Thank yooooou!!!

hey #18, take pictures of yourself painted and nude and send it our way and i can GUARANTEE we all will say its art :)

You annoy me.

She might of not had any batteries left or would of tookin to long to charger and it paint was wet then she couldnt sit down or get dressed

@ #169- What? I can't even...

Its is art becuse of the exspeshoin!!! what she is doing is sexpressing herself! Nakedness is often conciderd discusting but realy what it means is something difrent! It useuly means that u have no secrates and that u whant to express your freeness. It's not to do with sexuality unless thats how you wish to see it. I dont think that you can ask how something is art when u dont seem to stop to think for a moment on what the subject matter is. Art should not be 'Pretty'. It discustes me to think that Art should be 'Pretty'

Art is expresshoin. And some one who dose not understand it should not be commenting on it.

And someone who can't spell shouldn't be commenting on anything

Oh be nice 25, they clearly have a typing accent =P But seriously, be nice, s/he has dyslexia

Thanks :)

Art still is a commercial product made to decorates. That's it and nothing else.

Because using spell check is so hard, amirite?

Art by definition is not necessarily commercial...

Art can include music, ya know. So are you saying that music is "made to be pretty and decorates?" Sound doesn't really have mass, so it can't really decorate much. :D Also, just because you don't think something is pretty doesn't mean it's art. Not saying that her idea was the smartest in the world, especially since she was taking pictures of herself, but if it's photographed nicely, a picture like that could have been very nice.

Look up Yayoi Kusama. She did this about 30 years ago.

That's not so much art as, well, decorations. There is always a gigantic debate over what is art, but "pretty and decorates and that's it" is rarely part of the argument. And to be slightly fair to the op, while I don't know why they chose this project, I ended up doing some pretty dumb things in art class in college, simply because the teacher kept asking for newer, more daring things, and threatening to fail me if I didn't do something off the wall. You'd be amazed what you come up with in that situation.

art isn't meant to be "pretty." real art is supposed to have meaning to it. and pretty is such a vague term. maybe a picture of her with spots in the snow IS pretty to someone. and maybe it means something to her. i don't really know the whole premise of her idea, so i could be wrong. maybe she did just want to be naked in a photo, i don't know. but people can find beauty in anything. dead flowers, trash, shattered mirrors. there is beauty in everything, a true artist just brings the beauty out. even if you don't agree, i'm sure someone else can see the beauty. don't be so close minded.

**** is art.

No, you are talking about DESIGN. That's commercial. Fine arts (like the kind OP was attempting) is a different story altogether. Boldly stating that you've studied with art students only emphasizes your ignorance.

no, it means ****

lol 25, i was thinking the exact same thing

having dyslexia doesn't make you retarted

Art is pretty and decorative, but it's also creative and expresses feelings, thoughts, etc. Just because you find everything in life to be plain and simple, doesn't make it so.

You are mentally retarded

In many college art classes, they have nude models show up so that you can draw them. This is art, and the fact that people think art should look a certain way annoys me. Art is everywhere. And using your logic, the statue of David isn't art, when in fact it is a very famous piece done by one of the most famous artists in history. It is unfortunate because she didn't have batteries for her camera, but her project was expression and it is therefore art. Not everyone has to like it, and it doesn't have to be "pretty"

probably an internal battery, in which case she coulda still just whacked a dressing gown on and waited whilst it charged.

Internal batteries are Li-ion batteries, so they don't have to be fully charged every time. 15 minutes of charge is sufficient for taking a couple of photos, so you're right. Still, OP is stupid for posting it and for the inability of solving such a simple problem. I wonder how the f*ck people can live with zero-to-negative problem solving ability?...

That's also a good suggestion for sex.

Just because there are famous works of art that feature naked bodies doesn't mean every naked picture is art. The OP posting this as an FML shows she clearly just wants attention for the fact she got her clothes off seeing as running out of batteries when you're at your house and can replace them(and most camera's run on rechargeable batteries. Certainly any being used for "art" work) isn't really a problem in anyway whatsoever,

I can express myself without getting naked.

I know. That is why I said could be interpreted as art. It all depends how she does it. It sounds like she had this all planned and had the scenery picked out, prepared for it( except for the batteries), etc. That is why I don't think she did it for attention. If she did this in on the whim and said, " I am going to take a picture of myself naked in the snow!" then I would be inclined to say she wanted attention and not for artistic purposes. She clearly did this for artistic purposes and that is why I don't view her getting naked as being inappropriate. I repeat the human body is a great thing. I don't know why people are so afraid when they see others naked( especially for artistic purposes).

It isn't art. I'm not afraid of the human body, I just hate when people do random shit that requires no skill and call it "art" because "omg it's like expression and stuff!" Anybody can take their clothes off and take a picture. That doesn't make you an artist. Just like painting a black line and a yellow dot on a white canvas and calling it abstract and selling it for $15,000 doesn't make you an artist. If the OP did a self portrait or something after she took the picture, it would be art.

but then, just because some famous pieces of art are painted, doesn't mean all paintings are a piece of art. as #24 pointed out, if done well, it could be quite a successful piece of art.

None of you even know what the project looked like! You heard a vague description summed up in a handful of sentences. There are a million different ways this project might look, so unless you've seen the finished work, you don't know whether it's good or bad. And I agree, the level to which people are reacting in shock to the fact that she was naked is ridiculous. Just so you all know, there are a lot of people out there who don't blush at the site of a nude body. We all have bodies, who cares if someone sees them?

Twinklestar: So seeing a naked person in the snow doesn't make you have any kind of strong reaction? (Doesn't matter whether it's positive or negative.) That's one of the greatest purposes of art: to make the viewer feel. Also, you're reading way too ******* much into why the FML was posted. This is supposed to be a humor site; no need to play armchair psychologist with the OP. She posted it because she thought it might make someone chuckle, and it did.

I'm sorry, I tried to show my nude body clothed but I got shy.

lol!