Woman goes topless for art

[aznronin]

[Shomari]

so this guy is painting some hot chick in the middle of New York with some bright colors. Art my ass.

[Scarth]

"I like doing live painting.."

YOU PERVERT.

[antics]

i think any man would love to paint a naked women

[MrTwilliger]

There's been countless examples of people posing naked for art in public places, I can't quite remember the name but a photographer is well known for capturing a gathering of 100+ people, all naked, posing in the middle of a town. It's 2011, the idea of a naked woman is hardly radical any more. Now if it was the 1960's, then it might be a different story.

[Amarisa]

There's been countless examples of people posing naked for art in public places, I can't quite remember the name but a photographer is well known for capturing a gathering of 100+ people, all naked, posing in the middle of a town. It's 2011, the idea of a naked woman is hardly radical any more. Now if it was the 1960's, then it might be a different story.

Plus anyone who knows how to work the internet can see a naked human any time they want. Some people are just not open to their sexual nature for what ever the reason.

[Tasdik]

Reporter: "Is this the first time you've seen a naked woman?"

Boy: "No."

Lol'd.

[takolin]

i think any man would love to paint a naked women

I wouldn't.

[ltsune]

Reporter: "Is this the first time you've seen a naked woman?"

Boy: "No."

Lol'd.

And the dad's look afterwards... it was just hilarious

[Mirosuke]

Reporter: "Is this the first time you've seen a naked woman?"

Boy: "No."

Lol'd.

And the dad's look afterwards... it was just hilarious

Rofl.

[The Invisible]

This is has nothing to do with art, its just public nudity. If a man shows his stuff, he will be arrested and charged with flashing, but when a woman does, its art.

[*BlackFox]

ROFL

[inky]

It's his own perception of art and it's not the kind that comes with just a few random brush strokes like those neo-abstract 'paintings' talentless pseudo-artists produce these days. (I'll take a picture of one from my work place office later if I have the chance)

Maybe he has some perverted incentive for doing his work underneath it all but that would be a wild accusation from our standpoint. Either way, it's just another form of art work that some people appreciate and some people find atrocious. If I'm lucky enough, I might see a few painted naked ladies on the street or in the subway later (I work 5 blocks away from times square lol)

[MrJoey]

lol @ :59, guy staring at the girl on the subway.

[Amarisa]

This is has nothing to do with art, its just public nudity. If a man shows his stuff, he will be arrested and charged with flashing, but when a woman does, its art.

Because most people like how a women looks, even women. However men on the other hand are not like women at all. They are built for working.

Women have all these curves and are naturally pleasing to the eye. Men are rough and boxed shaped not as pleasing to the eye.

It's art because it's taking advantage of that.

[BuDo]

Before most of you here start boxing in the definition of art based on your spoon fed idea of what art is you all need to realize that art is simply an expression (of any kind). This is in its own right....art.

[antics]

i think any man would love to paint a naked women

I wouldn't.

[takolin]

i think any man would love to paint a naked women

I wouldn't.

Are you implying I'm not a man?

[MrTwilliger]

Erg, the fact that this thread even exists further justifies the thought and expression put into the artists work. He isn't simply painting a naked body for the sake of painting it, if he was why would he do it in public? By setting up the scenario the way he did, he tries to break down the idea that the human body in it's raw form is something that should be hidden away by insecurity and fear of judgement. The body is turned from it's 'seclusive' state to effectively being a blank canvas: a stage for which beauty and creativity can can evolve.

If you think that this sort of thing isn't "art", than please, do define what you think art is. The artist has a motive, and aim and the expressions and undertones are present in his work. It may not be all that shocking or new age any more, but it's still art none the less.

[Doron]

at least she wasn't obese.

[_Clitrix_]

he paints with his boner

[-.-]

if he only looks at the body as a canvas, skin is skin... I want to see him be a real artist and paint on naked men instead

[Bananaman]

Erg, the fact that this thread even exists further justifies the thought and expression put into the artists work. He isn't simply painting a naked body for the sake of painting it, if he was why would he do it in public? By setting up the scenario the way he did, he tries to break down the idea that the human body in it's raw form is something that should be hidden away by insecurity and fear of judgement.

if that was really the case then he needs to do it with a man's body for reasons stated in earlier posts.

I bet you that there wouldn't be a crowd whimsically looking on while he paints a naked man.

. . .it would be a crowd of angry police with billy clubs...

[MrTwilliger]

Erg, the fact that this thread even exists further justifies the thought and expression put into the artists work. He isn't simply painting a naked body for the sake of painting it, if he was why would he do it in public? By setting up the scenario the way he did, he tries to break down the idea that the human body in it's raw form is something that should be hidden away by insecurity and fear of judgement.

if that was really the case then he needs to do it with a man's body for reasons stated in earlier posts.

I bet you that there wouldn't be a crowd whimsically looking on while he paints a naked man.

. . .it would be a crowd of angry police with billy clubs...

That's exactly the artists point! Oh god I wish people could see this. The reason an artist would choose to paint a female body is because there's a general opinion in society which sees women as sexual object for a man disposal. It's basic evolution that men, the instigators of our reproductive cycle, have naturally higher hormone levels and have a higher level of sexual craving. This in turns has created a sort of sexual dominance from the male species which sees men objectifying women and in many cases treating them as nothing more than a source of sexual satisfaction.

The relevance of this? Well look what his art work has done. His art work has drawn attention to this fact, considering how many people are focusing on the fact that he is painting a woman and not just a person in general) and has further proved this point. People are looking at a man painting a woman and not judging it for it's artistic value, rather they are implying the social view that the only reason a man would paint a woman is because he's sexually attracted to her body. It highlights our tendency to focus on our primitive instincts of reproduction and sexual satisfaction as opposed to viewing things with a higher sense of perspective and intellect. He hasn't painted a female body because it's what he wants to do, rather it's because what society deems he should be doing!

The entire point, par the aesthetic nature of it, can be viewed a mass rebellion against the base instinct of man and the sexual objectification of women. The canvas (the human body) is meant to be transcend it's state of sexual objectification and transform into a piece of artistic expression!

When a man paints a woman, it's sexist. When a woman paints a woman, it's "sexy". When a man paints a man it's either "gay and disgusting" or seen as another attempt by the "gays" to further their cause. Society can't look at the art work and judge it for what it is: an artist transforming a seclusive and alluring object into a canvas of expression and creation. This, in it's essence, is the artistic value of the painting and the entire point that is trying to be conveyed.

I may have repeated the point a few times, but fuck it.

[Bananaman]

Erg, the fact that this thread even exists further justifies the thought and expression put into the artists work. He isn't simply painting a naked body for the sake of painting it, if he was why would he do it in public? By setting up the scenario the way he did, he tries to break down the idea that the human body in it's raw form is something that should be hidden away by insecurity and fear of judgement.

if that was really the case then he needs to do it with a man's body for reasons stated in earlier posts.

I bet you that there wouldn't be a crowd whimsically looking on while he paints a naked man.

. . .it would be a crowd of angry police with billy clubs...

That's exactly the artists point! Oh god I wish people could see this. The reason an artist would choose to paint a female body is because there's a general opinion in society which sees women as sexual object for a man disposal. It's basic evolution that men, the instigators of our reproductive cycle, have naturally higher hormone levels and have a higher level of sexual craving. This in turns has created a sort of sexual dominance from the male species which sees men objectifying women and in many cases treating them as nothing more than a source of sexual satisfaction.

The relevance of this? Well look what his art work has done. His art work has drawn attention to this fact, considering how many people are focusing on the fact that he is painting a woman and not just a person in general) and has further proved this point. People are looking at a man painting a woman and not judging it for it's artistic value, rather they are implying the social view that the only reason a man would paint a woman is because he's sexually attracted to her body. It highlights our tendency to focus on our primitive instincts of reproduction and sexual satisfaction as opposed to viewing things with a higher sense of perspective and intellect. He hasn't painted a female body because it's what he wants to do, rather it's because what society deems he should be doing!

The entire point, par the aesthetic nature of it, can be viewed a mass rebellion against the base instinct of man and the sexual objectification of women. The canvas (the human body) is meant to be transcend it's state of sexual objectification and transform into a piece of artistic expression!

When a man paints a woman, it's sexist. When a woman paints a woman, it's "sexy". When a man paints a man it's either "gay and disgusting" or seen as another attempt by the "gays" to further their cause. Society can't look at the art work and judge it for what it is: an artist transforming a seclusive and alluring object into a canvas of expression and creation. This, in it's essence, is the artistic value of the painting and the entire point that is trying to be conveyed.

I may have repeated the point a few times, but fuck it.

oh damn, that's actually pretty damn good. Didnt think of it like that. . .pretty good artist, provoking thought without being in your face about it.

Mr. Twillinger wins+5 Internets.

[magisuns]

Reporter: "Is this the first time you've seen a naked woman?"

Boy: "No."

Lol'd.