Basically, I’ve got a 2000 word essay and half hour presentation to do on the “ideal” male form and how it’s evolved - Adonis kinda stuff.
So it’s going to start with classic art like the Hercules statue, Creation of Adam (dude was jacked), Da Vinci’s stuff, the use of photography in the Victorian age to start publicising people like Sandow, Atlas, etc, then the rise in popularity of bodybuilding - the classics like Frank Zane, Sergio Oliva, Arnie, and the development of that physique into “mass monsters”.
It’s the last part that I need a bit of help with - I know very little about old school bodybuilding, and what judges look for in a contest.
So 1) What was the “classic” look of the 70s - broad shoulders, narrow waist? What were the ideal proportions?
How has that changed now? Are the top Mr Olympia competitors today 50lbs heavier than the classics? Are judges looking for different proportions?
What do people think led to this change? Was it the rise in steroid use, or a kind of arms race (pun pun pun) - big wins, so everyone has to get bigger?
Does this modern mass monster look radiate down into the lower weight classes? I’m just thinking Flex Lewis - the guy looks huge, but is able to stay in a lower weight class by virtue of being 4 foot tall or something like that.
I don’t think bodybuilding represents the ideal physique, nor has it ever. I certainly think it has influenced it, however.
In the 1960s, the ideal physique, I would think, was leanly muscular. Since then there has been an increase in size in what is considered attractive, but it is still, to this day, not even close to the bodybuilding ideal. I mean, from the 90’s and the 2000’s, who were the *ideal" men? Brad Pit, Hugh Jackman (who is on the larger side by today’s standards, but wouldn’t even cut it in a physique show), etc. Arnold, who made it big in the movie industry, was a novelty. He was freakish and abnormal compared to the rest of Hollywood.
I would acknowledge that as bodybuilding became more an more accepted (and it is still pretty fringe for most people) that the concept of an ideal physique changed with it. But only to a finite degree.
[quote]kravi wrote:
I don’t think bodybuilding represents the ideal physique, nor has it ever. I certainly think it has influenced it, however.
In the 1960s, the ideal physique, I would think, was leanly muscular. Since then there has been an increase in size in what is considered attractive, but it is still, to this day, not even close to the bodybuilding ideal. I mean, from the 90’s and the 2000’s, who were the *ideal" men? Brad Pit, Hugh Jackman (who is on the larger side by today’s standards, but wouldn’t even cut it in a physique show), etc. Arnold, who made it big in the movie industry, was a novelty. He was freakish and abnormal compared to the rest of Hollywood.
I would acknowledge that as bodybuilding became more an more accepted (and it is still pretty fringe for most people) that the concept of an ideal physique changed with it. But only to a finite degree.
–Me[/quote]
I’d agree with this. The professional bodybuilder aesthetic remains a fringe interest. As for the societal ideal of the masculine form, that hasn’t changed much, if at all, since the time of the classical Greeks.
[quote]kravi wrote:
I don’t think bodybuilding represents the ideal physique, nor has it ever. I certainly think it has influenced it, however.
In the 1960s, the ideal physique, I would think, was leanly muscular. Since then there has been an increase in size in what is considered attractive, but it is still, to this day, not even close to the bodybuilding ideal. I mean, from the 90’s and the 2000’s, who were the *ideal" men? Brad Pit, Hugh Jackman (who is on the larger side by today’s standards, but wouldn’t even cut it in a physique show), etc. Arnold, who made it big in the movie industry, was a novelty. He was freakish and abnormal compared to the rest of Hollywood.
I would acknowledge that as bodybuilding became more an more accepted (and it is still pretty fringe for most people) that the concept of an ideal physique changed with it. But only to a finite degree.
–Me[/quote]
I’d agree with this. The professional bodybuilder aesthetic remains a fringe interest. As for the societal ideal of the masculine form, that hasn’t changed much, if at all, since the time of the classical Greeks.
[/quote]
Yup, I agree with this too. I think if I want this essay to be vaguely interesting and not just “What’s the ideal physique?” I’ll have to rephrase my question slightly to incorporate fringe interests like BB
What if you did something like “The Evolution of the Human Physique” and just drop the ideal.
You can start with your original examples which includes depictions of gods (ie Hercules), the first human made perfectly in God’s image, and DaVinci’s drawings concerning the perfect and symmetrical human body. I still see these as fringe physiques for that time. I highly doubt the average person was walking around looking like a “god.” I would go as far to say that mostly soliders were the ones who looked like this because of their rigorous training. Form is there because of the importance of function.
Move into Sandow and all that shit. Sandow showed it was possible for people to work on their body for improvement. Form is there because of the importance of function.
Sandow spurred bodybuilding. Function is a tool to reach a certain form. You can use the documentary I posted to get you to the modern day. And pretty much ask the reader if we are at the pinnacle of what the human body can transform into. Maybe suggest a few future ways that the physique will evolve (ie gene doping).
I am probably rambling but whatevs. Hope this helps in some way.
If you define the ideal physique as a universally held belief, you’re going to run into serious trouble in terms of accurately representing history. There are always multiple perspectives. Using the example of slavery in America, if you said ‘Americans were for slavery in the 1700’s’, you would be misrepresenting a large portion of the population. (FWIW, history books from 50+ years ago did say things like this. Historians have changed the way they describe history in the last 50 years, and now include minority perspectives as being very significant. They didn’t used to do this.)
I’m saying this because bodybuilding is more than just a footnote in the expression of an ideal physique. Many people, though in the minority, do define the ideal physique as something akin to The Incredible Hulk. Many forum members here feel this way.
You’ve also got the perspective of the anorexic population to deal with. There are many people, again in the minority, who believe the ideal physique is Brad Pitt from Fight Club, if he dropped about 30 lbs.
Women don’t generally agree with men on what an ‘ideal male physique’ looks like. There are plenty of surveys to back this up.
Incorporating these perspectives into your paper can add a lot of depth, and substantially improve comprehensiveness. Or if 2000 words is not sufficient for such a comprehensive subject, and you’d rather go deeper into one perspective, make this clear from the start. At the very least, don’t ignore the minority perspective.
…Or you can pretend everyone thinks the same thing. In that case, Ryan Reynolds is totally ideal. Or Ryan Gosling. Or Ryan Phillippe.
Side note: you mentioned the evolution from the Arnolds and Olivias of the world to the ‘mass monsters’ of today. Don’t forget that Arnold, in his time, was a mass monster. People’s opinion of his physique is not the same as what it is today. He was novelty, circus-big in his time.
[quote]seekonk wrote:
The professional bodybuilder aesthetic remains a fringe interest. As for the societal ideal of the masculine form, that hasn’t changed much, if at all, since the time of the classical Greeks.
[/quote]
I don’t know how to describe it; but I can’t help but look at it when it’s there.
Male or Female