[NSFW] What's your opinion about this provocative piece of art shown in a public venue?

what’s offending about the sculpture ? i don’t find it shocking or offensive in any way, it’s an interesting piece of art.

I think it’s kind of neat, too. If we only display art that is “safe” or not startling in any way, why make art?

ZOMGZ!!! goats and penises…..Gimme a break….....

It’s… Provocative.

It is like comedy with curse words.

Only point it makes is for the artist to stand out.

I say that artist has a lot of guts. Whoever can create something like that and not feel ashamed to show it off to the public is very courageous. Kudos.

Two goats kissing human-style is “provocative”? To whom, exactly? If you’re turned on by that, you need to seek counselling.

Offensive? To whom? People with self-image problems who think they’re ugly as a goat? I don’t get it.

@MrItty Look at the dicks.

@janbb Ah, you have to dig further into the website to see the bottom half of the statue. Eh. So what. It’s a pair of penises. Grow up, people.

I love weird, creepy, unsafe art so it’s okay in my book.

It’s just a freaking erection…....These people annoy the hell out of me because they act as if it is foreign…..We all know what it is….it’s not like they are doing something that is actually lewd. They are kissing, kissing causes arousal…..it’s a simple concept.

Yea, “it’s not they are doing something that is actually lewd.”
Where are the goats that are taking a dump on the sidewalk?

And, where are the fish for those chips?

Man, who gives a shit? It doesn’t appeal to me or bother me, it has no effect whatsoever. I prefer classical art like Michelangelo. But life is too short to wast time whining about “Oooo, I’m offended!” People just need to get over it and find something else to do. Don’t want your kids to see it? Really? how much space does it take up? Do you have to go to that part of town? Is it really that unavoidable? Snap out of it.
My stupid ass could be sitting right nest to it eating my lunch and I wouldn’t notice. “Huh? Goats? Where?”

Another reason why people that worship children annoy me: “Oh no what if they see it!”. These people are aware they will see a diagram of an erection in school right? They are aware that as parents they will have to talk to their kids about this stuff anyways right?

I like it.

I think it’s cool!

I’d love to have that piece in my house, but then, I am known for my strange ‘art’ collection pieces.

I have a wooden carving of a headhunter with a big penis, holding up one head and another tied around his waist with a big spear in his hand. I make everyone rub his penis for good luck and warn potential dates that headhunter guy is symbolic of what happens to duplicitious others. lolol

I also have a huge carved temple gong, the ‘pod’ lamp, ‘Puffy yoga woman’ ( a 3d burnt orange velvet material sculpture of a headless woman in the Lotus posistion and framed in a crazy carved moulding.

My passion for the esoteric and inane is strong.

I guess the person who made this is saying it is okay to be gay and be open about it? But cleverly disguised as goats

Just another reason I will probably always love and hate the arts in general, it is all open to interpretation.

My opinion it is kind of bland and boring there is some shock value at first, then it is like eh yeah whatever…..

@andreaxjean: Ha, ha, ha!

It’s just art. Don’t look at it if you don’t want to, people. :D

@ChazMaz Lol….taking a dump on a sidewalk with an erection would be lewd…

It’s okay certainly not offended in any way. Very well structured.Here’s me thinking you can ride a cock horse not a goat.

Actually I like the goats themselves, the penises could go…goats are naturally capricious creatures, playful, clever, a very interesting piece.

Nothing wrong with a little goat sex.

I honestly don’t get how anyone could like it. I’m just not into the whole “Animals with boners kissing eachother” genre.
But I’m not going to protest to the government to have it torn down. I’m just not going to look at it any more.

As long as it is not state/federal funded art.

How is that any more offensive to anyone than, say, Venus of Urbino masturbating on a couch with an 8 year old girl crying behind her?

@Sarcasm I’m not an art expert, but isn’t a part of art about messages and meanings and interpretation and symbolism and such? I don’t think the artist just made two goats making out with erections to convey the simple message that goats kissing will get boners lol.

@Seek_Kolinahr Oh, now that is a monstrosity!

Makes me want to listen to a little Coldplay.

@Blackberry No, it’s not. @Seek_Kolinahr The girl isn’t crying. She’s a maid rifling through a trunk.

I really like this sculpture. Yes, a museum is a public place, if you pay to get in. And if you pay to get in, then I’d assume that you’re expecting to see some interesting things.

I thought that “public place” would mean “on the street” or “in a park”. That would be controversial. This isn’t.

@shadling21 Oops, sorry I meant to type the command /sarcasm off lol….

As I read the article and considered the sculpture I wondered if the artist and the museum were attempting to be provocative which, by definition, means causing annoyance, anger, or another strong reaction, esp. deliberately. I think that might be the case and that is one of the things I adore about art -the ability to stir people and cause them to reflect on their worldview. I like the sculpture.

@shadling21

Huh. That’s been one of my favourite painting for years, and I always thought that was just a bench. Me = fail.

@liminal That’s what I was trying to get at, too.

@janbb I missed that, I must say, you are quite insightful. lurve.

As far as art goes, I don’t have a problem with it. When I first read the question, I was thinking of it being displayed in a park or something similar to that. I don’t think it would be a good idea to display it in an outside public area because well… that’s not really appropriate for children and some others as well. Inside an art museum, exhibit or other appropriate place for this sort of art, I see no problem with it though. Isn’t it kinda expected when looking at works of art to eventually see some nudity?

As for the art itself, it doesn’t really do anything but creep me out. Goats taking on certain human form and practicing human actions? I find that weird but hey… that’s art.

I think first of all that it’s kind of silly. Goats… kissing? C’mon now.

Aside from that, I don’t know—and I’m not going to google to find out—if goat penises look so much like human penises with circumcisions. Really? Or did these goats have circumcisions done? That would be pretty weird stuff.

Look, I’m not homophobic and male homosexuality doesn’t bother me in the least. Even public displays of affection—to some degree, anyway—don’t bother me. But this seems weird, strange and fetishistic.

Goats, kissing? Give me a break.

It is amusing for a second but it is just another attempt to create a stir….yawn ;)

It’s in a museum. It’s not like it’s in a park or in front of a school. That’s what I assumed we were talking about when I read the question, but it being in a museum is a totally different matter.

I think it’s kind of Bl-aaa-aa-aa-aand.

I think it would make a a great clothes drying rack. I know where I’d hang my wet bathing suit.

@Trillian that was really baa-aaa-d

Looks like the royal towel rack at Buck House @Trillian Hey, now now we’ll have none of that levity here.

@Trillian Enough with your sheepish remarks it’s time to goat away.

Art has been shocking people for years. So what else is new? Courbet’s Origin of the World here
and here

As for the goats, photo is too small. It looks like the penii are made from the same cast. I would like to see the statue much larger to see the work of it.

Goats with boners…to each their own. Not my taste but it is art, what can I say. How about Bosch’s “Garden of Earthly Delights”? It’s basically an entire painting of people having an orgy http://www.quotesque.net/images/Bosch-goed.gif

I don’t get the “shock value”, its boners on goats. Actually, that sounds like a good name for a band.

Ah, my loves @liminal, @ucme, & @janbb. You’re all just maaa-aaad that I did it first! I can hear those goats now…“OOoo yeaaa-aaaa, like thaaa-aaa-aaat!”

@Ponderer983

Looks like Woodstock! I wanna play.

@Trillian – lots of lurve for “I ican hear those goats now…“OOoo yeaaa-aaaa, like thaaa-aaa-aaat!”

@Trillian Billy’s beard can tickle in the most secret of locations…ahem.. so i’ve heard.

@Trillian hahaha, you’re making my sides hurt!

That would make a great gift for my mother-in-law….

I’d love to see the troll under the bridge deal with these two! “Let’s kick his aaa-aaa-aaasss! Get baa-aa-aack here you baaa-aaa-aaastaaa—aaard!”
“Aaa-aaa-aannddd staa-aa-aaay out!”
@liminal “Ssoo-oooo-oorrry!”

Did anyone bother the read the artist’s motivation for crafting this sculpture? It’s pretty interesting. I’m looking at the artist’s other work, including A Modest Proposal.

My initial reaction is mild shock—I’m not accustomed to seeing sculpture in this format. I’ve seen paintings of a similar nature, and I’ve not had a knee-jerk initial reaction to it.

The reason why I posted this question in the first place was because I’ve seen a picture of the goat sculpture as someone’s facebook image, and every time I see it along with the friend’s profile, I have a reaction to it.

I’m not against this type of art. I think it’s great. I’m intrigued, though, that my mind reacts with a sense of shock when I see the picture of this sculpture next to my friend’s facebook profile. I don’t understand why. I’m not against my friend’s use of this image, nor the artist’s work.

Meh. It’s neither here nor there. I bet some idiots will say that if we allow gay marriage, the next thing will be bestiality and ‘look at those goats’...or something along those lines…

A lot of resistance out there to oenises in art in modern times.
The sad story of the damage to Jacob Epstein’s sculpture for the tomb of Oscar Wilde here

@anartist

That’s horrible. When will humanity just grow the hell up and stop being afraid of our collective genitals?

I think people who believe art should not offend them understand nothing of art.
If you don’t want to be confronted with anything other than what is already commonly accepted as normal, art is not for you.

@Seek_Kolinahr

lol…’ collective genitals’..wow..so this encompasses two other questions, the ‘lol’ debate and ‘are women visual?’, from earlier….

I have a very clear visual image of the swirling pot of collective genitalia…jeez…I think there’s a sketch in there somewhere.

Maybe a domed ceiling of penises and vaginas and breasts…?

@Coloma
It’s probably been done before.

—@Fyrius—

No doubt! ;-)

@prolificus I didn’t bother, and I didn’t bother after more than a couple of sentences of the link you posted. My idea about Art is that it should speak for itself; it shouldn’t need the artist or others to critique it to “put it in context” for me. (Sometimes that is helpful; I’m not saying that opera notes, literary and artistic criticism and artist’s explanations are never helpful or valid—but if the art doesn’t grab me itself, then the explanation is just “failed marketing”.)

Thanks for the link, anyway.

A quite different story about the penis in art is when a California artist declared a cement traffic barrier abandoned in a park was a Hindu phallic worship icon and it gathered a following. In the early 1990s, Bowen found an abandoned cement traffic barrier in Golden Gate Park and claimed to have transformed it into a Shiva lingam. It then became a site of worship and veneration until the authorities had him remove it

What is provocative about it. It is 2 goats?!

@prolificus Thanks for linking to that site—very interesting. She certainly is talented.

My first thought, when looking at the photo of the goal sculpture, was that the goats were beautifully crafted. Other than the erections, of course, they are so realistic. I like the way they are posed. The erections kind of made me giggle, but maybe I’m just immature. I have always thought male genitalia look ridiculous. Personally, I wouldn’t be offended or shocked to see that sculpture in a museum.

@Blackberry I don’t think I worship my children, but I would hesitate to introduce them to this kind of art at their current ages. Especially my little boys, not because they need to be protected but because they are immature and would find it hysterical. I can very easily imagine their reactions (they are 5 and 6, by the way). Anything that has to do with their penises, butts, and bodily excretions sends them into fits of hilarity. From what I’ve seen, almost all boys their age have this trait, and don’t outgrow it until sometime after college or even later. ;)

I would let my daughter see this kind of art (after talking about it first), but she wouldn’t like it. She is 11, and I think she would be very embarrassed by the sculpture. She knows about male anatomy, she knows what an erection is, and she even knows about homosexuality and issues surrounding same-sex marriage. I don’t mind talking to her about those things. However, she’s also just an 11 year old girl, and I would expect her to react to this sculpture like an 11 year old girl: with a lot of blushing, looking away, giggling, and maybe some questions later. The ideas represented by the statue wouldn’t phase her, but the statue itself would probably horrify her.

I think one of them is that goat named Bob

All this thought and activity, 65 responses, and only 2 great questions? Cheap bastards.

Nothing but one big goat boner.

@MissAusten I can understand that.

A gallery is hardly a public venue.

Plus, I think it’s kinda sweet.

“I think it’s kinda sweet.”

Awwwww, those goats. Frolicking around. Tip-toeing on the piss clams.
Eating yogurt and playing the harmonica.

Goats rock…they are amazingly cool animals.

Poster critters for sheer joy!

I live near a huge ( like hundreds of acres of rolling hills ) goat playground.

There is a herd of about 500 Boer goats frolicking on the boulders, always have to stop to watch them play. Delightful creatures!

@Coloma Someone’s gotta ask: Do they play like that?

@ValerieTeacup What are you talking about? I didn’t say I didn’t like it. I do like it. I think it’s very creative and different… Art usually tells a story. What do you think this is about?

So that are unicorns?

Oh my: Human-goat sexual intercourse (wikipedia article).

I read the artist’s statement and looked at the other pieces in the exhibit and on the site, including the series “On Tender Hooks.” They are very moving, affecting, and disturbing. The artist has an extraordinary gift for representing extreme human emotions through the use of animal forms. Viewing them in two dimensions and reduced on a flat screen is powerful enough; I can barely imagine the effect of seeing the exhibits at full size and in all their dimensions.

This one sculpture is a depiction of tenderness and passion as frank as any I’ve seen. It is meant to be unsettling and evoke a strong emotional reaction. Viewed in context, it is like a city among cities on a map: a defining point in the territory, but not the whole territory and not the only major destination. You don’t know the territory until you’ve seen this city, but you also don’t know this city until you’ve seen the territory.

@janbb

Yes, they do! Lots of rearing and charging and head butting, but… sex is doggy style. lololol

Not having read any of the above.

I think that these are excellent works. Provocative art backed by intelligence and skill.
An Adept indeed.

@ChazMaz Two great big boners.

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. Like poop left on the sidewalk by an irresponsible dog owner people should just ignore it, to even waste time voicing an opinion or objection of it is giving it way more attention then it merits.

Um, so these goats are… jewish?

@filmfann You’re supposed to say; “Not that theere“s anything wrong with that.”

It has a little too much symmetry for my tastes, but interesting nonetheless.

@filmfann What is this thing about Jewish goats? I think goats have cloven hoofs and are therefor not kosher.

@anartist Someone said they seem to have been circumcised.

I’m still wondering what the big deal is about homoerotic goats, when no one makes a fuss about such classic art as Hercules and Diomedes.

I mean, it’s not just innocent animals that happen to have man-penises… it’s two grown, naked, wrestling men, with their genitals flopping around all over the place, one of them being openly groped by the other. Are there any Girl Scout leaders refusing to enter museums based on 16th century sculpture?

@Seek_Kolinahr – Would you consider the sculpture of Hercules and Diomedes erotic? I thought it was common practice during Greco-Roman times that when men wrestled in sport, it was to the death, and that they would do so while naked—leaving the genitals open as an easy target for brutality.

@prolificus

I know very well the story behind Hercules and Diomedes. However, the whack-jobs writing threatening letters to the museum don’t seem to be too interested in the deeper meaning of fine art, and I was wondering why goats-with-penises is more offensive than nude-man-groping, or young-woman-masturbating. – Is it solely because the two I mentioned are “Renaissance Art” and this is that evil, soulless, liberal “Modern Art”?

I just looked at his other art, very interesting. It makes me think about various things, does all art do this?

At least this is art, even if intended to be a bit provocative. As much as I despise censorship, some “artists” deliberately provoke the yokels with such things as religious images in bowls of urine, etc. This sculpture is legitimate artwork no matter how one looks at it. Also, it’s not being displayed in a “public place”; when one enters an art gallery some degree of mind-stretching is to be expected.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land You are, I take it, objecting to Andre Serrano’s Piss Christ Yes?

@anartist Not from a standpoint of promoting censorship. I just don’t consider dropping a crucifix into a bowl of urine to be artwork. Political statement? Yes.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land Actually the photograph is very pretty, all goldy orange and diffuse lighting.

@anartist Some of the Soviet and Nazi propaganda posters looked pretty good too; but that wasn’t their primary purpose. I believe that Serrano’s intent was to provoke a reaction from religious right-wing elements. Which it did.

@stranger_in_a_strange_land not to be tiresome about this, but couldn’t it both provoke and be art at the same time?

Nazi posters were not meant to do either—they were ad campaigns for a way of life. They could not be art because they were work for hire to be used for a specific goal.

Beautifully made. Though not particularly provocative. And I wouldn’t consider a museum piece as public art.

I like how @Hypocrisy_Central stated it. That gets a GA. And, makes me think.

I have have a great dog. He takes a crap on the sidewalk. Does the crap become great because the dog is?

@andreaxjean: Oh, I only referred to you in that I thought what you said was funny. (: The second part was not for you exactly. <3 :D

I see there are a lot of open-minded people here. I’d like to think I’m open minded, too. But, I don’t think this particular sculpture is appropriate for a public venue unless patrons are warned beforehand that there is a gay-themed, explicit piece of art. When I go to a museum, I expect art to reflect the norms of my community. I would feel uncomfortable taking a child to this museum, but I would be okay to go with adults who can process this sort of art.

@itscomplicated I assume all art museums will have anatomically and sexually explicit displays, unless it is a children’s museum. Do you think exhibits should offer a warning for only gay-themed art?

@liminal – I think exhibits should reflect the accepted norms of the community. I live in Naples, so of course anything goes. But, if I lived in a small town that was predominately heterosexual and family oriented, then I think there should be a warning for gay-themed art.

@liminal: Super duper great answer. I marked it as “Great Anwer,” too. (X

@itscomplicated would you please say why?

I’m with liminal on this one. Fuck it, it’s goats with boners. Damn, that is a good name for a band.

Next I suppose we can expect to see a painting of dogs playing poker, and we should consider that as great art.

Oh, wait…

Never mind. I guess there just needs to be more unusual sex involved.

@liminal – I think art pushes and defines the boundaries of human behavior. Again, if I lived in a small town where heterosexual behavior is the norm, then I wouldn’t want a museum to advocate or encourage non-normal behavior.

@itscomplicated “Non-normal” is a red flag around here!

@janbb – I don’t mean it in an offensive way. I just mean something that is outside of the norm as defined by the community.

Dogs playing poker… WITH BONERS!

@itscomplicated understood. For me, I don’t like the idea of singling out gay as non-normal. I am not a statistician, but I would be surprised if the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals was not the same in small town communities as it is in metropolitan areas. But, I continue to digress.

I think one of the most powerful things about art is how it can viscerally remind us that we are citizens of the world, not just our neighborhoods, and, certainly, not just our world-views. It would be almost impossible to convince me that singling out themes in art, whether they are sexually explicit, violent, or a nauseatingly purple, is ever a good idea.

I probably could be opened to the idea of a museum having a universal warning in the entryway (not related to displays) that stated: ”Warning! Entry means you will see things not as you suppose.”

@liminal – to me, gay behavior is not normal. However, I agree with you on the importance of not singling out groups or individuals. The sign is a great idea!

”Warning! Entry means you will see things not as you suppose.”

That is like putting a sign on a Roller Coaster saying that the ride will be bumpy.

@ChazMaz exactly

@itscomplicated what are your standards for prescribing normalcy?

@liminal – my standards for prescribing normalcy are based on my experiences, what I was taught in church and in school, and on what I know to be true about life.

@itscomplicated okay, I have sent you a pm.

What makes “non-normal” such a serious problem, that you wouldn’t want it to be permitted in a small “normal” town?

I mean, besides the fact that the piece is pretty shit and boring, there is nothing ‘wrong’ about it.
It’s not going to hurt anyone.

LOL, I love that. I think that’s fine for public display. Makes things interesting.

As for parents having to explain it to their children, this is no different than what you’d have to explain after a trip to the zoo.

@Adirondackwannabe It’s definitely a cool name for a band…

Goat, the other white meat.