What is this a picture of? : Greg Laden's Blog

Profile

Welcome to Greg Laden's Blog.

Search

What is this a picture of?

Category: Featured Artist
Posted on: November 3, 2009 3:31 PM, by Greg Laden

If you said "cat" you'd be partly right. If you said "naked lady kneeling on floor" you'd be closer.

This photograph may help explain:

This is the work of Craig Tracy, highlighted in The Telegraph, and who's web site is here.

hat tip eolake

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/123850

Comments

What if I said, the first Santana album?

Posted by: John McKay | November 3, 2009 5:08 PM

Sorry dude, but this is a picture of a cat. It uses a naked woman as part of the canvas, but the image is that of a cat.

pedant/

Posted by: GaryB | November 3, 2009 5:16 PM

Like my own cats...I'd kiss this one on the nose. :-)

Posted by: Cthulhu | November 3, 2009 6:03 PM

Presumably before consuming said "nose" whole, Cthulhu? Ia!

Posted by: Jason Thibeault | November 3, 2009 6:06 PM

Sorry dude, but this is a picture of a cat. It uses a naked woman as part of the canvas, but the image is that of a cat.
pedant/

Strictly speaking, it is a picture of a naked lady kneeling on floor. It is also a picture of a painting of a cat. Both of those statements are correct. However, the statement "It's a picture of a cat" is incorrect.

[/one-up pedantry]
;-)

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 3, 2009 6:11 PM

It's a fantasy of my wasting-away little kitty from her huntress days when she'd occasionally sneak in a mouse then position it so that to escape it would have to race up me (into my hair) while I sat, burned out, staring at a monitor and writing silly blog comments.

Posted by: Uncle Glenny | November 3, 2009 6:14 PM

I don't know art, but I know what I like

Posted by: AnonymousCoward | November 3, 2009 7:05 PM

Objectifying a naked woman - how original.

Posted by: Jackal | November 3, 2009 11:24 PM

@#2 and #5 - Rene Magritte got there first...

Posted by: mrcreosote | November 3, 2009 11:49 PM

Strictly speaking, it is a picture of a naked lady kneeling on floor. It is also a picture of a painting of a cat. Both of those statements are correct. However, the statement "It's a picture of a cat" is incorrect.

Strictly speaking, it IS a picture of a cat. It just isn't a photograph of a cat (it is a photograph of a painting of a cat).

</further pedantry>

Posted by: Aaron Golas | November 3, 2009 11:51 PM

@ John McKay - you win and are awesome

@ every1 else - you fail for being too f-cking stupid and posting dumbshit comments. go look at the album, dumbasses.

Posted by: the Notorious b.i.g.d.i.c.k. | November 4, 2009 3:00 AM

OK, that's a cool optical illusion. Taking body paint to the next level.

Posted by: Creative Custom Door Design | November 4, 2009 7:09 AM

Really? Well that is art that adds a lot to the human condition. Or at least is useful in a fertility clinic (If a guy is turned on by women in submissive poses and cats that is).

Oh well, to each his (or her) own.

I can't help but imagining my own version. The naked guy painted like a landscape and the perky robin hunting for breakfast.

Posted by: micheleinmichigan | November 4, 2009 9:26 AM

I'm fascinated that anyone wearing that much body paint is being considered naked. Would a guy in this position be viewed the same?

Posted by: Stephanie Z | November 4, 2009 10:36 AM

With respect to clothing, to be naked or nude is to be not wearing any. If she is well armed with a sharp wit, she may not be naked to snark or jeering, but she's still got no clothes on.

It might make a difference, though, if it's semi-gloss latex paint vs. oil-based stain.

Posted by: Greg Laden | November 4, 2009 10:46 AM

If you are trying this at home, only acrylic or tempera paint should be used for body paint (and check the label). :)

Oil paint has nasty solvents and other contents that are absorbed through the skin and can cause poisoning, allergies, autoimmune disorders, etc. Not to mention your model would have to stand still for three or four days.

It's not the naked/unclothedness that matters to me. My question would be can you see HER (personality, soul, humanity) or did the art make her just a combination of body parts that emphasizes one small aspect of her person (sexually attractive)? Or only use her as a part of "clever, clever" optical illusion?

IMO, as an artist, you are definitely making a different statement when you paint a naked person than when you paint a clothed person. (regardless of male/female). That statement might not necessarily be sexual it could be tactile, temperature or vulnerability based.

But there you go. Never put a link to a featured artist up and expect an artist not to take it too seriously.

Posted by: micheleinmichigan | November 4, 2009 11:37 AM

As for clothing, there's plenty of it that's not make of cloth, but it still counts. Pasties count, plastic raincoats, leather pants. I really don't understand what's so different about body paint, particularly body paint like this that covers and obscures.

micheleinmichigan, there's a long history of the hidden and the ambiguous in visual arts. Does it not serve the purpose of making us think about how we view the world? Is Man Ray's Le violon d'Ingres also only good for jerking off to?

Posted by: Stephanie Z | November 4, 2009 12:18 PM

Stephanie Z - To me ultimately the difference is sensation or tactile, because painting someone or being painted is more unique than getting dressed, the viewer is more likely to incorporate that sensation into how they experience the painting. I'm not saying that in a positive or negative, it just seems like part of the experience.

But, understand, as an artist, I think the difference between painting on a wood panel and canvas is significant. So take that for what it's worth ;)

There is a long history of hidden, ambiguous...but you still need a compelling execution and I like to see more than "oh look the nose is actually a woman" come out of it. To me the above is pretty much a combination of Nagel and Escher, not so thoughtful as the Man Ray.

But, I completely accept that it's subjective and other people may get more out of it. The discussion of clothed vs unclothed certainly made my mind work.

Posted by: micheleinmichigan | November 4, 2009 12:57 PM

And hey, I did give credit for helping people with infertility, a socially worthy cause. I didn't just say jacking off.

Posted by: micheleinmichigan | November 4, 2009 1:08 PM

Is saran-wrap clothing?

Posted by: Jason Thibeault | November 4, 2009 1:13 PM

Saran-wrap - Sure, and tinfoil makes a great hat.

Posted by: micheleinmichigan | November 4, 2009 1:16 PM

IMO, she's not "kneeling." Nor, apparently, on the floor.

Posted by: Diane G. | November 4, 2009 4:23 PM

@Diane G.

I'm guessing that you didn't follow Greg's link to the artist's page.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 4, 2009 5:07 PM

Well, you were right, but I just did. Now it looks even more to me like she's not kneeling on the floor but sitting on some platform (a stool?)...

Posted by: Diane G. | November 4, 2009 5:15 PM

Stephanie [17]: If you paint on a shirt they won't let you in the S.A. to buy a six pack.

You put on a pastie. You paint on a ... whatever that would be.

You can't take off the paint, fold it, and put it in the top drawer of a dresser.

You don't need to stir a pair of slacks first.

The list of differences goes on and on.

Posted by: Greg Laden | November 4, 2009 5:20 PM

Jason [20]: Yes, of course.

Diane [22] You are right. She's sitting. I was confused with a different image (if you go to the artist's site you can see movig gifs on how some of the various images were done).

Posted by: Greg Laden | November 4, 2009 5:23 PM

So... if you were wearing nothing but saran wrap, you couldn't be arrested for violating any indecency laws because you're fully clothed?

I'd think the body paint is more concealing of your nudity.

Posted by: Jason Thibeault | November 4, 2009 6:00 PM

Clothing made of saran wrap vs. body paint; what about thin, loosely woven white fabric or very loosely knitted sweaters?

Story:
When I was 16, I had a date that showed up wearing a very loosely knitted t-shirt and no bra or undershirt, my mother said "I think she forgot something" and I replied "I hope not, I'd need bigger hands." Meanwhile, my father was falling out of his chair laughing, my mother was not amused.

Posted by: Jared | November 4, 2009 6:07 PM

Greg, my point (which I expect you fully understand) is that nakedness has only a tangential relationship to those things we class as clothing, as Jared so eloquently explains. And some of the body paint jobs I've seen...yeah, they'd let me in the SA because they couldn't tell for sure and couldn't find out without violating their own behavioral standards.

Posted by: Stephanie Z | November 4, 2009 6:20 PM

As a student of material culture, I find the line between paint/coloration and clothing to be very comfortable, useful, valid, and persistent across all human cultures and as far as we can tell from the earliest uses of both technologies. Blurring the distinction is mere pandering to poststructuralist gobbledygook. Chance are, it was your earlier comment that killed Claude Levi-Strauss!!11!!

Posted by: Greg Laden | November 4, 2009 6:29 PM

Hey, Greg, check this out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/fabrican-spray-on-fabric_n_333796.html
It's kind of like the spray-on spacesuit thing I read about some time back.

Posted by: Jared | November 4, 2009 6:49 PM

You all are completely ignoring the question of the kitty's nudity.

Posted by: micheleinmichigan | November 4, 2009 8:10 PM

depends upon the material used to paint her. Latex or fiber filled paint, then she isn't naked. If, on the other hand, it is a very thin layer of paint, she is.

Posted by: Jared | November 4, 2009 10:03 PM

Actually, michele, we're politely ignoring the fact that kitty is wearing a very un-PC fur.

Posted by: Stephanie Z | November 4, 2009 11:40 PM