October 14, 2011

"An artist arrested for applying body paint to a nude model in New York's Times Square will have charges against him dropped..."

"... if his models strip naked only after dark, according to a court agreement reached on Thursday."
Under the agreement, "he is permitted to paint bare breasts any time, anywhere, but the G-strings have to stay on until daylight goes out"....

State laws against public exposure exempt "any person entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show or entertainment"...

[Andy Golub] said he likes to paint nude models because their bodies have energy and dynamism that he finds lacking in canvas.
A proper resolution of the controversy?

30 comments:

caplight said...

It's not art. It's titillation.

Rim shot.

ALH said...

Pictures, dammit! Where are the pictures??

edutcher said...

Hmmm...

That means I can get a girl to get naked for me as long as put some finger paint in her belly button?

caplight said...

It's not art. It's titillation.

Rim shot.


Depends on how she's built.

Barump-bump.

At the very least, it's tintillating.

Thank you, I'm here all week.

No Name said...

>[Andy Golub] said he likes to paint nude models because their bodies have energy and dynamism that he finds lacking in canvas.


Yeah. Energy and dynamism. That's it.

Big Mike said...

I volunteer to help the models clean up afterwards!!!

jeff said...

"[Andy Golub] said he likes to paint nude models because their bodies have energy and dynamism that he finds lacking in canvas."

What an incredible coincidence. That's the exact same reason I plan on using.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

So you can be an exhibitionist as long as you do it as part of an exhibition?

Carol_Herman said...

That "law" was written for Gypsy Rose Lee.

And, men going back more than a century ... could see a new woman on a swing ... coming out at the audience. When they went to the burlesque.

I don't know why the judge didn't just offer his chamber.

Judges get lucky, because they're collectively known as "da judge."

But if you stuck a face on this one ... it would beat the "loose g-string."

Carol_Herman said...

It has "tint."

Doesn't make it "titillating."

I wonder if the judge wanted to see a sample, first?

Carol_Herman said...

Mark Twain reported that he saw the CAN CAN, in "gay-paree" back in the 1860's. He said the purpose of the dance ... without the woman wearing underwear ... was to kick as high as she could. While throwing the hem of her skirts over her head.

He was shocked!

He also said it didn't look like it took much talent.

rhhardin said...

Maybe it's a Yves Klein student.

ironrailsironweights said...

I can 100% guarantee what all of the models are lacking. God damn it.

Peter

EDH said...

Here are photo streams of the artist and one of his models.

Have to say, she looks really attractive colored green.

Which leads me to ask, do women look sexier when colored green?

There was Athena, The Girl from the Green Dimension, from Lost in Space. "Golly Dr. Smith, look at this!"

And the Orion Slave Girls from Star Trek.

Now, those are all Green Jobs I could get into.

Anga2010 said...

Once again, I've been blindsided by the completely wrong career choices I've made.

Pastafarian said...

"State laws against public exposure exempt "any person entertaining or performing in a play..."

Oh, son of a bitch. All I had to do was claim that I was in a one-man adaptation of Equus, and I could have beaten the rap on both indecent exposure and "depraved and unnatural acts"?

YoungHegelian said...

@EDH,

Dude, stay away from the Orion slave girls!

Trust me on this, man. Your photon torpedoes will just never work right again!

WineSlob said...

The Permit Lets Her Expose Her Tits
But the Writ Makes Her Cover Her Slit
While the Paint For Her Boobs
Is Dribbled on Her Shoes
The Crotch Paint Goes On Lickety Split.

Fred4Pres said...

Meh.

Synova said...

I've come to the conclusion that a spirit of tolerance and inclusiveness in the public square requires a simple code for public behavior in clearly public places that errs on the side of restriction.

If it's freedom to see what I chose to see and do what I chose to do, how is it freedom to be forced to see what I don't want to see and forced to participate in what I do not want to participate?

If a flasher has the right to expose himself, am I forced to participate?

And how is public nudity for art very different from a pervert exposing his wanker to unsuspecting women?

I think that "public" is a place that we've a right to be without being forced to be an unwilling participant in someone else's expressions of freedom. Children have a right to be there. Old prudish women have a right to be there. People with various religiously informed standards of morality have a right to be there.

"You're stupid and have a moral code I think is moronic, therefore I don't have to tolerate you or your ideas or care about your comfort."

This isn't a *nice* attitude but I don't think that stops anyone who believes themselves tolerant and open and much better than others from holding it.

A public standard doesn't stop anyone from doing or saying what they want. If the artist can't have nude models in Times Square, is the artist denied the right to put paint on naked people for other people to see? Perhaps the only right lost is the right to ambush passers by.

Lucius said...

I thought body paint models kept on a g-string anyway?

I can imagine the feel of paint crinkling on your nipples to be sort of appealing, in a Messalina-goes-to-the-brothel sort of way; but body paint on the cooch seems like it would just be an uncomforable mess.

Peter Hoh said...

So, how much does a "canvas" cost these days?

Pastafarian said...

Great comment by Synova. It's difficult for those of us in perpetual adolescence to put together such a well- thought-out comment on a subject like this.

ark said...

Pictures -- where are the pictures?

http://www.pbase.com/ark/paint20110730 contains pictures I took of the bodypainting session the day the painter and the two models were arrested.

Robert Cook said...

Geez, you'd think no one had ever seen a naked woman before! (And that includes Synova.)

Paul said...

Follow the damn law and book him. And if any kids are present charge him with being a paedophile (and the 'models' to.)

Make an example out of him and his whole group.

Simple, no?

ark said...

"Follow the damn law and book him."

But nudity is lawful if it's part of a performance.

aberman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
aberman said...

They can perform indoors. Or a beach in France. People take children all the time to Times Square. Topless models are inappropriate.

And yes, it's illegal.

Synova said...

"Geez, you'd think no one had ever seen a naked woman before! (And that includes Synova.)"

Really?

I do read raunchy romance novels though.

What I *don't* do is read the explicit parts to my kids.

If it's about a show where a lady swings out over the audience or dances topless on the stage, it's "oh, this theater has a lady with no drawers on a swing" or something and I or anyone else can say, "Well, I'll not go to that" or "Maybe we ought not bring the children, dear."

I'm far from a prude when I'm allowed to make my own choices.

What I object to is the idea that I *am* a prude if I dislike having choice taken from me as a condition of being in a place designated in a positive way, as being *public*.

There is nothing wrong with a double standard in this. The notion of having different standards of behavior in "mixed company" and not, isn't at all difficult.

Paul said...

"But nudity is lawful if it's part of a performance."

Ark,

Paedophilia isn't legal.

Book 'em on that, art or no art.