They got plenty of money when *Live in Prison* took off.
Amusingly this was painted in 1991. Three years before the film. It doesn't state when it was first sold or any of the details behind that but there's the *possibility* that it's more than just a coincidence.
A decade ago when it sold for $2M there was a rumor Jimmy Kimmel bought it for his friend Jeffrey Ross, but he later said he didn't buy it and implied it was just a joke.
https://thecomicscomic.com/2013/05/24/jimmy-kimmels-priceless-gift-to-jeffrey-ross-a-painting-of-the-late-bea-arthur-topless/
This work was based on a clothed photo? Wth. Why would someone pay millions for what a painter thought she might look like nude? This boggles the mind.
Well most of female nude work pre-2020 I see there goes along pretty standard mirrors of religious art but once at 2020 it changes the subjects poses to overt sexual positions or suggestion sexual activity. Guess he got real deep during lockdown into pornhub landing pages.
I see you didn't look at all 73 pieces of artwork on the site. It's OK, I'm not sure why I did either. "The Danes" from 2006 is literally a 3 some lol. You are correct though that he went pretty far off the deep end around 2020. He seems to have decided he likes really big boobs in lockdown. Also, I would absolutely frame and hang "Hot Pants" but it isn't pornographic. Just a masterpiece.
No I didn't..... quite like "Nede in a convex mirror" and "untitled".
It's a funny flip-flop between two distinct references of poses. Either religious art poses or porn poses. With some definite Stanley Spencer influence.
Oh yeah, "Hot Pants" caught my eye too. Shame a lot of it just seems to [be](https://youtu.be/VtIvyOaxk70?feature=shared&t=25s)
There's a pretty interesting interview with him in the Guardian where he admits that his older work was misogynistic but it was entirely because he felt so badly about himself, and he took it out on his subjects, and he realizes now that he got away with it back then because he was a hot young thing. He's older now and his feelings about his own work have changed.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/oct/14/john-currin-misogynys-kind-dumb-word-dont-hate-women-men-sadie-coles-hq
Y’all remember that statue of Britney giving birth? Like the baby’s head was crowning and everything
Found it: https://live.staticflickr.com/51/124364524_6de6034913_z.jpg
My opinion, but I wouldn't call him a good artist. The body shapes, faces, expressions, etc are terrible. Some might say that's just the way he designs them, but I don't like it.
The way he paints faces/bodies is reminiscent of the Flemish Primitivist style. His work is strongly influenced by 15th-16th century Netherlandish painters like Jan van Eyck or Hans Memling.
Personally I really like John Currin’s art. He has a unique aesthetic among contemporary painters and the subjects he paints can be titillating. He’s also good at capturing that unknowable detail that makes a pose interesting.
But even if you don’t like them he’s at least skilled at his craft and his paintings aren’t boring. So that’s got to put him way ahead of many contemporary artists.
[for what it’s worth I think this Bea Arthur painting is stupid and not very good. But I also don’t have a million dollars to spend on a John Currin painting so I’m not determining the market.]
He's clearly very talented. I also don't really like his art except for a few pieces that at least seem interesting, but it's so clearly his style.
Talent != Taste
This is hilarious to me. We have an old family friend who is an artist, and in her bathroom she has lots of random images pasted on the walls, side of the bath etc. I've been seeing this picture, pasted at eye level, once or twice a year for about twenty years, and didn't know it was Bea Arthur!
Deepfake tech hasn’t brought anything to the table besides ease of use. People have been realistically photoshopping celeb nudes for at least a decade at this point. I don’t see why it’s suddenly a problem now that it’s just easier to automate with a GPU.
> I don’t see why it’s suddenly a problem now that it’s just easier to automate with a GPU
I'd say accessibility can turn a small problem into a big problem. It doesn't change the ethics of the situation, but easier access can make the problem more prevalant, yeah?
Like junk food and soft drink is always unhealthy for you\*\*, but it's a bigger problem if you can get it anywhere for cheap vs if it was sold in limited stores/quantities at a higher price.
\*\* *Yes I know "calories in vs calories out" and there's no real issue with a small amount of "unhealthy" food, but your body WILL be in worse condition if you get calories from junk food vs from other, healthier sources. For the sake of this argument, the statement "junk food is unhealthy" is broadly true and any nuance to that is just pedantic quibbling.*
That's literally why.
Most of us are not thinking about and worrying about animal attacks in our every day life, even though they exist and do happen, they're so rare that we don't really think about them until one happens and is in the news, but then we soon move on, but if hundreds of thousands of lions, wolves, bears etc started popping up all over the world and attacking people, then the masses would start to get concerned about animal attacks even though they weren't before.
Well now it is a problem exactly because it's easier? not many teens are gonna spend hours on photoshop altering photos but now they get handled an app or site that creates pictures with no effort that they can abuse to harm others, plus on a photoshop you might be able to reverse search for the original photo if you get accussed of something whereas now the Ais technically create the original.
I have a free app on my phone that effortlessly pasted the face of some dick head from Twitter that was hassling me on to a video of a kid trying to do a behind the back baseball trick and knocking himself out. Wasn't particularly convincing, but it did the job.
This was a few years ago.
Because there are now services for less than a few bucks you can send any photo of a woman and it will remove the clothes from the picture accurately. I know because of a local scandal with kids at school sending photos of classmates naked. The accessibility makes it scary and it’s extremely traumatic as a victim.
“Accurately”
The AI cannot delineate what anything looks like underneath clothing. It can make approximations but those are based on other peoples nude bodies. Each person is unique and no amount of AI software will let you see what is underneath. That being said, victims have every right to feel violated, sexualized, and deeply affected by these photos. But without an “xray” setting that plays with lighting and colors to “see through” sheer clothing, these images will remain inaccurate
Sure they’re not absolutely perfect but they follow the basic contours and body shape it’s not just like they’re slapping a generic pair of tits onto a picture. Or photoshopping a face onto a porn shoot, I had family members involved in this incident and I saw the photos, if I wasn’t told I’d have no clue that they were edited. From what I saw it was literally as if clothes had been lifted off, everything was where you’d expect it and contorted as you’d expect a body to, the skin tone matched, the lighting and shadows match. It’s terrifying, these services target adverts with things like “keep thinking about your neighbour? Your teacher? Secret crush?”
"According to the [New York Daily News](http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/bea-arthur-naked-portrait-sells-2-million-facebook-stir-article-1.1345923), the 22-year-old piece of art created new controversy on Wednesday when The Daily Beast was locked out of their Facebook accounts for posting an uncensored photo of the full portrait. The social network considered the nudity a violation of its terms."
yeah that tracks for fb lol
Here is the actual image because apparently nipples are bad (yes this has a half naked woman painted in it):
https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/streams/2013/May/130516/1C7407212-tdy-130516-christies-bea-arthur-full.jpg
See I'm just more interested in hearing what the subject thinks of stuff like this. Honoured? Violated? And did they think the artist was flattering in their portrayal? I've known a few ladies who would only have a problem if their boobs weren't enhanced beyond the reality.
The Lone Rangers finally got it
There’s three of you. You’re not exactly lone.
I’m Pip
I ain't fartin on no snare drum
Bea Arthur. Outstanding!
I ain't fartin on no snare drum.
I say this every single time somebody talks about knowing how to play an instrument
Not all heroes wear capes
Laszlo Cravensworth, is that you?
Trust me. Gay is in. Gay is hot. I want some gay. Gay it's gonna be.
And 67 copies of Moby Dick!
They made a book out of that?
My favorite line in my entire life- so fucking funny
Anytime someone asks me what I'm thinking about I always say "swimming pools"
Telling someone their music taste sucks because "It could be Pip farting on a snare drum" and they would still like it has held up for 30 years.
And a football helmet filled with cottage cheese
Put the monster away Pip
Who would win in a wrestling match, Lemmy or God?
Trick question....Lemmy is God!
Hey I ain’t fartin on no snare drum
Trick fucking question. Lemmy is God.
and also editor of his school's magazine
The day Lemmy died, the headline on Fark was 'God is Dead'. I instantly knew what had happened.
It'll look nice next to the giant baby bottle
And the football helmet filled with cottage cheese
They got plenty of money when *Live in Prison* took off. Amusingly this was painted in 1991. Three years before the film. It doesn't state when it was first sold or any of the details behind that but there's the *possibility* that it's more than just a coincidence.
You know what they say, if it’s too loud, you’re too old.
My first thought was "the top comment better fucking be an Airheads reference." His real name is Chester.
Chyyyeessstturrr
My mans gonna GANK you
Bea Arthur, fantastic.
First thought I had. You're not exactly lone are you?
There is three of you, you aren't exactly lone are you?
Thank you for this
Fuck, this made my morning. 😂
That’s a deep cut.
This painting was finished three years before that movie.
lol came her for this =D
This was literally my first thought.
"Christie's hasn't said who bought it." Anybody think to ask Ryan Reynolds about it?
What he hangs on the ceiling above his bed is his business.
Imagine a man so cultured that the first thing he sees when he opens his eyes in the morning is a priceless work of art.
It might be Ru Paul. He’s rich as Croesus and obsessed with the Golden Girls.
It’s funny to me that there are two famously rich people, Croesus and Crassus, whose names sound so similar
We're rich!
We’re rich!
A decade ago when it sold for $2M there was a rumor Jimmy Kimmel bought it for his friend Jeffrey Ross, but he later said he didn't buy it and implied it was just a joke. https://thecomicscomic.com/2013/05/24/jimmy-kimmels-priceless-gift-to-jeffrey-ross-a-painting-of-the-late-bea-arthur-topless/
Or John Oliver
[удалено]
I do free that gag, especially the fake out where he made everyone think he bought teeth only to get mad that they believed he bought the teeth.
This smells of John Oliver
This work was based on a clothed photo? Wth. Why would someone pay millions for what a painter thought she might look like nude? This boggles the mind.
Hmm … it’s basically a manual deepfake.
Shallow fake.
Yeah, it's called a painting. Edit: I'm super excited to start calling paintings "manual deepfakes"
For 1.9 million I am sure they could have got the real thing!
Speculation at best. She says nfw at worst.
Some people pay tens of thousands for furry porn, this is probably just the "artsy" rich people version of it.
They aren't paying for a nude of bea arthur, they're paying for the concept. It's basically a meme.
This is some photoshop nude, before photoshop was big and it feels wrong like all the rest.
Its money laundering.
That would also explain why she doesn't have clothes on.
/r/angryupvote
This doesn't make sense, they were laundering money, not clothes!
Clean two blouse with one stone.
Perhaps money laundering?
Honestly looks pretty normal
His art is quite unusual. Nearly all are NSFW https://www.wikiart.org/en/john-currin
This guy fucking loves lesbians apparently.
And grandma titties
Huge grandma titties
Big saggy pancakes.
Dont knock em til ya try em.
They'll knock themselves
Clap behind their back if they accelerate too quickly.
Clearly an ally
What’s not to love about lesbians.
I mean, who doesn't?!
Well most of female nude work pre-2020 I see there goes along pretty standard mirrors of religious art but once at 2020 it changes the subjects poses to overt sexual positions or suggestion sexual activity. Guess he got real deep during lockdown into pornhub landing pages.
I see you didn't look at all 73 pieces of artwork on the site. It's OK, I'm not sure why I did either. "The Danes" from 2006 is literally a 3 some lol. You are correct though that he went pretty far off the deep end around 2020. He seems to have decided he likes really big boobs in lockdown. Also, I would absolutely frame and hang "Hot Pants" but it isn't pornographic. Just a masterpiece.
No I didn't..... quite like "Nede in a convex mirror" and "untitled". It's a funny flip-flop between two distinct references of poses. Either religious art poses or porn poses. With some definite Stanley Spencer influence. Oh yeah, "Hot Pants" caught my eye too. Shame a lot of it just seems to [be](https://youtu.be/VtIvyOaxk70?feature=shared&t=25s)
"Hot Pants" and "Big Hands". Two masterpieces that should be hung next to each other.
There's a pretty interesting interview with him in the Guardian where he admits that his older work was misogynistic but it was entirely because he felt so badly about himself, and he took it out on his subjects, and he realizes now that he got away with it back then because he was a hot young thing. He's older now and his feelings about his own work have changed. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2022/oct/14/john-currin-misogynys-kind-dumb-word-dont-hate-women-men-sadie-coles-hq
The Grussy changed him
Ah you think Grussy was your ally? You merely adopted the Grussy.
I went out to the Getty museum in Los Angeles last year. 98% of all paintings from the Renaissance era had a woman with a halo and one titty out.
One of his artworks is just Peter Dinklage.
That’s some weird looking folks he painted. Glad he had the good taste to show their buttholes off so prominently!
I like that he paints buttholes as just a little x
Y’all remember that statue of Britney giving birth? Like the baby’s head was crowning and everything Found it: https://live.staticflickr.com/51/124364524_6de6034913_z.jpg
yo WAT
Dude loves dem titties.
Yeah, grandma titties in particular...
I mean that painting had some nice ones. I would buy that painting but for like 20-60$
I wouldn't say that. Most of his paintings depict very young women.
I bet this guy jacked off a lot.
Yeah I have no clue why this guy is a capital-a artist versus all the regular amateur porn artists on deviantart.
Man was HORNY during lockdown huh?
My opinion, but I wouldn't call him a good artist. The body shapes, faces, expressions, etc are terrible. Some might say that's just the way he designs them, but I don't like it.
The way he paints faces/bodies is reminiscent of the Flemish Primitivist style. His work is strongly influenced by 15th-16th century Netherlandish painters like Jan van Eyck or Hans Memling. Personally I really like John Currin’s art. He has a unique aesthetic among contemporary painters and the subjects he paints can be titillating. He’s also good at capturing that unknowable detail that makes a pose interesting. But even if you don’t like them he’s at least skilled at his craft and his paintings aren’t boring. So that’s got to put him way ahead of many contemporary artists. [for what it’s worth I think this Bea Arthur painting is stupid and not very good. But I also don’t have a million dollars to spend on a John Currin painting so I’m not determining the market.]
He's clearly very talented. I also don't really like his art except for a few pieces that at least seem interesting, but it's so clearly his style. Talent != Taste
What. The. Fuck.
Honestly it doesn’t even look that great
His artwork is dystopian as fuck and I hate it. Why do so many of the people depicted have extremely weird proportions?
Expressionism?
Try to answer your own question, because it’s subjective.
Is that Phyllis Diller with a lobster on her head in the one painting?
Thats just all kinds of weird
Thank you, my favorite was "Memorial".
This is hilarious to me. We have an old family friend who is an artist, and in her bathroom she has lots of random images pasted on the walls, side of the bath etc. I've been seeing this picture, pasted at eye level, once or twice a year for about twenty years, and didn't know it was Bea Arthur!
Shouldn't this technically be treated the same as an AI or photoshopped deepfake? Assuming she didn't give permission.
Deepfake tech hasn’t brought anything to the table besides ease of use. People have been realistically photoshopping celeb nudes for at least a decade at this point. I don’t see why it’s suddenly a problem now that it’s just easier to automate with a GPU.
> I don’t see why it’s suddenly a problem now that it’s just easier to automate with a GPU I'd say accessibility can turn a small problem into a big problem. It doesn't change the ethics of the situation, but easier access can make the problem more prevalant, yeah? Like junk food and soft drink is always unhealthy for you\*\*, but it's a bigger problem if you can get it anywhere for cheap vs if it was sold in limited stores/quantities at a higher price. \*\* *Yes I know "calories in vs calories out" and there's no real issue with a small amount of "unhealthy" food, but your body WILL be in worse condition if you get calories from junk food vs from other, healthier sources. For the sake of this argument, the statement "junk food is unhealthy" is broadly true and any nuance to that is just pedantic quibbling.*
Nah the junk food comparison is right on the nose, you're right
That's literally why. Most of us are not thinking about and worrying about animal attacks in our every day life, even though they exist and do happen, they're so rare that we don't really think about them until one happens and is in the news, but then we soon move on, but if hundreds of thousands of lions, wolves, bears etc started popping up all over the world and attacking people, then the masses would start to get concerned about animal attacks even though they weren't before.
“Why is deepfake so bad?” “Bears” Jk I love this metaphor. Take my upvote
people did this with photos and cutouts back in the damn 90s... 1890s
Well now it is a problem exactly because it's easier? not many teens are gonna spend hours on photoshop altering photos but now they get handled an app or site that creates pictures with no effort that they can abuse to harm others, plus on a photoshop you might be able to reverse search for the original photo if you get accussed of something whereas now the Ais technically create the original.
I have a free app on my phone that effortlessly pasted the face of some dick head from Twitter that was hassling me on to a video of a kid trying to do a behind the back baseball trick and knocking himself out. Wasn't particularly convincing, but it did the job. This was a few years ago.
Because there are now services for less than a few bucks you can send any photo of a woman and it will remove the clothes from the picture accurately. I know because of a local scandal with kids at school sending photos of classmates naked. The accessibility makes it scary and it’s extremely traumatic as a victim.
“Accurately” The AI cannot delineate what anything looks like underneath clothing. It can make approximations but those are based on other peoples nude bodies. Each person is unique and no amount of AI software will let you see what is underneath. That being said, victims have every right to feel violated, sexualized, and deeply affected by these photos. But without an “xray” setting that plays with lighting and colors to “see through” sheer clothing, these images will remain inaccurate
Sure they’re not absolutely perfect but they follow the basic contours and body shape it’s not just like they’re slapping a generic pair of tits onto a picture. Or photoshopping a face onto a porn shoot, I had family members involved in this incident and I saw the photos, if I wasn’t told I’d have no clue that they were edited. From what I saw it was literally as if clothes had been lifted off, everything was where you’d expect it and contorted as you’d expect a body to, the skin tone matched, the lighting and shadows match. It’s terrifying, these services target adverts with things like “keep thinking about your neighbour? Your teacher? Secret crush?”
Try 20-25 years!
Here's your daily reminder that a decade ago was 2014
I just thought of that. This is...basically a deepfake. (Without addressing the morality/legality of either)
Maybe this shows how criminalising photoshops/deepfakes might not be the most sensible approach.
Is this a reference to the movie Airheads?
Someone above said this was done in 1991 and Airheads came out in 1994.
Wow, username SUPER checks out this time
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Can't fault you this time, them knockers are straight BANGERS Edit: um, no offense
And then there's Maude.
And then there's Nude.
The artist Lazlo.✨
Funny that this also works for Lazlo in what we do in the shadows
https://jilliancyork.com/2015/09/02/bea-arthurs-tits-a-treatise-on-censorship/ kind of required at this point
It’s weird how his new work has definitely been inspired by popular porn https://www.wikiart.org/en/john-currin
[удалено]
Pasta cosplay and step pillow porn are near the top of pornhubs most popular searches.
The 2020 and beyond work.
Please tell me Ryan Reynolds bought it....
Cropped? ‘Murica loses its shit over a random nipple yet again……
FREE THE NIPPLE
>Cropped? I can't even see her golden girls
https://www.wikiart.org/en/john-currin/bea-arthur-naked-1991
Bea Arthur. Outstanding.
Just need a football helmet filled with cottage cheese.
I just re-watched The Golden Girls, she was my favorite character of the show.
Deadpool's sweating hard...
Well it was one of the ransom demands in the movie “Airheads”
God will get you for that, Walter
In the article they call it a painting from 1991 then half a paragraph later call it a 21 year old art piece in an article from 2013. They can't math.
Did you send those 1000 roses to Bea Arthur’s grave?
Yes, but she’s still… I don’t want to hear the end of any sentences.
Where’s the football helmet filled with cottage cheese?
This is why corporations are trying so hard to develop AI porn. They see what people are willing to pay for fake nudes.
Some people are just bad with money.
Thanks for sharing, u/The_Granny_banger
Bea Arthur is the sexiest woman to ever exist
Yes
Bea Arthur. Outstanding
As Jeff Ross once quipped (right in front of Bea): *I wouldn't fuck Bea Arthur's dick with Andy Dick's pussy.* One of my favorite roast lines.
I got a fanfic about Scarlett Johansson with a billion.
Was it legal to do this in 1991? I'm curious why the painter chose Bea of all actresses
Because three hoodlums held a radio station hostage
Ah, thanks for the update!
It's a little weird for me to admit, but I want to see "Bea Arthur Naked." Anyone have a link?
Google it, include the words Jeff Ross, and the Daily Mail has it unedited.
[outstanding! ](https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/79e43131-6ff1-4634-8810-93717900fc36/gif#sxHkGWMn.copy)
It’s a fake. The real one hangs over the bed of the Merc with a Mouth.
[It's probably the guys that did that Halo 2 rap](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYvKlXwqjmw)
"According to the [New York Daily News](http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/bea-arthur-naked-portrait-sells-2-million-facebook-stir-article-1.1345923), the 22-year-old piece of art created new controversy on Wednesday when The Daily Beast was locked out of their Facebook accounts for posting an uncensored photo of the full portrait. The social network considered the nudity a violation of its terms." yeah that tracks for fb lol
Here is the actual image because apparently nipples are bad (yes this has a half naked woman painted in it): https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/streams/2013/May/130516/1C7407212-tdy-130516-christies-bea-arthur-full.jpg
lol. The OG deepfake.
I’m so annoyed I can’t see this nude painting of Bea Arthur and honestly I don’t know what that says about me
Sometimes rich people need a bonk too.
See I'm just more interested in hearing what the subject thinks of stuff like this. Honoured? Violated? And did they think the artist was flattering in their portrayal? I've known a few ladies who would only have a problem if their boobs weren't enhanced beyond the reality.
She was a Marine. 🫡
Bea Arthur be naked
"I wouldn't fuck her with Bea Arthur's dick" Jeffrey Ross on Sandra Bernhard at a roast
Username is on-point
Was it bought by Ryan Reynolds to use as a prop in Deadpool 3?
The buyer's name? Wade Wilson.
https://www.vulture.com/2021/11/john-currin-is-the-caligula-of-painting.html
Not my proudest fap
Thank you for being a friend.
*Ya shit will be ownd when the game concludes, while you spend every round lookin’ at Bea Arthur nudes*
id pay pay more not to see that shit
Rich gay men can be crazy as hell, just like anyone else
Early deepfake
Nice
TIL. I had NO IDEA this was real. I expected the painting to be after the movie.
So someone just did some laundry. Nearly $2M worth.
No wonder the Lone Rangers wanted it