It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


No thanks ,I just had lunch

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:20 AM
Question.How do you get 5200 people to strip naked? Just tell them its for art and out come the nudie bits.To me this isnt art ,it's a waste of time and an excuse to look at naked bodies which in this case just looks like a cattle in a yard waiting for a branding or a colony of seals .Art ,i think not

Spencer Tunick's The Base has been released. (AAP: New Mardi Gras/Spencer Tunick)
click here for a look

[edit on 2-8-2010 by 12voltz]

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:41 AM
I'm an artist. Is that art? On some level I guess. There's a lot of art out there. The problem is most of it sucks. And this one sucks. Nothing like ego driven "artists" propped up by the wealthy class in order to make mockeries of the sheep they control.

I see this and I think of tptb.

Nothing wrong with a little nudity though =)

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:49 AM
reply to post by pirhanna

Agreed ,a little nudity is a wonderful thing but a lot as in this case is to much .

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:50 AM
it dosnt look like art,looks like a massive satanic ritual if you ask me
second line snypa

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 02:50 AM
Not for lack of art appreciation, but that just looks like shrimp. They don't even look like human bodies. There's no appreciation of form there. Modern "art" at its best.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 03:53 AM
Oh no! Not the debate on "what is art".

There are of course those who consider photography not to be art. Is a good, well composed photograph art, especially because in this day and age the photographer would doubtlessly used a computer to change the origibal image. Does that matter?

I think "art" is what you take it to be. I think some aspects of modern art are pointless, but then people (usually with silly glasses) will say that art [is]is[/is] pointless - that's the point!

My advice is to take it as it comes. If the photograpgh is meaningful and ticks the boxes then call it "art", but on that basis you should do the same with the photos in your family album.

Next time you are in London walk through the National Gallery to actually see art that moves you. Alternatively, go to any gallery of worth. Looking at old Masters in books and on the Internet is no experience - you have to see art in the flesh. That is the experience.


posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 04:16 AM
reply to post by paraphi

well it wasnt a debate until you said ,.I am not an artist by any means but i know the difference between a pile of garbage put in a glass cabinet and a well painted landscape.To me it seems as long as it's got a frame around it or a hip name then someone will call it art ,and i dont need a degree to spill some spaghetti and motor oil on a canvas and call it "faces in time" or "dream of the flying toad".This picture of the naked holocaust victims is about as arty as sticking some dried turds on your heads and running around in circles.ok i will stop now.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:09 AM
reply to post by 12voltz

Don't look, don't give any of your hard earned money to the artist then.

I'm not too impressed by it either... but then I think if they'd covered that area in used food packaging that might be more of a statement.

posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 05:14 AM
The only problem I see with it is that people are the wrong colour.

Only black and brown people look good naked in broad daylight.

It's a pity, but there it is.

[edit on 2/8/10 by Astyanax]

top topics


log in