She’s Lovely! I would have called it “Boy” and not “Girl Boy” because I am not certain what that means, “Girl Boy”. You see my dear Matuesz we are all degrees of Man to Woman and to name someone both I personally find the model depicted as a “Boy” the merely happens to display his masculinity in his particular way and fashion. To be both Boy and Girl to me shows a conflict in which there doesn’t need to be. But you as the artist knows only if there is conflict in the piece or not and if it is identifiable a so stated. Now what do think about that My Dear? We can be Boys in heels and make-up and so what? Leave him alone or better yet join me in celebrating the difference…. Thank you Matuesz for your provocative and stimulating pursuit,
I’m not sure if it’s muscular girl or a boy in high heels.
And you are the only one who would know! Now what do we do? claudy
Well let it be a boy!
LOL Okay great! Got it….
I like the drawing regardless! 🙂
Thank you Maxine 🙂
Isn’t the point the androgynous nature of the drawing? This is appropriate as the fashion industry continues to eschew fat in any context on its models, producing women who now represent skeletons more than live bodies. With a knee-cap being the part of the leg with most volume, and legs that no longer meet at the juncture, breasts must also go (unless artificially produced) – the one obvious body-part that was once non-negotiable. No more, no more.
By the way, and should have been stated at the beginning: I love your work. It has a snarky, literary, playful side I really enjoy as well as being beautifully and congruently executed.
Good stuff! Puch the envelope!
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.