i dont care about tabby. and what is your problem now ?

Just to be clear I dont like this piece!
But I will not attack anyone for posting a thread about art I dont like. Its perfectly fine for people to post about why they dont like a pieces of art, but of course it should be done with respect to those who might have different views than yours. Making personal remarks and continued attacks on people based on their opinions is not acceptable.

Beauty is only skin deep and thats a fact.

Tabby is real and makes lots of art on the streets so I doubt it's a ploy to sell stencils and screenies on this forum. More like been putting art on the streets and why not do some ltd editions to pay the rent.

Banksy got a lot of mileage out of basic images with punchlines or stuff that is easy to understand and smile ironically and knowingly that yes we the lookers at street art have got the illuminati sussed cos it's all there in Banksy stencils. Other artists make similar stuff on the streets and finding ideas and using recognisable imagery often leads to Skulls, rats, guns hearts bananas and Kanye

I find it fascinating that almost no artist, including some of the most recognised : successful, meet the bar of your artistic standards on here, because as you have explained explained left right and centre they are frauds / sell outs / idiots who exist merely thanks to their great PR....


...but the derivative of derivative Tabby does seem to strike your fancy

While understanding the general sentiment of your post, I'll focus on one point I take issue with. It's a comment often trotted out here — yet, for whatever reason, nobody ever tries to qualify or challenge it.

The "art is purely subjective" platitude is in my view a faux argument and misleading at best. Pernicious as well, because it relativises excessively. By implying that individual perception is the only thing which is relevant, the statement discourages critical thinking. As such, it becomes a thought-terminating cliché.

An individual's appreciation of art may be purely subjective. However, this takes no account of other material factors, including that person's knowledge or experience. Someone contemplating a painting may be living in a vacuum of ignorance: oblivious to what else is going on in the broader art world, what has already been done, and which ideas or styles have been rehashed or repeated ad nauseum.

There are also widely-accepted objective criteria for determining what constitutes bad art. Leaving aside poor technical execution, one such criterion is lack of originality or the absence of a fresh take on existing concepts. In other words, copied and stolen concepts tend to be frowned upon. The same goes for artwork too similar in theme, aesthetic or sensibility to what was produced by other creatives, and anything else that could be dismissed as derivative.

So, yes, the appreciation of art is subjective — to the individual in question. What doesn't follow is that other people should necessarily be swayed by or even respect that individual's opinion. Uninformed views rarely carry the same weight as knowledgeable and considered ones. And why would they?

----------

Despite loving to watch gymnastics, my keenness must not mask the fact I'm merely an amateur follower whose scoring of a floor routine cannot be compared to that of an Olympics judge.

If Tabby created a stencil spray painting of a young girl hugging a bomb, in theory I might be amazed and describe the piece as brilliant. Others would then assess this viewpoint and conclude I was (i) far too easily impressed (if I was aware the bomb-hugger idea was stolen) or (ii) clueless about street art history. Either way, it could be objectively determined that my subjective opinion had little value to anyone else besides me.

----------

To art enthusiasts with trained eyes or a certain level of experience, Tabby is simply one of many — along with, inter alios, Kunstrasen, Martin Whatson, Pegasus and Bambi — whose current output will always look vacuous and hackneyed.

But perhaps "vacuous and hackneyed" is actually good enough for these so-called artists (provided they can keep finding chumps to sell to). It's possible they demand nothing more from themselves in creative terms, or that they're incapable of imagining more.

Every artist naturally finds his or her level. There is room for everyone on the pyramid. Especially at the bottom.

Taste is subjective, but implying that therefore art is subjective is reducing art to it's most basic and palpable characteristic.

Objective comments can, and should, be made about art. Technique, process, intent, novelty, point of view etc etc...these are all objective characteristics of an art piece that should be debated.

But that does not mean a piece is objectively good or bad, because that is simply the polar opposite of saying "art is subjective" which implies every piece of art is both good and bad at the same time.

Really liked the Sound of Uzis on brick but with a canvas already couldn't pull the trigger.

Already have a Sound Of Uzis, but couldn't resist this version 

something new from TABBY

"Its not me, its EU"

18x24 cm Paper 200g/m2
Stencil signed, hand signed
Stencil / Spray Paint

Atrocious.

My high school pupils do better than this, seriously.

Tabby is killing me . I truly am not sure what to feel about this but I do know that I dont want a "p***s" on my wall.