/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.6691596]

there is a concerning lack of sculpture threads in this board

[Anonymous No.6691620]

>pic related
based italians

why wouldnt you put big booba in public

the children i suppose but you do know kids these days have phones and lie that theyre 18 on websites idk man just trying to fight mother nature that point

[Anonymous No.6691621]

Have one from me scouring google images for royalty free vaporwave inspo lol

[Anonymous No.6691626]

>>6691620
But italians have an average IQ of 89, especially those around Naples.

[Anonymous No.6691631]

>>6691626

I mean im not saying all italians just the sculptor in this case

[Anonymous No.6691640]

>>6691596
Italians REFUSE to succumb to western fat bitches' attempt to subvert conventional beauty standards in their country.

[Anonymous No.6691642]

>>6691640
>he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.6691697]

>>6691596
nice butt

[Anonymous No.6691702]

>>6691640
"this is offensive to women!" The woman in the skin tight lululemons said

[Anonymous No.6691713]

>>6691596
a mermaid wouldn’t have a buttcrack…

[Anonymous No.6691738]

>>6691713
that's a suit you silly goose!

[Anonymous No.6691939]

>>6691596
Based. You know you made something good when the feminist cunts start complaining.

[Anonymous No.6691954]

>>6691596
>“The students got together and came up with the idea of a mermaid,” Marciano said. “The council was shown the scale model and said it was good, and then decided the completed sculpture would be placed in the square.”

>professor Marciano said he did not want to cast judgement on the students’ inspiration, but that he viewed the work “as a representation of reality, in this case of the female body”.

>He added: “You see adverts on television with models who are very thin, but the mermaid is like a tribute to the great majority of women who are curvy, especially in our country. It would have been very bad if we had represented a woman who was extremely skinny.”

holy based

[Anonymous No.6691985]

I thought it was going to be a fatty but I can see why some are bothered, probably women.

[Anonymous No.6691988]

>>6691985
ZAMN

[Anonymous No.6692014]

>>6691620
>the children
Children like big booba, the younger you are, the closer you are to the time you sucked nipples every day. Prudes are an enemy to the fine arts.

[Anonymous No.6692020]

>>6691985
I want to fuck a mermaid so bad bros

[Anonymous No.6692024]

>>6691985
>probably women
As a woman, that generalisation offends me, the prudish and religious people who think of the beautiful human body as shameful do not speak for me. Even in the bible they implied that Adam and Eve being ashamed of their nakedness was a bad thing. Well, If I'm remembering it correctly that is, I'm not religious myself.

[Anonymous No.6692026]

>>6692020
Don't let your dreams be dreams, anon, but you'll have to admit that it is furry-adjacent to buy a mermaid suit for your girlfriend.

[Anonymous No.6692083]

>>6692024
>As a woman
>that offends me
oh no

[Anonymous No.6692091]

>>6691985
Fuck…I feel shameful that I huffed a bunch of poppers and nutted to this :/

[Anonymous No.6692099]

>>6692024
I wasn't implying prudishness and religion but envy and insecurity on women's part.

[Anonymous No.6692102]

>>6692024
Ok…Since you’re so enlightened and free…..Can you please post nudes so I can draw you?

[Anonymous No.6692206]

>>6691642
genuine question but why do these coomer statues seem so much less vulgar? It's arguably the most erotic one in the thread but it still feels like high art. Is it the just skill involved or the pose or what?

[Anonymous No.6692216]

I'm torn on this issue because in history artists had to portray women with masculine physics so the figure wouldn't be "sexualized". But that's the exact issue. If you draw a beautiful women with very feminine features (big ass, skinny waist, big tits) it's automatically pornographic, since it evokes SEXO. This is akin to portraying males with extremely small penis to symbolize a big intellect. Of course the opposite scenario is possible, because personally I have a 7 incher and a 120+ IQ (not bragging btw). I doubt people would want a public statue with a huge cock. It would indeed be obscene, despite being accurate in some cases, like mine.

Very few artists have managed to paint feminine beautiful women without sexualizing them

>>6692024
Pride is a sin, and women(specially today) are terribly prideful of their bodies, that's all they got. That's why every religion, along with Buddhism preaches modesty.

[Anonymous No.6692344]

>>6691713
How would she poop then?

[Anonymous No.6692515]

>>6692216
>in history artists had to portray women with masculine physics so the figure wouldn't be "sexualized"
Eh. Sometimes androgyny was/is used to avoid sexuality, and there have been times when various organizations have pushed back on nudity, so I can see why you might think this. However, you have to consider that beauty and societal standards have undergone many changes. What is considered sexual, erotic, or obscene has also changed a lot. Artists (generally) weren't purposefully giving women a more masculine physique to make them less sexy, they were simply adhering to what was considered attractive at the time. The big ass/small waist/big tits combo is a very modern thing, believe it or not.
This isn't to say that people didn't ever like those features before now, but like by ye olden standards, Rubens was painting curvy/voluptuous ladies. There's a pretty stark difference between the statue in the OP and a classic rubenesque figure. For a long time, artists tended to feature a somewhat idealized version of an "everyday" nude figure, like in your pic - a little stomach pooch, sloping shoulders, soft but slightly pudgy arms/hands, modest tits, bit of a dumpy ass, very pale. A big focus on "softness" rather than ass/tit size. Even erotic paintings tended to lean into plumpness. Ingres proudly painted picrel when he was like 80-something and it was considered to be quite erotic. Some prince bought it only to quickly return it because it offended his wife's sensibilities kek.
The Renaissance did have some particularly masculine looking female figures, most notable culprit being Michelangelo. There's many theories as to why that was (using male models instead of female ones, general aesthetic preference for the male form, being a homo, etc), but avoiding sexualization was likely not the case.

[Anonymous No.6692526]

>>6692024
To any sufficiently public text, there will be a whole spectrum of interpretations.

>>6692216
> history artists had to portray women with masculine physics
They also did because they didn't had access, for various reasons, to women models.

> If you draw a beautiful women with very feminine features (big ass, skinny waist, big tits) it's automatically pornographic
An average woman should have an "amphora" morphology: your "very feminine features" . The problem, the real problem, is that people conflate beautiful and sexually attractive.

>Very few artists have managed to paint feminine beautiful women without sexualizing them
The Mona Lisa is a good example.

>>6692344
Women don't need to, you virgin.

[Anonymous No.6692567]

>>6692024
No one asked

[Anonymous No.6692673]

>>6692515
Artists had to adhere to the standards of the times because those were the conventions set by a more cultured and morally elevated society.
It seems like the more primal a culture is/becomes the more the natural biology becomes desirable
>The big ass/small waist/big tits combo is a very modern thing, believe it or not.
This is very untrue, picrel. And to my point, when you had societies that had a smaller moral compass, the biological spoke louder, so big booba and big poopa were the convention. Throughout history men have always maintained the same desired for these big assets, but commissioners, be it the bourgeois or the church, had a higher moral compass that prevented the SEXO. So artists had to inhale copium and draw women with thick necks, developed forearms, big traps, small tits, square hips, big feet and hands, which are all masculine features. This is very unfortunate on one hand, but on the other hand, it prevents you from looking at a painting and thinking of SEXOOOO, and instead forces you to admire "beauty", but only because you are heterosexual and don't want to fuck women that look like men.

>>6692526
>They also did because they didn't had access, for various reasons, to women models.
No, models were more affordable and specially hookers. In Ancient rome hookers were extremely cheap, like 2€, and artists were well paid.
>is that people conflate beautiful and sexually attractive.
that's out of their control. it's not something you can decide not to think, specially if you are male. If you look at Serpieri's women, they are incredibly attractive, unlike most statues in the Louvre. That's because he uses certain proportions that make them more appealing in a sexual way, aka, what your brain uses to determine if you want to cum inside a hot girl or if that bitch is busted.
>The Mona Lisa is a good example.
I don't agree. we see a lot of the same patterns mentioned above that make women unattractive

[Anonymous No.6692701]

>>6692673
>This is very untrue, picrel
single piece of ritual garment doesn't mean this was considered height of beauty. Back then people focused more on practicality, details and symbolism so the woman has fat gut because she is pregnant BECAUSE she is a goddes of fetility or some sort of maternal icon (obviously women were during those times pregnant all the time). This is a common misconception used by the average /ic/ tard who talks about inflation porn so please stop using it.
>that's out of their control. it's not something you can decide not to think, specially if you are male.
sheepish retard, you are what you carve yourself out to be. I was a fat 80kg lard with no muscles, no friends and no job. Now I'm barely above 60 kilos, well trained, with a decent job, good friends all across my country and the globe. It is possible you just have loser mentality and are just so fucking lazy that you dismiss the possibility of anything but stagnation.
>No, models were more affordable and specially hookers. In Ancient rome hookers were extremely cheap, like 2€, and artists were well paid.
again, it's not about the money. People had more modesty/care back then and what you could pay for was different to what you can now, belive me or not. Big influx in the populace has recently made you belive otherwise but do try to think for yourself instead of watching pornography and social media. "What would you do for 50$" does not apply in the old ages, stop thinking in modern way when you think about the past.

[Anonymous No.6692727]

>>6692206
Not the pose or the technical skill, but the concept itself.
You can make erotic art that has more or less the scope to appeal to the primitive monkey brain, without it being vulgar.
In a sense, by veiling the naked statue, you create a sense of mystique and take away the focus to the actual body;
>she's naked and revealing, but not and in a sense it helps the viewer --appreciate-- the natural feminine body, without outright trying to arouse the viewer or being an object created for the purpose of jerking off to.
Pic related is the exact opposite:
>"wow naked woman omg"

If you know where to take away in certain aspects, you create depth i.e. sometimes less is more.
Which would you find genuinely more erotic as in a general feeling, not the physical response to arousal
>a very provocative naked woman revealing all her holes and shoving her tits in your face
or
>a clothed woman with revealing bits
Only men who aren't underage or straight up coomers can tell you the difference about this and why the latter is objectively better than the first one, even though the first one has its purpose.

[Anonymous No.6692774]

>>6692026
>Furry
The correct denomination is monstergirl you uncultured twat

[Anonymous No.6692888]

>>6692673
I was going to address the Venus of Willendorf but I ran out of room kek.
Big ass/big tits were moreso related to fertility than anything else for a long time. The Venus of Willendorf is commonly thought to be a fertility idol - not a representation of the ideal feminine form in terms of beauty standards, but of the most fertile form.
Regardless of that, those idols you posted are not big ass/small waist/big tits, they are just big ass/big tits and very plump. The hourglass figure didn't come into fashion until the late 1800s and being thin only became a feminine ideal in the early 1900s. The modern hourglass (the old Kardashian, instathot body) with big ass/tits, flat waist, super round hips, and skinny limbs only got popular in the last decade. What is considered feminine is always changing. Recall that pink and heels were once menswear. You simply cannot judge yesterday's coomers by today's standards.

> So artists had to inhale copium and draw women with masculine features.
When Ingres painted The Turkish Bath, he thought he was a real virile horndog. Man was in his 80s and shacked up with a lady half his age, he did not give 2 shits about what anyone else wanted. Again, beauty standards are ever changing, what you cite as masculine features were not seen as masculine features at the time. The plump, average-bodied skinnyfat lady was simply desired, for various reasons. Artists did little coomer pieces for themselves all the time and still none of them featured the big ass/small waist/big tits combo of today.
Historically, artists loved to be dramatic, shocking, and subversive. There's tons instances of artists going against the status quo - Manet's Olympia and Luncheon on the Grass, Courbet's Origin of the World (picrel, also thought to be commissioned by the same coomer who ended up buying Ingres' Turkish Bath), Duchamp's Fountain, van Gogh's entire body of work, etc. If someone truly wanted to paint big ass and boob, they would've.

[Anonymous No.6692925]

>>6692888
Is the a word for when the buttcrack blends into the vagina to make it look like one contiguous line?

[Anonymous No.6692959]

>>6692344
She'd have a fish cloaca

[Anonymous No.6692984]

>>6691642
> H-he doesn’t know what foreshortening is, r-right??

[Anonymous No.6693030]

>>6691640
lol women are schizo

[Anonymous No.6693057]

>>6691954
> You see adverts on television
Lying slug.

[Anonymous No.6693069]

>>6692673
>No, models were more affordable and specially hookers. In Ancient rome hookers were extremely cheap, like 2€, and artists were well paid.
I was thinking for moral reasons, especially under Catholic influence (Renaissance).

> that's out of their control. it's not something you can decide not to think, specially if you are male
Of course they can decide/control. They just choose not to. In early Republic (Plato), there's an old man saying how happy he his not to be bothered by lust anymore. Also I'm a male, and I have full control over my weewee. Also eunuchs (hardcore choice), asexuals (1% of the pop), etc.

Mona Lisa is a good example of beautiful without sexualisation (not sure the point was clearly heard).

[Anonymous No.6693119]

>>6692925
It’s called a lowmiterian

[Anonymous No.6695277]

>>6691596
Anyone outraged by sculpted SEX is a homo

[Anonymous No.6695855]

>>6691596
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE AN SCULPTURE OF AN ATTRACTIVE WOMAN REEEEEE
Anything that makes the feminist cunts seethe is OK in book.

[Anonymous No.6696234]

>>6692024
>News at 11 woman gets offended by something and has to tell everyone she's a woman even though nobody asked.

Imagine if guys did this shit and put "as a man" before every fucking complaint

[Anonymous No.6696276]

>>6691596
Contemplate the scent

[Anonymous No.6696279]

>>6695855
Man get a personality

[Anonymous No.6696282]

>>6696279
you go faesis

[Anonymous No.6696293]

>>6695855
nobody tips drag queens like this
you are confusing drag shows with stripping
also kids aren't allowed into more adult drag shows like this anyway
you are confusing drag queen story time type shit with a different style of drag
if you actually left the house and went to events you would know this but instead you get spoon fed everything you know about queer culture from rightoid shut ins on 4chan

[Anonymous No.6696362]

>>6696293
>also kids aren't allowed into more adult drag shows like this anyway

[Anonymous No.6696628]

>>6691596
It requires talent

[Anonymous No.6696638]

>>6696362
That doesn't count because ... uh....FUCK YOU TRUMP GOT INDICTED

[Anonymous No.6697488]

>This entire sculpture thread

kek

Saw this in person and it left such an impression on me. I'm an atheist but I find the quote beautiful in its almost union of the mundane sentence structure and simple prose.

I love museums. It always makes me feel like im not so crazy for just pursuing art. Through their works, i find acknowledgements, in the tiny details and overall picture.

It's in the philadelphia museum of art, if you ever get a chance to go, go look at this statue.

[Anonymous No.6697490]

>>6697488

[Anonymous No.6697513]

>>6692888
>Big ass/big tits were moreso related to fertility than anything else for a long time. The Venus of Willendorf is commonly thought to be a fertility idol - not a representation of the ideal feminine form in terms of beauty standards, but of the most fertile form.
Noone has any clue that they made the venus of willendorf for that reason and not another. It's literally impossible to know. They're just making shit up.

[Anonymous No.6698108]

>>6696279
trans rights are not human rights

[Anonymous No.6698195]

>>6696293
now address the first panel

[Anonymous No.6698203]

>>6698108
i don't like trannies. You sound like you just discovered /pol/ though, suddenly youre le epic redpill man that forces jews into every single conversation. Like I said, get a personality. Doing that is no different than an autist fedora who looks to cartoons for all his social mannerisms.

[Anonymous No.6701029]

[Anonymous No.6701643]

>>6695855
>Getting outraged at shit that doesn't happen

Why do snowflakes constantly do this?

[Anonymous No.6701645]

>>6696362
Proof that account isn't a fucking liar?

[Anonymous No.6701693]

>>6691596
>Nel frattempo le tredicenni si vestono da bagascie ma quello va bene
>Se ne può parlare male solo in privato, guai a dirlo in pubblico perché diventi di destra, uguale con froci, negri ecc. che fanno schifo a tutti ma non devi dirlo altrimenti sei la bestia razzista

[Anonymous No.6701703]

>>6691642
I wonder if Bradley and Corradini rubbed their dicks on their sculptures when no one was around