VAGINArts.com
A
the magic and wonderful secrets of a woman.
Comments are welcome in our forum.
See you ;-)
--
****
Women! Be proud - enjoy at http://www.vaginarts.com
OhSojourner
You expect me to be proud of something called "Vaginarts"??? hk-hk-HURL!
Please, show me something that isn't about narcissism, navel-gazing, or any
other portion of one's own anatomy!!!
What if male artists had a typical tendency to portray "intimate" subject
matter pertaining to themselves? (Imagine a websitegallery called
penisarts.com)
Speaking of, there was a famous Picasso painting (I think it was called "The
Mirror") showing a woman gazing at her own reflection. Picasso, being quite
the misogynist, believed that to be the sumuppance of all womankind.
...and all this navel-gazing does is perpetuate that notion!
*******************************************************
http://sojourns.150m.com/roadtrip98/home.html
A
like that one better ;-)
Kisses
In article <20011210212025...@mb-ci.aol.com>,
OhSojourner
>
>A wrote:
>>
>> Please visit our websitegallery at http://www.vaginarts.com and enjoy
>> the magic and wonderful secrets of a woman.
>> Comments are welcome in our forum.
>> See you ;-)
>> --
>> ****
>> Women! Be proud - enjoy at http://www.vaginarts.com
>This is interesting...in the same way that "The Vagina Monologues" is.
>Here's my theory. This ugliness comes from women rejecting the fact that
>their female nature is designed with men in mind (if you know what I
>mean), and them (i.e. Marxist-feminists) trying to reclaim it as their
>own exclusively. But because the truth of feminine nature (as such,
>designed for men) is beautiful their efforts to define it exclusively
>according to their own terms, exclusively, results in dirt and ugliness.
>The feminist celebration of the feminine nature is, quite unlike that by
>men, just plain disgusting!
I wonder what Louise thinks of vaginarts.com...
*******************************************************
http://sojourns.150m.com/roadtrip98/home.html
Chive Mynde
> A info wrote:
>
> >Please visit our websitegallery at http://www.vaginarts.com and enjoy
> >the magic and wonderful secrets of a woman.
> >Comments are welcome in our forum.
> >See you ;-)
> >--
> >****
> >Women! Be proud - enjoy at http://www.vaginarts.com
>
> You expect me to be proud of something called "Vaginarts"??? hk-hk-HURL!
Well, I'm a man, and I'm proud of it. It think it is really cool.
As a man, I'm totally fascinated by the vagina. It gave me life,
and I wonder about it.
My faves? In order:
http://www.vaginarts.com/main.asp?img=collection1/previews/preview7.jpg
http://www.vaginarts.com/main.asp?img=collection5/previews/preview9.jpg
http://www.vaginarts.com/main.asp?img=collection4/previews/preview9.jpg
http://www.vaginarts.com/main.asp?img=collection5/previews/preview6.jpg
http://www.vaginarts.com/main.asp?img=collection4/previews/preview2.jpg
> Please, show me something that isn't about narcissism, navel-gazing, or any
> other portion of one's own anatomy!!!
Why? Do you find something wrong with human anatomy? I've got
a real mindblowing newsflash for you: the entire world is based
on the appreciation, the understanding, and the use of human
anatomy. In the artworld, the depiction of the human anatomy
has served as a representation for nature, religion,
civiliation, and gnosis.
It is no surprise that the finest works of art use the human anatomy
as its canvas for expression and grandeur. Sandro Botticelli's
"The birth of Venus" is an erotic masterpiece, and I am reminded
of it whenever I envisage a pretty redhead. Titian's "Venus with a
Mirror" and "Venus and Cupid with an Organist" demonstrate the sexual
appeal of *overweight* women and the *ugliness* of a skinny, modern
woman,
and I think of it whenever I see a runway model espousing
anorexia nervosa.
Pierre-Auguste Renoir's "Nini in the Garden" brings tears to my eyes
-- not from sadness -- but from sheer joy -- for the beauty of a
*clothed* woman in the sunlight is truly a religious experience
when painted by Renoir. (For some reason, I feel like crying
whenever I see a Renoir -- I suspect it has something to do with
his miraculous ability at capturing the essence of life itself)
Gustav Klimt's "Nude Veritas" and "The Three Ages of Woman" depicts
the beauty of a vagina, and the delicate fragility of the pregnant
female form.
Georgia O'Keeffe's flowers admittedly and quite purposefully resonate
with the full vibratory pleasure of the female genitalia and remind
one that nature abounds in sexuality.
Egon Schiele's "Female Nude" portrays a stubby-haired vagina, and
we wonder, not about the vagina's state of mind, but as to what
exactly the woman is thinking as she stares so nonchalantly into
the distance. You cannot seperate the sexual from the spiritual.
> What if male artists had a typical tendency to portray "intimate" subject
> matter pertaining to themselves?
Michelangelo's "David", Auguste Rodin's, "The Thinker" -- these
all depict the beauty of the naked male body.
> (Imagine a websitegallery called
> penisarts.com)
It exists. So what?
> Speaking of, there was a famous Picasso painting (I think it was called "The
> Mirror")
"Jeune fille devant un miroir" -- Girl before a Mirror
> showing a woman gazing at her own reflection. Picasso, being quite
> the misogynist, believed that to be the sumuppance of all womankind.
You are incorrect. Picasso was in love with a woman, Marie-Therese
Walter. She was the basis of this and other paintings. The
psyhological landscape, however, that Picasso creates, is much
more important than the artists own state of mind. As an artist,
you, above all, should know this, OhSojourner. The fact that
you don't, is very telling.
> ...and all this navel-gazing does is perpetuate that notion!
Pure bullshit. If more people were in touch with the human
body, the world would be a better place. Your prudish,
victorian values are the root cause of much of the suffering
in the world today.
-=Chive
Science is not belief, but the will to find out.
OhSojourner
> ohsoj...@aol.comedy (OhSojourner) wrote in message news...
>> A info wrote:
>>> Please visit our websitegallery at http://www.vaginarts.com
>>> and enjoy
>>> the magic and wonderful secrets of a woman. Comments are
>>> welcome in our forum. See you ;-) -- **** Women! Be proud -
>>> enjoy at http://www.vaginarts.com
>> You expect me to be proud of something called "Vaginarts"???
>> hk-hk-HURL!
> Well, I'm a man, and I'm proud of it. It think it is really
> cool. As a man, I'm totally fascinated by the vagina. It gave
> me life, and I wonder about it.
> My faves? In order:
> http://www.vaginarts.com/main.asp?img=collection1/previews/p-
> review7.jpg
> http://www.vaginarts.com/main.asp?img=collection5/previews/p-
> review9.jpg
> http://www.vaginarts.com/main.asp?img=collection4/previews/p-
> review9.jpg
> http://www.vaginarts.com/main.asp?img=collection5/previews/p-
> review6.jpg
> http://www.vaginarts.com/main.asp?img=collection4/previews/p-
> review2.jpg
>> Please, show me something that isn't about narcissism,
>> navel-gazing, or any other portion of one's own anatomy!!!
> Why? Do you find something wrong with human anatomy? I've got
> a real mindblowing newsflash for you: the entire world is
> based on the appreciation, the understanding, and the use of
> human anatomy. In the artworld, the depiction of the human
> anatomy has served as a representation for nature, religion,
> civiliation, and gnosis.
<snip>
Don't get me wrong... it isn't the subject matter per se that I am taking issue
with, it is the apparent frequency of this kind of stuff I see coming from
feminist artists. It seems too inward and self-absorbed.
Why is it that male artists and other creators tend to address a wider range of
subject matter? More male artists create works that are "outside" of
themselves, or so it seems. By this I refer even to works other than visual
arts -- writing, the sciences, etc.
>> ...and all this navel-gazing does is perpetuate that notion!
>Pure bullshit. If more people were in touch with the human
>body, the world would be a better place. Your prudish,
>victorian values are the root cause of much of the suffering
>in the world today.
[...]
Bullshit. You completely misread and misunderstood my reaction. It is not
about the nature of the subject matter; it is the fact that there is so much of
it out there that it's gotten tiresome. Seen it all already; it's been done
to death. I want to see more female artists going beyond the boundaries of
"themselves". There is nothing particularly innovative about peering between
one's legs, because that is what infants do, after all.
And remember, that the world also "became a better place" when male creators
and inventors were able to look out beyond themselves and give the world their
insights into the nature of realms beyond their own physical and social
functioning.
*******************************************************
http://sojourns.150m.com/roadtrip98/home.html
LeVa21
ohsoj...@aol.comedy (OhSojourner) wrote:
>
> >> A info wrote:
>
> >>> Please visit our websitegallery at http://www.vaginarts.com
> >>> and enjoy
>
> >>> the magic and wonderful secrets of a woman. Comments are
> >>> welcome in our forum. See you ;-) -- **** Women! Be proud -
> >>> enjoy at http://www.vaginarts.com
>
> > You expect me to be proud of something called "Vaginarts"???
> > hk-hk-HURL!
One cant please everyone, but you visited Vaginarts, and that more then
most have.
The foundation of your arguments is a bit shaky - you assume that the
artist is a feminist female and because of the artists sex it "inward
and self-absorbed".
>
> <snip>
>
> Don't get me wrong... it isn't the subject matter per se that I am taking
> issue
> with, it is the apparent frequency of this kind of stuff I see coming from
> feminist artists. It seems too inward and self-absorbed.
>
> Why is it that male artists and other creators tend to address a wider range
> of
> subject matter? More male artists create works that are "outside" of
> themselves, or so it seems. By this I refer even to works other than visual
> arts -- writing, the sciences, etc.
>
> >> ...and all this navel-gazing does is perpetuate that notion!
>
> Bullshit. You completely misread and misunderstood my reaction. It is not
> about the nature of the subject matter; it is the fact that there is so much
> of
> it out there that it's gotten tiresome.
Could you please tell us where?
>
> And remember, that the world also "became a better place" when male creators
> and inventors were able to look out beyond themselves and give the world
> their
> insights into the nature of realms beyond their own physical and social
> functioning.
>
>
So ohsojourner - what do you know about this artist? Is it a male of
female artist?
And - if its a male artist - does it change anything - beside removing
the foundation of your arguments??? And according to you Vaginarts
suddenly turned in to
"works that are "outside" of themselves," and
"insights into the nature of realms beyond their own physical and social
functioning"
or... ;-)
/A
--
**************
Women - be proud of your yoni and enjoy at http://www.vaginarts.com
OhSojourner
>In article <20011211094503...@mb-cn.aol.com>,
> ohsoj...@aol.comedy (OhSojourner) wrote:
>>
>> >> A info wrote:
>>
>> >>> Please visit our websitegallery at http://www.vaginarts.com
>> >>> and enjoy
>> >>> the magic and wonderful secrets of a woman. Comments are
>> >>> welcome in our forum. See you ;-) -- **** Women! Be proud -
>> >>> enjoy at http://www.vaginarts.com
>> > You expect me to be proud of something called "Vaginarts"???
>> > hk-hk-HURL!
>One cant please everyone, but you visited Vaginarts, >and that more then most
have.
>The foundation of your arguments is a bit shaky - you assume that the
>artist is a feminist female and because of the artists sex it "inward
>and self-absorbed".
I apologize if I sounded like I was only talking about your site, but actually,
I'm talking about much of what I see out in the art world that is described as
"feminist art". Similar themes -- women's bodies and reproductive issues --
have been addressed years ago by artists such as Louise Bourgeois and Nikki de
Sainte Phalle. It was a common theme in the campus art galleries; it is a
common theme in the local art galleries; it is a common theme for performance
artists (see: Annie Sprinkle); and then we have plays like "The Vagina
Monologues". It gets quite repetitious after awhile. (And how many of these
artists are able to make a living from this?)
To make an analogy, imagine if every other gallery showing by a male artist was
concerning sperm and erections, or addressing whatever physical processes
happen to the male body; that there was a hit play called "The Penis
Monologues"; etc. That would certainly get tiresome after awhile, too.
There's a place for this kind of stuff, but I wish more attention would be
given to women who have other ideas besides "women's issues".
*******************************************************
http://sojourns.150m.com/roadtrip98/home.html
LeVa21
ohsoj...@aol.comedy (OhSojourner) wrote:
>
> I apologize if I sounded like I was only talking about your site, but
> actually,
> I'm talking about much of what I see out in the art world that is described
> as
> "feminist art". Similar themes -- women's bodies and reproductive issues --
> have been addressed years ago by artists such as Louise Bourgeois and Nikki
> de
> Sainte Phalle. It was a common theme in the campus art galleries; it is a
> common theme in the local art galleries; it is a common theme for
> performance
> artists (see: Annie Sprinkle); and then we have plays like "The Vagina
> Monologues". It gets quite repetitious after awhile. (And how many of these
> artists are able to make a living from this?)
>
So? The womans body, and other things that surround us has been
addressed in the past and will most likely be addressed in the future,
over and over again. Things that concerns humanity tends to be in what
they express (art, litterature, science, music...) and to a great part
of mankind - the women and her body is a major issue for different
reasons.
One thing you probably havn´t understood about creating art. Its not
done primarly for an audience - its done because its something the
artist wants to express or feels or just for the heck of it...
And it really doesn´t matter if it has been done before - to the artist
its new.
If the artist would start with thinking, - what does the audience want,
then it would be something else - then you get "babies with tears in
their eyes", or someone trying to figure out what hasn´t been done
before and calls that artistery - just because it hasn´t been done
before.
> To make an analogy, imagine if every other gallery showing by a male artist
> was
> concerning sperm and erections, or addressing whatever physical processes
> happen to the male body; that there was a hit play called "The Penis
> Monologues"; etc. That would certainly get tiresome after awhile, too.
>
Sure - and the internet is full of shit when it comes to the nude body.
But I dont have to go there, and if I would happen to slip and browse in
to www.penisart.com - I dont have to look at it. Its a free world.
> There's a place for this kind of stuff, but I wish more attention would be
> given to women who have other ideas besides "women's issues".
>
You never answered the question about if the artist male or female. Lets
say its a male artist - does that make any difference?
LeVa21
> This is interesting...in the same way that "The Vagina Monologues" is.
>
> Here's my theory. This ugliness comes from women rejecting the fact that
> their female nature is designed with men in mind (if you know what I
> mean), and them (i.e. Marxist-feminists) trying to reclaim it as their
> own exclusively. But because the truth of feminine nature (as such,
> designed for men) is beautiful their efforts to define it exclusively
> according to their own terms, exclusively, results in dirt and ugliness.
>
> The feminist celebration of the feminine nature is, quite unlike that by
> men, just plain disgusting!
So - is the artist who done the artwork at vaginarts.com - male or
female? What do you think? ;-)
Chive Mynde
> Larry Flynt is just your type, Devin.
No, he's not, and I don't find him or his products
to be "art" of any kind.
> Ah, well, moral consistency has never been a feminist
> virtue.
Newslash: Anti-feminists have *no* morals.
HTH.