19 yo to lose his virginity in public as "performance art"

[Zombie]

Instead of being honest about it, he frames it with political art speak about "explorations ... questions ... heteronormativity ..." without concerns of luridness, or that people would cheapen it to get their rocks off.  I'm asking myself, "Is this guy for real?" He manages to come off as naive and pretentious at the same time. 

 

 

Ah, yes, which brings us back to the question what is art and what is the point of art? Art has always been controversial - for many that is the whole point - and is often labeled pretentious, as with Piss Christ and 9 other works featured in this fun critique

 

[Sasha Distan]

all bets are off. wonder how much he's gonna make out of this "art concept?" I'm thinking the difference between art and porn are several zero's...

[mickey1952]

It's kind of sad when you think about it.  The young man apparently never has had a close loving relationship in which he wanted to give himself to another.   So to replace that with "performance art" seems like a poor second choice in my humble opinion....

I agree, DaddyDave. I hope he doesn't end up regetting this years from now. I don't understand it, but I hope things turn out well in the end.

[Aditus]

So if you make money of it it isn't art anymore? Or to provoke some more, it can't be art if you do it primarily  to make money? Interesting.

[Thorn Wilde]

So if you make money of it it isn't art anymore? Or to provoke some more, it can't be art if you do it primarily  to make money? Interesting.

 

I'm of the school that says that if you do it primarily to make money, then no, it isn't art. There's nothing wrong with making money on art, the more the better. Nor is there anything wrong with making art that people like, or even being conscious in the process of creating your art of what people like and what will help you support yourself. But if making money is your primary objective, instead of creating something that you can be proud of/telling a story you want to tell/whatever; if you compromise what you set out to create in favour of making an easy buck, then I don't think it's art anymore. Of course, only you can judge that for yourself.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Thorn Wilde

[Fishwings]

Virginity may not be his biggest worry, but the guy thinks about it a lot. So much that he decides to make an event of it, the equivalent of  a"hell fuck it, we might as well make a show of it."  

 

Instead of being honest about it, he frames it with political art speak about "explorations ... questions ... heteronormativity ..."

 

I don't really have a problem with this whole thing but if you think about it the whole concept is really contradictory. It seems like he wants to break boundaries regarding virginity but then again he's been planning it for like three years and now he's making a huge ass deal out of it. It seems like he's internalized these heteronormative beliefs in the process of trying to create something that defies them xD

[hh5]

Shia LaBeouf latest movie was suppose to have do real sex but somewhere someone choked on the idea

someone posted a movie clip of the sex scene and it was yanked by youtube

"We shot the actors pretending to have sex and then had the body doubles who really did have sex, and in post we will digital impose the two," producer Louise Vesth said in an interview with THR earlier this year. "So above the waist it will be the star, and the below the waist it will be the doubles." 

 

 

Even if the 19yo is committed to doing this or not, the question is who (him or the partner) would choked on the idea when the curtain calls.

Will this quelch their future careers? Will the media react positively or not? LaBeouf probably questioned this career move that would cross over to porn.

 

would the gay factor make people think of gay porn instead of art?

Edited November 8, 2013 by hh5

[Zombie]

I'm of the school that says that if you do it primarily to make money, then no, it isn't art.

 

But if making money is your primary objective ... then I don't think it's art anymore.

 

As Addy said, "Interesting". So according to Thorne none of the following professionals created art because they did it "primarily to make money". Which they indeed did. Yep. Irrefutable fact, they all did it "primarily to make money". All their works were either commissioned or speculative.

 

So none of the stuff these people created is art:

 

Handel

JS Bach

Mozart

Beethoven

Johannes Vermeer

Rembrandt

John Constable

JMW Turner

Andy Warhol

Henry Moore

Ingmar Bergman

William Shakespeare

Jane Austin

 

and on and on and on ....

 

For goodness sake!

 

Edited November 9, 2013 by Zombie

[Daddydavek]

As Addy said, "Interesting". So according to Thorne none of the following professionals created art because they did it "primarily to make money". Which they indeed did. Yep. Irrefutable fact, they all did it "primarily to make money". All their works were either commissioned or speculative.

 

So none of the stuff these people created is art:

 

Handel

JS Bach

Mozart

Beethoven

Johannes Vermeer

Rembrandt

John Constable

JMW Turner

Andy Warhol

Henry Moore

Ingmar Bergman

William Shakespeare

The Bronte Sisters

Jane Austin

 

and on and on and on ....

 

For goodness sake!

 

Oh, and what about Charles Dickens?  Wasn't he paid by the word for some of his stories?

[Zombie]

Oh, and what about Charles Dickens?  Wasn't he paid by the word for some of his stories?

 

Oops, missed old Charlie Boy - thanks Daddy, and I do believe you're absolutely right

[Thorn Wilde]

That actually wasn't what I said, and you cut out most of my post, Zombie. Nor did I judge anyone. Even when someone commissions a work, the artist can and generally does put their own mark to it. It is when you mass produce and pump out a product without giving any thought to what you're doing, without even trying to make it interesting or original, without even trying to give it your own voice, just so you can make money, that it ceases being art. In my opinion. And nobody knows that but the artist themselves, so really the point is moot. I thought I was pretty clear on all this. 

[W_L]

That actually wasn't what I said, and you cut out most of my post, Zombie. Nor did I judge anyone. Even when someone commissions a work, the artist can and generally does put their own mark to it. It is when you mass produce and pump out a product without giving any thought to what you're doing, without even trying to make it interesting or original, without even trying to give it your own voice, just so you can make money, that it ceases being art. In my opinion. And nobody knows that but the artist themselves, so really the point is moot. I thought I was pretty clear on all this. 

 

*Cough...Disney Sequels.....Cough*

 

I agree, art is not for mass production for consumption sake, it becomes a commodity in the process.

 

Seriously, who thought Bambi II was artistically merited? Who thought Lion King 1 1/2 was artistic in either design or story compared to the masterpiece of the Original?

 

However, reinterpretation can be a pieces of art, I love the concept of framing in story writing. If I re-frame a story from one character to another point of view with noted reactions and unknown variables, I have created a brand new story with the similar plot points and same characters. That is how I differentiate between sequels and reinterpretations.

 

We had a discussion on fan fiction a few months ago, which I think is directly linked to this issue. Art in fan fiction is re-interpretation, not consumption alone.

[Zombie]

That actually wasn't what I said

 

But that is exactly what you said, Thorne. You want the unexpurgated version. Not a problem - here it is.

 

I'm of the school that says that if you do it primarily to make money, then no, it isn't art. There's nothing wrong with making money on art, the more the better. Nor is there anything wrong with making art that people like, or even being conscious in the process of creating your art of what people like and what will help you support yourself. But if making money is your primary objective, instead of creating something that you can be proud of/telling a story you want to tell/whatever; if you compromise what you set out to create in favour of making an easy buck, then I don't think it's art anymore. Of course, only you can judge that for yourself.

 

Your first sentence "I'm of the school that says that if you do it primarily to make money, then no, it isn't art." is an unqualified and unequivocal statement. Your sentence means that someone like Bach who composed music "primarily to make money" - and he did, he did it so he could support himself and his family - is NOT by your definition as contained in your first sentence an artist and therefore by your definition, his sublime music is not art. Likewise none of the others in that list can be artists according to you because they also did what they did "primarily to make money", so they could support themselves and their families [if they had them - obviously some, like Jane Austin, did not].

 

You then repeat this by saying "But if making money is your primary objective ... then I don't think it's art anymore". In the middle of this sentence you do, this time, introduce qualifiers that were not present in your unequivocal first sentence:

- creating something that you can be proud

- of/telling a story you want to tell

- whatever

- if you compromise what you set out to create in favour of making an easy buck

 

But these are nothing more than the basic attributes of any competent and proud tradesman. And that's what Bach was - a tradesman. He did it for money. It just so happens that JS Bach created some of the most uplifting and sublime art the world has ever known. Oh wait, of course, according to your post #30 it's not art [see above]

 

I've made my position clear. I've nothing further to say. Readers can make up their own mind.

 

[rustle]

What a jumble. I guess, on one level, he's already succeeded in provoking thought and discussion, at least here.

 

First off, he's externalizing his own internal turmoil, laying it off on society as their problem. Ideally, I believe the first time should be a loving progression to an intimate act, and it's a sad fact that it isn't always. I'm sure lots of folks pop their cherries just to get it over with. If virginity becomes this stumbling block, inhibiting personal growth, "crashing through the barrier" can be a normalizing experience. I'm not sure doing it as performance art in front of 100 art critics (porn patrons) could ever be normalizing, and could be a scarring experience. 

 

Hyping this up beforehand is a way of forcing himself to follow through with the act, and I'm not sure he'd have the stones to do it otherwise. Then again, it guarantees an audience for his art. Art is no longer the scion of artifice, but of novelty. Does anyone thing Warhol was really a great artist, or just inventive? He did more to commoditize imagery than anyone else I can think of. This may the beginning of a great career in art for the young man and his prop boyfriend. Is it art? The audience would have to answer that one. For me, no. My only interest would honestly be lurid.

 

So, I question the boy's motives. I question the artistic merit of the act. I question the outcome, and its effect on his emotional well-being, which is already questionable. It's not truly all that innovative, but a natural progression of what we call art. Remember gratuitous nudity in theater? The musical "Hair" was more a culmination than the forefront, over 40 years ago. So is this. Seven virgins and a mule on Bourbon Street did it earlier.

 

On a visceral level, I'm with Magpie. I'd chip in some bucks if his boyfriend wouldn't use lube. I'd chip in some more for a dose of Viagra for the guy, hoping for a priapism. Let's make it a truly moving experience for the artist. He IS a douche.

 

On a more human level, I pity this boy, that his life is as it is, and he feels this need.

 

He's not telling his parents? Why ever not?

[Sasha Distan]

Seriously, who thought Bambi II was artistically merited? 

 

I actually prefer Bambi 2 to the original movie. better songs and exploring the relationship between a young boy and his distant father? I'm so there.

 

It is however, the exception the rule

[hh5]

[Zombie]

Does anyone thing Warhol was really a great artist, or just inventive?

 

Thanks for your considered post rustle. I hope he doesn't go ahead. If he's not announced the venue he could just remain silent, and when the date comes and goes people can be left wondering - did it happen? Or even better if he has booked and publicised the venue, all the raincoats "art critics" arrive, eager with expectation after their 3 months salivating, the lights are dimmed, a single spotlight draws their eyes, and they wait ... and they wait ... and nothing happens I'm thinking something like John Cage's 4′33″ - the performance art is ... the critics themselves :funny:

 

As for Andy Warhol, no I don't think he was a great artist. But he was definitely an artist. And he was very influential. And he made a lot of money. There's no requirement for artists to live in poverty, in cold, damp, squalid garrets, living off their own creative juices

 

But what about The Factory? How could its "mass production" be Andy Warhol's? Warhol had no personal involvement in the production of much of its output. He may even have had no personal involvement in the ideas, the concept - he may just have been shown the idea or finished product and said "yes", or maybe grunted, or maybe rolled his eyes ... How could that be his art - wasn't that a cynical scam, a con, a fraud, compared to the works of the venerated Old Masters hanging in galleries around the world?

 

Well, consider this. Those Old Masters often had their own "factories" - it was called the "workshop system" where "the Masters were responsible for the overall design and for painting the focal portions of the work such as the face or hands of the figures, or the embroidered parts of the clothing. The more prosaic sections would be left to assistants; in many works it is possible to discern abrupt shifts in style. If the master was secure enough financially, he could dedicate his workshop to the production of copies of his commercially successful works, or on new compositions based on his designs. In this case, the master would usually produce the underdrawing or design. Because of this many surviving works are today attributed to workshops or followers. A workshop kept patterns and prepainted panels to sold directly to the public. The masters' workshops typically consisted of a family home with lodging for apprentices who were either earning their entry into the painters' guild or fully trained journeymen artists who had not yet paid the dues required to establish their own workshop."

 

So maybe Andy Warhol wasn't quite so ground-breaking and radical after all, and the creation of art maybe isn't so straightforward either

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Netherlandish_painting#Workshops

 

Edited November 11, 2013 by Zombie

[Kitt]

Dumb old straight lady question for you -  

 

A lot of people seem to be in favor of this piece of "performance art". Others seem to look at it as a "his decision" sort of thing. Would the reactions be the same if it was a 19 yr old FEMALE virgin planning this?

[Sasha Distan]

Dumb old straight lady question for you -  

 

A lot of people seem to be in favor of this piece of "performance art". Others seem to look at it as a "his decision" sort of thing. Would the reactions be the same if it was a 19 yr old FEMALE virgin planning this?

 

I think everyone has the right to potentially screw up their future career plans regardless of their gender.

i mean, we tell the kids to be careful about what they put on facebook or twitter because nothing that goes on the internet can ever truly be deleted. people have lost their jobs over stuff they said on twitter (like the young persons police minister who had to quit cause of some rant she had on twitter when she was 16). it's his future. i feel for his boyfriend though, pressure or what?

[Kitt]

But you are much more open minded than a lot of the people in the world wolf!

[TetRefine]

To call this art is an insult to real art. The people going to this only want to see some cute, tight (in many ways) young boy get fucked on stage and get off while watching. I doubt any of them are going for the "artistic value". How is this really any different than a back room of a club where you have a group of old guys ogling two young guys getting it on in the corner?  

 

Now, looks like I'll be booking my flight to London soon.

[rustle]

Well, consider this. Those Old Masters often had their own "factories" - it was called the "workshop system" where "the Masters were responsible for the overall design and for painting the focal portions of the work such as the face or hands of the figures, or the embroidered parts of the clothing. The more prosaic sections would be left to assistants; in many works it is possible to discern abrupt shifts in style. If the master was secure enough financially, he could dedicate his workshop to the production of copies of his commercially successful works, or on new compositions based on his designs. In this case, the master would usually produce the underdrawing or design. Because of this many surviving works are today attributed to workshops or followers. A workshop kept patterns and prepainted panels to sold directly to the public. The masters' workshops typically consisted of a family home with lodging for apprentices who were either earning their entry into the painters' guild or fully trained journeymen artists who had not yet paid the dues required to establish their own workshop."

 

So maybe Andy Warhol wasn't quite so ground-breaking and radical after all, and the creation of art maybe isn't so straightforward either

 

 

True enough, o green one, but Warhol employed mass production technologies not available to the Old Masters. For the Old Masters, the physical labor required to produce the work and the development of the students' virtuosity had a symbiotic effect, bolstering a community of art. A grunt pulling silk screens or developing photographic prints who's never met the artist (designer) is on another level to my mind. But philosophically, I have trouble even conceiving of photography as art, because there's so much technology between the artist and his work. Even more so now with digital technology. Everything is duplicable to a degree of detail not possible before.

 

The same goes for music now.

 

I still hold that the greatest art is that produced by an individual or group of individuals who are hands-on, involved from get to go, expressing not just novelty, but mastery, and making something truly unique. For musicians, the ultimate is a live performance, never to be equaled. At the risk of contradicting myself earlier, maybe that does make this boy's deflowering a work of art.

 

 

Dumb old straight lady question for you -  

 

A lot of people seem to be in favor of this piece of "performance art". Others seem to look at it as a "his decision" sort of thing. Would the reactions be the same if it was a 19 yr old FEMALE virgin planning this?

 

For me, for the most part, yes. The only difference for me would be whether or not the "artist" sought some sort of decadent undertone by going homo. But today? There's much less shock value in a couple of guys buggering each other.

 

I would be more surprised if this were a young woman, though. Not offended or anything, surprised, but I'm old, too.

Edited November 12, 2013 by rustle

[Y_B]

Perhaps he'll find a dark canvas to cum on when he finishes and hold it up as abstract art. It's a reflection of the artists perception of the world as a messy chaotic place yet so full of life.

[Fishwings]

Perhaps he'll find a dark canvas to cum on when he finishes and hold it up as abstract art. It's a reflection of the artists perception of the world as a messy chaotic place yet so full of life.

 

What a brilliant idea! It could get featured in an art museum and auctioned off for $10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 

And maybe lady gaga will wear it on her face.

[crazyfish]

Dumb old straight lady question for you -  

 

A lot of people seem to be in favor of this piece of "performance art". Others seem to look at it as a "his decision" sort of thing. Would the reactions be the same if it was a 19 yr old FEMALE virgin planning this?

 

If it isn't her decision, what else would be it?  No one is forcing her to lose it in front of 'art critics'.  It's still her body, her decision. As for art ... I don't think the guy's stunt is art.  I won't call her stunt art either.