(Image left, Deborah Alma Wheeler. Click to enlarge.)
Opens May 1. Web site here.
Artist/curator Sharon Arnold put together a good local list, here.
I can’t imagine a better image for the festival than Wheeler’s partially unzipped carrying case carried into erotica by metaphoric implication.
Every year this festival gets better. Even in the beginning, when the art wasn’t worth noting, the audiences certainly were. (Stories here and here.)
Joey Veltkamp is in this year’s lineup with a lovely painting from a series celebrating the 1970s:
Robert Arneson isn’t, but I hope somebody celebrates self-love in his honor.
Awesome, thanks for the post Regina!
Also, Sharon’s gone to the trouble of interviewing every single curator-selected artist about accepting the challenge to produce “erotic” art. The interviews are posted on her blog: dimensionsvariable.org. Some interesting conversations!
Nice post! Missed seeing you at the Festival this year, Regina! Miss you in general, and the wonderful years working alongside you at the P-I back in the day. Hope you are doing well. Cheers ~Nina
PREHISTORIC – EROTIC ART: – http://www.arterupestre-c.com As we can see through different images, they had sexual intercourse with animals, homosexual relations and more than two people at the same time. http://www.arterupestre-c.com/1000.htm Venus – Venuses http://www.arterupestre-c.com/1000ven.htm There is o ne sculpture that is emblematic, found in 1908, after lots of research and different epochs being affirmed as the real o nes about this sculpture, now they believe it was done around 24,000-22,000 BC. It shows a woman with a large stomach that overhangs but does not hide her pubic area. A roll of fat extends around her middle, joining with large but rather flat buttocks, there’s no face and seems that at this place there is a hat or even hair rolled up o n the head. Her genital area would appear to have been deliberately emphasized with the labia of the vulva carefully detailed and made clearly visible, perhaps unnaturally so, and as if she had no pubic hair. This, combined with her large breasts and the roundness of her stomach, suggests that the “subject” of the sculpture is female procreativity and nurture and the piece has long been identified as some sort of fertility idol. The fact that numerous examples like that of a female figure. All generally exhibiting the same essential characteristics – large stomachs and breasts, featureless faces, minuscule or missing feet – have been found over a broad geographical area ranging from France to Siberia. That suggests that some system of shared understanding and perception of a particular type of woman existed during the Paleolithic.
can i get more information about this festivel