What is going on with the onlookers?! Why are they there?
In a word: orientalism. This art movement was predicated on the exoticism and “othering” of subject matter and the bystanders serve as a proxy for the audience of the art itself.
Thank you for your response!
Welcome! I should have linked the wiki but here you go: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism
Edward Said’s Orientalism is a real slog to read, but definitely the foundational academic work on this, if your interest is piqued.
Orientalism wasn’t an art movement, the picture is in “academic” style.
IMO your interpretation can be put in a more straightforward/blunt way: the painting is basically pornography built upon cheap cultural stereotypes. (And it really is bizarre that this sort of garbage art gets upvoted to much, simply because it has an air of refinement around itself that excuses its clearly pornographic character.)
And it really is bizarre that this sort of garbage art gets upvoted to much, simply because it has an air of refinement around itself that excuses its clearly pornographic character.
Maybe we’re just upvoting it because we enjoy pornography…lol.
Well, I guess that would be fair, as long as we don’t confuse sexual appeal with artistic value. (Saying this in particular due to a poster guy ITT who said an another poster critical of the painting should “get some culture”.) But the fact that it is posted on an art sublemmy and not some NSFW sublemmy, suggests that the confusion has occurred.
But the fact that it is posted on an art sublemmy and not some NSFW sublemmy, suggests that the confusion has occurred.
Lol. Great point.
Now I find myself contemplating how long one could theoretically go with a daily cross-post that technically fit the rules of both this and at least one NSFW community…I wonder if they would ever run out of eligible art pieces…
This is sad. It’s basically a figure study in 4 parts. Go back and slap whomever you paid for your degree.
It’s basically a figure study in 4 parts.
Maybe you should slap your ophthalmologist instead. You’re acting as if the picture does not represent what it literally represents, or as if it does not have the effect that it clearly does have and which it also intended to have. I won’t argue any further against denial of reality.
The onlookers look like attendants of the guests.
Once the hookah is lit, they hold little panels with a note based on how well she did. The note count towards her global performance evaluation.
Nothing but vibes.
Man I wanna be chill like that
1898
But when I strip naked inside a shisha bar…
Sir, this is a Wendy’s.
And yet I STILL don’t have a frosty to dip my penis in!
“Description: Erroneous visions of the Eastern/oriental woman, historically seen only as a sexual object by the white man”
Ah yes. It was exclusively white men that saw women as sexual objects.
In the orientalism movement, lead by Europeans, wich this art is from, yes.
Sorry for you, I do not make the history.If you are unease with arts and the story behinds, don’t go to museums…
Why is she hunched over the thing in an awkward position? Why not simply hold the mouthpiece in your hand like you’re supposed to?
She’s blowing at the embers to get them to catch.
Can we get a NSFW tag for these please? I don’t want people thinking that I jackoff to 1800s oil paintings of naked women.
Please put an NSFW tag on this. I was on the train and when I saw this I had to start furiously masterbating. Everyone else gave me strange looks and were saying things like “what the fuck” and “call the police”. I dropped my phone and everyone around me saw this image. Now there is a whole train of men masterbating together at this one image. This is all your fault, you could have prevented this if you had just tagged this post NSFW.
If you’re cis white male, this behaviour is severely frowned upon. The police will just ask you all to do better, and then arrest the brown guy for watching a muckbang vid
No but you can get some culture if you let go of your backwards ass hyperconservative mindset.
Two days and many hours later and I still don’t get how you thought my original comment was written by a “hyperconservative.” I took it as a joke at first, but it seems like you were serious about your accusation. Why is that?
Because only hyper conservative people are so incredibly sensitive to images of normal human nudity. Not every naked person is obscene. Bodies are not inherently shameful, indecent, sexual, or otherwise in need of covering up.
I see your point. But I’m none of those things.
It’s not that I can’t find the beauty in this art piece. Whether that be the realistic look of everything in it, the dated shading technique, the ability to capture an intimate moment through painting, or perhaps something else. My humorous comment was to bring attention to the situation that not everyone wants to be able to see things with nudity in them, in their day to day browsing of Lemmy. I have family that come over and I don’t think it would be appropriate for my nieces or nephews to see nudity on my monitor without there being context and for there to be an appropriate occasion with their parents’ permission.
LOL, k.
Pornography is not suddenly a great and important piece of culture just because it was nicely painted with a brush a long time ago. It is still pornography.
What do you mean by “getting some culture”? You mean perhaps studying art history? Because I guarantee countless artists, art historians and critics would deny this painting has much cultural value. The whole style has been heavily and justifiably derired. If anything, what is conservative here is the painting’s view of women (painted according to the sexual tastes of rich European men) and stereotypical treatment of foreign culture.
Why do you think that every image of a naked person is pornography? What kind of a sick mindset is that? Do you think every anatomy book is pornography?
I don’t, in fact, think that every image of a naked person is pornography, so I won’t defend that view.
