The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1919-03-15
WHY NOT 4 1919 VENUS?
n. S. A. Suggests a Regular e. S. A.
Model for Womanhood.

Dear AJC: You know, Art, pic
lures are responsible for new type of
beauty. The original Venus might
nave caused heads to turn when she
walked along the streets of old Milo.
or wherever she lived before she was
married, but there is no reason why
she should make even a commercial
traveller from K. C. turn and look IL
she should walk up Kansas avenue to-
day The original Venus might have
been a peach in her time, and the
Verltable queen of the village, but at
, me present time she wouldn't be al
lowed to carry a buster in the back
row of the chorus. And. as far as
getting in the movies goes. she would
Iiim Ike truck driver after a long
days work Now. Art you want to
know why all these sacrilegious sentf-
ments-these sentiments will cause
ma y devOteeS of old time art TO he
discovered registering horror and in
dignation- The riddle is easy. I'm
one bird that believes that ANYTHING
that cannot be found in this country
cannot be found anywhere. This at
titude is not the result of any Iack
or knowledge of past DEVELOPMENT and
achievement, but the more l study the
glor1es that were Greece" the more
enthusiastic 1 become over the glories
tnat are the United States What 1
would like to know who said that
Venus represented the ideal type of
woman? Just because some Greek
admired this type and because some
sculptor who died million wears ago
made statue of this ancient ideal.
why should the people Of Thu age feel
opilged to look upon it as their
standard of feminine beauty2 Venus
has been so well press-agented that il
! is generally believed that her beauty
| IS unapproachable, and whenever any-
BODY gets up perfect woman Contest
r1e
a standard of all beauty. And those
who approximate her in their proper
tons are satisfied. Why shouldn't
| they be2 But those who do not hap
pen to be built on a pattern that went
out of date a few thousand years ago
nave to be content to be null and void
and likewise nit. just because
Grecian goddess is being retained as
a standard of American beauty The
screen has proven positively that mod
ern people do not care for the ancient
Ideal or beauty. Think of all the mo-
| ton picture stars, and without excep-
| ton the feminine favorites are of
| type entirely different from that of
| Venus. She's too large and lacks the
| daintiness demanded of the modern
| feminine ideal. and he features would
| prevent her appearing on the screen
with success if her sic did not For
| people prefer faces of a less severe
I and intellectual cast-faces that are
| more human and less divine than that
| of our old friend Mill de Venus I'm
| strong for dropping Venus and getting
| a modern standard of beauty. What a
silly idea it is. to aspire to a type of
Lbeauty represented by the statue of a
| woman who never attended a movie
| show or got mixed up in a bargain
r. sh- 1t makes me indignant to think
| OF it. and it makes M wonder why tn
| men. who are so much more interested
| IN the women than the women them
! selves. do no get busy and lay down
| the measurements for a Venus de To-
1 peka- so that women can know
whether or not they are beautiful ac-
/ cording to the modern ideals of
! feminine beauty. And, oh. l nearly
| forgot to tell you. it's good Z ng
| Boccaccio didn't have to chronicle the
| doing< IF these DAYS. And I guess
! that will be about ALL y. 6 A