| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: I've just been coronated 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 | |||||||
| 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. | ||||||
| 99 | CanEHdian Pride Donor ID: 48936413 Thu, Jun 12, 2003, 14:17 |
"Secondly, meaning behind every brush stroke. You've got to be kidding" There are actually many people, artists and "philosophers" alike that agree with me. "But to paint with a purpose, with a meaning, to make every brushstroke count for something – that is art" "Each image is realistic and each stroke has meaning." The fact that a brush stroke may change the original vision is very true but there was a reason that the artist chose the color and put their brush in a certain place. The fact that they reassess what they have done after each stroke and start to evolve their vision is the "process" and takes great skill and artistic ability. This is what makes it ART. IMO, what Tunick has done takes very little artistic ability. | ||||||
| 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. | ||||||
| 109 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer ID: 1629107 Mon, Jun 23, 2003, 10:02 |
Toral 108 Are you really that impressed by Dave K's post 79? Well maybe it's still funny for the reason you cite - which I sincerely doubt actually occurred to him at the time he posted it. But as it turns out, most of the words in that post never actually occurred to him either. a dimensional style that blends the untraditional glass and cloth paints with the traditional canvas and acrylic paints. He blends the spiritual and surreal in a way that has been described as ethereal. The seemingly magical symbols create a mystical, visual and cerebral event. He brings an element of sophistication to the deceptively primitive style of his paintings. The images speak to us as they draw us deeper into the depths of their vision. One's senses are assailed by the the glitter of gold and silver, the fiery re fractions of gleaming gems and regal jewels.. . He seems to connect with a vision of the future through the doorways of the past. His 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. Nirider has truly established an American art | ||||||
| 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. | ||||||
| 112 | Myboyjack Leader ID: 21556266 Sun, Oct 26, 2003, 19:19 | Nekkid people in Grand Central Station. Definitely tops what Michelangelo did with that church ceiling. | ||||||
| 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 :) | ||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Post a reply to this message: I've just been coronated | ||||||||