(Post a new comment)

	mastervex 2004-04-04 07:23 pm UTC (link)
	I wonder if they'll come over here and tell us we're like those bitchy girls in art school. Does that fall under "fandom", though? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	bunny 2004-04-04 07:28 pm UTC (link)
	They are definitely Bouguereau fangirls (the website is one big fansite for 19th Century art), they just have a lot more money than your average LOTR, HP or X-Files wanker. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mastervex 2004-04-04 07:40 pm UTC (link)
	Hee. I think they'd be horribly, incredibly offended at being called fangirls. Even better. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mireille 2004-04-04 07:49 pm UTC (link)
	Do you think they'd be horribly offended if I pointed out that it isn't the Minneapolis Art Institute (it's the Institute of Arts - the Art Institute is, I think, one of those tech schools that advertises relentlessly on cable television)? Because if so, I'm sorely tempted. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smo 2004-04-05 04:53 pm UTC (link)
	If there is any way I can enable you to do this, please let me know. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	cleolinda 2004-04-04 11:46 pm UTC (link)
	I love that site, but... oh Lord, they so have a hard-on for Bouguereau; I noticed that the first time I was there. I'm shocked but not surprised that they're wanking over it now, if you know what I mean. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	nicolae 2004-04-04 07:27 pm UTC (link)
	OMG! Somebody think of the painting! (Reply to this)(Thread)

	aruru 2004-04-04 11:17 pm UTC (link)
	It thinks of you. In oils. (Or pastels, watercolor, acryllics, etc. Take your pick.) (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smo 2004-04-05 04:53 pm UTC (link)
	That so needs to be iconed. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	xturtle 2004-04-04 07:49 pm UTC (link)
	local!wank -- how fun!!! CJ, who loves to procrastinate at MIA (Reply to this)

	ipomoea 2004-04-04 08:46 pm UTC (link)
	Is it just me, or does anyone else find it hypocritical that the people who wrote the article are complaining about the possibility of the painting being sold to a private buyer when there's a whole article on their site about their own private art collection? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	kookaburra 2004-04-05 06:10 am UTC (link)
	But OMG! U just no ther goin to not let ne 1 seee it!@111!! theyr s000 burjwa! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ashenmote 2004-04-04 09:08 pm UTC (link)
	MIA officially confesses "You know, we get more people asking about that painting than any other. I can imagine. The lass on the picture is pretty plus she looks like making an elaborate guess about the location of your carotid artery. (Reply to this)

crickets
2004-04-04 09:18 pm UTC (link)

The link to the MAI online image of The Bohemian does not work.

I managed to get the article at ARC to load, then went back to look around the site. The main page now displays a small image of a childrens novel called The Light of Lucinda, and the article page displays a the image of a novel called Crosspoints.

WTFeth? Supposedly, there are adults running these sites, right? Right?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	crickets 2004-04-04 09:24 pm UTC (link)
	Arg, I went to check the last link to see the wank, and it's a "Save Me!" poster. Did anyone have the wank in another tab? I still have the article if anyone wants screen caps. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ashenmote 2004-04-04 09:46 pm UTC (link)
	working link for the former picture here The second pic doesn't work, too, but everything else seems still in order, to me. You noticed that "wank" and "a lot" are separate links, above and the actual wank is behind the former? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

crickets
2004-04-04 10:02 pm UTC (link)

The links must be loading from your cache. The second link worked for me as well until I hit shift-reload. Yes, I got the "wank" link to work (that's the ARC article I have in another tab) but the "a lot" link was already changed to this image by the time I clicked it. Oh, well. :(

I'm sorry I missed the wank, but the childishness involved in these people self-sabotaging their sites is giving me a good giggle.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	kijikun 2004-04-05 12:55 am UTC (link)
	It seems to be fixed now... or maybe its just in my cache but. http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2004/Minneapolis/large/Save_Me_from_MIA1.jpg (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	crickets 2004-04-05 08:06 am UTC (link)
	I got all of the links but the first one to work eventually. I think it was a combination of browser quirk and my own stupidity that caused the trouble. (Reply to this)(Parent)

skarrow
2004-04-05 01:11 am UTC (link)

an important member of the English Aesthetic Movement, but at best a rather emotionless member of that movement who took their ideology to an extreme by purposely removing any feelings in order to emphasize pretty women in carefully worked out elements of design and color.

So... their BNPainter vs. a rival BNPainter they consider a barbie~~shipper~~painter.

And I love this wank, personally, for the use of shameful. That's just a great insult. Shameful.

(Reply to this)

	musette 2004-04-05 02:13 am UTC (link)
	Okay now I like Bouguereau well enough, and I'm not /over/ fond of Moore, but bitch please, it is not as if Bougeureau is Delcroix or Ingres! Acting as if he's the pinnacle of 19th C. art or some such is just bullshit, not to mention wanky as all fuck. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	tianxiaode 2004-04-05 09:38 am UTC (link)
	But Delacroix and Ingres? Obviously lesser lights than Bouguereu. I mean, he painted gypsy girls and angels. Not piddly historic figures like French kings and whatnot. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	Re: musette 2004-04-05 09:42 am UTC (link)
	Psh, Napoleon? Far, FAR less important than a random gypsy chick with a violin. Ooooobviously. (Reply to this)(Parent)

serai
2004-04-05 02:42 am UTC (link)

You know, I looked carefully at both pictures, and I fail to see how "Battledore" is an example of "removing any feelings in order to emphasize pretty women in carefully worked out elements of design and color" and "La Bohemienne" isn't. I mean, it's just as much a picture of a pretty girl in a pretty background as the other is.

Hell, it's not like they're selling the Bouguereau in order to make way for a Pollock or anything. Yeesh.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	ashenmote 2004-04-05 05:40 am UTC (link)
	But Moore did it on purpose. Bouguereau on the other hand, he was painting happily away at the pretty landscape, and then that random chick went by, suddenly sat down and obstructed his view. It was an accident, guv'ner. (Reply to this)(Parent)