I’ve got a disturbing drawing for everyone to enjoy. Don’t worry, it’s art, you can tell by the disturbance.

First a detail from the drawing. Not too disturbing, unless you wonder why she seems to cower. You could hope she’s just shading her eyes from the awesome and majestic sight of her lover’s manly prong. But why’s he got her in the empty corner of an empty room? It’s potentially worrisome:

kubin nude detail

It gets a lot more worrisome when you see the whole sketch, which is by one Czech illustrator named Alfred Kubin, and dates from 1902:

kubin beastie porn?

So, is this beastiality porn, or not? And what is that furry critter, anyway? A thousand-pound harmless little flop-eared doggie? I guess it’s safe to say he’s a “beast”, anyway.

You can tell it’s art by the way it grips you with implications, but gives you no way to tell which of the things you infer were actually and deliberately implied by the artist, and which were really just the product of your own fevered imagination.

(This is what happens when you send somebody to a liberal arts college and then don’t make him take any art history or appreciation classes. You wind up almost twenty years later with tiny little art criticism essays that feel like they were block-printed in crayon. Does anybody have the “Flesh” one? The girl in the corner looks a little pale.)