@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
I don't like to see people in public in such poses. No reason I need the same image pushed in my face, whether it is art or a simple prank.
This is all I have to say about it. We wear clothing over underwear, because nobody wants to see the personal dirt, like skid marks and such.
@edgarblythe,
I guess me and you will have to find a different way to work.
@edgarblythe,
Quote:We wear clothing over underwear, because nobody wants to see the personal dirt, like skid marks and such.
did the statue have skid marks? Interesting way to make it even more realistic.
Ok edgar, fair enough.
I guess I assume someone's underwear is clean. My mom always told me to wear clean underwear.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Nobody wants to see a guy without clothes,
mmm
I think there are people who might disagree with you.
more current art
http://naked-man-project.com/joomla/en/
it's an interesting topic
there is a six page discussion starting here
Quote:Why had there never been an exhibition dedicated to the male nude until Nackte Männer at the Leopold Museum in Vienna last year? In order to answer this question, the exhibition sets out to compare works of different eras and techniques, around great themes that have shaped the image of the male body for over two centuries.
We must distinguish above all between nudity and the nude: a body simply without clothes, that causes embarrassment with its lack of modesty, is different from the radiant vision of a body restructured and idealised by the artist. Although this distinction can be qualified, it highlights the positive, uninhibited approach to the nude in western art since the Classical Period.
It's a good read.
Masculine / Masculine. The Nude Man in Art from 1800 to the Present Day.
@Linkat,
and back to the original question - I think it's art
I'm another of the troupe that would probably want to check if the guy's ok, wandering around like that
@ehBeth,
Yeah, I think that's the mother in us, whether we have children or not.
@chai2,
I was hoping it was being human. I'm pretty sure my dad would also check on the guy cuz he's good like that
Not saying you're wrong - I think it comes from the nurturing side of a lot of people. Maybe more women would admit it? dunno
@ehBeth,
I just noted that because 3 women here said it, no men.
Not to say men wouldn't also come to his rescue.
BTW, I googled images for "naked cowboy times square" and see that it's not a statue, it's a real person.
Now that to me is more disturbing.
BVD could really have found a better manikin.
@roger,
can it be both?
There is a category for "Creepy ARt", which is art that creeps you out.
How about that guy who did the 20 ft pregnant woman or the giant headed baby.
How bout where theyre hanging this bigass locomotive over a crowd walking beneath?
Doesn't anybody ask
"I guess its arty but the thought of it crashing to the ground killing perhaps hundreds, scares the **** out of me"
NOW THATS ART !
@farmerman,
Yeah! I used to know this martial artist. All he ever did was draw pictures of soldiers - and he was darn proud of them.
@ehBeth,
Personally I can see the creepy aspect -- to me it would seem creepy because it is so lifelike.
I understand why they are placing it as they are -- but I'd worry more about the cars driving by and potential accidents (me being a potential one). I think it might be cool if it was wondering around in the woods or maybe right outside where they have the artwork -- almost like enticing them to come in and like he is escaping the art display.
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:
or maybe right outside where they have the artwork -- almost like enticing them to come in and like he is escaping the art display.
That's where it is. Outside the museum as if it's wandering off from it.
@chai2,
who would have known I have an artist mind.
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:
What would you think if you saw this?
It is a work of art at Wellesley College. More than 100 students at Wellesley College, an all-womens school, have signed a petition asking officials to remove a near-lifelike statue of a man sleepwalking in his underwear.
The art piece, called Sleepwalker, was installed on Monday, February 3 at the Davis Museum as part of their New Gravity exhibition by Tony Matelli.
I personally don't have an issue with it -- however, having it outside like that could cause a problem. I think it would be better served somewhere that an accident wouldn't occur.
I suppose you can call it "art," but it's lousy art.
The current definition of "art" seems to be something fabricated to express something.
Thus a black line on a white piece of paper is "art."
A life-like figure in his underwear planted in the snow is "art."
A crucifix in a jar of urine is "art."
If morons will pay money or attention to these works of "art," good for the "artist," (even if he or she is an out and out con).
There is currently no point is asking the question "Is this art," unless it is something that has never felt the hand of a human, in which case the answer will always be "No." A sunrise, waterfall, leopard, flower, volcano etc are not works of "art." (putting aside any questions of God's hand)
The question should be is this "art" of any value, significance, meaning, or effect.
A Calvin & Hobbes cartoon is a work of "art" and virtually everyone of them is more clever and of more value than this statue.
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:The current definition of "art" seems to be something fabricated to express something.
When you look at the history of art (any library offers some good art history books), that had been always like this.
