Startling Photoshop Makeovers of Classic Nudes in Art

In her Venus project, Italian artist Anna Utopia Giordano remixes some of the most celebrated nudes of art history, giving them an extreme Photoshop makeover. Essentially, she turns the icons of beauty of bygone centuries into the breasty waifs currently mass-marketed as ideal in today’s society. She asks, “What would have happened if the aesthetic standard of our society had belonged to the collective unconscious of the great artists of the past?” The results are stark and varied. While some ladies might be bettered by a tug at the waistline and pump to the bust, others may seem off and almost disturbingly adolescent. It makes us wonder if the girls of yesteryear — the ones with the skinny forms idolized by today’s fashion industry — would have stared up at the comparatively Rubenesque builds of the pin-ups of their day with envy. See the before-and-after takes side-by-side, and decide whether the digital lipo and breast augmentation was really necessary.


Image credit: Anna Utopia Giordano

Filed Under:

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

A lot of reaction . . . I guess it is to be expected. I'll bet that there were skinny people in the time of those original masterpieces who were not asked to pose or model. I'll bet that there are fat people in today's times, who are not asked to model or pose. There is truly no matter in judging different body types, skinny or fat, historical or current. We all have our own predispositions, predilections, and yes, current cultural context. Coming out of the Depression, we celebrated voluptuous. In the midst of an obesity epidemic, we celebrate lithe, no surprise. I have no doubt that if one of the early masters had chosen to do a skinny subject, they could have made it as graceful and beautiful as any. Photoshop, on the other hand . . . What is important here, is that we all take care of the miracle of our bodies and let them look like they look like. That is when beauty comes out . . . Shame and self-loathing is reflected in, and tragically, absorbed by, our bodies. Don't defend being fat, if you don't like being fat, don't go beating up on all the skinny people, get to where you and your body enjoy each other.

Marina, I feel that many people tend to be negative about the human form and in particular the naked body. This is in regard to the way the naked body looks, whether it is proper to show the naked body or in regard to other factors. In particular it seems to me that many people pay more attention to what they see as the unpleasant attributes of the naked body then to what could be seen as the more pleasant attributes. I believe that as a consequence of this that many people only appreciate the naked form when it is the “ideal” form, with the “ideal” being determined, in part, by social norms. It seems to me that this “ideal” form tends to be of young, thin women. On the other hand, I feel that I tend to be positive about the human form and the naked body and that I tend to pay more attention to what I feel is pleasant about the naked body and not what I might see as being not so pleasant. Because of this I believe that I see many more types of bodies as being attractive and pleasant to look at. This is not just limited to female forms of different sizes, but also of different ages and also of naked men. I feel there is a bias, not only against larger female nudes, but also against nudes of older women and the male nude. I’ve found a number of photos and paintings of large naked women. These include those in the photo book “Women En Large, Images of Fat Nudes” by Laurie Toby Edison and the photo book “The Bathers” by Jennette Williams. I also did a google, image search for “Plus Sized Beauties” and found many images of attractive larger women. Further Ruben’s and Renoir’s nudes art generally larger than the ones show in the Venus Project. As to whether or not Anna Utopia Giordano’s work is art or not, I see art as having at least two things positive attributes. One is being pretty. I particularly like pretty art and I see Anna Utopia Giordano’s work as being pretty. The other is to make people think and feel that based on the responses to your blog her work as made people think. So I conclude that it is art. Tom,

Firstly I acknowledge the artist is showing us how our perception of beauty changes over time and a large chunk of comments here are posted by people who apparently can't read. Or very reactionary, there are just some things in a world you look at and know is a joke. That said responding to a comment above about these painting depicting a 'realer' time before PS: I'm quite tired of the whole "back in the day we like curvier fatter women and what not" argument. The ideal of the Renaissance woman is not more 'realistic' in any sense. These are the bodies of rich aristocratic women who have all day to lounge around and do nothing. They do not represent the everyday woman in Botticelli's day and I bet the painters tidied up their model's complexions and flaws a little on the way. I was born with a totally different body type than those of Renaissance women so they do not seem 'realer' to me at all. Also curiously Venus and friend's anatomies are pretty messed up in that painting, so I wouldn't openly criticize photoshopped photos in that light. Truth is no one cares as long as it looks nice.

Mhm, perfect layout :).

Perfect layout! How did you get it?

Yep, much improved. I congratulate Giordano for her efforts in making these pictures much more attractive.

@ the persons who say its "not art" - Helloooooooooo! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) Where have you been? Maybe you should go to the museum more before giving your commentary on this subject. And anyway, you're missing the point. I'm fairly full figured myself, and seeing the skinner versions next to the thicker versions: 1. gives me a sense of validation about my shape 2. and helps me recognize that the skinner versions look wrong and sickly. The point is that's the kind of thing advertisers are using to make women feel bad about themselves, the artist is not trying to make women feel bad. It is social commentary - which has been the foundation for a lot of art.

I am so tired of trying to become the photoshoped imaged. 10 years of dieting and feeling fat. Never good enough... I would like to say ''Thank you'' to the artist. I will not waste more time and effort over an obsession so ephemeral.

I don't think it's sad, I think it really shows us that what we consider beautiful now is really sickly. The originals all looked better and more healthy honestly.

As with "updating" anything classic, it winds up looking perfectly tasteless, and I was also surprised to note, disempowered as well. Thinness is a con and a conspiracy to make us obsess about any and all unattractiveness from ears to toes and by doing so, robbing women of their real power. It’s big business. It's Hollywood. Don’t buy into it, and tell "Utopia" to get stuffed.

The question of whether the art is "improved" via a modern-day body makeover - I say no. Hence the artist's point (this wasn't an exercise on how much skinnier you could make women from paintings look). However, I would also like to note that while some of the women look better (in accordance with modern standards) after the touchups, some of the touchups are a little too extreme and the bodies either look unrealistic. Mostly the partial-side-angle images. It's funny - the original women in these pictures would be classified as "overweight", and possibly even "obese" in some instances due to the amount of weight held in some of the hips. Their BMI could likely be higher than doctors typically desire.

How is this a "tired commentary", as some have stated? The problem of warped, idealized media images of the female body is worse than ever.

This is a really interesting point that the artist is making here - makes one think about how the human preferences came to this "unhealthy" level. I'm really curious why the ideals have changed through the course of history; the first reason that comes to my mind is art's connection to wealth - centuries ago the wealthier you were, more you could eat, do less physical work and therefore be "fatter" and physically less developed than the "slimmer" poor class, that was probably closer to the ideals we have today, when people with more money tend to eat healthier, take better care of their appearance etc. To me, that is the most obvious reason. Does anybody have any knowledge in this or just ideas alike mine?

I sadly have to agree with Eros - despite being more Rubenseque than Moss myself, I didn't find the photoshopped versions unattractive. I make a concerted effort to shun the media hype of modern day body perfection, and have now realised that I haven't. That said, our current understanding is that a healthy body shape is healthier...it is all contextual..once salt was worth more than gold.

This experiment shows how beauty standards change over time. All of these paintings date from the 16th-19th centuries. In times before this period, say 13th-early 15th century, we see a beauty standard every bit as thin as our own, even if some emphasis is placed on a rounded belly instead of the bosom. Women were supposed to look fragile, graceful and virginal, and they are painted in poses that emphasized this. In the centuries after, we see well-rounded models in poses that show off their curves. When you keep the pose, but change the body shape, you get awkward results as shown above. So to me, this is about a change of perspective and taste. No doubt our preferences will shift again, and art posing with it.

I am not surprised to see so many people missing the point of what this artist is doing. Is she saying she agrees with the standard that many magazines put on all photos that are used in them? No. Obviously she's pointing out how it effects the beauty of a woman. I read the top, looked through all the pictures and i get it. I do. First I'd like to commend the work she did from a technical standpoint. Its really amazing what can be done with photoshop today. However to answer the question that was given I think that the originals are masterpieces. They depict a realer time. Where it was better to have a thicker waistline in a woman then a thinner one. Those woman were respected for their size. They were important. I don't think how woman are viewed in visual media is fair. Especially to those that are photoshopped to look thinner then they really are. Who a woman is in reality. Not the models. Not the actresses but the average woman is what beauty should be about. And those of you who didn't get it? Well obviously you can't comprehend what the artist is doing and that is about as sad as the truth in the point she's making to begin with.

What a waste of time and effort. We get it, perceptions of beauty have changed. And you can use photoshop. This would have been slightly more interesting if she had given the bald dudes a thick, full head of hair and applied some kind of male enhancement to the angels, since we seem to be on the topic of stupid things that society wants us to conform to.

think this is a natural beauty who wants everyone away from the plastic injection. Thank you for the effort made to our definition of natural beauty and greetings to you ..........

I think this is a natural beauty who wants everyone away from the plastic injection. Thank you for the effort made to our definition of beauty Alhakiqiy and greetings to you ..........

i feel like the breasts are too big on the photoshop version. its not just the hips that have slimmed down since the 90s.

It's funny how all the women look thinner and have larger beast in the photoshop versions but, I suppose that is want is appealing to the viewer now-a-days rather then just appreciating the original art pieces.

read people , read … it explains the point of why this is done perfectly fine at the top of the article…JOY… it`s a woman who did this , NOT a man…read before you just assume it must have been a man doing this "disgusting" thing , making it another sexist thing ! having that said … i doubt these "replicas" would have ever become classic art pieces as the originals have become.

funny though...if one doesn't theorize over it and looks instinctually, they all DO look markedly and undeniably better in their 'makeovers'. this could just be an indication that the fashion mags have successfully brainwashed our tastes. but one wonders...if the masters had had access to beauties of the runway variety (aggressively recruited from the starkest faces and bodies from around the entire world) once upon a time, would they have chosen them instead of what was near and handy?

funny though...if one doesn't theorize over it and looks instinctually, they all DO look markedly and undeniably better in their 'makeovers'. this could just be an indication that the fashion mags have successfully brainwashed our tastes. but one wonders...if the masters had had access to beauties of the runway variety once upon a time, would they have chosen them instead of what was near and handy?

One forgotten reason for a bit of plumpness is cold weather comfort. In the centuries before central heating you either had some fat going on or you shivered half the year. The thinner remade women here would have been fairly miserable. I lived in an old cold tho lovely house (see your breathe in the bedroom): cold is a major thing.

To be more fitting in the modern age of rampant obesity, you'd have to balloon each of them out to 450lbs and place at least two Big Macs in each hand

I really wish some of you would actually go to the artists website- THE POINT IS TO SHOW THAT OUR CURRENT STANDARD OF BEAUTY IS WARPED, NOT TO SHOW HOW MUCH SEXIER THEY ARE WITH THINNER FIGURES. You don't understand the point (which again, was omitted from the description at the beginning of the article) of you're getting pissed off about it. Go to the artists website, hit translate on your browser, and read the objective of the project please!

The words "extreme" and "startling" describing these alterations aren't quite appropriate. "Subtle" and "nuanced" might be a better fit, so to speak. Well done, but a well-worn subject. The actual environment these nudes live speaks far louder than their physical attributes. If the artist would like to engage in a discussion about social differences between now and the time these paintings were created, she would do better to manipulate the elements besides the main subjects, and perhaps how/where they are displayed. I wonder what the installation looks like, or if these only exist as digital images.

most of the originals were overweight. if you compared the female forms in the origs, which were based on women from the aristocracy, and compared them to what physically active women look like (imagine them hunting & gathering if gym gear bothers you), then youd understand that the trend for humans to become more & more sedentary as our wealth increases is a long trend. and not a physically healthy one...

If you feel inadequate, don't blame Photoshop.

I honestly could not tell what the difference was until I had read the copy and understood the point of this project. Until then I literally could not see what had been changed in the paintings. Makes me feel like a child who failed at her spot-the-difference puzzle. On the other hand, having read the comments, I'm quite astounded at the number of people who've somehow managed to learn to write, without ever learning how to read...

One thing worth considering also- can you imagined if the "afters" included tattoos? Ugh.... Just one artist's opinion. Tasteless society we now have.

It's amazing how many of you seem to think you're qualified to critique the author's intentions, but you seem to be unequipped to READ THE ARTICLE first. "OMG U RUINED TEH CLASSIX" comments are pretty ignorant when the author clearly states the intention of this piece in the article at the beginning. Try reading first, jumping to conclusions later.

I understand the purpose of the project however it's disturbing and quite debaucherous! Like just "seeing" what it would look like to photoshop graffiti on the wailing wall or airbrushing pecs on someone in a famous painting. Good for shock value.

I find this absolutely disgusting! Not only is this person messing with REAL beauty, but he's messing with some of the greatest art in history! Is this some kind of experiement? What is this person trying to tell us? Or is he just showing off how he prefers his women in his sick, twisted, and perverted mind. When photoshopped, these (and all other) women look more like annorexic little girls. It's sick! This is why I appreciate art done by HAND way more than art done on a computer, IMHO.

it's interesting to note that with leaner women, paintings, simply, do not work...

The intention of these plumper models was to show their status in society. These women could afford to eat more and not work hard. Now they look like they grabbed the house servant to paint their early pornography. All of the made over images look odd but just goes to show how easily Photoshop alters all of our current magazine and print pieces.

Oh dear. A lot of commenters here have missed the point - to take Carlo Grassini's comment as an example. The point is not that Giordano needs to take anatomy lessons, the point is that she is applying the same photoshop techniques used by magazines and advertisers to "improve" the images. Her interest is in whether or not the photoshopping "improves" the images at all (from the copy: "She asks, “What would have happened if the aesthetic standard of our society had belonged to the collective unconscious of the great artists of the past?""). Those of you complaining that the original paintings depict more attractive women, or that the photoshopping is ineffective, are proving Giordano's point and obviously haven't read the text at the top of the post properly. Whether Giordano is making her point effectively or originally - that's where the real argument about her work is.

If she can call herself an artist, what has art come to?

Furthermore - weren't these classical representations of physical beauty the "breasty waifs" of their time - a representation of a decadent buxom "beauty" available to a privileged few? Yawn.

Color me nonplussed. Feels like a very tired commentary - the ever important message of healthy body image notwithstanding.

This is not Art. Said Italian Artist should be ashamed of herself. Any college student or Hollywood Photographer can use photoshop. To reinterpret a masterpiece honors the work of the original artist, all she has done is turn Venus into a red-haired Barbie Doll.

It is quit obvious Ms A.U. Giordano should have spent more time with her study of human anatomy before TAKING ON the MASTERS of the human form. Her digital Liposuctions are laughable as in LMAO!

Personaly, I'm a fan of chubby ladies. The original versions of these paintings may even be a bit thin for my taste, but I can only say that slimming them down further is a venture in poor taste. I'm not going to lie, you did do an excellent job. Why don't you modify the paintings to be more voluptuous? I can say with certainty that there is a vast number of men that would absolutely adore chubby Venus. My e-mail is matthew.hoon@yahoo.com. You, the artist, should consider my ideas. I think they'll do well for your reputation. (;

The original paintings are very much about flesh...less flesh appears to ruin the painting. I find it interesting that the tummy tucks lend nothing to the attractiveness of the subject.

I think artists need to dig deeper for interesting ideas... hasn't this already been done by countless other artists in a myriad of ways? Once it be came an ad campaign for Dove it was pretty covered.

I prefer the old style of what women were. it's more... honest.

Sad times; interesting but sad. Leave Venus alone, lack of hips is tragic. These paintings in their original form are exactly the kind of images we should be praising, real women, with real beauty.

^^^ey look at these dumb broads