Hilariously ugly Renaissance babies (22 Photos)

0 0

via Ugly Renaissance Babies.

0 0
  • Kenshua5

    #6 looks like Bobby Hill

  • cpat

    Some of those look like Bobby Hill. I tell ya whut. Otherwise they look like Adult heads with baby bodies. WEIRD.

  • tivadoc

    Mac you struck a new level of ignorance with this post. I'm surprised you didn't save it for Christmas Day. FU Mac!

    • Alexis

      Indeed. Mac might want to take a rudimentary course in art history or iconography.

      • st0n3r

        Lighten up dudes. Taking away the value and all they are hilariously ugly babies after all

        • James

          Maybe, but that's not really the point. I mean, it's not funny to point out changes in artistic styles from hundreds of years ago. We don't go around pointing and giggling at Hindu icons, going, "Herp, derp, yur godz r blue!"

  • Up yours

    #5 freaky man child

  • Chelsea

    It was common to portray Baby Jesus with more adult-like features to illustrate that he was wise, competent etc. But he was still supposed to represent Jesus in Madonna and Child paintings. #4 and #21 are examples of Madonna and Child paintings. But it's true that in other types of paintings artists would include themselves or the patron(s), though never have I seen someone alter a baby for this reason. Sometimes artists used their own children as references, but overall this is generally how babies were depicted during this period style

  • Vector 1960

    Christians are calm; and chiving on. Don't sweat the minutiae.

  • http://twitter.com/mkingscott @mkingscott

    #4 GTFO!

  • Bosclar

    The renaissance is when everyone told proportions and basic human anatomy to get fucked

  • dantheman

    when you see the two finger symbol from the characters in the paintings it's masonic…there's heaps of symbolism in most of these

  • phydor


  • Devin

    BOOBIE on 6 and 15!

  • tapadance

    I had to take an art history course in college (what a waste of time and money) But, it did give me this nugget of information. Since it was considered a sin to have a painting on ones self or family members, but a painting of a religious scene was not. So artists were hired to paint the family members into religious paintings. Usually the face of the baby was the face of the person paying for the painting. And, the resemblance when it was noted, was said to be unexpected.

  • Dave

    one of my favorite posts ever!

  • Chopper

    Why is Nic Cage holding a baby in #4?

  • bse35

    #1 stay back, I know Karate stuffs

  • estefania

    LOL i cant decide which one is more ugly
    but definitely all of them are really creepy

  • A55LOVER

    #21 Is Jimmy Kimmel

  • ben

    #19 Haters gonna hate.

  • https://www.facebook.com/ken.hogan1 Ken Hogan

    #1 Free your mind…

  • cool cool

    almost certain these are spanish painters

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000631843983 Chris Watts

    all the mothers have like the same exact nose…

  • ukulelemike

    #4 Hey, mama, I smack-a you face for make-a me look so ugly!
    #18 reminds me of Spanky from the Little Rascals when he would punch people in the face.

  • It'sJimmyYo!

    #19 Im too sexxy for your hands, too sexxy for your hands

  • more-then-a-feeling

    First of all, most paintings are not from renaissance period, and second of all in that other period from wich are some of pictures was okay to display malformed bodies (period is called manirism, see it for your self).
    Fatness was also modern at that time because most of people couldn't become fat as thay can now my dearly beloved americans.

  • 2cool4u

    #9 looks like my boss! And #12 looks like me on a Friday night leaving the bar!

1 2 3 4 5
blog comments powered by Disqus