friday nude quotes
I wouldn’t do nudity in films. To act with my clothes on is a performance. To act with my clothes off is a documentary.
Loss
WIP – Loss
Last week I was in kind of a numb shell. one that I’ve tried to appease with retail therapy and mindless facebook games. why do bad things happen to good people?
This is a painting I have been working on for almost a year. I am not sure if it will ever be finished. it’s a highly emotional work created at a very emotional time. I bring it out, work on it for a while and put it away again. I feel that now is a good time to bring it to the light of day. I need to stop hiding it and hiding from it. I created it to try to explore some difficult feelings and to try to communicate them somehow. in my mind it was dedicated to a very special and very strong couple. it is now dedicated to two.
I am very sorry for your loss.
friday nude quotes
a response to last week’s quote:
Pornogrpahy says more about the societies in which it exists, and is suppressed, than it does about the individuals producing or consuming it.
friday nude quotes
Pornography tells lies about women. But pornography tells the truth about men.
nude brooke shields photograph replaced
Richard Prince, Spiritual America IV, 2005 -Via Eloge de l’Art par Alain Truong
The controversial nude photo of Brooke Shields has now been replaced by a later version and will go on show from today, according to Tate Modern.
The ‘photograph of a photograph’, by artist Richard Prince, was removed from the show -following police advice – before it opened on 1 October.
In a statement, Tate Modern said this afternoon: ‘In consultation with the artist, Richard Prince, Tate has replaced Spiritual America 1983 with a later version of the work made by him in collaboration with Brooke Shields, Spiritual America IV 2005. The room reopens to the public on Tuesday 13 October.’
This is a fairly elegant way around the problem at hand – it fits with the theme of the exhibition and was made in full cooperation with Brooke Shields. it’s also an original work by Prince, rather than a photograph of a photograph. It does not have the same depth as the previous work, however one cannot deny that legally it is a much safer work for many reasons.
Gary Gross, the taker of the original photograph was disappointed that it was removed from the Tate – I guess because out of all of the names in this mess his was the only one that really needed and received publicity.
The lengths one goes for seo
The castle of Graymark was a dying place, sick with age nudeart disuse and rotten with decay. I gave it to a fairy girl who sang to me of beauty and light and things a dragon longs to hear. I have nudeart thinking about something all day. The overall sensation was one of eerie unreality, as nudeart they were lost in that primitive world nudeart half-dreams traversed by mortal and spirit alike in strange rituals that have no recognizable purpose. The entire situation was impossible, and nudeart was beginning to doubt that there was any real point to anything he had done. nudeart was so intent on watching her, nudeart fact, that he almost missed seeing Padishar Creel hand something to a dark-skinned boy who had come up to him. Traffic on Lincoln Highway was light, and the parking lot at the supermarket as they turned off Sinnissippi Road nudeart mostly empty. I know, he said, his voice almost sorrowful. He was in a small, nudeart furnished room lit by a single lamp set on a table at his nudeart With unbelievable fury Balinor pushed ahead, heedlessly knocking everyone in his path aside, his face grim and terrible.
This came up in my newsfeed alert for nude art and I wanted to include it as someone obviously spent a great deal of time on it. hey, copying and pasting and randomly substituting words can be an artform too nudeart. I am not including a link as, obviously, it led to a porn site.
guys, this is not nudeart. it’s not even nude art. please stop tainting my artform by association kthxbai. and google news, filter better! you can’t accept a site written by one person but you can accept this?
friday nude quotes
Nakedness is uncomely, as well in mind as body, and it addeth no small reverence to men’s manners and actions if they be not altogether open. Therefore set it down: That a habit of secrecy is both politic and moral.
warm, cuddly nudity
http://www.annamaltz.com/
In reality, these hand-knit people suits–made from angora–are the work of artist Anna Maltz. She makes them in the aforementioned “natural” version, but also in muppet-esque blue, mermaid, and Superman styles. Then she takes photos of people wearing the suits.[From Art is People! It's People! - Boing Boing]
Who says nudity has to be a serious issue all the time? I love the whimsy in this artist’s work. the reality and the humor involved. her other works are fantastic as well (I love the superman), although she is probably getting best known for her nudity series.
The video on BoingBoing is worth watching, it follows Anna on a family shoot. the awkwardness of the mother is an interesting contrast to the complete relaxed nature of the children. and the fine line at which the pixelization has to occur is priceless. The article also gets props from me for seamlessly meshing soylent green and urinetown references.
Nude of the Week – Over the Top, Sketch one
Watercolor and Pencil on Paper
I thought it might be fun to show some of the work I am doing for the sketchbook Library. I’m actually pretty excited by my assigned theme Over the Top and have started with a burlesque series. this was the first image that came to mind. I thought it might be a good idea to go into my process for developing each new work, so I am going to create a basic sketch, a render, and – if I have time – a photograph of the full oil painting of the work to all be entered into the sketchbook.
friday nude quotes
They say a lot of women would like to see me naked, but there’s not a lens long enough for that.
How Brooke Shields differs from Bill Henson
Bill Henson and Richard Prince Comparison
Comparisons are already being made and lines are already being drawn between the Brooke Shields photograph at the Tate and the Bill Henson debacle last year. conservatives and media alike will be debating the differences are between the different cases and trying to make them both fit the same mould. Many readers here will remember my extensive and vehement coverage of the Henson controversy last year. Some may even be wondering at my stance on this one when I defended Henson so ardently last year.
There are many reasons why these two cases are so very different. nevertheless the gauntlet will be thrown and the aspersions will be cast so I would like to present my reasons why these two cases are so very very different.
Informed Consent
Bill Henson works closely with the model and their families. everything is legal, carefully planned and structured around the needs of the model. The model and families are educated in his processes and are fully aware of the situaton. The model in the photograph at the center of the controversy last year was interviewed and mentioned how she discussed it carefully with her family and friends, she considered all sides and weighed up how she would feel about it later down the track. her consent was critical to the creation of the artwork.
Gary Gross obtained the rights to photograph Brooke Shields and distribute the photograph from her mother. Judging by the legal battles and Brooke’s attempts to win back the rights and retrieve the negatives she was not involved in the consent process at all. she was probably not informed of her options or about the distribution rights. The photograph that was going to be displayed at the Tate is a different situation. the rights were purchased from Gross by Prince. there is no record (that I can find) of Shields consenting to the exchange of rights or the revisioning of the original. I would be very interested to hear about her level of involvement and her feelings about the Prince version and of the rights exchange.
Sexualization
The artworks in the controversial series by Bill Henson were seized because it was believed they were pornographic. the Classifications bureau ruled that only one warranted as much as a PG rating. These artworks are not sexualized images of minors. The original Gross photograph is very sexualized. Brooke has been made up and oiled to look like a tiny porn star. her pose is suggestive and I believe the intent of the work was to titillate and arouse. this is a sexualized image of a minor. if you are in doubt imagine an adult in the same situations, poses and lighting. The Prince photograph Spiritual America is in-between. it is sexualized but appears to condemn, rather than laud, the fact.
Context
In this situation context is key. The Bill Henson artworks were displayed as a series in a solo exhibition. There were no other works to detract from the central display and message of the artworks. The original Gross photograph was paid for by playboy and published in playboy subsidiaries. Spiritual America was to be presented in a private room in an exhibition that had several suggestive and explicit images. Penetration, porn and more were presented in the same exhibition. this establishes a mindset and a context to the work. If the piece had been displayed in a series of photographs of celebrities or in an exhibiton condemning child prostitution and pornography then the context would have shifted. it would have been seen in a different light (although still contentious – it’s a very difficult piece)
Artistry
This may be pure bias, but I believe it needs to be pointed out. one is a photograph of somebody elses work. it is a revision, not a complete original. it has elevated the original and added an emotional quality however the artisty in Bill Henson’s artworks is undeniable. from composition to lighting Bill Henson’s work is original, well crafted and achingly beautiful. the two are not comparable images.
Brooke Shields nude removed from tate
The image forms part of a new exhibition called Pop Life: Art in a Material World which was due to open today [Thursday] and which aims to explore the relationship between commercial and artistic images.
The Tate consulted lawyers before hanging the picture which has not been seen in Britain although it has been shown in New York where it attracted little attention. There it formed part of a retrospective of Prince’s work at the Guggenheim Museum.
The Tate confirmed it has temporarily withdrawn the picture. Like the Henson case which was sparked by media complaints about the show, it is understood that London police visited the gallery after reading media coverage and previews of the upcoming exhibition in London’s newspapers.
[From British gallery removes nude Brooke Shields work - Arts - Entertainment]
When this started yesterday I knew that the comparisons would be drawn, that aspersions would be cast. I believe that the Tate has done everything correctly in this matter, with the initial legal consultation and the full police cooperation. I don’t know if withdrawing it was the right thing to do necessarily, however I do believe that the context in which it was presented was one that would necessarily cast the work in an even more contentious light. The concept of the exhibition is interesting, but the prevalence of explicit imagery and this piece presented in it’s own private room was, perhaps, inviting trouble.
However I know that many will be asking me here and asking the organizers over there – How does this case differ from the Henson case?
I was going to wait on this post until tomorrow but it appears now is the time- stay tuned.
Is the Brooke Shields Nude Art?
Spiritual America – Richard Prince (detail)
Prince described Shields’ appearance in the photograph as “a body with two different sexes, maybe more, and a head that looks like it’s got a different birthday”.
Children’s campaigners reacted with dismay to the exhibition. Michele Elliott, founder of Kidscape, said: “Brooke Shields was 10 years old when this picture was taken. She could not have given informed consent to it being used. It must be bordering on child pornography. It is certainly not art.
“If you are using a picture of a naked child to bring people to your exhibition, then you are exploiting that child. It’s as if they are using a 10-year-old girl for bait. I find it disturbing and they should be ashamed of themselves. And putting the picture in a room with a warning outside really is a magnet for paedophiles.”[From Brooke Shields nude photograph causes controversy at Tate exhibition - Telegraph]
I wanted to separate the post about the story itself from my opinion of the works and the situation because I don’t want the two getting clouded. plus it was already a very long post.
I think that to appreciate the Prince artwork it helps to know the story of the Gross artwork. My first reaction upon seeing the Prince artwork was sadness and creepiness. Then I saw the original. I am not publishing the original on this page in it’s entirety. I believe that this work is very sexualized and very inappropriate. as I dug further into the history of the piece I was further horrified by Shields’ mother selling her daughter and the rights to the works like that. the implication is that Brooke Shields had no say in the creation of the works- something that is backed up by the law suit a few years later. It is worse that the photographer and the magazines were affiliated with playboy.
Learning all this, I then took another look at the Prince re-interpretation. I was struck again by the sadness. this time, the work appeared to be a truthful look at a horrible reality. it seemed to condemn the original and emphasize the seedy setting. while the Gross photograph seemed to celebrate the sexualization of minors and child pornography this piece now seemed to condemn it.
do I find it uncomfortable? yes. it’s a difficult piece. it’s made more difficult by a further moral qualm I have – something that has little to do with the subject matter.
Prince made his career doing just what he did here, purchasing the rights to a work, photographing it and re-interpreting it somehow. the original photoshopping. I understand that legally everything Prince has done is correct. but the concept, to me, seems wrong. especially in the light of the legal battles which denied Brooke Shields the rights to the pieces. this artist was able to buy the works and bring them back out for the world to see.
So, the question on everyone’s lips is ‘is it art?’ the answer is a definite I don’t know. I have problems with the original, with the way the original was obtained and the way the re-interpretation was created. I have moral objections to the content matter and to the method of production. This piece however does create an emotional response. that is one of my criteria for art. It took the original and raised it to another level, but to be honest, the only direction the origional could go was up. the Gross photograph is definitely not art – I believe it was created with titillation and arousal as it’s objective and that makes it pornography in my books. the Prince version… I don’t know. what do you think? is it art?
(for the original story about this piece, the exhibition and to see the artworks in question please see my previous post – nude brooke shields at the tate causing furor)
Recent Comments