Friday, August 29, 2008

A CORRECTION


Due to the vocalized complaints about the nude by Jenny Saville, I have removed the said "offensive" painting. Again, I only did this because I share this blog with others. If it were solely my blog rest assured I would not cower to individuals who are easily offended by wonderful works of art. It's also sad that usually the loudest vocally are usually in the minority... and the minority usually gets its way, but that's the way life goes, eh?

I do recommend checking out Saville's paintings. The one I posted was the least grotesque--she is much like Lucian Freud, as in she doesn't flatter the human form. But that's why I love her work--it's intriguing.

Again, as I'd said below, I grew up around art. There were plenty of books in my parents' house with nudes in them. Even WORSE my dad often painted my mom nude and then I had to see her big butt hanging on the living room wall! There's nothing wrong with the human body--we ALL have one. Some may wish that we didn't have certain features, but none the less, it's all there, whether you like it or not. If children were exposed to the human form at an early age then they wouldn't equate it with sex. It's the same thing as letting kids have sips of wine when they're younger--then they don't go hog wild when they turn 21.

I will also post the names of the artists when I get the chance... and websites if I can find them.

I will also clarify that I posted the paintings because that's what I was looking at to get my creative juices flowing. There are a few projects that I really have to get going on and sometimes looking at art helps.

For example: for my book on bubble gum I was toying with different looks for the book--I usually pick an artist as inspiration. For this book I’ve decided on Wayne Thiebaud. Here are a few of his paintings.





So stay tuned. A book on bubble gum is coming!

Your ever controversial BRG member,
meghan

8 comments:

christine tripp said...

If children were exposed to the human form at an early age then they wouldn't equate it with sex.

It's called Child birth and then "BREAST" feeding and it's all the rage! I'm sorry you felt you had to take your post down. Minority of "1"? In Canada we all thought the US was a democracy, but really, there is no such thing, sounds nice though:D

christine tripp said...

Oh, one other thing, that last illustration posted did have a lot to do with Children's illustration. It was by Dave Cooper(from my home town of Ottawa, Ont. Canada) who goes by the name of Hector Mumbly for his children's book's (Bagels lost hat) and his adult stuff is astounding!

Anonymous said...

You should be arguing that there's nothing wrong with sex. To argue that the human form has nothing to do with sex is just odd.

Meghan said...

Last poster - Who are you? Are you trying to start an argument?

I love Dave Cooper--his work is pretty nutty.

Meghan said...

Okay, I'll answer you. I don't see why I should be arguing that there's nothing wrong with sex. In certain situations there is nothing wrong with sex... but I don't believe a 13 year old, for example, should be exposed to all the ins and outs of it. Why is it odd to say that the human form has nothing to do with sex? Animals don't wear clothes--do you think of your family pet as a walking sex toy? Breasts have a purpose--to feed a child. Our society has made them sexual. If you go to a nudist camp, you'll see that the people there aren't walking around to display anything sexual.

Again, go take a nude model class and then report back. It's not sexual. Not even remotely. And please don't tell me what I should and shouldn't be arguing. I suggest you get your own blog if you think my comments are "just odd."

meghan

Anonymous said...

Just to clarify, I'm not associated with this anonymous. I'm the one who thought the graphic nude didn't belong on this blog. By the way, animals are a little bit different then people when it comes to wearing clothes. I know they wear clothes in picture books, but to try and compare it in real life is like apples and oranges. Obviously it's not sexual when your dog is nude, but your 18 yr old babysitter, that's a different story. It's human nature to think sexually when someone is nude-let's be honest, it's in our chemical make-up.

Anonymous said...

And I'm the other anonymous! Not trying to start an argument, sorry if it seems that way, and I've done plenty of figure drawing, thanks. I just think that sexuality is in the mix when you're drawing the figure. It's not the whole thing, and usually it's not the main thing, but it's in the mix. And I have no problem with that. It's part of being human. The impulse to deny it entirely is what I don't get.

Again, I'm not trying to be argumentative. That's just how I see it. You can always just disable comments if you're not interested in this sort of back and forth.

Anonymous said...

I like back and forth but I'm afraid that the other members will be pissed at me if I start a war. Of course all humans are sexual so it'll always be there somewhere... lurking... but I just don't think a nude painting or drawing has to be sexual. It really doesn't. I drew and painted RISD's resident 80 year old many times and believe me it was NOT sexual! It was about watching someone age and what age does to the body.

meghan