Student To Lose Virginity For Art Project

[Camy]

Student Clayton Pettet To Lose Virginity In Live Gay Sex Show For Art Project

A student has sparked outrage over plans to lose his virginity in front of a crowd - in the name of ART.

Clayton Pettet, 19, is set to have gay sex for the first time in a gallery full of spectators for a project entitled "Art School Stole My Virginity".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/24/student-clayton-pettet-lose-virginity-gay-sex-art-project_n_4154703.html

[Cole Parker]

My view is that it's not art, it's exhibitionism. This guy obviously has an urge for other people to see him naked and having sex. I think he needs counseling. And the school shouldn't approve it.

C

[Guest Dabeagle]

What I want to know is if they are selling tickets. Then its just porn. Mind you I have nothing against porn, but let's call a thing what it is.

[JamesSavik]

It's not art unless he's really, really cute.

OK... I'm a pig. Snort!

[Cole Parker]

If he were really, really cute, he wouldn't need an audience, and probably wouldn't be a virgin. But, you know, we only have his word on that.

C

[Camy]

It depends on one's definition of 'cute', not to mention the true definition of 'virgin.' To me cute includes a sweet personality, and this bloke seems like a bit of an narcissistic twat.

Anyway, for your prurient delight, this is what he looks like: http://claypettet.tumblr.com/page/2

[Cole Parker]

Seeing those, I'd have to label him an exhibitionist narcissist.

Hey, there're worse things to be.

C

[Nigel Gordon]

Seeing those, I'd have to label him an exhibitionist narcissist.

Isn't that the definition of an artist these days. Listen to Grayson Perry's Reith Lectures. Now there is one exhibitionist narcissist who knows how to do it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00729d9

[EleCivil]

Isn't that the definition of an artist these days.

You could certainly make that case. After all, they're putting on display the truth behind their visions of the world, opening themselves up for others to view and critique, and expecting that by displaying this part of themselves, the quaking, shivering vulnerability of self-exposed truth, they can awaken the emotions of others. I would argue that art - real damned art - displays something far more personal than simply flashing one's junk. If so, isn't all art exhibitionism? And isn't all art narcissistic?

If the goal of art is (and I apologize in advance, as I can't stand any sentence that includes a phrase like "the goal of art is," because it is almost certainly wrong, haha) to capture a moment in time and share the power, beauty, or meaning of that moment with the world, then I could see the case for this performance being art. But, of course, I haven't seen it, so I can't judge.

After all, the difference between art and pornography is "Well...I'll know it when I see it."

[The Pecman]

What I want to know is if they are selling tickets. Then its just porn. Mind you I have nothing against porn, but let's call a thing what it is.

I was talking to a film cinematographer a few weeks ago about a dark scene with nearly-naked people in it, and he remarked, "what's the different between a shot like this and pornography?" I didn't know. "BACKLIGHT!" he said with a laugh.

I got a kick out of that. (Another lighting joke, but I digress.)