"Gone to Fat" - LifeART

Jeff · August 18th, 2009, 09:56

At the Colchester Art Society's (very poor indeed!) open exhibition ( in the Minories Gallery, High Street, Colchester) this year there is a life drawing entitled "Gone to Fat". It features an obese nude man, not very well drawn in fact. The artist clearly had no compassion for the subject in my view, and had even added horrible orange and green dayglow washes which made the picture look even more like a "circus freak show". I must admit found this picture a very poor taste "joke" and was rather offended by it. Not by the subject, which is after all part of the human condition, but by the cruelty of it.

Models come in all shapes and sizes, that is surely all part of the challenge and joy of life drawing? But I personally have always respected them. Yes, the artist drew what he saw, but why the awful title? I think that life drawing as a voyeuristic freak show is a horrible concept. I wonder what the model thought?, for models have feelings too.

A difficult subject perhaps? but would a disabled person have been treated in this manner? And how would we feel about it?

Jeff.

JaneFlux · August 18th, 2009, 10:18

A difficult subject perhaps? but would a disabled person have been treated in this manner? And how would we feel about it?

Arguably your latter sentence depicts this as well but unfortunately in this world of ours there are individuals who think 'nothing of the model (the subject, the tool, the still life,) and think 'nothing of comments about their extremeties or physical aspects'.......Needless to say I am sure there are countless models on LifeArt (myself included) who have been discussed within the 'room' by individuals or tutor whilst they are drawing; but again the title "Gone to Fat" is a harsh and impersonal critiq and makes me wonder whether the artist thought of this title properly; or whether it is a lazy attitude taken to commandere attention or whether it was chosen to be rude?.....

bernard w · August 18th, 2009, 11:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

At the Colchester Art Society's (very poor indeed!) open exhibition ( in the Minories Gallery, High Street, Colchester) this year...........

Well at least you are giving them plenty of publicity

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

............. but why the awful title?

Thinking up a title is probably very much an afterthought for many bits of art. So easy to get it wrong and sounding terrible.

But yes, if the model was not aware of (and OK with) what the title was then it could be offensive.

Big Frog · August 18th, 2009, 15:58

I understand that you have lost patience with the art society in question but please try and refrain from venting your frustration on a public board.

etheric · December 27th, 2009, 18:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

Yes, the artist drew what he saw, but why the awful title?

Maybe that is what he saw? Maybe he was interpreting the human condition as he saw it, who knows. The artist should be entitled to name their artwork whatever they want according to their vision. I certainly don't like or agree with all artwork but if that's what they want to do...

As long as the artist gives an honest portrayal of the subject or model in question and and deliberatley doesn't go out of his way to humiliate the model, I'm okay with that. I sure the model in question knew he was overweight, (unless of course he was under some delusion that he was Hercules or something when he posed nude for people). If the model in question can't take people seeing him for what he is, he shouldn't be posing to begin with. In this case I think the artist in within the acceptable boundaries of potraying what he saw realistically versus pretensiouness.

CliffordAlls · December 27th, 2009, 22:12

At the end of the day, subject to etiquette, a model is a model and no more, not unlike a wax one in a shop window; a template if you like. When I pose, I see myself as representiing a form to depict and do not feel, outside portraiture, that it is actually me they are drawing. It's thus all very impersonal. Do we know that we are not discussing an artist's self-portrait here?!

I think I'd like to see this image for myself before deciding on this one however. The title seems unkind but may nevertheless be the artist's interpretation of what s/he saw. Was it consistent in being a passive tired pose that was painted? I couldn't find the image on the Net. Has anybody else managed to?

JSMod · December 28th, 2009, 08:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by etheric

If the model in question can't take people seeing him for what he is, he shouldn't be posing to begin with.

I'd most certainly go along with that. But, of course, we have no idea whether or not this particular model had any objections to either the artwork or the title. For all we know he may be perfectly happy with both.

In this case the offence is being caused not necessarily to the model, but certainly to at least one viewer. And that's the individual viewer's problem. Some people will no doubt argue that art should shock - at least from time to time - so maybe the artist in question has done the right thing, because at least one viewer has been shocked by the whole thing. What's more, in the process our unknown artist has raised the questions of body image, of name-calling, and just how careful we should be to avoid upsetting anybody. I've mentioned before that somebody once called me "fat". I wasn't offended, just horrified to find that that's what he thought (correctly), so I did something about it. I owe that name-caller a debt of gratitude.

etheric · December 30th, 2009, 22:22

I agree with you guys. Drawing the form becomes a lot less personal than drawing a portrait. And I also have to agree that the artwork was successful in getting a reaction from at least one person, so in that sense perhaps the artist accomplished what he set out to.

As long as the artist doesn't go beyond what could be seen to name a picture, even though sometimes it can be unflatering, I think its okay. If you paint a model and name the picture something deragatory without givng enough evidence in picture to do so, then that's uncalled for and becomes name calling, not appropriate at all. In this case I believe the artist was well within his bounds and just wanted to present a more stark reality of how he saw the model, and to an extent he was successful in presenting it.