|
| Posted by: Seattle Zen
- Donor [55343019] Sun, Jun 08, 2003, 14:56
I was coronated Emperor of Nude Earth yesterday. I'll be making proclamations and rulings inbetween scheduled sexual liasons, keeping all of the limited government Republicans happy. Expect business taxes to increase, the top income bracket to go back to the low 90%, and a lot less clothing everywhere.
Emperor Zen |
| | | 1 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 14826271
Sun, Jun 08, 2003, 15:29
|
Check out the one dude (center-right of photo) peeking around.
|
|
| | | 2 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719
Sun, Jun 08, 2003, 15:36
|
LOL! I spotted that guy too! That is hilarious.
|
|
| | | 3 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719
Sun, Jun 08, 2003, 15:51
|
Check out the peeker in this story :)
|
|
| | | 4 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Sun, Jun 08, 2003, 22:45
|
This story serves well to counter some of the conservatives arguments about "what a free country we live in" and how "we are the freest country on earth"...really?
The artist who has gained world fame for these exhibitions is an American. He has been arrested 5 times attempting to perform his art in this country.
The following is taken from an article on the exhibit...
The New York native has achieved worldwide renown for his work, which often features large numbers of nude people posing in urban settings. Though he refers to his art as "temporary site-related installations," he is best known for the photographs he takes of these events.
Barcelona joins London, Lisbon, Buenos Aires, Santiago and many other European and South American cities in hosting Tunick. (Notice no American cities listed, the freest country on earth)
"In the U.S. they consider the body a crime," said the artist, who has been arrested five times in New York City for working with nudes in public. "In other countries it's celebrated as something special."
Barcelona was particularly accepting of his work, Tunick said, citing praise from Mayor Joan Clos.
O.K. we are free but you didn’t mean that kind of free...the evidence mounts, how free are we? Are we really the freest country on earth? Do you really want to be free or is it just lip service? What does freedom really mean? Are we just kidding ourselves?
The Clinic
|
|
| | | 5 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Sun, Jun 08, 2003, 23:37
|
Somehow these exhibitionist conventions leave me cold as a stone. Is this really art or just banal PC boorishness. How many times can you pull this stunt and still get away with the pretense of having some great artistic revelation?
|
|
| | | 6 | Dave K
ID: 16442812
Sun, Jun 08, 2003, 23:49
|
Hey,I love a little debauchery,like Mardi Gras,but being able to run around naked or driving,as allowed in some countries, with no traffic laws infringes on others rights,like my right not to be killed by drunken or high drivers and not to have to see fat naked people.
|
|
| | | 7 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 00:01
|
and not to have to see fat naked people.
Round up the constitutional convention boys. Sounds like we might have discovered another natural right. 8]
|
|
| | | 8 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 01:19
|
Dave were you drunk when you wrote this? Hey,I love a little debauchery,like Mardi Gras,but being able to run around naked or driving,as allowed in some countries, with no traffic laws infringes on others rights,like my right not to be killed by drunken or high drivers and not to have to see fat naked people.
The point isn't that you would be "able to run around naked ". This is a one time event and is coordinated with the city. So if you are a puritan, or you believe the naked body is a sin, or evil, you just avoid the well publicized area for a couple of hours. Me, I'd be down there with a six pack of beer and a lawn chair looking for the best view...
I predict the artist eventually will find an American city open enough to allow this (Perhaps Seattle or San Fran.) 8-) It just takes America a little longer.
But Dave what the hell does this have to do with Drunk driving? A drunk driver risks killing someone, how does that equate to taking a photo of a large group of people who happen to be naked as a one time event.
Baldwin: Is this really art or just banal PC boorishness.
It is absurd to attempt to argue whether or not this is art. The question may be is it "good or quality" art, but to even attempt to argue this is not obviously art is intellectually disingenuous. Obviously once again your religious beliefs are clouding your judgment.
This is so obviously a work of art that it’s not even worth debating and I am surprised once again you would make such a gaffe, you are smarter then that. Now you may argue it's banal, or simply bad art, but that is personal opinion and there is obviously a large segment of the population on the planet who disagrees with you which leads to the point...if you want to be free, you have to allow freedom of artistic expression...within reason...and this to much of Europe falls into that catagory.
Seriously statements like the above threaten your credibility as a fair and logical debater. 8-)
By the way Dave, we have to take New Orleans out of the argument whenever we discuss the rest of the USA, it is obviously, to anyone who has been to Mardi Gras, a rouge nation unto itself. 8-)
|
|
| | | 9 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 08:51
|
Nerve
I would agree with you there is the barest hint of artistic choice if there is some arangement to the grouping. If I err with hyperbole it is not by much. This stuff is 99% political statement. It isn't any more art than any other political demonstration.
|
|
| | | 10 | Pancho Villa
Donor
ID: 533817
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 12:18
|
Dave..
Please specify which countries you've identified as having no traffic laws.
I'm sure you have no problem with people running around the hills with high powered rifles shooting wildlife(and sometimes each other, thank you, Bobby Knight).
I have a feeling you may have seen more than your share of fat naked people - the next morning.
|
|
| | | 11 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 2345588
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 12:29
|
A sea of white naked people as far as the eye can see.
Love that peeker.
pd
|
|
| | | 12 | Dave K
ID: 16442812
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 12:43
|
The Bahamas is one.Last time I was there 2 people were hit by cars while riding mopeds.
I am not big on the hunting scene.I gave it up after I heard a bullet whiz by my head.I hollered and ran up to see who shot at me and saw some kid jumping out of tree.He and his father hauled ass as fast as they could thinking they had shot me.
The worse things about waking up next to a fat woman is when they turn towards you the next morning with liquor breath and say "Hey,baby how about a kiss."*shivers remembering*It is rough going to bed with Shania Twain and waking up with one of the Dixie Chicks.
|
|
| | | 13 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 2345588
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 12:55
|
Dave, maybe you and tequila should just agree to disagree..
;)
|
|
| | | 14 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 12:55
|
Now see this is one of the many benefits of not sleeping around and waiting until you find and marry your dream girl. It's also one of the benefits of avoiding chemically altered states.
|
|
| | | 15 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 14:46
|
Baldwin
Why can't art have political statements within them? All good art should make a statement.
What is the political statement that constitutes the 99% of this work of art?
|
|
| | | 16 | Dave K
ID: 16442812
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 14:54
|
Liberals are nuts? That is only statement I can see.
|
|
| | | 17 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 15:00
|
in the 'what is art' debate, I still say Picasso's work is not art as much as it is evidence that he never shared any of his drugs.
|
|
| | | 18 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 15:06
|
Why do people love to brag about how little they know about art? It's such an odd phenomenon, I mean, you don't see people cracking jokes about how "nuts" biochemists are when there is some conversation about serotonin uptake.
|
|
| | | 20 | Dave K
ID: 16442812
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 15:26
|
When was the last time you heard of a biochemist cutting off his ear and giving it to a hooker?
|
|
| | | 21 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 15:28
|
think it was in 1842. The reknown Byo Kemical, advisor to the Czar, found himself abit low on cash one night in Moscow. Gal said something about 'a pigs ear' and I guess he took her literally.
|
|
| | | 22 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 15:30
|
(w/apologies.) it's a REAL slow day at work today.
|
|
| | | 23 | Dave K
ID: 16442812
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 15:35
|
Tell me about it Sarge.I am going thru the summertime slow down.
|
|
| | | 24 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 16:11
|
I don't see any nuts in that picture.
|
|
| | | 25 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 16:12
|
and I for one, am glad of that Mr Prez.
|
|
| | | 26 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 16:19
|
Zen
It's really not complicated. Like the 'piss christ' it's just another rasberry aimed at the 'bourgeois', thumbing their noses at traditional probity. Now you explain the other one percent. What great artistic revelation struck this 'artist' when he decided we needed one more exhibitionist convention?
|
|
| | | 27 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 16:24
|
maybe its one of those 'inspirational' pictures. The guy looking around perhaps is supposed to be. Caption could read: "Even when surrounded by asses, I can find my way."
|
|
| | | 28 | Dave K
ID: 16442812
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 16:33
|
How this for a caption."OK,who had beans for lunch."
|
|
| | | 29 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 16:40
|
lmao, thats just plain rude DK.
|
|
| | | 30 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 16:43
|
probity
Tried virtue or integrity; approved moral excellence; honesty; rectitude; uprightness.
Can't agree with you there. There is nothing salacious in Tunick's works. The body is treated as a whole and a part of a larger whole, there is no focus upon individual genitals.
Tunick's works are exquisite.
He wants you to rethink of the way we see public spaces. How can you not be amazed by the beautiful contrast of all that skin and black hair. Within that entire acre, there isn't a speck of anything else.
This one blows me away. The people look like pink sardines. Ever see a real log jam in a Western river? This is a pink log jam. The uniformity, the crosshatching of the people on the stairs, the shock and awe one would feel if you were to stumble upon such a scene.
This is 100% art and it is lovely.
|
|
| | | 31 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 17:02
|
I gotta say I agree with SZ's take on this one. The *idea* of gathering that many naked people together admittedly makes me laugh, but I also laugh when my 9-year-old makes fart jokes.
Regardless, I don't see anything particularly salacious about the photos. I'm not particularly impressed by art where the entire point is to offend, but this to me does not fall into that category. If it offends Baldwin, though, that is just a bonus :)
|
|
| | | 32 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 1754479
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 17:42
|
Baldwin, do you believe that art which you don't understand is intended to offend? Surely there is some art (including written art, i.e., literature) which is only written to offend, but there's a vast amount of art of all types which is intended to do what all art ascribes: to convey emotion.
Look at the pictures with a blank canvas mind, and let the emotions of the art come forth.
Tunick is playing with that emotional line in which we find it difficult to do away with our preconceived notions of body. He's forcing us to confront a collection of nudes in public in which the emotions are not salacious in nature. The confusion of our typical response to nudes and these images are where the artist is going.
pd
|
|
| | | 33 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 1754479
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 17:43
|
BTW, I, for one, am trying hard to do away with the preconceived notion that the artist thinks of "body" only in terms of "white bodies." Each of us has a cross to bear...
|
|
| | | 34 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 21:12
|
Yeah, what lovely crosshatching...that was rich. The point is the man is not making any aesthetic decisions.
Let me give you another example, Christo and his curtained landscape art. Yes he is riding a gimmick awful hard but at least there are is a lot of opportunity for aesthetic choices and each work could reasonably be expected to strike observers differently depending on those choices unique to each set piece.
I respect those montages of complete junk far more than these 'nude happenings'. Again even if it is meant to insult the sensibilities of the viewers, such as in 'the art of the urinal' at least there is considerable aesthetic judgement going on.
Just cause this guy has perfected the process of talking masses of people out of their clothes doesn't mean he is remotely in the league of a Playboy photographer even let alone a great artist deserving high respect.
Nope, unless someone can show me this guy chooses his locations so brilliantly, or positions his nudes so artistically or something I am not going to believe this is significant art. Visual doggerel maybe, guerrilla theater for sure, but not truly art...
|
|
| | | 35 | Perm Dude
Leader
ID: 1754479
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 21:53
|
Maybe. But you're clearly focusing on the nudity; if there were other concerns you've blocked them out.
Art is meant to evoke an emotional response. Oddly, when that that emotion seems manipulated out, many people blame the person who created the art for being a hack or publicity hound. No one said this was high art. Just that the response he's getting (from people like you, for example) is, at its base, a response to art.
Christo, BTW, was an ass in person. Pompous, to say the least. He lived off grants and selling photographs of his artwork to art textbook companies.
pd
|
|
| | | 36 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 22:41
|
But you're clearly focusing on the nudity - PD
I have hardly mentioned nudity. I have focused on the artlessness of it, how vapid it all is, how banal. I'm not shocked by it, I'm bored to death with it. It's been done to death. I'm insulted he would think this would move me in the slightest let alone rock my world. Get a new gimmick you hack.
What amuses me is that you libs think this is some kind of shock that I can't somehow process because of my narrow little conservative blinkered world view. It is sooooo funny.
A) I used to live at the Chicago Art Institute when I went to Illinois Institute of Technology. I took architecture because I adore art and I am extremely visual.
B) As far as the supposed 'shock' I must be experiencing...ohh Baldwin must be positively in terminal cognitive dissonance over all those naked bodies...ooh my...I took two years of art classes drawing naked models. Too funny, some of the stuff you guys assume about me...
|
|
| | | 37 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 22:54
|
Dave K The worse things about waking up next to a fat woman is when they turn towards you the next morning with liquor breath and say "Hey,baby how about a kiss."*shivers remembering* LOL
I know I will accussed of being shallow for this but that line of yours is the main reason I have avoided marriage thus far in life up until age 42.
I just know the day would come when my bed mate would be a beast and I just can't bare the thought. I know Shallow.
|
|
| | | 38 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 23:01
|
You can call me Shallow Hal when it comes to my wife. I am incapable of objectivity where she is concerned. She will always look like a 20 year old knockout to me.
|
|
| | | 39 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 23:05
|
You know what, I really find the pictures fascinating on many levels and I think your political theory Baldwin, frankly, smacks of a disdain for the nudity more so then it's value as art.
The photos are eye catching, compelling, thought provoking. They do not invoke political thoughts in my mind because I am not offended by the human body.
By the way he does pose them Baldwin and in fact instructed them on 4 different poses for this shoot.
He also asked that they refrain from drinking or (Sorry Zen) pot smoking before the picture taking because he wanted them to be clearly focused on the project.
My college degree is a Bachelor of Fine Arts...what was yours Baldwin?...no offense but, perhaps there lies the difference in our perspective.
I think you would be hard pressed to find an art major or professor for that matter who would argue that this is not in fact art.
|
|
| | | 40 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 23:11
|
I took architecture - Post #36
I think you would be hard pressed to find an art major or professor for that matter who would argue that this is not in fact art.
- Nerve
Fight the zeitgeist. The zeitgeist is your enemy. Dare to think outside of the box. Sometimes the emperor really is naked.
|
|
| | | 41 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 23:12
|
ART
the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings ...
an activity through which people express particular ideas...
Definition from Cambridge dictionary.
|
|
| | | 42 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 23:14
|
DOGERREL
marked by triviality or inferiority.
|
|
| | | 43 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 23:17
|
VAPID
lacking liveliness, tang, briskness, or force : FLAT, DULL.
|
|
| | | 44 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 23:17
|
BANAL
lacking originality, freshness, or novelty : TRITE.
|
|
| | | 45 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 23:19
|
BAldwin: I took two years of art classes drawing naked models.
Yeah but old airplane models don't count...8-)
One year just wasn't enough eh Baldwin? I tried to go back for a third year but they told me it was only a two year class. I asked the professor what it would take to get an F.
Seriously though. I owe you an apologey. If you took 2 years of art classes painting nudes then clearly your lack of reason on this matter has nothing to do with a lack of an artistic background... or shock. You just need to go back for a few more classes because the photos look pretty cool to me.
|
|
| | | 46 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 23:20
|
LoL
|
|
| | | 47 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Jun 09, 2003, 23:28
|
I will concede the semantic point that it may 'technically' be called art. All the world is a stage. Life is performance art. The question is, is it ART. Or is it art in the sense a Bazooka Joe comic or stick figures drawn on a napkin could be called art if you stretched it.
|
|
| | | 48 | Pancho Villa
Donor
ID: 533817
Tue, Jun 10, 2003, 00:11
|
How can society ever progress when peaceful gatherings are considered unlawful or devious and national conventions of the NRA, celebrating weapons that kill people, are heralded as a great success of our "free society." How pathetic.
|
|
| | | 49 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Tue, Jun 10, 2003, 00:24
|
PAncho I agree with the first part of your statement but don't really understand this
national conventions of the NRA, celebrating weapons that kill people, are heralded as a great success of our "free society."
Pancho I am against gun control and the main reason why is I don't want George Bush, his military and the police to be the only people armed in this country. As the anti establishment type that you are why do you want the establishment to be the only ones with the guns?
The peasants in El Salvador weren't allowed to have guns.
The peasants in Nicaragua weren't allowed to have guns.
The Jews in nazi Germany's gun's were taken away by Hitler.
Why do you want the politician you despise and mistrust to be the only one with the army of guns?
So you can be an unarmed peasant?
A sheep waiting to be sheered?
That is why the right to bear arms was truly put into the constitution. To arm the peasants, to keep them free from the King...don't be so quick to throw away the last defense against tyranny. You may need it soon.
And this is coming from a registered Conscientious objector...I believe in gun control, you should learn to hold the barrel very steady.
|
|
| | | 50 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Tue, Jun 10, 2003, 00:40
|
By the way Pancho, have no fear, you will get your wish. They'll be coming to take away our right to own guns soon enough.
mark my words.
|
|
| | | 51 | Dave K
ID: 16442812
Tue, Jun 10, 2003, 01:13
|
Nerve-Freud could have a field day with your paranoia.I see no art in the picture,but would love to see it in real life with a case of beer.
|
|
| | | 52 | nerveclinic
Donor
ID: 451146319
Tue, Jun 10, 2003, 04:06
|
DAve K
A six pack would about put me under at dawn when they took the photo.
A Case? Can you really absord that much hops?
As for Freud, one man's paranoia is another man's intuition.
I heard people with my own ears tell Bill Cooper he was paranoid when he said in 1990 that human implants were coming. Last year I posted the link to an article about a family who all voluntarily got them.
Cooper's dead.
So is Freud...8-)
In any case, do you deny the right to bear arms was placed into the constitution to allow the common man security against the tryanny of the king?
|
|
| | | 53 | Dave K
ID: 16442812
Tue, Jun 10, 2003, 05:20
|
I can only drink a six-pack myself now.(It is a bitch getting old)The rest would be to lure any nakkid chicks I could find to my room.
I know why the right to bear arms is in the constitution,but believe that is dated.The need to bear arms now is not for protection from our government,rather to defend ourselves from the subculture liberals caused by paying half-ass mothers to have kids.
|
|
| | | 54 | Tortfeasor
Donor
ID: 55912113
Tue, Jun 10, 2003, 08:28
|
Baldwin:
While I agree with you that this is not really aesthetically pleasing art, it is art nonetheless. Art is anything expressive which is put into some sort of medium. These pictures clearly fall into that category.
Now, with respect to whether it's "good" art, I think that's debatable, but I can see where some people might think it is. I just don't happen to agree with them.
|
|
| | | 55 | Pancho Villa
Donor
ID: 533817
Tue, Jun 10, 2003, 09:19
|
Nerve,
You misunderstood my post #48. I strongly believe that it is an American right to bear arms. However, I find it detrimental to society to have so many people obsessed with firearms, and being blind to the idea that there needs to be some laws in place that regulate something which is used by many for criminal activities. All things in moderation, right? Just like there is a difference between growing a marijuana plant in your yard and having a methamphatmine lab in your basement, there is a difference between owning a handgun that's properly secured in the home as well as a couple of hunting rifles and owning a small arsenal of AK-47s, ouzis and other semi-automatic turned automatic weapons. Just like there is a difference between several hundred people being peacefully naked and several hundred people being naked and having sex.
My beef with the NRA is that they oppose all types of regulation of guns to the point of throwing logic out the window, a position that I find to be obsessive. This is not to say that the NRA doesn't have some good safety and educational programs because I understand they do. However, just because the government makes us register our automobiles doesn't mean they want to take them away.
|
|
| | | 56 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Tue, Jun 10, 2003, 15:56
|
Tortfeasor
I never said it was ugly. I said it was barely art. The best anyone has come to showing that the guy strained one artistic muscle was to point out that he had them do several poses. I'm still unimpressed. I just don't see any artistic choices being made. The guy is a great recruiter for these 'happenings' buuut....
|
|
| | | 57 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Jun 10, 2003, 16:11
|
Two comments:
1) I'm down on PD's comment that the purpose of art is to evoke emotion. That seems narrow to me. I did some Google research, and there are others that say basically the same. I'm no expert in aesthetics -- but what PD said don't seem right to me. I can't find the vocabulary, but it seems to me that art can/should evoke responses of a different kind -- intellectual, contemplative, as well. I can't get into the vocab here. If it was just about evoking emotion, the pictures of poker-playing dogs, or weepy crap pictures, would be the best.
(2) Re the original photo -- my response -- ummm. bacon! I want a bacon sandwich!
Toral
|
|
| | | 58 | Nerveclinic
ID: 16538111
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 02:45
|
Toral Re the original photo -- my response -- ummm. bacon! I want a bacon sandwich!
Toral that's completely twisted...8-) I don't even know what you mean.
And I don't want to know.
|
|
| | | 59 | Nerveclinic
ID: 16538111
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 02:45
|
Toral
You didn't mean sausage did you?
|
|
| | | 60 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 02:57
|
Two words: pork bellies!
|
|
| | | 61 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 04:07
|
Further, all them nekkid body pictures all together ain't as good as even one verse of Macarthur Park, which I've been listening to (or Conquistador, or They're Coming To Take Me Away), or other great hits.. Not even close. I guess leftists admire stripping off clothes really greatly, though I don't know why. Most people do it at least once every day.
Toral
|
|
| | | 62 | Tortfeasor
Donor
ID: 55912113
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 08:33
|
Toral:
Pork belly futures! Winthorp!
|
|
| | | 63 | sarge33rd
ID: 381154278
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 09:10
|
post 49: I believe in gun control, you should learn to hold the barrel very steady.
it aint often Nerve, but every now and then, you say something I REALLY like. :)
|
|
| | | 64 | katietx
ID: 19551110
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 11:02
|
RE: #38 - Would that more men and women felt this way. The divorce rate would be nil. Thank you Baldwin, you renewed (somewhat) my faith in men. Of course if I read Dave's posts it gets dashed again. :-|
Regarding the original topic of this thread. None of us look at art the same way. While I don't see this a pure art (IMO), it is the artists eye that invisions the final outcome as art.
Sarge in no way shape or form understands some of my art. Collage art is an acquired taste for some people. ;-) We recently cruised through some galleries in Des Moines and I was pretty amazed at his narrow view of art. He just can't get away from those dogs playing poker! LOL
|
|
| | | 65 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 11:12
|
Katie I've been hoping you'd chime in on this thread. I'm curious about your opinion of Tunick's work.
|
|
| | | 66 | katietx
ID: 19551110
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 12:12
|
MITH, I find it interesting - although somewhat bizzare. The "sardine" grouping is more to my liking and would actually like to see this painted. The nudity doesn't bother me one bit, however I think it would be much more dramatic and impactive in black and white.
Once, when taking photography classes at a junior college, I had an idea to incorporate the athletic program into my final project (black and white photography). My plan was to have 5 of the basketball players (4 black and one white) stand naked, facing a white wall with the school "medallions" draped down their backs. Needless to say, once the administration got wind of this it was shot down immediately. The players were all for it, as was the photography instructor. I looked at it as simply a study in photography and nothing more. Still think it would have been a striking pic.
Instead I did a triptych layout of dew running off a fence row of poison ivy. Even won an award.
|
|
| | | 67 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 13:32
|
I agree mostly with what Baldwin is saying.
The human body is beautiful. We get it. How many different pictures can you take of nude people laying down.
The movie "Lone Hero" is art too but do we really need another Lou Diamond Phillips movie in this world?
Dude needs to find a new schtick because this one is old and tired.
|
|
| | | 68 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 14:09
|
CP and Baldwin, I am right there with you guys. Old AND Tired!
Baldwin summed it up best, GET A NEW GIMMICK YOU HACK!
Tunick is a hack of the same mold as those Italian chumps who couldn't come up with their own ideas for sculpture subjects, so they just kept rehashing the same old, tired historical figure. Sure, the first time around the idea of sculpting David had it's novelty, so I guess I can't really hold the triteness of the subject against Donatello:
But then this guy Verrocchio comes along and pulls a Vanilla Ice on all of Reniassance sculpture. Perhaps he was Under Pressure?:
Then, in an unprecedented abandon of creativity, Michelangelo The Trite unveils his David:
Look at the disgust on the faces of those spectators. "We paid to see this?", I believe most of them are likely thinking.
And then the icing on the cake. Clearly, Bernini's only intent could have been to sabatoge the remainder of the Reniassance:
Just look at him, mocking you, depicted by Bernini as throwing cow chips at the admirer.
I say it is no different from when you pay the extra $1 to see the supplimental attraction at the freak show and it just turns out to be a dead baby pig in a jar. Yep, dead pig in a jar, that sums up the work of these hacks.
|
|
| | | 69 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 14:28
|
Katie 66, thanks. I agree that I find the second photo in 30 most interesting. One of the things I like best about his work are the stark pattern and texture differences you can get from just changing the angle you observe from. The design formed over those steps is inspiring.
|
|
| | | 70 | katietx
ID: 19551110
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 14:51
|
Absolutely MITH. Just think how incredible the texture would be in black and white.
|
|
| | | 71 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 15:14
|
Different artists rendering of the same subject is not the same as the same artists rendering of the same thing over and over again.
Aren't we all glad that Michelangelo decided to pursue pictures such as this:
and this:
Rather then take the Tunick route and hit us with this:
|
|
| | | 72 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 15:39
|
Different artists rendering of the same subject is not the same as the same artists rendering of the same thing over and over again.
I don't believe any of Tunick's work that I have seen can really be described as 'rendering', but here is a link to a page about an artist and some of his work that supports your point well. What was the matter with this guy that he kept painting the same subject over end over again throughout his career? Maybe he figured that through repetition he'd eventually get good at it?
BTW, I don't believe Michalengelo ever actually decided to create the works you linked, EH.
|
|
| | | 73 | Micheal
ID: 412281014
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 15:51
|
The second pic in #30 (by the water fountain), they look like babies peeing after you take the diaper off. I'm impressed with his Jim Jones like ability to talk a mass amount of people into getting naked.
|
|
| | | 74 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 15:59
|
I'm impressed with his Jim Jones like ability to talk a mass amount of people into getting naked.
I had the same thought. Man picked the wrong vocation; coulda been a heckuva political organizer.
|
|
| | | 75 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 16:02
|
He's quite young, Toral.
|
|
| | | 76 | cEHp @ school
ID: 255281116
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 17:47
|
If you want to quibble over my choice of words you may but the point remains
Baldwin post #5 - "How many times can you pull this stunt and still get away with the pretense of having some great artistic revelation?"
Perhaps the first time he did it he made a statement. Now it is just getting old. It may have worked for Rembrandt, (though he was actually painting his pictures, which takes skill, and not just snapping pictures when subjects weren't even positioned properly *peeker*) in this day and age Tunick is nothing but a one hit wonder.
|
|
| | | 77 | Micheal
ID: 412281014
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 18:27
|
I agree with Pride. Time for him to show his true "artistic" abilities by "creating" something else. Naked people laying on the ground is the same no matter what city the picture is taken. Reminds me of the holocaust, actually.
 
He must've struggled to come up with this brilliant piece of art. A naked fat guy standing in front of a gas station.
$1.23. Those were the days.
|
|
| | | 78 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 312481619
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 18:58
|
EH Consider that to an extent, the linked photos in the subject field and in post 30 are not the actual (or at least the entire) works of art. Don't get me wrong, I'm the photos are taken and presented as art as I'm told he gets lots of money for them, but understand that the actual work is the 'event' itself. The nudes are as much his medium as they are his subject. Do you refer to an artist who focuses his life work on still-life oils as a one-trick-pony? I hope not, because some history's most reknowned artists did just that. Think of Tunick's nudes as the paint or the solid marble as much as they are the bowl of fruit. The landscape is his canvas. If you think his whole schtick is about the shock of grand-scale nudity, you are missing the point.
He establishes real properties of design. There is discernable and deliberate texture in those masses of people. Anyone who has ever taken a design class will note stunning movement in the second photo in 30. It's a river of pink that flows from the top of the steps in front of the circular building on the left and spills out before you. The bold horizontal line of people on the steps underneath the spouting fountans (which Zen accurately describes as cross-hatching) cuts deep into and seemingly alters the flow of the larger pink mass like a dam. The gradual change in texture from the very dark center to the bottom portion of the first photo in 30 is also very striking.
|
|
| | | 79 | Dave K
ID: 16442812
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 21:13
|
This painting is a dimensional style that blends the untraditional oil and cloth paints with the traditional black velvet canvas and acrylic paints. It blends the spiritual and surreal in a way that has been described as ethereal. The seemingly magical dogs create a mystical, visual and cerebral event. It brings an element of sophistication to the deceptively primitive style of black velvet paintings. The images speak to us as they draw us deeper into the depths of their vision. One's senses are assailed by the contrast of green and red, the fiery re fractions of gleaming cigarette ash and cigar smoke.It seems to connect with a vision of the future through the doorways of the past. The use of space through time creates a kaleidoscope of inter-connected images-one blending into the other. What is far becomes near and his wrap around visual style portray just how unusual true vision takes shape through the distorted perceptions of the human mind and eye. What one discovers is that these omniscient viewpoints are not theoretically surreal but rather the reality of true vision. Truly great American art.
|
|
| | | 80 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 312481619
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 21:37
|
Nice try Dave K, though your greatest success in that post is that you did get me to respond to it. I'm not sure what your point here is.
Are you simply mocking my post 78 in your unmistakable troglodyte style?
Are you trying to show that I am glowingly describing Tunick's work to make it seem like it is art when it is not?
Or are you attempting to express that I am glowingly describing Tunick's work to make it seem like it holds some aesthetic value that it does not really have any?
If your answer is only a, congratulations for getting me to waste enough of my time on you to respond.
If your answer is b, you are effectivly telling me that the poker dogs painting isn't art, and this is not true. Good or bad, it certainly is art.
If your answer is c, aesthetic quality is in the eye of the beholder and there are infinite schools of thought. But I wasn't describing aesthetic appeal quite so much as design properties within the work. You display plainly in post 79 that you have no concept for this, but that never stopped you before.
|
|
| | | 81 | sarge33rd
ID: 381154278
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 22:02
|
katie #64, DK #79...
now THATS art! ;)
|
|
| | | 82 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 22:03
|
"But I wasn't describing aesthetic appeal quite so much as design properties within the work"
I think this is my problem with your entire arguement. I do not buy that this guy has anything to do with design properties of the photo. He can't stop his subjects from checking each other out during the shoot let alone make sure that everyone's legs are properly cross hatched
"Hey! Body #1365! Move your left knee 7 inches to the right, you are throwing off the cross hatching on my steps. You are supposed to be a dam, not an unordered mismash of legs!"
To me, art and design are about precision. Artists should have total control over their work in order to fulfil their vision. This guy does not, it is a good idea and a striking picture but the depth of artistry is low.
|
|
| | | 83 | Seattle Zen
Donor
ID: 55343019
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 22:12
|
You can't be serious, CH, in post 82. Why don't we just let machines and computers take care of art for us since they are much more precise than the human hand?
How is saying, "Naked people, lie down on your backs right here" any different than, "Costumed people, recite your lines, we are performing MacBeth tonight"? Is the director not an artist? Is Shakespere not an artist?
|
|
| | | 84 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 22:21
|
Ummm...are you serious?
Shakespeare didn't say, "Words, leave my head and go on this paper"
And most directors cast their plays and also DIRECT their actors for extended periods of time before performing the play. They don't just drag a bunch of bums of the street and say "Read this".
An artist should have a meaning behind ever word, direction or brush stroke. Simply barking a single order and snapping a picture does not make someone an artist. I'm not saying that artists are perfect, so i'm not sure what machines have to do with this, but their finished product is normally precisely what they had in their head.
Would a real artist allow a picture with "The Peeker" to go public?
|
|
| | | 85 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 312481619
Wed, Jun 11, 2003, 22:28
|
To me, art and design are about precision. Artists should have total control over their work in order to fulfil their vision.
That's a pretty narow view, but I guess you're entitled to it. I think that the overwhelming majority of people who have studied art would disagree. I guess as far as you are concerned now that we have Adobe Photoshop, oil paint is useless.
This guy does not, it is a good idea and a striking picture but the depth of artistry is low.
You completely misunderstand the vision. The work is alive. It moves. It's unpredictability is part of the nature of the medium. You're stuck on the concept that the medium is the photo and the image it holds is the subject. While the photo is art in itself, this work is more than can be captured by limitations of a single still photograph. The photo simply captures a moment of the work. Like listening to a few seconds of a song. I know that some of his work, particularly his older stuff I believe, is more based in photography as the primary medium. I believe the last photo in 77 is an example of this. I don't believe that piece is particularly interesting, fwiw.
|
|
| | | 86 | Dave K
ID: 16442812
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 06:12
|
Matt-I resent your troglodyte remark.Anyone with any knowledge of anthropology would know I am more closely related to the Neanderthal.Again you have your facts wrong.
|
|
| | | 87 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 08:19
|
Here is some more stuff for you art fanatics. I wonder when this artistic genius is going to get his own feature exhibit.
 
I love how the sun reflects off of the dead and bloated carcasses. Absolutely breath taking!
|
|
| | | 88 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 08:46
|
Really, it's to your own detriment that you are unable to understand Tunick's work. You are the one who is missing out and you think it is something to brag about.
|
|
| | | 89 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 09:01
|
Maybe I am missing out. I didn't check out his whole collection but I did pick up the latest edition of Where's Nude Waldo?. I hope this will make up for it.
|
|
| | | 90 | katietx
ID: 19551110
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 09:02
|
CP To me, art and design are about precision. Artists should have total control over their work in order to fulfil their vision.
An artist should have a meaning behind ever word, direction or brush stroke.
...their finished product is normally precisely what they had in their head.
To say that you don't have an understanding of the creative process would be the understatement of the year. First, not all art is about precision and/or control. Graphic design could be described this way (and yes, I WAS a graphic designer for many years...and NOT on the computer). Most artists would describe their work as "free expression" - with not a thing in the world to do with precision.
Secondly, meaning behind every brush stroke. You've got to be kidding. The only "meaning" that could be construed is that shading, shadows, highlights are purposely put in specific places. But every stroke have meaning? I think not. I have done a lot of pen & ink and pencil drawing. Believe me, not every stroke had meaning. Would have taken me years to complete one piece!
Thirdly, rarely does a piece end up like it was originally envisioned. Artistic statement changes as the piece evolves. Even in the most elementary designs, one tiny stroke or change of color can change the entire meaning. Collage art is a perfect example. The most freeing of all art styles.
Photography is the same. Lighting is not always perfect (or the way you had invisioned it), this can change the "vision in your head" when the picture is completed. I have read many books on Ansel Adams and he always said that the camera was the artist - not him. While he set up for the right light, time of day, shadows etc. there were many times he was totally surprised by the outcome. Delightfully so.
Unless you "do" art, please don't try and think for the artist. "Walk a mile" as it were. You certainly have a right to your opinion, but don't assume you know what's in my head when I'm creating a piece.
|
|
| | | 91 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 09:33
|
Katie,
Obviously, someone who is childish enough to link such a disgusting picture as in post 87 (assuming he's telling the truth and the sealions on the right are dead - the ones on the left are just sunbathing), simply to mock another post is not going to care. I don't believe Pride ever put any more thought into his ideas for what constitutes art than what it took to come up with the first seemingly sensical argument against the presence of artistic value in Tunicks works he could think of. Pretty sad that he'd rather make up a reason not to like Tunick than put forth the effort it takes to consider that there might be something to it.
When his bluff was called and he knew he couldn't defend his made-up position, he took a que from Dave K in post 79. I believe he is afraid that even if he tries, he will be unable to understand it, so it is safer to simply mock it, as if the notion that there is anything tangible to appreciate the work is absurd on the surface. At this point he looks like he's acting out class-clown fantasies that he was too inhibited to display in high school. I'm sure he wishes he had this material back in those days.
|
|
| | | 92 | katietx
ID: 19551110
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 09:44
|
Quite true MITH. To not "like" a piece of art is one thing, but to mock the piece and the artist for his vision is childishness.
I know there have been times when viewing a piece that I thought, "What was this person thinking?" but it was their vision, not mine.
Ultimately, art is about courage. Putting yourself and your craft out in public is very gut wrenching on an unimaginable scale.
|
|
| | | 93 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 09:58
|
agree with 91 and 92.
Art, like food, almost never appeals to everyone. Visual and color pallette tastes vary just as widely as do those of the aromatic kind.
Earlier, katie referenced a trip through a rather fine gallery we took a few weeks ago. MANY of the pieces she thought were wonderful, honestly reminded me of kindergarten finger paintings but on a much larger canvas. They simply held no appeal to me at all. My tastes, not everyones. Does that give me the right or the ability to deny that a work is in fact 'art'? I think not. No more than does the fact that I despise fish as a meal, give me the right to deny that it is a food.
|
|
| | | 94 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 10:11
|
This is like an abortion debate. You guys are talking right past wach other. MITH, I think what some people are reacting to is that you and other here have tried to draww a comparison between Tunick's "art" and Michealangelo or Donnatelo or Shakesphere. Surely you guys don't think Tunick's mediocre pictures of a bunch of people whom he has induced to disrobe are worthy of that kind if comparison? My wife takes better pictures. Tunick's "artistry" is in his ability to induce and organize - not in any superior photographic vision. Please don't get so caught up in arguing that this is "art" that you pretend that Tunick is an artist in the same way that Ansel Adams or Maplethorpe are. He's not. His process is more schtick than art.
Now, if his photo speak ot you, as art, then that's great. Eye of the beholder and all that. I mean, my four year old daughter's home made Father's Day card is one of the greatest works of art that I'll ever behold. That doesn't make her Van Gogh, though.
You guys are so busy trying to paint (get it, art) everyone who doesn't appreciate Tunick as a knuckle dragging rube who doesn't "get it" - I think everyone on here "gets it". It's art if you want to call it that - but I and others would prefer that Art have some merit and require more than ordinary artistic skill and vision from the artist. Tunic's work doesn't satify those needs.
|
|
| | | 95 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 10:34
|
MBJ
I think what some people are reacting to is that you and other here have tried to draww a comparison between Tunick's "art" and Michealangelo or Donnatelo or Shakesphere.
The only reason the Renaissance artists entered the discussion was to show Baldwin and CP and others that using the same subject and medium over and over does not tire it out. I'm not comparing Tunick to any of those artists in terms of aesthetic or design quality or impact or anything else. I was simply pointing out that these three magnificant pieces that followed Donatello's masterpiece certainly were not "original schticks" and yet no one questions the artists' vision in any of them.
CP tried to save his pathetic argument by absurdly declaring that he really meant that original subjectmatter is only important within the body of a single artist's work. As if to say that if a thousand different artists paint a thousand bowls of fruit then that is fine but if one keeps painting bowls of fruit then he is a hack. To show him that he is effectively discounting some of history's greatest artists, I linked to a page with thumbnails of seven different self-portraits by Rembrandt.
At that point Pride again altered his argument to mean something new, this time something about precision being a necessary prerequisite for art.
I think everyone on here "gets it".
Well, I'm quite sure that CP doesn't "get it". And frankly, MBJ, you don't really seem to get it, either.
...Tunick's mediocre pictures of a bunch of people whom he has induced to disrobe...
My wife takes better pictures.
not in any superior photographic vision.
While I disagree with your opinion of his photographic vision, you, like CP, are too hung up on the photos. The first paragraph of my post 78:
EH Consider that to an extent, the linked photos in the subject field and in post 30 are not the actual (or at least the entire) works of art. Don't get me wrong, I'm [sure] the photos are taken and presented as art as I'm told he gets lots of money for them, but understand that the actual work is the 'event' itself. The nudes are as much his medium as they are his subject. Do you refer to an artist who focuses his life work on still-life oils as a one-trick-pony? I hope not, because some history's most reknowned artists did just that. Think of Tunick's nudes as the paint or the solid marble as much as they are the bowl of fruit. The landscape is his canvas. If you think his whole schtick is about the shock of grand-scale nudity [or the simple photos taken of the work], you are missing the point.
|
|
| | | 96 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 13:51
|
"Well, I'm quite sure that CP doesn't "get it". And frankly, MBJ, you don't really seem to get it, either."
If your definition of "get it" translates to "agrees with me" then you are correct. I don't get it.
"Pretty sad that he'd rather make up a reason not to like Tunick than put forth the effort it takes to consider that there might be something to it."
Where did I say that I did not like Tunick? I openly admitted that his pictures were striking. I just don't believe, as Baldwin stated earlier and I later quoted in post #76, that he is displaying a "great artistic revaltion". To say that I've put no thought into my arguements is totally false, to say that you've taken no time to consider my point of view is more accurate. Though you find my picture of the sealions "childish", I'd like you to tell me the difference between that "artists" work and that of Tunick's because to my untrained eye, they look pretty much the same.
You appreciate art, you are a better man then I. This I will give you. But I will not sit here and look at a single white dot on a black canvas and call it art. There is a lot of work out there that I simply won't recognize as having any artisitic integrity and this is one of them.
My question to you is this MITH, could you recreate the images in Tunick's pictures?
|
|
| | | 97 | Motley Crue
Donor
ID: 21553314
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 14:00
|
Re:Post 94.
I didn't know there was a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle named Shakespeare!
|
|
| | | 98 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 14:12
|
Sure - Shakespere carried a long lance around as his weapon. He has Parkinson's which made him quiver a bit when he held his lance - thus you didn't get to see him in action much.
|
|
| | |
| | | 100 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 14:19
|
this is starting to sound like grade school playground nonsense. 'yes you did'...'no I didnt'...'yes you did'....'no I didnt'... ad nauseum.
perhaps we can agree, that we are not going to agree?
|
|
| | | 101 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 14:24
|
Pride
I openly admitted that his pictures were striking.
No, you said that "it" was a striking picture in post 82. I assume you were referring to the one in the subject field but I can't be sure. This is your sentence:
To me, art and design are about precision. Artists should have total control over their work in order to fulfil their vision. This guy does not, it is a good idea and a striking picture but the depth of artistry is low.
So you say that an artist must be precise in order to be a good artist - or possibly an artist at all. You then say that Tunick falls short in that area. You concede that one of his photos is striking, but ensure to follow with a reminder that his "depth of artistry" is low.
Where did I say that I did not like Tunick? Well, criticizing his low depth of artistry should be a pretty clear example, but here's some more:
Post 76: Perhaps the first time he did it he made a statement. Now it is just getting old.
[Tunick is] just snapping pictures when subjects weren't even positioned properly *peeker*
in this day and age Tunick is nothing but a one hit wonder.
Post 82: I do not buy that this guy has anything to do with design properties of the photo. He can't stop his subjects from checking each other out during the shoot let alone make sure that everyone's legs are properly cross hatched
Post 84: Would a real artist allow a picture with "The Peeker" to go public?
In post 87 you compare his work with dead sealions washed up on a beach.
In post 89 you compare his work with a Where's Waldo picture.
Post 96: There is a lot of work out there that I simply won't recognize as having any artisitic integrity and this is one of them.
===========================================
To say that I've put no thought into my arguements is totally false
I don't think you're helping your own case there.
to say that you've taken no time to consider my point of view is more accurate.
Which point of view would that be, EH? You keep changing it. I think I've displayed in this post and in 95 that I have kept track of everything you've said. I have certainly considered all of your points of view and even noted how they have morphed into each other through your posts.
My question to you is this MITH, could you recreate the images in Tunick's pictures?
What does that have to do with anything? Sure I could recreate the image. I could scan the photo. I could xerox it. I could take a photo of the photo. Some artists I know could paint it. I know you are thinking that I am deliberately misinterpreting your question but I am not. Reproducibility has nothing to do with whether something is art or good art. Much of Picasso's work could be reproduced by a medium to low level skilled painter, but it is still art.
|
|
| | | 102 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 14:32
|
"Pretty sad that he'd rather make up a reason not to like Tunick"
You implied that I didn't like Tunick, not that I didn't like his work. I have no reason not to like Tunick. I've never met him and I am not offended by his work for any kind of political reasons. Therefore the statement that I do not like Tunick is completely false. It is his body of work that I don't like.
|
|
| | | 103 | Myboyjack
Leader
ID: 108231015
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 14:38
|
I do so love word-parsing contests.
|
|
| | | 104 | CanEHdian Pride
Donor
ID: 48936413
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 14:42
|
"I think I've displayed in this post and in 95 that I have kept track of everything you've said. I have certainly considered all of your points of view and even noted how they have morphed into each other through your posts."
I apologize, next time I will script my arguements a little better to ensure that none of my points of view "morph" over time. The simple fact is that in a discussion such as this you have to react to what the other person is saying to fully explain your point of view. If one kept saying the same thing over and over again it would make for a fairly boring debate.
For me the issue has beaten to death and MITH has proven that he is the more worthy debater so I will tuck my tail between my legs and admit defeat.
|
|
| | | 105 | Tortfeasor
Donor
ID: 55912113
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 14:57
|
EH:
More worthy, or more lengthy?
And MITH, that's not a shot at you. It just seems that this thread has gotten so long that I'm not even sure what the debate is really about anymore, having tried somewhat to keep up with it.
|
|
| | | 106 | Dave K
ID: 16442812
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 15:04
|
I would really like to meet Tunick.I think his pictures are crap.But any guy ,who can get 100's of women naked at one time all over the world,I want to party with him.
|
|
| | | 107 | sarge33rd
ID: 324532412
Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 17:03
|
ref my post 100...
I guess that would be a "no" lol
|
|
| | | 108 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Mon, Jun 16, 2003, 23:47
|
I think Tunick has been trumped. No longer avant-garde. See the upcoming Scatalogue.
Considering how many nakid people Tunick got together...I think Tunick and St-Laurent could have collaborated.
Toral
BTW: Dave K.: your "art criticism" post gets my award for funniest board bost of the year so far. IT showed a subliminity, not evident perhaps to the casual observer, but gaining authenticity as one studies its careful tones and shading, the picture evoking yes perhaps a crude immediate response to the unsophisticated observer, but one that causes the careful student to reconsider "Speciesism" in all its forms.
NOTE: The headline in the online story "a big put-on?" has been added since the paper printed. The print edition (Arts and Literature, p6) had a different headline and treated the story seriously.
|
|
| | |
| | | 110 | Dave k
ID: 47546197
Mon, Jun 23, 2003, 11:46
|
If you bothered reading the critique it is not even for that style of painting and made no sense.You really need to lighten up MITH.Life is too short to be so serious.
|
|
| | | 111 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Mon, Jun 23, 2003, 11:47
|
WOW.
|
|
| | |
| | | 113 | Mattinglyinthehall
Sustainer
ID: 1629107
Mon, Oct 27, 2003, 08:40
|
A friend of mine took part in that shoot Saturday night.
|
|
| | | 114 | Tree, not at home
ID: 269232622
Mon, Oct 27, 2003, 08:50
|
yea, an old friend of mine - actually, kinda long lost now - has done a number of them. i think most of us in NYC know someone who has done a tunick shoot....lol...have fun emily twomey, wherever you are...
|
|
| | | 115 | Seattle Zen
ID: 178161719
Mon, Oct 10, 2005, 02:11
|
Karoke night on Nude Earth.
|
|
| | | 116 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3603123
Fri, Nov 22, 2013, 22:37
|
If any of you were wondering what to get me this holiday season...
The Book
It was a hoot reading this old thread, ten years ago we all spoke in paragraph form, were actually interested in what others thought, and threads could rack up 40 posts a day.
It was fun while it lasted :)
|
|
|
|