To: Robert Douglas who wrote (33116 ) 3/23/1999 2:11:00 PM From: nihil Respond to
The beauty and mixture question has long been a favorite topic of discussion in the Islands. I've always thought that the Greek sculptors established standards that have an enormous influence on almost everyone who saw them. As to men, the athlete (Myron's Discobolus) f.i. (a little heavy for my taste -- like most weight men) or the Apollo at Olympia (Praxiteles?)(slightly effeminate for my taste but well conditioned -- the baby Bacchus is way too small -- especially the head) have enormous influence - or the Hellenic dying Gauls. Contrast them with the Egyptian or Assyrian statues or Gudea portraits that show completely different body types that lost out in the competition of taste. Michelangelo's mannerism essentially destroyed the pure (but selective) naturalism of the Greeks. Chinese and Japanese naturalistic sculpture -- much of it concentrated on Buddha in his emaciated or rotund states are much less sttractive as models to many. Greek (Hellenic) sculpture, especially in Central Asia quickly loses the distinctive Greek bodily perfection. The Romans spread the Greek models through the West. Etruscan models could not compare. There are very attractive Indian models, but the temple and cave sculptures are much less generally accepted models (also cause a lot of back sprains in the pornographic models). Supernumery arms clutter up a lot of otherwise beautiful work. I don't think there are many restrictive ideal shapes for men. Good physical condition, especially a low percentage body fat and good muscle tone is fine. Few people restrict beauty to heavily muscled or lean muscles. I am not really keen about encouraging people by establishing big fat models. I also think bulk building steroids should be encouraged as by making gargantuan figures into models. I think we already view a wide variety of shapes as models of male beauty.
