|
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by davievegas on Sept 10, 2015 21:48:21 GMT 1, Banksy and the Problem with Sarcastic Art
"Once again, Banksy has put the art enthusiast in a bind. “Dismaland” is spectacular, but its ideas are not everything you want a candidate for history’s largest work of conceptual art to be."
"If you love art, you must be glad that thousands of people are supporting it by going to “Dismaland.” If you love cultural expression generally, you must be glad millions of people are participating in it on the Internet. But when you see bad expression praised as good — when your Facebook friends share a sarcastic news report, or a millionaire street artist puts mouse ears on an actress and tells her to frown — you must also feel some injustice has been done."
“Dismaland Is Not Interesting, and Neither Is Banksy,” declared a Huffington Post Canada headline on a story that concluded: “It’s bad. It’s bad, and it’s uninteresting.”
Of course its a Canadian Headline. Canadians have very dry humor. I have 5 Canadian friends I should know.
Very interesting perspective... Not all love for Banksy. Nothing new though.
Banksy and the Problem with Sarcastic Art"Once again, Banksy has put the art enthusiast in a bind. “Dismaland” is spectacular, but its ideas are not everything you want a candidate for history’s largest work of conceptual art to be." "If you love art, you must be glad that thousands of people are supporting it by going to “Dismaland.” If you love cultural expression generally, you must be glad millions of people are participating in it on the Internet. But when you see bad expression praised as good — when your Facebook friends share a sarcastic news report, or a millionaire street artist puts mouse ears on an actress and tells her to frown — you must also feel some injustice has been done." “Dismaland Is Not Interesting, and Neither Is Banksy,” declared a Huffington Post Canada headline on a story that concluded: “It’s bad. It’s bad, and it’s uninteresting.” Of course its a Canadian Headline. Canadians have very dry humor. I have 5 Canadian friends I should know. Very interesting perspective... Not all love for Banksy. Nothing new though.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by Deleted on Dec 11, 2015 21:15:54 GMT 1, I don't know where the writers of the article were coming from but as an art event exhibition Dismaland was way better than the bland offerings by Tate Modern and countless other exhibitions by prominent curators in various countries.
I don't know where the writers of the article were coming from but as an art event exhibition Dismaland was way better than the bland offerings by Tate Modern and countless other exhibitions by prominent curators in various countries.
|
|
saucyjack
New Member
🗨️ 197
👍🏻 74
November 2015
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by saucyjack on Dec 11, 2015 21:46:42 GMT 1, I don't know where the writers of the article were coming from but as an art event exhibition Dismaland was way better than the bland offerings by Tate Modern and countless other exhibitions by prominent curators in various countries.
Banksy's ironic, sarcastic has run it's course I'm afraid. Of course, many of you will still worship at his throne, but that's probably more due to its perceived monetary value than anything else.
I suspect that's not accidental.
I don't know where the writers of the article were coming from but as an art event exhibition Dismaland was way better than the bland offerings by Tate Modern and countless other exhibitions by prominent curators in various countries. In your opinion. Banksy's ironic, sarcastic has run it's course I'm afraid. Of course, many of you will still worship at his throne, but that's probably more due to its perceived monetary value than anything else. I suspect that's not accidental. |
|
|
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by Cornish Crayon on Dec 11, 2015 21:50:46 GMT 1, I don't know where the writers of the article were coming from but as an art event exhibition Dismaland was way better than the bland offerings by Tate Modern and countless other exhibitions by prominent curators in various countries. In your opinion. Banksy's ironic, sarcastic has run it's course I'm afraid. Of course, many of you will still worship at his throne, but that's probably more due to its perceived monetary value than anything else. I suspect that's not accidental.
In your opinion
I don't have one, no worries
I don't know where the writers of the article were coming from but as an art event exhibition Dismaland was way better than the bland offerings by Tate Modern and countless other exhibitions by prominent curators in various countries. In your opinion. Banksy's ironic, sarcastic has run it's course I'm afraid. Of course, many of you will still worship at his throne, but that's probably more due to its perceived monetary value than anything else. I suspect that's not accidental. In your opinion I don't have one, no worries |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by Deleted on Dec 11, 2015 22:05:25 GMT 1, I don't know where the writers of the article were coming from but as an art event exhibition Dismaland was way better than the bland offerings by Tate Modern and countless other exhibitions by prominent curators in various countries. In your opinion. Banksy's ironic, sarcastic has run it's course I'm afraid. Of course, many of you will still worship at his throne, but that's probably more due to its perceived monetary value than anything else. I suspect that's not accidental.
I definately don't worship any artists throne and Dismaland was a show without the usual hard sell of art that one gets at biennials etc which get overrun by toffee nosed women and brokers hyping up a badly painted chorizo.
Dismaland had over fifty artists exhibiting. I would definately have gone to view the artists works if I was in the UK.
The Tate spent millions on the gas tanks or whatever they are. Had Kraftwerk doing some dodgy synth stuff.
Dismaland had Pussy Riot and Damon Albarn etc.
Highbrow , lol thats a joke shows featuring big names have artists ? such as Marina Abramovich interacting with the public whereas Dismaland had the public interacting with the moody staff which was probably a lot more interesting to watch.
High brow art is mainly bollocks.
I don't know where the writers of the article were coming from but as an art event exhibition Dismaland was way better than the bland offerings by Tate Modern and countless other exhibitions by prominent curators in various countries. In your opinion. Banksy's ironic, sarcastic has run it's course I'm afraid. Of course, many of you will still worship at his throne, but that's probably more due to its perceived monetary value than anything else. I suspect that's not accidental. I definately don't worship any artists throne and Dismaland was a show without the usual hard sell of art that one gets at biennials etc which get overrun by toffee nosed women and brokers hyping up a badly painted chorizo. Dismaland had over fifty artists exhibiting. I would definately have gone to view the artists works if I was in the UK. The Tate spent millions on the gas tanks or whatever they are. Had Kraftwerk doing some dodgy synth stuff. Dismaland had Pussy Riot and Damon Albarn etc. Highbrow , lol thats a joke shows featuring big names have artists ? such as Marina Abramovich interacting with the public whereas Dismaland had the public interacting with the moody staff which was probably a lot more interesting to watch. High brow art is mainly bollocks. |
|
saucyjack
New Member
🗨️ 197
👍🏻 74
November 2015
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by saucyjack on Dec 11, 2015 22:40:46 GMT 1, In your opinion. Banksy's ironic, sarcastic has run it's course I'm afraid. Of course, many of you will still worship at his throne, but that's probably more due to its perceived monetary value than anything else. I suspect that's not accidental. In your opinion I don't have one, no worries
In your opinion. Banksy's ironic, sarcastic has run it's course I'm afraid. Of course, many of you will still worship at his throne, but that's probably more due to its perceived monetary value than anything else. I suspect that's not accidental. In your opinion I don't have one, no worries Opinions are overrated anyway... best not to take any risks. |
|
|
|
NN
New Member
🗨️ 135
👍🏻 96
April 2012
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by NN on Dec 12, 2015 0:09:38 GMT 1, Stuff you guys might have missed. Banksy is still a huge traffic generator on the internet. Easiest way to get even more traffic: "attack" the overall consensus of something. It involves reactions, involvement with the page, link sharing and all that stuff homepages make a hell lot of money with. You are part of the machinery by harvesting even more clicks and possible comments there.
Stuff you guys might have missed. Banksy is still a huge traffic generator on the internet. Easiest way to get even more traffic: "attack" the overall consensus of something. It involves reactions, involvement with the page, link sharing and all that stuff homepages make a hell lot of money with. You are part of the machinery by harvesting even more clicks and possible comments there.
|
|
saucyjack
New Member
🗨️ 197
👍🏻 74
November 2015
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by saucyjack on Dec 12, 2015 0:30:57 GMT 1, Stuff you guys might have missed. Banksy is still a huge traffic generator on the internet. Easiest way to get even more traffic: "attack" the overall consensus of something. It involves reactions, involvement with the page, link sharing and all that stuff homepages make a hell lot of money with. You are part of the machinery by harvesting even more clicks and possible comments there.
I'd say criticism is what drives artists to change and evolve. It's a positive thing, not an "attack."
If that helps fill the Banksy Incorporated coffers, I am all for it. He's evolved and continues to evolve. Criticism like that of the NYT or The Guardian's Brooker helps move the process along. It's not all about hits and clicks and cash. There are bigger things at play.
Stuff you guys might have missed. Banksy is still a huge traffic generator on the internet. Easiest way to get even more traffic: "attack" the overall consensus of something. It involves reactions, involvement with the page, link sharing and all that stuff homepages make a hell lot of money with. You are part of the machinery by harvesting even more clicks and possible comments there. Is that how you view criticism? As an "attack?" I'd say criticism is what drives artists to change and evolve. It's a positive thing, not an "attack." If that helps fill the Banksy Incorporated coffers, I am all for it. He's evolved and continues to evolve. Criticism like that of the NYT or The Guardian's Brooker helps move the process along. It's not all about hits and clicks and cash. There are bigger things at play. |
|
|
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by Black Apple Art on Dec 12, 2015 2:27:35 GMT 1, Stuff you guys might have missed. Banksy is still a huge traffic generator on the internet. Easiest way to get even more traffic: "attack" the overall consensus of something. It involves reactions, involvement with the page, link sharing and all that stuff homepages make a hell lot of money with. You are part of the machinery by harvesting even more clicks and possible comments there.
Stuff you guys might have missed. Banksy is still a huge traffic generator on the internet. Easiest way to get even more traffic: "attack" the overall consensus of something. It involves reactions, involvement with the page, link sharing and all that stuff homepages make a hell lot of money with. You are part of the machinery by harvesting even more clicks and possible comments there. Guy is definitely not monetarily compensated by clicks and or likes on IG or his site. Does he like to stir the pot and make people think outside of what they are normally marketed towards... absolutely. Easy to point out flaws in the residual effects of his celebrity, art and initial intent. |
|
NN
New Member
🗨️ 135
👍🏻 96
April 2012
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by NN on Dec 12, 2015 3:05:17 GMT 1, Stuff you guys might have missed. Banksy is still a huge traffic generator on the internet. Easiest way to get even more traffic: "attack" the overall consensus of something. It involves reactions, involvement with the page, link sharing and all that stuff homepages make a hell lot of money with. You are part of the machinery by harvesting even more clicks and possible comments there. Is that how you view criticism? As an "attack?" I'd say criticism is what drives artists to change and evolve. It's a positive thing, not an "attack." If that helps fill the Banksy Incorporated coffers, I am all for it. He's evolved and continues to evolve. Criticism like that of the NYT or The Guardian's Brooker helps move the process along. It's not all about hits and clicks and cash. There are bigger things at play.
To me personally - no, I don't view criticism as an attack - yet I see neither a constructive element in it nor good argumentation in that "critic" (besides the fact that famous artists don't get constructive critic very often - it is either good or bad, right? + do you think Mr. Banksy cares for that "critic" - I don't & therefore he doesn't help move the process).
A good critic doesn't start with the wrong definition of sarcasm. After all sarcasm is (& I'm quoting dictionary.com here)
"In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in "What a fine musician you turned out to be!," "It's like you're a whole different person now...," and "Oh... Well then thanks for all the first aid over the years!" or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, "You couldn't play one piece correctly if you had two assistants." The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflection ..."
Taking this definition - the Cinderella piece can in fact be interpreted as sarcastic, as well as ironic.
Furthermore if a "critic" ends with the words:
"Kitsch should not get away with exploiting people’s desire to feel the art. How wonderful it must feel to go to “Dismaland” and see through society! But how awful to see society embrace art that makes you feel nothing, that makes you think only about the vast chasm between you and everyone else."
Succesfull art, whether I personally like it or not, makes somebody feel something. Now if he would have written he didn't feel anything, that's one thing, claiming that SOCIETY embraces "empty" art (just because he didn't "feel anything" is clearly another.
Guy is definitely not monetarily compensated by clicks and or likes on IG or his site. Does he like to stir the pot and make people think outside of what they are normally marketed towards... absolutely. Easy to point out flaws in the residual effects of his celebrity, art and initial intent.
I call this and all the other articles linked in there as a cheap way to create involvement (check all the comments at the articles) and clicks. It is a sad media world we live in.
Stuff you guys might have missed. Banksy is still a huge traffic generator on the internet. Easiest way to get even more traffic: "attack" the overall consensus of something. It involves reactions, involvement with the page, link sharing and all that stuff homepages make a hell lot of money with. You are part of the machinery by harvesting even more clicks and possible comments there. Is that how you view criticism? As an "attack?" I'd say criticism is what drives artists to change and evolve. It's a positive thing, not an "attack." If that helps fill the Banksy Incorporated coffers, I am all for it. He's evolved and continues to evolve. Criticism like that of the NYT or The Guardian's Brooker helps move the process along. It's not all about hits and clicks and cash. There are bigger things at play. To me personally - no, I don't view criticism as an attack - yet I see neither a constructive element in it nor good argumentation in that "critic" (besides the fact that famous artists don't get constructive critic very often - it is either good or bad, right? + do you think Mr. Banksy cares for that "critic" - I don't & therefore he doesn't help move the process). A good critic doesn't start with the wrong definition of sarcasm. After all sarcasm is (& I'm quoting dictionary.com here) "In sarcasm, ridicule or mockery is used harshly, often crudely and contemptuously, for destructive purposes. It may be used in an indirect manner, and have the form of irony, as in "What a fine musician you turned out to be!," "It's like you're a whole different person now...," and "Oh... Well then thanks for all the first aid over the years!" or it may be used in the form of a direct statement, "You couldn't play one piece correctly if you had two assistants." The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflection ..." Taking this definition - the Cinderella piece can in fact be interpreted as sarcastic, as well as ironic. Furthermore if a "critic" ends with the words: "Kitsch should not get away with exploiting people’s desire to feel the art. How wonderful it must feel to go to “Dismaland” and see through society! But how awful to see society embrace art that makes you feel nothing, that makes you think only about the vast chasm between you and everyone else." Succesfull art, whether I personally like it or not, makes somebody feel something. Now if he would have written he didn't feel anything, that's one thing, claiming that SOCIETY embraces "empty" art (just because he didn't "feel anything" is clearly another. Guy is definitely not monetarily compensated by clicks and or likes on IG or his site. Does he like to stir the pot and make people think outside of what they are normally marketed towards... absolutely. Easy to point out flaws in the residual effects of his celebrity, art and initial intent. The New York Times make money with it (more clicks, more involvement, higher advertising revenue) / The author gets attention to his blog & probably money from the Times and maybe even through his blog. The authors of the Huffington Post article get money and Huffington Post can advertise for higher rates due to more clicks per month. If you want to learn something about the mechanics of online news read "Trust Me I'm Lying". Planned provocation is easy to do as a critic, especially if some high profile artist like Banksy that is loved by the majority of art people on the internet (at least it seems that way) is involved. I call this and all the other articles linked in there as a cheap way to create involvement (check all the comments at the articles) and clicks. It is a sad media world we live in. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by Deleted on Dec 12, 2015 12:06:51 GMT 1, Stuff you guys might have missed. Banksy is still a huge traffic generator on the internet. Easiest way to get even more traffic: "attack" the overall consensus of something. It involves reactions, involvement with the page, link sharing and all that stuff homepages make a hell lot of money with. You are part of the machinery by harvesting even more clicks and possible comments there.
A lot of this stuff is interconnected.
Having a PR team and media contacts helps and using social issues which are currently in the mainstream media promotes a positive image and empathy towards the artist.
Dismaland was definately a critique of Disney and it's OK for Banksy to have a go at Disney yet when anyone criticises banksy they get attacked but there again.
Banksy is a business with investors and despite what people say it is all about money and profit.
It's probably about a massive ego too.
Galleries and so called moneyed artists that have PR teams or people working for them also use people to post on forums such as this one.
Criticism is a good thing and so is satire.
People who believe that Banksy raises awareness of social issues etc need to get a life as these issues have been raised again and again in the media and if people ignore them untill Banksy makes a stencil. It says a lot about them.
Stuff you guys might have missed. Banksy is still a huge traffic generator on the internet. Easiest way to get even more traffic: "attack" the overall consensus of something. It involves reactions, involvement with the page, link sharing and all that stuff homepages make a hell lot of money with. You are part of the machinery by harvesting even more clicks and possible comments there. A lot of this stuff is interconnected. Having a PR team and media contacts helps and using social issues which are currently in the mainstream media promotes a positive image and empathy towards the artist. Dismaland was definately a critique of Disney and it's OK for Banksy to have a go at Disney yet when anyone criticises banksy they get attacked but there again. Banksy is a business with investors and despite what people say it is all about money and profit. It's probably about a massive ego too. Galleries and so called moneyed artists that have PR teams or people working for them also use people to post on forums such as this one. Criticism is a good thing and so is satire. People who believe that Banksy raises awareness of social issues etc need to get a life as these issues have been raised again and again in the media and if people ignore them untill Banksy makes a stencil. It says a lot about them. |
|
|
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by batterseaboys on Dec 12, 2015 16:41:59 GMT 1, Opinions are like Onions but with more P,s.........and i,s
Opinions are like Onions but with more P,s.........and i,s
|
|
cornholio
New Member
🗨️ 300
👍🏻 98
February 2011
|
Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art, by cornholio on Dec 15, 2015 18:16:34 GMT 1, <abbr></abbr>Is that how you view criticism? As an "attack?"
Criticism isn't always an attack but it certainly can be and this is pretty close, much like the recent NY Times review on the Faile show at the Brooklyn museum which was nothing but a petty gripe by a critic. While sarcasm may mean the use of "irony to convey contempt" this article also exhibits a lot of contempt and comes from an author who founded something called combat-blog - take that as you will. Although I may agree that the "sarcastic" trend in art (that existed prior to) Banksy (although he did a good job bringing it to the foreground) has prehaps run it's course - there's nothing the least bit constructive in his "crit" and the author obnoxiously believes that his opinion of dismaland as "bad" is more important than "the internets" hoopla over it and he just has to tell us all about how we're so wrong. Lame.
<abbr></abbr>Is that how you view criticism? As an "attack?" Criticism isn't always an attack but it certainly can be and this is pretty close, much like the recent NY Times review on the Faile show at the Brooklyn museum which was nothing but a petty gripe by a critic. While sarcasm may mean the use of "irony to convey contempt" this article also exhibits a lot of contempt and comes from an author who founded something called combat-blog - take that as you will. Although I may agree that the "sarcastic" trend in art (that existed prior to) Banksy (although he did a good job bringing it to the foreground) has prehaps run it's course - there's nothing the least bit constructive in his "crit" and the author obnoxiously believes that his opinion of dismaland as "bad" is more important than "the internets" hoopla over it and he just has to tell us all about how we're so wrong. Lame. |
|
