Wrong no

Tragic yes

^lol, I dunno. I like the colors. Especially that one iwth the girls face and the fireflies(or whatever they are). What does everyone see that makes them bad?

Well there`s all the rather disturbing homo erotic imagery.

And i`m pretty sure there`s a subtext to all those big long snakes , almost as if he`s lacking in some department.

They look like they should be on the cover to terrible third-rate scifi/adventure/romance novels.

:laughing:
You have no idea how true that is

did you not see the one with the archer about to shoot the woman???

Raine only said that picture was wrong because then she couldn't have sex with the guy after he got eaten.

Don't be fooled.


Raine is pro death, pro naked man.

I saw it and then I've seen worse. none of those pictures compare to a photo done by keff wall that was on display at the Philadelphia Museum of Art a few years ago.

I thought the picture was rather barbaric. And my sexual urges have been sated in full thank you very much. :p:

*wonders how a thread about the execution of a man, can turn into an autoerotic dialogue about crap art*

One of my philosophy lessons consisted of having to compare the work of saddams artist to that of michael angelo where i had to answer this question of why his art was bad (i dont remember why we were asked this question) but basically what i came up with that made it for me hidious artwork.

- the colours are like a neon rainbow of puke, terribly tacky and vile to look at.
- the underlying immagery, the homo- eroticism as urban was saying and such, snakes representing things, missiles in other paintings not shown,
- in comparison with michael angelo and other artists we used looking at it its actually quite cruedly drawn...
- there's not very much depth at all to these pictures, point two is about as far as they go.

i think overall you need a strong stomach to collect this sort of painting.