Jump to content
Awoo.

Gay art student set to lose his virginity in public


Detective Shadzter

Recommended Posts

You know, the more I think about it, I actually don't understand how in the 21st century there are many sexual taboos (outside of disgustingly heinous acts such as pedophilia, bestiality--literally any kind of rape) given how the media pretty much uses it like it's no big deal (I can't think of a modern TV show that doesn't use sex, even if the act itself isn't shown it's certainly alluded too and talked about frequently). But again, this isn't what bothers me about the whole thing.

 

It's quite simple really - when it comes to sex, the media glamorises ideas, not reality.

  • Thumbs Up 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some people actually think its in public e.g. outside in the streets. Its a public building limited to 100 people, no doubt security will be tighter than a nun's arse.

 

Its silly and not the way I would lose my virginity, but its not as bad as people are making it out to be honest.

 

Typical art student hipster bull wank if you ask me, but at least they got some bollocks.

 

Good luck to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was on the Wright Stuff last week, I totally support the guy. I'm not particularly interested in the piece but I think he has some good points to make and I'm all in favour of this performance.

 

The only annoying thing about this story is that, once again, it's brought up the whole "Is this art?" debate which is just the most redundant discussion by now.

hundreds of people poking their heads out of their holes to grumble "But it's not a painting, how can it be art? Ow my head, it hurts!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was on the Wright Stuff last week, I totally support the guy. I'm not particularly interested in the piece but I think he has some good points to make and I'm all in favour of this performance.

 

The only annoying thing about this story is that, once again, it's brought up the whole "Is this art?" debate which is just the most redundant discussion by now.

hundreds of people poking their heads out of their holes to grumble "But it's not a painting, how can it be art? Ow my head, it hurts!"

 

I wonder what Mr. Wright thoughts were? I am remember him being disgusted about grown adults sleeping with teddy bears for crying out loud. While its not something you should probably tell the whole world about, it was hardly incest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what Mr. Wright thoughts were? I am remember him being disgusted about grown adults sleeping with teddy bears for crying out loud. While its not something you should probably tell the whole world about, it was hardly incest.

 

He was pretty indifferent if I remember correctly. He had a look about him that suggested he had no idea why this made the headlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude is going to be fucked in public in front of a crowd, creepy, but whatever.

 

What does this have to do with art? At all?

  • Thumbs Up 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude is going to be fucked in public in front of a crowd, creepy, but whatever.

 

What does this have to do with art? At all?

 

Part of art's purpose is to raise questions, to make us look at something we see everyday in a new light.

 

By doing this, the artist is making us ask questions about the taboos surrounding sex and the importance we place on the act of losing your virginity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I think the bluntness of the act itself is what shocks people the most. Having sex in public. I have no opinion of whatever this dude is doing, but I only hope the people coming in are there for the show and NOT for any fucked up purposes. The last thing he needs is to see his "act" on Xvideos or something cause of some asshole on weak ass bullshit. But I'm sure these things are planned for already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Meh.

Seriously, I can't really give much of a hoot for this. I mean, if he wants to do this (though I'm hard pressed to see much, if any, artistic value in it), then I say let him. It's not like I'm being forced to watch this display, at any rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts echo Olgilvie's and Roarz's, because the dude has a point with his artist statement: that all of the strange rituals, hype, and myths surrounding something that billions upon billions of creatures, human or otherwise, do every day and have done since the dawn of time is actually arbitrary and significantly much sillier than the actual act itself.

 

Alright, I'll bite. If the message here is that "sex is too glamorized"... why make a show out of that statement for the media to inevitably glamorize? Why tell us to stop the song and dance by... performing the song and dance, without a hint of irony? It just seems self-defeating to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just the prospect of people having sex as a form of a show is very strange to me. Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality make any difference, it's having sex as some sort of "show". If they want to do it that fine but it still seems very strange to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One the one hand, I'm like, "Eh, he can do what he wants to do. It's not hurting anyone, and the guy's obviously already succeeding at getting some major attention for his presentation."

 

At the same time, I'm kind of rolling my eyes that this is considered "art." I realize art is subjective, but I generally consider "people having sex in front of an audience" to fall under the category of "porn" instead.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I'll bite. If the message here is that "sex is too glamorized"... why make a show out of that statement for the media to inevitably glamorize? Why tell us to stop the song and dance by... performing the song and dance, without a hint of irony? It just seems self-defeating to me.

 

It is kind of a double edged sword... but how else does one make a bold statement without making a bold statement.

 

I think their point is not "look at us, we're having sex!!", but more of "look at us, we're having sex, just like everyone else does, it's no big deal to us, so why is it to society in general?" with the focus being more on virginity than sex generally.

 

They can't ask that question to the wider populace without drawing attention to themselves.

 

 

At the same time, I'm kind of rolling my eyes that this is considered "art." I realize art is subjective, but I generally consider "people having sex in front of an audience" to fall under the category of "porn" instead.

 

I think intent has a lot to do with art as well.  If your intent is to arouse, then it is porn.  I don't think they're doing this with the intent of the audience shoving their hands down their pants.  Of course there is crossover.  Pornographic art can be lovingly constructed with the intention of both entertaining the eyes and genitals alike.  But I think intent-wise this does squarely fall outside of the porn spectrum, since they are just having sex together, WITH people watching, as oppose to having sex together, FOR the people watching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, I'll bite. If the message here is that "sex is too glamorized"... why make a show out of that statement for the media to inevitably glamorize? Why tell us to stop the song and dance by... performing the song and dance, without a hint of irony? It just seems self-defeating to me.

 

Because normalization of anything considered weird does not actually happen on its own nor by keeping it a private act and allowing glamorization to overshadow the actual reality. Normalization happens when something is done in public, over and over, until most people see how mundane it is and thus don't give a crap anymore. That is the point.

 

I also like the pot shots at art majors going on here, like the work is actually easy.

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is kind of a double edged sword... but how else does one make a bold statement without making a bold statement.

 

By all means! But rather, my question is whether or not there was some better way to make this statement without potentially compromising their point. The beautiful thing about art is that a question can be proposed and answered a thousand different ways; I merely wonder if there is some better path not yet traveled.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By all means! But rather, my question is whether or not there was some better way to make this statement without potentially compromising their point. The beautiful thing about art is that a question can be proposed and answered a thousand different ways; I merely wonder if there is some better path not yet traveled.

 

Yeah I'm sure there are other means.  I think it's important for non-artists to appreciate the difference between art that USES shock value as a tool leading to a more important message, and art that is purely done FOR shock value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pfft, you guys. This isn't art.

 

Unless someone's drawing it, that's when it becomes art. :U

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone actually say that?

 

Your last post is kind of in that vain; at the very least, it's annoyingly snide.

 

By all means! But rather, my question is whether or not there was some better way to make this statement without potentially compromising their point. The beautiful thing about art is that a question can be proposed and answered a thousand different ways; I merely wonder if there is some better path not yet traveled.

 

I'm certain that there is, but noting this does raise the question: How do you normalize something without drawing too much undue attention to it in an artistic context? Having sex is clearly an attention-drawing demonstration, but we also live in a world where even photo sets of gay couples kissing is enough to cause outrage. So, where would that par be in terms of making a point without offending?

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pfft, you guys. This isn't art.

 

Unless someone's drawing it, that's when it becomes art. :U

 

I know you're joking, but I really hope no one here believes drawing and sculpting is all art is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know how I should feel about this. On one hand the dude and his partner have been trying to do this for 3 years and the school is ok with it but on the other it just makes me think why? What is it going to prove? Art is weird

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

You must read and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy to continue using this website. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.