Gay art student set to lose his virginity in public

[The Kid]

I'd find it funny if he got up there all set to *erhem* perform, only to find out he can't with people watching.

 

I really don't see the big deal. I'm sure most people going to that show have either had sex or seen sex one way or another.

[Nepenthe]

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 names that, I guess so.

 

The boundaries lie strictly in the intent of the artist during conception and production of their work to inform and/or entertain, which are in themselves subjective but nonetheless existent. This means that acts that have other purposes can be re-appropriated into art.

 

In your example, that YouTube comment would not be art because it's clear the intent is to insult, not to entertain or make a broader statement or message through its production and display. However, you could take that comment, and plenty of other insulting comments, and make a collage out of them into the YouTube logo to make a statement about the proliferation of awful comments on Youtube, and then that comment would become art.

 

In short: Different contexts can change the purpose of the same act or object. While anything can be art, not everything is. Ergo, not all sex is porn as you stated. Sex can become art.

[Detective Shadzter]

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?

It explains in the article in my opening post. 

[SIXTH-RATE SOMA]

But it will be powerful because of that point he's making, not just the sex itself.

 

With all due respect comrade, that's just a bit absurd. The tale is in the telling; you fail to get across your point, whatever it may be, and you fail as an artist. Birdemic's central thesis seems to be that "you must take good care of the environment, or it will come back to bite you," but it's told in such a ridiculous manner that I'd just as soon burn my plastic cans out of bemused spite than to pay any mind to it. Words hold no power if you fail to speak them, comrade. 

[WarioBone]

It explains in the article in my opening post. 

 

Silly me.

 

...

 

Oh!  They're even going to hold a Q&A afterward!

 

Seriously what the fucking fuck...literally.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Master of Disguise Wario

[Solkia]

art or not aside for a second, isn't this illegal? Did they already get the okays with the local authorities or something?

[JezMM]

With all due respect comrade, that's just a bit absurd. The tale is in the telling; you fail to get across your point, whatever it may be, and you fail as an artist. Birdemic's central thesis seems to be that "you must take good care of the environment, or it will come back to bite you," but it's told in such a ridiculous manner that I'd just as soon burn my plastic cans out of bemused spite than to pay any mind to it. Words hold no power if you fail to speak them, comrade. 

 

Well different art appeals to different people.  The fact that about 50% of people here in the thread seem to be getting the point of this art means they were 50% successful at least, so to speak.

 

Though I think a lot of this art's failure will just be from people who are still just too close-minded about what sex and virginity is.  But hey, baby steps, this art is aiming to get people talking.

[Diogenes]

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?

Isn't that the point, though? To sort of...shake our perceptions of sex, virginity, and the losing thereof? You say that losing your virginity is "supposed" to be this and that, and he's challenging that notion.

[Dr. Mechano]

Mm. I'm a fairly open-minded, liberal guy, so I'm definitely not bothered by this performance. I certainly don't question the performance's right to exist. I was just questioning its artistic merit.

 

JezMM and Nepenthe have done a good job clarifying the intent of the piece, and while this performance is certainly not for me, I can accept that the intent makes it a form of art by definition.

[SIXTH-RATE SOMA]

Though I think a lot of this art's failure will just be from people who are still just too close-minded about what sex and virginity is.

 

Comrade, I don't believe that an illustration's imperfection is the fault of its audience. If you want to teach to others, you must speak their language. Certainly if they cannot speak your own language it may be the fault of a lazy mind, but it does not change the fact that you are willfully instructing an audience in a way they cannot understand. Think of the American tourist, who answers the confused Spanish speaker by just speaking English louder. Either teach them English or speak in Spanish. Otherwise, you are setting up your own failure to communicate.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Fluttershy

[Victoes]

Gay sex. In public. 19 years old.

I'm done.

In the name ART I will sex....IN PUBLIC!

[KHCast]

Some people(like me) have morals and values about sex and it's role in life. Be it due to religion,personal opinion,etc.  I don't see how it can be justified to people like that. 

 

I find sex to be a sacred thing. I don't see that changing, or me being more okay or lenient with it being a common thing in todays time after this. the message and intention of the "art" that "it's just sex, no big deal" is really what bothers me. imo, sex isn't something that is meant to be used whenever you feel like it.  I don't think my stance on it will change, no matter the points given.

 

I'm sorry, but I just can't commend this guy and his intention. 

[Sean]

How is sex sacred when the majority of animals in the world do it for the sake of instinctual procreation

 

Sex only has as much meaning as individuals attach to it. It's otherwise just another bodily function that's no less inherent than taking a crap.

[KHCast]

How is sex sacred when the majority of animals in the world do it for the sake of instinctual procreation

 

Sex only has as much meaning as individuals attach to it. It's otherwise just another bodily function that's no less inherent than taking a crap.

Religion and morals. Sexuality in my opinion, is something that should not be practiced until after marriage. It's different for animals as they go off of instinct. But with humans we have a larger intellect. I believe that it is a sacred practice that is meant to show love to your spouse, and to give life to the world. Not to just use it when you are in a bar and see some hot  drunk chick.

 

If you don't agree with me, that's fine, but that's just my belief. I'm not condoning other for the practice or calling them bad people. merely just expressing my personal stance on the role of sex.

[goku262002]

art or not aside for a second, isn't this illegal? Did they already get the okays with the local authorities or something?

 

^What Solkia said. Love to see the permit he had to file to even allow this preformance in plublic.

Edited October 30, 2013 by goku262002

[Sean]

The act is being held in a gallery. There have been far crazier art performances in the past and I highly doubt legality would be an issue at this point since Pettet probably wouldn't have otherwise revealed his plans. Calling it a "public" performance is a bit of an overgeneralization because the word public may make a lot of people assume it'll be held in some open area that any random passerby can happen upon.

[KHCast]

The act is being held in a gallery. There have been far crazier art performances in the past and I highly doubt legality would be an issue at this point since Pettet probably wouldn't have otherwise revealed his plans. Calling it a "public" performance is a bit of an overgeneralization because the word public may make a lot of people assume it'll be held in some open area that any random passerby can happen upon.

Suddenly I'm imagining this like one of those factory tours where the person says "now if you look on your right through this glass window you will see two men performing the act of sex. Quite ravenous aren't they? ha ha ha."

[Mauro Fonseca]

>people still coming over to do the usual "OH SO NOW ANYTHING IS ART EH???" bullshit talk

 

Everytime I think we're ready to drop bullshit postmodernism and finally move beyond Duchamp imitators and Warhol imitators, people prove we need them still.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Albator

[Mauro Fonseca]

Find me art that isn't attention seeking and I'll give you the end of millenia of hypocrisy.

[Dr. Mechano]

Goofy.

 

I'm super-monogamous myself. The very idea of doing anything remotely sexual with anyone outside of a significant other within the confines of a committed relationship repels me, and I know that I could never do it. Furthermore, I prefer to be private about my sex life and am uncomfortable discussing the finer details in casual conversation. Believe me, I understand what you're saying.

 

But not everyone's like that? I mean, some people view sex more casually than I do. And - this is the big point I'm making - since it doesn't affect me at all, there's no rational reason for me to stand in their way. Other people practicing polyamory doesn't somehow threaten monogamy, nor does publicity damage privacy. To me, sex isn't some casual thing to be taken lightly, and for others it is. This art piece is clearly for them, and I accept that I'm really not its intended audience.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that other people viewing sex differently from you doesn't have to affect your personal life and your personal experiences with sex in any way.

[KHCast]

Goofy.

 

I'm super-monogamous myself. The very idea of doing anything remotely sexual with anyone outside of a significant other within the confines of a committed relationship repels me, and I know that I could never do it. Furthermore, I prefer to be private about my sex life and am uncomfortable discussing the finer details in casual conversation. Believe me, I understand what you're saying.

 

But not everyone's like that? I mean, some people view sex more casually than I do. And - this is the big point I'm making - since it doesn't affect me at all, there's no rational reason for me to stand in their way. Other people practicing polyamory doesn't somehow threaten monogamy, nor does publicity damage privacy. To me, sex isn't some casual thing to be taken lightly, and for others it is. This art piece is clearly for them, and I accept that I'm really not its intended audience.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that other people viewing sex differently from you doesn't have to affect your personal life and your personal experiences with sex in any way.

I had noted that in my post. I said that this was just my opinion.

 

I was merely stating my opinion on him doing this and my stance on it. Not that i'm trying to make my opinion be THE opinion of everyone. 

[Zaysho]

>people still coming over to do the usual "OH SO NOW ANYTHING IS ART EH???" bullshit talk

 

Everytime I think we're ready to drop bullshit postmodernism and finally move beyond Duchamp imitators and Warhol imitators, people prove we need them still.

 

I think the reason arguments like that still crop up is because of the imitators. To me, those imitators' works feel insincere and like hollow rip-offs. You can bring up the "well, there's no such thing as original" or whatever, and maybe that's true, but there's such a thing as authenticity. I'm not too steeped in the fine art world at this point though because of my own experiences going through the system in college and a lot of the work, just from reading the statements students would make up, and I just don't see the authenticity. I see people regurgitating points the professors drilled into us by making us understand the original works. Congratulations you get a gold star.

 

People who did what they really wanted and were completely sincere got passed over for someone building a catapult and launching a rib-eye steak into a pool of balls (not making this shit up). To me, it shows the art world probably won't be moving beyond bullshit postmodernism any time soon and people won't stop asking "what really is art?" The galleries and people with "refined" tastes and worldly views eat that shit up because it helps them feel special and "smarter" too.

 

This isn't to pass judgment on the guy doing this particular performance. Maybe he is being totally sincere and authentic. And I certainly understand his point and it's probably already successful because people are talking about it. But that's one in several thousand, probably.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Zaysho

[Diogenes]

I dunno dude, when you say stuff like this:

I believe that it is a sacred practice that is meant to show love to your spouse, and to give life to the world. Not to just use it when you are in a bar and see some hot  drunk chick.

, and you kind of make it into a false dichotomy of "pure and godly" or "SLUUUUUUUTS!", it comes off as kinda judgmental.

[Urban Flow]

What the fuck man.....Sex is something that is done in private, no matter the orientation........

[Solkia]

Or in a recording studio.