Shock Block Cock Rocks Stock
20 Likes
While it is an image of a dick, this is not the same as “a dick pic.”
Context matters, as does intent.
Unsolicited dick pics are a social faux pas because usually the sender has a personal agenda that he’s trying to achieve; enticing a woman to want to have sex with him… despite the fact that most women are not wired the same as men are, and we don’t necessarily respond to seeing the male body in the same exact way that many males respond to seeing the female form.
I can only presume that the artist’s agenda is different; that she’s not trying to entice anyone into sexual activity, but instead is trying to provoke ideas and conversations that make many people uncomfortable… because society has severe psychological issues with human sexuality and nudity.
Yeah, it is; she’s quite talented.
13 Likes
Although the penis’ owner keeps insisting it’s 7 stories high for some reason.
32 Likes
Sounds like a familiar game. If this is inoffensive and benign, how much would someone have to change it before it would be appropriate to take it down?
I agree with you. In a gallery I’d have zero problem with it, though it pales when compared to the other example (granted that is subjective). Still not sure how I feel in public. A flaccid penis on a statue or at a fountain, ok. Giant on the side of a building? I dunno. You could probably convince me to accept it over time, but not other people I know, like my kiddo’s mom. She too would be ok about it in a gallery, but she’s more conservative when it comes to that sort of thing especially where her daughter is concerned. And when dealing with public installations, I think that has to be considered.
This begs the question, if it was taller, say like 18 stories, is it really 17 stories because they skipped the 13th floor?
3 Likes
Add a red hat to it. A fedora. Er, no, a bowler hat.
4 Likes
Tip of the hat? Ridiculous…
6 Likes
For once I’m going to side with the sexually repressed.
I like art that makes people uncomfortable. I feel like someone saying, “I’d rather this art-that-makes-me-uncomfortable wasn’t 5-stories high out my window,” isn’t really that unreasonable.
Just to add to what @Melz2 already said about this, I think often the problem with those is that a particular person is on the receiving end. If a guy was walking down the beach nude I’d say we ought to live and let live. If a guy was walking down the street in a trench coat and flashed some particular person, I’d alert the cops.
Unwanted sexual advances that violate social norms are kind of sinister/threatening.
12 Likes
Yeah I had the exact same thought! Giant engorged penis mural on building causes a stir! It’s déja vu all over again!
2 Likes
This is like an adult Fox in Sock…
5 Likes
Oh, oh, I can do one!
Shock Stock Cock Blocks.
7 Likes
So you’d be ok if half of humanity walked around with their penis hanging out for all to see?
What a dick
1 Like
My problem with that is that people who are uncomfortable with healthy human sexuality tend to tell me I’m being insensitive when I don’t want to see their monumental religious displays, or a giant billboard advertising some political candidate or product to which I object. If the rule is no semantic displays of any kind outside my bedroom window, then fine. It’s a little NIMBY, but I wouldn’t want displays outside my window either. But I also wouldn’t move in to an apartment with a view of a standing art installation that’s nominally open to whatever the artist wants to portray. What’s happening here is that they’re imposing their personal mores as censorship because they outnumber minority viewpoints such as mine which are fine with human genitalia but find the ubiquity of crucifixes grotesque. I don’t subscribe to the idea of radical democracy where the majority gets to decide morality based on their idiosyncratic cultural doctrines.
Normally I let it pass anyway, but art is supposed to be about expressing minority viewpoints. I find the idea that the majority should get to censor that without demonstrating a rational argument, preferably backed up by data, as to why an artistic expression is harmful, to be fashion masquerading as morality.
So while I understand where you’re coming from, their picking a choosing which art is taboo is hypocritical.
ETA: I neither like nor dislike the mural. I simply think taking it down is prudish hypocrisy.
8 Likes
This wins the thread
7 Likes
Colossal Schlock Pox the Block
So Blocs in Frocks Block the Cock
7 Likes
This is a problem with all public art: at what point does the artist’s right to express themselves, and the community’s right not to be expressed at start to conflict, and how should the conflict be resolved?
There have been some modern buildings that honestly I wish I didn’t have to look at (this is a little hypocritical, as I live in a rather ugly house that an architect designed for his own family), and I agree with @GulliverFoyle about the “gruesome Mediterranean torture device” that is all over the place.
To me it seems reasonable to err on the side of the community.
3 Likes
3 Likes
2 Likes
4 Likes
