Naked World

November 22, 2003 6:12 PM

Naked World.
posted by hama7 (18 comments total)

[via yakitori]
posted by hama7 at 6:14 PM on November 22, 2003

What is it? My browser says it doesn't exist. There is no naked world?
posted by Hildegarde at 6:17 PM on November 22, 2003

...ah, and here I was all excited.
posted by Stauf at 6:19 PM on November 22, 2003

you have to take away one of the https

it's a spencer tunick thing--interesting (although his work doesn't thrill me)
posted by amberglow at 6:21 PM on November 22, 2003

Fixed link.
posted by TimeFactor at 6:21 PM on November 22, 2003

Fastest 404 ever.
Nudity in any form is wrong.
posted by squirrel at 6:50 PM on November 22, 2003

even in the shower, squirrel?
posted by amberglow at 6:57 PM on November 22, 2003

Especially in the shower.

Okay, time to fess up. Surely there are some MeFiers in some of those pictures.
posted by ColdChef at 7:21 PM on November 22, 2003

Surely there are some MeFiers in some of those pictures.

I'm not totally certain, but the naked guy on the right looks like a MeFi user.


posted by gluechunk at 8:13 PM on November 22, 2003

Er, I meant the naked guy on the LEFT!
posted by gluechunk at 8:13 PM on November 22, 2003

Oh, this is that guy who is getting massive hype for inventing flash mobs of naked people -- he did the middle of some street or other in some town, right? I don't see the appeal, myself.

Also, why are so-called serious photographers putting such blurry, puny renditions of their work on the web, especially in bad flash interfaces? It really doesn't reflect well on them as professionals. Guys, take a cue from the porn: big honkin' JPEGs are a good thing.
posted by majick at 8:27 PM on November 22, 2003

I take all my cues from the porn.
posted by notme at 9:55 PM on November 22, 2003

I'm guessing they're against the (purported) evils of right-click, save-as. Or somesuch.

Me, I figure if somebody actually wants one of my crappy snapshots in full 1600*1200 glory, they're welcome to it...

What do they have against *thumbnails*, though? A little '+' or file folder icon doesn't tell me why I'd wanna click on it, and if you'd rather force a sense of narrative structure/mystery/suspense on me, there's better ways of doing it...
posted by arto at 2:35 AM on November 23, 2003

Also.
posted by riviera at 3:26 AM on November 23, 2003

Yet another candidate for most gratuitous use of flash, when Gallery is most appropriate.
posted by TuffAustin at 8:41 AM on November 23, 2003

I'm with you majick. I think artists who put crappy little copies of their images on the web are missing the point of this distribution system: letting more people see your work at its best. Artists chince in this regard seem self-absorbed and/or money-centered, as in "I must keep control of my work or it will spread like wildfire!"

Little-known artist should be thinking of web appearances as their moment to be seen, because for 95% of them this is it. Look good now. One of my pet peeve, I guess.

Hey, here's a picture of me naked in the park! Might as well drop your jaws and bug out your eyes now to save time.
posted by squirrel at 11:48 AM on November 23, 2003

Yo, don't fuck with the (design) work of Jennifer Sharpe.
posted by kmel at 7:15 PM on November 23, 2003

Hey, here's a picture of me naked in the park! Might as well drop your jaws and bug out your eyes now to save time.
posted by squirrel


Why squirrel....*flutter*...I nevah knew I could feel this way about anotha mammal....

/cheesy southern accent
posted by dejah420 at 8:10 PM on November 23, 2003