Tabitha Vevers Is Not Allowed to Eat At Red Lobster Ever Again

November 25, 2006 11:09 PM

If you're one of those types who could never get into so called "fine art" because it didn't feature enough images of women having sex with cephalopods & crustaceans, then Tabitha Vevers is the artist for you.
posted by jonson (82 comments total)

It's unclear how the Lobster feels about this embrace.
posted by jonson at 11:11 PM on November 25, 2006

She has to cook the lobster before she shags it? That's harsh.
posted by rosemere at 11:19 PM on November 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

Damn, that is one damned big shrimp. You'd need, like, a gallon of cocktail sauce. She's got a strange sense of the erotic and I'm leaving it at that.
posted by fenriq at 11:31 PM on November 25, 2006

Oh wait, I lied. This one is pretty gross.
posted by fenriq at 11:34 PM on November 25, 2006

Agreed; if you want to fuck a mermaid, it's best to get there prior to the rotting.
posted by jonson at 11:39 PM on November 25, 2006 [1 favorite]

Gross? It's sad and poignant.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 11:40 PM on November 25, 2006

No limpets. Limpets can't get it up.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:42 PM on November 25, 2006

Why must I be a crustacean in love?
posted by war wrath of wraith at 11:53 PM on November 25, 2006

Various wisecracks:

This is totally going to fuck up my dining habits.
I'll never be able to look at a piece of meat the same.

Yeah, but what about the claws?

Aren't there manga that deal with this stuff?

"No, no" said the woman, "Pinch them GENTLY."

What's she got against crabs?

Throw another shrimp on the Barbie.

I guess she only likes jumbo shrimp.

So much for steamy sex.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:25 AM on November 26, 2006

I like James Jean's work much, much better. He's had the squidsex theme going on for a while already. I like his linework better, and he's done some killer illustration (don't miss "recess" on his site).

Still, nice paintings and generally well-executed.
posted by fake at 12:28 AM on November 26, 2006

Massachusetts artist Tabitha Vevers

This is another sign from god that I was right to leave Boston.
posted by MillMan at 12:30 AM on November 26, 2006

Massachusetts, hmm? Arkham, perhaps?
posted by Rubber Soul at 12:37 AM on November 26, 2006

What a joke. It amazes/disgusts/saddens/angers me that this kind of garbage is called "art."
posted by davidmsc at 1:01 AM on November 26, 2006

give me some loooobster love... tra-la-la....
posted by growabrain at 1:16 AM on November 26, 2006

Reminds me of "100 Girls and 100 Octopusus"
Cephalopod literally means "head foot", so I guess it's even kinkier with chicks.
posted by hypersloth at 1:35 AM on November 26, 2006

This reminds me of Japanese tentacle rape, except with lobsters instead of squids and it looks like it's consensual.
posted by champthom at 2:12 AM on November 26, 2006

There were two trains running, that night. One was marked hope, and the other peace; and beside them both was a conductor whose rusted face held judgment and truth -- I had a ticket for neither, and his smirk told me I was to wait forever in that tired, wet, dripping and sick train station for the rest of my days.

I'd seen people come and go, on to places better than this where fiction became reality and dreams were fulfilled. I'd read the hope in their eyes, the optimism etched in their dreamily vacant smiles, and I guess I knew in some sort of viscereal way that I would not be boarding those iron horses, at least not today. Yet it took the conductor, and his stern hand held to my face to really make it stick that I was to wait.

This post is about people having sex with creatures of the sea. I don't know about banging a fish, but I do know that I am infinitely jealous of those who travel the seemingly infinite expanse of the sea; those who can swim for a lifetime and never visit the same place twice. Lou Reed once opined that he wished his birth had happened one thousand years previous, that he might sail the mighty and imperious seas aboard a great clipper ship. I don't know about that, I don't know if I would want to sail across the world on a wooden prison. But I do know that I wish I was one of those crustaceans, free to speed from continent to continent or linger however I please.

The Hindus believe that Karma dictates how you will be reborn. I just wish I knew if sea life was considered above or beneath mankind, so that I might live my life accordingly such that when I am recreated I can end up as one of these beautiful creatures of the sea, free and ignorant and suffused by the ocean and God's love.
posted by kfx at 2:23 AM on November 26, 2006 [5 favorites]

davidmsc: What a joke. It amazes/disgusts/saddens/angers me that this kind of garbage is called "art."

You're kidding, right? Or are there really people out there that still feel just because a creative work doesn't appeal to them exempts it from being art? Really?
posted by [insert clever name here] at 2:33 AM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

[insert clever name here]: Unfortunately people like that do still exist.

Also, here's the obligatory Dinosaur Comics link that deals with the issue of cephalopods and penetration.
posted by slimepuppy at 3:35 AM on November 26, 2006

This thread is of course incomplete without a link to the Dream of the Fisherman's Wife, which is perhaps the original (or at least the earliest recorded example) of this kind of thing.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:04 AM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

You're kidding, right?

He lives under a bridge, Billy Goat Gruff. Don't worry about it. No educated adult who hasn't been a troll living under a bridge for the last 75 years or so could honestly claim it "amazes/disgusts/saddens/angers" him that such works are seen as art.

I suspect he'd be happier if the same artist used the same techniques and materials to show him a crying clown or dogs playing poker. Just don't let that doggy drop his cards and touch someone or the art certificate has to be revoked.
posted by pracowity at 4:26 AM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

Where are the google eyes? This is nice work, but I can't help but think she must get teased for be a Yale educated seashell artist.
posted by Frank Grimes at 6:13 AM on November 26, 2006

brings to mind that ages-old email story about the woman who masturbated with a live lobster, then died from shock the next morning when she gave birth to some shrimp on the john.

also, what kind of expectations does this artist have for her lovers? ...presuming she does actually prefer to fuck humans. I'm a lonely guy, ya know? and I wouldn't get near this lady with my ten foot pole.
posted by carsonb at 6:18 AM on November 26, 2006

I discovered Vevers a couple weeks ago via the always awesome and often nsfw Hugo Strikes Back!, a great source of freaky photography
posted by matteo at 7:32 AM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

Some images are a little bisque.
posted by hal9k at 7:46 AM on November 26, 2006 [7 favorites]

Metafiler: it's best to get there prior to the rotting.
posted by angrycandy at 7:58 AM on November 26, 2006

I think there is a difference between "fine art" and this seashell necrophilia.
posted by taosbat at 8:22 AM on November 26, 2006

So is it tentacle porn or tentacle erotica?
posted by PenDevil at 8:24 AM on November 26, 2006

BoingBoing covered this topic with some pretty interesting links a couple of years ago. [Some VERY NSFW links from here]
posted by scblackman at 8:27 AM on November 26, 2006

Immoral. Vulgar.
posted by dhartung at 8:52 AM on November 26, 2006

scblackman: Now I am going to have to find a way to use the word "necroctoporn" in everyday conversation.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 9:17 AM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

> You're kidding, right? Or are there really people out there that still feel just because a creative work
> doesn't appeal to them exempts it from being art?

They're painted on seashells. They're Florida tourist ashtrays. You buy 'em in the same shop as the little painted plaster toilets that say "We don't swim in your toilet, don't pee in our pool." Yes, I know there are broadminded folk who think Florida tourist ashtrays count as art. There's a whole trailerpark full of that kind a few miles down the road.


> Some images are a little bisque.

hal9k wins, by a wide margin.
posted by jfuller at 9:27 AM on November 26, 2006

I wonder if the creature was wearing a tentacle-cam.
posted by ninjew at 9:45 AM on November 26, 2006

No, I am not kidding. You "open mind" types can praise this shit to the heavens all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is utter crap. Think about what you're saying here: that paintings of women having sex with fish and octopi should be considered somehow "good" or "noble" or otherwise uplifting or worthy of praise.

I can understand someone enjoying this stuff in perhaps a humorous manner - or even to some extent whimsically - but to praise it as serious art is just pathetic.

The "artist" may indeed have talent, but the manner in which she utilizes that talent is what matters.
posted by davidmsc at 9:57 AM on November 26, 2006

I'm going to start loving MeFi again if this recent rise in punnery continues. I loves to hates me a good pun!

Should I be concerned that the squid-sex painting didn't bother me, but the giant shrimp-sex painting did? I think it's that I've seen enough tentacle-porn on MeFi that it's become somewhat... "normal." Whereas the shrimp-porn, man, that's just plain disgusting.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:58 AM on November 26, 2006

[...]the fact that it is utter crap.

I think you may have a misunderstanding of the definition of the term "fact." You can dislike the work -- I'm not too fond it, myself -- but at least have the humility to admit that this is simply your opinion.
posted by mkhall at 10:14 AM on November 26, 2006

Think about what you're saying here: that paintings of women having sex with fish and octopi should be considered somehow "good" or "noble" or otherwise uplifting or worthy of praise.

Point to the comment that said that.
posted by dirigibleman at 10:35 AM on November 26, 2006

I just want to say that jonson is probably my favorite poster ever.
posted by shmegegge at 10:36 AM on November 26, 2006 [2 favorites]

Motion in the ocean
His air hose broke
Lots of trouble
Lots of bubble
He was in a jam
S'in a giant clam
posted by Ironmouth at 10:37 AM on November 26, 2006

Reactions that strong are a sure sign that it's art.
posted by Malor at 10:39 AM on November 26, 2006

also, what kind of expectations does this artist have for her lovers? ...presuming she does actually prefer to fuck humans. I'm a lonely guy, ya know? and I wouldn't get near this lady with my ten foot pole.

Are you nuts? Any woman that paints women getting freaky with lobsters will have absolutely NO hang-ups in the boudoir. Just keep her away from the seafood aisle at the market.
posted by frogan at 10:46 AM on November 26, 2006

Reactions that strong are a sure sign that it's art.

Correction: Reactions that strong are a sure sign that it's MetaFilter.
posted by frogan at 10:47 AM on November 26, 2006

I can understand someone enjoying this stuff in perhaps a humorous manner - or even to some extent whimsically - but to praise it as serious art is just pathetic.

You have a rather socrealist view of art – that it should be considered somehow "good" or "noble" or otherwise uplifting or worthy of praise to be art. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party? If she painted a hammer and sickle tattoo on the woman's ass, would it be art then?
posted by pracowity at 10:54 AM on November 26, 2006

No, I am not kidding. You "open mind" types can praise this shit to the heavens all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it is utter crap. Think about what you're saying here: that paintings of women having sex with fish and octopi should be considered somehow "good" or "noble" or otherwise uplifting or worthy of praise.

Frankly, I don't like it either, but I'd never be so narrow minded to say its not art because of my opinions on it. Art may ellicit strong options but I dare say what makes art isn't an opinion. Creative expression, even if its tentacle porn, is still creative expression, i.e. air.

Her artistic style is interesting, I'd possibly buy one of the non lobster porn ones (I like the eye). But its not great either. The thing that saddens me most is that I don't think she really understand the anatomy of the critters she's painting. That squid isn't having sex with her, its getting ready to eat her.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 11:00 AM on November 26, 2006

Giving new meaning to the term "lobster tail"!
posted by suki at 11:01 AM on November 26, 2006

air = art. Damnit.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 11:01 AM on November 26, 2006

what kind of expectations does this artist have for her lovers?

Two words: Troy McClure.

Speaking of which, where's fishfucker?
posted by dirigibleman at 11:04 AM on November 26, 2006

"I can understand someone enjoying this stuff in perhaps a humorous manner - or even to some extent whimsically - but to praise it as serious art is just pathetic ... The "artist" may indeed have talent, but the manner in which she utilizes that talent is what matters."

He does make a terrific point. Octoporn doesn't bother be, but I'm really bothered by violenece in movies. All that gore and blood masquerading as art. I suppose that I would apply his same statement to a movie like .... hmm .... what would a good gory movie be .... ah, like Kill Bill vol. 1. How could anyone call this a great movie, let alone "absolutely perfect" is beyond me. Tarantino may indeed have talent, but how he utilizes that talent is really what matters.

So, let's not be harsh on davidmsc. After all, he's just following the party line (detailed thoughts on art, sex and hedonism from said party can be found here).
posted by scblackman at 11:04 AM on November 26, 2006

The quality of being ennobling as being essential to art is an ancient and legitimate argument. Quite a few people, including myself, think it's a faulty and pernicious argument. But you can't really call is absurd or ridiculous any more than davidmc can claim his aesthetics is self-evidently true and that this isn't art.

Furthermore, there's the additional problem that his assertion that this art is not ennobling is very, very contestable. One suspects that by his definition, Medea flunks the test, as well. He assumes the sexual nature is gratuitous. Is it? He assumes it is base. Is it? Others assume that having been painted on a seashell means it's not serious art. Is that true? I suppose all those things are true for someone deeply superficial. The rest of us live in a world of symbolic and layered meaning where art, above all else, is often not at all merely what it appears to be on a cursory examination.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:40 AM on November 26, 2006

 ART

SERIOUS BUSINESS

_{/laments lack of image tag}
posted by delmoi at 11:41 AM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

pracowity writes "No educated adult who hasn't been a troll living under a bridge for the last 75 years or so could honestly claim it 'amazes/disgusts/saddens/angers' him that such works are seen as art. "

I'm an educated adult, and I find it amazing that these are considered 'art'. Kitsch, sure--these are on par with velvet Elvii and airbrushed dragons swooping out of the night sky with angels on their backs cuddling little kittens.

Malor writes "Reactions that strong are a sure sign that it's art."

Pithy sayings like that are what allow people to call seashell ashtrays 'art'.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:02 PM on November 26, 2006

jfuller says: They're painted on seashells. They're Florida tourist ashtrays. You buy 'em in the same shop as the little painted plaster toilets that say "We don't swim in your toilet, don't pee in our pool." Yes, I know there are broadminded folk who think Florida tourist ashtrays count as art. There's a whole trailerpark full of that kind a few miles down the road.

So if Andy Warhol put porn on a tin of octopus soup, would that be art?

My personal answer: I don't care.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 12:39 PM on November 26, 2006

detailed thoughts on art, sex and hedonism from said party can be found here:

I have read only one book of his and a half -- the half was Lolita, which I couldn't finish. He is a brilliant stylist, he writes beautifully, but his subjects, his sense of life, his view of man, are so evil that no amount of artistic skill can justify them.

Bleh. Rand was thick.
posted by pracowity at 12:39 PM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

"Pithy sayings like that are what allow people to call seashell ashtrays 'art'."

No, I think the culprit is far more likely bad taste and lack of experience than pithy sayings. Perhaps pithy sayings are responsible for global warming?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:42 PM on November 26, 2006

You just know the GOP is going to try to make this about Clenis on the Half-Shell....
posted by rob511 at 12:57 PM on November 26, 2006

This whole 'is it art? isn't it art?' dialogue is missing the point - it's just a childish pun on the word 'fish'.

I'll get my coat.
posted by algreer at 1:01 PM on November 26, 2006

Wow. Thanks scblackman. I am absolutely humbled by your spot-on analysis, and will accordingly change my opinion of the octo-porn. It is indeed Great Art. How could I have been so stupid?
posted by davidmsc at 1:14 PM on November 26, 2006

Velvet Elvides and dogs playing poker are art. They're not Great Art, and I don't think the world would be impoverished by their loss, but they are art, in the sense of something done for aesthetic purposes.

Re the alleged necromermoporn, I think what's going on there is the guy is weeping over his dead lover, rather than having sex with her half-rotted corpse.
posted by hattifattener at 1:17 PM on November 26, 2006

So I'm ordering in this restaurant, and I ask the waitress "Do you have crabs?" and she says "No, but I have a rash that won't go away."
posted by gimonca at 1:20 PM on November 26, 2006

"But is it art?" is the most tired, pointless, middlebrow conversation in the history of tired, pointless, middlebrow conversations.

Other than, perhaps, "But is it Fine Art?".
posted by mr_roboto at 2:05 PM on November 26, 2006

Next on MeFi...

...is rap music really music?
posted by glycolized at 2:10 PM on November 26, 2006

I don't think the world would be impoverished by their loss

Are you kidding? What would we do for a dogs-playing-poker meme? What would we do for a velvet-elvis meme?

I'm sorry, but the world would indeed be a darker, colder place without the likes of velvet elvis, dogs playing poker, and crustacean love.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:49 PM on November 26, 2006

Do we really want to delve into the "what makes art art" discussion? I mean, this is nearly as dangerous a terrain as the god question, in my mind. It obviously has nothing to do with aesthetic, meaning, or style. It cannot possibly be defined as "that which is not kitch".

My fellow artists in NYC and I had a few rules: If you have to make it for your own wellbeing, it is art. If not, it is just a hobby, unless someone calls it art, in which case, it is art. If you are unsure, it's probably art.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 2:49 PM on November 26, 2006

This is art, it is just not very good.
posted by Ynoxas at 3:36 PM on November 26, 2006

In short: I'm with backwardsy saxonY.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 3:48 PM on November 26, 2006

> If you are unsure, it's probably art.

At this point, art is whatever you can get away with. That's why art has ceased to be important.
posted by jfuller at 4:09 PM on November 26, 2006

Important to whom?
posted by krinklyfig at 4:18 PM on November 26, 2006

krinklyfig writes "Important to whom?"

To the overwhelmingly vast majority of the world, I'd think. Most art is irrelevant these days because, as jfuller pointed out, most of it is about what you can get away with, and not how you can show the world what's happening in your head. Indeed, it seems that the trend is towards art which is so deliberately obtuse that the only purpose it serves is to alienate the beholder.

Don't get me wrong--there is quite a lot of modern art (if I'm using the term correctly), especially abstract, that I absolutely adore. Jackson Pollock and Andy Warhol were both doing extremely important things. Even Christos, and the gates in Central Park--that's art that draws people in. And it's simply beaty for beauty's sake.

But tarts humping crustaceans on a seashell? Sure, okay, I'll grant that in some way it's art, if we're using the definition "something deliberately produced for an aesthetic effect", but it's definitely bad art.

Cue the pomo crowd, now, recontextualizing these seashells into something else, and some horn-rimmed-glasses-wearing hipster kid of indeterminate gender being the latest sensation for doing so.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:17 PM on November 26, 2006

dirtynumbangelboy writes "To the overwhelmingly vast majority of the world, I'd think. Most art is irrelevant these days..."

Film and music aren't art?

Painting? It never had that many customers. Probably more now than ever, I'd guess.
posted by mr_roboto at 8:02 PM on November 26, 2006

What a joke. It amazes/disgusts/saddens/angers me that this kind of garbage is called "art."
posted by davidmsc

Ahem. "I might not know much about art, but I know what I like!"

And you know that Sistine chapel? They call that art! Unbelievable! All the guy did was decorate a ceiling!

Mona Lisa? Art? Please! All the guy did was paint some bint in a dress. Call that art? I don't, so it can't be. I have spoken, thus it is true.

Just in case: /sarcasm.
posted by kaemaril at 8:03 PM on November 26, 2006

I once got in an extremely long conversation with a friend about whether Duchamp's "Fountain" was art. He was arguing that it was more a philosophical statement, I was defending the art side. We went back and forth for a long time, arguing our sides - until we realized that we both agreed on the importance of it's underlying message. What we were arguing was rote classification. We both agreed on its significance.

Since then, I am resolved to never get in the "is it art?" debate again. It's really as banal and useless as they come. Is it good? Is it interesting? Is it important? Maybe you could draw me out with those...maybe....

But really, I'd rather direct your attention back to Zak Smith's "100 Girls and 100 Octopuses", which hypersloth already linked to. I've long been obsessed with this drawing. I'm happy to see the whole thing is up, and the individual pictures are viewable.
posted by TheRoach at 9:04 PM on November 26, 2006

Important to whom?

Therein lies the debate. And this is why we came up with this set of rules. Art is unimportant. Art is, in general, not utilitarian. It is nonfunctional. To some degree, its emphasis is on being not important, at least, at present. Art, having progressed through all it has, is accessible to anyone right now. And, being so, anyone can be, and, I might argue, is an artist.

Until the tools are, again, not attainable by everyone, art will continue to be unspecial and unimportant. (This does not, in my opinion, make it worthless, but simply brings it down to another layer of human social development.) I say, whilst paint is cheap, let every seashell be adorned with human-crustacean copulations. And let every canvas be filled with colour. For this must, at some point, give way to another, more baffling, dark age, in whose time these things will cease to be. And art will again transform into a mode of change.

The end.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 9:48 PM on November 26, 2006

"will again transform into a mode of change" ... ?

What the devil am I typing about?
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 9:51 PM on November 26, 2006

davidmsc, you obviously suffer from the all too common conceit that those creative expressions the appreciation of which you personally cannot understand ARE NOT "SERIOUS" ART.

Your disbelief in the value of these works of squid-fuckery, however, does not disqualify them from being art. Whether or not something IS ART is not an absolute judgment you (or anyone else) can make. Expressions of human creativity are art the way water is a liquid - by their very nature. And to speak of art in terms of "seriousness" is as absurd as saying that Kool-Aid isn't a "serious" liquid... it may not be Dom Perignon, but you can still drown in it, bud. That distinction is fallacious.

What you can say, however, is whether you feel it's BAD ART or GOOD ART. Obviously, in this case, you think it's bad art. That's cool; you're entitled to that opinion. But that's all it is - an opinion on the relative merits of an artwork.
posted by ab3 at 10:33 PM on November 26, 2006

air = art. Damnit.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 1:01 PM CST on November 26

Wow, and I thought I was open-minded.
posted by Spike at 10:53 PM on November 26, 2006 [1 favorite]

No thanks, distinct lack of tenta... HOLY JUMPING JESUS ON A POGO STICK!!!
posted by Pollomacho at 11:03 PM on November 26, 2006

kfx: Let me guess, you're writing a novel, but you're too scared to get it published, so you're slowly weaving it into mefi comments.
posted by tehloki at 12:20 AM on November 27, 2006

RE:the Necro MerPorn:

... I think this is supposed to be a retake on Hans Christian Anderson's 'The Little Mermaid'. Notice the knapped stone knife dropped by his left knee, the mermaid's curled left hand?

I also like that she's using gold leaf for the background - It increases the whole 'Fine Art' - 'Kitsch' dichotomy.
posted by Orb2069 at 5:56 AM on November 27, 2006

Red Lobster, for the seafood lover in you!
posted by Goofyy at 6:24 AM on November 27, 2006

Hey baby, Cthulhu ph'tagn.
posted by Mister_A at 6:55 AM on November 27, 2006

ab3, I understand your point, and it is valid, to some degree. But shouldn't it go without saying that when I say that it is "bad," it is not a statement of FACT? Isn't it understood - universally - that it is strictly my opinion?
posted by davidmsc at 10:31 AM on November 27, 2006

Inspiration?
posted by robot at 12:38 PM on November 27, 2006