Slog
News & ArtsFriday, January 30, 2009
Visual Art The Entire Response to an Iranian Artist Who Sticks His Neck Out to Create Grotesque and Gorgeous Imagery of Muslim Men Together
Posted by Jen Graves on Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Comments from this morning's Currently Hanging:
1
crap
Posted by crapolla on January 30, 2009 at 9:17 AM
2
ghey
Posted by Gay Wad Ass-Fuck Art on January 30, 2009 at 11:58 AM
1
is this along the lines of what you were looking for?
i hope this iranian guy doesn't get killed by his theocratic government for making this painting.
i hope this iranian guy doesn't get killed by his theocratic government for making this painting.
3
Interesting.
But, I'm far more interested in the Asian community backlash against M. Night Shamalayam's casting of Avatar with Caucasian actors instead of the actual Asian and Native groups they're based on ...
But, I'm far more interested in the Asian community backlash against M. Night Shamalayam's casting of Avatar with Caucasian actors instead of the actual Asian and Native groups they're based on ...
6
Gorgeous? If I walked into someone's house, and that was hanging on their wall, I would probably start laughing, and/or take a picture and send it to my friends to make fun of what horrible taste that person had.
And I LOVE tacky shit. The problem with this is it feels like the artist is taking himself seriously.
And I LOVE tacky shit. The problem with this is it feels like the artist is taking himself seriously.
7
In short, nobody was moved or impressed enough to appreciate it the way the poster thought.
In the best of times, the fine arts are truly appreciated only by a minority.
In these sobering economic times, it's tough to know what response was expected. "Oooh's" and "Aaah's," perhaps? Hardly likely.
This is the Slog. Ripping on Palin or pointing out the persecution of gay people is more the standard here.
Fine art from foreign lands? Meh...
In the best of times, the fine arts are truly appreciated only by a minority.
In these sobering economic times, it's tough to know what response was expected. "Oooh's" and "Aaah's," perhaps? Hardly likely.
This is the Slog. Ripping on Palin or pointing out the persecution of gay people is more the standard here.
Fine art from foreign lands? Meh...
9
8
Yeah.
I thought the one in purple was a babe.
What man-boobs.
I'd hate to get killed for making this crap.
Yeah.
I thought the one in purple was a babe.
What man-boobs.
I'd hate to get killed for making this crap.
12
And how were we supposed to know that from your post? You didn't give any background on the artist. Instead, what we saw on Slog was dark, blurry photographs of a fat middle eastern man cut and pasted into a collage. It's not even up to the level of Worth1000.
13
I saw the original post, and while I liked the artist you featured, I was particularly impressed by the work of Hayv Kahraman. Beautiful and slightly unsettling. I'm an artist and her work is very inspiring to me.
Thanks for sharing this, and please don't think the idiots who have time to post comments are the extent of your audience.
Thanks for sharing this, and please don't think the idiots who have time to post comments are the extent of your audience.
15
His genitals are blacked out for a reason. The two clearly want to touch, need to touch. Very Persian. I think it expresses repression, oppression of theocracy. It is beautiful. I love it.
18
"Thanks for sharing this, and please don't think the idiots who have time to post comments are the extent of your audience."
Yes, there are also a bunch of people out there with a terrible taste for weirdly photoshopped scans of the artist's face and arms lumped together without consideration for composition. Thanks for pointing that out, Jess. We were all curious whether there was a complete fucking idiot lurking on Slog, and now you've confirmed it!
You have bad taste, and coming into the comments to display that fact while also insulting people who think this is crappy art (the majority of us) is just another example of your bad taste. Disappear again, please.
Yes, there are also a bunch of people out there with a terrible taste for weirdly photoshopped scans of the artist's face and arms lumped together without consideration for composition. Thanks for pointing that out, Jess. We were all curious whether there was a complete fucking idiot lurking on Slog, and now you've confirmed it!
You have bad taste, and coming into the comments to display that fact while also insulting people who think this is crappy art (the majority of us) is just another example of your bad taste. Disappear again, please.
19
@ Everyone who seems to think these are paintings: Follow the link in her original post:
Ramin Haerizadeh at Saatchi Gallery
They are computer manipulated images presented as C-prints. The subjects are derived from Taaziye theatre, where men play all the roles. The artist has portrayed himself in all the parts. I think they are lovely. And yes, gay.
Heaven forbid you have to encounter something gay on the Slog.
Ramin Haerizadeh at Saatchi Gallery
They are computer manipulated images presented as C-prints. The subjects are derived from Taaziye theatre, where men play all the roles. The artist has portrayed himself in all the parts. I think they are lovely. And yes, gay.
Heaven forbid you have to encounter something gay on the Slog.
20
"In short, nobody was moved or impressed enough to appreciate it the way the poster thought." - Lenny
Now Jen, were you merely looking for comments? Or comments of appreciation over what you selected to post? Because the internet sass of "This is all I got from you people about my blog post" really isn't going to get you thoughtful comments on something no one has cared about all day. Instead you're just whining to the internet about how the internet doesn't appreciate you. I saw this in the morning and I had absolutely nothing nice to say about it, or the fact that you selected it. Since you are so insistent on comments about this then I will do you a favor. Since you can't understand why no one liked it, I will explain why I did not like it:
This certainly wasn't the best image I came across this morning. It isn't even the best on the site you linked to! It's not a very deep or thought provoking piece and it lacks in execution. Everything is on the surface. There is neither depth (the visual illusion of depth) in the artwork, nor in the thought behind the artwork. His attempt to mimic an old style of work is marred by his inability to follow through and execute it, like many other poorly skilled imitators of the works of the past. If he wants to work in a style, he should actually do the technical research and exert the effort, like Salvador Dali. This image is simple, gaudy and it is very blunt. There's nothing to explore, there's no layered meaning, there's no great truth, or an attempt to challenge the audience in any way other than what is immediately visible with a mere glance. This is not thought-provoking unless you've been living on a farm in Kansas all your life (and they probably wouldn't care for it much either, even the hot gay farmhands). Don't even pull that "but it's his aesthetic" crap because it's lacks even the most basic technical work to make up for it's lack of vision. Why bother preserving some aspects of the style of old Persian artwork but mashing it with other modern techniques and composition in a haphazard way? Ones which aren't relevant to the subject? Trying to get close to the look of a Persian tapestry, doesn't bring any extra meaning to this, in fact it confuses the meaning. This is about modernity in Iran, and a poor imitation of an a style from antiquity brings nothing to the table other than, "I like this because I think it's pretty." Which is acceptable for refrigerator art, or for Hippies, but it doesn't relate at all to trying to communicate something of merit.
If you want everyone to "ooh and ahh" post something to "ooh and ahh" about. The response to this was politely(relatively) negative this morning, urging people to talk about it didn't really help. Cut your losses.
More...
Now Jen, were you merely looking for comments? Or comments of appreciation over what you selected to post? Because the internet sass of "This is all I got from you people about my blog post" really isn't going to get you thoughtful comments on something no one has cared about all day. Instead you're just whining to the internet about how the internet doesn't appreciate you. I saw this in the morning and I had absolutely nothing nice to say about it, or the fact that you selected it. Since you are so insistent on comments about this then I will do you a favor. Since you can't understand why no one liked it, I will explain why I did not like it:
This certainly wasn't the best image I came across this morning. It isn't even the best on the site you linked to! It's not a very deep or thought provoking piece and it lacks in execution. Everything is on the surface. There is neither depth (the visual illusion of depth) in the artwork, nor in the thought behind the artwork. His attempt to mimic an old style of work is marred by his inability to follow through and execute it, like many other poorly skilled imitators of the works of the past. If he wants to work in a style, he should actually do the technical research and exert the effort, like Salvador Dali. This image is simple, gaudy and it is very blunt. There's nothing to explore, there's no layered meaning, there's no great truth, or an attempt to challenge the audience in any way other than what is immediately visible with a mere glance. This is not thought-provoking unless you've been living on a farm in Kansas all your life (and they probably wouldn't care for it much either, even the hot gay farmhands). Don't even pull that "but it's his aesthetic" crap because it's lacks even the most basic technical work to make up for it's lack of vision. Why bother preserving some aspects of the style of old Persian artwork but mashing it with other modern techniques and composition in a haphazard way? Ones which aren't relevant to the subject? Trying to get close to the look of a Persian tapestry, doesn't bring any extra meaning to this, in fact it confuses the meaning. This is about modernity in Iran, and a poor imitation of an a style from antiquity brings nothing to the table other than, "I like this because I think it's pretty." Which is acceptable for refrigerator art, or for Hippies, but it doesn't relate at all to trying to communicate something of merit.
If you want everyone to "ooh and ahh" post something to "ooh and ahh" about. The response to this was politely(relatively) negative this morning, urging people to talk about it didn't really help. Cut your losses.
21
An adendum: If I was going to copy John Singer Sargent's portraiture style, but use only photographs and a wacom tablet, I would be missing virtually all of what makes a John Singer Sargent painting what it is. The brushstrokes, the material quality of it, everything. To proclaim that my poor imitation is worthy of artistic merit would be complete BS in that case. If I went out, actually learned to paint like John Singer Sargent, and did my homage to his style, then sure, I successfully executed it.
If my subject matter was two men in 1900's clothing making out in John Singer Sargent's style, it would still make as much sense as Ramin Haerizadeh's choices.
If my subject matter was two men in 1900's clothing making out in John Singer Sargent's style, it would still make as much sense as Ramin Haerizadeh's choices.
25
Well, I have to admit that the comments here were a helluva lot more interesting than the "art." Way to go, Sloggers!
26
"Stoppin ze throwinze"? You think you're the majority, eh? Did you even follow the original link to the other art in the show? I am not a huge fan of the featured work technically, but I thought it was interesting, especially considering it's origins. When I followed the link I discovered some other artist's work I really liked.
Just curious- since you speak for "the majority"- what artists do you admire? I would like to see what your superior taste inclines toward.
Just curious- since you speak for "the majority"- what artists do you admire? I would like to see what your superior taste inclines toward.
28
I love you, 20/21.
Jen, this piece was intriguing for the gay overtones, but the quality of the execution left me cold. I agree, the "nobody replied! COMMENTS PLEEEEZ" is very MySpace tween.
Jen, this piece was intriguing for the gay overtones, but the quality of the execution left me cold. I agree, the "nobody replied! COMMENTS PLEEEEZ" is very MySpace tween.
29
I liked it, too. I actually clicked the link and was disappointed when there weren't more fleshy, lacy photo-copier men right away for me to peruse.
This is like the album art from Tori Amos's "From the Choirgirl Hotel" but way better.
This is like the album art from Tori Amos's "From the Choirgirl Hotel" but way better.
30
I'm no stoppin ze throwinze apologist, but "twat waffle" was unecessary, and jess, you're embarrassingly wrong here. When you see something terrible that you don't like at all, do you normally punish yourself by looking at more things like it? No? Then why would he?
Also: do you not know what "majority" means? More people have posted about not liking it than liking it.
I no longer hold it against Jen when she posts things I hate, because she made a really good point about seeing something in person versus a jpeg, and also because it's called "Currently Hanging," and not "OMG You Guys, This Is So Pretty, Buy It!" So, if I don't have anything nice to say, I try to keep it to myself. But if she's going to repost something so that people talk about it, that's opening it up for criticism.
Also: do you not know what "majority" means? More people have posted about not liking it than liking it.
I no longer hold it against Jen when she posts things I hate, because she made a really good point about seeing something in person versus a jpeg, and also because it's called "Currently Hanging," and not "OMG You Guys, This Is So Pretty, Buy It!" So, if I don't have anything nice to say, I try to keep it to myself. But if she's going to repost something so that people talk about it, that's opening it up for criticism.
32
Sigh. Aislinn, you're right. You probably ARE the majority. And that's pretty depressing. God forbid you should be inquisitive enough to "punish yourself" by clicking a link and seeing more than the one image selected to lead to entire bodies of work by 21 completely different artists! Like I said, I was rewarded by finding an artist I really like amongst the other artists. Guess I'm a glutton for punishment.
I don't know Jen's reposting motives, but I thought the repost commented more on the first two flippant, crass comments her original post inspired; a sad mirror on them.
You said you see the point of what Jen said about judging art from a jpeg, maybe you shouldn't judge an entire show on one image, especially a group show.
If the show is even what we're talking about, or is it the post, or are we just attacking each other's "taste". wtf.
I don't know Jen's reposting motives, but I thought the repost commented more on the first two flippant, crass comments her original post inspired; a sad mirror on them.
You said you see the point of what Jen said about judging art from a jpeg, maybe you shouldn't judge an entire show on one image, especially a group show.
If the show is even what we're talking about, or is it the post, or are we just attacking each other's "taste". wtf.
34
I typically read lack of comments as a good thing, like somehow your words/the work described in the post have managed to shut the peanut gallery up. In fact, when I am short on time I focus on reading the posts with NO comments.
35
I don't know, Jen. I'm of the opinion that art is enriched when it is read in context. I didn't see the orignal post, but if it's true that there was no mention that the artist is iranian, or that the subjects are self portraits, then this image by itself doesn't really spreak to me. I looked at the other works in the show by the same artist, and I think actually this image is the weakest in the bunch.
However, in relation to JSteel2005's comments, I have to say I disagree with your assesment of the work.
You advised that there are no layers of meaning and that the image was put together with no composition. I think that neither of these things are true and that moreover the layers of meaning are revealed through the composition. Notice how there is an even balance in the image of dark and light, and how all the angles in the image (the blue guys knee, and hat, espescially the red cape thing on the other guy) all lead the eye in the diection of the red figure's face, which is the clear focal point of the image.
Notice how the red figure is positioned as if he were kissing the blue figure's leg, but that the figures don't actually touch. As Vince pointed out, the blue figures genitals are blurred, also the artist deliberately cut off the figures hands and feet, which they would use to touch each other. The work is about desire, not sex, and desire is about what's missing, not what is.
I don't think the artist is making any atempt to mimic an old style of work. His medium of computer imagery is an artistic choice, not something that came about because he couldn't make a "better" imitation of a persian tapestry. I think the clash of the modern and the antique is kind of the point--I think the artist wants to show that a modern Iranian homosexual identity has to be created out of cut up pieces, and that it's still not going to look quite right. Idon't think that could have been expressed if he had made a "real" tapestry that was an imitation of the antique style in every way and just happened to show two men making out. That would have looked more like he was trying to create a fictional past, and I think the point here is to take useful pieces of the past that work in the present.
What's challanging about this image? Several people have crassly commented on the "man boobs" and "bearded women." The figures are sensual but not beautiful. Provacative but not sexy. In fact, it's ugly, which, considering it's a self portrait, tells us something about the artist and his own relationship to his sexuality. I think the image is at least partly about our desire to look away from it.
More...
However, in relation to JSteel2005's comments, I have to say I disagree with your assesment of the work.
You advised that there are no layers of meaning and that the image was put together with no composition. I think that neither of these things are true and that moreover the layers of meaning are revealed through the composition. Notice how there is an even balance in the image of dark and light, and how all the angles in the image (the blue guys knee, and hat, espescially the red cape thing on the other guy) all lead the eye in the diection of the red figure's face, which is the clear focal point of the image.
Notice how the red figure is positioned as if he were kissing the blue figure's leg, but that the figures don't actually touch. As Vince pointed out, the blue figures genitals are blurred, also the artist deliberately cut off the figures hands and feet, which they would use to touch each other. The work is about desire, not sex, and desire is about what's missing, not what is.
I don't think the artist is making any atempt to mimic an old style of work. His medium of computer imagery is an artistic choice, not something that came about because he couldn't make a "better" imitation of a persian tapestry. I think the clash of the modern and the antique is kind of the point--I think the artist wants to show that a modern Iranian homosexual identity has to be created out of cut up pieces, and that it's still not going to look quite right. Idon't think that could have been expressed if he had made a "real" tapestry that was an imitation of the antique style in every way and just happened to show two men making out. That would have looked more like he was trying to create a fictional past, and I think the point here is to take useful pieces of the past that work in the present.
What's challanging about this image? Several people have crassly commented on the "man boobs" and "bearded women." The figures are sensual but not beautiful. Provacative but not sexy. In fact, it's ugly, which, considering it's a self portrait, tells us something about the artist and his own relationship to his sexuality. I think the image is at least partly about our desire to look away from it.
36
Often the comments on the Currently Hangings add non-sequitur hilarity/idiocy to the thing that is Currently hanging. I guess I thought Jen's second post about this piece was more about addressing this odd dialogue than the merits of the work in question.
By the way, I think this work is interesting and worthy of more attention. And I completely disagree with 20/21; it's a ridiculous notion that an artist must paint exactly like John Singer Sargent in order to successfully reference John Singer Sargent.
By the way, I think this work is interesting and worthy of more attention. And I completely disagree with 20/21; it's a ridiculous notion that an artist must paint exactly like John Singer Sargent in order to successfully reference John Singer Sargent.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (36) RSS