Artist Arrested In Paris For Standing Naked With Cock Leashed to His Cock

From Stuff.nz: http://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/arts/9880320/Coq-and-doodle-to-do-for-artist

  Quote

A South African performance artist is being tried in a French court after parading in front of the Eiffel Tower with a live cockerel attached to his penis.

 

Steven Cohen wore red satin gloves, platform shoes and a feather headdress as he walked around the popular tourist spot with the rooster attached to his genitals by a white ribbon.

 

He appeared in a Paris court this week on charges of sexual exhibitionism over last year's performance (Warning: this links to graphic content).

"I'm not pleading guilty to anything," he said. "They can't stop me being an artist. Art is my alternative to suicide."

it totally makes sense to me (and im not at all being sarcastic, ironic, or anything but literal here), that a guy who considers 'art' to be walking around in platform heels, some gloves, a feathered headdress and mask, but otherwise naked, and with a rooster leashed to his penis, would also be suicidal.

this is a prime of example of the word 'art' being abused. if this is art, then the word art is meaningless, and so is being an artist. but if the guy really insists on calling this art, why couldn't he do it on a stage in front of a picture of the Eiffel Tower? why does he have to force his nudity and horrible ideas about art onto people?

amazing

cock-a-doodle-doo!

Fucking LOL at the nuns walking past in that picture!

  On 3/28/2014 at 2:45 PM, MisterE said:

why does he have to force his nudity and horrible ideas about art onto people?

what makes nudity or his ideas horrible other than yours and others opinion that they are horrible?

  On 3/28/2014 at 2:45 PM, MisterE said:

"I'm not pleading guilty to anything," he said. "They can't stop me being an artist. Art is my alternative to suicide."

 

 

it totally makes sense to me (and im not at all being sarcastic, ironic, or anything but literal here), that a guy who considers 'art' to be walking around in platform heels, some gloves, a feathered headdress and mask, but otherwise naked, and with a rooster leashed to his penis, would also be suicidal.

 

this is a prime of example of the word 'art' being abused. if this is art, then the word art is meaningless, and so is being an artist. but if the guy really insists on calling this art, why couldn't he do it on a stage in front of a picture of the Eiffel Tower? why does he have to force his nudity and horrible ideas about art onto people?

Seems to be quite meaningful if it's keeping him from suicide. Plus this is exactly what is great about art, that it's so loosely definable and can be almost anything, it's fucking great. This is fun, something new to look at + people gawking at it = art.

Also if you think all art has to be perfomed on a stage to be defined as art do you also not consider graffitti, street artists etc. to be art?

[youtubehd]5wuGSRx2qsc[/youtubehd]

I think the fellow needs some help if this is how he avoids suicide - and I think calling something like this "art" these days is just an excuse to be provocative for its own sake.

  On 3/28/2014 at 3:46 PM, ussr said:

[youtubehd]5wuGSRx2qsc[/youtubehd]

Haha, nice

well its against the law to go around naked in public, but since he calls it art that's like a loophole that should make it ok?

what other laws should we be allowed to break if we call ourselves artists and call it art while we do it?

  On 3/28/2014 at 3:57 PM, MisterE said:

well its against the law to go around naked in public, but since he calls it art that's like a loophole that should make it ok?

what other laws should we be allowed to break if we call ourselves artists and call it art while we do it?

Oh no not a naked man ahhh

Also that's a bit of a logical fallacy there, slippery slope innit'?

I don't think nudity is a gateway to blowing peoples brains out over a canvas and calling the splatters art.

I actually think what this guy did is pretty fucking cool and intense.

  On 3/28/2014 at 3:51 PM, Joyrex said:

I think calling something like this "art" these days is just an excuse to be provocative for its own sake.

*smears soft, ripe excrement in joyrex hair, sells pictures at christie's for hefty sum*

Provocative is great, provocative is interesting. Look how he steals the show right in front of the Eiffel Tower. Bravo sir, bravo.

groce

"They can't stop me being an artist. Art is my alternative to suicide."

Someone stop him from being an artist.

You can say it's bad or wrong art if you don't agree with it it, but the guy is expressing himself in a way he chooses fit. Art is expression, no?

He can do that at home. People do all kinds of weird stuff at home, and they don't get arrested.

  On 3/28/2014 at 3:41 PM, AJW said:

do you not consider graffitti, street artists etc. to be art?

no

  On 3/28/2014 at 4:20 PM, Friendly Foil said:

He can do that at home. People do all kinds of weird stuff at home, and they don't get arrested.

lol

uh oh' be carful, questioning the artists means of expression is like leaping under a speeding train

  On 3/28/2014 at 4:00 PM, StephenG said:

 

  On 3/28/2014 at 3:57 PM, MisterE said:

well its against the law to go around naked in public, but since he calls it art that's like a loophole that should make it ok?

what other laws should we be allowed to break if we call ourselves artists and call it art while we do it?

 

Oh no not a naked man ahhh

 

Also that's a bit of a logical fallacy there, slippery slope innit'?

 

I don't think nudity is a gateway to blowing peoples brains out over a canvas and calling the splatters art.

 

I actually think what this guy did is pretty fucking cool and intense.

 

so blowing peoples brains out was the only possible illegal thing you could think of? or did you just intentionally pick the most extreme example to make my totally valid point seem ridiculous?

but basically it looks like what you are saying is that the real problem is that public nudity should be legal?

  On 3/28/2014 at 4:20 PM, Friendly Foil said:

He can do that at home. People do all kinds of weird stuff at home, and they don't get arrested.

Sure he could do it at home. But that's not what he did. Everyone's different.

..but it's an infringement on my right not to look at his cock. what if i don't feel like looking at cock and then he forces me to?

edit: ..and what about the rooster, what about his rights?

  On 3/28/2014 at 4:24 PM, StephenG said:

 

  On 3/28/2014 at 4:20 PM, Friendly Foil said:

He can do that at home. People do all kinds of weird stuff at home, and they don't get arrested.

 

Sure he could do it at home. But that's not what he did. Everyone's different.

 

Yeah, that's true. That's also why we have jails, "psychiatric hospital" etc. It's great.