Gay art student set to lose his virginity in public

[SIXTH-RATE SOMA]

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?

 

Now, I did not say "without offending"; challenging anyone's viewpoints is going to offend a few. But I wonder if the general public will not just take from this that "sex in public is cool/weird" rather than any statement lying on a deeper plane of thought. With this route, they've certainly got a large crowd, but I somehow doubt this message they're after will actually reach anyone who didn't already think as they did.

[Stacy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22EHOmtWNwI

 

Anything can be art if you say enough bullshit to prove why you think its art. It is subjective though some people will say its fantastic others will be left scratching their heads thinking why?

[Gabz Girl]

They could just do a video of them having sex instead of a performance...then again, I suppose that would be classified as porn. =/

[JezMM]

Yeah I'm sure a video would get lost in an utter sea of (fake or otherwise) amateur porn vids of people having sex for the first time as a sort of fetish.

[Solkia]

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

 

It was snide for a reason. In fact it was for the exact opposite reason.

 

Being an artist isn't easy. In fact it's really fucking hard. I tried for years to become better many forms of art, but just eventually gave into self-depriciation and stopped trying.

 

But there are so many aspiring artists out there working their ass off to get commissions, get noticed in the art community, etc.

 

Yet fucking in public to make a statement is what is getting exposure right now.

 

You know what I think? I think this isn't going to do anything. I think its purpose is going to backfire tremendously.

[WarioBone]

I don't even.  Why would anyone do this ever?!

 

>art student

 

Ah.  That explains a lot.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Master of Disguise Wario

[iDEATH]

They could just do a video of them having sex instead of a performance...then again, I suppose that would be classified as porn. =/

 

Part of the point of this is that it's a one of a kind performance. Just as you can only lose your virginity once, so too can this piece only be seen once.

 

It was snide for a reason. In fact it was for the exact opposite reason.

 

Being an artist isn't easy. In fact it's really fucking hard. I tried for years to become better many forms of art, but just eventually gave into self-depriciation and stopped trying.

 

But there are so many aspiring artists out there working their ass off to get commissions, get noticed in the art community, etc.

 

Yet fucking in public to make a statement is what is getting exposure right now.

 

You know what I think? I think this isn't going to do anything. I think its purpose is going to backfire tremendously.

 

So...because there are starving artists out there this isn't art?

 

This isn't any less valid than any other art, just because other people aren't getting any exposure doesn't really factor into it....

Edited October 29, 2013 by Graf Orlok

[Nepenthe]

Now, I did not say "without offending"; challenging anyone's viewpoints is going to offend a few. But I wonder if the general public will not just take from this that "sex in public is cool/weird" rather than any statement lying on a deeper plane of thought. With this route, they've certainly got a large crowd, but I somehow doubt this message they're after will actually reach anyone who didn't already think as they did.

 

That could go either way. It's generally difficult for the layman to empathize with art they've experienced cold that isn't on-the-nose with its message like a Hollywood movie. However there is context here, and I'm pretty sure the context will be reiterated to the audience already going, assuming the audience doesn't know about the point of it anyway. Thus, a conversation about this will at least spark forth about the overall point. It will most likely be overshadowed by the bitching and drama, but I'd think it more productive to at least try to get the ball rolling in the first place rather than drifting along never really thinking about the irrational social constructs that surround us like most people do.

 

It was snide for a reason. In fact it was for the exact opposite reason.

 

Being an artist isn't easy. In fact it's really fucking hard. I tried for years to become better many forms of art, but just eventually gave into self-depriciation and stopped trying.

 

But there are so many aspiring artists out there working their ass off to get commissions, get noticed in the art community, etc.

 

Yet fucking in public to make a statement is what is getting exposure right now.

 

You know what I think? I think this isn't going to do anything. I think its purpose is going to backfire tremendously.

 

I assure you that the attention this is getting is minimal when we compare it to everything going on in the world of art. I'm pretty sure significantly more people know about the looking-to-be-disappointing Superman/Batman crossover or the new barely-changed-anything-from-the-last-one Call of Duty than this or those poor artists you're now bleeding over. I also assure you that a lot of those artists would still not be getting the attention they may or may not deserve anyway if this guy did not even exist at all.

 

Will this backfire? Probably; after all, we've seen all the kneejerk bullshit here, and it won't be the last time we see kneejerk bullshit. But let's not pretend that this is something that is taking the world by storm.

[Badnik Mechanic]

Man, and I thought my old Drama course was a Micky Mouse course...

[Dizcrybe]

So... he's basically making live porn?

[JezMM]

So... he's basically making live porn?

 

[SIXTH-RATE SOMA]

So... he's basically making live porn?

 

Basically, yes/no. It's not rehearsed, rather just being two guys screwing on stage. The issue is whether or not this is the best way to make a statement of this sort.

[Solkia]

Basically, yes/no. It's not rehearsed, rather just being two guys screwing on stage. The issue is whether or not this is the best way to make a statement of this sort.

 

So it's a sex tape then.

 

see it's already backfiring

[DocAzure]

I still can't stop laughing at this. It's hilarious that some people actually think two people fucking on stage can be considered art.

 

Excuse me while I organise a live performance of sex that totally isn't porn, you guys, it's art!

Edited October 29, 2013 by MadDocAzure

[Nepenthe]

Can you tell us the definition of art so that we can all understand why this doesn't qualify as such, or are you perfectly happy atop your perch of superiority?

[Willsy]

It's the new frontier; fucking everyone, everywhere, all the time, anytime.

Free sex for everybody, no more virgins, the world is our strip club!

(I am completely joking please don't spank me)

But yeah, very strange thing to do, but as long as it's at a private (no pun intended) venue...

Edited October 29, 2013 by Wil348

[Solkia]

I'll backpedal and say it actually is art by definition, but that's about it.

[KHCast]

It's probably due to my moral values on the topic of sexuality, but I just can't find myself being all fine and dandy with him doing it. It has nothing to do with him being gay at all either. I just can't justify in my mind this being alright.

[DocAzure]

Can you tell us the definition of art so that we can all understand why this doesn't qualify as such, or are you perfectly happy atop your perch of superiority?

 

Oh, I thought you would never ask.

 

While you can say art is something entirely subjective, doesn't there have to be SOME boundaries as to what can be considered? Can I, for example, call a YouTube comment that says "u suck gey" art?

 

Well, if two people fucking in public because it 'sends a message' (but in reality, it's a fetish) can be named that, I guess so.

Edited October 29, 2013 by MadDocAzure

[WarioBone]

I suppose that we aren't being forced to watch it.  No one is.  But if you're really willing to take losing your virginity, a moment that's supposed to be special and intimate and whatever else, and just do it on stage for the sake of "art", I suppose that's your loss, pal.  Anyone know what this guy is trying to accomplish?

[JezMM]

Well, if two people fucking in public because it 'sends a message' (but in reality, it's a fetish) can be names that, I guess so.

 

It CAN be a fetish but it is not exclusively a fetish.  I have a fetish for shiny PVC leggings but that doesn't mean they're no longer fashion, which is an art.

 

It is very VERY clear that they are not doing this with pornographic intent.

[Willsy]

I thought the first time you have sex is meant to be a special moment, not something for everyone to see. Still, his decision.

[Solkia]

I'll just post the definition google gives:

 

"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

 

So yeah, it's supposed to be art, but it effectiveness as art is debateable.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Solkia

[JezMM]

Guys open your minds regarding sex.  Someone's first time can be anything they want it to be.  Hell, the fact that the guy wants to do it like this will probably make it incredibly special and emotional for him, even if its not in the typical way.  And ironically the point of the piece is that first times don't have to be a big deal, look you all watched me, it was just sex, whoop de doo.  But it will be powerful because of that point he's making, not just the sex itself.

 

I personally like to downplay the importance of first times.  You shouldn't big it up as some special thing because chances are it'll be nothing compared to the great sex you'll have down the line once you've got the practice in and learned your partner's (and your own) rhythms.

[Tani Coyote]

I honestly don't see how anybody could successfully copulate with loads of people watching. Unless you're one of those people who are more aroused by that sort of thing.

Same as how a person can learn to speak or sing publicly, I suppose. We may give singing and speaking more dignity, but at the end of the day it's all the same - performing an act in front of a large audience. You will most likely be nervous with all of them, but it can be overcome.

 

So calling people out on their shit is art now?

 

A common theme in art does seem to be rebelling against the mainstream culture, yes. Both politically and culturally; many artists have, for example, been sharp critics of authority as much as they try a new style of painting, sculpture, or music.

 

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.

One guy is pleased by looking at the roof of the Sistine Chapel. Another is pleased by looking at pornography. At the end of the day, I'd say both are ultimately artistic; I'd say the only real unifying factor of artwork is generally creativity of expression of some sort. Beyond that... well, it has tons of forms. Pornography just had a bad rep due to us being told for the last several thousand years that sex is something disgusting but necessary rather than something that can be beautiful.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Ogil.exe Maurice