dude, just because two works are similar doesn't make on objectively bad. These works and Bourgeois's explored completely different concepts and use very different mediums. Just because they both display abnormal human positions doesn't make it "bogus feminism." And it's fine if you don't like it dude, that's your opinion. But you don't need to be hating in the UA-cam comments section calling another artists work "art fair garbage" Not cool man.
This is amazing, really special
Please get some hearing protection!!!!!!!!! ❤
Straight up derivative of Louise Bourgeois' Arch of Hysteria works, which already derived from 19th century engravings. Bogus feminism for sale.
Great, we’ve finally got a genius who understands that all art is derivative to some degree. What’s your point exactly?
That it's gross, ugly and trivial? That it's art fair garbage made for people who can't afford the real thing? I was trying to be polite.
What connection does this artist actually have to 19th century neuroses? She just recognized something that is lauded and thought she could reproduce.
dude, just because two works are similar doesn't make on objectively bad. These works and Bourgeois's explored completely different concepts and use very different mediums. Just because they both display abnormal human positions doesn't make it "bogus feminism."
And it's fine if you don't like it dude, that's your opinion. But you don't need to be hating in the UA-cam comments section calling another artists work "art fair garbage"
Not cool man.
Not interested in being cool, dude. @hallway-monster