if this were your own work, what would you title it? i’ve actually already given it a title, but i’m just curious to hear what it evokes/how you would identify it without my direction. second question: if you were to imagine one physcial object that this image might represent, what would it be?
well, whenever you have your next, do let me know. and thanks for the first, of course. this piece is actually part of a pretty large series i’ve been working on for a while, and i’ve been discussing it with a professor of mine, but since it isn’t for any class, i haven’t actually had any other input. i’ve been sitting with them so long, it’s hard for me to see them anymore. i have no idea what they look like, really, unless other people tell me.
Is the pubic innuendo overtly intentional? I just ask that because most of the images I create seem to have – often unconsciously – genital allusions (i.e. see post below).
nope. i didn’t actually think of it until you guys came back with “rug” and “bush.” but that’s why i asked the question in the first place…
it’s pretty obvious, now that you’ve pointed it out, but having arrived at the piece from a different angle, i just hadn’t looked at it that way. actually, i quite like that image/metaphor, but i get so tired of all this genital stuff… the allusions, that is, not the parts. i just feel like everywhere i look, every image i look at, there they are. not only gender, but with it, race. always gender and race. naturally, that’s because they are everywhere, in everything, but it just starts to feel too easy and, at the same time, exhausting.
on that note, just for the hell of it, i’m going to post a blatantly genital piece that i made a few weeks ago. i guess that as sick as i may get of discussing the things, i couldn’t ever really get sick of them. who could?
i really like this work. i’d call it trample. and i think it looks like a lawn.
thanks for mentioning being sick of the genitalization of visuality. sometimes i think it’d have been better if freud had stuck to hypnotizing people in person rather than through books.
I agree with anonymous, men’s room wall scribbler he or fe may be. Besides, when you said Freud, are you sure you didn’t mean Hugh Heffner?
I didn’t originally see a pube patch, honestly, until Jed said “bush.” I didn’t even see it when I said “rug.” What I found most interesting about the work was how you created a frame that seems to be both negative and positive space, and what’s more, it’s no different than the background for the piece, which almost seems to be the subject, since what I took from the drawing itself (the black) was that it was hiding the background. That doesn’t make any sense, but maybe I could say in other words that I think the key to this work for me is in asking what is shown and what is not meant to be seen – or meant to be not seen. In that sense, it asks whether drawing is creating an image, or covering something else up.
if this were your own work, what would you title it? i’ve actually already given it a title, but i’m just curious to hear what it evokes/how you would identify it without my direction. second question: if you were to imagine one physcial object that this image might represent, what would it be?
December 7th, 2006 | #
Here’s my first reaction, which would not be my last:
title: “Beige”
object: rug
December 7th, 2006 | #
well, whenever you have your next, do let me know. and thanks for the first, of course. this piece is actually part of a pretty large series i’ve been working on for a while, and i’ve been discussing it with a professor of mine, but since it isn’t for any class, i haven’t actually had any other input. i’ve been sitting with them so long, it’s hard for me to see them anymore. i have no idea what they look like, really, unless other people tell me.
December 8th, 2006 | #
bush
December 8th, 2006 | #
title: “Folly Cull”
Is the pubic innuendo overtly intentional? I just ask that because most of the images I create seem to have – often unconsciously – genital allusions (i.e. see post below).
December 8th, 2006 | #
nope. i didn’t actually think of it until you guys came back with “rug” and “bush.” but that’s why i asked the question in the first place…
it’s pretty obvious, now that you’ve pointed it out, but having arrived at the piece from a different angle, i just hadn’t looked at it that way. actually, i quite like that image/metaphor, but i get so tired of all this genital stuff… the allusions, that is, not the parts. i just feel like everywhere i look, every image i look at, there they are. not only gender, but with it, race. always gender and race. naturally, that’s because they are everywhere, in everything, but it just starts to feel too easy and, at the same time, exhausting.
on that note, just for the hell of it, i’m going to post a blatantly genital piece that i made a few weeks ago. i guess that as sick as i may get of discussing the things, i couldn’t ever really get sick of them. who could?
December 9th, 2006 | #
i really like this work. i’d call it trample. and i think it looks like a lawn.
thanks for mentioning being sick of the genitalization of visuality. sometimes i think it’d have been better if freud had stuck to hypnotizing people in person rather than through books.
December 11th, 2006 | #
Oh come on, it wasn’t Freud who “hypnotized” people into seeing genitals everywhere. It was my penis.
December 12th, 2006 | #
I agree with anonymous, men’s room wall scribbler he or fe may be.
Besides, when you said Freud, are you sure you didn’t mean Hugh Heffner?
I didn’t originally see a pube patch, honestly, until Jed said “bush.” I didn’t even see it when I said “rug.” What I found most interesting about the work was how you created a frame that seems to be both negative and positive space, and what’s more, it’s no different than the background for the piece, which almost seems to be the subject, since what I took from the drawing itself (the black) was that it was hiding the background. That doesn’t make any sense, but maybe I could say in other words that I think the key to this work for me is in asking what is shown and what is not meant to be seen – or meant to be not seen. In that sense, it asks whether drawing is creating an image, or covering something else up.
December 12th, 2006 | #
(even if that something is nothing)
December 12th, 2006 | #