omolpp 21 Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 Everything else aside, I have just one burning question. How in the hell did anyone male or female get that many women to stand there and pee there pants in public?? The scene is a wet dream for a lot of us, hell I couldn't get one girl to pee much less that many. Must have been some money involved somehow. I tried googling more about this chick but I come up with nothing, anyone else have leads? Quote Link to comment
szledziwski 867 Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 9 hours ago, realmadrid said: Honestly, I've never seen something so awesome. Not my type of art, but really who am I to complain? This is straight out of omo fantasy land. I think we should be happy this "art" exists! Agreed. The premise behind these videos could just as well be the "plot" to a JAV. Quote Link to comment
Cookie V.3 10 Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 (edited) 54 minutes ago, szledziwski said: Agreed. The premise behind these videos could just as well be the "plot" to a JAV. I don't know what they could do in terms of story with such a simple premise, but tell me what you think they'd do. All I can imagine is some cheesy story involving past histories with Omorashi that ends with all of them pissing themselves in one room because Dora invited them. Edited July 22, 2017 by Cookie V.3 (see edit history) Quote Link to comment
szledziwski 867 Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, Cookie V.3 said: I don't know what they could do in terms of story with such a simple premise, but tell me what you think they'd do. All I can imagine is some cheesy story involving past histories with Omorashi that ends with all of them pissing themselves in one room because Dora invited them. There's no need to imagine any cheesy plot. It's not like the appeal of JAV is driven by complex and riveting storytelling. The premise would be identical to Dora's videos: a group of women get together to wet themselves for some bizarre performance art project. At the most, maybe the girls could be spiced up with a bit of character (their individual motivations for doing something so strange could be explored. Later, some might feel shy, have second thoughts, or for some other reason have difficulty releasing their bladders). Edited July 22, 2017 by szledziwski (see edit history) Quote Link to comment
Cookie V.3 10 Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, szledziwski said: There's no need to imagine any cheesy plot. It's not like the appeal of JAV is driven by complex and riveting storytelling. The premise would be identical to Dora's videos: a group of women get together to wet themselves for some bizarre performance art project. At the most, maybe the girls could be spiced up with a bit of character (their individual motivations for doing something so strange could be explored. Later, some might feel shy, have second thoughts, or for some other reason have difficulty releasing their bladders). Yeah, that was more of an assumption than anything. Never heard of this JAV stuff before. If there is some sort of character stuff here then my opinion on it might change. Edited July 22, 2017 by Cookie V.3 (see edit history) Quote Link to comment
szledziwski 867 Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 55 minutes ago, Cookie V.3 said: Never heard of this JAV stuff before. That explains the confusion. JAV refers to Japanese porn, which I'm sure you've seen plenty of if you've spent any time on this site. Quote Link to comment
Cookie V.3 10 Posted July 22, 2017 Share Posted July 22, 2017 I thought it was specifically story focused Japanese porn, at least when I looked it up. Probably should've watched one before speaking. Quote Link to comment
eru 49 Posted July 23, 2017 Share Posted July 23, 2017 i have not done any research on the project, but i will say that the nondescript emotionless expressions on the womens' faces adds an interesting dimension to it. this IS indeed art, imho, and it's not that weird; dadaism happened a long time ago~~ Quote Link to comment
Theater_94 102 Posted July 25, 2017 Share Posted July 25, 2017 https://vk.com/id303759044?z=video303759044_456239018%2F59a850ad10758c7806%2Fpl_wall_303759044 Quote Link to comment
kochel428 583 Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 On 7/21/2017 at 5:04 PM, Cookie V.3 said: https://qz.com/703590/can-anything-be-art-an-art-historian-explains-why-not/ For everybody saying this is not art (or saying it is!), this is a complicated question that has engulfed the art world as well as music, literature, poetry, dance—any art form you can think of—for the better part of two centuries. The phrase that comes back over and over again, such as at the beginning of this article, is "I could do that." The proper response to this statement is always: Sure you could. But you didn't. For reference, here is a video that addresses this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg (I've embedded it below) So let's talk about this performance as art. There's actually a lot going on here! First, most people will look at this differently than we do, because they don't derive sexual excitement from people wetting themselves. The first thing an average museum goer might think is, ew. So what do we learn from that reaction? Well, what do we normally expect from a group of women lined up in a row? Perhaps that they'll dance for us? or sing? or that they'll simply present themselves for the viewing pleasure of a man or group of men. So this performance has taken the expectations we have for women and turned it on its head. These are women on display, and yet when they give their performance, the response of most people will not be titillation or pleasure, it will be ew. Sorry, did somebody say this wasn't feminist? Of course that reaction also begs us to consider the women who are performing. It takes considerable bravery to stand up in public and do something, knowing that most people will respond with disgust; something that is viewed as intensely private, something that must count among the most embarrassing memories for anyone who has ever done it. It also takes bravery to go on stage and perform a concerto or dance a ballet. Perhaps this piece says something essential about performance—the courage involved, the fear of rejection. Now, it's quite apparent that the women were chosen to be diverse. They're different ages, shapes, sizes, and races. Yet their essential nature is the same. On the inside, they have the same biological processes as anyone else, and urinating is an outward signifier of that fact. The piss mingles together on the ground, forming one big puddle. Does that symbolize female solidarity? Or perhaps it says something about ecology. After all, nearly any time anyone urinates, it gets flushed down into a sewer to join and mingle with everyone else's piss. This has taken that process and brought it into the open. Then of course there's the fact that the women walk away from their puddles one by one as they finish. What does it mean? I can think of a few different things. Can't you? And of course we haven't talked about the pure aesthetics of it—the trickles and pools and puddles, the patterns appearing on the clothing. There's a strain of art that is interested in incidental patterns that result from a process, rather than starting with an end goal in mind. Pollock did it with paint, this artist does it with pee. Some of you have pointed out that there isn't a clear message here, but that's not a requirement for something to be art. In fact, if there's a clear, unambiguous message that is the death of art. Art is in the questions, and the spaces between the questions and the meanings. Art resists a single interpretation. It allows continued and repeated engagement. And on that count this is absolutely and unquestionably art. Also, finally, the argument of the article posted above essentially boils down to this: art = curation. If curators have chosen it and arranged it, then it's art. I'm not sure I agree with that argument, but this certainly was curated, so I wouldn't use that article to try to argue that this wasn't art. Xeno_, Ecchi Roulette, nwohdeh and 2 others 5 Quote Link to comment
Cookie V.3 10 Posted July 26, 2017 Share Posted July 26, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, kochel428 said: For everybody saying this is not art (or saying it is!), this is a complicated question that has engulfed the art world as well as music, literature, poetry, dance—any art form you can think of—for the better part of two centuries. The phrase that comes back over and over again, such as at the beginning of this article, is "I could do that." The proper response to this statement is always: Sure you could. But you didn't. For reference, here is a video that addresses this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg (I've embedded it below) So let's talk about this performance as art. There's actually a lot going on here! First, most people will look at this differently than we do, because they don't derive sexual excitement from people wetting themselves. The first thing an average museum goer might think is, ew. So what do we learn from that reaction? Well, what do we normally expect from a group of women lined up in a row? Perhaps that they'll dance for us? or sing? or that they'll simply present themselves for the viewing pleasure of a man or group of men. So this performance has taken the expectations we have for women and turned it on its head. These are women on display, and yet when they give their performance, the response of most people will not be titillation or pleasure, it will be ew. Sorry, did somebody say this wasn't feminist? Of course that reaction also begs us to consider the women who are performing. It takes considerable bravery to stand up in public and do something, knowing that most people will respond with disgust; something that is viewed as intensely private, something that must count among the most embarrassing memories for anyone who has ever done it. It also takes bravery to go on stage and perform a concerto or dance a ballet. Perhaps this piece says something essential about performance—the courage involved, the fear of rejection. Now, it's quite apparent that the women were chosen to be diverse. They're different ages, shapes, sizes, and races. Yet their essential nature is the same. On the inside, they have the same biological processes as anyone else, and urinating is an outward signifier of that fact. The piss mingles together on the ground, forming one big puddle. Does that symbolize female solidarity? Or perhaps it says something about ecology. After all, nearly any time anyone urinates, it gets flushed down into a sewer to join and mingle with everyone else's piss. This has taken that process and brought it into the open. Then of course there's the fact that the women walk away from their puddles one by one as they finish. What does it mean? I can think of a few different things. Can't you? And of course we haven't talked about the pure aesthetics of it—the trickles and pools and puddles, the patterns appearing on the clothing. There's a strain of art that is interested in incidental patterns that result from a process, rather than starting with an end goal in mind. Pollock did it with paint, this artist does it with pee. Some of you have pointed out that there isn't a clear message here, but that's not a requirement for something to be art. In fact, if there's a clear, unambiguous message that is the death of art. Art is in the questions, and the spaces between the questions and the meanings. Art resists a single interpretation. It allows continued and repeated engagement. And on that count this is absolutely and unquestionably art. Also, finally, the argument of the article posted above essentially boils down to this: art = curation. If curators have chosen it and arranged it, then it's art. I'm not sure I agree with that argument, but this certainly was curated, so I wouldn't use that article to try to argue that this wasn't art. What I was more thinking of when I said meaning was questions, or if it really made me think, why I said "meaning", I have no clue. That, of course, sounds like an excuse to save face, but think of that what you will. As for your interpretation, beautifully done, wish I could've thought of it myself. I'd say that it's art now, even if I'm not really into it. Edited July 26, 2017 by Cookie V.3 (see edit history) Quote Link to comment
kochel428 583 Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 3 hours ago, Cookie V.3 said: What I was more thinking of when I said meaning was questions, or if it really made me think, why I said "meaning", I have no clue. That, of course, sounds like an excuse to save face, but think of that what you will. As for your interpretation, beautifully done, wish I could've thought of it myself. I'd say that it's art now, even if I'm not really into it. I didn't mean to single you out at all—there were several people whose main takeaway from this seemed to be something like "I could do that." You just posted the article :) Quote Link to comment
ragtime 127 Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 @kochel428 Hella good analysis! I'm glad I can come to my favorite adult site and get some aesthetic critique on the side. I am personally drawn to the peeing art stuff, besides my own cathexis of wetting, because it is such a provocative act. It can revel in abjection. It can uncover private shame. It can dismantle shame. In this case, with the title being Transbordação, which means "Overflow," seems to be, according to Smék, about transforming the private, habitual act of releasing urine into a sublime experience by disrupting its utter banality in a public way. But it is also the overflowing of one body into the next, as @kochel428 describes, where the puddles flow into one another. What makes something like this exciting is that regardless of what Smék intended, we all, upon seeing this performance, bring with us our own series of affects and memories that complicate the more or less serene image of a bunch of women peeing their pants while breathing calmly: humiliation, disgust, arousal, relief, dismay, shock, humor. kochel428 1 Quote Link to comment
guyb 0 Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 Very good, thanks I'm loving it Quote Link to comment
Xeno_ 160 Posted July 27, 2017 Share Posted July 27, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, kochel428 said: For everybody saying this is not art (or saying it is!), this is a complicated question that has engulfed the art world as well as music, literature, poetry, dance—any art form you can think of—for the better part of two centuries. The phrase that comes back over and over again, such as at the beginning of this article, is "I could do that." The proper response to this statement is always: Sure you could. But you didn't. For reference, here is a video that addresses this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg (I've embedded it below) So let's talk about this performance as art. There's actually a lot going on here! First, most people will look at this differently than we do, because they don't derive sexual excitement from people wetting themselves. The first thing an average museum goer might think is, ew. So what do we learn from that reaction? Well, what do we normally expect from a group of women lined up in a row? Perhaps that they'll dance for us? or sing? or that they'll simply present themselves for the viewing pleasure of a man or group of men. So this performance has taken the expectations we have for women and turned it on its head. These are women on display, and yet when they give their performance, the response of most people will not be titillation or pleasure, it will be ew. Sorry, did somebody say this wasn't feminist? Of course that reaction also begs us to consider the women who are performing. It takes considerable bravery to stand up in public and do something, knowing that most people will respond with disgust; something that is viewed as intensely private, something that must count among the most embarrassing memories for anyone who has ever done it. It also takes bravery to go on stage and perform a concerto or dance a ballet. Perhaps this piece says something essential about performance—the courage involved, the fear of rejection. Now, it's quite apparent that the women were chosen to be diverse. They're different ages, shapes, sizes, and races. Yet their essential nature is the same. On the inside, they have the same biological processes as anyone else, and urinating is an outward signifier of that fact. The piss mingles together on the ground, forming one big puddle. Does that symbolize female solidarity? Or perhaps it says something about ecology. After all, nearly any time anyone urinates, it gets flushed down into a sewer to join and mingle with everyone else's piss. This has taken that process and brought it into the open. Then of course there's the fact that the women walk away from their puddles one by one as they finish. What does it mean? I can think of a few different things. Can't you? And of course we haven't talked about the pure aesthetics of it—the trickles and pools and puddles, the patterns appearing on the clothing. There's a strain of art that is interested in incidental patterns that result from a process, rather than starting with an end goal in mind. Pollock did it with paint, this artist does it with pee. Some of you have pointed out that there isn't a clear message here, but that's not a requirement for something to be art. In fact, if there's a clear, unambiguous message that is the death of art. Art is in the questions, and the spaces between the questions and the meanings. Art resists a single interpretation. It allows continued and repeated engagement. And on that count this is absolutely and unquestionably art. Also, finally, the argument of the article posted above essentially boils down to this: art = curation. If curators have chosen it and arranged it, then it's art. I'm not sure I agree with that argument, but this certainly was curated, so I wouldn't use that article to try to argue that this wasn't art. Thank you for taking everything I was thinking and saying it with far more eloquence and clarity than I could have ever managed. Edited July 27, 2017 by molhado grammars (see edit history) kochel428 1 Quote Link to comment
kochel428 583 Posted July 28, 2017 Share Posted July 28, 2017 22 hours ago, molhado said: Thank you for taking everything I was thinking and saying it with far more eloquence and clarity than I could have ever managed. This will probably sound weird or sarcastic, but it's not: thank you for thinking those things. Quote Link to comment
Anh Quynh 37 Posted August 2, 2017 Share Posted August 2, 2017 Is it normal that I can not find any information or video about all this? Or maybe I'm the one who is doing it wrong? Quote Link to comment
CreativePup 21 Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Can I add something that is unrelated to the questions of art? Is it me, or was anyone else surprised that none of the women appear to be desperate? No signs of shifting around, doing the pee pee dance, etc. Quote Link to comment
slovenc79 158 Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, CreativePup said: Can I add something that is unrelated to the questions of art? Is it me, or was anyone else surprised that none of the women appear to be desperate? No signs of shifting around, doing the pee pee dance, etc. i'm not surprised, they did it on purpose, pushed the piss out, no holding, desperation and all that, just pure purposeful wetting, and i love it that way :) i think the big part of this project is showing the freedom of choice of these women, who calmly and without pressure chose to piss their pants instead of going to the toilet, what the society expects everyone to do. That's what I actually like the most about this fetish, you feel you're doing something wrong, it's dirty, wet, pointless, but there is no harm or damage, so nothing is really wrong. Edited August 3, 2017 by slovenc79 (see edit history) Quote Link to comment
lenna 19 Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 (edited) For me this is not art, it is just a protest. It goes better on a newspaper than on a museum or a concert hall. Of course it moves the emotions and feelings of the people, and it gets a point out (like you are free to do anything you want with your body, and that everyone is the same at the most basic instinct levels). In this way it's similar to art. But for me, this does not involve any talent out of the ordinary. Each person there has the courage to step on the stage, of course. But they didn't practice years for getting there. An artist (i.e. a musician) practices every day and gets the right notes all the time, before going to stage. And afterwards he can watch his own performance, find the mistakes and keep improving his talent. Or take a photographer, usually they know their cameras down to the most hidden setting and take 100+ shots before getting the right one to display on a museum (after a lot of selection by the judging staff). This is a protest, sure, but not art. I don't see the 'curation' process here, not to mention the self-improvement of the skills and talents of the performers. ( Not saying that I don't enjoy watching the video, hehe, that's why most of us are here ) Edited August 3, 2017 by lenna (see edit history) Quote Link to comment
potatowave 2 Posted August 4, 2017 Share Posted August 4, 2017 Art provokes a reaction. The fact that you guys are arguing about it shows it is art. Quote Link to comment
Cookie V.3 10 Posted August 5, 2017 Share Posted August 5, 2017 7 hours ago, potatowave said: Art provokes a reaction. The fact that you guys are arguing about it shows it is art. You have a very loose definition of art, I must say. Quote Link to comment
stor7 3 Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 Umm soo does anyone know anything about these women or where this footage came from? It seems like it's been awhile since anyone posted anything about the fetish content here... Quote Link to comment
realmadrid 412 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 http://adrianagarciabenitez.virb.com/pee-blue-omorash Visit this site for a similar "art" project. Excellent wetting too from many years ago. slovenc79, omox, Theonlysaneperson and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment
ragtime 127 Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 15 hours ago, realmadrid said: http://adrianagarciabenitez.virb.com/pee-blue-omorash Visit this site for a similar "art" project. Excellent wetting too from many years ago. Thanks for bringing this back to the fore. That video is great, and the artist has a well-articulated explanation of it here. She actually produced this as part of a series exploring types of low-key fetish content (sneezing, crushing, bubblegum, shampoo, etc) made possible by youtube/web 2.0. The pee video was the only one to get reported as porn, booting her project from the site. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.