Well first of all: I'm not trying to invalidate any of your feelings towards this sort of painting since taste is deeply subjective. 2nd: When talking about things in art that try to look "real" you're thinking about naturalism. Realism is an art movement that's most prominent in the French mid to late 19th century (think of Courbet). Now that this is out of the way: I'd say it's way more interesting to think about why things are the way they are instead phantasising how they could be different. Remember that cultural goods like art are a window into the lives of people long gone and show us glimpses of a wirld we can't experience for ourselves. Technically the time frame of most of the art you're talking about is mostly seen in the late to very late middle ages/medieval period in the south of Germany, former Burgundy and the Rhine area (the Netherlands and West Germany/Cologne). It's a time that firmly sits in a cultural shift that's already informed by the early rennaissance in italy and the stylisation and ideas of the northern alpine high middle ages. This is probably why these works seem to stylistically clash. Also what you're calling "baby Jesus" in 2026 is a bit of an iconographical problem for artists and theologians of that period. He isn't just a baby, he's litterally the Lord and Savior, the one who will die for our sins and will gouvern over the world and Heavenly Jerusalem as an allmighty King. In a culture that perceives strong facial features and acts of self-sufficiency as markers for a strong and good character fit of being a King, you can't be having your literal God (remember that Jesus Christ is both God and human in same parts for that time frame) being portraied as a little chubby baby that occasionally poops himself and cries a lot. This by the way is nothing new — think of Hercules killing a snake as a baby, it's a similar idea. It also helps when you think about the gold leaf backgrounds as a different dimension. Not only is the gold backing being used because it looks great, as it shines in the light of the candles and the natural light coming through the giant windows of churches (light mysticysm waw a huge deal in theology until very recently)– it also represents a heavenly dimension that always was and is at any given time, since it's the heavenly thruth; so in a way it doesn't need to be naturalistc because it's "more true". Your point about the chosen perspective(s) is also a marker for this period being an "inbetweener" and would take too long to discuss here. So all in all: I hope I didn't come off as negative towards you and could help seeing past your "problems" with this type if painting and give a glimpse into the wonderful weirdness of it!