Feed Yer Ego Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 dude his last name is childish who gives a shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
griteeth Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 well played Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MomentIsNow Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I google image searched "what indeed..." Google says: Ahaha, Genius.:lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 actually the shark is not just to look cool its supposed to represent life and death and how humans want to preserve everything and live longer what im trying to say is Billy Childish's biggest arguement was "thats not art, anyone can make that" to which Damien Hirst replied "yeah, but you didn't" (seriously) now billy childish is all look at me im being ironical and making clever posters. I think I agree with Billy Childish entirely on this one point. Here you have some guy who took a big ass fucking shark, put it in a tank and considers this to be "real art" because he thinks nobody else could taxidermy a fish and write up some stupid fucking plaque about how it symbolizes the circle of life; No, i know that's not what the plaque said, but the point is WHO FUCKING CARES what the artist wants the shark to symbolize? Why should anybody even give a FUCK about what the artist thinks of his own work? What difference does it make to the viewer viewing the shark itself? The plaque is an entirely separate entity from the actual artwork. It's so fucking arrogant and insidious it makes me believe that the artist thinks the people going into the art exhibit are so fucking dumb they're incapable of any profound thoughts regarding the stale fish in a box in the middle of a gallery that he must tell the viewers what to think. In other words, VALLIUM: Tune in, zone out, no participation needed. The artist isnt there to tell me what the fuck his art is. We're not in the middle of a fucking classroom, the artist isnt a teacher, the artwork isnt a diagram on page 11, and the viewers arent studious academics surrendering their free will and agreeing "Yes, dead shark in tank equals death and fromaldahide." It's like television, or some other poor man's form of vallium where people tune in and zone out. When I go see art I'M THERE TO DRAW MY OWN FUCKING CONCLUSIONS. And this is why anybody is capable of making art, art is the abstract which requires a performance by the viewer to actively participate with the art and conceptualize what the art is to them. The art then becomes a living thing, proliferating in meaning and value with each view, from the same or different viewer, being different every time. Plaques are fucking pointless. If the meaning or symbolism of something isnt already in the art itself, dont write it on a fucking plaque. Just like I want to go and rip all those plaques that tell you how the art was made, or *UGH* artist biographies off the walls... as if people cant relate to art, but if they knew how the artist responded to their parents divorcing, or what scene they were apart of in what town... THEN, and only then can they value the art... but usually only in terms of cultural or monetary significance. Childish's artwork demands active PARTICIPATION from the viewers. Something I ADORE in contemporary artwork. It evokes free will, free thought, intellectualism and discussion. You look in a shark in a tank, read a fucking plaque about what it means who the artist is and how the thing was made, and all your thoughts and ideas have been prepackaged and ready for your consumption like a science/history/religious textbook that you just bit into hook line and sinker. If the mates you're with say anything at all it'll be "cool." and move on. The artwork itself is of no value, and therefor dsiplaying ownership of such art is completely pointless. The value of art is in that unique transient experience that you have when viewing it for the first, second or umpteenth time. Your ideas about what this artwork is from the performance of actively viewing this artwork is what generates value for a certain piece of art. Everything else, from how its made, psychoanalyzing the artist, the historical relevance, your memories of previously viewing the artwork.. it's all ornamental/ supplementary/irrelevant/insane if it's not in the artwork itself. /end rant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feed Yer Ego Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 i hate when motherfuckers want/have to explain what their pretentious shit is about whether it's visual art or music or writing or whatev it's the most annoying bullshit ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screambloodygore Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 i paint and draw alot and i fucking hate art, people talking about it, lame ass art shows, art being cool, art school kids that cant draw to save their life. deeper meanings and all that shit. my art reviews A. it rules. B. it sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsmbfan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 CLOSE THREAD COSIGN. who cares about art? this a graffiti forum. and on this tip The artwork itself is of no value, and therefor dsiplaying ownership of such art is completely pointless. The value of art is in that unique transient experience that you have when viewing it for the first, second or umpteenth time. Your ideas about what this artwork is from the performance of actively viewing this artwork is what generates value for a certain piece of art. Everything else, from how its made, psychoanalyzing the artist, the historical relevance, your memories of previously viewing the artwork.. it's all ornamental/ supplementary/irrelevant/insane if it's not in the artwork itself. i took the time to read this and i've drawn one conclusion. i dont value art. i dont have these so called "transient experiences". i don't imagine how or why, I simply question motive. maybe im too right brain for this shit. artists are pretentious and hipster-esque. im a fucking vandal. period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Sounds like you guys go to really bad art shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bojangles Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Gimmick. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted July 23, 2009 Author Share Posted July 23, 2009 Here's my angle... I don't know where they show art that I don't like and I don't imagine that I care about what the people in those places think so... My thing is, I'm gonna go stand around in galleries and museums and talk loudly about why my favorite pieces just suck ass, then I hope that people will insult me and explain things I already understand. I'm gonna wear a "Hello My Name Is: Art" sticker. and that's gonna be 'art'. Can someone hook me up with the forms for a British grant? K Thx! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAR Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Simpson's did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPS! Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Spoiler: The Grinch Stole Christmas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 COSIGN. who cares about art? this a graffiti forum. and on this tip i took the time to read this and i've drawn one conclusion. i dont value art. i dont have these so called "transient experiences". i don't imagine how or why, I simply question motive. maybe im too right brain for this shit. artists are pretentious and hipster-esque. im a fucking vandal. period. If you read what i wrote, what you're saying is you prefer to turn on, tune in, and drop out rather than actively participate with the artwork. And there's nothing socalled "transient experience." When you view a work of art, you're experiencing the artwork. The nature of experience is that it's fleeting. Transient. I think kids today define art as you do, as "That pointless stuff pretentious hipsters from art colleges make." This has a few different affects. Firstly it states that who the artist is and where the artist comes from is an important part of the artwork. This isnt true at all. In truth there are many works of art that I absolutely enjoy but the artist is a wife beating wino antisemite from a foreign country. You can remove the artist and the artwork still stands on its own. Secondly this statement suggests that anything without apparent practical function to the viewer's everyday life provides zero value to the viewer. The problem with this is that NOTHING has practical function. It's all art -- Science, religion, military, cars, clothing, architecture, photography, the stock exchange etc -- they only have practical functions because we give them practical functions. They arent practical to our survival, so what functional purpose do they really have? Even cooking is a decorative ornament in our lives the same way a painting is. It enriches our lifestyle. The very nature of the human being is art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swindle Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I think I agree with Billy Childish entirely on this one point. Here you have some guy who took a big ass fucking shark, put it in a tank and considers this to be "real art" because he thinks nobody else could taxidermy a fish and write up some stupid fucking plaque about how it symbolizes the circle of life; No, i know that's not what the plaque said, but the point is WHO FUCKING CARES what the artist wants the shark to symbolize? Why should anybody even give a FUCK about what the artist thinks of his own work? What difference does it make to the viewer viewing the shark itself? The plaque is an entirely separate entity from the actual artwork. It's so fucking arrogant and insidious it makes me believe that the artist thinks the people going into the art exhibit are so fucking dumb they're incapable of any profound thoughts regarding the stale fish in a box in the middle of a gallery that he must tell the viewers what to think. In other words, VALLIUM: Tune in, zone out, no participation needed. The artist isnt there to tell me what the fuck his art is. We're not in the middle of a fucking classroom, the artist isnt a teacher, the artwork isnt a diagram on page 11, and the viewers arent studious academics surrendering their free will and agreeing "Yes, dead shark in tank equals death and fromaldahide." It's like television, or some other poor man's form of vallium where people tune in and zone out. When I go see art I'M THERE TO DRAW MY OWN FUCKING CONCLUSIONS. And this is why anybody is capable of making art, art is the abstract which requires a performance by the viewer to actively participate with the art and conceptualize what the art is to them. The art then becomes a living thing, proliferating in meaning and value with each view, from the same or different viewer, being different every time. Plaques are fucking pointless. If the meaning or symbolism of something isnt already in the art itself, dont write it on a fucking plaque. Just like I want to go and rip all those plaques that tell you how the art was made, or *UGH* artist biographies off the walls... as if people cant relate to art, but if they knew how the artist responded to their parents divorcing, or what scene they were apart of in what town... THEN, and only then can they value the art... but usually only in terms of cultural or monetary significance. Childish's artwork demands active PARTICIPATION from the viewers. Something I ADORE in contemporary artwork. It evokes free will, free thought, intellectualism and discussion. You look in a shark in a tank, read a fucking plaque about what it means who the artist is and how the thing was made, and all your thoughts and ideas have been prepackaged and ready for your consumption like a science/history/religious textbook that you just bit into hook line and sinker. If the mates you're with say anything at all it'll be "cool." and move on. The artwork itself is of no value, and therefor dsiplaying ownership of such art is completely pointless. The value of art is in that unique transient experience that you have when viewing it for the first, second or umpteenth time. Your ideas about what this artwork is from the performance of actively viewing this artwork is what generates value for a certain piece of art. Everything else, from how its made, psychoanalyzing the artist, the historical relevance, your memories of previously viewing the artwork.. it's all ornamental/ supplementary/irrelevant/insane if it's not in the artwork itself. /end rant while i agree with you. there is no shark plaque. infact i dont think damien hirst describes his work at all he just has it all set up with no explainations. examples; ^you cant see it well but it is a cow at different stages of overdosing in every box. including syringe coming out from the arm and all that kinda shit. this comes without a plaque and you are left to your own devices to understand it it is actually an appropriation of this a painting (shit picture) by francis bacon depicting the overdose of his lover george dyer. none of this is really relevant but you have damien hirst in your head as some kind of art snob when in reality he was just as rebelous as billy childish. he often showed up to shows drunk or coked up and did out landish things and he became so rich because he cut out the middle of art dealers and sold his pieces by himself practically, setting the art scene on its ear for a bit. again, no plaques, i was stating billy childish comes off as a hypocrite imo, for criticising something that 'anyone' could of done then making gimmicky posters. i bet if billy childish had the funds at his disposal and the idea before damien hirst he would have done the same. in a way he comes across jealous that he didnt think of it first. but i do love a good discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Just to touch on your post and what i said earlier: There doesnt actually have to BE a plaque for it to exist. This need in our culture to hear from the artist what he was trying to create is just as bad. if the artwork can't speak for itself then it's shit. I'm not saying that a dead cow on a toilet DOESN'T speak for itself, It just doesn't say "Taxidermist tribute to Francis Bacon." As for the differences between Hirst and Childish. It's a fact that Childish is far more avant-garde than Hirst is. As childish explains it, "Damien’s work is very much about statements of the obvious made in a 14-year-old schoolboy type of way. Other acquaintances of mine who know Damien, often defend his work by arguing that it’s a reflection of the times in which we live. To my mind this doesn’t make his work vital and exciting, but is the very reason why it is ephemeral and boring. " Once again Childish is from the school of thought that says art should require active experimental participation from the viewer artistically and politically, while Damien's work is reflective and complacent with the way things are. Perhaps this can also be explained by Damien's work going for tens of millions of pounds. Who wouldnt be complacent with a culture providing him with that? Damien as an artist is much more polished and in tune with what people are willing to pay for, rather than what would really rattle their cage. When Childish is saying Damien's work could be done by anyone, he doesnt mean from a technical aspect. He means Damien's conceptualization process is really fucking simple and boring. For example:"remake painting using real toilets and animal carcasses." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swindle Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Damien as an artist is much more polished and in tune with what people are willing to pay for, rather than what would really rattle their cage. damien mutilated an animal infront of one of the melbourne galleries he also made this your cage wouldn't be rattled by a decaying cows head in a glass box? your inner art collector would tell you it is a good piece to purchase? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 When Mayor Giuliani tried to ban the Sensation show in New York, Damien was reported to have said that if New York wasn’t such an important market he’d refuse to show there ever again. And no. It may gross me out (not really) but it certainly doesnt shock and enrage me. If you're even capable of walking up to it and taking a photo, you're clearly not that uncomfortable with it either. Honestly i think it's goofy and adolescent, like turning the lights off and sticking your hand in a bowl of wet spaghetti. Whoop dee fucking doo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eggberto Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 work of art work o fart same thing, both stink hah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autoteller Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 i hate most art. this week is an extension of my already toxic hatred for all things 'art'. especially in a city where obey has an exhibit. i'd love to toss a bomb in that motherfucker in celebration of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SystemFailure Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Encourage Wolf idear FAG ART SUCKS BLOW IT UP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swindle Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 When Mayor Giuliani tried to ban the Sensation show in New York, Damien was reported to have said that if New York wasn’t such an important market he’d refuse to show there ever again. And no. It may gross me out (not really) but it certainly doesnt shock and enrage me. If you're even capable of walking up to it and taking a photo, you're clearly not that uncomfortable with it either. Honestly i think it's goofy and adolescent, like turning the lights off and sticking your hand in a bowl of wet spaghetti. Whoop dee fucking doo. i still think billy childish comes off slightly hypocritical to criticize damien hirst. even if damien hirst doesnt have "the right morals as an artist" i think we can say this discussion is over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jesuschristo Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Feast Island Man Posted July 24, 2009 Share Posted July 24, 2009 eine pfb 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 i still think billy childish comes off slightly hypocritical to criticize damien hirst. even if damien hirst doesnt have "the right morals as an artist" i think we can say this discussion is over. Hahaha dude you're funny. It's not over at all. I dont know if you're still saying childish is hypocritical because you dont get what im trying to say or you're just trying to be contradictory. Childish said that anyone can do hirst's artwork. From a conceptual standpoint, it's not that clever to bedazzle a skull or take someone else's painting and create an installation that looks just like it. Childish believes it's a much more interesting idea to involve people in a staged protest against art, and then against those who are against art. From an institutionalized point of view, Childish's poster design itself is academic, but childish is more into creating thought provoking artwork and feels being avant garde is the hardest part of any artwork. And it's not about morals, normative artwork or an ethical imperative. There is no right or wrongdoing in art since art is defined as having zero practical function, but art does state that we live in a world governed by ethics, logic and philosophy. Anyone can make art that is complacent with our sense of n and doesnt challenge the status quo, but to make viewers not lazy and actually have to think, that's the challenge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bojangles Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Encourage Wolf idear FAG ART SUCKS BLOW IT UP What he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouMad.GIF Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 its cool to hate art. ^^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 OK, well don't aim your farts at Dali stuff because they'll kick you out of the museum, and the uptight bitch won't even see the humor... you'd think anything goes with existentialists but apparently farts are 'common'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipsycripsy420 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 art fags Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swindle Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 From an institutionalized point of view, Childish's poster design itself is academic, but childish is more into creating thought provoking artwork and feels being avant garde is the hardest part of any artwork. "what has art done for you?" totally academic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.