DESTROYING PRICELESS WORKS OF ART IN MELBOURNE
WHO ARE THE CRIMINALS NOW?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/citys-anti-graffiti-crews-paint-over-priceless-stencil-from-uk-artist/story-e6frf7jo-1225858921828
:lulz: :lulz:
Whats not funny is though, who's going to arrest an anti-graphitti crew for destroying priceless art, the art police?
Meh. I think people should just embrace the impermanent nature of some kinds of art. Especially street art, which is under the constant risk of being removed by proprietors and the city. Western civilization has a boner for taking works of art out of their contexts, plopping them in a museum, recording, and preserving them for as long as possible. Which is certainly not inherently bad, but in this case, what are they going to do? Cut out a section of the wall and frame it?
The city could also have somehow protected the site, but I still feel that's contrary to the whole spirit.
1. What Nast said
and
2. Why is it always Banksy? I mean, he is a great artist, but there are plenty of other great Graff artists out there that never get public outcry when their pieces are ruined.
Yeah, I don't disagree with Nast, impermanence is part of art, in a way, it's still blatant hypocrisy from the government though to allow this to happen, and those pieces of mean things to some people. Or something.
And it's always banksy cus everyone knows who banksy is. Trust me, I get pissed off when I see good works of graphitti fucked over that aren't by banksy.
Used to be an awesome one around the corner from my house on the side of a milkbar.
I was totally sweet, but when new owners bought the milkbar it painted over it.
Unsurprisingly (to me), the milkbar shut down not long after it painted over it.
What Nast said. The concept is funny, this is probably exactly the sort of controversy that Banksy loves, it's too bad that it got removed.
On the other hand, it's just a fucking stencil of a rat dangling from a parachute. What's priceless about that? Sounds to me like no other reason than "Banksy made it". Which is a dumb reason. Even moreso since Banksy is kind of anonymous.
It's not like graffiti/street artists that are not Banksy do not create silly cartoonish and/or political-critical stencils or pieces. And their stuff gets removed without any public outcry.
I mean it's kind of dumb like this, either you remove them all or you keep them all, or even just the ones that are deemed "pretty" by some arbitrary standard. However to keep them just because they are "made by Banksy" who managed to market himself worldwide, is pretty retarded.
On the other other other hand it is totally hilariously retarded. So also kind of good.
Especially because imitating Banksy wouldn't be that hard.
Quote from: Rumckle on April 27, 2010, 09:44:54 AM
Especially because imitating Banksy wouldn't be that hard.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on April 27, 2010, 09:44:54 AM
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.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 27, 2010, 01:04:20 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on April 27, 2010, 09:44:54 AM
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.
:facepalm:
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 27, 2010, 01:04:20 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on April 27, 2010, 09:44:54 AM
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.
:facepalm:
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.
Quote from: Kai on April 27, 2010, 01:57:50 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 27, 2010, 01:04:20 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on April 27, 2010, 09:44:54 AM
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.
:facepalm:
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.
More talking with the rectum.
Some of Bansky's stuff is fantastic, and some of it is prosaic bullshit... just like any other artist. Also: "priceless" is a subjective term.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 02:14:04 PM
Some of Bansky's stuff is fantastic, and some of it is prosaic bullshit... just like any other artist. Also: "priceless" is a subjective term.
Some of his work isn't that remarkable, it's true. But, most of it is either pretty great or brilliant.
Most artists go through conventional channels and don't risk their asses to the extent street artists like Banksy do on a regular basis.
And Banksy has pulled off some pranks that Kai and Rumckle don't have the brains nor the balls for.
I do tip my hat to his pranks.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on April 27, 2010, 09:44:54 AM
Especially because imitating Banksy wouldn't be that hard.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Firstly I am not referring to his pranks, or in fact all of his works.
What I am saying is that copying a stencil is a lot easier than creating a new one, or copying a freehand sprayed piece.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 27, 2010, 01:04:20 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on April 27, 2010, 09:44:54 AM
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.
:facepalm:
IT WAS A SERIOUS QUESTION :evilmad:
why couldn't someone imitate a stencil of a rat dangling from a parachute?
Sure enough, Banksy did some pranks that are a lot harder perhaps impossible to imitate, but that's not the art we were talking about in this thread.
The article said that the street crew was supposed to differentiate between tagging and street art. How could they mistake a stencil for a tag?
Tagging really is obnoxious as hell, but I kind of admire the guy who tagged the clock tower downtown a few y ears ago, just for how ballsy that was.
Quote from: Rumckle on April 27, 2010, 02:58:03 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on April 27, 2010, 09:44:54 AM
Especially because imitating Banksy wouldn't be that hard.
You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Firstly I am not referring to his pranks, or in fact all of his works.
What I am saying is that copying a stencil is a lot easier than creating a new one, or copying a freehand sprayed piece.
Well, you referred to "Banksy" not "Banksy's stencils", making me think of all the amazing shit he's pulled off without getting found out, so I hope you can see how I could get that impression.
There's this common attitude out there that because someone's art seems simple, that they could do it too. Totally discounting the whole difficulty of coming up with that idea and making it happen. Pisses me off to no end. I may have to break into the rant market to vent on that.
You seem to be talking about copying his stencils so people could fap to it forever.
My bad. I need some coffee...
No, I understand, creating even simple designs that work can be really hard.
But yes, I was talking about copying his stencils. Not really so people could fap to them forever, rather so you could put a fuck load of "Banksy" stencils up and get people outraged when they are painted over.
a Double-Edged jake... I like it.
Quote from: Rumckle on April 27, 2010, 03:45:02 PM
No, I understand, creating even simple designs that work can be really hard.
But yes, I was talking about copying his stencils. Not really so people could fap to them forever, rather so you could put a fuck load of "Banksy" stencils up and get people outraged when they are painted over.
If someone managed compound the irony factor like that I would be impressed and amused.
Also, I don't think this is the first time a beloved Banksy piece was painted over and people got pissed.
I hope this sympathy for good street art happens more often, and to less known artists as well.
Sure, it's a judgment call as to whether it's "good" or not, but that's a decision for communities, not city lawmakers that paint all graffiti artists with the same brush.
(SEE WHAT I DID THERE)
Here's a different take on the covering up of graffiti art that I enjoy: http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/graffitiremoval/ (http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/graffitiremoval/)
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 04:34:45 PM
Here's a different take on the covering up of graffiti art that I enjoy: http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/graffitiremoval/ (http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/graffitiremoval/)
Ah yeah I loved that video :)
Eh it doesn't seem the video itself is linked in that article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9jyv6WIxUY
There's also a "FULL" version, I haven't seen it, could be a bit boring: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I064sA-5xFU
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 27, 2010, 04:46:59 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 04:34:45 PM
Here's a different take on the covering up of graffiti art that I enjoy: http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/graffitiremoval/ (http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/graffitiremoval/)
Ah yeah I loved that video :)
Eh it doesn't seem the video itself is linked in that article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9jyv6WIxUY
There's also a "FULL" version, I haven't seen it, could be a bit boring: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I064sA-5xFU
I genuinely enjoy seeing the various walls around Toronto with covered up graffiti after reading that article and viewing the video... but I am a fan of Mark Rothko, so that shouldn't surprise me. Just makes me wish I had thought it up myself.
That was a great video. It's one of my favorite art mindfucks.
I watched that last year and it had a huge influence on my conception of what constitutes art.
I already had an idea that included a ton of things that most people do not consider art, but something crystallized when I watched that.
Highly recommended.
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?
Quote from: Kai on April 27, 2010, 07:41:15 PM
I think people who sit around considering whether something is "art" or not are high off their own farts.
And personally, I find myself quite able to bring up some respect for people that sit around considering whether two caddisflies are the same species or not. Funny how that works.
QuoteThe real question is, will people pay to keep it around, or won't they?
Um, so art is only worth keeping around as long as people will pay for it?
Nah.
That's a bit too crappy consumerist capitalist small-minded for me.
It's also not "the real question". There are a lot of other questions that are valuable to be asked. Such as whether something is pretty, whether people enjoy it, whether it's an angle in art worthy to pursue or not, whether it has a (desirable?) effect on society or not, and probably much more. But I'm not an art critic.
That was shot in Portland.
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?
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 08:26:17 PM
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?
Art isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.
There may be "art" about that project, but I don't think suffering should be a byproduct of art. A direct purpose of a work, maybe, but the dead cat wasn't the work's target audience.
As for the video taping, I don't see a purpose to making a new video of skinning a cat when there are likely plenty online..
Quote from: Template on April 27, 2010, 08:35:46 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 08:26:17 PM
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?
Art isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.
There may be "art" about that project, but I don't think suffering should be a byproduct of art. A direct purpose of a work, maybe, but the dead cat wasn't the work's target audience.
As for the video taping, I don't see a purpose to making a new video of skinning a cat when there are likely plenty online..
Well, this was also the guy who's other idea of art was eating only one colour of food for a week and then puking on a famous painting in our art gallery...
Quote from: Kai on April 27, 2010, 07:41:15 PM
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.
Hey.... Which people?
Depends on who is observing. (Art as quantum :lord:)
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 02:14:04 PM
Some of Bansky's stuff is fantastic, and some of it is prosaic bullshit... just like any other artist. Also: "priceless" is a subjective term.
Some of his work isn't that remarkable, it's true. But, most of it is either pretty great or brilliant.
Most artists go through conventional channels and don't risk their asses to the extent street artists like Banksy do on a regular basis.
And Banksy has pulled off some pranks that Kai and Rumckle don't have the brains nor the balls for.
The image in question was a stencil. Nothing is easier to copy than a stencil.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 02:25:45 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 02:14:04 PM
Some of Bansky's stuff is fantastic, and some of it is prosaic bullshit... just like any other artist. Also: "priceless" is a subjective term.
Some of his work isn't that remarkable, it's true. But, most of it is either pretty great or brilliant.
Most artists go through conventional channels and don't risk their asses to the extent street artists like Banksy do on a regular basis.
And Banksy has pulled off some pranks that Kai and Rumckle don't have the brains nor the balls for.
You're a fucking prick, Net.
Just saying.
Quote from: Richter on April 27, 2010, 08:49:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 27, 2010, 07:41:15 PM
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.
If everything is art, then the term is meaningless.
You're talking nonsense.
a;lsdjfo;ia hicken poopc l;adfj 38derp 2;j;; 09uderp ;pq
If art is merely any commodity, then again, why change the common usage of the word to mean "commodity"? There's already a word for that.
When you pay your water bill, you're paying for art?
Rubbish. You're sidestepping aesthetics and entering Pineal country.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 09:50:44 PM
Quote from: Richter on April 27, 2010, 08:49:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 27, 2010, 07:41:15 PM
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.
If everything is art, then the term is meaningless.
You're talking nonsense.
a;lsdjfo;ia hicken poopc l;adfj 38derp 2;j;; 09uderp ;pq
If art is merely any commodity, then again, why change the common usage of the word to mean "commodity"? There's already a word for that.
When you pay your water bill, you're paying for art?
Rubbish. You're sidestepping aesthetics and entering Pineal country.
Translation follows:
*puts beret on, holds cig backwards*
"I'M AN ARTEEEEEEEEEEEEEESTE! FUCK YOU ALL! CRETINS! PHILISTINES! UNNNNNNNG!"
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 09:50:44 PM
Quote from: Richter on April 27, 2010, 08:49:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 27, 2010, 07:41:15 PM
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.
If everything is art, then the term is meaningless.
You're talking nonsense.
a;lsdjfo;ia hicken poopc l;adfj 38derp 2;j;; 09uderp ;pq
If art is merely any commodity, then again, why change the common usage of the word to mean "commodity"? There's already a word for that.
When you pay your water bill, you're paying for art?
Rubbish. You're sidestepping aesthetics and entering Pineal country.
But, wasn't that the point of Duchamp's urinal?
EET EES ALL SO BORRRRRING!
ZEE LUMPENPROLETARIAT CANNOT COMPREHEND ZEE GENIUS OF ZEE TOILET ART!
Now I want to go listen to Nico.
Yes, I know that was a French accent, but... shut up.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:01:19 PM
Now I want to go listen to Nico.
Yes, I know that was a French accent, but... shut up.
I WILL NOT SHUTS UP! YOU WEEL ACKNOWLEDGE ZEE GREATNESS OF ZEE BANKSY!
It is a cute name.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:03:48 PM
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!
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 08:26:17 PM
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 27, 2010, 10:10:52 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 08:26:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:12:55 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 27, 2010, 10:10:52 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 08:26:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 10:05:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:03:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 10:18:52 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:12:55 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 27, 2010, 10:10:52 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 08:26:17 PM
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.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 10:19:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 10:05:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:03:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 10:19:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 10:05:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:03:48 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 10:27:45 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 27, 2010, 10:23:31 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 10:19:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 10:05:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:03:48 PM
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.
:apple:
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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)
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 10:35:56 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 27, 2010, 10:23:31 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 10:19:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 10:05:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:03:48 PM
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.
:apple:
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.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:36:08 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:36:08 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 10:27:45 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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.
:monkeydance:
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 10:46:47 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 10:27:45 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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.
:monkeydance:
Actually, it was you shitting on Rumkle, Kai calling you on it, and you then shitting on both of them, over some unknown.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 10:51:10 PM
Bullshit, Dok:
Quote from: Kai on April 27, 2010, 01:57:50 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 01:12:54 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 27, 2010, 01:04:20 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: Rumckle on April 27, 2010, 09:44:54 AM
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.
:facepalm:
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.
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?
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 11:00:37 PM
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.
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:36:08 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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 (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html) says no. Almost everyone else in the world says yes.
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.
Quote from: Richter on April 27, 2010, 08:49:47 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 27, 2010, 07:41:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on April 27, 2010, 11:02:52 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:36:08 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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 (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html) 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.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on April 27, 2010, 11:02:52 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:36:08 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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 (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html) 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
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 11:17:08 PM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on April 27, 2010, 11:02:52 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:36:08 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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 (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html) 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.
Quote from: Richter on April 27, 2010, 08:49:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 10:19:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 10:05:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:03:48 PM
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.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Kai on April 27, 2010, 11:06:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 28, 2010, 12:29:48 AM
Quote from: Kai on April 27, 2010, 11:06:10 PM
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.
Wasn't talking about you, Zero. Just sayin.
Art is whatever you make it. I remember in high school I tried to write an essay on art and my art teacher laughted and said, "whatever people call art, that's what it is". It has value to SOMEONE. That's what makes it art. Your art is not his art is not her art. It's a completely (well almost completely) subjective enterprise.
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 28, 2010, 12:29:48 AM
Quote from: Kai on April 27, 2010, 11:06:10 PM
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.
I beg to differ, Trip. Some things that
look like art really
aren't art.
I hypothesize that, in the future, we will be able to quantify art, and build detectors that will protect us from poker-playing dogs, sad-eyed clowns, and Blue Boy copies.
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 10:35:56 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 27, 2010, 10:23:31 PM
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on April 27, 2010, 10:19:36 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 27, 2010, 10:05:03 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:03:48 PM
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.
:apple:
I read the whole thread. And I think it matters whether it is an original or not to the same people who were wigging out about the stencil being painted over but happy that some lesser known but equally talented graffiti artist had his work painted over.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on April 27, 2010, 11:02:52 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:36:08 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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 (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html) says no. Almost everyone else in the world says yes.
According to Ebert's definition World of Warcraft is not a game, since you can't win.
He also seems to be confusing the game in general (IE chess) with a specific playthrough of a game (when he says one of his games of chess could be art)
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 28, 2010, 03:10:29 AMthe same people who were wigging out about the stencil being painted over but happy that some lesser known but equally talented graffiti artist had his work painted over.
Who said that?
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on April 28, 2010, 03:17:44 AM
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on April 27, 2010, 11:02:52 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on April 27, 2010, 10:36:08 PM
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 27, 2010, 10:26:19 PM
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 (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html) says no. Almost everyone else in the world says yes.
According to Ebert's definition World of Warcraft is not a game, since you can't win.
That seems kinda funky to me, none of the oldest games out there can be won. Winning doesn't really come into video games until maybe the 80s? Though there's a bit less art to tetris or some early blackjack implementation. (Could you consider Conway's Life art? Though thats more of a toy than a game).
I guess you can win levels or whatever that game has, and WoW does the same thing (though why you'd want to 'win' at hauling in Twenty Bear Asses (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TwentyBearAsses) is beyond me).
I am not sure whether a game itself is art, but that is not relevant to whether components of the game are art. For example, take poker cards. The artist who drew the designs on the poker cards was making art... is it art every time a deck of those cards is printed? Is it art every time someone plays poker or solitaire with them? Probably not. But the original art is still art.
Dok has a point about art detectors... we will never be able to so solidly quantify art that it becomes a cut-and-dried definition. In a way, if we did, we would cease to have art at all.
A lot of my beads are production, hence craft.
Bump after split.
This is only related because it is considered art, but I really like this for some reason.
An artist named Marina Abramović has an installation at the MOMA right now which consists of her sitting at a table, and you sitting down across from her (if you wish)... there is no talking, just the two of you staring at each other. For as long as you want. That's it.
Some people get very emotional. Below are some pictures of the people on the other side of the table from Marina:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/themuseumofmodernart/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themuseumofmodernart/)
http://marinaabramovicmademecry.tumblr.com (http://marinaabramovicmademecry.tumblr.com)
The only thing that irritates me about this (I can't say I give a shit about a single parachuting rat, or even Banksy, though he's done some cool shit) is that they paint a flat colour over "artworks" to "clean up" the dirty streets.
News flash, arseholes! A paint job doesn't stop the rats from scampering around! Graffiti is useful because it lets you know what kind of neighbourhood you're in. It is really pathetic when there is a concrete wall painted grey to cover old graffiti but covered again in nasty tags anyway.
They did apologise...
http://www.nationalpost.com/arts/story.html?id=2961721