Ugly Baby Paintings

I think most people who know me well know that I do not love the Louvre.  Now, when I say that, I am not saying one shouldn't go to the Louvre.  You should.  It truly is a masterclass of art.  However. I've been to the Louvre.  Eight bazillion gazillion forjillion times.  And then, a few times again after that.  I said last year that I would not go again, and if I did, it was a true sign of friendship.

I went again.

Why don't I like going to the Louvre?  Well, for starters, it doesn't even showcase my favorite kinds of art.  It does have some of my favorite pieces, however, as you can see HERE.  But it is also crowded (not my favorite), as you can see here:

And while yes, it houses the Mona Lisa and Winged Victory of Samothrace, and the Venus de Milo and more, it also has paintings like this one:

And so while taking my friend through to see the highlights, the good stuff, on this particular trip, I entertained myself by taking photos of all the ugly baby paintings in the Louvre.

Why were babies so hard to paint back then?  Wouldn't a baby be the same as an adult to paint?  Maybe I just don't know anything about painting.

Or maybe babies were just ugly back then.

Babies must've had way more hair back then too.

And they were always naked.  Babies didn't have clothes.

Neither did angels.  Or cherubs.  Or Cupid.  Or whatever this was supposed to be.

Ugly baby #47.

Seriously?!  Look at that face.  Not even a mother could love that face.  Unless she was the Virgin Mary.  Maybe she could love that face.  (And why is the cloth wrapped around his abdomen and not where it should be wrapped?!)

And I promise I'm not making fun of sweet baby Jesus with this ugly baby rant.  Isaiah tells us that Jesus wasn't much to look at.  But this isn't about Jesus.  Some of these babies aren't supposed to be a depiction of Jesus anyway.  They're just random ugly babies.  At least one wasn't naked.

This angel had rainbow wings.  It made me think of My Little Pony for some reason.

Another ugly baby.  They were everywhere.  I didn't even take photos of them all.

Many of the ugly babies were mischievous.  Why is this ugly baby crawling under the legs of a naked, dead, very white woman?  Who is lying on top of other dead naked white women?

So...if you ever go to the Louvre, and I'm not there to show you around (because, let's face it, I'm not going to the Louvre ever again), and you get bored because of the 2 million pieces of art in there only 8 that are interesting...you can always find alternative ways to entertain yourself.  Count the bored children who are being lugged around by their parents.  Count how many tourists are taking photos with an iPad (it never ceases to look silly).  Count how many people you hear mention that their feet hurt.  Count ugly baby paintings.

But you can't count ugly babies.  They don't exist in real life.  Just in medieval and Renaissance paintings in the Louvre.  I promise that I think all real life babies are cute.