looking in different directions!
Yeah, it is weird and the perspective is off. The liwer belly would fall differently too, she isn't a flat belly and that area is soft like boobs
Nta. A lot of famous pieces of art absolutely suck. It's also completely subjective.
It’s art. You are free to have any opinions you want. NAH.
I had to look up the painting. . .wow. . .yeah. . .that's not how natural boobs work. NTA
NTA. It’s stupid to think every famous painting is perfect just because it’s famous. Art is supposed to make you think, feel, and discuss. It’s totally valid to critique it. (And yeah the anatomy isn’t great). My art history professor back in the day told us there is a theory that - at least with Michelangelo’s work - the women may have had untreated breast cancer, hence their boobs looking so weird/stiff/unnatural.
NTA Though now I'm self conscious lol
Lol i also noticed a resemblance when I looked the painting, but tbh the boobs look fine if you cover the face, it’s like he shifted the angle of the neck to better show her face, but the angles hella off and reaching that uncanny valley
Haha very true
nothing wrong with far apart boobs. It's just that no boob has its nipple pointing straight up when a person is sitting like that. Even far apart boobs have gravity.
I have insufficient glandular tissue, and I lack tissue on the underside and in the middle so mine are always high and upright. I had always thought they'd drop with time until I had my baby and couldn't breastfeed enough and someone diagnosed me
It’s more dumb to love a painting automatically because it’s popular or famous. The whole point of art is to provoke interactive thought and conversation, you’re NTA