Art and stuff........

[Thule]

It's fun. But it's no Nike of Samotrache:)



Pictures don't do it justice, that piece of marble is just amazing.

[Kestrel]

Chicago recently unveiled the statue below. Is it art? An abomination? Perverts delight?

As for me, I guess it is art, but I like it because it is whimsical and iconic. What say you?

You should have been standing next to the husky gal with the black strapless dress when you took the picture.

[Kestrel]

Here ya go Kestrel, the view from the other side. The NSFW tag is because of the delicate sensibilities of many places of employment.

I'm floored. Truly.

No one has any shame anymore. Cheerleader dresses have more modesty than that. Heck, some of the classical statues from ancient Rome have more modesty than that.

Who is renting the office space immediately behind the statue? Have they given notice to move out yet? I sure would.

[Imalawman]

It's a nice piece of art and I like it as far as that goes - it's very well done. However, I also feel a little uncomfortable about it, too. I'm no prude, but it strikes me as a bit inappropriate given the size and very public nature of it.

[Olsenfin]

It could be worse. It could be a huge glass pyramid.

That said, public art that does not inspire considerable outrage is probably not good art.

I was stationed at Great Lakes when the "Chicago Picasso" was unveiled in 1967. It damn near caused riots. Now, Chicago is lousy with public sculpture, only some of which is lousy.

[Cathulhu]

I'm with Thule. Got nothing against Marilyn, but she's no Nike of Samothrace.


edited to add artistic content--the sense of motion and life in that piece of marble is why it happens to be my all-time favorite piece of sculpture, and having sold some pieces of sculpture myself, I like to think I have some expertise. There's someone out there that bought my "Shoggoth Spawn" piece for more than I expected WonderWorld to get for it. Sadly, I never got around to taking a reference pic of it.

[Kestrel]

Yah, yah...

Some o' youse guys think it's art....

I just think it stinks.

[webhick]

Chicago recently unveiled the statue below. Is it art? An abomination? Perverts delight?

As for me, I guess it is art, but I like it because it is whimsical and iconic. What say you?

It's tacky and creepy.

[Demosthenes]

It's tacky and creepy.

Ditto.

[Cpt Banjo]

If some of the the works of Jackson Pollock (which resemble a house painter's dropcloth) or Mark Rothko (which look like something produced in a kindergarten class) are considered art, why not a giant Marilyn?

[Demosthenes]

If some of the the works of Jackson Pollock (which resemble a house painter's dropcloth) or Mark Rothko (which look like something produced in a kindergarten class) are considered art, why not a giant Marilyn?

What difference does it make whether's it's labeled "art" or not? It's tacky and creepy. I feel sorry for the people who work in that building. Who want to look at a 26 foot statue exposing her panties while tourist take pictures of each other humping her legs.

[Cpt Banjo]

What difference does it make whether's it's labeled "art" or not?

Well, that was the question in the original post...

But I agree with you; I wouldn't want to look at Marilyn's butt all day if I worked in the building. On the other hand, something like this is awe-inspiring:

[Pottapaug1938]

If some of the the works of Jackson Pollock (which resemble a house painter's dropcloth) or Mark Rothko (which look like something produced in a kindergarten class) are considered art, why not a giant Marilyn?

What difference does it make whether's it's labeled "art" or not? It's tacky and creepy. I feel sorry for the people who work in that building. Who want to look at a 26 foot statue exposing her panties while tourist take pictures of each other humping her legs.

Agreed. I can't believe that people spent redeemed lawful money on this sort of thing.

[Imalawman]

If some of the the works of Jackson Pollock (which resemble a house painter's dropcloth) or Mark Rothko (which look like something produced in a kindergarten class) are considered art, why not a giant Marilyn?

What difference does it make whether's it's labeled "art" or not? It's tacky and creepy. I feel sorry for the people who work in that building. Who want to look at a 26 foot statue exposing her panties while tourist take pictures of each other humping her legs.

Which is why I tend to disagree with putting it where they did. I happen to like the piece, but inappropriate given the location and size. If it were lifesize, I'd probably be perfectly fine with it.

[Famspear]

What about Courbet's L'Origine du Monde?

What was Courbet saying?

[Kestrel]

What about Courbet's L'Origine du Monde?

What was Courbet saying?

Courbet was saying the same thing that a modern-day porn photographer says: nothing of public value. He just did it in oil on canvas before color photography was available, and he did it for an single man's private collection.

What Courbet did NOT do was make L'Origine du Monde 26 feet tall, with the intent that it be placed in a highly-trafficked public square.

[Famspear]

What about Courbet's L'Origine du Monde?

What was Courbet saying?

Courbet was saying the same thing that a modern-day porn photographer says: nothing of public value......

OK. L'Origine du Monde is exhibited as a work of art - at none other than the Musée d'Orsay in Paris -- one of the greatest art museums in the world.

http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/home.html

By the way, I have personally found the Orsay -- which is the former Orsay train station of all things -- to be one of the most beautiful buildings I have ever seen (especially the interior).

What are the managers of the Orsay saying by exhibiting L'Origine du Monde along with other masterpieces by Courbet, in the same place with masterpieces by Claude Monet, Vincent van Gogh, etc?

What was Edouard Manet saying with Olympia and Le déjeuner sur l'herbe? Those are also on display at the Orsay.

[Imalawman]

What about Courbet's L'Origine du Monde?

What was Courbet saying?

I googled that - the origin of the world is slightly misleading. Kind of a shock. I've been to D'Orsay, I obviously missed that one.

But Famspear, what's your point? I'm not following you.

[Famspear]

I googled that - the origin of the world is slightly misleading. Kind of a shock. I've been to D'Orsay, I obviously missed that one.

But Famspear, what's your point? I'm not following you.

I dont' have a point to make. I'm not posing rhetorical questions; I'm actually interested in what everyone here thinks about art, especially the art in France that was produced from about the 1850s to the early 1900s.

Something triggered, in my mind, the question: Is the depiction of the human female body in art today (say, painting, in photography or sculpture or whatever) different from what it was for, say, Courbet or Manet? What feelings or statements were these artists expressing? How does the giant sculpture of Marilyn fit in to the work of artists such as Courbet or Manet (or does it)?

[Kestrel]

Something triggered, in my mind, the question: Is the depiction of the human female body in art today (say, painting, in photography or sculpture or whatever) different from what it was for, say, Courbet or Manet? What feelings or statements were these artists expressing? How does the giant sculpture of Marilyn fit in to the work of artists such as Courbet or Manet (or does it)?

You asked what Courbet was saying. He painted his bit of erotica for one man's private erotic painting collection, and not for display in a public forum where business was conducted and children frequently passed by.

Obviously the current exhibitors of the Courbet are saying something quite different by exposing it to general public viewing. But even though they have put that piece on public display, they did NOT place it in business district frequently visited by children. Unlike Marilyn's giantess panties, the Courbet is displayed in a very ordinary, unremarkable manner.