You don’t have to be a scholar or have a trained eye for medieval art. Unless you’re familiar with 13th, 14th, and 15th century Christian iconography, or have seen some of the religious altars made in Europe during that period, you’ve probably asked yourself: Why do they make the baby Jesus look like this? ugly, old, and mean? And ugly, old, and mean are probably not enough adjectives to describe many of the medieval portraits of Jesus in his early years in the arms of Mary.

Where a child in his early childhood should be, we find a wrinkled, balding creature with the expression of a thoughtful philosopher. The most curious thing is that they are not like that because of the artists’ incompetence. They are nothing more than children, because that is what was sought.

Portraits of the child? Jesus. There are examples that will bore you. Paolo Veneziano, Duccio di Buoninsegna, Masaccio, Giotto… If there is anything in common between the images of the Virgin Mary and the baby Jesus, beyond the fact that they were painted between the 13th and 15th centuries and that they always represent the same religious characters, it is how they were made.

They were supposed to represent a young woman with a newborn child or a child just a few years old, but what came out of their brushes was very different: the “old boys” were not very healthy-looking creatures, like those in their sixties who were about to sign retirement. Instead of angelic faces, they created bald heads, wrinkles and expressions that evoked everything but the idea of ​​childhood.

And to show a button. Or several. It comes with a look at the baby Jesus ‘Crevole Madonna’ (1283-1284), Duccio di Buoninsegna, looking at you from the right side of the cover. Or the other one by Giotto, from the early 14th century, watching you with an expression of equal intensity below these lines.

Detail from Giotto’s ‘Maestà di Ognissanti’, written in the early 14th century.

Lack of expertise? The first explanation that comes to mind is: if they painted the baby Jesus that way, perhaps it was due to the clumsiness of the person holding the brushes. The truth is much more complex… and fascinating. “These ugly babies were very deliberate,” explains Phil Edwards. Vox Magazine.

Whether they were more or less talented, the painters were guided in drawing the face of Jesus by tradition, by an assimilated and shared code, and in this case by cultural baggage that affected both the idea of ​​childhood and, in particular, the childhood of Jesus himself. In fact, one of the keys to understanding these pieces is that medieval artists did not try to capture reality faithfully. If their dolls are not realistic, it is because they were not interested in realism.

The message is important, not the loyalty“The strangeness that we see in medieval art is the lack of interest in naturalism. They tended more toward expressionist traditions,” says Matthew Averett, a professor at Creighton University. It’s true that each painter used his own brush and paint, but in a context that influenced his work. They were creative, but they appealed to clear language and conventions. “The idea of ​​artistic freedom to represent these people however he wanted would be new,” he adds.

“Art was not concerned with naturalism but with theological expression,” he emphasizes. Speech Angela McCarthy, University of Notre Dame Australia. And this is not only noticeable in the way the baby Jesus is depicted. Theology in Western art is also compositions: Jesus is often seen seated in a mature posture or wrapped in swaddling clothes. “This last was an attempt to represent biblical references to a child wrapped in swaddling clothes or the shroud placed over Jesus after his death,” McCarthy adds.

Detail of a representation of the Infant Jesus by Paolo Veneziano, mid-14th century.

Don’t say child, say “homunculus” insteadIf there is one word that helps us understand those pesky “man-children” who sat on Mary’s lap and stared at us from medieval tables, it is homunculus, meaning “little man.” The baby Jesus was a child, but no ordinary child.

McCarthy recalls that the artistic representation of Mary began to expand after the Council of Ephesus in 431 and that, not long after, another council was held at Chalcedon in 451, which would prove key to representations of the infant Jesus: the church’s interpretation of the council was that Jesus was fully human and divine. Some theologians interpreted this to mean that he was fully formed from the beginning with the knowledge of his divinity,” explains the expert from the University of Notre Dame in Australia: “This was difficult to represent in art, hence the name of the man-child.”

“Perfectly formed”. So what we see in the altar paintings of the Middle Ages is not a simple (more or less realistic) representation of a small child with his mother. No. The message is more complex… and richer. It shows us the idea of ​​the child Jesus, influenced by Christian theology and some traditions. And that’s where this concept falls apart, the “homunculus.” “There’s this idea that Jesus is perfectly formed and unchanging, and if you combine that with Byzantine painting, it becomes a standard way of representing Jesus. In some of these paintings, he looks like an adult with a bald pattern,” Averett recalls.

The child watching you from the left side of the composition that opens this report is a good example. The image is taken from the ‘Madonna della Pace’, an icon donated to the Dominicans by a senator who took it from Constantinople in the mid-14th century, as remembered from the Basilica of Santi Giovanni e Paolo. McCarthy explains: “In the Eastern Orthodox tradition from the 6th century to the present day, the baby Jesus looks like a little man.”

Detail of the ‘Virgen de Veveri’, mid-14th century.

It matters what you look at and who is looking.With their particular devotion to portraits of aging children and baby boys, artists have done more than just influence the concept of the “homunculus.” Their strange baby Jesuses have also influenced the viewer. Or rather, the emotions of those who contemplate them.

McCarthy explains: “The idea behind this depiction is to remove one’s emotional response to the baby and instead draw the viewer into a more substantial understanding of God’s act of becoming human.” In other words, even if he is represented in early childhood, the baby Jesus is not meant to be cute. His mission was to reaffirm the religious message.

Wisdom is better than sensitivity. When depicting Jesus, or any religious figure in his infancy, the artist’s brush should not depict vulnerable characters, let alone weak ones. Even if the character in question is a baby not yet a year old. The message to be conveyed was different: wisdom, power. And as Laurenza Vézina Laprise, another expert who studies the phenomenon, points out to CBC News, the idea is spreading to other representations.

“At that time, paintings were mostly commissioned by churches. So when they drew a baby, they were depicting Jesus,” the researcher said. “They didn’t necessarily want to paint a ‘baby’ baby, but the Baby Jesus.”

Work by Ambrogio Lorenzetti from the early 14th century.

From old baby to cute baby. There is no convention that will last forever. And the medieval homunculi were no exception. As time went on, the Jesus children gave way to more realistic representations and less aged dolls, a transition that experts attribute to one key factor: the increasing dominance of non-religious art.

During the Renaissance, a new social class emerged that demanded portraits, but with a different vocation: what they wanted were recognizable and endearing representations of their children, not the images steeped in theology they remember from that time. Vox MagazineArt itself, its motivations and approach, has undergone a remarkable change.

“In the Renaissance, there was a new interest in observing nature and representing things as they were actually seen,” Averett notes. In its own way, it also changed the idea of ​​childhood and the attitude of adults toward the little ones in the home. “Later on, we got the idea that children are innocent. If they are born without sin, they cannot know anything,” the Creighton expert adds.

I’m looking for more realistic dolls“From the 14th century onwards, with the advent of the Renaissance in Italy, the depiction of infants became much more realistic. Baby “The great beauty has continued through the centuries,” McCharthy acknowledges. “In Italy, a rising middle class wanted family portraits with babies that looked natural and beautiful. The rise of naturalism and realism in art also changed depictions of the baby Jesus.” The result: children who stopped looking like grandparents, worried about instability in the Middle East or the U.S. presidential election, started looking realistic and childlike.

Images | Wikipedia 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

In Xataka | Our first drawing of Jesus on the cross had a donkey’s head. Historians still don’t know why