# First monumental SSBBW in history



## jac1974kra (Feb 21, 2012)

In 1680 King of spain Charles II has accepted in for palace 6-years old girl: Eugenia Martinez Vallejo. She weighed over 170 pounds and become adoration of ruler. Under special dier girl gained and gained , after this ruler It make portraits and it put monuments. There was probably first monumental SSBBW in history. 

View attachment eugenia2.JPG


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 21, 2012)

True. It was painted by Juan Carreño de Miranda around 1660 and you can see it in Museo del Prado in Madrid.


----------



## Jes (Feb 21, 2012)

Uh..well first, she's a young girl. A naked young girl, in that top pic. So maybe that's not the best way to start this thread, unlessn' we're kiddie diddlers.

Second, I remember hearing about this woman and many have theorized (based on the very images and monuments you reference) that she most likely had Prader Willi syndrome...so I think your mention of a 'special diet' may be apocryphal--PWS is a disease, not a pastime. If you're lookin' at her and gettin' wood, you may be fetishizing the visible symptoms of a disease.


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 21, 2012)

Jes. You are right.


----------



## Jes (Feb 21, 2012)

sergi5 said:


> Yes. I have read this article in which talk about that, but seems to be not correct. Prader-willi has also low intelligent syndrom. It is reported that Eugenia didnt so she was not a Prader Willi.



Well, it's also reported that upon seeing the images above, Dr. Prader himself said she probably had the disease. But, you are absolutely right; we can't know for sure. 

What I do know for sure is that I don't think it's a great idea to call a 6 year old an SSBB*W*. And I find it sad that she was christened "The Monster" and carted around to fairs to be gawked at. She was indeed brought to the court--just like 'dwarves' and other 'curiosities,' and probably provided a certain amount of entertainment during a fancy dinner now and then.


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 21, 2012)

I am agree with Jes.


----------



## KHayes666 (Feb 21, 2012)

No reason to apply 21st century mindsets to 17th century culture. If the 17th century Spaniards thought it was in poor taste to paint a child naked they wouldn't have done it to begin with.

No, I don't find this sexually attractive as I'm not into kiddie porn but I'm also not going to apply 21st century thinking either. This child/woman was in a position of power and the OP is trying to point out that supersized human beings weren't always the low class citizens the media today likes to portray.


----------



## Jes (Feb 21, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> This child/woman was in a position of power and the OP is trying to point out that supersized human beings weren't always the low class citizens the media today likes to portray.



Have you ever heard of the term 'court jester' or 'buffoon?'


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 21, 2012)

Carreño de Miranda portrait the people around the Crownd. All kind of people. Carlos II herself was disabled. His portraits, also by Carreño are full of mistery but also sorrow. It is also this characters in any XVII painting and literature not only in Spain, over Europe. You can see it in Velazquez and in literature in Lazarillo de Tormes, for example.

Talking about la monstrua desnuda, obviously have not a sexual approach and she is portrayed with dignity and also with a bit of irony, typical in the great masters as after Rembradt and Goya.


----------



## KHayes666 (Feb 21, 2012)

Jes said:


> Have you ever heard of the term 'court jester' or 'buffoon?'



So using your logic, Chris Farley, Kevin James, John Goodman, Jackie Gleason and George Wendt would fall under the category of "buffoons" since they are laughed at for their antics and are (were; in some cases) overweight nevermind the fact they are adored the world over.

Sounds like the protagonist of the painting described by previous posters.


----------



## Jes (Feb 21, 2012)

sergi5 said:


> Talking about la monstrua desnuda, obviously have not a sexual approach and she is portrayed with dignity and also with a bit of irony, typical in the great masters as after Rembradt and Goya.



i agree--i find the painting beautiful, but sad (like so much of Spanish art). But, for me (and, of course, all art is subjective), the name remains equally significant: the naked monster. You mentioned that the artist painted members of the Court, which is true; however, this little girl is only part of the court b/c she is considered grotesque--she's the conversation piece, the freak, the comic relief. I think that's the struggle, for me. I have trouble with the OP's supposition that the King 'adored' her. She played a role at court but being carted around as a freak isn't a brand of adoration that goes down easily for me.

We can, perhaps, at least agree on that, if not on the intent of the artist.


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 21, 2012)

Jes said:


> i agree--i find the painting beautiful, but sad (like so much of Spanish art). But, for me (and, of course, all art is subjective), the name remains equally significant: the naked monster. You mentioned that the artist painted members of the Court, which is true; however, this little girl is only part of the court b/c she is considered grotesque--she's the conversation piece, the freak, the comic relief. I think that's the struggle, for me. I have trouble with the OP's supposition that the King 'adored' her. She played a role at court but being carted around as a freak isn't a brand of adoration that goes down easily for me.
> 
> We can, perhaps, at least agree on that, if not on the intent of the artist.



Yes and not. Some of them became powerful and with influence in the Court. They live there and at the end know the secrets. So it is not exactly our XXI century point of view as you can see if you read the liteture like Quixote or Lazarillo. It is very well portrayed in the wonderful french film by Jaques Feyder "la Kermese heroique" about the war between Spaniads and Flemish. There a character is a midget. You can see his role not as buffon and also rich and powerful man in the Court. You have to imagine the european society in XVII.
Also you have to know the fist "freak" at the court was the king. Not only Carlos II, of course. Even Felipe IV.

The main and first bbw in cout was not Eugenia. I would say the queen, Isabel I who has a very dark and interesting history.


----------



## Jes (Feb 21, 2012)

sergi5 said:


> The main and first bbw in cout was not Eugenia. I would say the queen, Isabel I who has a very dark and interesting history.



Moreso than Juana la Loca? 
I do understand the complexities of court to some extent (moreso the British, though) but my opinions stand. Please, no one post that early Rembrandt painting Jabba the Hutt--I couldn't take it!


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 21, 2012)

[
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_II_de_España 

View attachment isabel_ii_of_spain.jpg


----------



## Angel (Feb 22, 2012)

The first painting is of a nude CHILD. Art or artistic, it is not appropriate for the Dimensions site - which is an ADULT web site. The first image should be removed. If someone is so curious to see it, they can use Google.

Would a similar photograph or digital image taken of a nude child this very day be allowed to be posted? I would think not! In the time period of the first image, digital cameras did not exist. A painting was the means of capturing and saving an image. A different medium or time period does not necessarily equal appropriate. Even if the child later became a queen or was considered royal, at the time of the painting she was a child and could not have had the mental capability to give consent to allow the painting of nude self much less understand that it would be distributed to the masses. Also anyone who knows anything about Prader Willi Syndrome understands that it usually affects children who are mentally slow. In other words, another reason that the child was taken advantage of by whomever it was that was so mesmerized by her appearance that he desired a nude painting of the child.


----------



## KHayes666 (Feb 22, 2012)

Angel said:


> The first painting is of a nude CHILD. Art or artistic, it is not appropriate for the Dimensions site - which is an ADULT web site. The first image should be removed. If someone is so curious to see it, they can use Google.
> 
> Would a similar photograph or digital image taken of a nude child this very day be allowed to be posted? I would think not! In the time period of the first image, digital cameras did not exist. A painting was the means of capturing and saving an image. A different medium or time period does not necessarily equal appropriate. Even if the child later became a queen or was considered royal, at the time of the painting she was a child and could not have had the mental capability to give consent to allow the painting of nude self much less understand that it would be distributed to the masses. Also anyone who knows anything about Prader Willi Syndrome understands that it usually affects children who are mentally slow. In other words, another reason that the child was taken advantage of by whomever it was that was so mesmerized by her appearance that he desired a nude painting of the child.



Once again applying 21st century logic to 17th century culture. In 21st century America nude children is a big no no but in the 17th century many cultures in Europe promoted nudity....including Pompeii (before it was buried in 0079) who displayed pictures of dicks on their brothels.


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 22, 2012)

It is not clear if she is a child and the date. It suppose to be painted in 1660 by Carreño de Miranda (1614-1685) but it is not clear. So the canvas was painted one our before Carlos II was king in 1661. So he coudt join the court with 6 years old.

That kind of topics are usual in any european painting, mainly spanish and flemish during XVII century as you can see in Velazquez.

The famous canvas El bufon Diego de Acedo portrait a midget in the court. Diego was maybe cousin of Velazquez rich and well know becuse he was brave. You can find similar topics in Brueghel, El Bosco and later in Rembradt.

Some doctors consider because her features she could suffer prader willi. But there is not evedence, because any text relates that Eugenia was mental disabled. However we know that Carlos II was.

The second picture is Isabel II of Spain no Eugenia. It is another women who live almots 200 years later.


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 22, 2012)

http://www.scptfe.com/inic/download.php?idfichero=516

More information. Eugenia arrived to Madrid in 1680 no 1660.


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 22, 2012)

Portrait by Van Dyck. 

View attachment diana-cecil-countess-of-oxford-1638.jpg!Blog.jpg


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Feb 22, 2012)

KHayes666 said:


> So using your logic, Chris Farley, Kevin James, John Goodman, Jackie Gleason and George Wendt would fall under the category of "buffoons" since they are laughed at for their antics and are (were; in some cases) overweight nevermind the fact they are adored the world over.
> 
> Sounds like the protagonist of the painting described by previous posters.



Huge difference between someone being funny who just happens to be fat and someone being laughed at _because_ they are fat.


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 22, 2012)

We have i mind the idea than most movies trasltate about the Court and people use to be laugh at. But it is not true. We have to think in XVII people society. All people who belong the Court were privilege. They didnt have to make love but yes be friends of the child of the kings, for example. 

Again please you have to see the funny and wonderful french film directed by Jaques Feyder called "La Khermesse heroique" in English "Carnival in Flanders".


----------



## Jes (Feb 22, 2012)

Ok, I stand corrected. This 6 year old is definitely the first famous SSBBW, had no disease that made her fat, just a special diet, was in a position of power in Spain, and would have been on fantastic American sitcoms if she were alive today. She's bringin' Monster back! Us other fat girls don't know how to act! 

You all have my apologies.

I especially like how she's even eating in the painting (with both hands!)


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 22, 2012)

Jes I didnt put the painting of Carreño de Miranda. It is not clear the age of Eugenia, because it is not clear if was paited in 1660 or 1680. Of course there is no evidence if she suffers prader willi. Portraits not were always realistic. But maybe you are expert in European History and European painting.


----------



## Jes (Feb 22, 2012)

sergi5 said:


> But maybe you are expert in European History and European painting.



Nope--just in monsters!


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 22, 2012)

Sarcastic point of view were usual in painters during XV, XVI and XVII Century.

For example the Dutch master El Bosco. "Jardin de las delicias". 

View attachment Jard_n_delicias_4.jpg


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 22, 2012)

Compare the respect of Carreño with the ironic and of course not friendly approach that Goya did in his portrait of Fernando VII of Spain. 

View attachment Francisco-de-Goya-Portrait-of-Ferdinand-VII.JPG


----------



## Jes (Feb 22, 2012)

Sergi, I (nor I would assume the other contrarian posters in this thread) am _not _complaining about a painting of a naked child (or a feeble king or a social dystopia). I'm complaining that said photo is being posted here as some kind of pro-SSBBW trophy. It's not about political correctness; it's about not being gross.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Feb 22, 2012)

Again, in the "I wonder why I still post occasionally here anymore" a post of mine has been removed with no explanation of what rule(s) was violated, yet the pictures in the original post were left up some time while the debate took place.

Great job, guys.


----------



## Webmaster (Feb 22, 2012)

You know exactly why your post was removed, so righteous indignation is hardly warranted.



wrestlingguy said:


> Again, in the "I wonder why I still post occasionally here anymore" a post of mine has been removed with no explanation of what rule(s) was violated, yet the pictures in the original post were left up some time while the debate took place.
> 
> Great job, guys.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Feb 22, 2012)

No, I absolutely don't. I wouldn't have asked if I was given a reason by a mod, by someone. My experience in the past has been if there was an infraction, you'd be told what the infraction was, or why it was removed.

Hard to play by the rules if the rules change, and you aren't made aware of them.


----------



## Fat Brian (Feb 22, 2012)

wrestlingguy said:


> No, I absolutely don't. I wouldn't have asked if I was given a reason by a mod, by someone. My experience in the past has been if there was an infraction, you'd be told what the infraction was, or why it was removed.
> 
> Hard to play by the rules if the rules change, and you aren't made aware of them.



It was probably posting a pic of a woman you don't own. Just throwing that out there.


----------



## Tina (Feb 22, 2012)

Fat Brian said:


> It was probably posting a pic of a woman you don't own. Just throwing that out there.


That sentence definitely should be thrown out.

It was the right thing to do to take the picture down. If children cannot post here, their naked bodies should not be subjects of discussion, either, no matter when the painting was made. We are no longer in the dark ages... Supposedly.


----------



## Fat Brian (Feb 22, 2012)

Tina said:


> That sentence definitely should be thrown out.
> 
> It was the right thing to do to take the picture down. If children cannot post here, their naked bodies should not be subjects of discussion, either, no matter when the painting was made. We are no longer in the dark ages... Supposedly.



Phil isn't the one who posted the naked painting, there was a post of his that removed earlier that linked to a photo somewhere else on the site.


----------



## Tina (Feb 23, 2012)

I didn't say anything at all about Phil and wasn't talking about Phil at all. I know Phil well enough to know that he would never do such a thing. I also know that if there was such a pic, and it sounds like there was, whomever posted it (and I don't know who did post it) should not have. But rather than scold whomever it was, I'm just saying that it's a good thing it's gone. 

What I took issue with, and which you obviously didn't at all get, is your horrible phrasing.


----------



## Fat Brian (Feb 23, 2012)

Tina said:


> What I took issue with, and which you obviously didn't at all get, is your horrible phrasing.



Yes, the sentence sounds awkward but ownership is reffering to the pic and not the woman.


----------



## Jooplef (Feb 23, 2012)

Tina said:


> . We are no longer in the dark ages... Supposedly.



Since when did nude paintings = pr0n? Typical Puritan nonsense such as the statues of justice being draped by Ashcroft.

I can't see the painting myself so I cannot judge whether it was in poor taste, but I do know that if cherubic images start being censored then I would hardly call that societal progress.


----------



## CastingPearls (Feb 23, 2012)

Jooplef said:


> Since when did nude paintings = pr0n? Typical Puritan nonsense such as the statues of justice being draped by Ashcroft.
> 
> I can't see the painting myself so I cannot judge whether it was in poor taste, but I do know that if cherubic images start being censored then I would hardly call that societal progress.


Dimensions will not suffer a collapse of culture and civilization based on the removal of the image of a nude child. I think your societal progress here is still safe.


----------



## truebebeblue (Feb 23, 2012)

Jooplef said:


> Since when did nude paintings = pr0n? Typical Puritan nonsense such as the statues of justice being draped by Ashcroft.
> 
> I can't see the painting myself so I cannot judge whether it was in poor taste, but I do know that if cherubic images start being censored then I would hardly call that societal progress.




Well the judgement was for a Moderator anyway,better to err on side of caution with nude children and the internet as a whole as people have been arrested for developing pics of babies in bath tubs. True Story. This IS an adult and sexually themed website.


----------



## Angel (Feb 23, 2012)

Yes, she was beautiful. Beautifully depicted in both paintings in my opinion. Note that the child was *six* years old in both paintings. She was not a WOMAN or an SSBBW. She was an innocent child that was being ridiculed and exploited by a King and his court.

Nudity of children was not acceptable then, either.

For those who still don't get it and who did NOT take the time to do any research whatsoever take the time to read the explanation of the royal courts' obsession with those referred to as monsters. (also listed were dwarfs, those having darker skin, those with birth "defects", or anyone different than what was considered to be "normal" in that time period). It had nothing to do with making people laugh. It was about what was found to be oddities. These were mere humans who were taken in by the King's court and paraded around and exploited because they were not considered to be normal like everyone else. (Sounds like the precursor to the circus oddity side shows and to todays television shows where people are unknowingly invited for nothing other than to be exploited and ridiculed.)


http://www.seacex.es/Spanish/Publicaciones/209/greco_picasso_in_16_monstr.pdf


Page 11

FREAKS

Juan Carreño de Miranda (16141685) 

Eugenia Martínez Vallejo, Known as La Monstrua, Dressed , ca. 1680

Oil on canvas, 165 x 107 cm 
National Museum of the Prado, Madrid 

This pair of portraits of the obese child, Eugenia Martinez Vallejo, WAS included in the portrait gallery of monsters, dwarfs, lunatics, and other peculiar characters who enlivened life at the royal palace before the arrival of the Bourbons 

These figures were introduced to the court by the Hapsburg Dynasty in the early sixteenth century and discarded by Philip v immediately after he took the throne. Eugenia Martínez Vallejo was born in Bárcena, in the archbishopric of Burgos. When She Was Only six years old, her parents brought her to the court in Madrid where her unusual obesity soon made her a public attraction. 

Charles II was fascinated by the she-monster (La monstrua) and had her dressed according to palace fashion in a lavish red-and-white brocade dress with silver buttons; and commissioned from the second Apeles of our Spain, the illustrious Juan Carreño, historical court painter and aid, two portraits of her: one nude, and one in full-dress. In the dressed version, Eugenia is shown in her new outfit. The portrait WAS Executed With The sketchy brush- strokes characteristic of Carreño's late style, and the artist portrayed Eugenia respectfully. Indeed, Carreno Followed Velázquez's lesson in depicting dwarfs and buffoons in a dignified and humane manner that was unusual for this period. In spite of Eugenia's opulent obesity, Carreño's depiction reminds the viewer that she is just a little girl who has recently arrived from the provinces and is obviously uncomfortable in this new and strange situation. She is posing before a stranger and looks at the painter, as any child would, with a skeptical and mistrustful expression. Instead of the fragile and elegant fan or handkerchief that were common accessories of female sitters at this time, the girl is shown holding two pieces of fruit, perhaps apples, the ultimate symbols of temptation. 

-------------------------------------------------

Page 13 

FREAKS

Juan Carreño de Miranda (16141685) 

Eugenia Martínez Vallejo, Known as La Monstrua, Nude , ca. 1680

Oil on canvas, 165 x 107 cm 
National Museum of the Prado, Madrid 

In order to make the nude version of the portrait of Eugenia acceptable in Madrid, where the courtiers did not welcome presentations of the nude body without a literary pretext, Carreño elevated the pair of portraits to the realm of mythology. The artist substituted the decorative red ribbons in the sitter's hair in the dressed version of the portrait with a crown of clusters of grapes, thus disguising Eugenia as the god Bacchus or as Silenus, the wise, rotund guardian of the god of wine. In this version the girl does not appear to look at the painter as she does in the dressed version, but turns her head slightly as if to avoid eye contact with the viewer. More mature and pensive, Eugenia now appears visibly ennobled and less heavy, as she covers herself only with the vine leaves only in her left hand. her left hand. The new direction of the light in this composition, projected from the right side, further conceals her nudity and allows the painter to soften her corpulence through the use of shadows. Shown here is Eugenia resting her right arm on a table full of grapes and one apple. The result seems to have been well received at the Madrid court: Antonio Palomino, one of Carreño's students, tells us that many copies were made of the nude, and then finished by the master.


----------



## Angel (Feb 23, 2012)

ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO LEARN

Eugenia Martinez Vallejo, La Nina Monstrua

http://arkeologia.blogspot.com/2010/09/eugenia-martinez-vallejo-la-nina_16.html

using Google translate
From: Spanish
To: English


for those who prefer images


----------



## Tina (Feb 23, 2012)

Oh, what do you know, Angel? That it was removed only shows that humanity has regressed and society is doomed. We can already see that reading for comprehension has gone the way of the removed pic... *scratches head* *mumbles* I said it was porn? Where did I say it was porn...? or Phil's fault...? or...


----------



## Angel (Feb 23, 2012)

continuing


----------



## Angel (Feb 23, 2012)

Tina said:


> Oh, what do you know, Angel? That it was removed only shows that humanity has regressed and society is doomed. We can already see that reading for comprehension has gone the way of the removed pic... *scratches head* *mumbles* I said it was porn? Where did I say it was porn...? or Phil's fault...? or...



FAT, glorious FAT, that's all that matters 






to some


----------



## Tina (Feb 23, 2012)

A case of funnel vision?


----------



## Angel (Feb 23, 2012)

Tina said:


> A case of funnel vision?



more like blurry vision (for me) after spending five hours reading about the child, the artist, the king, and how society was then.

so sad that certain aspects haven't changed much in 400 years





every time I begin to think that humanity has evolved; that empathy, compassion, and understanding just might be more important than physical desires; that all men have respect for females and for their intelligence and for their nurturing protective instincts; that women are viewed as worthy for more than their appearance alone... 

I am always proven wrong here 

..


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 23, 2012)

This article it is not like the bible. Anyway i can find another with different facts. It is not clear the age. It is not clear the year (1660? 16980) 
The name of the picture was not of course the original one.

I didnt start this threat.

Anyway, please if you go to Europe tell us first how many paintings are going to be censured in Musedo del Prado, Louvre o National Gallery. 

You always can send the marines to destroy them anyway.


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 23, 2012)

By the way. We dont know the age of Eugenia in this portrait. But in XVII Century in Europe, one is consider a woman or men with 10-13 years and old with 25 y o and probably dead with 30 or more. Just a few people arrive to 40 or 50 years old.

Angel, please how many paintigns we have to destroy/censured: I give you a list. I will send your request to the museum.
Artemisa. Tiziano
La venus desnuda. Velazquez.
Los borrachos. Velazquez.
La maja desnuda. Goya.
El martirio de San Bartolone. Ribera (becuse the disabled)
La Resurrección. El Greco.
Esopo. Velazquez (because no politically correct about elderly people).
Eva.Durero (It is clear she is a teenager).
El juicio de Paris. Rubens. (Make laugh of bbw?)
El Carro del Eno. El Bosco. (Make laugh of farmers)


----------



## HereticFA (Feb 23, 2012)

jac1974kra said:


> In 1680 ... There was probably first monumental SSBBW in history.


I'd say the Venus of Willendorf was much, much earlier by at least 22,000 years (and less controversial, age wise).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf


----------



## Angel (Feb 23, 2012)

sergi5 said:


> This article it is not like the bible. Anyway i can find another with different facts. It is not clear the age. It is not clear the year (1660? 16980)
> The name of the picture was not of course the original one.



Like I posted earlier, I only did about five hours of research and reading last night. I posted the two Spanish to English translations that contained the most information and that were also easiest to understand. 

Here's a little more information for you.

La Monstrua 

La Monstrua Desnuda


Artist
Juan Carreño de Miranda (1614 - 1685)

Born
March 25, 1614

Avilés, Spain

Died
October 3, 1685

Madrid, Spain

Nationality
Spanish

Movement
Baroque


Carreño was appointed painter to King Charles II in 1669 and as court painter in 1671. Charles II reigned until 1 Nov 1700. You could also consider the dates of the other paintings by Carreno that were related to his time as an appointed painter to Charles II. You can do that homework.

edited to add, with that information the paintings would date to between 1669 and 1685. 

99.99% of what I read all dated the two paintings as to the same year and to when the child was six years old. 

.


----------



## sergi5 (Feb 23, 2012)

But, only five hours only for find this simple and old article? it is not bad but not too much. I dont think that makes you an expert in baroque painting and history of XVII. By the way. Are you able to put Madrid in the map. I dont ask about Avilés, of course.

Please tell me if we have to destroy also the painting of Tintoretto Susana y los viejos (Susan and the elderly). More homework


----------



## Jes (Feb 23, 2012)

What I especially enjoyed here is the OP's assertion that the painting/sculpture be celebrated as a highpoint in the public treatment of very fat women. I hope that someday, my Adipositivity photo is displayed proudly in a "portrait gallery of monsters, dwarfs, lunatics" (thanks for that, Angel) like La Monstrua's image.

Seems the appreciation/disgust over this picture and this thread is split down gender lines. Fascinating.


----------



## Blackjack (Feb 23, 2012)

I will vehemently defend to the death my right to post pictures of morbidly obese naked children on a site that doesn't even allow adults to show their genitals.


----------



## Angel (Feb 23, 2012)

sergi5 said:


> Angel, please how many paintigns we have to destroy





sergi5 said:


> But, only five hours only for find this simple and old article? it is not bad but not too much. I dont think that makes you an expert in baroque painting and history of XVII. By the way. Are you able to put Madrid in the map. I dont ask about Avilés, of course.
> 
> Please tell me if we have to destroy also the painting of Tintoretto Susana y los viejos (Susan and the elderly). More homework



I can read more than one or two articles in five hours and comprehend what I have read. No one has to be an expert to figure out that a painting was painted between the time it was commissioned - that after the artist was appointed as court painter - and before the death of the artist.

Please quote where it was that I posted that the painting(s) should be destroyed.


----------



## Angel (Feb 23, 2012)

sergi5 said:


> By the way. We dont know the age of Eugenia in this portrait. But in XVII Century in Europe, one is consider a woman or men with 10-13 years and old with 25 y o and




I can't be the only one who noticed the smooth fit of the red dress *above* the female's waist level...

or that the female was obviously not yet even beginning to develop in the second (now deleted) image.


----------

