This week’s arts pick is another outdoor installation—this time outside of Albuquerque, New Mexico. Many visitors will no doubt find the artist’s images disturbing. The eye is immediately drawn to the prominent male figure that dominates the canvas. As if the subject’s size and position within the composition are not ample indications of his tyranny over the surrounding people and animals, the artist felt compelled to add a final anatomical touch to ensure that the subject’s virility will not go unnoticed by viewers.
Unfortunately, the artist was underappreciated during his lifetime. As a result, there are no surviving contextual clues to help the modern day historian understand the meaning of this work. Is it a self portrait done by an insecure and misunderstood genius? Is it a statement about humankind’s foolish insistence that man can remove himself from nature (notice how the primary subject seems to float above the other animals)? Or perhaps it is simply the work of a sexist artist with delusions of grandeur. I recommend visiting Albuquerque to decide for yourself.
No Tags
I’m not sure who wrote the comments on this piece but whoever it was should know what they are talking about before they speak. The piece they are insulting and calling sexist is actually an ancient indian petroglyph. They drew basic shapes of what they encountered and knew. The line between the objects legs mearly defined the figure as a man. Sexism had nothing to do with it. Those comments are insulting and makes the commentator seem very ignorant
Holy shit, someone thinks I’m a real art reviewer. That rules!
Personally, I found the comments rather funny, and I think someone forgot that the phrase “tongue-in-cheek” exsists for a reason.
Anyway- great blog!