MSCL.com

mmmm, yes, her flank is exposed.

Babes with Blades wouldn't be my choice from the calender rack, but I believe your friend now has one more fan on her work.

Nothingman wrote:mmmm, yes, her flank is exposed.

Babes with Blades wouldn't be my choice from the calender rack, but I believe your friend now has one more fan on her work.

HA HA HA!!! she'll be glad to know it! LOL actually she's a costumer in LA, but a frined of hers was doing this shoot and asked her to be in it. She told me "I'm so photoshopped you'll never recognise me!"
She does amazing work in leather and and metal, she also started out as the person who build guitars...sorry I don't remember the proper name.
ANYWAY take a look at her site here: http://www.vivarebecca.com/index.html

she's also an amazing artist!http://www.foxyworldofrebeccaseven.com/

grim4746 wrote:

Kristin wrote:I hate that stuff. Especially that Ann Geddies photography - YUCk.

So then my new avatar doesn't brighten up your new year?

Did you do that just to spite me? I will sick those babes in amour on you! Although... perhaps that's not the best threat? Yes, I really hate the Anne Geddes: I can feel the last thing I ate crawling back up my throat every time I see that sacchrine junk.

I always used to have several calendars: one at home, one at work, and a daily planner. This provided me with the opportunity to have all kinds of calendars I liked! I had a Sierra Club calendar that I really liked, as well as an Ansel Adams calendar that was gorgeous. I'm open to anything with beautiful scenery though - one year we brought home calendars from Hawaii to remind us of our vacation. I also like pictures of the human body, so calendars of ballet, dance, yoga, pilobolus, etc. are also well-received. Last year I had an art calendar. I bought it solely because it had my favorite Bouguereau painting. I still haven't bought a new calendar for 2005.

Count me in with the anti-Geddes group. My sister used to love those pictures and I never understood why. Of all the photos I have seen, I think maybe one or two of them seemed okay but that was cancelled out by the immense dislike I had for the rest of her work. Those photos of babies dressed up remind me of the those Wegman weimaraner pictures - ugh.

I also really dislike the Wyland paintings of whales and dolphins. Lots of people love them though, so I guess I'm the freak.

candygirl wrote:II also really dislike the Wyland paintings of whales and dolphins. Lots of people love them though, so I guess I'm the freak.

In the art world they call that kind of stuff kitsch - art that doesn't make a bold statement. Generic stuff you would see in a hotel lobby. I learned that in a painting class I had a couple semesters ago. People love it because it's non-controversial and "pretty", easy on the eyes and mind. People don't like to think much or be shaken up I guess.

I don't think that something has to be shocking in order to be considered art - I just don't like cheesy pictures of dolphins.



I don't have an issue with kitsch per se, but the fact that these Wylands sell for thousands of dollars seems a bit out there. I don't think Mr. Wyland considers himself kitsch either.

candygirl wrote:I don't think that something has to be shocking in order to be considered art - I just don't like cheesy pictures of dolphins.

I don't have an issue with kitsch per se, but the fact that these Wylands sell for thousands of dollars seems a bit out there. I don't think Mr. Wyland considers himself kitsch either.

I agree with you, candygirl - I don't think art necessarily has to be shocking to be condsidered art... I hope you didn't get that impression from my last post. Not all the art I create is shocking or make political/ethical/etc. statements. I also agree that a lot of kitsch art doesn't need to cost as much as it goes for. The bad thing about non-kitsch art - the kind that does make bold/shocking statements - is that it is inaccessible. For example, who wants a Frida Kahlo painting in their house? Her work is amazing, beautiful, and powerful, but usually very unpleasant subject matter. I have a book on her, but I wouldn't want one of her paintings hanging in my living room, if you know what I mean. The dolphins, etc. are accessible to everyone, not just those in the art world, and they are pleasant to look at, so that stuff ends up in people's homes. I totally get that, I hope you don't think I'm an art snob! I have pleasant stuff hanging up in my apartment, like Van Gogh and Monet prints. But no dolphins or dressed-up babies. Kitsch is not necessarily the same as too-cutsie-poo.

No, I didn't think you were implying that at all! I just meant what you said much better than I did - that it's possible to have accessible, non-offensive art that isn't cheesy, cliche, or cutsie.

I think good art makes an emotional connection. Of course that varies for everyone. There is also the appreciation of the skill it takes to make certain types of art. I enjoy photography and scenic artwork because I like to taken somewhere, and reminded of places I've been or wish I could visit. I also like pieces that make me think.

I see babies dressed up as flowers as a red flag. If that's what a girl is into, that's fine. There is nothing wrong with liking it, but it does point out that we probably have very different emotional triggers. Not to mention the fact it makes me want to gag.

I'm strongly considering getting the Suicide Girls' calendar.

If that's what a girl is into, that's fine. There is nothing wrong with liking it, but it does point out that we probably have very different emotional triggers. Not to mention the fact it makes me want to gag.

I keep hearinf sinefelds "Not that there's anything wrong with tha!"

LOL I agree whole heartedly... barf.
It's too saccrine for me personally