YouTube: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0hq7S2Qzo9M
Previous: What are These Boys Doing??
Next: Why Climate Change /Actually/ Happens in 4 Minutes

Categories

Statistics

View count:5,394
Likes:945
Dislikes:0
Comments:100
Duration:03:54
Uploaded:2022-07-26
Last sync:2022-07-26 15:30
In which John and Sarah spend five hours at the louvre museum in Paris seeking to answer the most important question in art history: have these artists ever seen a human baby?

----
Subscribe to our newsletter! http://eepurl.com/Bgi9b
And join the community at http://nerdfighteria.com
Help transcribe videos - http://nerdfighteria.info
Learn more about our project to help Partners in Health radically reduce maternal mortality in Sierra Leone: https://www.pih.org/hankandjohn
If you're able to donate $2,000 or more to this effort, please join our matching fund: https://pih.org/hankandjohnmatch
John's twitter - http://twitter.com/johngreen
Hank's twitter - http://twitter.com/hankgreen
Hank's tumblr - http://edwardspoonhands.tumblr.com

Good morning Hank. We're at the Louvre, and with the help of my intrepid spouse, we're going to determine which artists have seen a baby. At first we weren't sure how to get to the Louvre, but we figured it out from context clues and after marvelling at the crowd for a moment, we dove right in to determine which artists have seen a baby, which this artist totally has and this artist totally hasn't. And yes, I know that cherubs are not technically babies, but we all know that in order to make a good cherub you need to have seen a baby, which sadly this artist has not. This ancient sculptor has seen a baby, although babies do not tend to have waists, so that was a bit of a weird choice. Side note one, by the way there will three side notes. These ancient Greek and Roman sculptures in these galleries seem inevitably unpainted emphasizing the texture of the marble and whatever, but in fact most of them were painted, often very brightly, meaning that our whole neoclassical architecture and art thing with unpainted stone everywhere is not actually neoclassical. Anyway, Jacques-Louis David has definitely seen a baby, really good baby. Botechelli, I think saw a baby once years ago, but he's never seen a baby throw up on anyone. I actually think Paolo Veneziano has seen a baby and has seen a baby more recently than he has seen a human woman. Then I went into the Mona Lisa room to look at the people waiting to look at the Mona Lisa, but fortunately for me, I'm not here to see the Mona Lisa. I'm here to see if Titian has ever seen a baby, which he has. Louis Le Nain has also seen a baby whereas Domenico Beccafumi most certainly has not. He's never even had a baby described to him, he's just seen adults and imagined that they were once smaller. This artist has seen a baby, or at least a black and white photo of one. Then we have this fascinating painting. One thing you should know about this artist is that he has never seen a baby. Oh wait, I feel a side note coming on. I can already hear the art historians screaming, "Homunculus! Homunculus!" which means like 'manchild' in Latin, and it was this big thing especially in medieval European art where people would paint the baby Jesus as simultaneously small and a full grown man. Here is a particularly horrifying example with the idea being that Jesus was always 100% God and knew everything, even when he was a baby and so we have to portray him as simultaneously a tiny little baby and a God man. None of which changes the immutable reality that this artist has never seen a baby. I mean in 1515 Albrechter made this picture of a rhinoceros without ever having seen an actual rhinoceros and you're telling me that this artist has seen a baby? This artist has also never seen a baby who are, in fact a notoriously poor horticulturalist. Also, this artist has never seen a baby because they cannot hold books above their heads. But this artist has seen a baby because gosh, they look good in hats. Side note three, I was utterly entranced by this incredibly weird painting of a young man holding a statue, like the way he's holding it is so weirdly loving, but the man's face looks like he just got dumped or something. I don't know if this is a good painting but after all this religious iconography and mythology it was just nice to see a 400 year old Michael Sera cradling a statue. Alright, back to the baby art. This artist has seen a baby, as has this one and this one. And Rubens is so proud of having seen a baby that he painted like thirty of them. But of course, this artist has not seen a baby and frankly, I hope he never does because I do not think you can trust people who think babies look like this. After looking at all of these cherubs and baby Gods, I was starting to think there wasn't a single work of art in the entire Louvre that understood anything about actual babies, but then I came across this painting. Sweet little babies, floating in space surrounded by flowers. Slightly spirally but also lovely and I finally felt like my journey had come to an end. An artist who hadn't just seen a baby, but may have even, like, held one. Hank, I'll see you on Friday.