pimp my art?

[japanesebaby]

http://www.elitechoice.org/2007/10/09/banksys-graffiti-to-fetch-2-mn-at-sothebys-the-rude-lord-for-405800/


there's this artist in helsinki who recently became famous for doing nothing than this. i've heard people have been bringing even some salvador dali litographs there, for him to "spark it up a bit"... i saw some work he had done and well, some of it it was quite hilarious at its best: like this a majestetically boring grey-ish norwegian fjord scenery... he added a 747 place crash there on the mountain side. and so on.
but actually, at the same time i sort of dislike this kind of culture... it can be good at its best but also so utterly pointless at its worst. it's actually a really difficult field, to do it right and not come across like a complete MTV idiot. and i'm not sure if it ever really works in the end...

anyway, banksy the graffiti artist is awesome. i love those rats of his!

[CureCrusader]

it can be good at its best but also so utterly pointless at its worst. it's actually a really difficult field, to do it right and not come across like a complete MTV idiot. and i'm not sure if it ever really works in the end...

I agree. It's funny but contraversial. 

[Steve]

Oooh, I love banksy.
One of my faves


Anyone ever read about the Paris Hilton CD cover stunt he did?

[disintegration]

 
the first of japanesebaby is very cool! 

[japanesebaby]

Anyone ever read about the Paris Hilton CD cover stunt he did?

what was that about again? i think i've missed that.

but i love those art museum/zoo stunts he did. giving those animals these sings saying "please help me get out of here!".
so true.

[Steve]

He did this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5310416.stm

Some pics here http://gossip.elliottback.com/2006/07/10/paris-hiltons-album-cover/

Careful, maybe NSFW.

[gioez]

Angry Mona Lisa 

[scatcat]

Oooh, I love banksy.
One of my faves

this one is sad, not only because it is by one of my favourite Impressionist artists, but because the local park looks like this, shopping carts in the ponds where the birds are!!! :(
but i guess that is the reaction meant to stir up, a Realistic Modern approach to classical art, that combines the modern life today as we know it to attract views and opinion!!

[Cure Freak]

As to Banksy' so call art,I think  is an insult to the the artists who painted the original. All this artist did was copy a famous work and added to it. And, I feel the same way what Marcel Duchamp did to the Mona Lisa. It's degrading.

[japanesebaby]

As to Banksy' so call art,I think  is an insult to the the artists who painted the original. All this artist did was copy a famous work and added to it.

it can actually be even more bold than that: in the case of 'rude lord' he didn't just copy someone's work but just painted something over the original - thus, "pimped art".  if you just copy a painting and add something to it, it's not the same thing at all. that's much more useless/less effective. i count his earlier works (where he indeed copied the original first) as excercises only. until he moved onto "the real thing". 

i used to dislike duchamp and the likes earlier. i never really understood what they were after. later on, i've started to become really interested in their point of view. not because something they do is great as such, as an act, but because it does try to provide a completely surprising way to look at art. it can truly make you ponder the whole concenption of art, consider what you see, how you look at objects and what sort of values we attach to objects and why we do it - what is it all about, really?
just like john cage with his 4'33. it's stupid i8f you approach it from a conventional point of view but it's actually groundbreaking when you realize what it tried to explore, what it was saying. if one approcahes it in a certain kind of way, it can change the way you use your ears, even in your daily life. because it tells you "listen! what are you hearing right now? how does the world sound like?"
and that's the good thing about these things. they can show us new ways to observe the world around us.
thus i don't think they even try to pass as artworks in the very traditional sense of the word - i like to think it doesn't do justice to either them or the traditional artworks, to compare them and to judge them by the same grounds/reasons. yes i agree duchamp's mona lisa might very well look nothing but degrading, if one tries to judge it from the same point of view than one judges mona lisa. but why should one judge it the same way? it does not even try to tell us the same thing as the original, it was created from a completely different perspective. and regradless of whether or not the observer agrees with that perspective in question, i think he/she still needs to take into consideration the difference between these two perspectives in question. otherwise it's like trying "to use a microscope as a hammer" like tarkovski put it: you can of course do that (=to use microsope as a hammer) but it's not the best choice or tools there and we sort of know it.

no, i don't like this stuff all the time. not even in most cases: sometimes they manage to stir up something good, sometimes they fail miserably. and that's because it's a very difficult field because you cannot repeat yourself at all - you always have to come up with a fresh point of view. :!: and i think that's why many so experimental artworks also fail - it's experimental and not established, the context for it needs to be re-created again and again.
in this respect, "conventional artists" have it lot more easier. they can count on relying on a more or less established background/"support" to what they do, so they don't have to "prove" themselves over and over again. for an experimental artist, this is where he/she must always start.

all i'm saying is that even when exprimental art fails, it's still relevant because at its best it makes us consider our expectations and our set opinions on "what is art?".
because sometimes we might take it all too granted.

oh, currently listening:

john cage: 4'33 

[Steve]

As to Banksy' so call art,I think  is an insult to the the artists who painted the original. All this artist did was copy a famous work and added to it. And, I feel the same way what Marcel Duchamp did to the Mona Lisa. It's degrading.

Well, there is that angle I suppose, but have you ever seen any of his outdoor work like


If you get a chance, check his site & see what he did to the wall that Isreal put up to "stop suicide bombers getting in".

[japanesebaby]

yes his outdoor work is where its really at. 
everything else he's done is more or less like some side projects/more or less silly experiments - thus i can say it wasn't a good advertising from me to start a topic about him with a the painting i did.

his street art is worth checking out. excellent attitude there.

[Cure Freak]

it can actually be even more bold than that: in the case of 'rude lord' he didn't just copy someone's work but just painted something over the original - thus, "pimped art".  if you just copy a painting and add something to it, it's not the same thing at all. that's much more useless/less effective. i count his earlier works (where he indeed copied the original first) as excercises only. until he moved onto "the real thing". 

i used to dislike duchamp and the likes earlier. i never really understood what they were after. later on, i've started to become really interested in their point of view. not because something they do is great as such, as an act, but because it does try to provide a completely surprising way to look at art. it can truly make you ponder the whole concenption of art, consider what you see, how you look at objects and what sort of values we attach to objects and why we do it - what is it all about, really?
just like john cage with his 4'33. it's stupid i8f you approach it from a conventional point of view but it's actually groundbreaking when you realize what it tried to explore, what it was saying. if one approcahes it in a certain kind of way, it can change the way you use your ears, even in your daily life. because it tells you "listen! what are you hearing right now? how does the world sound like?"
and that's the good thing about these things. they can show us new ways to observe the world around us.
thus i don't think they even try to pass as artworks in the very traditional sense of the word - i like to think it doesn't do justice to either them or the traditional artworks, to compare them and to judge them by the same grounds/reasons. yes i agree duchamp's mona lisa might very well look nothing but degrading, if one tries to judge it from the same point of view than one judges mona lisa. but why should one judge it the same way? it does not even try to tell us the same thing as the original, it was created from a completely different perspective. and regradless of whether or not the observer agrees with that perspective in question, i think he/she still needs to take into consideration the difference between these two perspectives in question. otherwise it's like trying "to use a microscope as a hammer" like tarkovski put it: you can of course do that (=to use microsope as a hammer) but it's not the best choice or tools there and we sort of know it.

no, i don't like this stuff all the time. not even in most cases: sometimes they manage to stir up something good, sometimes they fail miserably. and that's because it's a very difficult field because you cannot repeat yourself at all - you always have to come up with a fresh point of view. :!: and i think that's why many so experimental artworks also fail - it's experimental and not established, the context for it needs to be re-created again and again.
in this respect, "conventional artists" have it lot more easier. they can count on relying on a more or less established background/"support" to what they do, so they don't have to "prove" themselves over and over again. for an experimental artist, this is where he/she must always start.

all i'm saying is that even when exprimental art fails, it's still relevant because at its best it makes us consider our expectations and our set opinions on "what is art?".
because sometimes we might take it all too granted.

oh, currently listening:

john cage: 4'33 

I apologize, I didn't know his exact "techniques" he used in his paintings. Still,that dampens my view of him more of an artist.  But again. I guess his  paintings are to provoke some kind of thought into the viewer.   And to make one think. And an artist needs to experiemnt in order to find himself and to develop his own creativity.
And, I'm referring to his "fine art" aintings, not his pitdoor ones. Which, I haven't seen.
I agree, a original painting and one done, in this conceptionl form,  were painted on different perspectives. And should be viewed,entirely, on different levels. I'm just not all keen, of using an orignal work of art and deploring it to make a point.
And I assume ,the point in question, is, as you stated. What is  really art and what isn't?
Which there is no real answer.

Steve: No, I haven't. But shall.

[disintegration]

As to Banksy' so call art,I think  is an insult to the the artists who painted the original. All this artist did was copy a famous work and added to it. And, I feel the same way what Marcel Duchamp did to the Mona Lisa. It's degrading.

Well, there is that angle I suppose, but have you ever seen any of his outdoor work like


If you get a chance, check his site & see what he did to the wall that Isreal put up to "stop suicide bombers getting in".

[Steve]

I was in Bristol for a couple of days during my break & took this photo of a Banksy original

It's on the side of a sexual health clinic in the middle of the city.