it's because she appears to be removing a sexually suggestive garment, in a provocative way.
You have to put the still painting, in motion. That's when it becomes sexually provocative.They said the painting was replaced by a nude. if the nude image does not suggest motion, the nude image
wouldn't be sexually provocative(pornographic)
... a strip "tease" if you will? http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/tease 2. to arouse sexual desire in (someone) with no intention of satisfying it
I don't view the below image as pornographic.
It was removed b/c of the pubic hair showing. It was removed and replaced with another nude. Are people such prudes that a suggestive portrait can be more shocking to their morals than full nudity?
but certainly not because of the pubic hair. A shave isn't going to turn a four into a ten. lol
and I don't think there are really any limits as to just how prudish people can be, and Americans about more prudish than anyone in the world, except of course for the Muslims, but those wackos are in a category all of their own.
... and I ain't no prude. Nor do I think there is anything prudish about classifying the painting as pornographic.
Your insecurity is transparent. lol
...this is rough.
ONE value of a work is that it evokes a jarring element in either its subject or its rendering. Just the meerschaum and shadowing does that for me. In a positive way. The erotica itself I don't find all that erotic. If that appeared on an ad mall, I'd move on. There's a defiance, and there's a feeling of pretension in her face, and what's jarring about that seems to be that she seems to be not terribly...mature? smart? sophisticated?
You wonder what she would say if she suddenly spoke to you. It would probably be some sort of challenge.
Do I think it should have been pulled? Maybe. I'd want to see the rest of the showing. Obviously, the women reckoned it wasn't a fit with the rest of the showing. But...?
Is it "good" art? It's in that category that questions, "Who says it has to be good?" We've come across that attitude in providers, not to mention eating establishments and fashion. If it HAD to be good it wouldn't be a reflection of the age we live in, and that would make it "not so good." It would be shallow.
So, would you buy it? Will it gain value? Does it show promise for the artist? I'd give it 2 1/2 stars.
-- Modified on 7/8/2014 10:38:24 AM
I put an "e" on the end of Warhol, because this is a fuck board and we're supposed to keep things dirty. So that made it like a blowhole, which has to do with sex through a hole drilled into a wall. The hole is 42" up from the ground, crotch level for most guys with maybe a little stretching or scruntching, with a 2 7/8" diameter, which is pretty much supposed to be wide enough to accommodate most cocks, and if it can't, the logic goes, they can either get it on the street or they don't deserve any.
So, that was supposed to be the first rimshot (sort of UTR), and then it goes on...
Oh, wait. The "Consider the source," was a comment on my little plunge into displaying my limited prowess as an art critic on the post above. See what I did there?
So then, after the Warhol/Blowhole gag, I moved us on to where the image of his soup can was in your head, and that was chicken noodle, if you recall, and that was much more revolutionary for its time than Whatshername, Standing is for ours. Are you with me so far?
So, I was saying, that in evaluating my criticism of the painting that got jerked (rimshot), you had to take into account that I had, at the time--early 60's--commented that I thought Andy's Soup Can would have been more interesting had he gone with minestrone instead of chicken noodle. Like Neil Simon had his old farts in the The Sunshine Boys arguing about funny words like "cabbage," "cucumber," and the like, both "chicken noodle," and, "minestrone" are funny words. Get it?
So, regarding my foyer into art criticism, you ought to "consider the source," BECAUSE I was the one who commented on Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup Can that it might have become more popular if he had gone with minestrone on the label instead of chicken noodle.
It's like having suggested to The Supremes that they might garner more success if they'd've changed the name of their group to Six Warm Buns. See, "buns" is also a funny word, whereas "garlic bread" or "cinnamon toast" wouldn't get any laughs at all. You with me?
So now you understand the humor of the post. Consider yourself among the blessed, the few, and the chosen.
Next question, Skarp?
-- Modified on 7/8/2014 10:39:10 AM
as I have no say so in the matter.
By defenition the painting is pornographic.
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/pornography
... is full nudity, always displayed in a "suggestive" manner?
When it comes to The Society of Women Artists 153rd annual exhibition.
Especially when the exhibition is held in a country, where I do not live.
... it will never matter what I think, when it comes to this topic.
It's a sexy painting, and I think it would achieve it's intent with a lot (if not most) most men who walked in a gallery and studiously admired it for a prolonged period (especially of course if no one else was in the room at the time). Whether folks think it should be displayed is another question...
... the lady only had a landing strip for her pubic hair. That's NOT the norm!!
The norm is a full bush pubic hair!
If the painting had shown her with the full bush pubic hair, then it would have been accepted.
Just my 3 cents...
The Forest Waits
it's because she appears to be removing a sexually suggestive garment, in a provocative way.
You have to put the still painting, in motion. That's when it becomes sexually provocative.
They said the painting was replaced by a nude. if the nude image does not suggest motion, the nude image
wouldn't be sexually provocative(pornographic)
... a strip "tease" if you will? http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/tease
2. to arouse sexual desire in (someone) with no intention of satisfying it
I don't view the below image as pornographic.
Nothing shows us how human we are than our reactions to the naughty parts.
I like the picture and if the Tate doesn't want it, there's a spot over my bed that is just right for it. I'd have her any day.
I think it is the way she is holding her legs together and dipping a bit that makes the picture so sexy.
Oh well, degustibus..., and all that jazz.
I do, because the woman in the painting is suggesting sex by how the artist painted her in motion.
The motion of removing her pants, in a sexually provocative manner.
After taking a second look she isn't removing her pants, she is letting them fall off of her hips in a sexually suggestive manner. I'm still going with that crap about motion.
Just as I prefer the term sex-for-pay to prostitution.
Both P words originally connoted things that were perjorative, and came to be associated with eroticism in an attempt by a malignant society to demonize sexuality.
So to answer your question: I find the picture very erotic, and also very talented. It maketh me have a boner, in other words.
(By the way, did anyone catch the rose by her left foot? What a nice touch.)
For example, I consider snuff photos to be pornography, but I can see how some guys get turned on by it, so yes, it is erotic to them (not me).
Same with animal or child porn.
Looking at this painting, it oozes sexuality. Not only sexuality, but dirty, oily, free sexuality. Another artist will pick up on it.
An artist can build a median between natural, physical expression and communication.
While the photo itself doesn't say pornography, there are definitely intense undertones of sexuality in the face and the use of colors and oils, shine, etc.
It's a very raw and naked look all around. I think it's genius. Almost like you can't put your finger on why your private parts tingle and you blush... But the woman in the photo's sexuality is totally exposed. It could be the use of the colors, estc. Again, very raw and exposed undertone to the picture.
The median is what you can't put your finger on. Almost like there's a spirit behind the painting.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
I also think she may have a TER page here...somewhere.
I think she would do well as a Lois replacement....don't you?
