AsianBomb777 said:

So does
one of my mates.



Back to the topic, I could kill for THAT glance.

Ah, and I adore the crazy universe of Matthew Barney









Because somehow he dares, and I feel "at home" when I watch his works...

brownsugar said:

Hmmm... there are a lot of boarding school antics going on there!

UCantHavaDaMango said:

yeah i know. here's his website http://www.anthonygoicolea.com/

and a little bit more about him http://en.wikipedia.org/w...y_Goicolea

SpisaRibb said:

so i could use it on non-prince sites, then?

brownsugar said:

These actually really gross me out. I got all pukey when I saw them.

I think it's all the spitting and open mouths with food and all that. Plus bratty little boys to me are just

i went to this show last weekend. amazing. i couldn't say i really "liked" it or would want any of these items in my home but it was definitely different

RaspberryPauvrette said:

:shudders:

I just cannot get into Barney. Did you see the show at the Guggenheim a couple years ago? I wanted to like it, I really did...but I left even more confused than when I went in. And I talked to the guides, and my fellow art history colleagues; I've even talked about Barney on some of my own tours but I just am not feelin' it. Michael Kimmelman, the head art critic for the NY Times called him the greatest artist of our generation; I usually agree with Kimmelman; but I totally disagree with him about Cremaster/Barney. It's all about with Barney, literally & figuratively. Which I don't have a problem with (Duchamp did it brilliantly); but Barney's isn't successful, imho.

(I feel the same way about John Currin...I think they both got MFAs from Yale, I wonder if it was at the same time. The Yale MFA machine. lol.)


clarification of pronouns edit
[Edited 12/6/06 10:23am]

XxAxX said:

I saw it twice, once in Brussels and then again this summer in Mpls.

The first time I saw it was about 5 years ago, and I swear it changed my life! I loved it to bits and couldn't get enough of it, although when I just saw it a few months ago, a lot of the bodies looked sort of "dried out" actually. Probably from touring so much. They looked fresher the first time around actually. Plus, they didn't have a collection as big as the one in Brussells when they brought it to Mpls. Some of my favorites were missing.

XxAxX said:

OMG!!! Lucky you! where was the exhibit? I wished it would come to Chicago or some where near here. I want to experience this badly.

i saw 'Body Worlds' last weekend but it was in its last three days. I beleive it has moved on to another city by now.

it was really intersting. i was prepared to be repulsed but fortunately the project was tastefully done and people were respectful. the exhibition was really crowded and had been so since day one, which isn't my favorite thing, but in fact i was glad not to be alone in the room with all of those cadavers. not that i was afraid or anything, just some of them seemed to have a kind of.. personality or something. anyway i was glad there were more of us than there were of them

i will never regard my body the same way after seeing that show. fascinating

XxAxX said:

really? see, I think I'd want to see it with not so many people, to get the whole effect of what is really going on, or is it that intense that youd want that many people around? God I want to see this.

XxAxX said:

This is why I say it changed my life. And yes, they do have personalities. Like the ones where they kept their lips on. You can sort of see how they must have looked in life.

minneapolisgenius said:

8 years ago, my high school English teacher told our class about this exhibit. It sounded so gruesome that I didn't believe him! Now, it's going on tour and I've seen photos. It's very fascinating, and a little sad at the same time (especially the children ). My teacher told us that some of the bodies used were dead John and Jane Does, and no family member ever claimed them. He said that some people were recognized when a family memeber came to the show, and saw their relative's body on display! Can you imagine?

UCantHavaDaMango said:

not true. according to what was posted at the exhibit, every cadaver used for this purpose was specifically willed to be plasticinated for that exhibit, by the deceased

XxAxX said:

I've seriously considered being plastinated when I die. My whole family knows about it, but my mom hates the idea of me being on display that way, so I may change my mind just to appease her.

Von Hagens has been repeatedly accused of using bodies from deceased persons who did not give consent, such as prison inmates and hospital patients from Kyrgyzstan and executed prisoners from China. He maintains that all bodies exhibited in Body Worlds came from donors who gave informed consent. A commission set up by the California Science Center in Los Angeles in 2004 confirmed Von Hagens' claims. However, Von Hagens does not make the same claim for all bodies prepared by his plastination institute, only the ones exhibited in Body Worlds. There is also the issue that the children and unborn fetuses included in the exhibition had no way of giving informed consent to the display of their bodies; in the case of children informed consent would have to have been obtained from their parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ody_Worlds

XxAxX said:

Well, yeah they wouldn't, would they?

XxAxX said:

It may have been a knock off of Body World then. I know there are a few other exhibits that are copying the idea.

minneapolisgenius said:

I've seen some pictures of those, and I personally find them disturbing. The 8 months pregnant woman disturbs me most of all. I read that she knew she was dying, so she donated her body, as well as her fetus, to science. But the baby may have been able to survive. There are lots of babies born at 8 months. Oh well, I think that's for a whole differnet forum.

UCantHavaDaMango said:

I saw that woman twice and it didn't bother me at all. There was a plaque next to her that told of how she had been sick and donated her body. I didn't hear anything about how here baby could have survived. No one has ever said what she was even sick with and if her baby was affected or not.

Only a few of the bodies in the exhibit actually have a description as to how they died, and that's if they're being displayed for something like lung cancer, and they have been opened to show their lungs. Otherwise it's always confidential it seems.

This is part of why I like Andy Goldsworthy. Too much art thinks it has to be confrontational, shocking, weird, ugly, big, etc. I don't have a problem with that kind of art, but there's another side as well.

His pieces are completely natural, beautiful, non-threatening, and they don't even take up space for very long. They all fall apart soon after creation.

I like weird stuff too, but I love that he's not influenced by that. In essence he's doing art that is more pure, not making a statement on society or mental illness, or the cruelty of man, he's just putting pieces of the earth together in a pleasing way.

NDRU said:

I love his stuff, as I said before.

I don't usually like controversial art at all myself. But I don't even consider Body Worlds (Gunter Von Hagens' work) to be art anyway really. I think it's just science and educational. I never understood the controversy personally, although I knew people would have a problem with it all the same. In fact, after I saw it in Brussels, I said, "There's no way in hell they'll ever bring this to the U.S." Then about 5 years later they did. And to Minnesota of all places! I was shocked.

minneapolisgenius said:

oh cool, I missed your earlier comment

I don't know what to make of that stuff (Body Worlds). I wonder about someone's desire to work in that medium (or sculpting an obnoxious spitting, pissing young boy, for that matter) but then I wouldn't want to be a doctor either.

It's definitely interesting, which may be enough. Anyway, I wasn't putting it down, but just commenting that I like the counterpoint of beautiful & inoffensive art.
[Edited 12/6/06 12:35pm]

minneapolisgenius said:

They're grossing me out too.

It seems that the artist is painting an undercurrent of eroticism to his subjects disguised with a thin veneer of youthful vibrancy and the usual snakes & snails and puppy dog tails elements to make it seem ambiguous.

Interesting subject, but a bit gross.

Anything that has a combination of felt, dogs, and poker have a place on my wall.

DarkKnight1 said:

AsianBomb777 said:

Just about the time I clease my mind of these fucked up pics...you bring them back into focus. Although, I do have the urge watch He-Man now. Skeletor was my favorite character.

Ellen Von Unwerth's. I love her trashy-glamorous photographs.