Think of it. Women once aspired to look like Lady Agnew. Now they aspire to look something like TV anchorwoman Mika Brzezinski, who appears in the post below. They are both pretty, but there is a world of difference between them. There is no manliness in the woman above; no tenderness in the woman below. Into whose arms would a man or child rush? Feminine beauty will never die, but we seem to have entered its twilight.

                                             — Comments —

Sara writes:

Lady Agnew is a beautiful woman. She is definitely all feminine. However, I can’t see a child in need rushing to her. She is too languid, too fine, too pale. She looks like she is waiting for tea, or for a visit from another lady, or perhaps she is listening to the piano. She looks like she believes children should be seen and not heard. I can’t imagine what she would do were a messy toddler with a scraped knee to come running to her. Call for the nanny?

Brzezinski, on the other hand, looks like she would know what to do. She seems capable and energetic. Obviously her mothering skills are not up to par (dropping an infant?), but I am discussing the impression her appearance gives, not what I know from your post. By all appearances, Brzezinski would be more adept at caring for a child than the porcelain figure in the portrait.

As for modesty -you state: ‘Look at Brzezinski. She wears the low-cut top that has become standard among professional women… while aggressively flaunting her sexuality in this way’. If anyone here is immodest, it is Lady Agnew. Her top seems to be cut lower than Brzezinski’s. The bodice is supertight, the sleeves so flimsy, they are transparent, her bare arms on full display. A pendant rests between her breasts, drawing the eye down there. Lady Agnew seems to be flaunting sexuality far more than Brzezinski, who frankly is wearing something very solid and conservative. It’s like the Lady wants to be visually ravished. 

Frankly, if I were a child looking for comfort, I would run to neither Brzezinski nor the good Lady. I would choose those stout matrons in your latest post (on polygamy). They look both capable and motherly. The perfect combination.

If I were a man, I don’t know into whose arms I would rush. None of these women epitomize femininity in my eyes.

Laura writes:

Excellent points. Lady Agnew looks like she needs plenty of backup from nannies and cooks. But there is a tenderness in her eyes that seems lacking to me in Mika. In contrast, Mika’s look represents the can-do efficiency many women bring to motherhood today, as if caring for chiildren was like running a small corporation. Arguably, Lady Agnew’s tenderness is only sexual, but I could see playing contentedly all day by her side, secure in her languid presence.

Low-cut attire is perfectly appropriate for a woman in certain places and on certain occasions. No question, it works when she is relaxing in her boudoir. Brzezinki’s clothes, which are tight and low cut, are something she obviously sees as work attire and this kind of dress is too sexual for work. I know most women today would disagree with that assessment, but as said in previous posts I think it makes things difficult for men. Men are constantly reminded they must not react to a woman’s appearance at work and yet how can they not react when her upper chest is bare and her clothes are tight. It’s true, I’ve seen much worse than Brzenzinski’s top and my opinion of her clothes may be unfairly influenced by a revulsion toward the heavily sexual work clothes I see many women wearing.

By the way, here is a photo of the real Lady Agnew of Lochnaw:

Hannon writes:

Once more you have drawn attention to this eternally captivating topic. If it were not eternal, we should soon perish. I agree with what you have said here in brief. However, from what I can observe in the dark heart of fashion deconstruction and ruin– Hollywood– there is simply no way to destroy true feminine allure, or elements of it, and remain commercially or culturally viable. They do keep trying, though. In the trying is the risk and potential reward, but without external resistance it is an unrelenting, gradual abasement.

When I happen to catch the parading entrance of stars at the Oscars, I must admit it is fascinating to see the dresses that women wear and also the commentary they generate from the media. It strikes me that more than a few of these outfits are hideous enough to desecrate or ridicule the female body, verging on misogyny, a few are universally recognized as glorious or a triumph in elegance (see photo below), and most are unremarkable. Perhaps this has been so ever since fashion was made tangible to the general public.

I don’t feel qualified to comment cogently on modern fashion but idealized beauty is everywhere. Where do these supposed ideals come from? The writings of Diana West come to mind, particularly her ideas of children aspiring to become adolescents rather than adults. I think many adults also aspire to adolescence. It is a chicken-and-egg sort of thing, but the sexualization of beauty is an important trend that seems to set the bar lower every time we notice it. “Hotness” has now supplanted beauty and even sex appeal. So long as the hideous conflation of sexuality and beauty is deliberately used to sell products to confused minds we will need to build a counter-culture to match.

Sara writes:

Lady Agnew is not reposing in her private boudoir. She is being painted, day after day, by a male artist, her every pore under his constant gaze. Furthermore, the portrait was never intended for display in her bedroom. A famous artist was chosen, in the hope the picture would make it to galleries and the general public, which it obviously did. So Lady Agnew was presenting herself to the public, in a sheer, tight dress, low cut, with a pendant strategically placed. She is not as innocent as the white colour of her dress might suggest. She is actually kind of coy, playing with the elements of naivete and sensuality. She is consciously sexually provocative. 

Mika, on the other hand, is straightforward. You get what you see. I still can’t grasp her as immodest. The top is a tad low, but it shows absolutely no cleavage. The shirt is not that tight, (note the folds) and most women have not been wearing looser attire over the past few centuries. The women in the fifties wore the fabric far tighter on their bosoms.

Laura writes:

In both cases, this is ideal feminine beauty, as mentioned in my heading. Neither Mika nor Lady Agnew appear as they look all the time. Lady Agnew is posing and Sargent has presented her in a most flattering light. Mika is posing and the photographer has worked with her to create the look she wants.

It is their ideals that interest me here. For Lady Agnew, whom I am not presenting as necessarily the acme of femininity, the ideal is repose and receptivity. She seems highly receptive to me. Mika, on the other hand, seems full of self-assertion.

Mika’s top does not show cleavage, that’s true. But a woman’s upper chest is part of her sexual allure. Women in the fifties wore tight clothes, but they’re work attire – and remember, these are work clothes – was not as revealing as it is today. They did not wear clingy fabrics. Again, I agree that Mika’s outfit is not outrageously sexual at all, but I would say she is consciously aiming to show herself as sexually alluring as well as professional.

Charles writes:

Since I do not know either of the ladies who are the subject of the present conversation, I can only give my impressions based on their appearance. However, appearance are important and first impressions are many times accurate; so here is my take on the images. 

I would have to describe Miss Brzezinski as physically attractive. Yes, she is very pretty. Yet she has a competitive, edgy, tough look that has always repulsed me when I encounter it in females – no matter how they look or dress. It is more mannish than feminine. Her stance in the photo, the glare, the crossed arms; these are clear signs that she is not to be messed with. In her defense, such a posture is many times necessary to survive in the corporate world – especially as an attractive person. So , I am not going to be too hard on her for the stance in the photo. However, I cannot find it attractive. 

One commenter above stated that Miss Brzezinski was dressed more modestly than Lady Agnew. Well, I guess that can be in the “eye of the beholder”. Based on what I have seen in my everyday experiences, Lady Agnew is positively covered up. I would love to see our ladies dress like this – or somewhat like this – again. 

Who would a man or child rush to? Again, I think it is in the eye of the beholder. Some modern men like the beautiful, tough girl. I am sure the “Alphas” like the challenge. However, I think most men prefer the beauty and the feminine temperament of Lady Agnew. I like the demeanor I see in her facial expression. She seems approachable, but there is a mystery about her that is lacking in the anchorwoman. This feminine mystery is as attractive to men as the lady’s physical appearance. Most of the time people talk about how physically attractive a potential mate is. The mystique of a woman is rarely talked about, but its presence – or lack of – is something constantly noticed; whether consciously or not. Regardless, men are drawn to an attractive feminine mystique like a moth to a flame. When a woman is beautiful and possesses the feminine mystique, then we have a lady who men and children will seek out. She is a joy to be with. This does not mean she has to have a lack of assertiveness. Indeed, assertiveness is necessary to survive this world. However, the day-to-day demeanor of a woman like this is not constantly assertive or tough, but it is the demeanor of a woman who is truly a joy to be around and to live with. This delightful mystique I am speaking of is something that comes from within, is hard to describe, is readily noticeable, is incredibly attractive, and can last a lifetime. 

To be fair, The Lady Agnew reminds me of the woman I married. The demeanor, the gaze, the mystery, the intelligent person behind the aura; all of these characteristics led me to pursue the person I eventually wed. Not only is my wife attractive, her demeanor and mystique drew me to her every time I spent time with her. Still does. The mystique, the inner person, is just as important – maybe more so – as our outward appearance.

Laura writes:

You married Lady Agnew? You must be a special man.

When I saw her portrait online yesterday, I was so arrested by it. Sargent’s gauzy and tranquil blues are beautiful. But it was the look on her face that drew me. It is something real and eternally appealing, whether in mother or wife, lover or friend. I didn’t see it as entirely sexual though I can understand why someone would. Her smile is very suggestive, slightly mocking. She seems to be saying, “Oh, come now. Things can’t be all that serious, can they?” Again, I realize this is Sargent’s creation, but it is an image she obviously approved.

Charles writes:

Laura wrote: You married Lady Agnew? You must be a special man. 

Laughing well… I married someone who has the same type of aura I see in Lady Agnew’s protrait. The moment I saw the portrait, I thought of my wife and her demeanor and how attractive initially she was to me and how that demeanor is still there. I make no claim to specialness with the exception of who I was privileged to marry! 

I compliment you again on the very interesting topics and discussions you bring to your site.

Laura writes:

Thank you very much.

I don’t mean to be argumentative. But someone with Lady Agnew’s aura would not have chosen just anyone.

Fitzgerald writes:

Ray Carney in “American Vision: The Films of Frank Capra” goes into great detail about how Hopper, Emerson, etc., but Capra in his films and Sargent in his paintings in particular, are evocatively expressive of the power and beauty of the inner person in their art. 

This painting shows Lady Agnew in an idealized light, her beauty is striking, yet the eyes and gaze are meant to draw one into the inner beauty and deepness of her soul. He intentionally conveys many overlapping and interrelated complexities via this powerful, beguiling and transfixing gaze. Much is hidden and mysterious, her body posture conveys an ease, openness and approachability while conveying a deference and lightness of being as well. The painting demonstrates she was a profoundly beautiful person, inside and out, while especially exuding the true power of a real women who has no need to stoop to the crass, mannish aggressiveness of the modern woman and their demonstrably provocative dress. 

I heartily recommend Carney’s book as he eloquently explains why Capra’s films and other post-romantic American artists are so commonly misunderstood by critics and society at large dominated by modern gnostic utopians as so aptly defined by Eric Voeglin in his works.

Eric writes:

The absolute last word in idealized feminine beauty was written by Andrew Wyeth, when he painted the Helga series of portraits.

Here is a link. They take my breath away.

Laura writes:

I like the painting, Braids (below), and certainly Helga is a ravishing nude. But I find her expression blank and cold in many of the portraits.

 But then there is also the beautiful Helga painting Sheepskin:

Please follow and like us: