Cruel games farrell

I'm thinking of his work published in Fornikon and Erotoscope for example. There might be others I'm not familiar with. Maybe he was a poor illustrator at best?

I see only a sick mind in the images included in this article, fodder for other sick minds. Yes, the mise-en-scene reflects his inner world. And yes, "horrific" is a good way to describe his depictions of his inner world, but falls short, because even what is horrific, bizarre, can be aesthetically appealing.

Giger comes to mind, to mention but one but not Farrel. The author warned you about the content and BDSM, as defined, but I do not think it fair to say: "Farrel, was not an artist, or artisan", simply from the content he uses to portray. Farrel's pencil work is extremely beautiful. He is able to capture texture and idea in his many scenes. The use of 'erotic depravity' in relatable themes, because anyone experiencing Farrel's art is forced to position themselves in uncomfortable feelings of where they personally stand in the view.

Farrel's work is not designed for the squeemish and I think the author provided that disclaimer. Art and Eroticism is not separated by the viewer the artistic intent is crafted through the medium, skill and narrative that the artist chooses to portray. The context also plays a role which means; who is the audience?

Using Giger as example is more a matter of taste or perspective than a comparison. But I won't get into that here. I have no problem with Marijn including any content whatsoever here, very much the contrary, I welcome it. As far as what is and is not art, it's all a matter of opinion and personal taste, and I claim nothing more. My comments are always just that, my own. Farrel, as far as I am concerned, was poor at his craft. That his pencil work has quality, and texture, is, again, just a matter of opinion.

To me, it doesn't. Not even close. But that is the beauty of life: everyone has the right to experience things in their own way, and to have, and equally express, their opinions, especially when invited to do so, which is the case here. Thanks for your critique JB. I'm always curious about your thoughts. To me Farrel is a rare artist who, because he makes no concessions and is not afraid to explore the darkest recesses of his fantasy, intentionally or unintentionally probably both represents an expression that is close to exploitation in your words trash but still evokes enough intrigue and aesthetics not to be categorized as such.

His work reminds me of Pasolini's Salo still one of the most intolerable works of art I have ever seen which has the same inexorable atmosphere also exploring de Sade and kicks you in the stomach but with reason. It takes you to a place where you don't want to be but which, if you examine your thoughts, can give you new insights. The drawings of Farrel are not arousing to me, but they evoke some kind of emotion and fascination.

His drawings are and were not intended for a large audience. But initially only for himself. Partly because of this, his work has an authenticity that is quite unique and in my opinion goes beyond pornography.. Although I myself do not belong to his specific target group , I am still fascinated by his work.

I think his drawing skill which is off course a matter of taste also contributes to this. Anyway, his portrayals will leave few people indifferent. To keep this short: To compare Farrel to Pier Paolo Pasolini would never occur to me; I understand the way you put it, but to me, that would be to compare dead cosmic debris to the sun. Just to clarify: Farrell's work does not kick me in the stomach at all; it's just dead, like inert, lifeless matter. If I find a carcass in the woods, I don't walk away from it.

The stench does not bother me. I usually fiddle with it, I am curious, because decaying matter usually brings about life; maggots, bugs, ants, etc.

It's fascinating. Not Farrell's work. In a word? It's absurd that there are still people who don't distinguish between reality and representation and condemn an artist for express his imagination on a two-dimensional surface by means of strokes that resemble human figures. Let's agree on disagreeing! Farrel compared to and placed side-by-side with Hans Beller? Please, spare me the heartache! I have several pieces by Bellmer in my collection of erotica, and Andre Mason, etc.

Unless I one day decide to collect what I call trash, just to bring out in an even stronger way the value and quality of those art pieces. But to each its own. It's your prerogative to bundle them all together, if you want, it's mine to keep them well apart. If you consider my opinion absurd, must I also consider yours absurd? Well, I'd rather not, because it's your opinion. Shall we just agree on disagreeing? For me, as fine as Bellmer or Samura, or even Bernhart. There is good art and bad art.

It's subjective. What is being portrayed the subject is often the attack point, not the quality. Farrel, for me, anyway, is a major artist.

Joseph Farrel's work is spine tingling, it makes my hair stand on end as well as other things. The topics position you in the room as if you are standing, in place, watching the scene this is what makes the images ultimately attractive even if you don't agree with the taboo topic being portrayed.

The images force your emotions to react especially with the erotic content, you either look because you want to or look because you can't help yourself.

Which in essence becomes the same thing, only the duration of the look is what may be different. Even if you become disgusted one has to be amazed at how visceral pencil on paper can be. Thanks MK. Indeed, both Farrel and de Sade used the pencil each in their own way to express their subversive views. Well, we, certainly, should distinguish the real person and his art, but we also should distinguish art and therapy.

What Marijn describes here is rather the therapy than the art. Thank you for the article! Your in-depth study and the bibliographic list at the end of this post are impressive.

Thanks Darya. Yes, while I think Farrel is an artist of importance, I'm not saying he's on an equal footing in impact and influence as a Pasolini or de Sade. If his drawings like you say push the limits of morality and aesthetics than he made a worthy contribution after all.

I'm pleased you enjoyed the article! Thanks Mike, did you already check out our article on the enema fetish of Julie Delcourt? What is Shunga? Free stuff. Sharing would be great! Solitaire-Play uses cookies to improve the site. Find out more. Your goal is to win! You win the game only when you move all cards to the foundation the four piles in the bottom right corner. Each foundation starts with an Ace.

Then you place cards of the same suit in ascending order: Ace, 2, 3, 4, Cards are shuffled and dealt face up on the tableau the 12 piles in the bottom of the screen.

During the deal, each Ace goes on a foundation, leaving exactly four cards per pile on the tableau. When no more cards can be played, click the empty stock pile in the top left to redeal the cards from the tableau. Cards are collected but not shuffled and dealt again into 4 cards piles. You can redeal at any time, and an unlimited number of times.