Skip

The Paintings of Fred Einaudi
July 5, 2008 8:10 PM   Subscribe


 
Surrealism = skulls?
posted by acro at 8:20 PM on July 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


I have to say that fifth image is not a very unflattering rendering of you, homunculus.
posted by Rhaomi at 8:20 PM on July 5, 2008


Well, this is what mash-ups of found vintage images, children's book illustrations, the undead (heh) trend of monster art/horror art all combined in photoshop gives us, I guess.

Is there a message in these paintings? I thought at first a few of the images perhaps spoke to the abortion issue, but then after looking at all of them I assumed the artists was going straight for gross out and pulling out all the stops that work in horror films and the conventions used by 99% of metal video directors.

I always wonder: Why are small girls considered so creepy in these subcultures? Has anyone done their thesis on this?
posted by stagewhisper at 8:23 PM on July 5, 2008


NSFW: Goose fucking chick.
posted by Citizen Premier at 8:28 PM on July 5, 2008


If this doesn't symbolize the best things in life I don't know what does. Uhh... I mean that's just creepy and bad.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 8:30 PM on July 5, 2008 [1 favorite]


Why are small girls considered so creepy in these subcultures?

I always thought it was because they have cooties.

His biography is depressing, but probably pretty spot-on, time-wise.
posted by iconomy at 8:30 PM on July 5, 2008


I dare you to take a gander.
posted by pmbuko at 8:34 PM on July 5, 2008


meh.
posted by R. Mutt at 8:48 PM on July 5, 2008


Norman Rockwell, meet Salvador Dali.

(I am personally repelled by and attracted by the works of each, as I am of this artist.)
posted by kozad at 8:51 PM on July 5, 2008


NSFW: Goose fucking chick.

Oops, sorry for the lack of warning. I'll add a tag.
posted by homunculus at 9:27 PM on July 5, 2008


I have to say that fifth image is not a very unflattering rendering of you, homunculus.

Yes, I found that one quite touching.
posted by homunculus at 9:29 PM on July 5, 2008


I dare you to take a gander.
Are you sure that's a goosey gander? Or is it a swan that's doing the deed?
posted by Monkeymoo at 10:32 PM on July 5, 2008


I had a conversation earlier today with a friend and she was going on and on about how Disney films subvert children, especially little girls. I found these images refreshing; in a Brothers Grimm sort of way.
posted by sluglicker at 10:40 PM on July 5, 2008


These paintings look like magazine illustrations: prevent Average Reader from turning the page long enough to become interested in the paragraph adjacent to the picture; with that paragraph, (misrepresent the article enough to?) convince Average Reader to try the article.

Little girls aren't considered creepy, they're standard opposite-of-creepy illustration items and are therefore juxtaposed with standard creepy illustration items (aborted foetuses, etc.) because that's an easy way to make Average Reader think "Whoa, Dude," and stop turning the pages.
posted by pracowity at 11:19 PM on July 5, 2008




Did anyone else find hackneyed the obligatory "tit peek" on all of his women? Some vaguely interesting juxtapositions here, but all in all I think I'd rather look at my old Scorpions album covers.
posted by applemeat at 11:46 AM on July 7, 2008


Lots of hackneyed to choose from applemeat, but certainly yes to the nipple question.
posted by stagewhisper at 12:00 PM on July 7, 2008


« Older Wordchamp: hover over a foreign-language word and...   |   Back-to-school in diapers Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post