sentient Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 i've never posted anything in the few years that i've been coming to the 12oz forum but after this thread appeared i felt inclined to do so. anyway, i think that be@rbricks and kubricks are some of the best toys i've ever seen, wish i had some when i was a kid, but it seems that owning one is about as cool as owning a trucker cap. even if i had the money i wouldn't buy one. as far as the KAWS toy/art goes: perhaps it is up to the artist whether or not his/her creation is art ("this is my art"). maybe it's up to the consumer that imposes the notion of art on an object ("the purpose of this thing is art"). but i gotta believe that noone would be too excited about a 4 year old playing in a puddle with his 140 dollar piece of art (or investment, if that's his purpose in art). frank zappa said something along these lines: if someone can create something and present it in a manner that will prompt others to perceive it as "art" then for all intents and purposes it is "art". provided that the creator put a boundary on his/her art (i.e. saying "this is my art" or framing it). otherwise, what's that shit on the wall? peace, addingonertoeverythingisstupidasfuckoner (i've wanted to do that for a while) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
»§ÜGÅR« Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 the kaws doll is hotness, BUT, for 140$ it better make pasta and deliver drinks, because that's a lot of loot for plastic.:eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanity Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 *shrug* whatever... only suckers and investors buy art (or "art"), one side is cool, the other is funny. get your's, just don't get a big head and yeah, it's kind of a boring doll.... i'd prolly rack one if i saw it at some broad's party or something, but i can't say i'd drop more than a fiver on it, other than for investment purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by bored I've been reading this board and feel that I wanted to address the post by Joker... ...I am not familiar with your work...I'm not saying this to diss you or what you've done, I'm just being totally honest. After writing this, I'm not sure if it really clears up anything. I just needed to include my point of view. KAWS.. i find it kind of interesting that after i was far more outspoken than anyone else in this thread, and by far the most critical (yet still in an intelligent manner) that you would reply solely to joker. at first it made sense, because his name is the one that holds the most weight, but then i got to the second half... i honestly dont even know what to say to that. 'you're kidding right?' fails to adress the ridiculousness of your claim. and i'm not even saying that out of respect to joker personally, but simply out of respect to 'graffiti' in general. how could you possibly come up on the east coast, in the 90's, and not know who joker is? i also find it interesting that you would even bother to create a name and attempt to 'clear up' some things, yet not address any of the major claims anyone has made. you dont owe us anything, so why even make the effort if not to actually make an effort? and again, you dont owe us any answers, but if 'we' arent your intended audience, then who is? if you dont care about our respect, who's do you care about? village voice? 'nylon'? your agent? seeks/since i couldnt just let it go at '...whoa...' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest diggity Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 I am very hesitant to even reply to this thread filled with nonsense but i figure why not add my hate, I do have a BFA and sat through many art history classes and a philosophy of aesthetics class. I honestly dont see a comparison between kaws and duchamp other than the fact that they both are professional artists. In my mind there's only one piece of art that could be purchased and that would be the version that the mold or whatever is produced from, all those there after are just reproductions, they aren't the true original concepts but reproductions of that. As far as the price goes, it's more than I would pay. I dont get much from Kaws's work. It doesnt make me think, it doesnt make me question what art is, Duchamp killed the artworld with that one back in 1917. He went through several movments and was at the forefront of all of them. Granted this is being discussed by the graffiti art nerds on this forum. I dont think the post-modern art world is shaking in its boots at the release of this sentifact (any item made by a being that is aware of itself and its enviroment) or even turning its head. So "The Fountain" was brought up, Duchamp was saying that beauty/art can be found in everyday objects/readymades. But theres a catch, there must be a preceptual shift, which is what he was doing by submitting the fountain as a piece of artwork after adding a fake name to it. It's also believed that he chose this subject because of its link to buddist ideals and when looked at, at the correct angle, its inner shape ressembles a siloette of a fat buddah monk. The Simpsons are already considered as art and cells are sold as such. So maybe Kaws is calling it Chompers since its a big bite on Simpsons characters and that possibly could be compared to duchamps "L.H.O.O.Q." so its a play on words, in that they are both a play on words. It is fairly priced when you look at limited reproductions of paintings/illustrations/whatever. My only issue with the KAWS CHOMPERS is the fact that there isn't a limit on how many are made other than by the number ordered. If it were a limited edition, capped off at say 200 or less then whatever, however it doesnt say that its limited to one run, although I would assume it was. I again question this since he isn't reproducing these himself and I havent seen anything making me believe that the toy company wouldn't later reproduce the toys themself, although I'm sure its in some agreement with them. I currently see the graffiti art world in the same eyes as the Folk Art world, theres good stuff in there, and they will be recorded and what not, but never respected much as high art. If he ends up in a museum, I'm sure it'll be probably because of Shepard Fairey paving the way for such. I don't see how your work isn't related to your graff work when its the jollyrogger that you were painting on billboards. Until you move on from that icon, I can't see it's not related other than it not being done illegally, much like how other graff writers do canvases. Even Basquiat was considered a graffiti artist when his work was further from the graff world than where yours is, and he wasnt going by his tag name. "just cause duchamps work became famous doesnt mean hes good, it just means a million people are stupid and lame as fuck." This is the dumbest, most uneducated statement in this entire thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bored Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 seeking: Yes, you were far more outspoken than most on this thread, but your opinions flopped back and forth so much that I couldn't tell what you were trying to say. Have you actually gone back and read all your posts? In one of your last posts, you expressed feeling betrayed. What can I really say to this? I've always done what I was interested in doing. I never think about who I am pleasing or not pleasing when I am making work. You use the words "us", "we", & "intended audience", and I don't even think about this when I'm creating work, I never did. When I painted walls or freights, I wasn't like "Oh, I hope I'm pleasing other graff artists". I did it cause it's what I felt like doing. And when I was doing walls, I never thought of it as me doing graffiti, it was always just painting. I don't contrive work to fit an "intended audience". And at the same time, I never feel like any other graff artists/other artists owe me anything. KAWS.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sTress Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 !!! "just cause duchamps work became famous doesnt mean hes good, it just means a million people are stupid and lame as fuck." this sentence itself is a great piece of art in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sTress Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by diggity I am very hesitant to even reply to this thread filled with nonsense but i figure why not add my hate, I do have a BFA and sat through many art history classes and a philosophy of aesthetics class. I honestly dont see a comparison between kaws and duchamp other than the fact that they both are professional artists. In my mind there's only one piece of art that could be purchased and that would be the version that the mold or whatever is produced from, all those there after are just reproductions, they aren't the true original concepts but reproductions of that. As far as the price goes, it's more than I would pay. I dont get much from Kaws's work. It doesnt make me think, it doesnt make me question what art is, Duchamp killed the artworld with that one back in 1917. He went through several movments and was at the forefront of all of them. Granted this is being discussed by the graffiti art nerds on this forum. I dont think the post-modern art world is shaking in its boots at the release of this sentifact (any item made by a being that is aware of itself and its enviroment) or even turning its head. So "The Fountain" was brought up, Duchamp was saying that beauty/art can be found in everyday objects/readymades. But theres a catch, there must be a preceptual shift, which is what he was doing by submitting the fountain as a piece of artwork after adding a fake name to it. It's also believed that he chose this subject because of its link to buddist ideals and when looked at, at the correct angle, its inner shape ressembles a siloette of a fat buddah monk. The Simpsons are already considered as art and cells are sold as such. So maybe Kaws is calling it Chompers since its a big bite on Simpsons characters and that possibly could be compared to duchamps "L.H.O.O.Q." so its a play on words, in that they are both a play on words. It is fairly priced when you look at limited reproductions of paintings/illustrations/whatever. My only issue with the KAWS CHOMPERS is the fact that there isn't a limit on how many are made other than by the number ordered. If it were a limited edition, capped off at say 200 or less then whatever, however it doesnt say that its limited to one run, although I would assume it was. I again question this since he isn't reproducing these himself and I havent seen anything making me believe that the toy company wouldn't later reproduce the toys themself, although I'm sure its in some agreement with them. I currently see the graffiti art world in the same eyes as the Folk Art world, theres good stuff in there, and they will be recorded and what not, but never respected much as high art. If he ends up in a museum, I'm sure it'll be probably because of Shepard Fairey paving the way for such. I don't see how your work isn't related to your graff work when its the jollyrogger that you were painting on billboards. Until you move on from that icon, I can't see it's not related other than it not being done illegally, much like how other graff writers do canvases. Even Basquiat was considered a graffiti artist when his work was further from the graff world than where yours is, and he wasnt going by his tag name. On point. I believe that kaws work, if you want look it from the art world, is really the language of graffiti. If your work is a candidate to artdom (?), then it's read in terms of semiotics unavoidably, and especially when its illustration or drawing, which are so close to scripture. And when I see kaws, i first see graffiti and what it implies: subversion, fashion, popculture. But what i would like to add , is that today you cannot make a serious distinction between highart and lowart. Ok, kaws is not (yet?) part of the biennals and international art scene, he seems more in the mix of art/design/fashion. Its obviously difficult today to distinct hierarchies in culture, everything is at the same time marginal AND mainstream, its the case for contemporary art. Im also very concerned with graffiti, because most of the mixes with graff and "serious" art have been merely pop-art ghosts: a displacement of graffiti semiotics in an art context, and we have had too much "displacements" its boring now. I said it before, but the most artisticaly-valid move that has been made yet i think is KR selling Krink. do i make sense?,i would have more things to say but i think diggity already said it well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sTress Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Hand DOES THE DOLL HAVE ANY ORIFICES ThAT WOULD RENDER IT SUITABLE TO USE AS A SEX TOY? hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by bored ...your opinions flopped back and forth so much that I couldn't tell what you were trying to say. Have you actually gone back and read all your posts? i was saying two things the entire time. 1. 'art' and 'value' are subjective to the individual, so complaining that your piece is not worth the charged price, based on the perceived 'quality' of the piece, is a waste of time. if you call it art, then i'll defend it as being 'art', i just wont necessarily say it's art that i feel any sort of connection to. 2. that i found little merrit in most the stuff you were doing these past few years, and felt it was pretty hollow. that you turned your back on the same culture that helped get you where you are now. and as i said, this was based largely on interviews and articles over the last 5 or so years. if i seemed to 'flip-flop' it was because i tried to be fair about things, and look at it as objectively as possible. things dont have to be hardline. i can feel you've used a gimmik to get over, and yet still respect or defend other things youve done. this is art, nothing is black and white. i know you and raven are friends, and just based on my respect for him, i try and give you the benefit of the doubt. also, i never lose sight of the fact that 'benefit of the doubt' implies that im in a position to judge you, which despite the fact ive obviously done it, im still not comfortable with. i got into this debate because of the implications it has on modern art as a whole, and my feelings about it. not so i could tear you down or necesarilly insult you. as i said in one of my first posts, i dont know you. all i know is the 'product' you put forth, both in your work, and in your presentation of yourself. is it my place to say? maybe not, but when you become a public figure, its inevidable. if you truly are doing things just for you, and dont give a shit what people think, then more power to you. i find that incredibly hard to believe just based on human nature alone, but if its the truth, then i respect that. it probably wont make me buy a chomper to pass down to my grandchildren, but you made it for you, not me, so it doesnt really matter, does it. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunm Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 KAWS, didn't you think it was a little rude to tell Joker to come back in twenty minutes and then act horribly inconvenienced when he came back at said time for a quick tag in his book? Surely an artist such as yourself realizes that a person sitting upon a lofty perch of accomplishment should fufill a certain obligation to his/her fans when it comes to granting them a moment of attention? Jerkoffs with no sense of patience or conversational timing nonwithstanding however..... Regardless, I really admire your work and I've got a few of your figures glaring down from a shelf overlooking my bed at home. Keep it coming. Less glamor, more bus stop subterfuge.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModelCitizen Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Worth a shot Graffiti relevance aside, I'd be interested in hearing what KAWS has to say about his chomper things being art or not. No one's trying to edit any statements out here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serum Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 i think the biggest confusion going on here, comes down to art vs design. art to me is fine art. a perfected skill in a basic medium used to create something. in particular creating something from nothing. design is taking objects like canned goods, tissue boxes, stickers, toys, shoes whatever and putting a design on them. hello kitty pencil case is far from art and dick bruner is not a stationary artist. its design. that is basically what 'legal graffiti' [for lack of a better term] is outside of actually painting graff. writers make up the majority of graphic design majors at the art schools. t-shirts, stickers, whatever product is being sold is design. limit it to 100 its a limited designed product. art?? i don't think so. not to take anything away from kaws. shit he gives us an example of what can come from graffiti. as well as espo, twist, reas, shepard fairy. milk it whatever way you want. you want to make toys, people are willing to pay $140 for a big piece of plastic, go for it. its kind of hard to get your $ and keep respect at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatbastard Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 in the time it took to say "come-back-in twenty-minutes" the tag could have been finished...serisouly writers should be honoured having their tags asked for... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatbastard Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 and also really arrogant writers really piss me off, like the big shots who in their own minds are like gods gift.... its like big fucking deal you sprayed a bunch of coloured letters on a wall/train etc what a bigg fucking accomplishment... they deserve respect to an extent, but to be treated differently? HELL NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by diggity I am very hesitant to even reply to this thread filled with nonsense but i figure why not add my hate, I do have a BFA and sat through many art history classes and a philosophy of aesthetics class. I honestly dont see a comparison between kaws and duchamp other than the fact that they both are professional artists. In my mind there's only one piece of art that could be purchased and that would be the version that the mold or whatever is produced from, all those there after are just reproductions, they aren't the true original concepts but reproductions of that. As far as the price goes, it's more than I would pay. I dont get much from Kaws's work. It doesnt make me think, it doesnt make me question what art is, Duchamp killed the artworld with that one back in 1917. He went through several movments and was at the forefront of all of them. Granted this is being discussed by the graffiti art nerds on this forum. I dont think the post-modern art world is shaking in its boots at the release of this sentifact (any item made by a being that is aware of itself and its enviroment) or even turning its head. So "The Fountain" was brought up, Duchamp was saying that beauty/art can be found in everyday objects/readymades. But theres a catch, there must be a preceptual shift, which is what he was doing by submitting the fountain as a piece of artwork after adding a fake name to it. It's also believed that he chose this subject because of its link to buddist ideals and when looked at, at the correct angle, its inner shape ressembles a siloette of a fat buddah monk. The Simpsons are already considered as art and cells are sold as such. So maybe Kaws is calling it Chompers since its a big bite on Simpsons characters and that possibly could be compared to duchamps "L.H.O.O.Q." so its a play on words, in that they are both a play on words. It is fairly priced when you look at limited reproductions of paintings/illustrations/whatever. My only issue with the KAWS CHOMPERS is the fact that there isn't a limit on how many are made other than by the number ordered. If it were a limited edition, capped off at say 200 or less then whatever, however it doesnt say that its limited to one run, although I would assume it was. I again question this since he isn't reproducing these himself and I havent seen anything making me believe that the toy company wouldn't later reproduce the toys themself, although I'm sure its in some agreement with them. I currently see the graffiti art world in the same eyes as the Folk Art world, theres good stuff in there, and they will be recorded and what not, but never respected much as high art. If he ends up in a museum, I'm sure it'll be probably because of Shepard Fairey paving the way for such. I don't see how your work isn't related to your graff work when its the jollyrogger that you were painting on billboards. Until you move on from that icon, I can't see it's not related other than it not being done illegally, much like how other graff writers do canvases. Even Basquiat was considered a graffiti artist when his work was further from the graff world than where yours is, and he wasnt going by his tag name. This is the dumbest, most uneducated statement in this entire thread. This thread is seriously spiraling out of control. I know my intention was misread with the reference to Duchamp, and I'm guessing so was Kaws' in his response. My reference to Duchamp wasnt neccessarily to literally compare the work of Kaws to that of Duchamp, but rather use Duchamp's statement towards art as a vehicle to say who's in a position to make a judgement call on what qualifies as art. Perhaps it was an ignorant analogy on my part, but my intention was to get people to realize that perhaps not everything consumed or collected can neccessarily be taken at face value. That the context of an object can indeed change it's value more than the sum of it's materials. Next time I'll use a signed baseball as an example and leave art history examples out of it. Jeez. P.S. This wasn't directed at Diggity specifically, but to all the people that seemed confused by my original statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 language is a bitch sometimes.... unless youre william safire.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by seeking how could you possibly come up on the east coast, in the 90's, and not know who joker is? Not to dismiss Joker's endeavors, or defend Kaws' statements, but with the experience of having been involved in graffiti magazines for many years, I can understand how this might be possible. Graffiti in NY (and the people that partake in the sport in general) is obviously worlds apart from graff in most other places around the world, if not all of them. NY is simply saturated with writers, and scores of them are actually putting in serious work. It's a subculture unto itsself, that's also able to stake claim to the fact that it argueably kicked off the entire movement. From my experience, many kids in NY rarely look outside of NY at who's participating, unless that person's also happens to be putting a dent into NY's scene directly (and even then they tend to have to pay twice the dues to get the same respect). While, most of the rest of the cities can't get enough of graff and as a result, get into collecting magazines and videos on the subject, kids in NY are chest deep in it and don't seem too interested in work that they can't hop on a train to see themselves, or writers that dont directly relate back to them in some manner or another. Not to say it's an elitest mentality neccessarily, but when you can barely keep up with what's going on around you, there's not much motivation to look beyond it for any more of the same. Many kids even seem relunctant to look to regulalrly outside their borough, let alone city. That said, I can see how perhaps Kaws, or another writer in the region may not be entirely familiar with writers that never competed within the NY scene - Joker included. Again, I'm not speaking for Kaws on this one, only making a comment based upon my experiences doing a graff magazine, which in turn is how the vast majority of writers know about writers outside their own cities before the internet came along. Further, there are plenty of exceptions I've come across of NY writers that actually embraced writers outside their immediate community and supported, or became involved with graff magazines. Cope2 would be a shining example of this. *Jeez, my typing sucks. Edited this thing 10 times and still cant stomp out all the typos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeking Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Misteraven This thread is seriously spiraling out of control. i completely disagree. in all honesty, i think its one of the better topics to come up lately. this is a debate about art, not kaws. and even the more 'ignonorant' replies are relivent, because they represent the attention span and view point held by a large number of people. this a discussion of how people perceive things as set forth before them. 'art' like this, to some extent, is the face of the future. as our generation takes over, we bring with us the values and images we know and relate to. your average person cant comprehend duchamp, and has no desire to try. everything we know is a product. every article of clothing we buy, car we drive, or food we eat is a 'product'.... is an advertisement. every 'artist' putting forth something like this 'chomper' is selling an idea, just as much as a physical object. if there is nothing behind it, then its just plastic. if ducchamp hadent claimed the urinal was art, it would have been a urinal. the 'art' is in the message, and if you dont have one...well... then you've got the sum of your parts, and the dilemna of production cost vs. market support. this is a whole lot bigger than kaws, and if he wasnt your friend, i dont think you'd be batting an eye. which is understandable, but you have to recognize where we're coming from. as i stated, if 'we' arent the audience this is intended for, then who is? who else is going to potentially understand the co-opting of pop icons? some asshole editor at a magazine? some critic in tokyo? fuck them. we're the kids who have had money placed above god in the heiachry of importance. if anyone will ever actually find a connection to dudes work, it's us or no-one. if he doesnt care about that, then i dont understand how he can care about his work, because it's one in the same. without us to sell them to, the images he borrows would never have been created in the first place and he'd be left with a skull and cross bones, floating in a sea of empty space. if you're some tortured artist that puts the pain of childhood molestation and abandonment into your work, i'm going to be alot more gentle about criticising my feelings for it. why? because regardless of whether i enjoy it, its obvious that you're giving a part of yourself, and putting it on display, and making yourself vulnerable. but if you're making a plastic figure, and claiming it has no message behind it, then i reserve the right to be offended by the notion that i, or anyone else like me, would want to give someone an exorbinate amount of money, for something they claim means nothing. and if it does mean something, what could the theivery of already established icons, packaged as counter culture reposession, mean other than 'you're all a bunch of souless consumer suckers?' unless i hear otherwise, that's how i feel it comes across. again, its unfortunate that this discussion has to potentially impose on the ego of a friend, but when you ask the public to give you money, for any reason, you are a 'product' and every 'product' goes through consumer testing and feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 duchamp would have a good laugh at this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatbastard Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by seeking . without us to sell them to, the images he borrows would never have been created in the first place and he'd be left with a skull and cross bones, floating in a sea of empty space. if you're some tortured artist that puts the pain of childhood molestation and abandonment into your work, i'm going to be alot more gentle about criticising my feelings for it. why? because regardless of whether i enjoy it, its obvious that you're giving a part of yourself, and putting it on display, and making yourself vulnerable. but if you're making a plastic figure, and claiming it has no message behind it, then i reserve the right to be offended by the notion that i, or anyone else like me, would want to give someone an exorbinate amount of money, for something they claim means nothing. but when you ask the public to give you money, for any reason, you are a 'product' and every 'product' goes through consumer testing and feedback. This part i whole heartedly agree with, and couldnt have put it better...however its a little difficult to understand you rpoint reading your previous posts.. the thing is that so many argements cant be put towards making money out of the graffiti sub culture, i mean some of the older people think along the lines of: "ok i put in a great deal of work, got arested numerous times and sacrificed a lot for my sub culture and as a result of my sub culture and as a result i think the only way to keep going is to make some money to suppourt myself" and i mean that is understandable... this thread is also really bad publicity for kaws's toys :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medium Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by seeking . if anyone will ever actually find a connection to dudes work, it's us or no-one. if he doesnt care about that, then i dont understand how he can care about his work, because it's one in the same. without us to sell them to, the images he borrows would never have been created in the first place and he'd be left with a skull and cross bones, floating in a sea of empty space. if you're some tortured artist that puts the pain of childhood molestation and abandonment into your work, i'm going to be alot more gentle about criticising my feelings for it. why? because regardless of whether i enjoy it, its obvious that you're giving a part of yourself, and putting it on display, and making yourself vulnerable. but if you're making a plastic figure, and claiming it has no message behind it, then i reserve the right to be offended by the notion that i, or anyone else like me, would want to give someone an exorbinate amount of money, for something they claim means nothing. and if it does mean something, what could the theivery of already established icons, packaged as counter culture reposession, mean other than 'you're all a bunch of souless consumer suckers?' unless i hear otherwise, that's how i feel it comes across. again, its unfortunate that this discussion has to potentially impose on the ego of a friend, but when you ask the public to give you money, for any reason, you are a 'product' and every 'product' goes through consumer testing and feedback. A "fucking" MEN... ya took the words right out my mouth... nowadays this whole hipster/art fag thing is "spinning out of control"... I mean you have a t-shirt and they throw the name bape on it all of a sudden its 50 bucks... what the fuck... wake up you fucking hipster SHEEP... kaws, who i respected for his graff accomplishments, could piss in a bag, slap a simpsons or another stolen pop icon on it and flip it for $140 to y'all suckas... fuck all this hipster shit, its like heads sweat the name and anything put out under it is gold... that is absolute crap... as consumers we need to be a tad more educated or if you cannot do that fake it... i would drop some cash for a silkscreen in support of someone who i felt was doing their thing and had something behind it, but when you market a piece of plastic for $140 to us, that is an insult to our intelligence... get back to the grime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BROWNer Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 i think the kaws thing is shit. i think the skull thing he did on bus stops was lame..but so what? i could get into some big ass post about WHY it sucks, or why i think its great art, but in the end it wouldn't make any difference at all becuz it all boils down the ambiguity of taste, and i can't define why my tastes are better than someone else's, and vice versa. which is kind of the heart of this discussion..does this thing merit respect and $140? for me, NO. for everyone else, WHO THE HELL KNOWS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heavyLox Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 this is hev straddling the line/ my feeling is that the graff toys are not really intended for the graff world at all. Even though i own some delta toys. its like a magician performing for a room full of other magicians, not that fun, cause the audience knows the tricks and isn’t fooled. Chompers falls into the category of, adult toy collectors who like 'stuff' for various reasons. there is a distinction between the available 'graff' by-products, books on the one hand that appeals more to writers based on there value as a historical/ documentational ( good made up word) object, that has a deeper meaning to writers then the average uninvolved joe/joan. These books have become even more varied with the kaws and delak books on the artsy experimental tip and those like the cope2 or the Espo book which fall in the the previous category, of documentation. The experimental books and the toys fall into a similar category of being sanitized for general consumption yet try o hold on to a bit of edge to spark some interest, in consumers. And as soon as I find a publisher I will add to the flood if ‘artist’ books, and hopefully swim to the bank. At a certain point life is all about the money, you may be happy with living hand to mouth and painting but eventually there’s gonna be reality check. It cost money to be an old fart and life can be miserable with out health care for aging writers with health problems; Lung infestations/ low brain function are some of things we can look forward to, along with the norms of ageing to boot. If you can make some loot today do it. Cash in today, play tomorrow. I do Not like the distancing from origins, that seems really lame. Hollywood goes to the head of the weak minded. To each his own, even though Cat Stevens renounced all his early music as worthless, he’s still a down ass G in my book I mean “kaws in the cradle is still a relevant song. I mean this ‘darling’ of the graff world, so busy now, he can’t come visit his “fam” any more, it’s a tear jerker, and worse yet its all true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medium Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 but on another note, ya can't knock the hustle... we are not dumb enough to throw away 140 bucks on plastic michelin men... but if kaws is eating off that good for him... kaws oner stays getting that sony money... silly tokyo'ers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 i would just like to add that as far as threads in CH-0 go, i think this has been one of the better ones....my opening sarcasm aside, as well as the fridge buzz you get from a few people, i think this has been an interesting read and there are some long paragraphs that have some really interesting opinions..... i dont think its "out of control", and i dont think its brewing with "hate"... for the most part it has been a good discussion of aesthetics, meaning, and value of art.....creator vs. observer....graffiti on walls vs on canvas....mixed with some interesting views of art history.... if i had a beer i would toast you all..... but all ive got is coporate coffee sludge from 9 AM....so just take me at my word..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misteraven Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by seeking this is a whole lot bigger than kaws, and if he wasnt your friend, i dont think you'd be batting an eye. which is understandable, but you have to recognize where we're coming from. as i stated, if 'we' arent the audience this is intended for, then who is? who else is going to potentially understand the co-opting of pop icons? some asshole editor at a magazine? some critic in tokyo? fuck them. we're the kids who have had money placed above god in the heiachry of importance. if anyone will ever actually find a connection to dudes work, it's us or no-one. if he doesnt care about that, then i dont understand how he can care about his work, because it's one in the same. without us to sell them to, the images he borrows would never have been created in the first place and he'd be left with a skull and cross bones, floating in a sea of empty space. I disagree with most of this. True, I probably wouldn't be involved if I werent friends with Kaws. It's the fact that we are friends that I'm able to understand how off base much of this commentary is. Though it's not my place to try and defend him, let alone speak for him, or at all what I'm trying to do, I just thought I'd chime in on a subject that I actually have a little insight into as a result of my friendship/experience with him. That said, I don't think writers are his intended audience, because I don't think he creates his art work with a specific strategy in mind. Considering writers aren't the ones purchasing his art, and rarely the ones 'consuming' some of the more commercialized objects like the toys, I especially feel that to state, "if anyone will ever actually find a connection to dudes work, it's us or no-one" is absolutely incorrect. I think a quick review of who's been interviewing Kaws is probably a better reflection on who his audience actually is, for better or worse. Most writers I know can barely afford to buy their own caps, let alone drop grips of cash collecting art. Ironically, our choice of product on http://www.fourthehardway.com is our effort to try and change this, since I feel that writers could indeed benefit, by at least being aware of what's going on just beyond our subculture, if not partaking in it. As far as the banner being placed on the site, it was probably more a matter of a convenient opportunity at his disposal, than a strategy to market his chomper to writers. After getting to know Kaws personally, I've developed a solid respect for him and his work. Though, I'm not asking anyone to accept my respect for him as their own, it is where I speak from. And I know you're far more aware a person to actually believe your own statement, "without us to sell them to, the images he borrows would never have been created in the first place and he'd be left with a skull and cross bones, floating in a sea of empty space". His skull and crossbones icon is his personal motif and certainly couldnt have been created with the assumption that it'd kick off a japanese cult following or an art career. Further, it doesn't float in a sea of empty space, but rather serves as a vehicle of expression. Understanding the fact that he is artistically inclined, and formally educated in art, I'm guessing he'd probably have been migrated towards a career in art regardless of whether he ever became involved in graff or not. Again, I don't want to speak for him, or presume to know what might have happened had he never been a writer, just comment on a few statements that I believe are flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geeteecee Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Misteraven I disagree with most of this. True, I probably wouldn't be involved if I werent friends with Kaws. It's the fact that we are friends that I'm able to understand how off base much of this commentary is. Though it's not my place to try and defend him, let alone speak for him, or at all what I'm trying to do, I just thought I'd chime in on a subject that I actually have a little insight into as a result of my friendship/experience with him. That said, I don't think writers are his intended audience, because I don't think he creates his art work with a specific strategy in mind. Considering writers aren't the ones purchasing his art, and rarely the ones 'consuming' some of the more commercialized objects like the toys, I especially feel that to state, "if anyone will ever actually find a connection to dudes work, it's us or no-one" is absolutely incorrect. I think a quick review of who's been interviewing Kaws is probably a better reflection on who his audience actually is, for better or worse. Most writers I know can barely afford to buy their own caps, let alone drop grips of cash collecting art. Ironically, our choice of product on http://www.fourthehardway.com is our effort to try and change this, since I feel that writers could indeed benefit, by at least being aware of what's going on just beyond our subculture, if not partaking in it. As far as the banner being placed on the site, it was probably more a matter of a convenient opportunity at his disposal, than a strategy to market his chomper to writers. After getting to know Kaws personally, I've developed a solid respect for him and his work. Though, I'm not asking anyone to accept my respect for him as their own, it is where I speak from. And I know you're far more aware a person to actually believe your own statement, "without us to sell them to, the images he borrows would never have been created in the first place and he'd be left with a skull and cross bones, floating in a sea of empty space". His skull and crossbones icon is his personal motif and certainly couldnt have been created with the assumption that it'd kick off a japanese cult following or an art career. Further, it doesn't float in a sea of empty space, but rather serves as a vehicle of expression. Understanding the fact that he is artistically inclined, and formally educated in art, I'm guessing he'd probably have been migrated towards a career in art regardless of whether he ever became involved in graff or not. Again, I don't want to speak for him, or presume to know what might have happened had he never been a writer, just comment on a few statements that I believe are flawed. ditto...if any of you knew the kid this whole thread would've taken a different route. bottom line is...take it for what it is...he's doing his thing, if you're not into it then don't look. don't just hate on someone for making a living doing what they love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ModelCitizen Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 He seems to be pretty good, or at least pretty lucky, at sparking controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 "ditto...if any of you knew the kid this whole thread would've taken a different route. bottom line is...take it for what it is...he's doing his thing, if you're not into it then don't look. don't just hate on someone for making a living doing what they love." okay few issues with that.... 1. no one is hating, atleast anyone with some smarts or something to say, about him making a living and him as an artist....as a matter of fact most people have said, eh it aint me, but if it sells good for him...there have been a few posts brought up about the man, and i can appreciate his explanation of the article....the media slices and dices all the time...but for the most part this has been about the Chomper doll...is it art? is it worth 140? how do you determine worth? art as an investment, etc etc.... 2.maybe if you didnt know this kid you would have taken a different route....one could just say that you are being subjective, since you know him, while someone who doesnt know him can be more objective about the chomper dolls.... 3. there is a banner on the top of this page as advertisment, therefore we are encouraged to look....also people are atleast talking about the work, and we all know, publicity regardless of vibe, is always good 4. he is an artist that sells works in the public market place and thus opens himself and his art to critiques 5. no one here would even dare say he doesnt have a right to do what ever the hell he wants to do, and if he loves what he is doing and making money then great...id feel bad for him if he didnt 6. this is an open and honest discussion, and as far as i can tell, has been informative and frank....unlike most thread in CH0.... why do i get the funny feeling that this is begining to erode like the urinal cakes in the toilet of ch zero..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.