Nov 1, 2014 15:30:48 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

Nov 1, 2014 14:56:40 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Space Invader.

makes art that any primary school kid could make and copying the space invaders and slapping them on walls is not art.

This statement is what many said to dismiss the entire Pop Art / Modern Art movement of the 60's.  

Whether Franz Kline, Robert Rauschenberg, Andy Warhol,Claes Oldenberg, Ad Reinhardt or an endless list.

Or the minimalism of Donald Judd. The yarn of Fred Sandback.

The list is endless.

I don't mean to pick on you, but you describe yourself as an untrained naive outsider artist, and to make grand sweeping statements about art history is embarrassing at best.  Unless of course you studied art history and have an MFA, if so then please accept my apology.

It's just my view from where i'm standing.

Of course it's not easy having an unbiased discussion on this forum or opinion if some who psot are involved with certain artists as friends or some are galleries dealers that make money from selling certain artists.

I googled Space Invaders merchandise as opposed to Invader and there is shed loads of Space Invaders merchandise and art out there for sale based on the space invaders game characters.

 Fekner mades Space Invaders on walls since 1982 as street art and it was part of his original street art he made.

Space Invader to me looks like he just milks it as long as it sells.

 Now as for the names you mentioned.

   Would their art be considered any good or important if none of the galleries and dealers in the USA didn't make money from selling their art. If no one wanted their art.

 The fact that their art was picked up by dealers and sold for high prices gives their art credibility and importance in so called art history.  Also the art that everyone wanted at the time of Pollocks success meant that galleries in NY etc could sell similar type of abstract expressionist action painting or whatever art to the noeuveau riche.

 Warhol came along at the right time and the tv and newspaper articles about his selling soup cans as art gave him massive publicity. At the time it was hip cool and a novelty. He didn't expect it to last but dealers created the market in Warhol and some say control the market.

  None of this though, the high prices and the fact it's on display in institutions means the art is any good or important.

  It's just paint on canvas.

Rothko art was promoted by the CIA using huge funds during the cold war to show the USSR that freedom of expression is encouraged in the west.

  Hence his art being classed as important and ending up in institutions.

Weiwei is being use dpolitically too.

It's not always about the actual art.

  Take away the slogans writings witty words from Banksy's stencils and what are you left with.

A very poor version of Blek le Rat.

   Art has a history but fashion and media television and newspapers are the 20th century tools used by dealers etc to hype and promote that which they can make a big and sometimes fast profit from.

Nov 11, 2014 10:42:11 GMT 1 graffuturism said:

Nov 2, 2014 1:18:12 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

It's just my view from where i'm standing.

Of course it's not easy having an unbiased discussion on this forum or opinion if some who psot are involved with certain artists as friends or some are galleries dealers that make money from selling certain artists.

I have to disagree with most of what you said but Ill stick to the Space invader and Banksy comments, I am not a fan of Street art and prefer many artists to Banksy or Invader. That being said if you are honest with yourself and understand the genre's history you have to give both these artists their due regardless if you like or appreciate their work. As with many of artists and movement there have always been artists who define the genre for a reason. The reason you are missing this point is that both artists are actively engaged in the real power of street art and that is in the street. Whatever issue you have with the message, the aesthetics, or the concept, you have to always take into account the amount of work both have done on the streets in order for their work to be considered authentic in my opinion.

I am not saying Blek isn't important, but I am saying Banksy is more important due to the amount of work ane influence he has done in the street and studio. He outworked most artists and was a huge influence on many. Its not always about who came first, its usually about who mattered most and why. Why both Invader and Banksy matter is because they are well rounded working equally in the street and studio. The power of the act should not be overlooked, anyone can make an invader and he sells kits so you can DIY. But can you make the same amount of impact in the street as he did? Invader is everywhere you go when you visit France and he also has done a decent amount of work around the world, this is the power of invader not his aesthetic or conceptual mastery of art. This is the power really of the best street artists in my opinion.

I'm no rocket scientist but think Banksy is 75%hype and 25% talent and his sayings about rats and how they live etc is very very similar to what Blek said about rats and other similarities between Bank$y and Blek too.

 So no I doub't Banksy is that great an influence on graffiti and street art.

Banksy's schoolboy humour appeals to many who find it witty and read into it meanings which are convenient for them.

 Invader just ripped off space invaders and stuck em on walls using square tiles as it was easier than painting them anyway.

 It was ok and fun and quirky but how long can you keep doing the same thing for and making unimaginative tile shaped prints based on Bowie and other icons?

  It's a gimmick and nothing more.