Art and Design | Photography | Spencer Tunick | Venezuela

« Spring is Here! | Main | »


Spencer Tunick Celebrates Skin in Caracas


Spencer Tunick convinced 1,500 Venezuelans to disrobe for him in Caracas, Venezuela over the weekend, just the latest in his series of human installations. This time, the freedom from clothing came at the feet of the statue of Simon Bolivar.





Tunick's subjects posed for a knee-crushing two hours. Man I bet it smelled like ass in there. At one point, Tunick became angry at a group of gawkers: "There are some people over there with clothes, get them out of there!"

Moons for the Misbegotten [tr]
A River of Flesh [tr]

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. I sure hope it was warm.

    Posted by: Brian | Mar 20, 2006 1:49:02 PM

  2. Funny, but I hope those aren't your witty captions written on the photos, Andy. If so, I beg: don't cave in and be like every other pseudo-"hot" blogger out there. The witty-captions-on-photo thing is getting tired.

    Keep doing what you're doing!

    Posted by: sean | Mar 20, 2006 2:00:45 PM

  3. Yes but is it art?

    Answer Yes because the creator said it is.

    Posted by: Donald | Mar 20, 2006 3:16:56 PM

  4. I'm sure it probably is art. Clearly some people appreciate the underlying "whateveritis" that informs Mr. Tunick's art. I just don't get it. Of course, I don't get Christo either, but I was blown away by pictures of the Gates. Mr. Towle has a link to one of his earlier essays on Florent and Mr. Tunick’s photographs taken there. I think the “whateveritis” of those pictures almost got me.

    The thing I think I like, though, about this series is having the freedom of nakedness around one of the icons of Latin American freedom. The other nice thing is that the picture was taken in Venezuela. No one could take the same picture at the base of Pres. Jefferson’s statute in DC…we just don’t have the same kind of grasp of freedom.

    Posted by: JT | Mar 20, 2006 3:45:08 PM

  5. andy....regardless of bubbles/no bubbles, caption/no caption....i couldn't help but giggle at something that this represents. in particular, i find it far more interesting than spamela eeeeeeeeewing and bobby on dallas.

    at present, the states is far more comfortable in hiding its diversity and's much better to carry the faulty appearance of steel gonads.

    thanks for the laugh!

    Posted by: ricardo | Mar 20, 2006 4:02:33 PM

  6. of course it is art

    Tunick glorifies the greatest master piece of all time. The human body.

    With our clothes stripped off we are all alike. No false illusions of division.

    Now cristo.....interesting ......less like art though

    Posted by: jimmyboyo | Mar 20, 2006 4:12:59 PM

  7. It fascinates me how society, in this case, many societies will villify someone, and yet, will pass on others.

    Why, in the fifties, did society allow Hugh Heffner to publish and yet others were considered pornographic?

    For me, the fact that Tunick has been given a "Pass Go, and Collect..." for over a decade equally amazes.

    Posted by: Raymond | Mar 20, 2006 5:30:19 PM

  8. I honestly thought these were pics from the Abu prison camps.

    Posted by: Jacko | Mar 20, 2006 5:33:02 PM

  9. Quick! Where's North Dallas Thirty to sanction this as vile pornography and be our Artificial Art Official. I simply can't go a day without a good laugh at his expense.

    Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Mar 20, 2006 6:11:16 PM

  10. I'd LOVE to know what president Chavez had to say about that!!! Bolivar is God to him.

    Posted by: jorge | Mar 20, 2006 7:56:35 PM

  11. Since I first discovered his art, I have always wondered how he gets all these people to disrobe for him. And in Venezuela. I am quite shocked.

    Posted by: Andre Koetsch | Mar 20, 2006 10:56:38 PM

  12. I posed for a Tunick shoot in PA a year ago. It was indeed tiring holding some of the poses, and it was not warm at all, very early Spring, but it was a great experience. And while the shoot took several hours, the people did not smell like ass at all.

    Posted by: David | Mar 20, 2006 11:25:22 PM

  13. Lucky for Mr. Tunick, it isn't up to me to define art.

    It certainly isn't pornography, but I seriously doubt I'd call it art.

    Posted by: Jay Croce | Mar 21, 2006 12:33:57 AM

  14. No, I agree it is not pornography, nor is it art....that commentary is merely " tongue in cheek". Considering the contortion poses, you may be presented with either set....

    Posted by: Raymond | Mar 21, 2006 2:59:17 AM

  15. I guess anything *is* spectacular when done on a grand enough scale...

    Posted by: max | Mar 21, 2006 11:57:18 AM

  16. Y'know, I don't mind Tunik's photos, they're ok as art. I'm just tired of how every time he does a shoot now it becomes major headline news. How is this any different than the last time he got a couple hundred naked people together for a photo? Why is this news, why am I supposed to find this interesting? (Or maybe I'm just grumpy today.)

    Posted by: dnash | Mar 21, 2006 3:10:56 PM

  17. I'm thinking that the headlines are part of what makes it art.

    Posted by: JT | Mar 21, 2006 3:59:07 PM

  18. Maybe it's just the price that makes it art.

    Posted by: Jay Croce | Mar 21, 2006 10:24:57 PM

  19. Last year I was in an upscale area near Berkeley and passed by a Shoppe that partly serves as an outlet for artists to sell their wares. In the window was a large vase-shaped object comprised of nothing more than clear tops to yogurt cans held together by fish line. This no-named bitch was charging $600. What the fuck?

    Nevertheless, as annoying as I find him personally this guy is creating art. My ego may make me reluctant to afford him the lofty title of ‘artist’ but he is creating art. He works in several valid mediums including photography, performance art, & self-promotion just to name a few. I'm always more likely to assess the definition of each piece when I hear the visceral "I don’t want my tax money paying for this crap because it’s unfamiliar or it makes me immediately uncomfortable" cries from the sanctimonious few with a decidedly limited appreciation or understanding of what constitutes a piece of art.

    I would never claim to know enough about art to stand in a gallery and spew gibberish about something hanging on the wall but I know enough to know that art has been around since man first walked the earth and I’m comfortable accepting that it’s ok for art - like so many of the things society demands we choose a pre-determined position on – to defy definition.

    I’m also happy to say that I accept that I have no business being the one trying to define what art is for everyone else if I’m not able to think, feel or speak beyond the type of instant knee-jerk response I had to that yogurt top vase.

    Posted by: Chad Hanging | Mar 23, 2006 1:08:22 AM

  20. Hello one and all,
    As for art or not I would say yes, but only because I know I am hanging in at least three museums right now:Cleveland Museum of Art, Albright-Knox in Buffalo, and in the Akureyri Art Museum,Iceland till April 30th.
    Might have been in Havana, Cuba in Spencer's exhibit there but I don't know what he had on display.
    My wife and i posed for Spencer 3 time in the USA, and I was lucky enough to pose in Lyon lat year. I belong to the Spencer tunick forum, at
    a site for those of us who have posed,those who want to or who are just curious about Spencer's work. The next installation is this weekend in Spain, btw.

    Posted by: Roger | Apr 18, 2006 11:02:03 PM

  21. wow! nice pictures

    Posted by: iowa fair | Apr 19, 2011 7:45:20 AM

Post a comment


« «Spring is Here!« «
»»| »»