Art critics out there.
 

What does this mean?

I like the fact that the crack of 'her' arse goes all the way up her back.

That's hot.

imagine having buttsecks with her.

I have never come accross a penis of that colour before.

i'm fond of this one by cecily brown

reminds me of

yeah, she's great

Before I ever saw Koons' stuff with Ciccolina, (& long before this obviously) I had the idea to do some pornography-inspired works from VCR stills just to cause a controversy & get my name out there in that manner. My girlfriend at the time (early '90s) thought I was nuts when I ran the idea by her, & I never went ahead with that plan.

it's difficult to adapt pornography into art without being obvious or stupid. it's something i've kind of wanted to do but the right idea has never really presented itself.

she's got the painters in?

I agree, Toilet. What I was gonna do was freeze-frame stuff from vhs that had a good composition (stuff from porno "films" like Andrew Blake) & that showed a minimal amount of "obscenity." The figures weren't going to be the only content either, unlike the painting porkmarras is calling our attention to which, if it is even Art with a capital "A," it's not very good or very important Art. Even Koons' "pornographic" works (the ones I've seen anyway) are not among any of his really good work, in my opinion.

All these years later, johnnywinternoshow has done something similar, only not with sex, but with violence. It's pretty brilliant of him too. Out of all the people in his graduating class (from the link he shared before), his paintings may not have been my favorite or the "best" formally (there were some incredibly gifted artists in his class), but his work is the most important and innovative, really.

I've never heard of Mihai Kuman. I like the way he uses colour, but that's about it.

I generally think that the idea of using pornography in the arts is a cheap stunt.As unshocking and undeserving of any serious thought as watching hardcore porn itself.

Erotic or libidinous images aren't new in the figurative arts and they have,rightly, an important place in them.What i'm saying here is that the way pornography is used by many an artist always strikes me as a desperate attempt to get attention.I have the same thoughts about religious images unless an interesting or fresh comment is being made with them.I'm not fond of using easy targets or readily available images because it has been done a trillion times before and with much better results than your average modern day 'shock at any cost' charlatan.

lol first timer

Francis Bacon
Diptych, 1982


Panel of a Diptych, 1982

Francis Bacon drew on artistic tradition to create imagery evocative of the anguish and fragmentation of contemporary human experience. Truncated, naked human forms occupy ambiguous, empty spaces in the two-paneled diptych format, which derives from Renaissance altar paintings. The distorted bodies, reduced almost solely to sexual organs blatantly demarcated by red arrows, are offered up as deranged sculptural objects on pedestals in a room erotically charged with sensuous red and orange walls.
Inspired by a photograph of famed British cricketeer David Gower, the male figure dons shin pads and extends his stumpy arms, encased in sporting gloves, in the position of a crouching wicket-keeper. His female companion, the amputated torso, poses absurdly in the provocative pose of one of the central figures from Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres's "Turkish Bathers" (1859-63). These sexualized yet repulsive beings stem from Bacon's broader investigation into the human body and movement, inspired largely by Eadward Muybridge's nineteenth-century photographs of figures in motion.

Totally and there is attention seeker and ATTENTION SEEKER!Bacon is one of my favourite artists and one who understood how to portray carnality without the need to shock but out of genuine interest.What he has to do with this thread still puzzles me though.

His interpretation of the human body and sexual organs is more erotic than a painting of two people having intercoarse.

well the reason i would want to make art involving porn is to do with stuff relating to the grotesque, the vulgar, but most importantly the absurd. but like pork said it's too easy to come off like you're trying to shock people. although i think there is nothing wrong with shocking people, but if your goal is to shock people the last thing you will probably ever do is shock anyone, so shock factor wouldn't be my motivation for making such werk. using porn in my art would be more for humourous reasons.