um. so, if it's art, it's SFW?

my.

Seriously post this stuff as NSFW- and have the pictures on after the jump.

fapfapfap

/I had to make this comment
//I had to

@2

That's pretty funny if you're actually looking for a job now because of SLOG. You should try to find one where you can successfully multi-task, in other words do your job while doing whatever else, and, on your way out the door of your office today (I'm playing along) you should tell your peers to mind their own business in the future.

Just sayin'.

This is NOT SAFE FOR WORK. Put it behind a link!

I don't mind boobies on my screen, but I'm pretty sure my boss might. I love you guys, please don't make me have to take the SLOG out of my RSS reader. :(

In regards to this artists, I think he might be making more of a political statement rather than an in joke. Look him up.

im afraid i might have dated the model.

Ha ha! I KNEW that the comments would be all about "NSFW" and not at all about the art.

Lacking an art background, however, I really can't comment on why JG thinks it's an art-historical joke. Yes, it's a photo of a reclining nude. Uh, so what?

That's pretty fascinating. What could the reason be for the disproportion of nudes reclining in one direction like that?

That's pretty fascinating. What could the reason be for the disproportion of nudes reclining in one direction like that?

You forgot this famous Goya work!
'Naked Maja' (j pronounced as a 'y' sound, yo)

Which is the same as 'White Girl'

http://www.usc.edu/programs/cst/deadfiles/lacasis/ansc100/library/images/633bg.jpg

Her head is on the right hand side of the portrait. All the others have the head on the left.

Ha ha! I KNEW that the comments would be all about "NSFW" and not at all about the art.

That's because most of us can't even look at the art and had to madly scroll past and hope no one else saw!

left to right is how western society operates.

No shit, Not Safe For Work. Duh. Not everyone as management is as open-mind about like The Stranger's, where apparently everything and anything on the Internet is safe for work. Are you trying to discourage workday traffic to SLOG?

No shit, man. I cannot believe you'd put that Matisse coño before me.

Hey guys, it's not so hard... Here's a good rule of thumb. Ask yourself, would Mr Keck (and/or his lawyers) allow me you put this on the cover of the print edition of the paper? There's your answer for if it should be on the front page of slog.

Head on the left = art
Head on the right = porn

Come on, everyone in the art world knows that.

That Matisse is beautiful, by the way.

And yes, I agree with the above... art or not, the world we live in makes this NSFW. I hate that that's the case but it is. My boss made me put my James Bond calendar away because it was too suggestive.

So yeah, put the nudes after the jump people.

I am chiming in with the other whiners on this post.

Seriously SLOG... I love you guys and your crazy free spirited corner of the web - but even if it is classified as 'art', nudity directly on your front page is a REALLY good way to lose readers (at least, from work anyway).

Just hide those behind a link, and everyone can be happy :-D Muchas Gracias! (That means 'Thank You' in Spanish!!)

@8 - Bellevue, nice "work". Gives 'artistic girlfriend' new meaning.

@8 - Bellevue, nice *work*. Gives 'artistic girlfriend' new meaning.

Hey man, I clicked the shit ONLY ONCE.

Hey, I have that exact same shoji-screen whatsit. Come on, universe. Manifest the rest of it!

NSFW...but about the art. Visual acuity is sharpest from top left to bottom right (picture a no smoking sign).

They look the same because that is the established way to do it. These examples have good composition by similarly trained artists. Even Velazquez added the cherub to bring that much needed balance. While i can't complain about the sexy model, the photograph has a rather boring composition...which is what sets it apart from the others.

It's easier for a right-handed painter to paint from left to right, and one would not begin a portrait with the feet.

To begin, I have an art history background and have studied each of these paintings at length. However, there are two main distinctions here:

1) The direction that the women are facing. They each are lying down on their right sides, including the Valezquez (although the Ingres does not follow this pattern, it is because Ingres is not panting an allegory of Venus, but rather a contemporary woman). Our White Woman at the top is doing away with tradition (much the same as Manet does, as I will explain in my next point) by reclining o the opposite side and facing the opposite direction in the composition.

2) What hasn't been mentioned before: notice the tilts of each of the women's heads. All of them, save for the Manet, is reserved in their gaze, not staring directly at the viewer, and is not intent on creating conflict in the image. The Manet, however, is resolute in her defiance to what may be considered a respectful posture for a nude (or in this case, naked) woman. The White Woman, who also stares directly at the alarmed viewer, conjures up the methodology that Manet uses to critique his institution. Both Manet's Oympia and White Woman are prostitutes in the traditional sense (as opposed to the allegorical renditions of Venus in the other paintings).

Whoa, I was way off thinking the difference had to do with the fact that in the first work the white girl is not touching herself compared to hands on bodies in the later (earlier) works.

also, only the "white girl" isn't covering up.

Okay, granted, the Stranger is the only job I've had in the past ten years, so my perspective on what is acceptable in the office is pretty skewed at this point (hey Kelly, you haven't sent me any dirty photos lately), but you people are telling me that your bosses are more concerned that you're looking at classic nude paintings than they are about the fact that you're fucking around on the clock?

>>but you people are telling me that your bosses are more concerned that you're looking at classic nude paintings than they are about the fact that you're fucking around on the clock?

YES, that's exactly what we're saying. Getting caught with naked chicks on your screen can get you fired in a heartbeat at most companies. Why? Because the women in the office can sue the company for a "hostile work environment".

Please do put this stuff behind a jump next time. You're not doing your readers any favors. It sucks that it's like this but there's no changing it.

Paulus @ 30, most bosses fuck around on the clock too, surfing the web and engaging in pointless gossip. But some things are verbotten and porn is a big one. Here's the kicker - most office drones don't know the difference between art and porn, so they will kick up shit if they happen to catch you looking at this sort of thing. That's sad but very true.

Contraposture rocks!

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1458128

That art's hot. Post it right up top on Slog.

Paulus, it's called "not pushing your luck". There are different levels of daring and if this site regularly has NSFW images, then people will stop posting them because well, then the whole site is too risky.

you're telling me that chaz slogging is his part of his job and doesnt reduce productivity?

heh heh ... Tit-ian

WTF are you all doing cruising the blogs at work instead of working?

WHOA, I guess, being the owner of my own computer, and the sole payee of my own non-existant salary, all that NSFW stuff didnt even occur to me.

Instead, I was trying to figure out what the hell possible significance a random sampling of reclining nudes, and their direction of recline, could have.

Here are my current top theories-

Its because women are actually evil, as they bleed monthly, and therefore are directly associated with the left hand- Il Sinistre, in italian- and therefore, should only be depicted with their heads, and, by association, their souls, on the devil's side of the picture.

Or maybe its because most men are right handed, and therefore, when wanking off, tend to look to the right, therefore the artist would naturally pose the model that way, as the more interesting bits are on that side.

Any professional bra-fitter will tell you that the vast majority of women have two different sized breasts- perhaps (more research is needed here, obviously)- the majority of women are, just as they are right handed, right-titted- and hence, just naturally feel more comfortable lying down with the larger of the two on the bottom.

Or maybe, just maybe, its all meaningless and totally random?

And perhaps Jen sees herself as Tanya to Mr. Johnsons Cinque?
Is this some kind of radical revolutionary act, worthy of Bobby Seal and Eldridge himself, flaunting 400 years (cue background singers) 400 years of honkies telling us which we can pose our white women?
Why the political implications of a statement like this- they are absolutely- well- maybe not absolutely- but possibly of some small significance, if anybody notices, instead of wondering where the money shot is, and wandering back into the little storage area of James Harris looking for it....

WHOA, I guess, being the owner of my own computer, and the sole payee of my own non-existant salary, all that NSFW stuff didnt even occur to me.

Instead, I was trying to figure out what the hell possible significance a random sampling of reclining nudes, and their direction of recline, could have.

Here are my current top theories-

-Its because women are actually evil, as they bleed monthly, and therefore are directly associated with the left hand- Il Sinistre, in italian- and therefore, should only be depicted with their heads, and, by association, their souls, on the devil's side of the picture.

-Or maybe its because most men are right handed, and therefore, when wanking off, tend to look to the right, therefore the artist would naturally pose the model that way, as the more interesting bits are on that side.

-Any professional bra-fitter will tell you that the vast majority of women have two different sized breasts- perhaps (more research is needed here, obviously)- the majority of women are, just as they are right handed, right-titted- and hence, just naturally feel more comfortable lying down with the larger of the two on the bottom.

-Or maybe, just maybe, its all meaningless and totally random?- No, I have read my Robert Anton Wilson- I know no tree falls in the forest without being somehow connected to the Kennedy Asassination.

-And perhaps Jen sees herself as Tanya to Mr. Johnsons Cinque?
Is this some kind of radical revolutionary act, worthy of Bobby Seal and Eldridge himself, flaunting 400 years (cue background singers) 400 years of honkies telling us which way we can pose our white women?

Why the political implications of a statement like this- they are absolutely- well- maybe not absolutely- but possibly of some small significance, if anybody notices, instead of wondering where the money shot is, and wandering back into the little storage area of James Harris looking for it....

Um, not true that "visual acuity is sharpest from top left to bottom right."
Visual acuity is always sharpest dead center. Perhaps you mean that our attention tends to get drawn from top left to bottom right (because of the way we read).

I can think of several possible reasons for the historical trend, including 1) the way we read, 2) handedness of the painter (as someone else suggested above), 3) sheer tradition, with no actual point, 4) how a right-handed person would approach and touch an attractive lying-down person (run a mental movie for a figure facing each direction and you'll see what I mean).

Meanwhile, I'm more interested in Jen's comment that the TITLE is an art-historical joke. Anyone know what that's about?

The Titian and the Velazquez are the only ones with the top leg crossed in back, not in front. What's that mean, then?

Thank you, but aside from boring portraits or bored people I'd rather be seeing Seattle from a different angle: http://tjnorris.net/blog/2007/07/07/cracking-seattle/