The images Princess Margaret wasn't allowed to see
Brady Brim-DeForest says: "Found Gallery in Los Angeles is hosting a series of 16 images, crafted by artist Irene Kai in the 1970s. These images created a stink of royal proportions in 1976 when Princess Margaret was forbidden to see them. The artist later slipped a peep book full of the images to the princess. The images are too good to miss." Link
the latest
latest episodes
Once you see it, you can't unsee it!
...takes all the fun outa things, don't you think?
yes, yes, British royalty doesnt have genitals, what else is new?
Princess Margaret was married to a famous photographer, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, and was (like all British royals) a notorious sex freak as well. I doubt very much whether the episode referred to here was anything near as scandalous as Irene Kai would no doubt like to make it out to be.
The link shows "account suspended" - yipes!
I'd like to see the images of Princess Margaret that we allegedly are't allowed to see, that were allegedly stolen from a London bank vault in 1971. Allegedly her Royal Highness is seen in compromising positions.
Allegedly.
Account suspended. Yet another victim of drive-by BoingBoingery.
And now the site has its account suspended...
a bunch of images of parts of the human body (fingers, elbows, lips etc.) that are framed suggestively. Really not that remarkable. Reminds me of the Worm's Assumption Song.
You can take a look at the artist's site,
http://www.irenekai.com/whatdoyousee.html
Aw, I'm not allowed to see it either :(
Oh, the irony...
Does that mean I'm a princess?
meh. She's as proud of that idea as if it were her own.
anyone can be a princess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_-CR8Umy6w
RF! tht rtst's st's hlrs! 'wht d y s?' *c sggstv phts* CCK! PSSY! SS!
t rmnds m f sm f th gms w sd t ply wth r hnds s kds! "Lk! frnt bttm" wt!
No mirror?!
Irene Kai's Flickr stream. Prepare for your denouement. The phantasy is always better than the reality. (In other words cool your jets boys.)
Am I the only one who thinks this is kinda lame?
I mean...fingerprints?
Not the only one, Jaan.
I've seen this kind of thing before.
Executed with a lot more skill. It took me time to see the so called 'apparent' dirty image, rather than immediately realizing- oh, fingers curled like so- oh, lips.
Fail. Thanks Noen, you were right.
you realize these were taken in 1976...
Link seems to be dead....
This reminds me of this this site.
Reminds me of this
ack. sorry for doublepost. First comment, wasn't sure it worked...
i've just remembered - connie imboden's 'water images' are sort of in this territory..
http://www.connieimboden.com/main-content.html
Do NOT to go to the artist's (Kai's) site @ #9.
it has an insipid, condescending, and BORING
flash animation, as the "artist" laboriously
instructs not to judge too quickly!! don't
assume you know the full picture when seeing
only a small subsection!! so ground-breaking,
so informative: not. reminds me of the
worst of Yoko Ono. and that's saying something.
[Some Clicks Later...]
you went to the site, didn't you? curiosity
got the best of you, and you had to see.
"It burns! it burns!" Well, don't blame me.
"Would that I had those 20 seconds of my life
to click all over again!" Look, i did warn you.
I mean, to put the words "C-ck P-ssy Ass" on
the screen, and then say "Oh, snap: you thought I
was talking about the naughty words; I just
meant "Rooster Cat Donkey". Well, if you're
a native speaker of English, why not say
"Rooster Cat Donkey" since 90% of the time, in
English, the 'naughty' meaning is intended-- and
how am i to read your mind? It's like saying
"Damn!" and, when rebuked for cursing, you reveal
that, No, you were merely cogitating on the
majesty of the Hoover Dam. Without context, we
revert to the most common meaning available.
Big deal.
I'm sure there are meaningful and original ways
of demonstrating the danger of jumping to quick
and easy assumptions before a measured appraisal
is mede-- but, to jump quickly and easily, this
artist hasn't found any yet.
There is no doubt about it.
It was the Myth of fingerprints
I have seen them all and man they're all the same.
In TOTAL agreement with #26.
#26 QFT. The artist scolds us for jumping to conclusions, all the while laboring under the burden of her own preconceptions about her audience. Hey, Irene! It's the twenty-first century already! Come up with another schtick or give it a rest, already.
MarkM,
Do you get a lot of positive responses when you bark orders at people? Also, what's with all the line returns?
Reminscent of a parlor activity which used to be called "furtling".
alt0181, you have brought joy to my day