You Be The Art Critic
I looked first.
HOLY CRAP!
That is the most disgusting thing I ever...well maybe not the most… but uuugghhhhhh!!!DAMMITT
“What the hell is that smell??? Have you been listening to your Vagina again???”
Posted by DR@HDfixit
02/17/2005 at 02:19 PM
Bird? I thought it was a wacked-out scorpion.
Posted by Annoying Little Twerp
02/17/2005 at 02:47 PM
Btw-In US Indian culture a woman on her period is considered to be in her"moon" and deserving of extra honor from the community.
I learned that at an EATING DISORDER retreat of all placesPosted by Annoying Little Twerp
02/17/2005 at 02:50 PM
Yep, and in Jewish culture she is considered “unclean” and must leave the camp and go out into the desert until it is over. Read Exodus.
Same for a lot of other cultures around the world.
Ya know, at first glance, I thought it was an interesting piece. But then I re-read the part about her being a female artist in San Fransisco, and that it was all red and thought, no f-ing way! Clicked on the link and found to my horror that I was right. That girl just ain’t all there is she? Sorry, forgot about the San Fran thing again.
OCM, agree completely.
Now, what get’s my dander up is when taxpayers pay for shit like this.
Not saying there was any tax money involved but you get my drift.
If anyone likes it, fine.
Tell me she got government money for it and I’ll come unglued.
If artists were TRULY good, they should make it on their own. I don’t need people taking my money to give to some fuckhead and then me it’s “ART.” Most of the time it’s SHIT.
There are far worse examples of non-art out there than that second painting. At least I could discern that she attempted to paint a bird. It’s a far better painting than those thousands of blothes-on-a-canvas that permeate “art” galleries.
If you want a work that would sweep a latter-day art exhibit, spread the usual canvas on your bathroom floor for protection, paint your bathroom with the amateur’s usual cheerful sloppiness, frame the canvas, title it “Ruminations of the Universe” or something equally obscure, and--happy suckers! Ought to be worth a couple of hundred grand at least.
Oh yes BTW--make sure you look like you didn’t shave, bathe or do laundry while you were painting that masterwork, and a latter-day artist’s ambience will stick to you like the BO of a skunk.
Not to mention the ambience of an IN-TELL-LECK-TEW-WELL!
SHIT!!!!!! I JUST CLICKED THE LINK!!!!!!
EEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!
To answer OCM, the lady is a fantastic photographer. Her photo gallery demonstrates a keen eye for her subjects, light and shadow. Why she chose to make the menstrual paintings is another question. Maybe she just did one too many doobies one evening and got a wild hair. Who knows? IMHO, her photography is art, her paintings are not.
Oops, forgot the link to her photo gallery:
Allan and OCM - I agree with you that her photography is quite good. She follows all the rules: thirds, curves and diminishing perspectives etc.
Her other ‘art’ ain’t all that bad, other than the second one that looks like Arabic writing. But the others do have a certain “flow” to them.
But as someone once said - Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.
-Dan D,
CanuckistanSaw that on Kim du Toit… was immediately grossed out. I don’t care if the “painting” rivals the Mona Lisa for talent, blood from any source is not a good art media in any sense. She could have cut her finger and painted with the blood, and I’d still be grossed out.
IMO, the fact that she painted with blood, and the particular “source” for the blood both distract and detract from any artistic ability that woman might have.
If she stopped painting with bodiliy fluids, she might actually have a chance at being termed “talented.” Until then, though, she’s just another hack relying on a gimmick.I am truely impressed if she did all these by just dragging her twat around on the canvas. Otherwise the girl should buy herself a set of watercolors. The pictures will last longer, and won’t be a public health hazard.
<<.....dragging her twat around on the canvas.>>
What a hoot! A nasty mental picture, too!
Follow up to Stanley’s “public health hazard” and an even nastier mental picture would be:
Don’t lick the paintings!
-Dan D,
CanuckistanSorry boys, but the “snatch painting” is reasonably acceptable as an artistic rendering, media be damned. Beats the hell out of the photo of Captain Kangaroo 2 posts up.
Posted by commander0
02/17/2005 at 10:12 PM
Unfortunate duck exploding from heartworms?
I did enjoy her photos. Don’t know if it’s art, but she has a good eye for interesting textures, and in a couple, I swear I could hear the hiss of the receding wave
My fear was realised. Well, what can you say?
Art? Done in anything else, maybe.
Remember the crucifix in the guys urine?
Everyone on the planet, but lefties, went bat-shit crazy on that one.
Decent photos. I am a fan of any water &/or sunset piece.
I just hope that she does not get gov’t money.
Commander0, Mister Greenjeans and Mister Moose would like a word with you outside. Please notify your next of kin where to have the body sent ....
Yes, Captain, ......er, I mean Allan.
OCM says ART - TAX DODGE FOR RICH PEOPLE.
Sure if you could buy early American art in 1960 for $10,000 a painting and then give it away after the cost went up to $300,000 and take the write off, that was sweet. But, those days are over, kinda.
What I object to is OCM saying RICH PEOPLE like it’s a bad thing, Asswipe Strapped Democrat (ASD). OCM = ASD
Repulicans are fine if you’re a multi-millionaire
Democrats is good if all you own is what you wear
Posted by Z Woof
02/18/2005 at 07:32 AM
OCM you strapped Democrat
You just said, “A (Art) to ...tax loop hole for the RICH.”
You keep saying RICH like they are bad people, you loooser.
So now the Democrats are so ashamed they call themselves “INDEPENDENT.”
I look at my walls and am so pleased that not one of OCM’s 100 paintings are on my walls.
Posted by Z Woof
02/18/2005 at 12:38 PM
At first I thought, okay, weird, but then I looked at her web site....
EEEEEEEEWWWWWW!!!!!!
I’d take the dogs playing poker any day of the week.
The whole idea of poor people and taxes is a dumbshit concept.
I know several people that make around $16 per hour. They pay around $500 in taxes through the year and get around $2500 back as a refund.
Having 2 kids and taking the earned income credit means they are not TaxPayers
They are TaxRecievers. If they have 4 kids they qualify for Food Stamps.Poor people DO NOT PAY TAXES.
Posted by DR@HDfixit
02/18/2005 at 01:51 PM
Okay…
First off, OldScat, don’t screw with my name.
Second, the media has everything to do with the viewer’s gag reflex. Don’t you think people puking all over the “painting” will have some effect on their impression of it?
Ok, so she can make impressionistic figures in blood. But she could do the same with paint. She’s a hack, relying on the “shock value” to seem more talented than she really is. Ya know, like Micheal Jackson turning himself into an alien-wannabe in a vain claim to more fame. She can’t rely on only her talent (or thinks she can’t), so she paints with blood from her unmentionables.
Is it art? Well, I don’t think so. But then, the artsy-fartsy types are always squealing that art is subjective, and we can’t define it. We’ll go with that, at least for now. So why do you care if we think it’s art? We certainly don’t hold the same regard for you.I’d certainly hate to see your paintings, OldScatMan. They’re probably brown.
Don’t ever screw with my name again.
OldSmellyDeadCatMan you are wrong again.
You say, “Art is always in the eye of the artist.”
1. You are no artist.
2. Your paintings are not art.
3. Your neighbors in Colorado want you to move.
4. You are a strapped Democrat loooser.
5. I could go on and on and on.
PS Sorry to hear your cat died.
Posted by Z Woof
02/19/2005 at 12:13 PM
Just the Wulf on the prowl, OCM. Remember, unlike the two of us, he hasn’t had the benefit of exposure to Lenny Bruce.....
Sure, sure OCM. If you are such an artist please show us some of your work.
Trust me, it won’t be any good.
Posted by Z Woof
02/19/2005 at 01:11 PM
OK, folks, can you agree to disagree?
What this woman did is not “art” in that I know a lot of people who can draw what she did but even better.
The left seems to think that because she created a picture (rated no better than a “B” in art class) with menstrual blood, now THIS somehow is “art” to them.
My house is FULL of framed photographs (with the exception of one)---taken by me. Is it “art”? No. Not even to my eyes although I could probably get reprints, matte them and sell them. Yes, they are that good. But “art?” No.
So you can see we all seem to disagree. So lomg as tax payer dollars are not used to fund these numbnuts, let them do what they want and call it what they want.
DIARHEA huh?
Tannenberg I have been exposed to Tammy Bruce and she says OCM sucks: Who needs debate, the Left rationalizes, when those who disagree are bigoted, homophobic, sexist pigs? Dealing with their arguments is a just waste of time. In this model, dissenters begin to look less and less like members of society with a right to their own opinions and more and more like speed bumps on the road to social change.—Tammy Bruce, The New Thought Police -- 2001
Am I the only one who thinks Gilbert Stuart painted everyone to look like George Washington?
Posted by Z Woof
02/19/2005 at 02:03 PM
A man occupied with public or other important business cannot, and need not, attend to spelling.—Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)
My sister’s Gilbert Stuart of George Washington was over 6 feet tall. Unartfull people like OCM would think it was the most expensive painting in the room, fools.
Posted by Z Woof
02/19/2005 at 02:28 PM
Now now, pistols at thirty paces, chaps....
02/17/2005 at 05:33 PM
