Its interesting to see that when we talk of human art forms, the contours of a woman capture the fantasy of most artists. We rarely come across artists depicting male art forms ever since the medieval renaissance when Micheal Angelo and Raphael etc gave a new meaning to sculpting and art forms.

What intrigues me is the mystery of 'woman in art'. Is it because women are the best piece of art created by God or is it because art as a profession continues to be dominated by men and lo ! what else can they find but women for their models.

As a man (male) with a ‘straight’ orientation, I am naturally attracted to women and thus believe that women are indeed more beautiful than men. My inference has its roots in my own perception beauty and of course the finer aspects of female structure coupled with qualities associated with tenderness and care.... But this inference can withstand no test of logic simply because this view is influenced by the natural laws of human attraction for the opposite sex. Given the perspective of women and their reasoning, an entirely a different set of criteria may emerge to serve as a basis for adjudging 'men' being more attractive than women.  A female might find, strong sinews, rough body texture, hair, and a figure that doesn't get disfigured for female specific factors (pregnancy and breast feeding),  as her reasons for considering male form more attractive than that of a female. I think we all crave for what we don't have, and take for granted what we do.

If this is the case, where does beauty lie then? In the eye of the beholder?

Should we then conclude that the frequency with which we see a female art forms around us, is proportionate to the number of male artists vis-a-vis female artists in the world? If there were as many female artists, would there be an equal proportion of male art forms as that of women? Or is that a no less than a myth.