The Thomas Kinkade of transgressive art

By see-dubya  •  May 12, 2008 04:33 PM

The droll Sean M. wonders why the press continues to cover that guy who takes pictures of large crowds of naked people. Spencer Tunick is his name, working the media is his game. He’s like Christo, except instead of wrapping things in colored fabric, his medium is tons of naked bohemian cellulite. The setting may change, I think it was a bank once, and a department store, but it’s always tons of naked bohemian cellulite. And it’s for some reason, it’s always news.

Sean addresses Tunick directly:

Your pictures actually combine the “spirit” of conning a big crowd of doughy people who are (probably) liberal dupes into getting nude in public places in the name of doing something “transgressive,” with your ability to con the media into giving you free publicity, again, because you’re a “transgressive” “artist.”

News flash: 1,840 naked hippies is, like, Tuesday in the park at Berkeley. (Go ask Zombie.) It may have been transgressive the first time it happened, but unclothed artsy flash mobs are sooooo 2002. Besides, crazy Yalie Aliza Schvarts pretty much set the bar for artistic transgression art out of reach.

In fact, I hereby pronounce the very act of creating “transgressive art” to be middlebrow and mainstream*, and Spencer Tunick to be the Thomas Kinkade of transgressive art.

I don’t hate Thomas Kinkade or anything. And I usually love people who like Kinkade, and I usually dislike people who dislike people who like Kinkade, even if I don’t much care for Kinkade myself. At least he’s popular for a reason. Unlike Tunick’s, the images he creates are pleasant to look at, and make people feel nice things. But exactly like Tunick, he’s everywhere, he’s more marketing than talent, and he does exactly the same thing again and again and again.

___________________________________
*Well, that’s not entirely true. Some transgressive art can still shock and create a dialogue, and highlight social inequities, and do all the things transgressive art is supposed to do.

{Post by See-Dubya}

Posted in: Uncategorized

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

  1. Bring on the burqas « Eurociao

Trackback URL

Comments


  1. #318893
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:37 pm, cpodug said:

    Like P.T. Barnum once said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Spencer Tunick’s talent is getting them to mass together in one place.

  2. #318903
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:41 pm, ajmontana said:

    Makes ya miss Ansel Adams, now his work was art, breathtaking.

  3. #318906
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:42 pm, brooklyn red said:

    Whatever, as long as I am not taxed for it. I am not, am I? Please tell me I am not taxed for this.

  4. #318908
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:45 pm, Walldog said:

    I’ve always wondered why group pictures of unattractive naked people is considered “art”.

    .

  5. #318910
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:46 pm, see-dubya said:

    Because group pictures of attractive naked people are considered “porn”.

  6. #318911
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:47 pm, cpodug said:

    Walldog said: I’ve always wondered why group pictures of unattractive naked people is considered “art”.

    It’s either “Art” or Berkeley, your choice

  7. #318912
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:50 pm, ajmontana said:

    lol see-dubya….

  8. #318913
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:51 pm, mchristian said:

    MY EYES!!!

  9. #318915
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:52 pm, abstractmind said:

    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:46 pm, see-dubya said:
    Because group pictures of attractive naked people are considered “porn”.

    Not that I want to get into -this- discussion, but…there’s alot of ugly people in porn……

    *whistles innocently*

    Anyway…this is nothing new. and it seems kinda novel, really. not impressed. naked hippies just means its time to hose them down for a bath.

  10. #318916
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:53 pm, grumbles said:

    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:46 pm, see-dubya said:

    Because group pictures of attractive naked people are considered “porn”.

    In the world of Bork!

  11. #318919
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:56 pm, undrseige247 said:

    Thomas Kinkade mixes capitalism and art quite well. Go to the “feminist art” wing of the Brooklyn Museum if you want to see some modern art crap.

  12. #318922
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:57 pm, Cicero said:

    He’s a scam artist whose managed to punk softheaded newsroom editors into believing that he’s making a serious “statement.”

  13. #318923
    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:58 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    News flash: 1,840 naked hippies is, like,

    …the nastiest smell evah! EWWWWW

  14. #318929
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:02 pm, spo-con said:

    Thats what they look like without the tie die ??!? O.K., everybody BACK to the dressing room !

  15. #318930
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:03 pm, meatpieandtatters said:

    You wanna be upwind from this piece…

  16. #318933
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:04 pm, Chuck said:

    Still trying to relive the 60’s. How pathetic.

  17. #318934
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:06 pm, love2rumba said:

    re:post #5

    There is a diffeerence between ughly and bautiful naked people, C-dubya?

    WOW!

  18. #318939
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:13 pm, wighttrasch said:

    It’s like the old Grateful Dead joke, but now goes something like this…

    Q: what does a hippie in the crowd of a Spencer Tunick gathering say when he runs out of cannabis?

    A: man, this sucks.

  19. #318942
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:16 pm, Land that I Love said:

    Ha, ha those old hippies… always doing something to make a statement. I wonder what the statement this time is? Free plastic surgery for the masses so they don’t have to look like us? Perhaps, perhaps.

  20. #318943
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:17 pm, nbarry said:

    News people have an infantile obsession with public nudity. They need psychiatric help.

    As for the distinction between art and porn, Lenny Bruce went a little further. He said that if a female breast is misshapen, bruised or battered, it’s clean. But if it is whole, healthy and pleasing to the eye, it’s dirty. “That’s why an atrocity photo is never an obscenity photo,” the comedian concluded.

  21. #318944
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:18 pm, ajmontana said:

    Do the naked peeps get paid? or are they free morons?

  22. #318948
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:23 pm, MNUSMCDavid said:

    Cuddle Party people in training?…. could be.

  23. #318950
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:26 pm, brooklyn red said:

    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:56 pm, undrseige247 said:
    Thomas Kinkade mixes capitalism and art quite well. Go to the “feminist art” wing of the Brooklyn Museum if you want to see some modern art crap.

    Wait… something is wrong here… where is Chuck Schumer? Why are the birds so quiet? Something is wrong here.

  24. #318956
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:28 pm, walterc said:

    MNUSMCDavid said:

    Cuddle Party people in training?…. could be.

    Probably bored with just cuddling with jammies on.

  25. #318959
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:30 pm, wighttrasch said:

    Did you hear that a little person showed up to join in, but they made him leave?…he was getting in everyone’s hair.

  26. #318962
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pm, PaleoMedic said:

    The most interesting thing about Thomas Kinkade is that he not only shares my surname, he spells it correctly. My whole life I’ve had to give people my name followed immediately by spelling it. And yet people still spell it wrong.

    As for his art, it’s fine for what it is. At least he does not feature naked, geriatric hippies.

    Sincerely,
    Mike Kinkade

  27. #318970
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:37 pm, Misscheryl said:

    I’m sure you’ll find Pelosi, Reid in the mix there somewhere. They’re just frustrated hippies.

  28. #318973
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:38 pm, libocrat said:

    This is awesome!! Did Tomboy Kinkade think up this really really groovy new idea all by his lonesome?
    I mean WOW! Nude people.
    You need to be real creative to think this shyte up. Or you need to have bought John Lennon albums nearly 40 years ago.

  29. #318977
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:49 pm, John Ansell said:

    Next they will break out into a massive twister game. Left hand on blue.

  30. #318981
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:53 pm, Fineous Reese said:

    abstractmind said:

    Not that I want to get into -this- discussion, but…there’s alot of ugly people in porn……

    forget the hippies, long live the hedgehog!

  31. #318982
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:53 pm, Misscheryl said:

    JA #29 – mental pictures – icky! MistressJustice – can we say icky?

    Where the heck is MJ????

  32. #318983
    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:54 pm, Misscheryl said:

    just askin’

  33. #318992
    On May 12th, 2008 at 6:03 pm, John Ansell said:

    On May 12th, 2008 at 5:18 pm, ajmontana said:
    Do the naked peeps get paid? or are they free morons?

    I think they get paid Two Bits, which would make them two bit “wh*res”. Just guessing though.

  34. #319007
    On May 12th, 2008 at 6:20 pm, AlohaGuy said:

    Because group pictures of attractive naked people are considered “porn”.

    Heh.

    I think the “models” are related to the “Cuddlers”. Hoping to bump into someone – literally.

  35. #319019
    On May 12th, 2008 at 6:37 pm, Joy said:

    Aliza Schvarts has set the new bar… but leave it to liberals and old hippies to spend their days trying to come up with something grosser. They’ll do it too.

    Everytime I’ve thought they can’t get worse, they manage it just fine.

  36. #319029
    On May 12th, 2008 at 6:42 pm, undrseige247 said:

    Misscheryl said:

    JA #29 – mental pictures – icky! MistressJustice – can we say icky?

    Where the heck is MJ????

    Misscheryl, this is my mental picture of MistressJustice.

  37. #319030
    On May 12th, 2008 at 6:43 pm, Misscheryl said:

    Now THAT was funny!

  38. #319034
    On May 12th, 2008 at 6:51 pm, brooklyn red said:

    undrseige247, Re: “this is my mental picture of MistressJustice

    In good faith, I will not sue you this time.

  39. #319035
    On May 12th, 2008 at 6:55 pm, deepdriller said:

    Why is it always the people you would least like to see naked who have the compelling need to give you an eyefull????

    It’s like ballet, beautiful… until the guy in the tight tights comes out.

  40. #319045
    On May 12th, 2008 at 7:07 pm, Azygos said:

    What would the “artist” do if Helen Thomas wanted to participate? Shudders.

  41. #319068
    On May 12th, 2008 at 7:36 pm, behiker said:

    Unfortunately, this is what a lot of “art” is these days… crap, and it requires less and less talent. But, if you tell them that, they would say you just don’t understand art.

  42. #319088
    On May 12th, 2008 at 7:51 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    On May 12th, 2008 at 4:46 pm, see-dubya said:
    Because group pictures of attractive naked people are considered “porn”.

    Since people in these crowds don’t get worked “up”, would this be considered soft porn?

  43. #319173
    On May 12th, 2008 at 9:07 pm, tuffy said:

    I’ve never seen attractive people in pr0n and I’ve watched a lot of… Uh, the major difference seems to be one group showers and loves plastic surgery. Maybe because you have to shower prior to surgery.

    Please tell me local authorities make a habit of setting up D.U.I. checkpoints nearby.

  44. #319433
    On May 13th, 2008 at 2:41 am, ProtestShooter said:

    He’s one of these artists whose early work was very interesting but not very lucrative and he finally latched onto something that makes him money and he’s riding it for all its worth.

  45. #319491
    On May 13th, 2008 at 7:44 am, IndependentTom said:

    (Yawn)

  46. #319503
    On May 13th, 2008 at 8:25 am, tre said:

    I think I’ll just stick with Charles Russell, Fredrick Remington, David Mann, and Norman Rockwell, thank you very much.

  47. #319589
    On May 13th, 2008 at 10:05 am, changer1701 said:

    I’ve always wondered who does this and why they think its a good idea. Is there like an ad in the local paper or something…”Weirdo photographer seeks naked people to stand in local park for art”? I guess exhibitionists love it, though…

  48. #319716
    On May 13th, 2008 at 11:31 am, secondsight said:

    Berkley? Who would notice?

    But seriously, everyone knows those Americans aren’t really that tough. For instance, let’s see this.

    Link to Tunick on a glacier, maybe not for work place viewing. (But it’s Art)

  49. #320858
    On May 14th, 2008 at 7:32 am, everett_mansfield said:

    “Mama always liked Thomas Kinkade.”- F. Gump

  50. #322195
    On May 15th, 2008 at 11:42 am, Cosmo said:

    Never underestimate the power of Tunick’s works to act as both an emetic as well as a mild to aggressive laxative.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The more offensive Newsweek photo of Sarah Palin

November 17, 2009 06:54 PM by Michelle Malkin

101 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

Friday open thread

November 6, 2009 04:13 PM by Michelle Malkin

265 Comments | 1 Trackback

What’s on your teacher’s reading list?

November 2, 2009 05:34 AM by Michelle Malkin

90 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

Happy Halloween open thread

October 31, 2009 09:15 AM by Michelle Malkin

191 Comments | 2 Trackbacks

Saturday open thread

October 24, 2009 09:33 AM by Michelle Malkin

265 Comments | 5 Trackbacks

Nobel Peace Prize winner now increases tension in Louisiana

October 15, 2009 11:24 AM by Michelle Malkin

51 Comments | 0 Trackbacks

Divider.

Big Nanny Alert: The War on Hamburgers

October 13, 2009 02:05 PM by Michelle Malkin

139 Comments | 7 Trackbacks

Food police.


Categories: Uncategorized



Follow me on Twitter Follow me on Facebook