"I think it's the framing of this post. The unrealistic body image of Disney heroines is a low hanging fruit of cultural criticism, and rendering them as truly realistic would actually be very interesting. It also would be a good test of an artist's skills. This artist might have a modicum of talent but to ignore that potential is dissapointing, at least to me. Rendering them as vapid pinups is low hanging fruit of a different sort."So, how would you frame it? You seem to be wanting an imagining of the Disney princesses with varied bodytypes, with a shift away from the slender frame typical of mainstream commercial modeling. Truthfully, I too thought that might be what the OP meant by "realistic," I can't argue with realistic being accurately used to describe this as well. I met a girl who came into my work who looked like she could've posed for that image of Ariel, and I was at a wedding last night where one of the bridesmaids looked exactly like Meg... except with a nose and mouth that actually looked three dimensional. While this images of the princesses as model skinny doesn't show a typical, average, healthy body - its still in the realm of possibility. Unlike barbie or some other stupid plastic doll craze.
His photography, however, is interesting (Ok, there may be another word to use here, but I can't determine what it is).Looks like pretty standard fasion photography to me. Although his self-portraits kind of make him look like a huge douche.
Is it actually possible to be let down by criticism?I looked at the link and though "oh, pretty good paintings" then came here and it's like, bizzaro land.
Is it amazing? No. Is it as god awful as everyone implies, not really.
« Older 12 Bottle Bar, a site dedicated to classic cocktai... | Too many great animated music ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
.jpg){kind=link}
posted by Dr Dracator at 6:38 AM on October 23, 2011 [41 favorites]