This Tumblr Dedicated To Ugly Babies In Renaissance Paintings Is The Funniest Thing You’ll See All Day
The Renaissance is often perceived as the period of the noblest traditions, but some artists from that time had repeatedly been doing something that looks somewhat sinister nowadays - they painted our beloved beautiful babies like mini versions of old men. Tumblr account 'Ugly Renaissance Babies' is doing exactly what its name suggests - collecting the ugliest baby artworks from the said era, hilariously proving that some painters probably had never laid their eyes on a cute, fat baby. On the other hand, this weird Renaissance art depiction of baby Jesus might stem from the belief that he was born formed like an adult and didn't change much growing. Following this, all the other ugly babies were painted in the same manner.
From rock-hard abs to getting stoned like a gravel road, these Benjamin Button fellas seem to be hitting puberty a lot faster than we did. Scroll down to poke some fun at the Renaissance paintings, er, I mean, learn some art history and vote for your favorite funny babies!
This post may include affiliate links.
Is it a baby? Is it a sausage roll? Who knows. Either way, it's far too scary to risk giving it your tit!
Why is she aiming that flesh colored grenade at the little man who is wrapped up in a striped sausage casing? He looks like he's ready to torpedo the hell outta there!! And why is her right knee so swollen? This is so strange....
Didn't saint nick become santa claus? I guess this explains how that fat old man can squeeze into millions of chimneys in one night...
OMG I didn't realize at first that thing she's holding is supposed to be her breast. It looked like cuccoon baby was about to get a dose of spot-on dewormer.
It looks like she's blowing a smoke ring out of her boob
Load More Replies...
Hmmmm if you don't want to drink, I could squeeze some milk in your ear if that would help...
Its like Picasso and Dali had a bastard child who was born addicted to crack cocaine, that is this painting.
Whoever painted this had never seen a baby but also had never seen a boob.
That's a titty? I thought she had milked herself into a water balloon and was trying to get him to suck on that.
Load More Replies...
I'm sure someone already mentioned this, however doesn't the baby bare a STRIKING resemblance to Nicolas Freaking Cage?! I'm dying over here.. ALVA!! GET MY MILK!
I am sure someone already mentioned this, however Doesn't the baby bare a most STRIKING resemblance to Nicolas freaking Cage?!?!? I'm dying over here.. ALVA! get my milk!!
A lot of these people should never have become artists: that's where the problem lies. Or: stick with landscapes.
This baby is clearly still in the larval stage. You can't feed them milk till they pupate!
I laughed so hard ahahahha, I'm scared to watch the rest of them XDDD
Also ugly breast and nipple. I presume he didn't earn a living doing art.
This is nightmare fuel... and yet it's perfect meme material. This artist was truly a dank memer in their time *claps*
Are you sure it isn't an over sized snail eating a child, while the mother stares in horror, as she was supposed to feed her baby not let HIM get eaten?
Huh. I was unaware that back then tits came formed the same way the top of your turkey baster. You learn something new every day.
That is some serious swaddling! Baby Nicholas looks like he just wants to get free of that blanky!
Oh my... The woman's face isn't half bad, but what the hell happened with that thing on her shoulder?
*record scratch, freeze frame* yup that's me. you're probably wondering how I got in this situation.
*derp intensifies* no choild. stahp. yuo doing meh a concern. no heckin bamboozle.
My oh My! at first I thought they were just painting his nails which is strange because that would mean that he has three feet. I need more sleep..
"My lord, it's just an eye. The gods saw fit to grace me with a spare. And may I say King Leonidas, you legs are so smooth."
Looks like a little merman... or those paper thingies people put on turkey legs. Just looked it up: turkey booties or turkey frills. Okay.
Well, dont laugh so hard. people posting on social media look the same or worse than these demonic babies if not for the Photoshop . Yes, you too
At medicine faculty, our professor told us about unintended depicting of different diseases on rennaisance and baroq paintworks. This is Klippel-Feil syndrome.
This is the first picture where the children look like actual children, not like something from a horror movie.
Whao! well Saint Anne being Jesus Grand-Ma, her grip explain all the muscle the baby seems to have: Jesus inherit her super muscular strenght
I dunno who or what is holding the baby Jesus. But it's got too many fingers!
Did they ever actually met a baby? This is not a baby, this is a very small adult
Baby Jesus is squishing that poor bird (a barn swallow?), and it looks like he's got another one in his mouth.
The captions disappointed me. Some of the pictures held way more potential.
Nothing stopping you adding your own to the comments underneath the pics. I await your inspired witticisms...
Load More Replies... Wow. We've come along way in the art of painting babies... That's what I took from this.
I think that all those artists painted their own faces on the babies. Haha
I guess some were painted by monks who didn't have a lot of women or babies around.
Load More Replies...
Omg, those would probably give me nightmares. Were the babies so ugly back in those days. I mean, they are babies, you can't expect them to be handsome but never the less...
Well Christ was supposed to have been born looking like an adult and other paintings then copied that man baby style. It's only recently that we thought of babies as cute.
Load More Replies...
It is interesting how little most of these babies look like their mothers.
Actually, youngest babies just plain didn't live very long. Mothers were NOT keen on dragging them around to monasteries or messy studios. Heads weren't painted at the same time as bodies which were usually of older toddlers.
Goddamit, this should be in the deep web .. Well, good old middle ages, when even babies were creepy and horrifying as much as everything else.
How come human beings couldn't paint or draw an accurate image (I'm not saying these are but hey're getting there) of a human figure until the Renaissance? People in ancient times could sculpt accurately, almost at the level of modern times. But two-dimensional art by modern standards took millenia to progress from stick figures to child-like drawings to cartoon-like pictures to accurate representations to photorealistic drawings. The only answer I ever got was that artists and art collectors followed the style of the times so the accurate stuff is lost to history. I don't buy that malarkey. Any ideas?
Hello Black Dahlia, good question. I think (but can't say with 100% certainty) that it could be because the artists from the 300s until the Renaissance had different aesthetic priorities. The Roman Empire and the High Renaissance on tended to be more interested in the physical world and therefore valued an empirical, sensory based approach to art. Whereas starting with the introduction of Christianity in the late Roman Empire and persisting well into the late Medieval period, artists considered the senses as illusory (similar to Plato in many ways) and potentially leading us to sin, and Heaven preferable to the suffering, pain and shame of earthly life. As a result, they were more interested in symbolic depiction, rather than realistically rendering the subject, which to them was of low priority.
Load More Replies...
I dunno what people are talking about. These are incredibly apt depictions of human babies.
I couldn’t agree more! Beyoncé should’ve hired an artist like these to paint her maternity pictures.
Load More Replies...
Whenever I'm feeling down I look at ugly Renaissance babies' pictures and they make it all better. It's like the artists were not even trying anymore.
My parents ALWAYS sent these museum cards at Christmas. As a child , I always found these infants super ugly, &, some even scared me !
Babies can be ugly... Why shouldn't art reflect that? I've seen several ugly babies/kids today in the underground.
The dearth of art history education in this source fails to surprise. Idiot.
people seriously enjoy this? well to each their own i guess.....
The comments do nothing for me, but I do like looking at art fails.
Load More Replies...
Why do liberals hate Christianity so much? Because Christian doctrine doesn't fit to their extreme agenda. Merry Christmas everyone and God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!! That should get Libs riled up lol.
Because too many christians no longer follow Christ's teachings. Christianity today is no more than pissing other people off, as your lame comment proves.
Load More Replies...
I am officially so disgusted. Couldn't even finish this post till the end!
The captions disappointed me. Some of the pictures held way more potential.
Nothing stopping you adding your own to the comments underneath the pics. I await your inspired witticisms...
Load More Replies... Wow. We've come along way in the art of painting babies... That's what I took from this.
I think that all those artists painted their own faces on the babies. Haha
I guess some were painted by monks who didn't have a lot of women or babies around.
Load More Replies... Omg, those would probably give me nightmares. Were the babies so ugly back in those days. I mean, they are babies, you can't expect them to be handsome but never the less...
Well Christ was supposed to have been born looking like an adult and other paintings then copied that man baby style. It's only recently that we thought of babies as cute.
Load More Replies... It is interesting how little most of these babies look like their mothers.
Actually, youngest babies just plain didn't live very long. Mothers were NOT keen on dragging them around to monasteries or messy studios. Heads weren't painted at the same time as bodies which were usually of older toddlers.
Goddamit, this should be in the deep web .. Well, good old middle ages, when even babies were creepy and horrifying as much as everything else.
How come human beings couldn't paint or draw an accurate image (I'm not saying these are but hey're getting there) of a human figure until the Renaissance? People in ancient times could sculpt accurately, almost at the level of modern times. But two-dimensional art by modern standards took millenia to progress from stick figures to child-like drawings to cartoon-like pictures to accurate representations to photorealistic drawings. The only answer I ever got was that artists and art collectors followed the style of the times so the accurate stuff is lost to history. I don't buy that malarkey. Any ideas?
Hello Black Dahlia, good question. I think (but can't say with 100% certainty) that it could be because the artists from the 300s until the Renaissance had different aesthetic priorities. The Roman Empire and the High Renaissance on tended to be more interested in the physical world and therefore valued an empirical, sensory based approach to art. Whereas starting with the introduction of Christianity in the late Roman Empire and persisting well into the late Medieval period, artists considered the senses as illusory (similar to Plato in many ways) and potentially leading us to sin, and Heaven preferable to the suffering, pain and shame of earthly life. As a result, they were more interested in symbolic depiction, rather than realistically rendering the subject, which to them was of low priority.
Load More Replies... I dunno what people are talking about. These are incredibly apt depictions of human babies.
I couldn’t agree more! Beyoncé should’ve hired an artist like these to paint her maternity pictures.
Load More Replies... Whenever I'm feeling down I look at ugly Renaissance babies' pictures and they make it all better. It's like the artists were not even trying anymore.
My parents ALWAYS sent these museum cards at Christmas. As a child , I always found these infants super ugly, &, some even scared me !
Babies can be ugly... Why shouldn't art reflect that? I've seen several ugly babies/kids today in the underground.
The dearth of art history education in this source fails to surprise. Idiot.
people seriously enjoy this? well to each their own i guess.....
The comments do nothing for me, but I do like looking at art fails.
Load More Replies... Why do liberals hate Christianity so much? Because Christian doctrine doesn't fit to their extreme agenda. Merry Christmas everyone and God Bless America!!!!!!!!!!! That should get Libs riled up lol.
Because too many christians no longer follow Christ's teachings. Christianity today is no more than pissing other people off, as your lame comment proves.
Load More Replies... I am officially so disgusted. Couldn't even finish this post till the end!
