Apr 18 2014

“It’s more of a guy thing” in paintings


Two more, for the total of three, at the Art Show and Silent Auction at the American Atheists’ Convention in Salt Lake City.

I’m told this one is hanging just below one of Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

This one is sculptural; the hand is part of it.

Stephanie Zvan's photo.


2 pings

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Al Dente

    I’m a guy and having superfluous nudity in propaganda paintings is not my thing.

  2. 2
    Blanche Quizno

    C’mon, Ophelia. We all know atheist chicks are hot and easy, right? And what man wouldn’t want to see his OWN hand approaching a hot naked babe free for the taking?? That’s, like, part of the man-card requirements.

  3. 3
    Blanche Quizno

    She wants it O_O

  4. 4
    Kevin Kehres

    Well…that last one…not that I’m against female nudity in art…but…

    The hand is clearly that of an older man. The model — at least young enough to be his daughter.

    I don’t know what message this is trying to convey, but to me it says “Ew.”

  5. 5


  6. 6
    A Hermit

    I don’t have a problem with nudity in art.

    I do have a problem with bad art…and that is some Elvis-on-black-velvet level bad art.

  7. 7
    Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-

    Somebody help that woman in the second one. There’s something very wrong with her hips

  8. 8
    Stephanie Zvan

    Giliell, the only thing wrong with her hips is that she’s standing at an angle that isn’t matched by the railing behind her. Put that in the proper perspective, and she’s fine.

  9. 9

    If they were going for the message that atheism means a release from Christian sexual mores and an acceptance of natural desires (I’m being *very* charitable) it would have been much clearer to use the image of two naked dudes making out. Somehow I just can’t see this artist painting that.

    Hey, AA: I’d like to continue being smug and looking down on religious people, but you make that kind of difficult when you show all the class of a motorcycle decal or a crappy tattoo.

    Also, forget her hips, what’s wrong with the last girl’s arms? It looks like if she straightened out her arms she could touch her knees without bending over.

  10. 10

    Zibble @9 – short torso, long arms. There’s a picture of me in an evening gown that somehow looks like I can swat a butterfly away from my patella with my pinkie finger. Positive ape index, in rock-climbing speak ;-)

  11. 11

    That one with the hand makes me want to run, run away. Eeek.

  12. 12

    The hand has a wedding ring. Maybe it is some statement on married men fantasizing? Who knows. There’s a bomb going off behind her… is she hanging out naked because she is going to die?
    Maybe it is a statement about ejaculation? Married man + image of woman + explosive ejaculate?

  13. 13

    That thumb doesn’t look right either.

    Cheesy, pin-upish, cut-and-paste art doesn’t belong at a serious auction. BUT the ‘oh noes they ladeez got no clothes on!’ horror is a bit suspect too.

    Are they going to put trousers on the piano legs (err limbs) next?

    It seems that the sleazy pictures are all by the same ‘artist.’ Is that so? Is this what that artist does all the time, or is it some ‘special’ group of works?

    Crude portraits of pop-culture secularists—and where is Susan Jacoby or Ayan Hirsi Ali?—and lurid ‘calendar’ pics of anonymous naked chicks…. A big cultural ‘ouch’ all around.

  14. 14
    Ophelia Benson

    Which was the point. Not omigod naked people – but why Famous men – headshots – fully clothed and Anonymous women – bodyshots – naked.

  15. 15

    I want to see Tyson’s nipples!

  16. 16

    Totally Unfounded Speculation:
    It looks to me as if the artist started out doing his portraits of famous atheist men and then somebody asked him “where are the women?” So, he quickly grabbed some stock photos of women, jammed in some vague references to atheism and feminism (and a mushroom cloud, because that’s, like, really meaningful), took a look at it and went “eh, good enough.” This even explains the weird hand. He had the frame lying around already and just decided to use that.

  17. 17

    This was just one male artist at the American Atheists’ Art show; however it did seem like he was the only artist that they really seemed to showcase on their Facebook page prior to the event. Maybe they wanted more people to notice him and his work? Another male artist there had two paintings of women in science, head shots and fully clothed.

    That 2nd piece looks better in the photograph than it did laying on the table. I wasn’t impressed with him or his work at all, but I guess you can say it ‘s art. It must be art to someone, but you won’t see me bidding on any of this work anytime soon… There is much better work out there from Atheist artists both men and women.

  1. 18
    The Failure Mode of Naked » Almost Diamonds

    […] clothed, famous atheist men, it’s much less likely. In the context of those paintings and the two additional paintings of naked women by the same artist that were hanging, well, the commentary got much less […]

  2. 19
    Feminist art » Butterflies and Wheels

    […] I’ve never done a political cartoon before so this was very exciting. I decided to draw a picture of something that from what I understand actually happened at the recent American Atheist Conference Art Show:http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/04/its-more-of-a-guy-thing-in-paintings/ […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>