The irony of this thread is the assumption that modern man's idea of the average breast is based on anatomical realism.
Meanwhile I'll keep yelling at clouds a bit more. Medieval art not influenced by Renaissance ideals is not as concerned with realism as we are. It would be interesting (and more academically sound) to compare the way the Voynich artist treats human anatomy to efforts by other ca. 1400 works. What exactly is different, and what exactly is worse? I once did this for body proportions, and found it very informative.
I really recommend sticking to art historical comparisons. Yes, because we as predominantly men discussing women's breasts has a chance to go wrong. But also because that's how we may actually learn instead of simply assuming the artist must have been some kind of virgin without a Playboy subscription.
Meanwhile I'll keep yelling at clouds a bit more. Medieval art not influenced by Renaissance ideals is not as concerned with realism as we are. It would be interesting (and more academically sound) to compare the way the Voynich artist treats human anatomy to efforts by other ca. 1400 works. What exactly is different, and what exactly is worse? I once did this for body proportions, and found it very informative.
I really recommend sticking to art historical comparisons. Yes, because we as predominantly men discussing women's breasts has a chance to go wrong. But also because that's how we may actually learn instead of simply assuming the artist must have been some kind of virgin without a Playboy subscription.