ART

Is everything about you?

In response to the emails regarding “Eye candy” keep this in mind; the word intent has a useful purpose in the court room.
The word subjective has a useful purpose in therapy.
The word contour takes place for the drawing of human figure unless that human figure was given some intentional pose subjective and suggestive to anything other than a simple pose; which is exactly what is seen in the superb execution of the “Eye candy” series, a simple pose.
People who read anything else into this, probably can’t draw well because they subject the contour and couture line to their own prejudices.

To Leigh

I think this has moved away from the heart of my original message.

I live with around 2400 other women. When I look around, I see ladies of all shapes, sizes, colors, and yes, degrees of hairiness. My concern with the artwork was not that it portrayed skinny women who had no pubic hair but that it only portrayed one kind of woman- the kind of woman that many women pay to become. The seductive gazes of these women, their poses, and the fact that their bodies are all the same seems to be telling me that that is how a sexy woman should be- that is the acceptable image for a "beautiful woman". That is not to say that these women are not beautiful. They are. But you know what is beautiful, too? Stretch marks. Big feet. Short hair. Small breasts. And yes, pubic hair. Its not that one kind of woman is beautiful and one isn't, its that these images portray what women are told they should be, which is neither true nor healthy.

Leigh, you do not sadden me because of what you look like. What saddens me is our culture that makes us feel like we have to look a certain way in order to be wanted.

Regarding: "I’m about 120 pounds, fairly hairless, although I’m not sure about the
perky breasts, and I’ve posed before; I don’t have extra padding, and
apparently that means that I lack emotional depth as well." I'm not sorry you look this way. How you look is entirely up to you. Its when women see pictures like these and only pictures like these and hurt themselves physically and emotionally to look like that.

Lastly.

"And then, it’s just so easy to hate skinny women. Sarah
M’s critiques read like a litany of second-hand feminist ideas
paraphrased in their simplest form. There’s nothing original,
comprehensive, or analytical in them. More than anything else here,
that tells of “indoctrination.” To somehow think of some women as
“real” and others as perpetuators of an “unreal” standard makes no
sense. These women pictured are “drawn as they are.” They are
equally “real.” "

I don't hate skinny women. In fact, most of the women I've dated are quite skinny. But you're right. Dating them was a recon mission to find out how to better bring the whole lot of them down.

True, I get my ideas from speaking with other feminists. If that makes them second-hand, then fine. But that doesn't make them any less true or relevant. Especially not on this website which is dedicated to the culture of a land where women are still so severely repressed and controlled. I would hate to see the numbers for bulemia and anorexia in Iran today. The women in these pictures may have been drawn as they are. I respect that. But when I never see any images of women who don't subscribe to our society's image of "perfect beauty", it makes me wonder how many of these women are happy with themselves.

Women as Subjects and Ways of Seeing

I agree that the title “Eye Candy” is objectifying. I much prefer the original title, “Models in the Artist’s Studio,” which would have better conveyed the two-way human contact between admiration and appearance, seeing and seen. Whether or not these pictures are somehow pornographic or offensive is open to debate, although I think they aren’t. Rather than emphasizing the genitals, they focus on overall shape and beauty in a woman’s form.

What truly bothers be about this dispute is the one-sided way some have thrown around charges of sexism.  Sarah M claims that these pictures objectify women, yet her own objections only reveal her own image of how women are supposed to look.  Saying that perky breasts, hairless genitals, and a 120-pound frame are impossible standards, that shaving (although these girls probably waxed rather than shaved, just for reference) the genitals makes them resemble little girls is as bad as saying pubic hair is “70s.”  Either way someone passes judgment on another person’s appearance and their standards for beauty.  

And then, it’s just so easy to hate skinny women.  Sarah M’s critiques read like a litany of second-hand feminist ideas paraphrased in their simplest form.  There’s nothing original, comprehensive, or analytical in them.  More than anything else here, that tells of “indoctrination.”  To somehow think of some women as “real” and others as perpetuators of an “unreal” standard makes no sense.   These women pictured are “drawn as they are.”  They are equally “real.”

“The fact that all of these images portray women like this makes me sad for us,” she says.  I’m about 120 pounds, fairly hairless, although I’m not sure about the perky breasts, and I’ve posed before; I don’t have extra padding, and apparently that means that I lack emotional depth as well.  Now since I’m both the subject of pictures such as these and an everyday woman, do I sadden women like Sarah or am I one of those for whom she is saddened?  It’s ridiculous to separate women like this, into the bad girls colluding with a male viewpoint and the good “real” girls victimized by the others.

Thanks to whoever posted Ways of Seeing.  It’s interesting – but isn’t it possible too that appreciation and appearance, in this case the male artist’s gaze and the female model’s pose, work not as a subject-object or active-passive duality but as a moving human dialogue?  There’s a kind of power in that “passive,” in displaying or hiding one’s body as one chooses, in putting on the awareness of being watched like a costume and then taking it off to return to everyday dress.  The model controls access to seeing her in this way and the artist controls the use of that image in his art; modeling can become as empowering as manipulating the model’s poses.  “Models in the Artist’s Studio” would have been a perfect title.  The two act as allied subjects.

Too beefy girls....

The drawings itself are amazing, whom ever drew those, sir you are talented! 

@Rosie

The fuss is about people defining Art for us.It's a philosophical debate.Unless someone is a 16 year old boy I doubt anybody would jerk off to any of these drwaings.The issue is tolerance. A debate in aesthetics.What does the word Art define for you ? :-)

Ways of Seeing

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=u72AIab-Gdc

I don't get it.

What's all the fuss about? Either you jack off about it or you dont.

What's the deal with all the theory?

Mr. Siadat and Mehregan

Mr. Angali;

After reading your explanation and correction of Mr. Siadat’s autobiography, as a man who is also born in month of Mehr, I became curios to find out about Mehregan.

I looked into few sources for this matter, and found the most accurate explanation of Mehregan in LOGHATNAMEH E DEHKHODA and ENCYCLOPEDIA IRANICA as well as few other sources, (I enclosed a part of one of these articles for your information).

All sources indicate that 16 day of month of Mehr is called Mehregan and it is start of 6 days celebration called Jashne Mehregan. I believe if Mr. Saeed Siadat birthday is on 16 of Mehr, his explanation is accurate.

“In Sassanian times this feast was elaborately celebrated for 6 days, starting on the 16th the 'Mehr Ruz' and ending on the 21st known as 'Raam Ruz'. The first day was called 'Mehregan e Khord' and the last day 'Mehregan e Bouzorg'. There were plays and re-enactment of this legend accompanied with prayers and songs at the Royal courts and for the public. Kings would wear a crown shaped like sun with actors wearing masks and musicians playing music. Ancient Iranians believed that it was in Mehr day that humans were given urvan (ravan in modern Persian, meaning soul) and the earth was enlarged on this day to provide more land for the growing population. Moon (Mah) which was a cold and dark object for the first time received light from sun on this day and began illuminating at night.”

gitdoun ver.2.0

Yes it is...

Here is a Picasso:

//www.tate.org.uk/collection/N/N06/N06205_9.j...

Here is a Leonardo Da Vinci:

//www.nationalgalleries.org/media_collection/...

The day that iranian.com censors art because of nudity is the day that there is an end to freedom of expression.  The day that expression is monitored  on this site freedom ends.

If that day comes...

What is the difference of this site and every thing that is written in the land of Ayat'Allah Khamenei?

Anything can happen in the future.

They said cruelty to Animals happened in Iran with Sadegh Khalkhali...

Yet, Iranians also do it in America...

see:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxkhOsid-aQ&feature...

We must stop the madness!  NOW!

Give us liberty or give us death!

...

چه مردود و چه مخدوش الفکر هستند آنانی‌ که از این پیکر‌های زیبا ایراد‌های بنی‌ اسرائلی میگیرند غافل از آنکه این زیبائی قابل تحسین است و منشأ عشق و عشق ورزی است ...

کی شود که اندکی‌ از زندان درون بیرون اییم و کمی‌ بیشتر بها به افکار دیگران دهیم و درس گیریم !؟

to TheMrs again

"As far as nudes being degrading and all, what a bunch of prudes...The
difference between art and porn is that art isn't supposed to turn you
on whereas porn is."

I think you've missed the point a little. One is not "prudish" because one finds an image degrading. I am fully capable of admiring the female form and trust me, I do so often.

However. To me, these images represent an impossible standard that today's woman is held to. Women don't have to have store bought perky breasts, weigh 120 pounds, and have hairless genitals to be considered beautiful. The fact that all of these images portray women like this makes me sad for us. I don't want my future daughters to grow up feeling like they must look like this to be good people. There is something inherently wrong about that.

to gitdoun

Just a question: why do you blame art, commercials, movies etc for degrading women? Yes, they are degrading, but they are the symptom, not the disease. The disease is our culture's inherent sexism that produces art like this man's.

to TheMrs

Pubic hair does not mean 70's, it means natural woman as she was created. Hair is not something to be looked down on as unclean or somehow less. It is a part of a woman as she is. Let's say I don't like a man's balls. I think they're ugly. Should I demand that he cut them off because I don't like them? No. They are a part of who he is. Women (and men) grow hair on their genitals. Shaving it all off to resemble a little girl does not mean you are a better woman, it just means that society has done its job indoctrinating you to think you are not beautiful the way you are.

Souri Jan,   Thank you

Souri Jan,

Thank you for correcting me.  I don't get out much. lol

I am actually from Tehran. However, I
don't use the sayings such as Nadid Badid as often and hence my mistake. 
Always nice to have a sweet teacher like you to correct me though. lol

P.S.  If you are referring to my id for me being other than good old
Iranian, I just like the area.

Commercial/erotic and fantasy Art

Dear Mr. Siadat

As far as Art goes, I hope you continue with doing what you enjoy, and enjoying what you do

I think after a few comments I was curious, looked at your web site and realized that you seem to be into Commercial and fantasy Art.

The cirtics of these movements usualy state that some of the best works show mastery of rendering of human form and flesh but they often lacks depth, message or challenge.

It is when this movement is pushed to a different boundary e.g. Geiger pushing sci-fi/fantasy to Surrealism, cyberpunk

//giger.com/gigerframeset.php

or nobuyoshi araki pushing fantasy and eroticism to the borderline of acceptable Art ( with his Japanese bondage or fetish or female obsession series) that we the challenged audience find the Art with something new, enigmatic and be fascinated with experience.

//www.arakinobuyoshi.com/main.html

Otherwise, as per my earlier comment the Art can be enjoyed for masterful rendering of female flesh and that by itself is good. Thanks for posting.

Souri khanoum

Let us hope that either he bought these towels in bulk at a great price, or if that's not the case, I hope that at least he washes the towel before the next model arrives.  :-)

Eye candy title is Inappropriate

As a model in the series, the name of the series is called Models in Artist's Studio.  I personally know the artist and have modeled for him and know what he would like this series to be titled.  I believe the title has been changed by the author of the website.  Because of the respect the artist has for models he doesn't like the title either.  Based on the comments, most would agree the title is not befitting of the work.  You can go to his website to see his view about his work.  See his comments in the 2nd Review, his quote: "To me, human beings are the center of the universe.  Without them, nothing has meaning.  They are the universe in themselves.  As a man, I am more inclined to paint opposite sex as the female form is self-enclosed and has a harmonious line.  It is against my value to paint nudity for commercial reasons.  I view women to be passionate with deep desire and strong will."

Kathmandu5

:) lol

The exact term is : nadid badid......(badid= badihi, somethign usual and normal)

Saeed is an artist....he is entitled to his creative art and opinion.

It is the people who get exited about this casual art (JJ included) who are the "nadid badid" in this case! 

PS: are you from India or Pakistan?

Nadid Padid

I was surprised that Souri Jan didn't call Saeed Nadid Padid. lol

What is fine art?

Dear Angali

Then the question comes that what is fine art ? How do you define fine art ? What fits into that category and what is just art? I love your labeling method :-) Philosophers have been debating these questions for years when thinking about Aesthetics.

My problem w/this painting: MY KIDS IMPRESSION about us!

I personally have no problem with this. However, I have been trying to encourage my kids to log into this site so they get familiar with the culture of their dad.  Peace!

Is this Art?

Before I comment on Mr. Siadat's art, I need to make a comment on his entry of his date of birth. Mehrgaan is a celebration of a particular day in the beginning of the fall season (the 196th day of the year, that is the 10th day of the month of Mehr), and is not the name of a month. You must say/write I was born in the month of Mehr 1328, not Mehrgaan-e 1328. Even if you really were born on the Mehrgaan day, you must add the word "day" as well; that is, /ruz-e mehrgaan-e saal-e 1328/.  For more information see //wapedia.mobi/en/Mehregan

As for Mr. Siadat's art, we must understand that there is a fine line between fine art and commercial art. The spectator must bear that in mind. Some of you have criticized these drawing on the grounds that the depiction of the vigina in them is questionable.  We must understand that showing or not showing the genitals is not the issue.  There is a painting of (roughly) 20" x 23.5" in the musee d'orsay in Paris by Gustave Courbet (1819-1877), titled The Origin of the World,which shows a woman's genitals as if the painter/viewer is right between her legs, looking up. See it here:

//www.boutiquesdemusees.fr/en/shop/products/d...

(I feel lucky to have seen it up close.)

Although this depiction of the genitals may (and could) be considered provocative (and probably as a commission it was), it is not so much of that. This canvas is about birth, the role of woman, the place of woman in nature, etc. That means that the artist, who had to accept this commission for "brad-and-butter," still managed to add his own artistic and philosophical aspect to it.

From a certain point of view, I tend to agree with Mr. gitdoun ver.2.0 in that these works are more towards pornography (and Palyboy style).  In the sixties the Peruvian immigrant artist Alberto Vargas (9 February 1896 – 30 December 1982) painted a series of erotic images of women for the Playboy magazine, which were later known as "Vargas Girls" or pin-up girls. See some samples here: //images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=... . The main characteristic of these images was the usage of erotica; and they were very popular, especially, among the soldiers and the young men who were away from home (whether in a battle or in a prison)—they "pinned them up" on their walls, hence the term "pin-up."

Then the question is is Mr. Siadat's work "art"?  The answer is, "yes, it is,"  and by all definitions.  Is his work "fine art?" No it is not; it is commercial; it is pin-up. Only a couple of Mr. Siadat's drawings get a little close to "fine" art, including # 8 (a little bit) and # 13 (absolutely), both of which technically represent what is referred to in the world of art as "Academy," meaning a study/drawing done in an academic art institution (but could be done outside of that environment as well). Generally speaking, Mr. Siadat's sort of art is referred to as commercial art—but it is still art, per se. I hope this helps.

And, no, men are not pigs—just like women, some are, some aren't.

I for one, usually, love

I for one, usually, love nudes. There's something innocent and unpretentious about them. I've seen some great ones of pregnant women or even photographs of nudes and they're always nice.

Here, I think the pictures are very...pretty. The coloring is nice. And there's not vajayjay so it's not supposed to be overly sexual. or Maybe the artist is shy?! Who knows what the meaning is.

But over all, they are just pretty. I don't see anything more in them. It's just pretty to look at. Nothing deeper. And that's ok i guess.

As far as nudes being degrading and all, what a bunch of prudes...The difference between art and porn is that art isn't supposed to turn you on whereas porn is. Now you can see these pictures and still get turned on, but usually, that's not the first purpose. It's like looking at a still life. If you see a still life of grapes, do you automatically say, damn I want some grapes? Maybe you do, but generally speaking, the painting wasn't made to get you hungry.

Ari Jaan

Smart observation about Tolstoy's book.Many thanks for detailed description of Rubens' Venus.

Looking forward to reading your views on David's statue.

Sepaas

Ebi aka Haaji

ebi, what Tolstoy misses (or denies)

PS. Perhaps more later on how David's statue is a marvel of artistic insight.

Ari Jaan

Isn't it obvious?!

To me ,this is pure art,like the painting on the ceiling of Sistine Chapel &  David's statue .Do I see David's nudity as a part of artist's art?,yes I do.

I think it helps to read What is Art?.

btw

I hope you write  about it.

Sepaas

Ebi aka Haaji

.

.

When is a nude really naked?

colorful descriptions!

Every single comment on this threat is an art all by itself, specially given the emphasis that is being placed on the geography and situation of vagina! JJ, Private parts may not be that private But is that really important here? Why don't we just enjoy the whole enchilada?:)

Paying particular attention to Vaginal Issues does not automatically translate into respect for women! To the lady who complains about the way women are viewed in male-dominated societies, i should re-iterate what gitdoun 2.0 brought up and ask what do you think of all these freely available publications, picturing women in so many positions, in NON male-dominated countries, would have the potential to do to their psyches and that of the men who view these photos? Is that not a trashier way of treating women and making them look like sex objects than what we see in other places?

@JJ

I think sometimes artists choose to paint this way to not to be too graphic.As it is he's being accused of being a sexist :-)

But of course I can't speak for him.He must give us more insight.