ANTI-GRAPHITI CREWS BECOME VANDALS

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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.

Kai was shitting on one of my favorite arteestes and me.

The only decent thing to do was fire turds right back.

[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.

Kai was shitting on one of my favorite arteestes and me.

The only decent thing to do was fire turds right back.

Actually, it was you shitting on Rumkle, Kai calling you on it, and you then shitting on both of them, over some unknown.

[Doktor Howl]

Bullshit, Dok:

Especially because imitating Banksy wouldn't be that hard.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Well, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Do explain.

Oh don't tell me, it's impossible to do some sort of faux witty/urbane stencil of an elephant on a pogostick and stick it on a wall somewhere.

God, net, why do you always have to be such an artdouche.

That's exactly what I described.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I hit post instead of preview.


I was mistaken in thinking Rumckle was talking about all of Banksy's work, not just stencils.

Kai saw this as an opportunity to shit on me and Banksy and naturally, dramahounds such as yourself seized on the miscommunication to go after me and turn this into a personal battle and derail the conversation.

No hard feelings Rumckle?

[Doktor Howl]

I hit post instead of preview.


I was mistaken in thinking Rumckle was talking about all of Banksy's work, not just stencils.

Kai saw this as an opportunity to shit on me and Banksy and naturally, dramahounds such as yourself seized on the miscommunication to go after me and turn this into a personal battle and derail the conversation.

No hard feelings Rumckle?

I think you owe Kai an apology, too.

[Iason Ouabache]

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 better question is if video games can be art. Roger Ebert says no. Almost everyone else in the world says yes.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Sorry I bit your head off Kai, I'm a bit out of my head with sleep deprivation.

I'd rather read your writing than fap to Banksy any day.

[Kai]

I think people who sit around considering whether something is "art" or not are high off their own farts.

The real question is, will people pay to keep it around, or won't they?

Well put.  That could be mistaken fro a cynical view, but it does get right to the heart of the matter - do people see it as worthwile and valuable.  Sidesteps more annoying angles of the aesthetics arguement.

My own take at the moment is a sort of "Everything is art, but there's a lot of shite.", FWIW.

That is exactly what I was talking about. Art has cathexic value. If it's art or not is all determined by it's value. One man's rubbish is another man's treasure. It makes it very easy to tell what is and what isn't art. And like the internet, art has a rule 34 and 35.

People who delimit art by any other means are just high off their own value system, which isn't annoying until they get preachy about it.

Also, thanks net but I was already given what I returned. I don't need an apology.

[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)

A better question is if video games can be art. Roger Ebert says no. Almost everyone else in the world says yes.

Roger Ebert is a douche.  Bioshock was a work of art, and I don't even like videogames.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

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 better question is if video games can be art. Roger Ebert says no. Almost everyone else in the world says yes.

In Germany they review board games alongside movies and books, according to Wired. I can't understand why games of any sort wouldn't be considered art.





Kai, I agree that art includes everything in the human experience and that limits on it have more to do with value systems than anything else.

I conceive of it as a spectrum with varying degrees of art, where on either side are extremes that can't be reached, hence nothing we can experience is without an artistic quality.

Pure Art ————————————————————— Pure Objectivity
                  ^                    ^                     ^       
              Orgasm             Design             Physics
         & Horrible Pain                              & Math

[Eater of Clowns]

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 better question is if video games can be art. Roger Ebert says no. Almost everyone else in the world says yes.

Roger Ebert is a douche.  Bioshock was a work of art, and I don't even like videogames.

Yeah, thus far the responses have been along the lines of painting Ebert as the stubborn old generation refusing to recognize new media.  It happened with any major art movement.  Cracked has a really good response up by Robert Brockway, and Tycho from Penny Arcade made a pretty compelling argument along the lines of if a hundred artists come together and create something, the idea that it somehow doesn't become art is an odd one.

But yeah, Bioshock is beautiful, everything from the art deco style of the city to the voice acting and storyline.  I do like video games, and there's plenty of crap out there, but how is that different from movies?

I respect Ebert.  He was among the first, and still really one of the few, critics who judge a movie on what it is meant to be instead of its actual worth.  A generic action movie might get a good review from him if it's attempting to be a generic action movie and succeeds.  He recognizes not every movie is meant for the Oscars or acclaim, and I think that's an excellent distinction to make.  I think that's part of why the backlash is strong for his statements - he's a big name for sure, but he's also done a lot to make movie reviews accessible to everyone and not just snobs.  And here he is being a snob.  Essentially by his standards Transformers 2 is art, albeit failed art, and Bioshock doesn't even warrant being measured on its level.

[Triple Zero]

Well put.  That could be mistaken fro a cynical view, but it does get right to the heart of the matter - do people see it as worthwile and valuable.  Sidesteps more annoying angles of the aesthetics arguement.

No! That's nonsense. There's a lot more about art than just being "worthwhile and valuable". Among other things aesthetics. But even more than that, take puns, they're not always pretty, but even an ugly pun can be art.

What's wrong with you people, really? I just said it's more than being worthwhile or valuable. Am I really the only one that thinks that?

Let's take Nigel's beads. Partly they're art, and partly she makes them cause there's a market for them and people want to buy them. For some people one causes the other, and sometimes they're independent. Some people, some of the time, sometimes not, sometimes they are, maybe, maybe not. I'm starting to sound like Ratatosk here, I notice. But in this case I think it works like that.

[Triple Zero]

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.

Hey, if you're so smart you should be able to recognize a discussion that's been held like a thousand times before the past century and be able to present the proper postmodern arguments against it.

Also, once more, like everyone has pointed out, leave the "silly pranks" out of it. Nobody ITT was claiming it would be easy to copy the pranks where he managed to hang fake art in museums including plaques and shit.

The graffiti stuff, however, yeah. Is not that hard to copy.

[Triple Zero]

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?

The controversy starts when people are conflating the Banksy that sprays stencils on walls as graffiti, and the Banksy that pulls elaborate practical jokes such as putting Abu Graib dolls in Disneyland and fake art pieces (rats or insects with sunglasses? I forgot) in museums.

[Triple Zero]

If it's art or not is all determined by it's value. One man's rubbish is another man's treasure. It makes it very easy to tell what is and what isn't art. And like the internet, art has a rule 34 and 35.

People who delimit art by any other means are just high off their own value system, which isn't annoying until they get preachy about it.

No!

This gets to me, really.

I mean, sure, you can have that opinion. Whatever. If you want to define what art means to you whether it has value or not, go ahead. Your loss, not mine.

It starts to bug the FUCK out of me, however, when you dare to generalize those ideas to hold for me. Especially when you claim that it is ME that is supposedly high off my own value system, and that I am the one getting preachy about it?? Fuck that shit.

I don't know what is more preachy, me saying your definition of art may be a personal one (and as personally valid as you like), or you saying that "people who delimit art by any other means" are wrong?

For fuck's sake. Well at least one thing we can agree upon is that it gets fucking tedious and annoying when you "get preachy about it", right?

Just one simple counter example, and maybe then you will learn not to generalize your opinions over all people.

There are loads of expressions that I consider valid art forms that are of no value to me. I still consider them artforms because I know they are valuable to other people. Certain kinds of religious opera singing, for example. I can listen to it, recognize it for its art, its multi-layeredness, whatever. But it's worthless to me, as of yet, right now.

For me, personally, the multi-layeredness in some kind of abstract sense is part of my definition of art. But you won't hear me preaching about that. It's just what I personally know to be art, whether it's valuable to me, or anyone at all, or not.