As previously mentioned, Jenny Saville’s woman in Branded– and in a range of her paintings- are large in a corporeal sense, in that a large female body occupies a big physical space, as well as being large in their production also (in the sense of height and scales as well as their bodies exceeding their frames). This could be seen as problematic or bothersome when considering a motive of possible promotion of unhealthy lifestyles and giving potential to ‘skinny shame’. In this way, it is easy to dismiss these paintings as the public tend to not want to be confronted with their insecurities. I believe this is an ideological conflict of values of art, lifestyles and social matrixes- the artist and audience relationship can be seen as the testing of the social order by radical propositions.The fact that these women are large traditionally suggests that they are less desirable to look upon and don’t satisfy the male gaze or male ideal in a phallocentric philosophy or society. These unapologetic fat women challenge the established patriarchal society desires for women to be invisible or tucked away. A tradition that generally makes women feel: guilt, shame, unfeminine- all of which traits, I would argue, are not recognisable in Branded. I would go far as to say that fatness feels almost sinful and can be compared closely to sins like Gluttony and Sloth, worthy of repentance by diets and weight-loss. However, it can be argued that the topic of the ‘ideal’ body and lifestyles is a social construct which changes and moulds over time. For example, Venus at a Mirror 1555, (Figure 2.) a painting by Titian displays a voluptuous woman when curves were a signifier of wealth- easily comparable to the fleshy, curvy woman we see in Jenny Saville’s Branded. I think that the fact these two figure paintings are of comparison, even being nearly 437 years apart, proves how fashionable body types fluctuate through time and the ideal body is a social construct. An endless vicious cycle of constant scrutiny.