ANTI-GRAPHITI CREWS BECOME VANDALS

[hooplala]

Interesting ideas being bunted. 

So, what does make art?

A few years back (around 2000) some artists in Toronto captured a stray cat and skinned it alive, while videotaping it.  They said later that it was art.  Some said no, some said yes, for various reasons.  I'm divided on the matter... is something NOT art simply because I find it disgusting and horrendous, morally reprehensible, vile, cruel... etc.  I could go on.  Or, is THAT the art?  I mean, I eat meat... those animals are probably not treated very well... so where does my moral superiority stem from?  Is the killing of the cat art?  Or is the video taping art?  Or is my reaction art?

Or is this discussion art?

Videotaping the skinning of a cat is certainly art.  Carving an image into the skin of a child would be as well.  They're still morally reprehensible works that ought to be punished.  Being art doesn't make it ok.

That's where I'm standing now too.  I used to say it wasn't art, but I tend to feel it is now.  Just art I fucking loathe... like the fucking Group of 7.  I hate them niggaz more than the nazis.

[Doktor Howl]

Interesting ideas being bunted. 

So, what does make art?

A few years back (around 2000) some artists in Toronto captured a stray cat and skinned it alive, while videotaping it.  They said later that it was art.  Some said no, some said yes, for various reasons.  I'm divided on the matter... is something NOT art simply because I find it disgusting and horrendous, morally reprehensible, vile, cruel... etc.  I could go on.  Or, is THAT the art?  I mean, I eat meat... those animals are probably not treated very well... so where does my moral superiority stem from?  Is the killing of the cat art?  Or is the video taping art?  Or is my reaction art?

Or is this discussion art?

Videotaping the skinning of a cat is certainly art.  Carving an image into the skin of a child would be as well.  They're still morally reprehensible works that ought to be punished.  Being art doesn't make it ok.

That's where I'm standing now too.  I used to say it wasn't art, but I tend to feel it is now.  Just art I fucking loathe... like the fucking Group of 7.  I hate them niggaz more than the nazis.

I don't call that shit art.  I call it sadism with an excuse.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It is a cute name.

CUTE?  CUTE?  EET EES ZEE GENIUS, YOU ARE CRETIN!

HE IS HAVING MORE BRAVERIES AND INTELLEEGENCE THAN YOU, ZEE KAI, AND ZEE RUMKLE EEN HEES LEETLE FINGARE!

ZEE BANKSY IS SO EAZEE TO EEMITATE WITH ZEE STENCEEELS AND ZEE PAINTZ AND ZEE SILLY PRANKZ!

EEEVEN MY WEE CHILD CAN DO ZIS AND MAKE ZEE ZOUZANDZ OF DOLLERZ!

WEE JUST PREFUR TO LEEVE IN SMALL APARTMENT AND EAT RICE AND BEENZ.

[hooplala]

Interesting ideas being bunted. 

So, what does make art?

A few years back (around 2000) some artists in Toronto captured a stray cat and skinned it alive, while videotaping it.  They said later that it was art.  Some said no, some said yes, for various reasons.  I'm divided on the matter... is something NOT art simply because I find it disgusting and horrendous, morally reprehensible, vile, cruel... etc.  I could go on.  Or, is THAT the art?  I mean, I eat meat... those animals are probably not treated very well... so where does my moral superiority stem from?  Is the killing of the cat art?  Or is the video taping art?  Or is my reaction art?

Or is this discussion art?

Videotaping the skinning of a cat is certainly art.  Carving an image into the skin of a child would be as well.  They're still morally reprehensible works that ought to be punished.  Being art doesn't make it ok.

That's where I'm standing now too.  I used to say it wasn't art, but I tend to feel it is now.  Just art I fucking loathe... like the fucking Group of 7.  I hate them niggaz more than the nazis.

I don't call that shit art.  I call it sadism with an excuse.

I would file it under both.

[BabylonHoruv]

It is a cute name.

CUTE?  CUTE?  EET EES ZEE GENIUS, YOU ARE CRETIN!

HE IS HAVING MORE BRAVERIES AND INTELLEEGENCE THAN YOU, ZEE KAI, AND ZEE RUMKLE EEN HEES LEETLE FINGARE!

ZEE BANKSY IS SO EAZEE TO EEMITATE WITH ZEE STENCEEELS AND ZEE PAINTZ AND ZEE SILLY PRANKZ!

EEEVEN MY WEE CHILD CAN DO ZIS AND MAKE ZEE ZOUZANDZ OF DOLLERZ!

WEE JUST PREFUR TO LEEVE IN SMALL APARTMENT AND EAT RICE AND BEENZ.

yeah, you missed the point completely.  Banksy isn't easy to imitate well, he is easy to copy.  Any stencil artist is.  You make a stencil, and you spray paint through it, It'll look just like Banksy's stuff, because he did the exact same thing.  Designing the stencil was a work of genius, sure, but a genius stencil is just as easy to copy as a stupid one.  And since Banksy is anonymous there's no way to tell a copy from an original.

[Doktor Howl]

It is a cute name.

CUTE?  CUTE?  EET EES ZEE GENIUS, YOU ARE CRETIN!

HE IS HAVING MORE BRAVERIES AND INTELLEEGENCE THAN YOU, ZEE KAI, AND ZEE RUMKLE EEN HEES LEETLE FINGARE!

ZEE BANKSY IS SO EAZEE TO EEMITATE WITH ZEE STENCEEELS AND ZEE PAINTZ AND ZEE SILLY PRANKZ!

EEEVEN MY WEE CHILD CAN DO ZIS AND MAKE ZEE ZOUZANDZ OF DOLLERZ!

WEE JUST PREFUR TO LEEVE IN SMALL APARTMENT AND EAT RICE AND BEENZ.

Sorry, Net.  You went after Kai and Rumkle for no fucking reason other than sheer pretentiousness.

If you want to sound like some pseudo-intellectual retard, I'll be more than happy to treat you as one.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Copying isn't art, it's craft. A really good craftsman can make a really convincing copy. Stencils are easy to copy because someone already made one, and all you have to do is make a copy of it.

What's the fucking controversy here?

[Doktor Howl]

Copying isn't art, it's craft. A really good craftsman can make a really convincing copy. Stencils are easy to copy because someone already made one, and all you have to do is make a copy of it.

What's the fucking controversy here?

I'm not sure.  Something about Kai being substandard because he isn't ZEE GENIUS like BANKSY.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Copying isn't art, it's craft. A really good craftsman can make a really convincing copy. Stencils are easy to copy because someone already made one, and all you have to do is make a copy of it.

What's the fucking controversy here?

I'm not sure.  Something about Kai being substandard because he isn't ZEE GENIUS like BANKSY.

I bet Banksy can neither play classical guitar, nor knows jack shit about caddisflies.

TAKE THAT, ART FAGS.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It is a cute name.

CUTE?  CUTE?  EET EES ZEE GENIUS, YOU ARE CRETIN!

HE IS HAVING MORE BRAVERIES AND INTELLEEGENCE THAN YOU, ZEE KAI, AND ZEE RUMKLE EEN HEES LEETLE FINGARE!

ZEE BANKSY IS SO EAZEE TO EEMITATE WITH ZEE STENCEEELS AND ZEE PAINTZ AND ZEE SILLY PRANKZ!

EEEVEN MY WEE CHILD CAN DO ZIS AND MAKE ZEE ZOUZANDZ OF DOLLERZ!

WEE JUST PREFUR TO LEEVE IN SMALL APARTMENT AND EAT RICE AND BEENZ.

yeah, you missed the point completely.  Banksy isn't easy to imitate well, he is easy to copy.  Any stencil artist is.  You make a stencil, and you spray paint through it, It'll look just like Banksy's stuff, because he did the exact same thing.  Designing the stencil was a work of genius, sure, but a genius stencil is just as easy to copy as a stupid one.  And since Banksy is anonymous there's no way to tell a copy from an original.

I did initially misinterpret Rumckle's post. Then I admitted my mistake. Shit happens.

Does it really matter whether a Banksy stencil is an original or an identical copy though?

I get the sense you didn't read the whole thread in favor of badgering me. No sweat off my nuts.

[hooplala]

Copying isn't art, it's craft. A really good craftsman can make a really convincing copy. Stencils are easy to copy because someone already made one, and all you have to do is make a copy of it.

What's the fucking controversy here?

Do you consider Warhol Campbell's Soup cans art or craft?  

(Not picking a fight, trying to keep this thread on art)

[Doktor Howl]

It is a cute name.

CUTE?  CUTE?  EET EES ZEE GENIUS, YOU ARE CRETIN!

HE IS HAVING MORE BRAVERIES AND INTELLEEGENCE THAN YOU, ZEE KAI, AND ZEE RUMKLE EEN HEES LEETLE FINGARE!

ZEE BANKSY IS SO EAZEE TO EEMITATE WITH ZEE STENCEEELS AND ZEE PAINTZ AND ZEE SILLY PRANKZ!

EEEVEN MY WEE CHILD CAN DO ZIS AND MAKE ZEE ZOUZANDZ OF DOLLERZ!

WEE JUST PREFUR TO LEEVE IN SMALL APARTMENT AND EAT RICE AND BEENZ.

yeah, you missed the point completely.  Banksy isn't easy to imitate well, he is easy to copy.  Any stencil artist is.  You make a stencil, and you spray paint through it, It'll look just like Banksy's stuff, because he did the exact same thing.  Designing the stencil was a work of genius, sure, but a genius stencil is just as easy to copy as a stupid one.  And since Banksy is anonymous there's no way to tell a copy from an original.

I did initially misinterpret Rumckle's post. Then I admitted my mistake. Shit happens.

Does it really matter whether a Banksy stencil is an original or an identical copy though?

I get the sense you didn't read the whole thread in favor of badgering me. No sweat off my nuts.

Naw, I read the whole thing.  It's just that you took a swipe at Rumkle and Kai for no reason, and they're worth more than you are.

[Doktor Howl]

Copying isn't art, it's craft. A really good craftsman can make a really convincing copy. Stencils are easy to copy because someone already made one, and all you have to do is make a copy of it.

What's the fucking controversy here?

Do you consider Warhol Campbell's Soup cans art or craft?  

(Not picking a fight, trying to keep this thread on art)

Initially art, I suppose.  In a weak-sister kind of way.  Then craft, obviously, once it went to the printer.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Copying isn't art, it's craft. A really good craftsman can make a really convincing copy. Stencils are easy to copy because someone already made one, and all you have to do is make a copy of it.

What's the fucking controversy here?

Do you consider Warhol Campbell's Soup cans art or craft?  

(Not picking a fight, trying to keep this thread on art)

A painting that copies a real object is usually considered art, just as a photograph of a real object would be. A painted copy of that painting would usually be considered craft or practice, as would a deliberate imitation photograph.

A coincidental nearly-identical painting of the same real object would not be a copy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The original conception and execution of a creative idea is usually considered "art", and repetitions of it are usually considered "craft". So if Warhol's initial conception included, say, 1000 iterations of his soup can, each iteration would be part of the original work.