Is my cock too risky for art class?

[Stretch]

Well I was busy laying down my case while you were doing that, so don be jealous now.

I love it when you write in your best Ricky Ricardo impression :smile:

 

[saertyu]

If your class doesn't believe how big you are, you could always offer to whip it out as proof.

 

[Stretch]

If your class doesn't believe how big you are, you could always offer to whip it out as proof.

uuummm...the party kind of ended, most people have left, but help yourself to whatever leftovers are still laying around. Avoid the guacamole though...you don't want to know, just trust me :redface:

 

[Blueshift]

In a fine arts course for dedicated arts students, meaning not a gen-ed course with non-majors, if the biggest problem with your figure drawing is the pose or the size of your penis in the drawing, you're golden.

There are going to be much more important problems with your use of shading, body proportions, positioning and things like are you representing your body in positions it can actually assume instead of drawing a crazy melted rubber man.

Someone might question if you've gotten the proportions wrong on your penis, but unless you actually HAVE, just tell them that no, it really is to scale.

 

[D_Jimmy Jammer]

Could you post a link for the non-gold members?

Would help :tongue:

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Hilaire,
I really appreciate your input. You offer an experienced and completely different perspective than my own. I'm almost shocked to hear you say "If your tutors are judging your work by what they think you're trying to say in it then they should be fired." My experience in architectural studios is the exact opposite. Idea and clarity are hammered into our brains and picked apart at every opportunity. I think the big, unifying idea is a hold over from modernism which architecture is slow to move away from. Maybe we've got ourselves back to the essential differences of art and design.

Well yes, Design must have inherent purpose, Art does not. So in design you have a clear aim and must reach it as simply and usefully as possible. In art one has a completely unclear aim (because one can never control the viewer's reactions) which must be reached as expressively and uniquely as possible regardless of complexity or lack of utility.

 

[B_New End]

It's risque, but not too, and risky, but being on the edge always is. It could go very wrong, but who cares? If it looks pleasing to the eye, it came out right. Drawing from a picture is pretty easy, IMHO, so you should be able to get the proportions right. Take it maturely. Don't make it look like you spent most of time or detail on your dick or anything, you'll be fine. Experience.

 

[sdg475]

In art one has a completely unclear aim (because one can never control the viewer's reactions) which must be reached as expressively and uniquely as possible regardless of complexity or lack of utility.

This is something that I've never unanimously accepted. Again it could stem from thinking like a designer, but whenever I set out to create an image I am always conscious of its reception and more often than not I have an aim in mind. In regard to figure drawing something as simple as body language influences the like range of reactions. The style and execution is equally influential, but I don't think content is completely devoid of meaning. I understand that everyone views art through their own framework and that the transmission of meaning is subjective. Still, I have a hard time thinking that anyone can construct an image without being at least conscious of its "median" reception.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

This is something that I've never unanimously accepted. Again it could stem from thinking like a designer, but whenever I set out to create an image I am always conscious of its reception and more often than not I have an aim in mind. In regard to figure drawing something as simple as body language influences the like range of reactions. The style and execution is equally influential, but I don't think content is completely devoid of meaning. I understand that everyone views art through their own framework and that the transmission of meaning is subjective. Still, I have a hard time thinking that anyone can construct an image without being at least conscious of its "median" reception.

That's why exhibiting is so informative, and part of the reason I barely exhibit at all. Some artists do chase the aim of directly communicating their ideas, they refine their work over years of responding to viewer feedback with the intention of garnering back as much of their intended message each time.

Ultimately however, this has little to do with high art and everything to do with functional art and imbibes of the methodology of marketeers and propagandists. That process calls in to question whether the artist is communicating their personal vision or reiterating preexisting concepts the viewer is already familiar with.

Religious art is a good example of both tendencies, even some excellent religious art does very little more than communicate theological truths and a religious vision of the world. That's fine but it's entirely functional and is basically a form of propaganda and does simply confirms the viewer in their preexisting presumptions about these religious truths. However truly great religious art is great because it communicates a range (perhaps an infinite range) of messages which transcend the basic religious message the work was superficially intended to convey. All the truly great artists of the renaissance who worked in a religious idiom did this, and it is the reason they are master artists and not the forgotten lesser artists who remained controlled by the need to convey exactly the right message, much as advertising artists are directed now. The work of these lesser artists has its own value as a contribution to the skill of using purely visual language in the way that mime does, or illustration. But the reason Michelangelo or Raphael or Giotto etc are still relevant to us now and still able to draw the attention and interest of billions of people is because they conveyed their own personal vision which by dint of being so personal and unique was simultaneously (intentionally or unintentionally) able to be convey an infinite array of messages directly in proportion to the number of unique individual minds which view it.

The Sistine Chapel, or the tomb of the Medicis are of course able to be read only for their apparently intended message but they are also able to be read without their intended message as having totally unique significance both to their creator and to the viewer.

 

[D_dtgt65rg]

hey dude,

I think several guys here with art backgrounds provided different solutions.

Think of the overall objective/purpose of the drawing - for aesthetics sake, if your overall objective is to display an artist's view of himself - you, then address a few portions of the overall composition.

1. proportion - subject versus environment - think about the overall composition of your body in its environment - what do you want to emphasize in the picture? why?

2. your cock, like a male with big pecs or arms, or is just a part of the body, allow yourself to relax and find a comfortable position. the picture of your sitting on the ground is nice, but it emphasizes perspective, space, and shades. i am drawn the to negative space - floor and angles of your body (which makes it aesthetically pleasing.

3. think about the role of your cock in comparison to the body. is it to emphasize size and have the group react - if so, it's a bit pornographic - if not, and your are emphasizing the relationship of your cock, body, and environment to define a type of harmony, then it's art (weird, right).

4. Think about the mediums you plan to use - charcoal and pencil - great - wet mediums a bit difficult, but doable.

5. how do you want to connect to the viewer? how should they feel? what does tale does this picture tell? is it a defining picture defining your role as an artist or are you beginning a new chapter in your artistic expression?

These are all things we think about as artists (former MICA student and architect here).

Have fun and i would love to know what you discovered about yourself and cock in relations to your body and environment.

 

[D_Everette Hunglungfish]

Dude, go for it!

I went to art college and was used as a model for the life-drawing groups lots of time (£5 an hour as a student, I'd do anything!) - it really helped me loosen up as a person. My penis-size didn't really come in to it... though most of the "artists" were very generous in their interpretaions.

I also got a fair bit of kudos around college for doing it - and the students from the group always said hi.

 

[laphiha]

Wish you were in my art class. Don't think it's raunchy, if that's how your penis actually looks. Can't help it that you're big.