remember the guy that painted with his butt? *including interview*

S

spazzy

New member
Around the first part of 2007 there was an art teacher named Stephen Murmer who was fired from his job because of his adventures in butt painting. As in he\'d roll the paint on his butt and nethers then sit on the canvas. I\'m sure many of you remember? Well, I\'m doing a short paper about that for my argumentative writing class. I tried using the forum search function to see our past discussions on the subject, but ended up getting booted out of the site a few times.

I respect the opinions of the artists here, professionals and hobbyists alike. If you folks would be so kind as to indulge me with your opinions on this matter, I would be very grateful for your contribution to my article. I\'m primarily centering on the question of if his art fits into the category of original, inspired and valuable art, or simply an obscene take on finger-painting.
 
U

Undave

Flockwit
I think the big question is did he intend it as art or was it just a more colourful version of the office photocopier trick? lol
 
Friar

Friar

Dorks for Orks
I don\'t recall ever hearing about this fella but I\'m glad he got canned school art class can be enough of a joke without mr. ass-happy turning it into a circus.

I would classify this as obscene finger painting and the obscenity could be measured by the size of the \"finger\" involved but I\'d guess it\'s more of a pinky :p
 
S

Shadzar

Guest
sounds like something form a movie with MArtin Sheen.

some guy way painting and injected paint into himself and put in on the canvas in a way to call it enim-art.

i wouldn\'t call either art, as neither really achieve any goal of design. they are more just accidents involved with paint.
 
Friar

Friar

Dorks for Orks
Yeah thats his site just went for a browse and I\'m gonna stick to my original conclusion first I wouldn\'t want some guy that prances around naked with a towel on his head and nerd glasses while some other wacko smears paint on his rear and video tapes it and publicizes it to teach my kids. and second it\'s worse then pre-school art atleast the preschoolers have some thought, emotion or idea they are trying to convey (sometimes lol) but all of em have some originality, this guy does up some crap that isn\'t inspired or inspiring isn\'t original isn\'t thought provoking is just trash.

:|~:no::|~:no::|~
 
U

Undave

Flockwit
OK so the principle behind it is reasonably interesting as they don\'t just look like bum prints (except those flowers:rolleyes: )

As pictures go though the result is fairly mediocre, they don\'t inspire much of a reaction in me at least. One of them just looks like wallpaper.

I can\'t imagine putting one up on my wall and informing curious guests that the painter rendered it with his arse......
 
U

Undave

Flockwit
Hahahahahahahaha! he comes from Chesterfield! That explains everything. Just wait till Roger sees this lol
 
S

spazzy

New member
The Hawaiian one is definitely sac prints, and the tulip one is quite obviously the full monty. You can see a few butt prints on the woodland one, but none of the others are really obvious.

The glasses include a fake nose, and are all about keeping his real identity a secret. He\'s contacted the ACLU for representation, and apparently, their stance is that since he isn\'t doing anything illegal and went to \"great pains\" to try to conceal his identity via the glasses, towel around his head, and using the name Stan Murmur rather than Stephen, that he was well within his first amendment rights.

Well...that\'s all besides the point. Flash Art magazine joins him with Yves Klein, Shigeko Kubota, and Takeshi Murakami. Yves Klein would place paint on people\'s bodies and had them lay on a canvas. I don\'t think that he was criticized for that. In 1965 Shigeko Kubota put on a vagina-painting performance in New York. She used a brush, but didn\'t hold it with her hand to paint. I\'m still trying to figure out the Takeshi Murakami connection.

My personal opinion is that Klein\'s art had value because the item that he used was the subject of the painting. It\'s also not the only thing he did. It wasn\'t some obscure painting method where the technique was the subject of the portrait. Serraut (did I spell it right?) painted his pictures with individual dots. He had an interesting technique, but it was worlds away from being considered obscene.

This guy\'s claim to fame is his buttocks, testicles, and penis covered in paint and pressed onto canvas to look like a flower. I realize that art doesn\'t have to be serious, it can be anything it wants to be.

I wonder if he would respond to me if I emailed him a few questions about how he perceives his work. Did it just start out as a goofy stunt that he realized people were willing to pay money for, so he kept it up for the extra income? Are his paintings things he would hang in his own home for the enjoyment of his guests and family?
 
S

spazzy

New member
Originally posted by Undave
Hahahahahahahaha! he comes from Chesterfield! That explains everything. Just wait till Roger sees this lol
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that\'s actually Chesterfield county, Virginia.
 
S

spazzy

New member
Well, I have emailed him. I kept my questions as neutral as possible, because I don\'t want him to think that I am mocking him and just delete the email without responding. Hopefully I will hear from him soon. While I disagree with his technique, I would really like to receive an explanation from him that changes my opinion.

Anybody else who wants to chime in with praise, criticism, or an otherwise helpful comment is welcome.

I have a question for the folks who paint professionally as well as the ones who take the occasional commission. If a customer asks you to paint something with a technique you are familiar or proficient with but do not like to use, what would your response be? To clarify, if you were a die-hard NMM supporter, and somebody asked you to use metallic paints instead, or some similar situation. Would you follow the money, or would you hold firm to your opinion of what looks best?
 
B

Braveheart712

New member
OK, you asked for it...

His form or art is sophomoric and juvenile. He relies on shock value and a gimmick to make his statement and sell his art, rather than talent. In my opinion he is hack, no better than Robert Maplethorpe who displays a crucifix in urine and called it art or Chris Ofili who painted the virgin Mary in elephant feces. Real art requires talent, proper use of color, shading, lighting affects, form and proportion, and the manipulation of these elements. Easy art and art that attracts viewers based on shock value does not meet these requirements. Its kind of like when they give a elephant or monkey at the local zoo paint and they slap it on a canvas in random strokes. Yes, they usually sell this art and money used goes to a good cause but it isn\'t really art, just random paint splatters. The same applies to this freak. He shows no talent, so he paints his willy and smacks it on some canvas, wow, good job, I\'m impressed...NOT! I had this argument when I attended college with a fellow student who was trying to present flawed photographs as a final project. I laughed at her and told her she was a joke. Why, because anyone could produce bad photographs, as I remember it was all she ever produced, but real talent and a real project would require talent and execution, something she was unable and unwilling to do. If she wanted to do something unique, I challenged her to produce just one good photograph. Guess what, it never happened. I would bet this man is incapable of producing anything of any ascetic value so he relies on the lazy man\'s gimmick he has concocted. Don\'t be fooled, he is a joke.

(BTW, I do have a bachelors in Fine Art from an accredited New York State College, I might just have some idea what I am talking about, but then again, maybe I don\'t! )
 
B

Braveheart712

New member
Artistic technique

OK Spazzy, the second part of your question...

If I paint a commission, I consider myself working for that client. My job is to make him/her happy, so I will use whatever technique they want. Usually I am painting pieces that will be used in a preexisting army, so what I do is ask for several examples so that I can mimic the techniques and colors used when I complete that project. If I were to start from scratch, again I ask when they like. This is radically different from my approach when I paint for myself. I do this to please me, if others like it then all the better, but if I am doing work for another I feel the only thing that matters is that persons satisfaction in the completed project.
 
S

spazzy

New member
Braveheart, thank you for your response. I really appreciate all the opinions I\'m getting. I want to make sure that you all know that I do intend to use some of your quotes in my article, and if you would prefer I didn\'t, please let me know.

Is there anybody who sees real value in his art? I\'d really like to hear the other side of the argument.
 
Y

Yramrag

New member
Not quite on the same topic, but it sort is as well....

Last week sometime, the submission deadline for the for the Archibald Awards closed. For anyone who is not aware, this is Australia\'s premier portrait painting competition with a $50,000 winners prize on offer. The only reason i know of this is because they were talking about it on the radio. Anyone they were interviewing one of the chief judges who revealed that one of the entrants painted the picture with his...man bit...lets leave the name at that. Apparently he used it as his brush and has entitled his style \"Pricasso\".
My question is this. If you were looking/judging the competition, would you want to know that is how the portrait was painted?
 
Friar

Friar

Dorks for Orks
Originally posted by Yramrag
Not quite on the same topic, but it sort is as well....

Last week sometime, the submission deadline for the for the Archibald Awards closed. For anyone who is not aware, this is Australia\'s premier portrait painting competition with a $50,000 winners prize on offer. The only reason i know of this is because they were talking about it on the radio. Anyone they were interviewing one of the chief judges who revealed that one of the entrants painted the picture with his...man bit...lets leave the name at that. Apparently he used it as his brush and has entitled his style \"Pricasso\".
My question is this. If you were looking/judging the competition, would you want to know that is how the portrait was painted?
Click to expand...

lol lordy this world is messed up, I would say that as long as the painter uses thought and delibrate method to achieve a painting that relays the intent of the painter then the \"applicator\" wouldn\'t matter, if he just dipped his willy in paint and slapped the canvas then it would fall into the same group as the master ass painter mentioned above.

Just a quick lil somethin bout this ass painter, I see him as being the same as many of the modern art bullshite artists that have turned into the bulk of art today. Folk who lack talent so they vomit color on a canvas call it their art and then create some BS sales pitch of a story as to how it conveys their feelings. Michelangelo would have never been caught running around the sistine chapel with his arse and willy covered in paint covering the place with butt-tulips, that is becouse like most true artists he had talent, respect for his work and his customer, dignity, and a sense of purpose with his work. The butt-tuliper doesn\'t have any of this he takes the creative process and treats it like a scam or a con and most revoltingly he makes a mockery of it.

and I never would have thought that a butt-tuliper would get me goin like this, lol so last post I think I\'ve expressed my feelings about this guy lol

And good luck Spazzy on your paper :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back To Top
Top