View Full Forums : Art Question
12-20-2003, 03:19 AM
Is Georgia O'Keefe ****ographic?
Is H.R. Giger?
And is Art Art if it is easy?
12-20-2003, 12:17 PM
I thought Georgia O'Keefe was the flower painter. HR Giger, I've never seen anything he's done that ****ographic, but I'm not an expert by any means.
I'd have to say the difference between art and ****ography is very subjective. But I think it's really the intent of the work. If it's intended to be sexually arousing, it is ****ography.
I wish I had the relevant info from a supreme court decision on the matter. I thought they had a pretty good standard of measure.
12-20-2003, 12:44 PM
I thought Giger was the dude who did the Alien movie aliens...Swiss dude...?
The old adage, lame as it may be, "art is in the eye of the <whatever - can't remember this word>", I think holds true.
Is O'Keefe an artist? Yes to most, no to some. Is she ****ographic? Yes to some, no to some.
The only statement that can be made definitely about her is how you feel and react to her. Do you like her paintings? Do you think she is ****ographic? Do her paintings make you feel uncomfortable? etc. etc.
I have recent discussions with my bf over the definition of art and artists vs. crafts and craftsmen. To him, an artist is almost divine - so amazingly gifted that no other mortal could possibly achieve their abilities. Michelangelo, for example. Whereas everyone else is just a craftsman.
Interesting thought - I totally disagree with him of course. =)
12-20-2003, 02:39 PM
Yes, Giger is the Swiss surrealist who did much set, ship, and monster design for Alien.
I know the textbook Supreme Court definition of ****ography, neither qualify.
I am referring to sensibilities.
If I had 2 coffee table books out. One Giger and one O'Keefe. Both with depictions of genitalia; one using metal, plastic, and chrome and the other out of flower petals and stamen. Why would one be more accessable or acceptable than the other?
12-20-2003, 05:16 PM
Dunno...I love pushing limits in art, of others and myself, so I think your scenario would be totally cool.
I remember one of my art proffessors in university had a poster of a Mapplethorpe photo on his door of an elderly woman (famous, I believe, but I can't remember who it was) wearing a black dress and a feather boa holding a 3 foot model of a penis...I thought it was great because it pushed people. That and the lady had a great grin on her face.
12-20-2003, 05:43 PM
Maplethorpe! That's who I was thinking of.
Actually, I wouldn't consider either of those two ****ographic. Representing genitals with flowers or chrome is far from ****ographic IMHO.
12-20-2003, 07:09 PM
I think the only issue with Mapplethorpe was that it was funded by taxpayer dollars. No one, even his harshest critics, ever said he could not make his stuff, well aside from the evangelical crowd. You photograph a crusifix with JC in a jar of urine, you expect that reaction though.
And his work is definately on the easy side, re: third questions.
12-20-2003, 10:24 PM
Mapplethorpe is actually a good example to kinda get to my original question.
If he were a heterosexual and photographed females the way he protrays males would he have the same level of acceptability and support? Or rather his work.
12-20-2003, 10:43 PM
I think it wouldn't have been AS controversial, but still... his stuff was very explicit. He comes close to, or perhaps crosses the line IMHO. I remember one photograph. It was a little girl. Cute little girl, she's crouched down as if looking at something on the ground, and her genitals are exposed. It wasn't sexual really, at least that's not how I interpreted it. Still, we don't really accept that sort of depiction of children with their privates exposed, so it was very shocking.
While I thought Maplethorpe's art was very good, he was obviously going for shock value. Which I think is a part artists play sometimes. Makes the thinking person ask themselves hard questions like, "why do I react this way?"
What shocks us today might be tomorrows masterpiece. So much music that really offended people at the time sounds wonderful to us today.
12-21-2003, 03:25 AM
"Piss Christ" was Mapplethorpe? Gah...I was actually thinking about that photo when you first posted this thread. That image pushes me too far - but I don't have to look at it.
I suppose he does dance around the line of art for the shock value...
Ken Moody...I think that's his name (male model)...Mapplethorpe's homoerotic images, I think, are gorgeous. I remember one, in color, look at Ken from the back and he's holding this big pompom purple flower (I don't know flowers at all), back lit in like fushia, I wanna say...
Damn, I wanna go to a musuem now. I needs art.
12-23-2003, 04:50 AM
No, I was wrong.
12-24-2003, 03:14 AM
Georgia O'Keefe always swore there was no subtext to her work, but it is hard to not see it when you look at her paintings.
ESPECIALLY the flowers of course. But even the skulls, and the adobes.
Hmm Brooklyn Bridge is the only one that didn't have a hint of it to me.
12-29-2003, 02:56 PM
The difference between artist nude and ****ography is in my experience lighting.
-This coming from a graphic arts major.
12-29-2003, 11:27 PM
Some of Giger's work is very very borderline. I still think its great stuff though.
I love his furniture!
If I ever become filthy filthy rich while he's still alive, I swear I'll pay him to custom furnish my "fantasy evil vampire castle of doom" house.
vBulletin v3.0.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.