Join 3,497 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Graffiti on Girls (NSFW)
September 19, 2006 2:55 AM   Subscribe

Graffiti on Girls (NSFW)
posted by srboisvert (116 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
Wow. Quality stuff.
posted by Flashman at 3:05 AM on September 19, 2006


This is what happens when kids can't get access to subway cars.
posted by bashos_frog at 3:08 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


If this is the best of the web then I am a horse with a canteloupe for a head.
posted by liquorice at 3:13 AM on September 19, 2006


Board up the windows. Here comes a shitstorm.
posted by redteam at 3:19 AM on September 19, 2006


I like good graffiti and I like sexy girls. However, when I look at these pictures, it makes me feel kind of skeezy. It creeps me out way more than this.
posted by chillmost at 3:26 AM on September 19, 2006


breast of the web
posted by lemonfridge at 3:28 AM on September 19, 2006


"You must be to register": WTF does that mean? ESL?
posted by cgc373 at 3:29 AM on September 19, 2006


Shame the best link of the day contest didn't extend into September.
posted by Devils Slide at 3:35 AM on September 19, 2006


Anybody else here flash on Laugh-In?
posted by pax digita at 4:10 AM on September 19, 2006


http://www.graffitiongirls.com/TATgallery.html
NSFW if you work for a bunch of puritan MoFos. Or a company interested in avoiding frivolous litigation initiated by a jumped-up feminazi who, quite frankly, should really be getting on with the ironing.
posted by econous at 4:14 AM on September 19, 2006


Welcome to Dick Cheney's America
posted by Flashman at 4:22 AM on September 19, 2006


haha what?
posted by rxrfrx at 4:28 AM on September 19, 2006


I hope that they used toxic inks.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:32 AM on September 19, 2006


whose job is it that they get to draw on chicks? Or is this some dude that just knows a bunch of hood rats with nothing better to do? This is like a lot less classy version of this. (I dont know where you work, so let's not take any chances.)
posted by the theory of revolution at 4:35 AM on September 19, 2006


Who on earth would sit there and let their partner airbrush their hoohah* for two hours? Does it wash off?


* medical term
posted by mathowie at 4:41 AM on September 19, 2006


Who on earth would sit there and airbrush their partner's hoohah* for two hours? Really, who looks at tits and thinks 'Goodness me, my viewing pleasure would be enriched immeasurably by the application of a colourful graffito'?

*uncertain as to which body part this medical term refers to
posted by jack_mo at 4:57 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


The terrorists have lost.
posted by bardic at 5:01 AM on September 19, 2006


Oh man, and all that time I'd been writing the graffiti on buildings.

I was in Hawaii once and hanging out with a bunch of surfers and I noticed (at least with this particular bunch of surfers) that their girlfriends did nothing, pure ornament, didn't surf themselves, just kinda waited on the beach for the boys. But these graffiti girlfriends make those surfer girlfriends look like the editorial staff of fucking Ms. magazine circa 1974. Paint markers are pretty toxic.
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:03 AM on September 19, 2006


Finding Kemoe [Feb 17, 2006 at 11:55 AM]
Why paint on her face when you could have painted her ass!? Besides that cock and the mustache ...i think she looks cute! You should have asked the ass!
Adue [May 17, 2006 at 11:49 AM]
dude she is most likely passed the fuck out. thats the only reason to ever put a cock on someones face


However, as usual, it's in the comments where the real genius is to be found. You should have asked the ass indeed.
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:11 AM on September 19, 2006


Good to know that saying 'I'm an artist, baby' is still the best way to get a girl to take her clothes off.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 5:15 AM on September 19, 2006 [1 favorite]


If you're gonna tag a girl, the least you could do is come on them afterwards.
posted by fungible at 5:15 AM on September 19, 2006


'Goodness me, my viewing pleasure would be enriched immeasurably by the application of a colourful graffito'?

I'm just holding that sentence up to the light so I can appreciate it more.
posted by eriko at 5:20 AM on September 19, 2006


Well, speaking as a fag with a trainyard outside my bedroom window, I like this site. There's some great graffiti there, mixed in with the tossed-off crap. Where oh where are the fag taggers, though?

But now this, from econous' link, is just plain wrong.
posted by mediareport at 5:22 AM on September 19, 2006


Paint markers are pretty toxic.

Oh. Yeah. There's that.
posted by mediareport at 5:23 AM on September 19, 2006


matt or jessamyn: Please copy over all the comments from the "I do nothing all day" thread. It will save us much time. Thank you.
posted by ?! at 5:29 AM on September 19, 2006


I just want to go on the record saying I kind of like this.

Oh man, and all that time I'd been writing the graffiti on buildings.

If nothing else because of comments like that.
posted by sveskemus at 5:29 AM on September 19, 2006


Finally, a way to visibly mark women as my property that's cheaper than a tattoo!
posted by fidelity at 5:43 AM on September 19, 2006


cgc373 : "You must be to register": WTF does that mean? ESL?

Blatant discrimnation against the existence-challenged, that's what it means.
posted by kcds at 5:45 AM on September 19, 2006


Some serious work in there. Usually from those who used the body as part of the art: colour and form, as opposed to, say, the majority renditions of the classic "Yo, tits'n'spray-on - check!".
Art approached as art, rather than exposure.

And then there are the entries which look like desperate and ill-judged calls for Suicide Girl casting.


I could only pick out half a dozen I really liked, but that's better than I imagined it would be. A tick in the box.
posted by NinjaTadpole at 5:46 AM on September 19, 2006


i wonder if it hurts:(
posted by matteh at 5:50 AM on September 19, 2006


Sigh, everyone's a pornstar now.
posted by oddman at 5:51 AM on September 19, 2006


I'd tag that ass.
posted by jonmc at 5:58 AM on September 19, 2006


I heard you can get busted for tagging but...
Ah, I got nothin'
posted by hal9k at 6:00 AM on September 19, 2006


a way to visibly mark women as my property

I see your general point, but I'm not sure that's what's going on in pics like this, or the first two beautiful pieces NinjaTadpole linked. There are lots more like that if you scroll through; a lot of the artists seem to be aiming for something more than "peeing my initials on my girl."
posted by mediareport at 6:06 AM on September 19, 2006


Who on earth would sit there and let their partner airbrush their hoohah* for two hours?

I dunno. To some people, the very idea that someone finds you hot enough to want to do something like this is a turn on. Toxicity issues notwithstanding, if I was a single guy and some female graffitti artist wanted to tag my tallywhacker, I'd gladly drop my drawers and say "go ahead."
posted by jonmc at 6:09 AM on September 19, 2006


I can't wait for tomorrow's fpp which will undoubtedly contain women who have been branded or women covered in piss or shit.
posted by flarbuse at 6:09 AM on September 19, 2006


flarbuse: we've had posts about bodypainting before. Because it's graffitti tags rather than something more 'respectable,' it's de facto degrading?
posted by jonmc at 6:11 AM on September 19, 2006


Not necessarily. Just the ones with y'know...the branding.
posted by liquorice at 6:17 AM on September 19, 2006


very nice
posted by tonygarcia at 6:21 AM on September 19, 2006


Huh.
posted by liquorice at 6:21 AM on September 19, 2006


we've had posts about bodypainting before
Fair enough, but why? What is there to say about this? Not a whole lot, really.
I want this motherfucking graffiti off these motherfucking girls?
posted by Flashman at 6:22 AM on September 19, 2006


Fair enough, but why? What is there to say about this?

The graffitti looks cool? The girls look hot?

(c'mon, seriously, it's hilarious to watch some of you guys tripping over yourself to show how indignant you are over all this 'objectification,' and shit, but I'll bet many of you secretly wish you knew a girl who was into something like this. Lighten up, people.)
posted by jonmc at 6:25 AM on September 19, 2006


So I guess that once she's been marked, she's the graffiti guy's ho or something?

meh.
posted by clevershark at 6:31 AM on September 19, 2006


flarbuse writes "I can't wait for tomorrow's fpp which will undoubtedly contain women who have been branded or women covered in piss or shit."

Surely not until some sort of "Tubgirl day" is declared?!
posted by clevershark at 6:32 AM on September 19, 2006


This one's my favorite, although the high quality of this one almost surpasses it.
posted by mikeweeney at 6:33 AM on September 19, 2006


I couldn't care less really (and I had a girlfriend who *was* into stuff like this), but I'd always thought metafilter had a bit more class.
posted by Flashman at 6:34 AM on September 19, 2006


Who on earth would sit there and let their partner airbrush their hoohah* for two hours? Does it wash off?

behold the panty dropping power of art. i remember there was one girl who refused to model for me because she "would have to have sex with [me] immediately after". god, i love being an artist (at least in my spare time).
posted by Doorstop at 6:35 AM on September 19, 2006


It's hilarious to attempt to digest all of the pseudo intellectual philosophical projection directed towards those who question such material. Paint yourself up and go to an acid party or trick or treating, or something - anything - besides snapping pictures of yourself and posting them on the internet. Are people really this bored? Are people bored enough to look at this? A resounding yes from the blue, apparently.
posted by prostyle at 6:36 AM on September 19, 2006


I'd always thought metafilter had a bit more class.

We pretend to.

(Like I said, we've had posts about body painting, scarification, S&M, strippers, but this is over the line? It's harmless, ultimately)
posted by jonmc at 6:36 AM on September 19, 2006


I've known girls who were branded. It looks cool if it's done right.

Branding is my vote for tomorrow's FPP.

Piss and shit - not really my thing. But I've heard there are women who are into that as well.
posted by bashos_frog at 6:36 AM on September 19, 2006


So I guess that once she's been marked, she's the graffiti guy's ho or something?

For some of the dumb ones, yes. For others, that's a laughably insulting way of thinking about their art. Just because you've apparently never met any smart graffiti artists, don't make the mistake of assuming they don't exist. The evidence is all over that site, in and among the stupid shit, if you care to look.

And if you don't care to look, then at least know you're painting with a ridiculously broad brush.

Er, I mean cap.
posted by mediareport at 6:37 AM on September 19, 2006


pseudo intellectual philosophical projection

Like linking examples we think are good art? What's your point?
posted by mediareport at 6:40 AM on September 19, 2006


bashos: that just looks fucking painful (the branding). And is it just my eyes or is there a little bit of blood at the bottom of that first image?

Jeebus!
posted by liquorice at 6:41 AM on September 19, 2006


(c'mon, seriously, it's hilarious to watch some of you guys tripping over yourself to show how indignant you are over all this 'objectification,' and shit, but I'll bet many of you secretly wish you knew a girl who was into something like this.

In other news, anyone who thinks walmart's policies are harmful is just jealous of the Walton family, people who dislike the Bush administration secretly envy the inherent manly prowess of our President and his fearless Neocon advisors, and lesbians, deep down, really just want lovin' from a big strong man.

If you dislike something, that means you secretly like it.
posted by verb at 6:42 AM on September 19, 2006


If you dislike something, that means you secretly like it.

Not neccessarily, but in general, when young straight males get conspicuously upset about naked women, my bullshit detector starts pinging.
posted by jonmc at 6:44 AM on September 19, 2006


I'd always thought metafilter had a bit more class.

We pretend to.


Yeah lord knows I don't, but won't anybody think about the children?!
posted by Flashman at 6:46 AM on September 19, 2006


Some one has to do this:

"I'm in ur pants, painting ur pubes!"
posted by bashos_frog at 6:51 AM on September 19, 2006


Like linking examples we think are good art?

No:

...it's hilarious to watch some of you guys tripping over yourself to show how indignant you are over all this 'objectification,' and shit, but I'll bet many of you secretly wish you knew a girl who was into something like this.

...in general, when young straight males get conspicuously upset about naked women, my bullshit detector starts pinging.

Clairvoyant jmc is always here ftw, I suppose.
posted by prostyle at 6:53 AM on September 19, 2006


prostyle, there's an old saying 'methinks he doth protest too much.' and when I hear men getting indignant about porn that's what comes to mind. YMMV.
posted by jonmc at 6:54 AM on September 19, 2006


The nice thing is, now I can delete the metafilter bookmark and just use the porn bookmark. This saves xxx's and oooo's on my computer.

That site isn't interesting, arty, sexy, thought provoking, or even erection provoking.

I want my 15 seconds back...
posted by HuronBob at 6:55 AM on September 19, 2006


I'm not that offended by this. Some of it seems kind of tasteless. But mostly it's just boring.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:56 AM on September 19, 2006


It's got to be done:

"What's up with your girl? I heard she's been hanging out with ALL those graffiti dudes."

"Shut the fuck up, Chico, man ..."

"I'd paint THREE of those murals for some of that ass!"

posted by chinese_fashion at 7:00 AM on September 19, 2006


prostyle, there's an old saying 'methinks he doth protest too much.' and when I hear men getting indignant about porn that's what comes to mind. YMMV.

That is your seventh comment in this thread. It is the fifth that is defending your viewpoint.
posted by flarbuse at 7:02 AM on September 19, 2006


That is your seventh comment in this thread. It is the fifth that is defending your viewpoint.

You can count. I'm glad to see the lobotomy was a success. ;)

I was answering verb and prostyle's retort. It's a conversation.
posted by jonmc at 7:05 AM on September 19, 2006


What's wrong with being sexy?
posted by Flashman at 7:08 AM on September 19, 2006


Right. But you accuse others of protesting too much when it is you who has protested the most by far. Just interesting.
posted by flarbuse at 7:09 AM on September 19, 2006


"If you dislike something, that means you secretly like it.

Not neccessarily, but in general, when young straight males get conspicuously upset about naked women, my bullshit detector starts pinging."

Jon, noting that you carry your bullshit meter with you, I'd bet its callibration has been fucked by years of defending Night Ranger and fat chicks.

(Some of this stuff is good art in an odd place, and a lot of it is bad porn. But I've known more than a few girls who like being drawn on, though I find they like the brush pens best).
posted by klangklangston at 7:13 AM on September 19, 2006


But I've known more than a few girls who like being drawn on,

That's nothing, I know girls who like being alumminum sided. It's a real pain dragging all those tools on a date, man.
posted by jonmc at 7:15 AM on September 19, 2006


there's an old saying 'methinks he doth protest too much.' and when I hear men getting indignant about porn that's what comes to mind. YMMV.

I just didn't see many guys getting indignant about porn. They were saying things like, 'This is kind of skeezy' and 'great, now we're branding!' Some posters chose to answer their actual comments -- to have a conversation. You chose to suggest that they were 'indignant' and secretly wished they could tag girls, too.

It's that particular tactic -- turning someone's views around and suggesting that they're really just sublimated envy or whatever -- is lazy and meaningless. I could just as easily say that you're defending this site because you're secretly a Victorian Prude, and are just trying to prove your non-prudishness and open-mindedness.

Man. I hate prudes like you.
posted by verb at 7:20 AM on September 19, 2006


Jon,
I love you bud, but when you turn up one dude's ass or wang tagged on that site, by himself, another dude or god help us a girl, then we can discuss how this is just free expression and body love and art, absent any kind of psychological issues of WHY this is done. Graffiti, even when practiced solely on canvas or in an art gallery is still primarily a means of claiming something, be it a wall, status, primacy over other graf kids, that notion runs through the street level discussion and the intellectual discussion of graf. It's ok to question what that means when someone cops a tag on a vagina. None of those facts make this bad, they just add a big dimension outside of just looking.

Personally I am not offended by it, except that most of those dudes are toys, getting up on their girl's asses and claiming they're all city, when in fact they're barely all titty.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:22 AM on September 19, 2006 [2 favorites]


Some of these are pretty cool. This flame job or whatever is wicked. I wish I had that kind of talent.

Flashman writes "Fair enough, but why? What is there to say about this? Not a whole lot, really."

Good thing MF is about the links.
posted by Mitheral at 7:22 AM on September 19, 2006


That's nothing, I know girls who like being alumminum sided. It's a real pain dragging all those tools on a date, man.
posted by jonmc at 10:15 AM


So do you nail her during or after?
posted by hal9k at 7:23 AM on September 19, 2006


It's ok to question what that means when someone cops a tag on a vagina.

Oh agreed. But at the same time, people get tattoos to announce affilliations, and taggers put up tags to do the same. And since there's two (presumably) willing participants in the art-making (quality of the art aside) that adds another dimension to the whole enterprise as well. Is some of this stuff that much different from a bike club tat or one with a heart bearing a boyfriend's name?
posted by jonmc at 7:26 AM on September 19, 2006


"most of those dudes are toys, getting up on their girl's asses and claiming they're all city, when in fact they're barely all titty"

... don't think I'm "urban" enough to understand what that means.
posted by NinjaTadpole at 7:26 AM on September 19, 2006


It is taking me forever to type this comment.
posted by Mister_A at 7:32 AM on September 19, 2006


MetaFilter*

*medical term
posted by Mikey-San at 7:32 AM on September 19, 2006


Boobies posts are the new one-link youtube posts.
posted by Mister_A at 7:36 AM on September 19, 2006


What the hell is jon doing in this thread, anyway? Isn't he supposed to be getting married or on a honeymoon or something?
posted by loquacious at 7:38 AM on September 19, 2006


(I'm leaving on Wednesday, el loquo. consider this thread an extremely tame digital bachelor party. now shut up and jump out of a cake)
posted by jonmc at 7:42 AM on September 19, 2006


Thursday, actually.
posted by jonmc at 7:42 AM on September 19, 2006


"I'm not that offended by this. Some of it seems kind of tasteless. But mostly it's just boring."

Ditto. And jonmc also has a point. How many of you "feminist chicks dig me" SNAGs are into bukkake, even if only in jpegs, hmmm? (Me I think bukkake's disgusting; this is just goofy.)

I'd like to meet the women though, and some artists who can render more "traditional" kinds of art: stylized graffiti I can barely read leaves me cold, though not as cold as a "Bud Light" ad. Must all the decent seascapes be on motel walls? How about pictures of kittens?
posted by davy at 7:44 AM on September 19, 2006


I'm super into bukkake Davy, it's not disgusting, it's a special sweaty ten bent dicks in a room whackin' on a methhead crouched on a tarp kind of art from the mysterious and viscous east, totally different thing than this.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:59 AM on September 19, 2006


Ditto. And jonmc also has a point. How many of you "feminist chicks dig me" SNAGs are into bukkake, even if only in jpegs, hmmm? (Me I think bukkake's disgusting; this is just goofy.)

Methinks thou dost protest too much. You're really a huge bukkake video collector, you're just ashamed to admit it.

(See how easy it is?)
posted by verb at 8:02 AM on September 19, 2006


The graffiti on women? Dat's cute. Reminds me of my neighborhood. I just wish I knew how to read modern graffiti. I'm sure it makes sense to somebody but it's all greek to me. I wish the guys in my neighborhood were this good at it. They use one color and it's a rush job - they never truly appreciate the craft. The stuff over at Deep Ellum is some fantastic graffiti, but closer to home, especially around the high school a few blocks away... my neighbors need to take some art classes...

Uhm...

...I, uh... didn't need to know that at any time in humanity's history, much less the present time, that women have ever been forcibly or consentually branded. That's just grossing me out. I don't need to see pictures. I don't wanna hear anymore about it. This is as bad as when I learned there's such a thing as female circumcision. I think I'm going to be physically ill. It's not that I'm offended. I just - *barf*

...I just.. I just don't need this kinda knowledge in my brain pan. Really. *barf*
posted by ZachsMind at 8:18 AM on September 19, 2006


if it's "got to be done," shouldn't it be done right?


"What's up with your girl? Man, and I saw your female with them too, what's up with her? I heard she's been hanging out with ALL those graffiti dudes. I've been hearin' that she's been givin' that stuff out to all them graffiti guys."

"(Yo), (s)hut the fuck up, Chico, man ..."

"I'd Go paint THREE of those murals for some of that ass!"
posted by Hat Maui at 8:19 AM on September 19, 2006


...6 months later, in the jonmc household:

Mrs. jonmc: "jonmc, could you put your dirty underwear in the hamper just once, instead of leaving it on the floor? I'm really getting sick of picking up after you."

jonmc: "honey, there's an old saying 'methinks he doth protest too much.' and when I hear women getting indignant about picking up after their husbands, that's what comes to mind. when young married females get conspicuously upset about housework, my bullshit detector starts pinging. don't you secretly wish you were a full time housewife with 9 kids? YMMV.

posted by googly at 8:19 AM on September 19, 2006


"How many of you 'feminist chicks dig me' SNAGs are into bukkake, even if only in jpegs, hmmm?"

Me, mildly. Regular facials, moreso. I've discussed this before, but I have very strong feelings that facials are not inherently degrading and that the attraction of it is not necessarily that it is degrading. My view is that for me and most men, ejaculate is, well, the symbolic (not to mention literal) essence of our sexuality and has very strong psychological connotations dating back to our early adolescent days or wet dreams and furtive masturbation. For me, the erotic ideal of this kind of sexual play is that it's a happy and healthy symbolic acceptance of male sexuality as well as just being an extreme example of the warm and sticky nature of sex itself. For me, it's only erotic if the woman is obviously having fun.

Having said that, I will not dispute that for many or most men, and probably for many women, an essential characteristic of this kind of sexual play is degradation. It's certainly the case that the majority of people who discuss it assume that this is true. I've discussed it with women who enjoy it yet claim that degradation is an essential component. Anyway, I discuss it publicly because I want to "reclaim" it from those people and do my best to rehabilitate it.

But this just goes back to my point in the street ogling video thread. In my strong opinion, there's pretty much no sex act or depiction of a sex act or depiction of women that is inherently misogynist. Rather, it is entirely dependent upon the spirit in which these things are engaged. If it's about real people, with full awareness of and respect for them as human beings, then there's nothing wrong with it. On the other hand, if it's about dehumanizing another person and seeing them as nothing more than an object to be utilized for personal gratification, or worse, degraded for that purpose with that mindset, then it's wrong, even if it is superficially plain-vanilla and socially acceptable.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:29 AM on September 19, 2006 [4 favorites]


My view is that for me and most men, ejaculate is, well, the symbolic (not to mention literal) essence of our sexuality

It is, indeed, our Gross National Product.
posted by jonmc at 8:31 AM on September 19, 2006 [3 favorites]


when you turn up one dude's ass or wang tagged on that site, by himself, another dude or god help us a girl, then we can discuss how this is just free expression and body love and art, absent any kind of psychological issues of WHY this is done. Graffiti, even when practiced solely on canvas or in an art gallery is still primarily a means of claiming something, be it a wall, status, primacy over other graf kids, that notion runs through the street level discussion and the intellectual discussion of graf. It's ok to question what that means when someone cops a tag on a vagina. None of those facts make this bad, they just add a big dimension outside of just looking.

Oh yeah, that's the good stuff. Nice, wino. *wallows in the clarity of this comment*
posted by jokeefe at 8:32 AM on September 19, 2006


"He doth protest too much" is not "an old saying." It's a misquoting of Shakespeare's Hamlet, in which Gertrude says "The lady doth protest too much" when criticizing the play within the play. If we're going to use cliches to make our points, let's at least get them right.
posted by oliver at 8:36 AM on September 19, 2006


Speaking of knowledge I really didn't want floating around in my brainpan.
posted by loquacious at 8:46 AM on September 19, 2006


Isn't this relevant to your statement, Divine_Wino? (despite the post board being titled "Graffiti on Girls")
posted by NinjaTadpole at 9:01 AM on September 19, 2006


Any time there's four 'graphs on spunk splatters, you know it's ol' EB.
posted by klangklangston at 9:26 AM on September 19, 2006


Most of that is ugly and dumb and EB's four paragraph encomium to the facial is way fucking barf-worthy.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:35 AM on September 19, 2006


92 comments so far and no mention of Photoshop?
posted by Laotic at 9:39 AM on September 19, 2006


Ninjatadpole,
Yes, it is relevant. It is especially relevant that it is written upside down (ie that the dude wrote it on himself in all likelyhood).
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:45 AM on September 19, 2006


Is it about showing off tags, or about showing off bodies? The tags with no artistic merit seem to be all about the bodies, whereas, the finer ones don't necessarily concentrate around the 'sensitive' areas. Fine artists and scam artists?
posted by Shave at 9:47 AM on September 19, 2006


If they were painting manets, monets, and van goghs, people would be oohing and ahing at the beauty.

Yeah, it is about "class".
posted by cell divide at 9:48 AM on September 19, 2006


Cell Divide— No dice. First off, the skill level is incredibly different (as best shown by that landscape shot posted above), and these guys (though some are masters of their craft) are just not up to the level of a Manet. Second, if we're getting closer to actual comparisons, Man Ray did some work with superimposing images on bodies with a view toward commentary and communication. There's nothing about most of these that indicates that they had to go on the body— the medium is not an essential part of their work. These could be tags on subway cars or bridges.

So, in a certain way, you're right— if these were better, people would be more impressed. But that's not much to say at all, and it certainly doesn't support the class bullshit. Not everything can be answered with freshman Marx.
posted by klangklangston at 10:00 AM on September 19, 2006


Thanks Klang, I was trying to articulate that but I'm too hungry to string the words together. I would add that with some exceptions these are not very "good" tags (really pieces). In graffiti the people who do the big colorful wall paintings (pieces, used to also be called burners) design them first on paper then reproduce them with spraypaint, which is infinitely more difficult than drawing them with markers on paper. So most of these are wobbly, rote and impercise practice pieces, the kids don't have skills (most of them, a few are very good). Granted, drawing on your girlfriends rashy shaved choach is harder than on paper, so kudos for that. If this was paintings of Monets on naked women I'd say, Jeez someone finally got around to scanning some Playboy pictorial from 1989, feh.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:14 AM on September 19, 2006


If this was paintings of Monets on naked women I'd say, Jeez someone finally got around to scanning some Playboy pictorial from 1989, feh.

What if it was Heironymous Bosch on naked women? What wouldja say then? Hah?
posted by jonmc at 10:17 AM on September 19, 2006


I think EB is right, though: for a lot of spooge-centric porn, the intended appeal is in the way that it portrays semen as something that is not inherently disgusting and shameful. Other spooge-centric porn's intended appeal is in the way that it does portray semen as inherently disgusting and an instrument of degradation. But quite a lot of SCP falls into the first category.
posted by hattifattener at 10:20 AM on September 19, 2006


mediareport writes "For some of the dumb ones, yes. For others, that's a laughably insulting way of thinking about their art. Just because you've apparently never met any smart graffiti artists, don't make the mistake of assuming they don't exist."

Frankly I can't claim to care much. I've seen some fantastic body-painting work, and that stuff ain't it.

Of course I have a bit of an aversion to graffiti folks, mostly owing to some asshole in Montreal's NDG sector who calls himself "tone" and insisted on redecorating the sides of a truck I rented years ago with his shitty "designs" while I was moving stuff into it. My desire to break each and every bone in his fingers was unfulfilled since I was leaving town at the time. Fortunately the U-Haul contractor responsible for taking the truck back at my destination decided to ignore the "artwork", but that little shithead came pretty close to costing me mucho dinero, and so "tagging" just pisses me off to this day.
posted by clevershark at 11:02 AM on September 19, 2006


Ha ha, yes, well spotted.
You may be able to tell by now that I paid that photograph less attention than some others.
Consider my point withdrawn.
posted by NinjaTadpole at 11:05 AM on September 19, 2006


cell divide writes "If they were painting manets, monets, and van goghs, people would be oohing and ahing at the beauty."

If my aunt had balls I'd call her my uncle.
posted by clevershark at 11:12 AM on September 19, 2006


or a sporting goods saleslady.
posted by jonmc at 11:18 AM on September 19, 2006


Metafilter: If this is the best of the web then I am a horse with a canteloupe for a head.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:05 PM on September 19, 2006


Any thread that gives Ethereal Bligh the chance to give his views on all things facial is troubling, yet no flag seems appropriate.
posted by justgary at 12:13 PM on September 19, 2006


if this was hanging in some dowtown trendy art gallery, no one would blink. The conversation would all be about 'challenging gendered power relationships and the notions of property' and all the rest of the po-mo bullshit.
posted by empath at 12:20 PM on September 19, 2006


Graffiti by girl
posted by Mister_A at 12:44 PM on September 19, 2006


"most of those dudes are toys, getting up on their girl's asses and claiming they're all city, when in fact they're barely all titty"

... don't think I'm "urban" enough to understand what that means.


"All city" means having your work displayed all over. Calling them "toys" is meaning to disparage them. He's poking fun (by rhyming titty with city) at a few different things. Think like: big fish in small pond.
posted by now i'm piste at 1:04 PM on September 19, 2006


This account has been suspended.
Either the domain has been overused, or the reseller ran out of resources.


Hmmm... raunchy.
posted by pompomtom at 3:11 PM on September 19, 2006


Just Gary: Probably because he says it so eloquently. Mind you, I still won't buy in to it. There is something inherently degrading about bukkake (regular facials less so) - and for some women that may be the fun about it, but I think it'd be a bit of a stretch to say that most people don't view it as such.
posted by liquorice at 4:31 PM on September 19, 2006


So, these girls, they advertize?
posted by Balisong at 6:36 PM on September 19, 2006


"Good to know that saying 'I'm an artist, baby' is still the best way to get a girl to take her clothes off."

that's how I usually do it.
posted by slip81 at 8:59 PM on September 19, 2006


"Mind you, I still won't buy in to it."

I think you're probably right about bukkake. I've seen just a very few with a small number of men and where the woman or women seem to be having fun that I'd consider humanistic and not misogynist. Otherwise, though, I think mostly the point is degradation.

In the real world, that's true, but not as true, of facials, as well, sadly.

But I just can't agree with you that it's inherently degrading. I don't understand how anyone can argue that it's inherently degrading unless they believe that some aspect of it is inherently degrading. The most obvious candidate is ejaculate, and I suspect that this is where most of the ick factor is and where people attach the quality of degradation to, but it seems like such a bizarre thing to attach such negative ideas to. It's the very stuff of creation. It's not like it's an excrement of the body or anything.

The one thing that is suspicious, in my mind, is the dominant/submissive arrangement of the participants. This is true with many example of fellatio, too. I, myself, am not at all comfortable with those arrangements, either in porn or in my own sex life. But even there I'm not sure I can go with the idea that there's something inherently degrading going on, mostly because although I'm not at all inclined to BDSM, I've known many people who are and I've come to have a very tolerant view of it as a result and I think it's legitimately part of many people's healthy sex lives.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:52 AM on September 21, 2006


« Older Popular Mechanics now has a podcast...  |  "We lied in the morning, and w... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments