"Why does fantasy art feature loincloths?" Topic

OK, I get that fantasy figures get sculpted with loincloths because they are based on fantasy art like that of Boris Vallejo and Julie Bell. I just don't see why artists think loincloths are so cool. So far as I can tell, any civilization that learns to weave cloth promptly dumps their loincloths and starts using kilts, skirts, dhoti, or some sort of peplos gown. I suppose that is part of my problem, because I see fantasy figures that would otherwise make nice Vikings or sub-Roman Britons or something, but the first thing I have to do is grind off their loincloths with my Dremel.
Today, I was at the FLGS, looking at GW's Mordhiem figures and I noticed many of them have loincloths and I find myself shaking my head and wondering why a futuristic society would go that route.
I would also note that North American Indians wore loincloths, and to keep their legs warm in winter, they wore leggings, not trousers, something artists don't seem to understand.
Of course, there is the possibility that I'm looking for a logical reason for something that has no real logic to it, like the sort of Medieval ladies wearing ankle length skirts with slits going up to the top of their thighs.

Grelber

Easier to paint than genitals?

10 points for Extra Crispy!

Perhaps you are looking for realism in, well, fantasy.

Loincloths allow the mini to show off their well honed muscles. Which is probably something their real life counterparts didn't have, either.

I agree with Grelber that fully clothed figures are still often shown with modesty loincloths. I remember going through the last lot of Reaper bones figures and seeing that hardly any of the humans could be repurposed for depicting historical figures because of them. I'm sure it is a hangover of not wanting to depict the genital areas of the figure, something that you also see in comics, cartoons, etc.

One thing is sometimes the loincloths are so long, a person in real life would be tripping over them (or an opponent in combat could grab it and pull.)

I see it more as a lazy sculpting cop-out, meaning, you hang/sculpt a loincloth down there, and it aids the casting as it gives more bulk to the legs that the sculptor apparently can't sculpt too well (the genital thing may play into it, too, but I don't think as much.) I've seen (too) many minis where the loincloth so fills in the space that the mini might as well be wearing a dress, or it looks like the mini is on top of a lump from the waist up. I won't buy those figures…
I will add that I'm an amateur sculptor, and have not gone the loincloth route (and don't intend too; It's just silly… ;-)

Without the loincloths, the art would be censored.
I blame society.

To avoid a potential "scale creep" controversy in the art world. One such issue is enough.

Modesty.

You could always just paint their legs as trousers. No-one is going to notice.

I've got a load of 'naked' Gauls running around in perfectly serviceable tartan legs. I had to do a bit of filing down mind…

"Why does fantasy art feature loincloths?"

Why not? It's fantasy after all …

They're all painting beefcake in loincloths be cause learning to paint clothing is done in the second semester of art classes? And because learning how clothing drapes doesn't involve naked models?

In fairness, clothing tends also to be more period-specific.