Your Attention Please : should you own any kind of right upon a picture/video posted here and want it removed, please spare yourself the hassle of contacting Blogger, instead a simple email to my address will do the trick and I will swiftly remove that picture or video. To contact me just click on my Profile picture. Thank you.

Tuesday, February 22, 2022

1226. Guru Meditation

I don’t need to admit it, because it would be like confessing it. Instead I’ll state it: I find this man handsome WITH his tattoos - and not despite them.


Art can have several goals, one of them being sometimes to make one uncomfortable to make them think beyond the subject itself.

Photo via VoenixRising

11 comments:

Xersex said...

no, sorry, too much ink!

uptonking said...

I think there are simply too many statements to discern any intent. Perhaps that is its (the art's) intent. Are the tats representative of the the person? Literal heart on his sleeve?

Mistress Maddie said...

I honestly don't know what to think.

whkattk said...

WAY too much for me. Particularly when they begin to cover the face in ink. It always makes me wonder why they are so ashamed of themselves that they have this need to cover themselves in tattoos.

Milleson said...

Where to begin. Putting the psychology of art aside, and the subject's personal psychology(low self-esteem) aside, there is a guiding principle in art and design that states "less is more." Personally I believe that to be true in most circumstances. The exceptions being drag queens and christmas decorations, where more is decidedly better. If art's goal is to make the viewer uncomfortable and think beyond the subject, then this man succeeds. The beauty of the desert is in its simplicity, just sand and sculptured dunes. Plant three trillion trees(even if they would grow) and the desert disappears. You only see the forest. I fail to see the beauty of this man, however wonderful he may be, with all that inked interference hiding him. IMHO

Anonymous said...

To paraphrase Hawkeye Pierce from M*A*S*H. tattoos is cheap art for those who can't afford a Rembrandt.

SickoRicko said...

Except for the tats on his face, I don't mind the others.

BatRedneck said...

@Anon: LoL! It only means that this Hawkeye Pierce guy didn't have the money to ask Andy Warhol to tattoo him some piece of Art". As usual everything is quite relative when it comes to Art :-)
As we here say too: la beauté est dans l'oeil de celui qui regarde.

Michehot said...

I agree with you! Wonderful

Anonymous said...

It is that it is very attractive, but it would be more without them

Anonymous said...

why do they think this looks good and who told them it did!