The wonders of modern "art", warning, may gross out some Options

[Opethian]

At first glance, you may wonder what makes this image so gross, or why I would qualify it as some sort of creepy/weird piece of modern art. I suggest you simply read the description to find out why.

Enjoy

[Fredginator]

mmmm... menstrual fluids...

[Linden16]

All I have to say about this is WTF????

[zoskia]

At first glance, you may wonder what makes this image so gross, or why I would qualify it as some sort of creepy/weird piece of modern art. I suggest you simply read the description to find out why.

Enjoy

The use of body fluids is actually quite old in art... it's a known fact that Leonardo da Vinci mixed his oils with pee (most of the Renaissance painters did the same)... Marcel Duchamp painted an abstraction using semen (it's not really one of his most known pieces, but he did it)... Marc Quinn did a very interesting sculpture of his head using his own blood to fill the mould... the Viennese Actionism movement was mostly about working with body fluids... Piero Manzoni canned his own sh*t (in his famous "Artist's Sh*t")... the list of etceteras would be endless.

The only problem I find with that painting is that this woman didn't actually do something interesting with her menstrual blood... the picture itself is not really special, but mostly silly. I don't see a problem with using menstrual blood, it's just that she didn't do something really interesting with it.

If this painting shocks you, then I don't see why aren't you shocked when you see a typical renaissance painting... most of them are painted using pee among other things.

[Lamuella]

I am hoping against hope that this thread doesn't become another interminable discussion about what is and isn't art.

[Opethian]

The use of body fluids is actually quite old in art... it's a known fact that Leonardo da Vinci mixed his oils with pee (most of the Renaissance painters did the same)... Marcel Duchamp painted an abstraction using semen (it's not really one of his most known pieces, but he did it)... Marc Quinn did a very interesting sculpture of his head using his own blood to fill the mould... the Viennese Actionism movement was mostly about working with body fluids... Piero Manzoni canned his own sh*t (in his famous "Artist's Sh*t")... the list of etceteras would be endless.

The only problem I find with that painting is that this woman didn't actually do something interesting with her menstrual blood... the picture itself is not really special, but mostly silly. I don't see a problem with using menstrual blood, it's just that she didn't do something really interesting with it.

If this painting shocks you, then I don't see why aren't you shocked when you see a typical renaissance painting... most of them are painted using pee among other things.

shocked? No. Disgusted? Yes.

Ohh, and putting your pee in paint isn't quite the same as, say, painting with your pee (yes I know that wouldn't work anyway, but I'm making an analogy here). As gross as putting urine in paint might be, it doesn't hold a candle to making an entire paining with nothing but menses.

If you think poo, pee and menses should be used to make art, more power to you. I for one don't subscribe to the school of modern art, in that sense.

[Lamuella]

I can entirely accept that something can be gross, nasty, disgusting, and still be art.

I'm not fond of this work, as it seems a little pretentious, but if this is how the artist wants to express themselves, and it doesn't hurt anyone, I don't have a problem with it.

[flak attack]

More importantly, how in the world would someone come up with the idea to use menstrual fluid as paint?

[zoskia]

shocked? No. Disgusted? Yes.

Ohh, and putting your pee in paint isn't quite the same as, say, painting with your pee (yes I know that wouldn't work anyway, but I'm making an analogy here). As gross as putting urine in paint might be, it doesn't hold a candle to making an entire paining with nothing but menses.

If you think poo, pee and menses should be used to make art, more power to you. I for one don't subscribe to the school of modern art, in that sense.

The use of pee, semen, poo, menstrual blood, normal blood, saliva, etc was actually very typical during the renaissance, when artists started to experiment about how to create new textures, new ways of painting and the use of the body was no longer a taboo... and alchemy and making colors were mostly one and the same thing (specially after Marsilio Ficino showed up).

So it's not really "modern"... it's quite old.
When you visit your favorite museum of classical art, the walls are covered with pee, semen, poo, menstrual blood, normal blood, saliva, etc... the fact that you don't see it doesn't mean that it's not there.

There is a big lie about Modern lie, which is a lie that most people believes: that it's tearing apart a classical tradition. Actually it isn't... and it is a part of that classical tradition that it seems to be tearing apart. There is nothing "new" about painting with menstrual blood...

[Lamuella]

More importantly, how in the world would someone come up with the idea to use menstrual fluid as paint?

if it makes a mark on canvas, paper, or another flat surface, someone has considered painting with it.

[Opethian]

More importantly, how in the world would someone come up with the idea to use menstrual fluid as paint?

I'm just wondering how that discussion went.

"Honey, could you paint me a picture of mega man with your menses?"

I can only assume that a) this was something she has done before (that is paint with her menses) and he simply made a request and b) these are both art school kids.

[zoskia]

More importantly, how in the world would someone come up with the idea to use menstrual fluid as paint?

.... maybe because it's one of the earliest pigments that humans have used to paint and it's even possible to find menstrual blood in some of the oldest works of art known where there are pigments (very often used in sacred religious works of art related to fertility... which is not a big surprise, of course).

People has been painting with it for thousands and thousands of years... I don't get why you all seem to believe that it's "new"

[Harper]

Absolutely disgusting.

[mastab]

Strange.

[Mao Zedong]

Makes you wonder what kind of person requests that sort of thing.

[Necromancer V4L]

Doesn't it smell?

[Esau of Isaac]

.... maybe because it's one of the earliest pigments that humans have used to paint and it's even possible to find menstrual blood in some of the oldest works of art known where there are pigments (very often used in sacred religious works of art related to fertility... which is not a big surprise, of course).

People has been painting with it for thousands and thousands of years... I don't get why you all seem to believe that it's "new"

That doesn't make it normal. I've not heard of many artists in the today that utilize such materials.

Acting as though someone's reluctance to accept such a technique is unfounded and odd is just ridiculous. We get it, people used such materials quite a bit a few hundred years ago; but today, it's not so common. I for one don't recall encountering any sort of lesson in which I jacked off into my paint mixture to give it a different texture in my last art course.

This post has been edited by Esau of Isaac: Dec 2 2008, 07:59 PM

[SpoiL]

Weirdos..the both of em.

It is a well-drawn picture disregarding the material used.

[Kenadian_2006]

Pure, pure, pure, PURE squick moment right there.

[magicninja]

Why?



Gruesome.