Wednesday 28th of October 2020

of art and full frontal...

nude study

Badenden... drawing by Gus.

An artist today said he was left "dumbfounded and astonished" after an exhibition of his nude paintings was taken down from a council office following complaints from staff.

John Vesty had arranged to display his paintings for four weeks at the North Norfolk District Council offices in Cromer.

But they were taken down and put out of sight in a cupboard after a number of staff complained the pictures were offensive.

"I was dumbfounded and astonished when I found out that they had all been taken down because there had been complaints," Mr Vesty, 57, was quoted in the Daily Mail as saying.

"I felt disbelief that someone could object to paintings like this in this day and age and that the council should respond in such a politically correct way by removing them.

"You think that this sort of thing only happens in the Middle East in places like Iran or Iraq rather than in a Norfolk seaside town."

Mr Vesty said the paintings were neither erotic nor pornographic.

But spokesman for North Norfolk District Council described some of the paintings as "rather graphic full frontal nudes".


Gus: the human body, whether male or female, is fascinating for artists and for philosophers... We, humans, are mostly ugly floppy beasts with few redeeming features, including our smile. Compared to other apes, we've got hair in weird places. The question of nudity has become a major curly one for our moral bent only in recent years. Abrahamic religions have intervened in demonising the human form.... Yet, a David by Michelangelo would not be so powerfully constructed if it was not for the fact of full nudity — showing the fragility of "man". Nonetheless Michelangelo made this "David" the size of a Goliath.

A Bernini sculpture of a fully-clothed woman visited by an angel, exhibited in an Italian church, illustrates more ultimate sexual rapture than a full frontal can. 

Nudes statues "appeared" about 12,000 years ago but drawing of nudes have graced the rocky overhangs of Arnhem Land for more than 20,000 years if my memory is correct. Nude paintings were used to decorate atriums of roman houses. Ancient Greeks had fully explicit exquisite drawings of sexual acts in the nude, homo and hetero, on every day use vases and other decorative implements. There are many example of these secretly stored in the dusty basements of the Louvre.

So how far do we have to pander to "minorities" or are people, who complain about nudity in arts, the "majority". Should we put this to a democratic vote or go totally burko by imposing the burqua to all?

I rue the day I won't be able to look at myself naked in front of a full size mirror... I had this awkward moment once, when male muslim removalists had to move one of my large painting of nudes... They barely touched it as if it was evil...



picture by Gus. extra bits by Gus.

one customer is not right, necessarily...



MORE than 20 years after it first appeared, a classic Mambo design has proved too controversial to sell on a department store T-shirt.

Big W has removed 200 shirts depicting the crucifixion of a mouse from 30 of its stores following a complaint. The design was created by the Australian artist Richard Allen in 1986.

The move comes just weeks after the discount department store added Mambo designs to its clothing range, which was seen as an attempt by the label to widen its sales base.

The "100 per cent Mambo" T-shirt bears the tagline: "Forgive them, father, they know not what to wear."

It appeared this year in a book on cult streetwear, where Mambo was named one of the most influential brands of the past two decades alongside Nike and adidas. But in recent years the label has struggled through tough times. It was sold two years ago to Equity and Capital Finance Australia for $10 million – half what Gazal Corporation paid for it in 2000.

A spokeswoman for Big W, Clare Buchanan, said the T-shirt's inclusion in the Big W collection was reviewed after a complaint from a customer at its Fairfield store.

drawing the line at hillary as a sex symbol...



For decades, the lad mag published thoughtful political and social commentary by thinkers like Gore Vidal; interviews with Ayn Rand, Martin Luther King Jr., and John Lennon; fictional short stories by literary giants like Jack Kerouac and Norman Mailer along with the first ever released segments of Ray Bradbury’s dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451; and pioneering coverage of the murder of Teena Brandon who later became the subject of the Oscar-winning film Boys Don’t Cry.

Though it was famous for the pornography, Playboy also offered ideas, interviews, and opinions that were at the very least thought-provoking to a large number of heterosexual men. All of that is gone now.

A perfect example of the new Playboy was its “Freedom Issue,” published right before the 2016 election. The writers featured included TV host Chelsea Handler discussing abortion, Patton Oswalt on “the freedom to make mistakes,” Wiz Khalifa on police brutality and marijuana legalization, and Killer Mike on minority voting. Adding to this lineup of intellectual lightweights was a conservative who wrote about how Republicans should be listening to Paul Ryan, obviously someone who had his finger on the pulse of America.

Every issue has become an opportunity to prove how woke and relevant the magazine is. From having its first transgender playmate to celebrating activist and writer Noor Tagouri (popular for speaking in favor of wearing a hijab) to publishing mind-numbing articles like “5 Punk Rockers Explain Why the Alt-Right’s ‘Punk Rock Movement’ is Garbage,” Playboy has become an endless exercise in the usual boring virtue signaling.

Such moral posturing has driven away heterosexual men who might otherwise be interested in the publication’s erstwhile fiction and non-fiction. And sadly, Playboy isn’t the only men’s magazine that’s fallen into this trap.

Esquire, a periodical intended for cosmopolitan men, has become an instruction manual for what social justice warriors believe men should be. The exact moment that Esquire’s editorial team lost their minds was in 2016 when they named Hillary Clinton “the sexiest woman alive.” The following year they bestowed that title on German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Esquire‘s main competitor, GQ, is also in the business of peddling social justice-friendly content. Exhibit A was their attempt to revive Keith Olbermann’s career by giving him an internet show called “The Resistance” where he regularly screamed about how the Trump presidency needed to end right up until he was abruptly canceled.

Besides briefly offering Olbermann a platform, GQ has published plenty of essays that cater to progressive men, including “How Free Speech Warriors Mainstreamed White Supremacists” and “21 Books You Don’t Have to Read” (which included the Bible). It also honored Colin Kaepernick as its “man of the year.”

The ground ceded by these men’s magazines is now being claimed by blogs and podcasts like the “Art of Manliness,” “The Catholic Gentleman,” and “BroBible.” But the real loss can be felt in the greater culture, as men are deprived of any mainstream voice that speaks to what they are going through. Instead, Playboy, GQ, and Esquire have gone over to the feminist-approved version of masculinity where men are just progressive women with a different anatomy.


Read more:


Ohlala... Read from top?


the devil in the woman...


In 1900, Norman Lindsay, a promoter of naked, bosomy, lusty women in his highly controversial paintings, engravings and other images such as watercolours, did this cartoonish illustration for The Bulletin

On the Word of a Woman — an Everyday Occurrence”… Norman here portrays "the" woman with the devil behind her bed, hardly seen, as she has entrapped a man, who now is in jail for rape (top left corner)… This is of course a one-sided view which could not be published in our day of uptight PC.
Yet, hasn’t this got ramification in today’s world in which we fight for our political life while being accused of unsavoury stuff, by women often ganging up on us, men, for having done half the trick of attraction themselves and been rejected by the male, us, thereafter? Are women so naive? Are men so dick-dependent? Of course there are occasions when men really step over the mark, especially when women are after favours (including jobs). Are women so pure? Is parading half-naked in a male’s apartment at 2 AM, while flirting, not an invitation to a bit more action than a cup of tea? If a male dick does not harden, then the guy is either impotent or gay.
There are of course rotten males who abuse their strength, their position and their desires. But the Me2 or #metoo movement has cast a wide net with a fine mesh. Much too fine a mesh: Makes the lawyers rich, women bitter and men dumb. Am I going to be in trouble? Sure…

But then:
Lindsay's frank and sumptuous nudes were highly controversial. In 1940, he took sixteen crates of paintings, drawings and etchings to the U.S. to protect them from the war. Unfortunately, they were discovered when the train they were on caught fire and were impounded and subsequently burned as pornography by American officials. The artist's older brother Lionel remembered Lindsay's reaction: "Don't worry, I'll do more."

Read from top
See also: