While reading JK's blog, I came upon the question about whether something is 'art' or whether it just 'is'.
Salma could be considered as a work of 'High Art'.
Good form, no wasted effort and a visual experience which elicits a positive response.
When they are this large they become superfluous decoration and not good design.
Breasts this big would be thought of as being 'Low Art'.
It seems as though many unattractive women hide their lack of good looks behind a nest of fake hair.
I also prefer minimal make up.
While many would think of modern design as lacking insight or effort, it's appeal comes from the maximum result with the minimal use of material.
Many would think of this style as being 'art' - but is it really art if it has become obsolete?
Or is it just superfluous decoration?
3 comments:
Selma is a beautiful woman.
Lol. I agree about weaves. Weaves are just modern day Jheri Curls in terms of ridiculousness. And just like people look back at pics of people with Jheri Curls and laugh, they'll one day be looking back and laughing at weaves too.
art is what it is to whomever is looking at it. I, as one who paints and loves design, still think at the end of the day you like it or you don't, it looks good or it doesn't, and what I think should absolutely not matter to the person standing next to me.
I dislike the disrespect to others property inherent in graffiti... but some of it just looks fantastic.
A lot does not.
I dislike the snobbery inherent in a lot of high art... but some of it looks fantastic. a lot of it is just boring.
Question, there was a time, clearly, when breasts were probably only functional, but a (possibly) arbitrary attraction to what you can call the omega form seems to have caused men to select for that in breasts (and the omega form is inherent in one other body part):
http://youtu.be/ipMgGf_YEms
Just as women sexually selected for pretty men, did we males not select for this ornament?
Post a Comment