Botticelli's "The Birth of Venus". Nude on the half-shell.
Donatello's "David". I much prefer Michelangelo's David - this one is just smarmy looking. AND if you're going to be naked, what's the point of the hat and boots?
Danny (and by association, I) are currently studying the Renaissance in his World History class. So far I have really liked his history textbook - it presents facts without being too judgemental about them. I like that a lot. It also has a lot of cool pictures and illustrations to go along with the text. As anyone who has ever studied Western Civ will know, a lot of the Renaissance artists were all about the "nude". Call it what you want, it doesn't fly too well at our house. It's not that I'm opposed to my children seeing "fine art" - I'm not. I just don't think they need to have those nudes constantly in view. To that end, I have supplied Danny with some Post-It notes.
The textbook actually shows great restraint - I think Danny only needs about 3 or 4 more post-it notes. The rest of the Renaissance art is clothed.
The textbook actually shows great restraint - I think Danny only needs about 3 or 4 more post-it notes. The rest of the Renaissance art is clothed.
I'm really looking forward to some of the upcoming chapters. Especially the one about the Ottoman Empire, or as Danny has already dubbed it: "The Footstool Empire".
Sooo...should I put a post it note on the Maxfield Parrish print that I have up? I'm kind of thinking that since Steve grew up with it in his parents house and never noticed one of the figures has no clothes, we might be okay.
2 comments:
I, too, don't understand the nude but with boots and a hat thing. I think it carried over to Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck, however...
I wonder what all those renaissance children thought growing up in Rome or Florence...wonder if Don's David was one of their super heroes...wonder if there were enough hats and boots to go around...
Post a Comment