Quantity Over Quality?

[Speed]

I found this article interesting. Makes one wonder, what was the point? Would you consider this erotic, artistic, or a gimick?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18522292/?GT1=9951

[adina]

I'm going to go with gimmick. First, you can't even tell those people are naked. You can't see anything other than a little fleshtoned spot. So to me, the reason to have them be naked is to get people talking about it. Good for him that he found a hook, but to me, the nakedness is more to do with raising awareness of his work than the actual work.

[Frog]

I'd say gimmick, too, as I see no effort toward photographic quality. What's he trying to say?
I looked up more and found the photo of them lying on their backs with one guy in a wheelchair in the middle intrigueing, I must admit.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object...NG0MPMBJI1.DTL

[mjs1973]

Anyone need sun block?

[almo]

Spencer Tunick has been at this for way too long. Many years, and to be quite honest it's just old hat. It was interesting the first few times, but now it's just a joke. To me, the fact that he keeps doing this shows a personal obsession with trying to shock people with this mass nudity, something that has never really worked anyway, and also a certain lack or artistic creativity.

[walterick]

Well, everything else photographically has been done before. So why not?

The wheelchair picture btw was a Reuters photo, not one by the photographer. I liked it too though.

And don't forget, any photo that makes the news and gets posted on forums for discussion can be considered a success ;)

[drg]

Remember Christo? Wrapping things in fabrics, like islands and Central Park to name a couple of his installations?

These nudes have reminded me of the same thing over the years. They both tend towards being overly contrived, though as abstractions they have a particular niche.

I've felt they are meant to be confusing and perplexing more than anything else. Whether they contribute to any meaningful discourse or are merely conversation starters has always been my question.

18,000 nude people isn't erotic. I mean where do look/not look first.

A gimmick, definitly close when one looks at the co-branding and marketing that always accompanies these 'events'.

[megan]

18,000 nude people isn't erotic. I mean where do look/not look first.

I think that's his point, though.
Yes???

Megan

[drg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by drg
18,000 nude people isn't erotic. I mean where do look/not look first.

I think that's his point, though.
Yes???

Megan

Exactly, one could even say numbing or mesmerizing.

[Speed]

I see it as a gimmick. OK, he gets his name in The Guiness Book Of World Records. And he gets some publicity from it as well. Apparently I'm not alone in thinking this is just an attention getting stunt. (Thanks for reassuring me guys and girls!)

Artistic? I don't think so, but art IS in the eye of the beholder. If you think it's art, great. You've obviously got a much more artistic mind than I do. I've never gotten abstract "art" - but that's just me.

;-)

Erotic? I just don't see how. 18,000 naked people laying on the ground isn't my idea of erotic. Three Playboy Playmates in my bed, now THAT's erotic. (Yes, they'll bury me the next day, but I'd die with a smile on my lips.)

Thanks to everyone for your comments.