Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
the shot

Wherein Photographer Mike Ruiz Becomes the Object Of Your Affection

THE SHOT — Mike Ruiz, the Drag Race guest judge and “celebrity transforming” photographer, stars in artist Paul Richmond’s latest “cheesecake” piece, a series we’ve been enjoying. It’s only fair, since usually it’s Ruiz giving other folks the sexed-up treatment. Purchase yours here.

By:           editor editor
On:           Mar 3, 2010
Tagged: , , ,
  • 19 Comments
    • tanny
      tanny

      The perspective seems off. His left cheek should be smaller, no? Otherwise, hot.

      Mar 3, 2010 at 4:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • fredo777
      fredo777

      too late. already was one of the objects of my desire.

      Mar 3, 2010 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      I bought “latin boys go to hell” just because of him….very nice

      Mar 3, 2010 at 6:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • j
      j

      What’s a horribly bad painting. And that’s without getting into the technical aspect, which is amatuer at best. Object of my affection I think not.

      Mar 3, 2010 at 7:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MB
      MB

      People with bad grammar should think twice before being critical of others.

      Mar 3, 2010 at 8:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • j
      j

      I think the fact that I’ve been painting for a decade to a much higher standard than this man would give more credentials to be critical than good grammar. Look at the left leg where his trousers are ripped, it’s painted like a plank of wood and its going straight, whereas the rest of the leg is spread out and poorly foreshortened, they don’t match up at all. It’s only one of so many awkward details that make this painting look so inept. The proportioning is rediculous and the tonal work is absolutely nothing you wouldn’t see in any foundation art course, but of course because he’s painting a man trying to look slutty it’s beyond reproach.

      Mar 3, 2010 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      So, J… when can I see your exhibit in the Prado?

      Mar 3, 2010 at 10:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David
      David

      The painting doesn’t look so much like Mike Ruiz. It looks more like a Japanese guy.

      Mar 4, 2010 at 1:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bunny Snuggles
      Bunny Snuggles

      @j:

      So what? So maybe it is a bit stylistic, but who says it has to look photo-realistic. You probably think that El Grecco had an atrocious sense of proportion too because of his attenuated modeling of the human form.

      Enjoy it or don’t enjoy it, but there’s no point in being petty. If the artist wants to paint his subject with three ass-cheeks, four legs and eight square nuts — let him. Perhaps, some four-legged, three ass-cheeked and eight square testicled Gay boy, or an aficionado of four-legged, three ass-cheeked and eight square bejeweled men, may be inspired by it. Good for them! Variety is the spice of life.

      Mar 4, 2010 at 1:37 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • j
      j

      @Bunny Snuggles: Oh no, of course I don’t. El Greco’s sense of proportion was distorted to enhance his compositions and not because of ineptitude. I think accusing any mannerist painter of ineptitude because their sense of proportion was unnatural is a good way to put yourself on the losing side of an argument. When ingres’ Le Grande Odalesque was first exhibited people balked at it for the very same reasons as they had the mannerists and now we see it as the masterpiece it is. I doubt this painting will be following in its footsteps.

      @Ricky: Hmm, when I’m dead I assume? I’ve been exhibited plently of other places, mind you when we exist in an establishment that also exhibits “pieces” like “This is not an oak tree” I suppose that doesn’t ammount to much, eh?

      Mar 4, 2010 at 7:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ricky
      Ricky

      J, one man’s art is another man’s trash. You have an artistic edge (maybe… I don’t know you so I am going off of what you say which I honestly have no reason to doubt) and that’s cool. Still, keep in mind that others may look at the above picture and be awestruck at how “good” it is. I assure you that I am not one of those people. But it says alot about an artist when they have to inform other viewers about the “flaws” of another artist’s work. It doesn’t come off as informative… it comes off as catty and petty.

      Mar 4, 2010 at 7:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • REBELComx
      REBELComx

      Maybe it’s just for a gratuitous ass shot, but really? Again with the unnecessary close up? This guy’s work isn’t detailed enough to warrant a fuller viewing. There is more detail in the texture of the canvas itself. I’ve seen better stuff on DeviantArt.
      J, speaking as a fellow artist, I suggest you take heart. If this guy’s bland and amateur crap can be posted all over the web, yours can too. LOL. Speaking of which, Queerty, still waiting for you to share the web comic “Rise of the Pink Ninjas: A Gay Fantasia”, written by Sean McGrath with all artwork by moi. Ya know… like you told Sean you were going to nearly a month ago.
      Anyone interested can check it out at Sean’s blog – http://www.orthocomics.com

      Mar 4, 2010 at 8:26 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bunny Snuggles
      Bunny Snuggles

      @j:

      Mannerist paintings contained artificial color and unrealistic spatial proportions. Figures were often elongated and exaggerated. So, like El Greco, that was, according to you, their intent and not a mask for ineptitude as you claim is the case with the Queerty featured artist.

      Oddly enough, some experts have claimed that El Greco suffered from an astigmatism (which would explain his consistency in stretching out the entire tableau of his paintings. Van Gogh may have had another eye disorder (my optician mentioned that one) such as cataracts which caused him to see a great deal of yellow in things and also made him overcompensate and exaggerate the vivid blues in his painting. And every schoolboy knows about Monet’s myopia. Perhaps these idiosyncrasies were not as “mannered” nor as intentionally “stylized” as some people had once thought. Perhaps, at least in these few examples, their disabilities helped create their “style”.

      Regardless, an artist is to his/her work what a poet is to their poetry. If you don’t like it…if it doesn’t speak to you personally…or if it offends your own personal sense of aesthetics, then just move on to something else which does agree with your own very highly subjective tastes.

      ===========

      @Ricky… ditto…I agree, I believe slamming other people’s artwork is shallow, catty and petty too. Since art is so personal and it bears the signature of the physical expression of one’s heart and soul, to publicly assassinate another artist’s works is like a high school girl dissing the other girls at the prom in order to make herself look better. Very immature and insecure to boot. It also comes across as sour grapes masking personal and/or professional failures.

      Mar 4, 2010 at 8:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Georgy Pie
      Georgy Pie

      I think he just farted, tore his jeans. It was a big blast of a fart.

      Mar 4, 2010 at 10:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • MissTransSylvaniaTV
      MissTransSylvaniaTV

      That’s a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad painting… Geez. Hope his photos are better than that.

      Mar 4, 2010 at 10:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • j
      j

      @Bunny Snuggles: See, this idea that its immature to criticise a work of art is exactly what’s lead to the climate in which alot of this poor work can be exhibited. Look at your local art gallery and you’ll see alot of “work” that was made with very little actual training. This idea that all artists are above criticism because “art is personal and sure what is art anyway? Anything can be art and its art if I say it is because I like to look at it”, and on, and on.

      @REBELComx: Hahah, see I think the only reason that it IS posted all over the internet is that its so gratuitus (not that I’m a prude lol). If this man wasn’t painting what he was but painting say, landscapes with the same amount of skill he’d be getting nowhere. If you wanna see GOOD art, that just so happens to be gay look at Caravaggio, or Bacon.

      But yeah, I don’t think there’s much more that could be said here, and this’s falling down the homepage and I don’t think I’ll look for it anymore. :P

      Long live art!

      Mar 4, 2010 at 12:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeremy Hodges
      Jeremy Hodges

      @j: I invite/beg you to post a link to your artwork because I need a good laugh, and people who are all talk crack me up. Until then, I’m going to continue assuming that the Mike Ruiz painting kicks its ass.

      Mar 4, 2010 at 5:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rob Moore
      Rob Moore

      Am I mistaken in thinking this was supposed to be a funny thing? It is funny and a little cute, but only if it is supposed to be that way. If it is supposed to be quality art, I don’t see it.

      Apr 18, 2010 at 4:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Carlos M
      Carlos M

      I love paintings and pin-ups, and this is really low quality and amateurish, and a lousy ripoff of the great 50s pin up girls. Someone should sue this guy for copyright.
      Just my 2 cents.

      Sep 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.