menstrual fluid paintings

[warri0r45]

I can't believe so many people find the paintings disgusting. Barely anyone is taking the art for what it is and most people are thinking of period blood.

 

 

 

What would people say if someone emulated a mona lisa in intricate detail with poop? Probably the same emotional reaction for some, at least.

[jackattack]

I can't believe so many people find the paintings disgusting. Barely anyone is taking the art for what it is and most people are thinking of period blood.

 

 

 

It is disgusting. The reason most people think of the blood is because thats the point of the whole painting. Without the blood its just another of a million paintings. I'm not big on art and the painting doesn't look that bad to me, but the paintings not the point, the blood is.

[Lateralus]

I can't believe so many people find the paintings disgusting. Barely anyone is taking the art for what it is and most people are thinking of period blood.

 

 

 

What would people say if someone emulated a mona lisa in intricate detail with poop? Probably the same emotional reaction for some, at least.

 

 

 

In many cases I'd agree with you (see: earlier post), but the woman did this in period blood for a reason. Whatever aesthetic (or other) merit these paintings have is eclipsed by the fact that it's done in the artists own menstruation. She seems to have done this quite deliberately.

[warri0r45]

In many cases I'd agree with you (see: earlier post), but the woman did this in period blood for a reason. Whatever aesthetic (or other) merit these paintings have is eclipsed by the fact that it's done in the artists own menstruation. She seems to have done this quite deliberately.

It is disgusting. The reason most people think of the blood is because thats the point of the whole painting. Without the blood its just another of a million paintings. I'm not big on art and the painting doesn't look that bad to me, but the paintings not the point, the blood is.

 

 

 

The both of you exemplify exactly what I disagree with. You're both preoccupied on the blood and the emotional reaction from it. Yes, she is using it for attention and it's obviously working, but people here have almost zero ability to segregate the art from the fluid until you confront them on it. I did the complete opposite to most people here - I judged the art on what it looks like aesthetically, not what it's made of.

 

 

 

Even considering that it's made of menstrual blood, I don't care and obviously have no where near the reaction of some people to it. It's blood from the wall of a uterus. Who can tell me why that matters other than appealing to emotion or the fact that it's unique? I hate this nonsense reaction that something is yucky therefore Ill completely focus on that and not the actual subject.

[Lateralus]

In many cases I'd agree with you (see: earlier post), but the woman did this in period blood for a reason. Whatever aesthetic (or other) merit these paintings have is eclipsed by the fact that it's done in the artists own menstruation. She seems to have done this quite deliberately.

It is disgusting. The reason most people think of the blood is because thats the point of the whole painting. Without the blood its just another of a million paintings. I'm not big on art and the painting doesn't look that bad to me, but the paintings not the point, the blood is.

 

 

 

The both of you exemplify exactly what I disagree with. You're both preoccupied on the blood and the emotional reaction from it. Yes, she is using it for attention and it's obviously working, but people here have almost zero ability to segregate the art from the fluid until you confront them on it. I did the complete opposite to most people here - I judged the art on what it looks like aesthetically, not what it's made of.

 

 

 

Even considering that it's made of menstrual blood, I don't care and obviously have no where near the reaction of some people to it. It's blood from the wall of a uterus. Who can tell me why that matters other than appealing to emotion or the fact that it's unique? I hate this nonsense reaction that something is yucky therefore Ill completely focus on that and not the actual subject.

 

 

 

I think you fell into a trap instantly by judging the painting on its aesthetic value. That's just not how art (art, not pictures) is judged. Of course it's part of it, but no artist sets out to paint a pretty picture, they're trying to convey an emotion and a feeling. These pictures are nothing special, and I'm sure the artist herself knows that. The fact that they're done in menstrual blood is the entire idea behind them, she says so herself. If you subscribe to Francis Bacon's (the artist, not the philosopher) school of thought that art should convey an emotion without the boredom of its conveyance then you could say she's done a fantastic job. To ignore or skim over the fact that these paintings are done in blood is to miss the point entirely.

[Lionheart_0]

I don`t care what they are painted in. They look good, that`s all I care about.

 

 

 

What`s so disgusting about it? Who cares if it is blood, your not gonna touch it, your not gonna smell it. Just know that it's blood and what it stands for. If we are made to stop and look away from anything that could possibly label a person as an attention seeker, then who do we pay attention to? People who do random stuff with no reason? Then what would be the point to try in life.

 

 

 

She set out to make a point, and whether you accept that or not is fine.

[jackattack]

In many cases I'd agree with you (see: earlier post), but the woman did this in period blood for a reason. Whatever aesthetic (or other) merit these paintings have is eclipsed by the fact that it's done in the artists own menstruation. She seems to have done this quite deliberately.

It is disgusting. The reason most people think of the blood is because thats the point of the whole painting. Without the blood its just another of a million paintings. I'm not big on art and the painting doesn't look that bad to me, but the paintings not the point, the blood is.

 

 

 

The both of you exemplify exactly what I disagree with. You're both preoccupied on the blood and the emotional reaction from it. Yes, she is using it for attention and it's obviously working, but people here have almost zero ability to segregate the art from the fluid until you confront them on it. I did the complete opposite to most people here - I judged the art on what it looks like aesthetically, not what it's made of.

 

 

 

Even considering that it's made of menstrual blood, I don't care and obviously have no where near the reaction of some people to it. It's blood from the wall of a uterus. Who can tell me why that matters other than appealing to emotion or the fact that it's unique? I hate this nonsense reaction that something is yucky therefore Ill completely focus on that and not the actual subject.

 

 

 

The point of this isn't what it looks like, its the blood.

[warri0r45]

In many cases I'd agree with you (see: earlier post), but the woman did this in period blood for a reason. Whatever aesthetic (or other) merit these paintings have is eclipsed by the fact that it's done in the artists own menstruation. She seems to have done this quite deliberately.

It is disgusting. The reason most people think of the blood is because thats the point of the whole painting. Without the blood its just another of a million paintings. I'm not big on art and the painting doesn't look that bad to me, but the paintings not the point, the blood is.

 

 

 

The both of you exemplify exactly what I disagree with. You're both preoccupied on the blood and the emotional reaction from it. Yes, she is using it for attention and it's obviously working, but people here have almost zero ability to segregate the art from the fluid until you confront them on it. I did the complete opposite to most people here - I judged the art on what it looks like aesthetically, not what it's made of.

 

 

 

Even considering that it's made of menstrual blood, I don't care and obviously have no where near the reaction of some people to it. It's blood from the wall of a uterus. Who can tell me why that matters other than appealing to emotion or the fact that it's unique? I hate this nonsense reaction that something is yucky therefore Ill completely focus on that and not the actual subject.

 

 

 

I think you fell into a trap instantly by judging the painting on its aesthetic value. That's just not how art (art, not pictures) is judged. Of course it's part of it, but no artist sets out to paint a pretty picture, they're trying to convey an emotion and a feeling. These pictures are nothing special, and I'm sure the artist herself knows that. The fact that they're done in menstrual blood is the entire idea behind them, she says so herself. If you subscribe to Francis Bacon's (the artist, not the philosopher) school of thought that art should convey an emotion without the boredom of its conveyance then you could say she's done a fantastic job. To ignore or skim over the fact that these paintings are done in blood is to miss the point entirely.

 

 

 

Taking on board the point of the painting is one thing (and fine by me), but judging it based on an emotional reaction to the type of paint is another entirely. You're a smart guy - I'm sure you could see that all the calls of "it's disgusting" don't even come close to picking up on the real meaning that the artist is trying to convey, and that those kinds of reactions completely subjugate the actual art itself. If the artist really wanted to have everyone basically shout "gross", then she'd just fill a bucket with menstrual blood or show a pile of used tampons. Again, I think that many of the reactions in this thread don't do this art justice. Many of them are completely emotional reactions and it annoys me that people completely subjugate the piece of art because of that.

 

 

 

And jack, this post is for you too.

 

 

 

Edit: To add to my point, consider the artist's vision of what she wants her art to do, and compare it to your average response in this thread:

 

 

 

Why don't you just use paint?

 

 

 

 

 

Using paint is not an option. My paintings are a statement about cycles. They are affirmative images that address menstruation visually. It's easy to joke about menstruation because it's hidden. This part of woman's life just doesn't get respect. Blood from traumatic violence is tolerated, even commercialized, dramatized and packaged for profit, but menstrual blood is associated with shame, embarrassment and PMS jokes. I was taught to hide my periods in school. To be acceptable, I had to ignore and deny a subject that needed positive discussion instead. How can a girl acknowledge coming into her womanhood? How can she develop an affirmative attitude toward her body and her monthly bleeding when menstrual blood is taboo? I wanted to do something creative and affirming about this part of life we choose to forget. I decided to create images of and about menstrual blood that are beautiful and inspiring. My paintings serve as a reminder that menstruation can be addressed openly and that this time in the fertility cycle can be creative.

 

 

 

If you're wondering, it's from the FAQ of the OP web site.

[Lateralus]

ITaking on board the point of the painting is one thing (and fine by me), but judging it based on an emotional reaction to the type of paint is another entirely. You're a smart guy - I'm sure you could see that all the calls of "it's disgusting" don't even come close to picking up on the real meaning that the artist is trying to convey, and that those kinds of reactions completely subjugate the actual art itself. If the artist really wanted to have everyone basically shout "gross", then she'd just fill a bucket with menstrual blood or show a pile of used tampons. Again, I think that many of the reactions in this thread don't do this art justice. Many of them are completely emotional reactions and it annoys me that people completely subjugate the piece of art because of that.

 

 

 

And jack, this post is for you too.

 

 

 

I never meant to say the painting itself was disgusting. You're right, disgusting is too strong a word, but I haven't said anything about the artistic merit of the painting, I even defended it from others. However you said that being preoccupied with the blood was wrong, and that you even ignored it when evaluating the painting, which I'm sure you can agree is ridiculous.

 

 

 

Emotional and gut reactions are generally what artists hope to provoke, albeit not without further thought on it. Whether or not the artist wanted a reaction of disgust has very little to do with the reaction she's actually going to get.

 

 

 

EDIT: To give an example to what I mean about the gut reactions - A person views the painting, the instant reaction might be "Period blood? Disgusting!". The person then finds a place where people are discussing the painting, this forum for example. A dialogue ensues. The person, seeing the opinions of those such as yourself begins to question why it's disgusting, realises he may have been hasty in his judgment, and the artist succeeds.

[jackattack]

^^ I guess your right, it is a little deeper than just the blood. Still pretty unappealing though.

[warri0r45]

ITaking on board the point of the painting is one thing (and fine by me), but judging it based on an emotional reaction to the type of paint is another entirely. You're a smart guy - I'm sure you could see that all the calls of "it's disgusting" don't even come close to picking up on the real meaning that the artist is trying to convey, and that those kinds of reactions completely subjugate the actual art itself. If the artist really wanted to have everyone basically shout "gross", then she'd just fill a bucket with menstrual blood or show a pile of used tampons. Again, I think that many of the reactions in this thread don't do this art justice. Many of them are completely emotional reactions and it annoys me that people completely subjugate the piece of art because of that.

 

 

 

And jack, this post is for you too.

 

 

 

1) I never meant to say the painting itself was disgusting. You're right, disgusting is too strong a word, but I haven't said anything about the artistic merit of the painting, I even defended it from others. 2) However you said that being preoccupied with the blood was wrong, and that you even ignored it when evaluating the painting, which I'm sure you can agree is ridiculous.

 

 

 

3) Emotional and gut reactions are generally what artists hope to provoke, albeit not without further thought on it. Whether or not the artist wanted a reaction of disgust has very little to do with the reaction she's actually going to get.

 

 

 

EDIT: To give an example to what I mean about the gut reactions - A person views the painting, the instant reaction might be "Period blood? Disgusting!". The person then finds a place where people are discussing the painting, this forum for example. A dialogue ensues. The person, seeing the opinions of those such as yourself begins to question why it's disgusting, realises he may have been hasty in his judgment, and the artist succeeds.

 

 

 

1) Sorry, I'm not trying to specifically criticise you or what you've said in this thread, I'm speaking more generally from my viewpoint on the matter.

 

 

 

2) Yes, I said that being preoccupied on the blood and the negative reaction to it is wrong, but where did I say I ignored that it was made of menstrual blood? I did say that the blood didn't bother me and perhaps emphasised it in a way that seems like I ignored it. Not true - I know it's there and I know it's part of the painting and is a major talking point. I was just offering a differing view from "it's disgusting" as that's what a lot of people believe. My emphasis is on saying that people shouldnt be preoccupied on the blood (and the emotional reactions to it) while ignoring the actual art.

 

 

 

3) I agree with all of this. Obviously people will have the reactions that they will. All I'm doing is disagreeing with them and offering my reaction to the paintings and how I view them.

[Lateralus]

1) Sorry, I'm not trying to specifically criticise you or what you've said in this thread, I'm speaking more generally from my viewpoint on the matter.

 

 

 

2) Yes, I said that being preoccupied on the blood and the negative reaction to it is wrong, but where did I say I ignored that it was made of menstrual blood? I did say that the blood didn't bother me and perhaps emphasised it in a way that seems like I ignored it. Not true - I know it's there and I know it's part of the painting and is a major talking point. I was just offering a differing view from "it's disgusting" as that's what a lot of people believe. My emphasis is on saying that people shouldnt be preoccupied on the blood (and the emotional reactions to it) while ignoring the actual art.

 

 

 

3) I agree with all of this. Obviously people will have the reactions that they will. All I'm doing is disagreeing with them and offering my reaction to the paintings and how I view them.

 

 

 

I think we just differ in our definitions of art. To me the art in this piece (that is, the significance of it) is not the pretty picture painted in menstrual blood, but that she used it to paint any kind of picture at all.

[xvillexvalox]

I thought it was pretty cool, I'm sure people have used stranger mediums before.

 

The only dilemma about the menstrual fluid to me is: imagining her collecting her own menstrual fluid.

 

:?

[skulloriginal]

^^

How do you catch your blood?

 

 

 

 

 

I use a menstrual cup.

 

 

 

personally i find the paintings brilliant, but it tok me some time to get over the omfg its period blood, but if it was just normal blood would the paintings be so disgusting? I dont think so but again personal opinion.

[superson]

^^

How do you catch your blood?

 

 

 

 

 

I use a menstrual cup.

 

 

 

personally i find the paintings brilliant, but it tok me some time to get over the omfg its period blood, but if it was just normal blood would the paintings be so disgusting? I dont think so but again personal opinion.

 

 

 

I agree. If it had been blood from some dude's arm, that he cut himself and drained, half the people in here would be like "Cool" or think it wasn't gross at all.

 

 

 

Although at first though I DID think it was gross, for some reason period blood just seems grosser then other blood.

[user1991]

Who the hell cares if its blood? Really, all these people who are like "oo, icky, yucky yucky bloody blood" just sound like a bunch of 5 year olds.

 

 

 

The whole point of the blood is to convey a message.

 

 

 

"Well why couldn't she have just done them in paint?" - DUH. Cause then she wouldn't be conveying the message that she is conveying by using the blood.

[Sumpta]

Whoa. You know, maybe it's because I'm a woman, but my first reaction is rather practical. Where does she get the blood? On average, a woman only menstruates half a cup a month or so. Okay, she probably still mixed it with other 'stuff' (sorry, am not at home in the wondrous world of paints) for longevity and such, but still.

 

 

 

As to whether this is art or not... I myself am not a huge fan of 'shock' art. It reminds me of a Belgian artist who made a 'faeces machine'... you put food into it, and it produced faeces. The same artist once put big rolls of ham on the columns of a public building. To me, that's just too random. Art critics and art specialists come up with a lot of very deep meta-talk to justify the art's existence and you can almost see the artist s[racist term]ing at night "teehee, I got away with it".

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm supposed to be a literature specialist and I know how all of those interpretation and metatheory principles work, having written about quite a few of them myself. But questioning art and the boundaries of art (what makes art art?) was introduced already in the early 1910's, with the start of modernism and Duchamps' ready-mades (look up his 'Fountain' if you're interested). This is nothing new, you know. I dislike how people think it's oh so new and shocking and deep, it just makes me roll my eyes.

 

 

 

I did think a few of the paintings were pretty, mind you, but they would have been just as pretty with simple red paint, like Ginger (I think) said. To me, the fact that it's menstual blood does not convey much extra meaning. The whole cycle thing to me is just yadda yadda to cover up for the shock value. Maybe I'm just getting jaded and blasé, considering how much I like the Dada movement and still dislike this.

[unknownmasterofnothing]

reminds me of the movie/play, the shape of things. Great movie kinda.

 

Art is anything you want it to be, but there are certain moral lines.

[Flodder450]

Hmm....i think only Vampires would like the painting :lol:

[doomy]

Its, uhm, different? :-s

[skulloriginal]

has anyone managed to find the artist who uses menstrual fluids on deviantart yet? ive heard she does a bloody awesome megaman :lol:

[dragoonson]

has anyone managed to find the artist who uses menstrual fluids on deviantart yet? ive heard she does a bloody awesome megaman :lol:

 

 

 

Thanks for that #-o .

[MuffinMaddy]

Now children, thats why you should never touch paintings :lol:

 

I think the painting look nice...but it puts people off it when they find out what it was painted with..

 

I'm not like that, I think the painting looks nice whatever it was painted with..

 

But I would definitely never touch it :|

[Returned3]

At first glance I thought the picture looked amazing, upon remembering that it was made using "Period Blood" I had a wierd feeling in my gut and closed the picture. Im not really a fan of females using their monthly bloods to paint pictures as a way of expressing themselves... Then again, Im no fan of male using their.... Nvm.

 

 

 

What the hell is wrong with Artists these days... what happen to using good ol' colour pencils?

[Agunimon979]

Ewww... paintings made out of dead babies :uhh: