|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"That moment when"
Love you, too
I was browsing the magazine section at my college library, when I caught this out of the corner of my eye. I stood there, staring at it for what felt like an eternity, trying to conceal my shame. Thankfully, I don't think anyone noticed the bulge in my shorts! 
Has anyone else ever had something like this happen to them?
Has anyone else ever had something like this happen to them?WAM slut
SplatBoy said: I was browsing the magazine section at my college library, when I caught this out of the corner of my eye. I stood there, staring at it for what felt like an eternity, trying to conceal my shame. Thankfully, I don't think anyone noticed the bulge in my shorts! Has anyone else ever had something like this happen to them?
Has anyone else ever had something like this happen to them? Have no shame! Carpe Diem!
I remember one time when I lived and worked in London around 16 years ago there was a poster for an exhibition by the photographer Rankin which featured a nude model completely covered and dripping in condiments. They were all over the place. Took me by surprise so I didn't know what to do with myself but stand and stare.
Unfortunately, I've never seen that image again (it was he who photographed Heidi Klum in chocolate). I did go to the gallery to see it but there were no prints available to mere mortals. Be grateful to anyone who can locate it!
Even though I'm 'out', to all intents and purposes, I still feel a little self conscious (ashamed is not the word) because of the intensity of feeling. And make no mistake, even though she's been topless and covered in glop in my WAM clips, I still get a ribbing from my other half.
The art thing, Piedfolfy, intrigues me too. Western contemporary art is too hung up on objectification and the 'male gaze' upon the female body - Latin cultures less so - but the critiques about the body and 'being art' are a little archaic, so nobody's going to shake the world with insight. Its purpose in illustration and photography is still very poignant however. Somebody covered in paint or messy is an arresting and sensational image to most human beings when placed in a public context (against glamour and airbrushed perfection). It's anarchy (or a sign of it). Most people will never get that messy so - albeit in a very non-sexual way, it's actually compelling. If transient.
Unfortunately, I've never seen that image again (it was he who photographed Heidi Klum in chocolate). I did go to the gallery to see it but there were no prints available to mere mortals. Be grateful to anyone who can locate it!
Even though I'm 'out', to all intents and purposes, I still feel a little self conscious (ashamed is not the word) because of the intensity of feeling. And make no mistake, even though she's been topless and covered in glop in my WAM clips, I still get a ribbing from my other half.
The art thing, Piedfolfy, intrigues me too. Western contemporary art is too hung up on objectification and the 'male gaze' upon the female body - Latin cultures less so - but the critiques about the body and 'being art' are a little archaic, so nobody's going to shake the world with insight. Its purpose in illustration and photography is still very poignant however. Somebody covered in paint or messy is an arresting and sensational image to most human beings when placed in a public context (against glamour and airbrushed perfection). It's anarchy (or a sign of it). Most people will never get that messy so - albeit in a very non-sexual way, it's actually compelling. If transient.
Bringing pleasure to literally tens of people!
It's also important to remember that unless the people you know can read minds, the only thing they might notice -- and that's if they're staring at your crotch, which in itself is a bit weird -- is that you're aroused. They don't know what aroused you. And if you're in college, I think you're supposed to be aroused every 90 seconds or so. I know I was. It's just a fact of life.
PiedFolfy said: As for the whole seeing something wam or wam-related giving you a stiffy in public, I find it hard to go by pies and cakes in grocery stores without feeling awkward sometimes or worse. Years and years ago I worked at a grocery store that had a policy to put anything considered damaged outback to be written off. One day out back when nobody was around there were literally about 12 fresh cream pies that simply had partially broken crusts, just the rims over the edge of the tin but that was enough to consider it "gone." You have no idea how hard I had to restrain myself from doing things with them. I had to get out of that room and kind of hid in the restroom until my boner went down.
I don't blame you: I'm getting hard thinking about all those pies!
mud_paul said: Any more pictures inside ? LOL
Not sure. I snapped this photo and ran off before I could take a look inside.
WAM slut
Even though it felt like an eternity, it probably wasn't. Also, most people aren't very observant in general, so it's pretty likely that no one even noticed that you were looking at a magazine. The only way that people will notice is if you make a big fuss or scream or collapse (ha ha). You were lucky enough to find a WAM picture in your daily travels - good for you!
I know the feeling. I remember when I was at work and this commercial popped up before my music started:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_HtO86ToLI
It's not porn, it's a laundry detergent commercial!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_HtO86ToLI
It's not porn, it's a laundry detergent commercial!
Piedfolfy and others:
If you don't "get" the "art thing" and (what you term) wam....you are missing out on another aspect/dimension of "wam" that is beyond mere boner-generation...the use of paint or food or mud -- applied to human bodies (male or female) -- in art, is as old as the modern era (early 20th Century....at least (and I'm sure there are example much older, like the famous food fight engraving from the 16th century)....
But I would ask you if, in general, you like or appreciate modern art (abstract, conceptual, expressionistic-performance, moving image) in any form (2D or 3D)...? I ask because wet and messy content (on human bodies) is pretty common -- from Bunuel to Karen Finley to the guy who posts photos on here every now and then with models decorated with shaving cream and cereal...
Then there is the pie in the face...a beautiful face ...and suddenly SPLAT...a messy pie obliterates her features in an explosion of cream, crust and filling...which, in its own way, has a beauty to it (no less than a Jackson Pollack painting)...chaos can be beautiful, as much as it is shocking to the eyes...
Same with a copious and colorful gunging over a princess or beauty queen or bride...
I find it often pointless to argue about wam and art with people who generally do not appreciate art and don't give a damn if the wam video they're watching has a shiny blue plastic tarp in the background. (I will not save such photos to my archive)..if all you get out of wam is a boner, great, do as you will..
...but speaking as someone who appreciates all forms of art but also looks for "convulsive" beauty* in unusual or unexpected places...al I can say is you are missing out on so much!
* "Convulsive beauty will be erotically veiled, a frozen explosion...materially magical..or will not be." -- Andre Breton
If you don't "get" the "art thing" and (what you term) wam....you are missing out on another aspect/dimension of "wam" that is beyond mere boner-generation...the use of paint or food or mud -- applied to human bodies (male or female) -- in art, is as old as the modern era (early 20th Century....at least (and I'm sure there are example much older, like the famous food fight engraving from the 16th century)....
But I would ask you if, in general, you like or appreciate modern art (abstract, conceptual, expressionistic-performance, moving image) in any form (2D or 3D)...? I ask because wet and messy content (on human bodies) is pretty common -- from Bunuel to Karen Finley to the guy who posts photos on here every now and then with models decorated with shaving cream and cereal...
Then there is the pie in the face...a beautiful face ...and suddenly SPLAT...a messy pie obliterates her features in an explosion of cream, crust and filling...which, in its own way, has a beauty to it (no less than a Jackson Pollack painting)...chaos can be beautiful, as much as it is shocking to the eyes...
Same with a copious and colorful gunging over a princess or beauty queen or bride...
I find it often pointless to argue about wam and art with people who generally do not appreciate art and don't give a damn if the wam video they're watching has a shiny blue plastic tarp in the background. (I will not save such photos to my archive)..if all you get out of wam is a boner, great, do as you will..
...but speaking as someone who appreciates all forms of art but also looks for "convulsive" beauty* in unusual or unexpected places...al I can say is you are missing out on so much!
* "Convulsive beauty will be erotically veiled, a frozen explosion...materially magical..or will not be." -- Andre Breton
'Our Favorite (Pie) Hits' now available!
There is an art to it because it is difficult to get that look, pattern of colours and degree of coverage just by pouring buckets. You have to "place" the paint.
It is by an Ad Agency called Akarte and is titled Pigeons. Lovely textured paint and at least co-operative model presumably keeping his mouth and eyes closed for a few shots.
Thanks for posting.
It is by an Ad Agency called Akarte and is titled Pigeons. Lovely textured paint and at least co-operative model presumably keeping his mouth and eyes closed for a few shots.
Thanks for posting.
wamajama said: Piedfolfy and others:
If you don't "get" the "art thing" and (what you term) wam....you are missing out on another aspect/dimension of "wam" that is beyond mere boner-generation...the use of paint or food or mud -- applied to human bodies (male or female) -- in art, is as old as the modern era (early 20th Century....at least (and I'm sure there are example much older, like the famous food fight engraving from the 16th century)....
But I would ask you if, in general, you like or appreciate modern art (abstract, conceptual, expressionistic-performance, moving image) in any form (2D or 3D)...? I ask because wet and messy content (on human bodies) is pretty common -- from Bunuel to Karen Finley to the guy who posts photos on here every now and then with models decorated with shaving cream and cereal...
Then there is the pie in the face...a beautiful face ...and suddenly SPLAT...a messy pie obliterates her features in an explosion of cream, crust and filling...which, in its own way, has a beauty to it (no less than a Jackson Pollack painting)...chaos can be beautiful, as much as it is shocking to the eyes...
Same with a copious and colorful gunging over a princess or beauty queen or bride...
I find it often pointless to argue about wam and art with people who generally do not appreciate art and don't give a damn if the wam video they're watching has a shiny blue plastic tarp in the background. (I will not save such photos to my archive)..if all you get out of wam is a boner, great, do as you will..
...but speaking as someone who appreciates all forms of art but also looks for "convulsive" beauty* in unusual or unexpected places...al I can say is you are missing out on so much!
* "Convulsive beauty will be erotically veiled, a frozen explosion...materially magical..or will not be." -- Andre Breton
If you don't "get" the "art thing" and (what you term) wam....you are missing out on another aspect/dimension of "wam" that is beyond mere boner-generation...the use of paint or food or mud -- applied to human bodies (male or female) -- in art, is as old as the modern era (early 20th Century....at least (and I'm sure there are example much older, like the famous food fight engraving from the 16th century)....
But I would ask you if, in general, you like or appreciate modern art (abstract, conceptual, expressionistic-performance, moving image) in any form (2D or 3D)...? I ask because wet and messy content (on human bodies) is pretty common -- from Bunuel to Karen Finley to the guy who posts photos on here every now and then with models decorated with shaving cream and cereal...
Then there is the pie in the face...a beautiful face ...and suddenly SPLAT...a messy pie obliterates her features in an explosion of cream, crust and filling...which, in its own way, has a beauty to it (no less than a Jackson Pollack painting)...chaos can be beautiful, as much as it is shocking to the eyes...
Same with a copious and colorful gunging over a princess or beauty queen or bride...
I find it often pointless to argue about wam and art with people who generally do not appreciate art and don't give a damn if the wam video they're watching has a shiny blue plastic tarp in the background. (I will not save such photos to my archive)..if all you get out of wam is a boner, great, do as you will..
...but speaking as someone who appreciates all forms of art but also looks for "convulsive" beauty* in unusual or unexpected places...al I can say is you are missing out on so much!
* "Convulsive beauty will be erotically veiled, a frozen explosion...materially magical..or will not be." -- Andre Breton
[Lights pipe] Well, WJ...
Yes. Well, it's always been much more for me - visually and conceptually than simply base eroticism (in spite of, and because of, the overly politicised and crypto-neo-puritan [feminist] critiques of the modern western art world - which compounded practising it art-fully - some of my mentors made Germain Greer look like La Cicciolina - I stuck with very, very, very dry conceptual appropriation and Po-Po-Mo. Therefore avoiding my true feelings
) Ironically, my parter (pictured) jokingly refers to our collaborations as 'my wank material' - when she simply would not (publicly) involve herself with it if it had no aesthetic quality. She leaves me to direct the process but we clash on aesthetics: she delights at the perfection she's spent (often hours) achieving destroyed by splashes and splats and pours and oozing of treacle, but she actually gets cross when I destroy all these patterns and contrasting colours and textures until she is virtually embalmed in brown-grey sludge.
That's when it crosses the line from Yves Klein to Gustav Metzger.
(BTW I like shiny blue tarps - they're indicative of the form itself. What I hate is unconsidered background clutter!)
In the illustrations, as well as 'Artisitic Differences' (rendered in B&W - an immediate turn off for the turn-on-jack-off-only brigade!); there's Piefightgirls after Pollock; various portraits; as well as my deliberate use of a blue tarp (perhaps it should've been International Klein Blue?) and vintage dress ruination.
Bringing pleasure to literally tens of people!
[sparks dubie]
Love the art-speak ...it reads pretty funny, too....even if it has actual/valid historical-aesthetic references....admittedly, the shiny blue tarp conveys the classic "basement porn" aesthetic...but that's what I've avoided, instinctively, over the years...my purpose was/is to create a UNIQUE "micro world" of erotic aesthetic soft fetish fantasy...so, when I see the blue tarp...the fantasy of a private erotic world (unlike any other) vanishes...since I know that the scene was rendered for but one purpose, to appeal to one motivation/interest....
...but I note that with you videos, you use a lot of close ups, so the blue tarp effect is minimized...plus, your lighting is excellent, which helps to dispel the dark/dank "basement" feel of some blue-tarped videos...
...as for the "auto-destructive' art aesthetic (which you gf complains about)....I do concur with this aesthetic....have always felt that the basic pied pretty face was a (less serious) expression of this motivation (the "painting a mustache of the Mona Lisa" motive)...albeit with less of the socio-political overtone/critique...although, one could make an anti-vanity (female beauty commodification) argument...
I'll stop know before the moderators penalize me for over-intellectualizing "spank material"
carry on...the mo' po-po-mo, the better!
Love the art-speak
...it reads pretty funny, too....even if it has actual/valid historical-aesthetic references....admittedly, the shiny blue tarp conveys the classic "basement porn" aesthetic...but that's what I've avoided, instinctively, over the years...my purpose was/is to create a UNIQUE "micro world" of erotic aesthetic soft fetish fantasy...so, when I see the blue tarp...the fantasy of a private erotic world (unlike any other) vanishes...since I know that the scene was rendered for but one purpose, to appeal to one motivation/interest.... ...but I note that with you videos, you use a lot of close ups, so the blue tarp effect is minimized...plus, your lighting is excellent, which helps to dispel the dark/dank "basement" feel of some blue-tarped videos...
...as for the "auto-destructive' art aesthetic (which you gf complains about)....I do concur with this aesthetic....have always felt that the basic pied pretty face was a (less serious) expression of this motivation (the "painting a mustache of the Mona Lisa" motive)...albeit with less of the socio-political overtone/critique...although, one could make an anti-vanity (female beauty commodification) argument...
I'll stop know before the moderators penalize me for over-intellectualizing "spank material"
carry on...the mo' po-po-mo, the better!
'Our Favorite (Pie) Hits' now available!
I think we've taken this post into the kitchen at this party.
Bringing pleasure to literally tens of people!
