04/19/2006: "The naked truth"
I'm re-writing my post today because: A. it was boring and B. I just read something over on Daniel North's blog that touched a nerve. The United States is such a strange mix of the insanely religious and prudish on one side, and rampant commercialism that uses sex to sell absolutely everything on the other.
Last week I sent Rob Roys (owner of the gallery I'll show at in May) a link to the article Postal Clerk Rejects Nude because he's going to use multiple images for the invites and I was worried about using the majority of my images because of the dreaded nipple-factor. Why is it a woman's nipples are so much more offensive than a man's? OH! that gives me an idea for a series...what do you think about this: paintings of gender neutral humans (leaning slightly towards the feminine) topless but wearing jeans...if they are perceived as male, no problem...oh, and shown next to paintings of large men with matronly breasts?
Anyway, this only matters because if you paint nudes there are places that will not show your work; I always make sure to send the "least offensive" of my images to the newspaper, such as from behind and with zero butt crackage or else it won't be published. What I find so frustrating is that partial nudity capitalized in TV and ad campaigns is far more sexually charged than the nudity seen in the vast majority of paintings out there. What gives?
On a different note, and Hollyís post today is about an art history writing assignment she gave her class that involved selecting and critiquing groups of art work as though they were curators, and one of the pieces she used as an example was mine! Apparently I fared better than Picasso (I didnít like his work when I was young either), how cool is that? Almosts makes being a failed artist bearable.