This is a blog designed for you to comment on Julie Rrap’s artworks.
This entry was posted on October 31, 2007 at 5:13 am and is filed under Uncategorized . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
My favourite artwork featured on the site is ‘Camouflage #2 (Raquel). I find the way the hair has been carefully added to her body interesting, highly effective and realistic
I think that these artworks are interesting but the only one that i think is an actual artwork is the one called Overstepping the other ones are slightly wierd . Other than that i think that “overstepping” has a real meaning behind it.
Julie Rraps works are quite disturbing. The message she is trying to get across to her audience in SOME of the artworks is quite admirable but it just isn’t working. Overstepping is commenting on today’s woman and is one of the least morbid works in her collection. Camouflage #2 (Raquel) is unnatural and disturbing and there is no evident meaing. Camouflage #3 (Elizabeth) also has no apparent meaning.
Julie Rrap may appeal to some audiences but definitly not me. At the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney, the tour leaders explained about Rrap’s humour. I didn’t find it funny at all… just perverted.
Julie Rrap is considered an artist, but she cannot effectively communicate the message she wishes to, to her audience through art. This is an essential part of being a GOOD artist. Like an author, if you cannot write well and effectively communicate what you want to say to your audience, then you will not be a successful author.
I find Julie Rapps artworks very out of the usual, quite disturbing. The second artwork (Camouflage #2 [Raquel]) I found very strange because she looks like a wild man beast, something that is quite unsual in todays society as we have little exposure to women that look like something out of the Lion King.
Everytime i view one of julie wraps so called artworks i get shivers down my spine at the sheer disturbing nature of her ‘artworks. The only artwork i find as art instead of pornography is Overstepping. This artwork actually has some meaning behind it. i believe it is actually showing the way the society of today has changed and overstepped the border of where females and everyone just becomes a piece of meat to be examined and judged by the way they look. The rest of these artworks digrace the world of art and it’s great name and historic past.
i like the artwork with the foot and how it is created into a shoe. It makes the artwork seem different and unqiue because it uses a different range and style to create it. The artwork with the hair also looks cool but it’s abit freaky cause i’m not use to seeing women with extensive amounts of hair all over their bodies.
jordy brought up a good point that she/he is right but I still believe that Camouflage#2(Raquel) & Camouflage#3(Elizabeth) are still disturbing, noone wants to see that much hair on a woman or a weird one with horse parts as part of her body.
i totally agree with catcombs. He/she seems quite intelligent and is definately on the right path with Julie Rrap, i know idon’t want to see that much hair!
You know what i think that all of Julie Rrap’s artworks should not only be taken off the school curriculum but taken out of every museum in the world. Because if you did that kind of thing on the streets first you would be bashed but also would be arrested for indescent exposure.
Mattykins is so right. I totally agree with what he is saying. If she is trying to get some sort of message aross she must have something wrong with her cause it aint working!!
Even though I enjoy the effects and brushes used for the hair on Julie Rrap’s body in ‘Camouflage #2 (Raquel)’, I would have to agree with “Smith” in saying that most people would find her artworks hard to understand, or their would be no apparent meaning given across to the viewer.
Just because Julie Rrap has no taste in art and doesn’t know she is quite hard on the eyes, her artworks contain a lot of educational value and can be easily analysed by students. Mattykins … You do realise what you are saying is censorship!! You wouldn’t like it if tv shows or movies you like weren’t shown anymore cause other people didn’t agree or understand it so why should that have to happen with art?
After visiting the museam, a couple of months ago I am still having nightmares. The works are so disturbing they made me feel uncomfortable. There was just too much hair.
i don’t really understand the meaning behind camouflage #3 (Elizabeth). It’s quite confusing on how julie was trying to exprees herself in this particular artwork. The one with shoe and foot is awesome because she has created something different compared to most artists. Although she shouldn’t really display her body in her artworks cause i don’t think many people want to see an old woman naked!
i agree with wally i am definately having nightmares after that excursion i feel sorry for anyone who has to go with school my deepest respect goes to the critics. Smith I know what your saying but I really hated the artworks they were just blaaah made me feel sick.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:26 pm
My favourite artwork featured on the site is ‘Camouflage #2 (Raquel). I find the way the hair has been carefully added to her body interesting, highly effective and realistic
October 31st, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I think that these artworks are interesting but the only one that i think is an actual artwork is the one called Overstepping the other ones are slightly wierd . Other than that i think that “overstepping” has a real meaning behind it.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:30 pm
Julie Rraps works are quite disturbing. The message she is trying to get across to her audience in SOME of the artworks is quite admirable but it just isn’t working. Overstepping is commenting on today’s woman and is one of the least morbid works in her collection. Camouflage #2 (Raquel) is unnatural and disturbing and there is no evident meaing. Camouflage #3 (Elizabeth) also has no apparent meaning.
Julie Rrap may appeal to some audiences but definitly not me. At the Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney, the tour leaders explained about Rrap’s humour. I didn’t find it funny at all… just perverted.
Julie Rrap is considered an artist, but she cannot effectively communicate the message she wishes to, to her audience through art. This is an essential part of being a GOOD artist. Like an author, if you cannot write well and effectively communicate what you want to say to your audience, then you will not be a successful author.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I find Julie Rapps artworks very out of the usual, quite disturbing. The second artwork (Camouflage #2 [Raquel]) I found very strange because she looks like a wild man beast, something that is quite unsual in todays society as we have little exposure to women that look like something out of the Lion King.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Everytime i view one of julie wraps so called artworks i get shivers down my spine at the sheer disturbing nature of her ‘artworks. The only artwork i find as art instead of pornography is Overstepping. This artwork actually has some meaning behind it. i believe it is actually showing the way the society of today has changed and overstepped the border of where females and everyone just becomes a piece of meat to be examined and judged by the way they look. The rest of these artworks digrace the world of art and it’s great name and historic past.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:32 pm
i like the artwork with the foot and how it is created into a shoe. It makes the artwork seem different and unqiue because it uses a different range and style to create it. The artwork with the hair also looks cool but it’s abit freaky cause i’m not use to seeing women with extensive amounts of hair all over their bodies.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:33 pm
jordy brought up a good point that she/he is right but I still believe that Camouflage#2(Raquel) & Camouflage#3(Elizabeth) are still disturbing, noone wants to see that much hair on a woman or a weird one with horse parts as part of her body.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Julie Rrap’s body is not appealing and should not be displayed for public viewing.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:34 pm
I totally agree with mattykins, he seems like a very intelligent guy her works are real disturbing and give me shivers down my spine as well!
October 31st, 2007 at 7:35 pm
i totally agree with catcombs. He/she seems quite intelligent and is definately on the right path with Julie Rrap, i know idon’t want to see that much hair!
October 31st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
You know what i think that all of Julie Rrap’s artworks should not only be taken off the school curriculum but taken out of every museum in the world. Because if you did that kind of thing on the streets first you would be bashed but also would be arrested for indescent exposure.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Mattykins is so right. I totally agree with what he is saying. If she is trying to get some sort of message aross she must have something wrong with her cause it aint working!!
October 31st, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Even though I enjoy the effects and brushes used for the hair on Julie Rrap’s body in ‘Camouflage #2 (Raquel)’, I would have to agree with “Smith” in saying that most people would find her artworks hard to understand, or their would be no apparent meaning given across to the viewer.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Just because Julie Rrap has no taste in art and doesn’t know she is quite hard on the eyes, her artworks contain a lot of educational value and can be easily analysed by students. Mattykins … You do realise what you are saying is censorship!! You wouldn’t like it if tv shows or movies you like weren’t shown anymore cause other people didn’t agree or understand it so why should that have to happen with art?
October 31st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
After visiting the museam, a couple of months ago I am still having nightmares. The works are so disturbing they made me feel uncomfortable. There was just too much hair.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:41 pm
i don’t really understand the meaning behind camouflage #3 (Elizabeth). It’s quite confusing on how julie was trying to exprees herself in this particular artwork. The one with shoe and foot is awesome because she has created something different compared to most artists. Although she shouldn’t really display her body in her artworks cause i don’t think many people want to see an old woman naked!
October 31st, 2007 at 7:42 pm
i agree with wally i am definately having nightmares after that excursion i feel sorry for anyone who has to go with school my deepest respect goes to the critics. Smith I know what your saying but I really hated the artworks they were just blaaah made me feel sick.