Why did Napoleon allow so many unflattering paintings of himself? Even if he was an ugly fucker, there were plenty of historical figures who were painted much better looking than they really were
the depictions of him as a young general were a lot of times made by artists who had no idea what he looked like and just wanted to sell.
Also he tought posing was for sissies, arguing ceasar os alexandre did not pose for portraits.
Also, this specific one was painted a few decades after his death and shows him defeated, on purpose. he had a lot of haters also.
>implying
>Napoleon
>ugly
Did Newton really look like this? It seems kind of flattering, it's hard to imagine him this good-looking and at the same time an autistic permavirgin.
>>2635547
Forgot image.
>>2635547
>>2635550
He looked a bit more BEADY than that.
>>2635547
>>2635550
Could've easily looked like that and still been a virgin.
One thing is seeing a static face on an image.
Another thing is seeing them in person, where their small stature, bad posture, weird autistic facial twitches, cracking voice, awkwardness and whatever else can also be experienced.
>>2635550
Man of course he looked like that but maybe he didn't "look" like that. What I mean is obviously that it's easy to make subtle changes to facial features to make them prettier. I can sort of see a gauntness and sunkenness there that's hidden, and also features that look like they might be pointier and weirder irl
>>2635210
People did have different beauty standards back then.
Just look at 18th century portraits, everyone looks like fucking babies
Frederick the Great was weirded out by all the heroic portraits of him his fawning people were making and purposefully had unflattering ones done.
Perhaps Napoleon was doing something similar.