Comments on: Second Best Optical Illusion EVER?

By: sterling

sterling — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:35:21 +0000

Porn? what porn.

By: itsirhC

itsirhC — Sat, 24 Dec 2011 02:10:07 +0000

i love how, in the 4th gallery photo, her feet look a little like the tiger’s pink tongue, lol…it’s a slight stretch, but i like it :))

By: kstormgemini

kstormgemini — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 01:53:10 +0000

First of all… Beautiful work!

Secondly, why do so many people equate any sort of nudity as “porn”? Seriously… This is Not porn. Any more than the statue of David is porn or many other works of art hanging in many of our best known and Art Accredited galleries around the world. But I will Not feed the trolls. Moving on…

Lastly, and I know this will sound juvenile but the pragmatic side of me has to have its say… The poor people being used in this must be Seriously freezing their… Uh… Whiskers off. Hurry up and take the photo then give them their clothes back and a cup of hot cocoa. Poor things! o_o

By: Stefan

Stefan — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:29:53 +0000

In Germany we say Optische Täuschung

By: scott

scott — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:19:26 +0000

I believe you all r OI’s. Don’t because u lack the greatness.

By: A

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 15:38:06 +0000

This Craig Tracy painting is actually three women. While many CAN perform body painting, this guy’s vision and detail is amazing. Additionally, the many hours it takes to set it up perfectly should also be considered. The work is actually an un-retouched non-manipulated photograph of the original live work.

By: James

James — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 18:55:53 +0000

@olivander
It doesn’t meet it at all because it is a painting of a tiger over 2 different canvases. It’s a very good painting but it’s still not an illusion – the painting actually exists, it looks like a tiger and it is suppose to look like a tiger.
We are seeing a woman’s back painted to look like a tigers face. The fact that you can’t tell it is a woman’s back doesn’t make it an illusion.

By: Olivander

Olivander — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:35:26 +0000

And what, exactly, makes the image “porn” in the first place?? The fact that the women don’t have any clothes on? That somehow makes it pornographic? Jesus… not so much as a nipple showing, and you buffoons still call it porn.

I pity the woman who you grow up to marry… once you reach high school age, of course.

By: Olivander

Olivander — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:31:54 +0000

Nice. They’re “whores” just because they’re naked?? What 16th century hole did YOU crawl out of.

By: Olivander

Olivander — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:29:34 +0000

Ummm… let’s see @Binks… last time I checked, an “Optical Illusion” was defined as:
“An experience of seeming to see something that does not exist or that is other than it appears.” What part of that definition’s criteria does this artwork NOT meet?? The tiger does not exist, and it is other than it appears.

Stop trying to sound “smart”, because, really, it just makes you look dumb.

By: llp

llp — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:34:20 +0000

There are actually three “living 3D canvases” here. The eyes are painted on 2 women as well.

By: CCC

CCC — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:55:27 +0000

This was Chinese a TV ad for an organisation protecting endangered tigers in China.

By: chebornik yahkov

chebornik yahkov — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 04:44:37 +0000

She’s smelling her own feline as*hole. And to think I was almost fooled.

By: Glen

Glen — Wed, 21 Sep 2011 04:35:12 +0000

I agree, it is not an optical illusion. It is creative, but not an OI in any way.

By: xzendor7

xzendor7 — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 19:49:22 +0000

Sorry To Say, But This As Well Is Not An Optical Illusion. What It Is, Is An Skilled Artist Using The Female Human Form As An Artistic Medium In Lieu Of A Traditional Canvas