I know that you are too busy being amazed by this, but pull yourself together and read some critique:
Currin's painting, on the other hand, seems relatively restrained, evincing an almost Cycladic elegance and symmetry. Scarcely the sort of conclusion one would expect? Even in the case of one of Currin's most deservedly famous, or notorious, early paintings, Bea Arthur Naked (1991), the sitcom star preserves a certain restraint, dignity even, that militates against the overtly camp/kitsch (or possibly anti-feminist) readings of the picture that so readily come to mind. Perhaps the Arthur portrait is going rather against the grain of the Currin mode, even as it was only coalescing in the early 1990s - the exception that, maybe, proves the rule of perversion.
.jpg)
2 comments:
OK ... Ewwww.
There are some things that are much, much better left to the imagination. This would have been one of them -- regardless of how OCD-ish one is about the GGs.
It's OK, I love you anyway. ;-)
She had some really nice looking breasts.
Post a Comment