Scoring ugly babies across art history
Anna Dunn, Managing Editor
January 15, 2021
Anyone visiting an art museum or studying art history has probably encountered a weirdly shaped baby at some point in their life. These long-limbed babies, resembling a small man or wrinkly sock puppet, are a common staple of art from the Middle Ages all the way up into the Renaissance. It seems that no matter the style or medium, European artists could never quite get babies right.
These weirdly rendered babies were inspired by the concept of the “homunculus,” meaning little man. Depictions of one baby in particular, the infant Jesus, was especially prone to be depicted as a little man because it suggested he was born as a perfectly formed man rather than as a inadequate chubby baby.
In order to determine the most cursed baby, I’ll be grading them on a three-part scale.
- Proportions: Is the baby like a tiny little man? Or does it, disappointingly, look like an actual baby. We’re going for the most cursed proportions here for five stars.
- Attitude: Does this baby look upset? Serious? Or curious, like an actual baby? The more theatrical of an expression or pose, the more attitude stars this cursed baby gets.
- Style: Does this baby have a unique flair that only this baby can pull off? Does it radiate je ne sais quoi? We’re looking for star quality here.
2.3/5
Albrecht Dürer, Virgin and Child. 1516.
Proportions: 0/5
Attitude: 5/5
Style: 2/5
This baby looks very normal. He’s chubby, proportioned well, but he’s got the expression of someone who just overhead someone else diss him from across the room. His alertness is a little unsettling. Final score: 2.3/5.
3/5
Hans Wechtlin, Virgin and Child. ca. 1510.
Proportions: 2/5
Attitude: 4/5
Style: 3/5
This baby features an exceptional page boy cut that suits his scholarly demeanor. I’m sure he could be more cursed, but I’d surely never like to see this sort of child in a library. Final score: 3/5
3/5
Joos van Cleve Netherlandish, Virgin and Child. ca 1525.
Proportions: 1/5
Attitude: 3/5
Style: 5/5
Maybe it’s the strangely mature reclining posture. Maybe it’s the little baby hand tightly gripping onto an orange despite the fact that this baby is very much asleep. But this baby overflows with some sort of latent psionic power that leaves me with a cold sweat. Despite his babyish body and calm face, this baby has got some great cursed energy. Final score: 3/5.
3/5
Duccio di Buoninsegna, Madonna and Child. 1290–1300 CE.
Proportions: 5/5
Attitude: 1/5
Style: 3/5
This baby has got those classic homunculus proportions, which complement his exceptionally grey skin tone. I would love to see what he’s capable of in a few years once he gains a neck and can access some foundation. Final score: 3/5.
3.3/5
Barnaba da Modena, Madonna With Child. 1367.
Proportions: 2/5
Attitude: 1/5
Style: 3/5
This baby is attempting some attitude, but it’s toned down by his babylike features and neutral expression. He almost looks cute. He may be a winner in his own right, but this certainly isn’t the kind of cursed baby the crowds go wild for. Final score: 3.3/5. Next!
3.3/5
Workshop of Dieric Bouts, Virgin and Child. 1475–99.
Proportions: 5/5
Attitude: 3/5
Style: 2/5
This baby looks like the artist only realized he should be fat after he already drew in the skinny little body. He’s got the little baby fat dimples over a skinny legend frame. However, I do appreciate his little forehead curl. Final score: 3.3/5.
3.3/5
Master of Guillaume Lambert, Virgin and Child. ca. 1485.
Proportions: 4/5
Attitude: 3/5
Style: 3/5
He’s blue. And maybe a bit stoned? Final score: 3.3/5
4/5
Master of the Life of Saint John the Baptist, Madonna and Child with Angels. Not dated.
Proportions: 5/5
Attitude: 5/5
Style: 2/5
By all accounts, this baby is an upgrade of Duccio di Buoninsegna’s. He may have lost that charming grey hue, but this guy excels in cursed long limbs and enough attitude to bat away his mother’s face. What looked almost loving in Buoninsegna’s baby’s posture looks upset and almost catty in this one. He’s got the diva energy, and we love to see it. Final score: 4/5
4.7/5
Maerten van Heemskerck, detail of St. Luke Painting the Virgin, 1532.
Proportions: 5/5
Attitude: 5/5
Style: 4/5
I want to give this baby a perfect 5/5 cursed rating right here right now. This baby has got everything: rippling muscles, a full head of perfectly waves hair, and an obvious predisposition for bloodlust. His mother is clearly holding him back from a battle he would most surely win. However, these chiseled bodies are a dime a dozen in early Renaissance art and that doesn’t exclude babies. As frighteningly ripped as this baby is, he’s not the only one, so I’m bumping him down on the style scale. Still, I’m giving this baby a near-perfect score because I’m almost sure he started - and ended - some European war. Final score: 4.7/5
4.6/5
Bartolo di Fredi, The Adoration of the Magi. 1390.
Proportions: 4/5
Attitude: 5/5
Style: 5/5
Absolutely OBSESSED with what this baby’s bringing to the table. I hope he touches my forehead with his clammy little, fully articulated hand. Final score: 4.6/5
5/5
Luca Signorelli (Luca d’Egidio di Luca di Ventura), Madonna and Child. ca. 1505–7.
Proportions: 1/5
Attitude: 3/5
Style: 5/5
I genuinely feel disgusted by the energy this baby radiates. It’s not just cursed but filled with intentional malice. Please don’t stare at this baby for more than 3 seconds at a time. Final score: oh my god get it away from me i don’t care about totaling up the numbers this is a 5/5.