NSFW: Assholes: Art Exhibit in Portuguese Museum Called "The Eye of the Anus" on Display
165 replies, posted
Wait, they're anuses? I thought it was an exhibit about world politicians.
I was thinking that maybe this is meant to be interpreted based on one's perception of it, but it doesn't leave anything to the imagination at all. They're just butt holes.
ok let me be serious for a minute
Have you ever looked at an anus before willingly? Like actually stared and thought about one? You haven't? Why? Because it's "gross" and "disgusting" and poop comes from there? Who gives a fuck? Stop being a pussy and be logical for second.
People say the human body is one of nature's greatest creations; the arms, the legs, the eyes, the face, the neck, the thighs, the hair, and the chest are all beautiful: why is the asshole an exception? Because it smells? Well this guy was courteous enough to provide you with a PICTURE of one, not a real one, so you don't have to deal with any smell or the possibility of poop.
Okay, so there's no poop and no smell. What's the problem? It looks disgusting? It's just a hole. Literally, a hole with some hair around it. That's all. Pretty much all preconceived notions you have about the anus are suddenly invalid when you put it into picture format. Sure, it may not be something you want to go out of your way to look at, but who cares? You look at gross shit every day and don't even blink an eye. Just man up and take a minute out of your day to seriously wonder why this guy took the effort to take high quality pictures of assholes. Art is about conveying emotions, thoughts, or ideas. Maybe the entire point of this piece of "art" is to bring up questions like these. I've only covered the tip of the iceberg and there's still a lot to wonder about this.
[QUOTE=koeniginator;42624066]ok let me be serious for a minute
Have you ever looked at an anus before willingly? Like actually stared and thought about one? You haven't? Why? Because it's "gross" and "disgusting" and poop comes from there? Who gives a fuck? Stop being a pussy and be logical for second.
People say the human body is one of nature's greatest creations; the arms, the legs, the face, the neck, the thighs, the hair, and the chest are all beautiful: why is the asshole an exception? Because it smells? Well this guy was courteous enough to provide you with a PICTURE of one, not a real one, so you don't have to deal with any smell or the possibility of poop.
Okay, so there's no poop and no smell. What's the problem? It looks disgusting? It's just a hole. Literally, a hole with some hair around it. That's all. Pretty much all preconceived notions you have about the anus are suddenly invalid when you put it into picture format. Sure, it may not be something you want to go out of your way to look at, but who cares? You look at gross shit every day and don't even blink an eye. Just man up and take a minute out of your day to seriously wonder why this guy took the effort to take high quality pictures of assholes. Art is about conveying emotions, thoughts, or ideas. Maybe the entire point of this piece of "art" is to bring up questions like these. I've only covered the tip of the iceberg and there's still a lot to wonder about this.[/QUOTE]
this is what art is supposed to do. promote discussion and thought. this post right here is proof that these pictures of assholes are art
but facepunch's all-mighty ART SQUAD has the highest authority on what is and isn't art, like "ugh steel balls on the side of the road? not art!!" or "a sculpture that's just a black cube? why can't modern artists be like [artist that probably had the same hand-waving rhetoric thrown at him when he was alive]???"
-snip-
[QUOTE=megafat;42623259]I know this isn't quite about the art, but if art is produced to communicate and express, why do people always give other people shit when they don't get it and can't give a clear answer to what a specific piece of art means? I know a piece of art can be interpreted in many ways, but i feel like a vague interpretation doesn't really help.[/QUOTE]
If you're looking for easy right/wrong answers then maybe art isn't the medium for you.
Stick to fact books or something that isn't abstract.
I am now a firm believer that only certain things should be allowed to be called "art"
[QUOTE=Dah-thla;42624451]I am now a firm believer that only certain things should be allowed to be called "art"[/QUOTE]
Is this soviet russia again?
Realism or bust
[QUOTE=megafat;42623015]It's pictures of assholes. It's not pretty, nor does it convey any message.[/QUOTE]
I think the message is the kind of people who pay money to see this stuff are assholes.
Actually I don't care if that's the message or not, that's what I got from it and I'm sticking to it.
Call this piece, "le rectus stretcharoonie del anime", please don't clutter this thread with praise.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/2iGxOWM.png[/img]
[editline]23rd October 2013[/editline]
copyright morphology53 all years don't steal
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;42623893]it's art
your opinion or my opinion does nothing to affect that[/QUOTE]
All I know is that art has taken a U-turn when photography came around, it was unchained from it's social role of potraying reality and instead started focusing on it's other pillar, author's interpretation. That is modern art for you. 100% iterpretation, 0% fidelty to reality.
I get it it's meant to be pictures of assholes that doesn't stand for assholes, or so the author would argue.
The fact is that those are pictures of assholes, not canvas of assholes. They were not interpreted by the author. They did not go through his sensibility- they were caught by a machine, loaded into another machine, and shat out by another machine. Machines do not interpret. Machines gives a frame of what is real. Those are, then, pictures of assholes.
The author wants to gather attention / stir up trouble / do something new.
source I got my conclusions from: [url=http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/Bazin-Ontology-Photographic-Image.pdf]Bazin's [i]The Onthology of Photograpic Image[/i][/url]. :downs:
Oh yeah, it's totally nothing but edgy "SEE ANYTHING CAN BE ART" probably. I'm not fond of everyone's obsession over that concept. But it's not like art is suffering because of it or anything.
wasnt there something very similar but with vaginas?
[QUOTE=Take_Opal;42624748]Oh yeah, it's totally nothing but edgy "SEE ANYTHING CAN BE ART" probably. I'm not fond of everyone's obsession over that concept. But it's not like art is suffering because of it or anything.[/QUOTE]
Art is suffering because of the overabundance of images we're exposed to, and there's nothing we can do about it either. Images are produced in a blink of an eye, edited to one's liking and given to the public. Isn't that the reason we argue art/not art/my art is artsier than yours anyway?
The solution to wondering why someone can just shit in a jar and call it art is to realize that something being considered "art" adds no intrinsic value.
Am I the only one who thought "Art" meant "A creatively made object or picture" when I was a kid, and not "Anything and everything"?
[QUOTE=Simski;42622404]I love this image
[img]http://www.lautreinfo.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/expo-anus1.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
this picture actually looks artistic imo haha
I never saw that much of a close-up on an anus.
It looks like someone tried to swallow their own lips.
[QUOTE=megafat;42623110]If anything can be considered art, does somethings mere existence qualify something as art?[/QUOTE]
Congratulations you just embarked on the same journey many people before you have embarked on to discover. Seriously there are so many theories on what art is, if art should have standards, what standards are, what the point of art is, what qualifies as art, how art should be enjoyed. You got Kant, Tolstoy, Nieztsche and many, many more who put forth their own arguments and theories for this.
Even take a look here:
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42623134]No.
Art is produced to communicate and express.
Art literally doesn't grow on trees. It needs human agency.[/QUOTE]
Even this is completely up for debate, this is following the theory of expressionism which but even then it divulges into more theories on top of that theory. Should art communicate the artists expression, or should the audience experience their own regardless of what the artist had in mind.
This whole thing is a slippery, slipper slope of philosophical debates.
[editline]23rd October 2013[/editline]
Also this is pretty much on par with "The Great Wall of Vagina"
Except i guess the vagina one is more about body acceptance.
[IMG]http://www.thegloss.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Great-Wall-of-Vagina.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.dontpaniconline.com/media/magazine/body/2011-03-21/images/Great Wall of Vagina and the artist 2mb_1.jpg[/IMG]
Yeah those are all casts of people's vaginas on the wall.
[QUOTE=MenteR;42625119]this picture actually looks artistic imo haha[/QUOTE]
"I work minimum wage buffing the floors of a place where the walls are lined with million dollar images of asses."
[QUOTE=mysteryman;42625801]Even this is completely up for debate, this is following the theory of expressionism which but even then it divulges into more theories on top of that theory. Should art communicate the artists expression, or should the audience experience their own regardless of what the artist had in mind.[/QUOTE]
I would like to point out that what I said no way refers to that debate.
Not that I'm trying to detract from what you're trying to explain for him here.
Just sayin~
i swear the word "art" was much simpler before I got to facepunch.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;42625890]I would like to point out that what I said no way refers to that debate.
Not that I'm trying to detract from what you're trying to explain for him here.
Just sayin~[/QUOTE]
It doesn't refer to that debate, but what you said is widely widely debated, that's all i was saying. To get across my point that the very question he asked is one that people have been trying to figure out for centuries.
goatse must be the centerpiece
For your pleasure
[video=youtube;Ga-ijQP0KxY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga-ijQP0KxY[/video]
[QUOTE=mysteryman;42625801]
[IMG]http://www.dontpaniconline.com/media/magazine/body/2011-03-21/images/Great Wall of Vagina and the artist 2mb_1.jpg[/IMG]
Yeah those are all casts of people's vaginas on the wall.[/QUOTE]
i don't care what people say i actually find this really neat.
[QUOTE=koeniginator;42624066]ok let me be serious for a minute
Have you ever looked at an anus before willingly? Like actually stared and thought about one? You haven't? Why? Because it's "gross" and "disgusting" and poop comes from there? Who gives a fuck? Stop being a pussy and be logical for second.
People say the human body is one of nature's greatest creations; the arms, the legs, the eyes, the face, the neck, the thighs, the hair, and the chest are all beautiful: why is the asshole an exception? Because it smells? Well this guy was courteous enough to provide you with a PICTURE of one, not a real one, so you don't have to deal with any smell or the possibility of poop.
Okay, so there's no poop and no smell. What's the problem? It looks disgusting? It's just a hole. Literally, a hole with some hair around it. That's all. Pretty much all preconceived notions you have about the anus are suddenly invalid when you put it into picture format. Sure, it may not be something you want to go out of your way to look at, but who cares? You look at gross shit every day and don't even blink an eye. Just man up and take a minute out of your day to seriously wonder why this guy took the effort to take high quality pictures of assholes. Art is about conveying emotions, thoughts, or ideas. Maybe the entire point of this piece of "art" is to bring up questions like these. I've only covered the tip of the iceberg and there's still a lot to wonder about this.[/QUOTE]
It's not that I don't consider this art.
It's just that this isn't the kind of art that I enjoy or find at all appealing.
How on earth can anyone look at this stuff without feeling uncomfortable?
[QUOTE=MenteR;42625119]this picture actually looks artistic imo haha[/QUOTE]
Don't you just love the juxtaposition of him trying to keep the floors clean with dirty assholes staring him right in the face? It's surreal.
[QUOTE=megafat;42623015]OK, I'll roll with it despite me disagreeing with it.
But i wish people would criticize the people behind these things for being lazy pieces of shit who contribute nothing to the art world.
It's pictures of assholes. It's not pretty, nor does it convey any message.[/QUOTE]
the message is that anything is art
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
