Join 3,438 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


It's just a bunch of squares
December 10, 2002 3:00 AM   Subscribe

I hope you find these abstract mosaics as stimulating as I do. But are they NSFW?
posted by Pretty_Generic (22 comments total)

 
yes. yes they are.
posted by joedan at 4:02 AM on December 10, 2002


I'm glad we've cleared that one up then.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:05 AM on December 10, 2002


They're great. Funny though, the thumbnails are NSFW, yet the fullsize ones are. Guess it depends how far from the screen you're standing, though...
posted by derbs at 4:06 AM on December 10, 2002


Pornographic pixels: proliferate!
posted by hama7 at 4:12 AM on December 10, 2002


Appears that hardcore pornography seems to be the 'in' thing in contemporary art at the moment.

See also Turner Prize nominee Fiona Banner's 'Arsewoman' piece.

http://www.fionabanner.com/present/theworks/arsewoman.htm
posted by derbs at 4:14 AM on December 10, 2002


Yes. If pixellated porn is art, and synopsis of porn is art, then why isn't porn art?

What is art?

Actually, forget I asked that.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:18 AM on December 10, 2002


Thanks, Pretty_Generic! Great start to a day, that was.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:18 AM on December 10, 2002


Hey, Miguel! Shut up!

heh
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:21 AM on December 10, 2002


Good call, derbs, but the problem with the Turner is that everything is written cheesy "Penthouse forum" porn-flick style, whereas these painted particulars are putting out in a penetratingly pointed pragmatic presentation.
posted by hama7 at 4:25 AM on December 10, 2002


Remind me, hama7, who is Sesame Street brought to me by today?
posted by Pretty_Generic at 4:27 AM on December 10, 2002


who is Sesame Street brought to me by today?

Odd....placement...of...prepositions...can't....

Sesame street has been brought to you by the pusillanimous penchant for pixel perverted porn.
posted by hama7 at 5:05 AM on December 10, 2002


I like funkin with da syzzzyntax.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 5:23 AM on December 10, 2002


OMG. $410 for hand painted photoshop pixellated porn? There's gold in them thar hills!
posted by crunchland at 5:24 AM on December 10, 2002


As somebody once said, "What you think you see is more important than what you see."
posted by alumshubby at 6:44 AM on December 10, 2002


Obligitory link to the man who originally came up with this idea, and the painting that started it all here.

This would be so damned easy to do nowadays with Photoshop and a few tubes of paint. I'm gonna do it. And I'll charge ten bucks less than his.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:08 AM on December 10, 2002


It doesn't matter how easy it is, Civil_Disobedient, he still thought to do it before you.

These are wonderful, Pretty_Generic -- thanks for sharing!!
posted by Robot Johnny at 7:39 AM on December 10, 2002


I'm not so sure these are "real" physical paintings, the photoshop technique is pretty obvious to anyone who's spent time with the Filter>Texture>Patchwork commands, with a little craquelure thrown in. Why no contact information for "sales" if they were real?

Just musing out loud, is all.
posted by jeremias at 7:45 AM on December 10, 2002


They look pretty real to me, jeremias. The texture, if you look closely, seems a bit too complex for photoshoppery. You can see the edge of the canvas on a couple too. I'm sure the artist used something like an enlarged Photoshop image as a reference though.

They're kind of interesting, but if I bought one it'd be for laughs more than anything. I'd hang it on my living room wall so visitors could see it. It'd be fun to see how many people would actually ask about what it was. I'd tell them it was a landscape and let them think their dirty minds led their eyes astray.
posted by picea at 8:08 AM on December 10, 2002


pretty clever, I reckon. I just got an idea on how I could use one, my mom lives in a pretty small apartment so I could buy her one and hang it in her hallway and she'd never know what it was because she couldn't see it from far back enough!
posted by mcsweetie at 9:41 AM on December 10, 2002


It would be easy to bring the pixilated image into the amazing Corel Painter and clone it to look like oils. If you are good with traditional 2D media (pastels, oils, charcoal, etc), Painter is a delight.
posted by Scoo at 10:55 AM on December 10, 2002


depends on how big your living room is, picea -- from across the room, it would be NSFIL (not safe for inlaws).

Actually i'd guess this is much more impressive in a gallery setting -- the thumbs give away the gag, and change the pacing of it. If you walked into a gallery and saw this "porn" across the room, then walked up to it and got the experience of the image de-resolving before your very eyes -- well that's the fun of it.
posted by condour75 at 1:17 PM on December 10, 2002


Ooh...I was just trying to come up with something "crafty" to make as xmas gifts for my friends...now where did I put those old copies of Japanese Playboy?
posted by squasha at 5:09 PM on December 10, 2002


« Older The Illustrated Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám....  |  Yeah, Yeah, Yeah:... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments