But Is It Art? Part 2.

“Classic” Art

This probably should have been one long post along wtih part 1.  I just got so into my thoughts that i couldn’t pull myself away from it.  I rambled for hundreds of words about if naked people made a picture pornographic.

Mona Lisa


I threw “The Mona Lisa” up there because while she is not naked, I think most people could agree that she is definitely art. Da Vinci boringly painted her on just a regular canvas. Pashur paints his pictures on people.

Body Paint

I’m going to rely on my memory of art class here (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) and say that Mona Lisa was painted in oils.  I’ve raised the question of subject and now medium.  Does a creation’s status of “Art” or not depend on the medium in which it was created?  Watercolors, charcoals, oils, menstrual blood.  Would that lend weight to a drawing if one of the colors was comprised of blood?

bloody art

My last point of comparison would be that i believe that Da Vinci used brushes to create her. Pricasso uses his penis.  And his buttocks for some of the back grounds.  A side note would be that clearly he only paints in water based paints and i’ll bet he takes very special care to clean his ..instrument.


I am not claiming to be any sort of art critic and clearly, I am not even sure why one thing is art and the other is not. As I look at these examples, I feel as though of course, Mona Lisa is.  Absolutely.  Oddly, I feel like the body painting counts as art.  The menstrual blood smearing is NOT. That isn’t to say that there isn’t genuine art that encompasses blood as a medium.  Orange juice could be used as well, I’m certain.  I just don’t feel like just because one rubs blood on a piece of paper and says “ooo it’s MENSTRUAL BLOOD,” that suddenly it is inbued with some deeper power.  And the example I used? That’s not art, that’s a a phone doodle.  Granted, I don’t stick my finger in my vagina in order to doodle when I’m on the telephone, but maybe it depends on the conversation?

 The Pricasso on this blog is actually not bad.  I don’t think his penis makes it any more or less artistic.  While I wouldn’t want that hanging on my wall, even if I were unaware he painted it with his penis, I could think “that’s not terrible.”  However, I think perhaps his penis is talented at painting?  I’ve never seen anyone else painting a picture with his penis, so I can’t really say “talented panis” without a basis of comparison. 

I’m not finding my point here. I’m starting to think that it’s because my focus has shifted. NOW I’m thinking about “The Mr Talented Penis Competition”  I should copyright that. It could be not a sex competition. It could be a way for a man to showcase the things he can do BESIDES have sex and pee with his penis!



~ by Layla on May 30, 2008.

3 Responses to “But Is It Art? Part 2.”

  1. Keep working ,great job!

  2. Best you could edit the page title But Is It Art? Part 2. News of the Highly Bizarre to something more catching for your content you write. I enjoyed the blog post still.

  3. Hi – I am definitely happy to discover this. cool job!

Got Somethin' to Say?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: