Artist gives birth to vaginal painting
The latest instance of eye-opening art spectacle comes to us courtesy of Swiss artist Milo Moire. During this year's Art Cologne fair in Germany, she "gave birth" to an artwork by seemingly squeezing paint eggs out of her vagina onto an empty canvas. She did so in a very public space outside the fair, providing unsuspecting passersby with a visual overload of a nude woman laboring -- quite literally -- for the sake of art.
"The 'PlopEgg Painting'...releases a loose chain of thoughts -- about the creation fear, the symbolic strength of the casual and the creative power of the femininity," the video's description reads. "At the end of this almost meditative art birth performance the stained canvas is folded up, smoothed and unfolded to a symmetrically reflected picture, astonishingly coloured and full of [strength]."
Moire is no stranger to boundary-pushing performance. For her "Script System" piece, the artist rode public transit in her birthday suit, surprising more than a few commuters with her unabashed nudity. She follows in the footsteps of a long line of provocative artists -- Marina Abramovic, Yoko Ono, Franco B -- who have used forms of nudity as a means of artistic disruption.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/19/milo-moire_n_5174257.html
Video is NSFW.
= new reply since forum marked as read
If ever there was one!
Freedom wins 
Warpy, you're a treasure! 
judging by the warmhearted learning experience I had when I watched it. 
One of these guys.. except an adult.
...and I have no problem with videos. 
TYY
...the Vaginal Knitter.
TYY
and I can't educate anybody who's not open to dialogue.
People can take it or leave it. I can only argue my side of the issues. I try to make what I say on this topic accessible to others, because there are a LOT of people who are mystified about art these days, and I don't blame them. It's an esoteric subject, and if you haven't been exposed to it much, you might have some questions about it. (rhetorical "you"--do I need to say that?)
But you choose to take my effort to be all-inclusive as dumbing it down to you personally. That doesn't seem logical to me. I don't have any need to do that nor do I think you're an "uneducated buffoon." You must be a professor so you can't be uneducated. All I know about you from this is you have a bee in your bonnet about "what art is." I really don't. I just enjoy chatting about it with anybody, and I hope more people--especially intelligent liberals--keep an open mind about it.
Nowhere in this thread have I set myself up as an authority. I just make the case that art professionals--curators, critics, art writers, museum directors, galleries, educators, etc--have a weight of authority on their side about "what is art." They do get to define it within the cultural institutions they inhabit. They do get to select. They do get to validate it, with proper documentation and explanation. You may not agree with their choices and that's your right. Sure there are bad movies, bad books, bad art. But it's still film, literature and art. I am suggesting to critique it, but not resort to the lame "it's not art" put-down just because you don't personally like it.
Saying you "don't believe it's art"--sounds authoritarian for no good reason.
If there's anything more to say, say it. Otherwise let's let it go. It's only art. Can't hurt ya.
Artist Spencer Tunick, 2010
and that's OK. But by some people's definition, it is. I don't love it--but I defend it as performance art. It does make the viewer think about things they wouldn't think about otherwise. Yes, it exhibitionistic, maybe narcissistic, maybe even boring. But these body oriented performances do have a long history in the realm of art. You and I probably wouldn't agree on what is interesting and what is a waste of time. Live and let live. Art is all about being open and tolerant. It's just art. Doesn't hurt anybody. Totally optional.
But thanks for weighing in on it. It always makes sense to talk about reactions to this kind of stuff. Better to have an opinion than no opinion at all.
This is pretty tame in comparison
And to think, Kotex's get thrown away.
a bummer! 
As far as public nudity I find this artist Spencer Tunick much more interesting (LOTS of his pix at this link:
http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2012/07/the-naked-world-of-spencer-tunick/100344/
and I think it was 7-0 to stand.
it claimed to be a TOS violation in the posting of nudity and links to nudity (or as was claimed shock value and porn). I checked the links and Yes, there was nudity, but I found it to be in an artistic use of same and found no shock value as apparently the alerting member did. I find the human form to be a thing of intrinsic beauty (naturally perhaps some more than others, but that is for me to decide) and does not in and of itself cause me to be repulsed.
If the alerting member has a problem with the post, they are free to involve the mods or simply to trash it themselves. I really don't like the many posts about cats and kittens (which often seem to turn up in what I consider to be the wrong forums) and trash them without alerts or commenting in the threads. It seems some folks take this stuff way too seriously.
there was also that point to consider........ and consider it I did.
however, to discover now that "We all don't like the same cars", is simply mind blowing! If only I had known! 
You are exactly right, art is in the eyes of the artist and the beholder.
I found nothing offensive in what you posted.
--but his work is not universally appreciated. Here's another view of the Sydney Opera House "piece." Just google him for more of his work. He paints and constructs with humans in their most vulnerable, most generic state. And the effect on the volunteer participants is of course part of the story too.
[font color="white"]XXXXXXXX[/font]
[font color="white"]XXXXXX[/font]
[font color="white"]XXXX[/font]
[font color="white"]XX[/font]
That's what I thought she was doing at first.
Response to JI7 (Reply #35)
Those of you screaming she needs therapy, it's just art.
A pithy commentary on the demise of the Carbon Age.
I dunno, I shudder to think what she says to women who are sex positive feminists. I always thought 'cool story, bro' was a response to someone telling an anecdote that's obviously tailor-made for what's being discussed, not to attack people who identify with any other form of feminism than what they identify with
but between the legs of the painter?
When I think of art....I think of William-Adolphe Bouguereau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William-Adolphe_Bouguereau
http://www.bouguereau.org/
WARNING: Links contain nudity.
but only if you can sell that act well and get good photos or videos. You could probably find an audience, if done well enough and documented.
Pissing has not been fully explored, I'm sure. It's a challenge, and will not be popular--but go for it.
people have been pulling and squirting stuff out their VJ's for at least 50 years and documenting it. Where ya been? I'm sure there are better and worse techniques.
--so in order to have it labelled as "not art" you would have to wrestle a lot of people.
How many decide?--of course there's a lot of debate within the field. Actually it's extremely competitive at the higher levels and difficult to get the attention of the right promoters and supporters. Your theoretical "50-50" artist has a tough time. It's a horse race. (We're not talking about Sunday painters here--talking about art at a higher level of achievement). So the majority of visual art professionals and art supporters get to decide what visual art is. They are not always in consensus whatsoever but they do try to remain respectful of serious work in genres they don't care for. Keeping an open mind is necessary.
It's just like music or writing or movies. What the critics and producers and academics like--may not be what the public likes best. But that doesn't mean it's not art. And consider that often art is created that isn't widely appreciated for years. Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. He was ridiculed. OTOH Thomas Kinkade's factory-made paintings made him a young zillionaire, only because he was able to convince unsuspecting people that it was good art...when it was primarily a feat of marketing prowess. Most authorities in art would call it mediocre to bad, and his marketing predatory.
On the plus side these days, there's really something for everybody under the huge label of art. So there's no need to fight against what you don't like. If you aren't interested enough to find out anything about whatever the genre is, OK. No harm done. Move on to what you do like. Maybe you like none of it. I'm not here to cajole anybody.
So IMO the general public DOES decide what is popular art, but the public does NOT decide what IS Art. I don't like to see otherwise intelligent (liberal) people arguing the lame old, "it's not Art" merely because they don't like it. Just say you don't like it. Or that you find it "narcissistic, obvious and boring." That's more specific.
-----------
As for violence, expressed in art. That's another topic. But you imagined it--so OK, I'll just say that as long as the violence is NOT REAL--(ie. movies, books, pictures) then it can be art. Because violence is part of our experience in this life. But if it is real, actual extreme violence (let's say--beyond boxing, which some consider to have crossed the line) --if the act of extreme non-consensual violence is labelled as art, that is where sane people draw the line. Because nobody but the sickest minds could defend that in a civilized society. I don't call that good or bad art--I call it psychotic behavior, found in fiction but not condoned in reality.
So I suppose this woman does take a risk that some psychotic might kick the scaffolding out, but she is in a relatively safe environment, and the act is temporary. Remember, it's temporary and you have to be going to this art expo to see it. She is brave to do it, I'll give you that. It might provoke anger from someone who objects to what they happen to see. But if I did that, I'd be waging war daily against the ugliness of things I see in this country and society. Most of us have better self-control. This artist is banking on people being at least accepting, or even bored, like you.
I hope this helps you and anyone else asking the same totally relevant questions.
so often when people want to diss any modern art, they say categorical things like "no longer in the eyes of the beholder..." (I needed a smilie to get your joke, I guess).
Posting about Bouguereau, no prob -- I said they're both "art." In the general sense.
Nobody has to like Pollock. But he is important because of his influence at the time. Many artists did things differently because of Pollock. But that does not mean you need to like looking at his work.
No offense at all. Just art chat.
I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos!
We cut off your johnson!
[URL=http://www.sherv.net/][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
the artist would probably say it's as good as any.
Unless you're just saying all art like this is the domain of elitists. In which case off with your head. 
Think I'll pass on this one!
Right when she's bending over! 
