This is going to be a weird question, and I mean nothing perverse, but in alot of nude renaissance art, nearly all women and some men have no pubic hair... is this symbolic or was this a trend?
2007-01-31 18:19:31 · 4 answers · asked by Brocke A 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Other - Arts & Humanities
It was a matter of aesthetics. Still to this day there are artists who will eliminate the pubic hair and the hair in the armpit for aesthetics. Nothing more than that.
It is a matter of personal tastes to the individual artist. These days pubic hair is not an issue for most artists in life drawing nor in studio paintings. The only real way to avoid the pubic hair in photography is when the model shaves the hair off himself, or herself.
An artist is not a camera, so he or she can eliminate this hair or not.If they want they can paint or draw a braid into the crotch.
2007-01-31 18:50:14 · answer #1 · answered by the old dog 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Most people than had surpressed pedophelia, and some people still have this today. Like u look at lot of nudie films today its the same thing....I think it was something to do with not catching pubic lice
2007-02-01 02:25:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is a discusion of the subject in the article on pubic hair at wikipedia
*** WARNING *** link below includes pictures of full frontal nudity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pubic_hair#Pubic_hair_in_art
2007-02-01 07:16:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a trend that comes and goes.....
2007-02-01 15:29:58 · answer #4 · answered by Sam 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋