Swoon - Urban Art, lives breathes art
Bridget Riley - revolutionary, legend

Hyuro

It used to be Swoon, till I heard she was 'allegedly' knobbing an ex-gallerist from Rivington Street (koff koff)

Now its Bambi, shess**t and that appeals to my taste

We shouldn't forget the amazing Cornelia Parker. I imagine not to everyone's cup of tea here. I like conceptual art and bought her print, Stolen Thunder (once removed) from this years RA Summer Exhibition.

It's a shame we are only talking about living artists, otherwise I'd throw Leonora Carrington in to the mix, for the surrealist fans. One time better half to Max Ernst, she was a major contributor to the surrealist movement.
For those that want to see more, check out Leonora Carrington Surrealism, Alchemy and Art, published by Lund Humphries.

Martha Cooper


Just because...

Going surrealist, no one, not even the boys, gets me like Kay Sage.  Her works stops me dead in my tracks and terrifies me.

Aye and I'd throw in Käthe Kollwitz

great answer

Doing street work at the moment, I like Caratoes a lot.

http://instagram.com/p/BWrOaqWh7r8

Relevant, but not entirely on point, I'll add the Guerrilla Girls, who created the poster stealing Ingres image, with the slogan "do women have to be naked to get into the Met Museum"

Lala Abaddon
Swoon
Maya Hayuk
Aiko

I feel like she is able to sell her photographs due to her history of documenting street art rather than for her photographic skills or talents. Not trying to troll, I just don't feel that any of her photos are innovative or consider composition or lighting.

Well coach, I had to buy it, I just stood there and was like, wow, it really resonated to me. On reflection I wonder if she is subconsciously referencing Kasimir Malevich's Black Square painting (?) (although this is an oblong) and so this is the 'Stolen Thunder' perhaps. I know a year or so ago she did a similar print, obviously numbered 799 and therefore I'm assuming thats what the '(once removed)' in the title refers to. But also has the thunder been stolen because its an edition, reproduced and sold over and over again? It almost becomes a strange sort of interactive, participation piece, not complete until the buyers purchase and add their red dots as the edition is sold. Is it a reference to modern multiples? Those were/are my thoughts about the piece. But then again I'm a thick Yorkshire oik and here is what Parker's gallery, Firth Street Gallery said about her 2013 piece:

'For this work, Cornelia Parker visited the 2012 Royal Academy Summer Exhibition and took a clandestine photo of one of the most successful prints in the show. It was (as is traditional at the RA) plastered in red dots to mark the sales. A rush of covetousness came over her. Not able to make a representational image that might accrue such sales, Parker resorted to abstraction. Digitally erasing the image that she had stolen, Parker exhibited the photograph of the print as her own work in the 2013 RA Summer show, retaining the red spots as part of the piece in the hope of accruing some of her own sales by a Pavlovian response from the audience.'

So I was kinda talking b**locks :-) but it sounded good and I had a go. I'll definitely be adding the red dots to my framed piece.