/biz/ - Business & Finance

Final bump for the night, in the morning pals; let's hope for some green soon.

>>22201199
Close, but not quite.
It would have been modelled after a male with distinct intentional feminised differences, as the artist attempting to recreate feminine features on th male frame. This wasn't because they were all fags or whatnot, but at the time (for the statue, it would have been ~mid-late 1800, but the precident was around for centures, it's the modern era which is comparably out of place) it was considered extremely disrespectful to look on a naked woman outside of marriage (moreso if she was married) - and obviously you wouldn't frame your wife for people to gaze upon else it, since it would come with the implication you were using it as an outlet to unearnedly assert your surname's influence (ie, Britannia looks like my wife) - hence it wasn't on the end of that they couldn't find some whore on the street who would model for them, but that the artist would purposefully not have a woman model so they could save face as an upstanding, morally dignified business that treated women with uptmost respect - and weren't a business filled with dirty minded degenerates (which in turn meant that they were more likely to get more major contracts from more noble/official sources).
It's the same reason why lots of women in classical works of art are of stockier builds than usual (notably, this is the counterpoint to ebin fat acceptance movements and the implication that obecity was physically attractive back before deathfats were a thing - it wasn't, again, it was that they were modelling using men, and imposing a female forme onto that). Generally speaking though, side-shots of female faces were A-OK, which is why on coinage, your Britannias and Germanias faces are more easily recognisably female.

Now kindly fuck off back to >>>/pol/ with your leddit spacing; you uneducated, culturally illiterate fucking pleb, trampling over culture as if you're individually superior to it.