Gay art student set to lose his virginity in public

[KHCast]

I dunno dude, when you say stuff like this:, and you kind of make it into a false dichotomy of "pure and godly" or "SLUUUUUUUTS!", it comes off as kinda judgmental.

It's just a personal opinion of mine. I'm not going to tell you you're going to hell or you're a bad person for doing this, but personally for me, I'm not going to ever be fine with the idea. I'm just not. 

[Urban Flow]

Or in a recording studio.

Hehe!

[Gabz Girl]

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

 

 

 

Fiona Rae. British artist. Predominately a painter who creates large scale canvases with colourful, abstract imagery. A mixture of traditional and digital art. Her work is very well known, but she's definitely not seeking attention with her work. At least not in the way other artists do (Damien Hirst, yuck). She's also never been controversial with her work and doesn't shock people or create mass media attention.

 

There are other examples too but I don't feel like looking those up. Unless you mean seeking attention in the "catches your eye" sort of way, she's not there to say ohhhhh I'm arty lol.

[Nepenthe]

It's difficult to argue any artist that distributes their work isn't seeking attention, because that's kind of the point of publicly distributing artwork. It's also missing the point vastly with anything that would be considered performance art.

[MegaMonster54]

[JezMM]

Can we start keeping a tally of people who come into the topic and just go "what" ignoring everything that has already been said that pretty much answers their flat what.

 

And then bop them all on the head

[Sean]

 

Cut this out, and this goes for everyone in this thread. Responses like these are not appropriate for any debate if you want your input to be taken seriously.

[Noir]

The fact that this thread reached seven pages in a day is proof enough to me that the performance is successful. It hasn't even happened and it's already provoking debate from both sides. Unorthodox as it is, I think it's pretty genius, or I could at least call it fascinatingly weird.

 

Though I totally see and appreciate the artistic merit, if I could I'd definitely go really just cause I wanna watch some boys do the frickle frackle.

[Chili Dawg]

I think the idea is stupid, but its his art, he can do what he wants, and if people want to see it, eh, whatever works for ya. 

[Nepenthe]

The fact that this thread reached seven pages in a day is proof enough to me that the performance is successful. It hasn't even happened and it's already provoking debate from both sides. Unorthodox as it is, I think it's pretty genius, or I could at least call it fascinatingly weird.

 

Not sure how successful it is at this point, as the discussion is less about the arbitrary social views of sex and more about what does and doesn't qualify as art, which frankly is a discussion I'm tired of having because it's a barrier to the more interesting topics at hand.

[Sean]

I think debating about what does and doesn't constitute as art is one of the biggest wastes of time known to humans.

[Mauro Fonseca]

This?

 

 

That's the very definition of it. An old woman goes "ooh I can recover this fresco" and botches things, panics, tells the church, then basks in the glory.

 

 

 

 

Fiona Rae. British artist. Predominately a painter who creates large scale canvases with colourful, abstract imagery. A mixture of traditional and digital art. Her work is very well known, but she's definitely not seeking attention with her work. At least not in the way other artists do (Damien Hirst, yuck). She's also never been controversial with her work and doesn't shock people or create mass media attention.

 

There are other examples too but I don't feel like looking those up. Unless you mean seeking attention in the "catches your eye" sort of way, she's not there to say ohhhhh I'm arty lol.

Does she publish her art online?

In galleries?

Does she do collaborations with collectives?

She's doing it for the attention.

There's nothing wrong with that, it's the basic point of art and craft, the artist going "hey I can do thing, will you look at it?"

I'll argue even people like Kafka who did their art for themselves and then left instructions for it to be destroyed either secretly knew said art wouldn't be destroyed or were still doing it for attention and admiration- except in this case, the attention and admiration of themselves only.

[Conando]

So it's public porn?

 

 

Ok but seriously now. I suppose I'm prudish because I find this...off...regardless of who was doing it. Though I suppose you could call it art considering the whole way our society views losing your virginity as a huge thing. Also something, something bond or another (can be considering a "beautiful" thing if done between 2 truly connected people). Dude is either very brave or very nuts, I give him that.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph

[Mogtaki]

Okay, okay, as an artist I'm going to say this is the stupidest thing I've heard this year in regards to art that was next to the guy who grew an ear on his arm. These guys are the guys who are not artists and just claim to be artists, they make us embarrassed in the art industry because they make artists look like fools.

They're not artists, they're attention seekers. They're trying to be 'contemporary' but instead are just trying to find an excuse to be 'shocking'...

People are saying artists do it for attention? No, they're not artists if they want attention, they just want to sell their work to gain money because that happens to be their livelihood.

If you want attention seekers in art, then look at the Ringo Starrs, porn 'artists' and fandom deviantartists.

On second thought, don't look at Ringo Starr's stuff, your eyes will bleed.

That's the very definition of it. An old woman goes "ooh I can recover this fresco" and botches things, panics, tells the church, then basks in the glory.

Bask in the glory? She contemplated suicide first before the internet was all "LOOOOOL ITS GOOOD", the whole trying to gain royalties from it was a form of madness she's picked up from the popularity. I'd say that's a mental problem much like Susan Boyle she's basking in rather than glory.

[iDEATH]

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.

 

....actually, collecting Youtube comments and presenting them as a collected work could be really interesting.

 

Nepenthe said it better than I can, but it's the context that dictates whether it's art or not.

 

 

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. 

 

 

Are you trying to imply that this person is somehow lacking in morals because he's partaking in this?

 

And i'm sorry, but that "Sex is sacred" stuff is utter nonsense. Sex isn't a big deal at all, we have an odd attitude to sex as a society and like to build it up into something it's not. It's a natural act for the purposes of continuing the species, but it's also a lot of fun and, contrary to what you're saying, is totally fine to use "when you feel like it"

 

The human races hang ups about sex are totally unnatural and bizzare.

 

Okay, okay, as an artist I'm going to say this is the stupidest thing I've heard this year in regards to art that was next to the guy who grew an ear on his arm. These guys are the guys who are not artists and just claim to be artists, they make us embarrassed in the art industry because they make artists look like fools.

They're not artists, they're attention seekers. They're trying to be 'contemporary' but instead are just trying to find an excuse to be 'shocking'...

People are saying artists do it for attention? No, they're not artists if they want attention, they just want to sell their work to gain money because that happens to be their livelihood.

If you want attention seekers in art, then look at the Ringo Starrs, porn 'artists' and fandom deviantartists.

On second thought, don't look at Ringo Starr's stuff, your eyes will bleed.

Bask in the glory? She contemplated suicide first before the internet was all "LOOOOOL ITS GOOOD", the whole trying to gain royalties from it was a form of madness she's picked up from the popularity. I'd say that's a mental problem much like Susan Boyle she's basking in rather than glory.

 

For someone claiming to be an artist, you seem to have pretty narrow views on what art is

[Noir]

Not sure how successful it is at this point, as the discussion is less about the arbitrary social views of sex and more about what does and doesn't qualify as art, which frankly is a discussion I'm tired of having because it's a barrier to the more interesting topics at hand.

 

Good point actually, which is unfortunate. But it's sparked at least some interesting discussion on sex, how society treats it, how sacred it really is, etc. I'd count that as a success, even if it's pretty heavily overshadowed by this dumb debate on art.

[JezMM]

People are saying artists do it for attention? No, they're not artists if they want attention

 

Speak for yourself I am fucking gagging for attention on my art.  8C

[Nepenthe]

Okay, okay, as an artist I'm going to say this is the stupidest thing I've heard this year in regards to art that was next to the guy who grew an ear on his arm. These guys are the guys who are not artists and just claim to be artists, they make us embarrassed in the art industry because they make artists look like fools.

They're not artists, they're attention seekers. They're trying to be 'contemporary' but instead are just trying to find an excuse to be 'shocking'...

People are saying artists do it for attention? No, they're not artists if they want attention, they just want to sell their work to gain money because that happens to be their livelihood.

If you want attention seekers in art, then look at the Ringo Starrs, porn 'artists' and fandom deviantartists.

On second thought, don't look at Ringo Starr's stuff, your eyes will bleed.

 

These statements making claims for all artists piss me off because they're far more pretentious than this gay couple. I'm an artist too, and I consider what this man to be doing art in the sense I've outlined. Don't speak for me.

 

I also want someone- anyone- to make a logical argument on how any known artist or one who intends to display their work anywhere, whether it be a gallery, online, or to private collectors- is not seeking attention, when seeking intention is the entire point of displaying and selling your art. Please explain to me how your work becomes known without anyone looking at it.

[Mogtaki]

Ahhhh not what I was saying, you don't give yourself the excuse that you're an artist to have everybody watch you take it up the butt for the first time.

And getting taught that you make yourself known through humble means is different from attention seeking whether through emotional output or dramatising yourself.

[VO.SUPER]

Ahhhh not what I was saying, you don't give yourself the excuse that you're an artist to have everybody watch you take it up the butt for the first time.

And getting taught that you make yourself known through humble means is different from attention seeking whether through emotional output or dramatising yourself.

 

What are humble means? You're still getting attention to yourself.

[Kuzu]

Sex in public? Like a boss.

[iDEATH]

Ahhhh not what I was saying, you don't give yourself the excuse that you're an artist to have everybody watch you take it up the butt for the first time.

 

Why not?

 

You don't have to like it, but you can't just say it's not art because it doesn't suit your limited view on what art is.

[Nepenthe]

Ahhhh not what I was saying, you don't give yourself the excuse that you're an artist to have everybody watch you take it up the butt for the first time.

And getting taught that you make yourself known through humble means is different from attention seeking whether through emotional output or dramatising yourself.

 

I'm curious to know if you've read anything me and JezMM have been arguing about art.

 

And please. Professional artistry comes with some degree of hubris and arrogance, as well as attention-seeking. The stressful environment requires utmost confidence in your ability to do better than most people out there, and the attention is necessary for either money or to get across your personal message or vision.

 

Besides, I want to be more of an attention whore than this guy; I want to command hundreds of people for a few years of their lives to make my movies. Then, I want to make you, specifically you, as well as millions of other people all across the world get out of their homes, waste gas, pay exorbitant amounts of money for crap food and entry to a dark place populated with inconsiderate strangers, where some bored teenager turns on an expensive projector to watch that shit on a huge screen, and not only do I want you and everyone else to like it, but I want you and everyone else to buy the same shit again on Blu-Ray in a few months. I would also like most of the profits from said theaters too, because it's my movie goddammit.

 

Meanwhile, this man is inviting 100 people to watch him have sex once and talk about it afterwards. He is the Macklemore to my Madonna.

[Frogging101]

I think that technically, this is art. However, art can still be distasteful. This is distasteful. There's a photo called Piss Christ; it is a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine. This too is "art".

So, whether this performance is art or not is of little importance to me. I still find it repulsive.

[Abominal SnowTaz]

Ahhhh not what I was saying, you don't give yourself the excuse that you're an artist to have everybody watch you take it up the butt for the first time.

And getting taught that you make yourself known through humble means is different from attention seeking whether through emotional output or dramatising yourself.

 

I...kind of get what you're trying to get at. I mean I follow a saying "one does not base success on approval of the others, but only need please themselves." I'm not really working towards being a superstar artist, due to the fact that i'm training in curatorial career path, but I still make it my purpose to display my work and be known at least.

 

What we have here could be "attention seeking", but also could just be basing success on the fact that his performance is being done with such a high risk, which risk is what some artists flirt with but also try to avoid severe negativity. That's why I keep my work from ethnic subject matter, I'm not sure how to convey it correctly and can't predict the outcome.