Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Your honest opinions please, by Deleted on Jan 8, 2019 11:18:16 GMT 1, Lots of artists have done something similar (invader etc. etc.). But perhaps the greatest problem for me is that (presumably) they are supposed to be depicting famous people and yet I don't know who any of them are.
On a more general note, everybody seems to be copying everybody else these days. It's all getting a bit dull.
Lots of artists have done something similar (invader etc. etc.). But perhaps the greatest problem for me is that (presumably) they are supposed to be depicting famous people and yet I don't know who any of them are.
On a more general note, everybody seems to be copying everybody else these days. It's all getting a bit dull.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Your honest opinions please, by Deleted on Jan 8, 2019 11:21:18 GMT 1, Oh how times have changed..... Article from The Guardian on 17 July 2003: www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2003/jul/17/art.artsfeaturesBanksy was asked: "Do you ever see yourself becoming part of the art establishment?" Banksy's reply: "I don't know. I wouldn't sells**t to Charles Saatchi. If I sell 55,000 books [he has published two, Existencilism and Banging Your Head Against A Brick Wall] and however many screen prints, I don't need one man to tell me I'm an artist. It's hugely different if people buy it, rather than one f**kingTory punter does. No, I'd never knowingly sell anything to him." But okay for Pest Control to issue a certificate to sell at Sotheby's???
So whats your point?
Oh how times have changed..... Article from The Guardian on 17 July 2003: www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2003/jul/17/art.artsfeaturesBanksy was asked: "Do you ever see yourself becoming part of the art establishment?" Banksy's reply: "I don't know. I wouldn't sells**t to Charles Saatchi. If I sell 55,000 books [he has published two, Existencilism and Banging Your Head Against A Brick Wall] and however many screen prints, I don't need one man to tell me I'm an artist. It's hugely different if people buy it, rather than one f**kingTory punter does. No, I'd never knowingly sell anything to him." But okay for Pest Control to issue a certificate to sell at Sotheby's??? So whats your point? |
|
uas
Art Gallery
New Member
🗨️ 36
👍🏻 31
November 2018
|
Your honest opinions please, by uas on Jan 8, 2019 11:35:13 GMT 1, We share Rodgro's comments.
The Kool-Aid culture.
We share Rodgro's comments.
The Kool-Aid culture.
|
|
russkov
New Member
🗨️ 298
👍🏻 127
June 2014
|
Your honest opinions please, by russkov on Jan 8, 2019 11:58:52 GMT 1, Well, that's quite nice but way not unique. If it is just his start, would like to see how pieces evolve in time. indeed Lenz is doing it also and quite nicely.
Well, that's quite nice but way not unique. If it is just his start, would like to see how pieces evolve in time. indeed Lenz is doing it also and quite nicely.
|
|
tab1
Full Member
🗨️ 8,519
👍🏻 3,679
September 2011
|
Your honest opinions please, by tab1 on Jan 8, 2019 12:24:08 GMT 1, Lots of artists have done something similar (invader etc. etc.). But perhaps the greatest problem for me is that (presumably) they are supposed to be depicting famous people and yet I don't know who any of them are. On a more general note, everybody seems to be copying everybody else these days. It's all getting a bit dull.
Lots of artists have done something similar (invader etc. etc.). But perhaps the greatest problem for me is that (presumably) they are supposed to be depicting famous people and yet I don't know who any of them are. On a more general note, everybody seems to be copying everybody else these days. It's all getting a bit dull. Copying or creating similar work has been going on for years .was hidden and unknown before but now with the internet everyone or anyone can keep track of what is out there and occasionally a few get found out. |
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Your honest opinions please, by Dive Jedi on Jan 8, 2019 14:30:55 GMT 1, If he were to produce images that were Original it might be interesting.
Doing done to death portraits is quite boring and rather unimaginary.
Can't wait for the Marilyn Monroe, Kate Moss and Here's Johnny pieces.
I would advise the "artist" not to quit his job at the local supermarket.
Commenting "if this was done by Banksy" is rather useless.
If my neighbor's painting had been done by Michelangelo I would want one too.
It's not. Probaly for good reasons…..
If he were to produce images that were Original it might be interesting.
Doing done to death portraits is quite boring and rather unimaginary.
Can't wait for the Marilyn Monroe, Kate Moss and Here's Johnny pieces.
I would advise the "artist" not to quit his job at the local supermarket.
Commenting "if this was done by Banksy" is rather useless.
If my neighbor's painting had been done by Michelangelo I would want one too.
It's not. Probaly for good reasons…..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your honest opinions please, by Not 4 The Thril on Jan 9, 2019 3:03:10 GMT 1, theres a guy at the hipster flea market in LA who will make you a custom portrait in lego type bricks for $200. You pay on sunday and come back the next week and he has it done.
theres a guy at the hipster flea market in LA who will make you a custom portrait in lego type bricks for $200. You pay on sunday and come back the next week and he has it done.
|
|
|
|
Your honest opinions please, by Viking Surfer on Jan 9, 2019 3:28:13 GMT 1, Here's a great video using lego, white stripes - fell in love with a girl, directed by the amazing Michel Gondry
Here's a great video using lego, white stripes - fell in love with a girl, directed by the amazing Michel Gondry One of my favourites! Thanks for sharing. |
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Your honest opinions please, by met on Feb 4, 2019 0:27:04 GMT 1, Minor comment regarding this being "something new": Have you tried searching for "Lego portrait" in Google Images? __________ Of greater interest, however, is the sweeping statement highlighted in red. I'm not clear why you would say this — whether about me, or about anyone else in the thread who's voiced a critical opinion. To my mind, the assertion is unfounded. What exactly are you basing it on? Apologies mate as my comment seems to have struck a cord and offended you. Not my intent at all, but since you asked my comment was meant to be innocent while smattered with truth as it appears (in my opinion) that the general consensus is that if a known artist makes something than its legitimate, etc but if it’s someone new than it can’t be considered until it’s deemed cool, etc. It’s kind of that “I’m not sure what I like until someone tells me what I should like” mentality. I suppose the ironic part of my comment is that it’s exactly the kind of thing he (Banksy) makes fun of. I love the forum and don’t mean to poke fun, but it seems that the rules of “don’t flip, etc” only apply to some works and artists and is overlooked or ignored with others. That said, please accept my apology if I somehow offended you as I truly enjoy this community. Cheers
Thanks for the clarification.
No need to apologise for causing offence. That (at least in itself) isn't worth caring about.
Far more offence actually deserves to be caused here, in my view. More poking fun is needed.
I support words or actions which rattle the appropriate cages, calling out double standards or hypocrisy. It takes courage, since it can easily lead to blowback. Whether from the people you're shining a light on, or their partners and stooges. In this respect, I'm with you shoulder to shoulder.
Separately, certain forum members are indeed sometimes guilty of the situations you've described above — including what can come across as blind loyalty towards particular artists, a fanboy mentality almost comparable to religious or political zealotry.
__________
My issue was that many, if not all, of the specific members you were pointing at (i.e. "all of those people" who expressed negative opinions about the Lego portraits on this thread) were unfairly selected. [If the portraits were the recent work of Banksy, I myself would have been more critical. Simply because Banksy has set the bar so high for himself in recent years. Even an okay piece by him is now a slight disappointment.]
And so, whilst your comments seemed legitimate to me, on this occasion I believe you were aiming at the wrong targets.
Minor comment regarding this being "something new": Have you tried searching for "Lego portrait" in Google Images? __________ Of greater interest, however, is the sweeping statement highlighted in red. I'm not clear why you would say this — whether about me, or about anyone else in the thread who's voiced a critical opinion. To my mind, the assertion is unfounded. What exactly are you basing it on? Apologies mate as my comment seems to have struck a cord and offended you. Not my intent at all, but since you asked my comment was meant to be innocent while smattered with truth as it appears (in my opinion) that the general consensus is that if a known artist makes something than its legitimate, etc but if it’s someone new than it can’t be considered until it’s deemed cool, etc. It’s kind of that “I’m not sure what I like until someone tells me what I should like” mentality. I suppose the ironic part of my comment is that it’s exactly the kind of thing he (Banksy) makes fun of. I love the forum and don’t mean to poke fun, but it seems that the rules of “don’t flip, etc” only apply to some works and artists and is overlooked or ignored with others. That said, please accept my apology if I somehow offended you as I truly enjoy this community. Cheers Thanks for the clarification. No need to apologise for causing offence. That (at least in itself) isn't worth caring about. Far more offence actually deserves to be caused here, in my view. More poking fun is needed. I support words or actions which rattle the appropriate cages, calling out double standards or hypocrisy. It takes courage, since it can easily lead to blowback. Whether from the people you're shining a light on, or their partners and stooges. In this respect, I'm with you shoulder to shoulder. Separately, certain forum members are indeed sometimes guilty of the situations you've described above — including what can come across as blind loyalty towards particular artists, a fanboy mentality almost comparable to religious or political zealotry. __________ My issue was that many, if not all, of the specific members you were pointing at (i.e. "all of those people" who expressed negative opinions about the Lego portraits on this thread) were unfairly selected. [If the portraits were the recent work of Banksy, I myself would have been more critical. Simply because Banksy has set the bar so high for himself in recent years. Even an okay piece by him is now a slight disappointment.]And so, whilst your comments seemed legitimate to me, on this occasion I believe you were aiming at the wrong targets. |
|
rodgro
New Member
🗨️ 539
👍🏻 295
January 2011
|
Your honest opinions please, by rodgro on Feb 5, 2019 5:58:06 GMT 1, Apologies mate as my comment seems to have struck a cord and offended you. Not my intent at all, but since you asked my comment was meant to be innocent while smattered with truth as it appears (in my opinion) that the general consensus is that if a known artist makes something than its legitimate, etc but if it’s someone new than it can’t be considered until it’s deemed cool, etc. It’s kind of that “I’m not sure what I like until someone tells me what I should like” mentality. I suppose the ironic part of my comment is that it’s exactly the kind of thing he (Banksy) makes fun of. I love the forum and don’t mean to poke fun, but it seems that the rules of “don’t flip, etc” only apply to some works and artists and is overlooked or ignored with others. That said, please accept my apology if I somehow offended you as I truly enjoy this community. Cheers Thanks for the clarification. No need to apologise for causing offence. That (at least in itself) isn't worth caring about. Far more offence actually deserves to be caused here, in my view. More poking fun is needed. I support words or actions which rattle the appropriate cages, calling out double standards or hypocrisy. It takes courage, since it can easily lead to blowback. Whether from the people you're shining a light on, or their partners and stooges. In this respect, I'm with you shoulder to shoulder. Separately, certain forum members are indeed sometimes guilty of the situations you've described above — including what can come across as blind loyalty towards particular artists, a fanboy mentality almost comparable to religious or political zealotry. __________ My issue was that many, if not all, of the specific members you were pointing at (i.e. "all of those people" who expressed negative opinions about the Lego portraits on this thread) were unfairly selected. [If the portraits were the recent work of Banksy, I myself would have been more critical. Simply because Banksy has set the bar so high for himself in recent years. Even an okay piece by him is now a slight disappointment.]And so, whilst your comments seemed legitimate to me, on this occasion I believe you were aiming at the wrong targets.
Thanks, your point is well made and taken to heart . In hindsight I shouldn’t have said or focused on saying “all of those people would magically love it”, and instead should have said “while the work may be weak or unoriginal, but if it were Banksy who created it than all or some of those criticizing this artists work would possibly still be criticizing it just the same but they would be doing it while waiting in line to pay for one of them”. Fair enough? My point wasn’t that the work was good but rather generally speaking it couldn’t be good because no one has told us it’s good yet. I do appreciate what you’re saying but to imply that everyone is a purist and only buy Banksy’s work because it’s brilliant is just without merit as while it is brilliant it doesn’t matter anymore because it’s become blue chip at this point. I include myself in my earlier point about being open to new artists and work. Thanks for the dialogue. Much appreciated.
Apologies mate as my comment seems to have struck a cord and offended you. Not my intent at all, but since you asked my comment was meant to be innocent while smattered with truth as it appears (in my opinion) that the general consensus is that if a known artist makes something than its legitimate, etc but if it’s someone new than it can’t be considered until it’s deemed cool, etc. It’s kind of that “I’m not sure what I like until someone tells me what I should like” mentality. I suppose the ironic part of my comment is that it’s exactly the kind of thing he (Banksy) makes fun of. I love the forum and don’t mean to poke fun, but it seems that the rules of “don’t flip, etc” only apply to some works and artists and is overlooked or ignored with others. That said, please accept my apology if I somehow offended you as I truly enjoy this community. Cheers Thanks for the clarification. No need to apologise for causing offence. That (at least in itself) isn't worth caring about. Far more offence actually deserves to be caused here, in my view. More poking fun is needed. I support words or actions which rattle the appropriate cages, calling out double standards or hypocrisy. It takes courage, since it can easily lead to blowback. Whether from the people you're shining a light on, or their partners and stooges. In this respect, I'm with you shoulder to shoulder. Separately, certain forum members are indeed sometimes guilty of the situations you've described above — including what can come across as blind loyalty towards particular artists, a fanboy mentality almost comparable to religious or political zealotry. __________ My issue was that many, if not all, of the specific members you were pointing at (i.e. "all of those people" who expressed negative opinions about the Lego portraits on this thread) were unfairly selected. [If the portraits were the recent work of Banksy, I myself would have been more critical. Simply because Banksy has set the bar so high for himself in recent years. Even an okay piece by him is now a slight disappointment.]And so, whilst your comments seemed legitimate to me, on this occasion I believe you were aiming at the wrong targets. Thanks, your point is well made and taken to heart . In hindsight I shouldn’t have said or focused on saying “all of those people would magically love it”, and instead should have said “while the work may be weak or unoriginal, but if it were Banksy who created it than all or some of those criticizing this artists work would possibly still be criticizing it just the same but they would be doing it while waiting in line to pay for one of them”. Fair enough? My point wasn’t that the work was good but rather generally speaking it couldn’t be good because no one has told us it’s good yet. I do appreciate what you’re saying but to imply that everyone is a purist and only buy Banksy’s work because it’s brilliant is just without merit as while it is brilliant it doesn’t matter anymore because it’s become blue chip at this point. I include myself in my earlier point about being open to new artists and work. Thanks for the dialogue. Much appreciated. |
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,797
👍🏻 6,771
June 2009
|
Your honest opinions please, by met on Feb 6, 2019 21:23:17 GMT 1, Thanks for the clarification. No need to apologise for causing offence. That (at least in itself) isn't worth caring about. Far more offence actually deserves to be caused here, in my view. More poking fun is needed. I support words or actions which rattle the appropriate cages, calling out double standards or hypocrisy. It takes courage, since it can easily lead to blowback. Whether from the people you're shining a light on, or their partners and stooges. In this respect, I'm with you shoulder to shoulder. Separately, certain forum members are indeed sometimes guilty of the situations you've described above — including what can come across as blind loyalty towards particular artists, a fanboy mentality almost comparable to religious or political zealotry. __________ My issue was that many, if not all, of the specific members you were pointing at (i.e. "all of those people" who expressed negative opinions about the Lego portraits on this thread) were unfairly selected. [If the portraits were the recent work of Banksy, I myself would have been more critical. Simply because Banksy has set the bar so high for himself in recent years. Even an okay piece by him is now a slight disappointment.]And so, whilst your comments seemed legitimate to me, on this occasion I believe you were aiming at the wrong targets. Thanks, your point is well made and taken to heart . In hindsight I shouldn’t have said or focused on saying “all of those people would magically love it”, and instead should have said “while the work may be weak or unoriginal, but if it were Banksy who created it than all or some of those criticizing this artists work would possibly still be criticizing it just the same but they would be doing it while waiting in line to pay for one of them”. Fair enough? My point wasn’t that the work was good but rather generally speaking it couldn’t be good because no one has told us it’s good yet. I do appreciate what you’re saying but to imply that everyone is a purist and only buy Banksy’s work because it’s brilliant is just without merit as while it is brilliant it doesn’t matter anymore because it’s become blue chip at this point. I include myself in my earlier point about being open to new artists and work. Thanks for the dialogue. Much appreciated.
Regarding the distinction you now make between the calibre of art on one hand, and mere financial opportunism on the other, fair enough indeed.
__________
The follow-on — that, generally speaking, the work "couldn't be good because no one has told us it's good yet" — is a different point which I'd strongly qualify.
Such comment is unlikely to apply to art enthusiasts who:
(i) use their eyes and brains (as opposed to just their ears); and
(ii) have the requisite level of knowledge, allowing them to make art-quality distinctions according to their chosen criterion or criteria.
These people don't need to wait for third-party endorsements. They're capable of determining for themselves what is good art.
The phenomenon you've described is something I make efforts to fight against. By way of illustration, see this post from 2014. My position has always been that we all need to be proactive in learning more, thinking more, questioning more.
When a collector for example is unable to clearly articulate why they like or dislike a piece, they're probably being intellectually lazy and not trying hard enough. It leaves them exposed to manipulation by others with vested interests. The latter are of course happy telling anybody who'll listen what they should love — and what they should buy.
__________
I never implied "everyone is a purist". But if this is what you inferred from my posts, then I expressed my thoughts poorly.
It's worth emphasising as well that, while Banksy is one artist I'm fond of and pay attention to, I'm wary of blanket statements along the lines of "His work is brilliant." These types of assertions don't differentiate. And, in my view, they're thought-terminating.
Many of us here are fans. But it doesn't mean we're sycophants. Or unquestioning. When we do like pieces, one hopes the reasons are down to the art rather than its creator. I believe plenty are also comfortable criticising when disappointed by any given work.
__________
In case they're of interest, here are examples of critical comments relating to Banksy imagery:
2014 series of posts about Love Rat:
urbanartassociation.com/post/1244140/thread
2014 series of posts about Virgin Mary (a.k.a. Toxic Mary):
urbanartassociation.com/post/1299495/thread
[Also mentioned was the regrettable tendency of some buyers who seek to purchase "a Banksy" — where the actual image is either of secondary importance to them, or perhaps irrelevant. This would support your point about the artist's status having now eclipsed his art.]
2016 post about Golf Sale:
urbanartassociation.com/post/1497525/thread
'Least loved Banksy', a thread started in 2018 by rockbeer, includes posts worth reading:
urbanartassociation.com/thread/149581/least-loved-banksy
The use of children as subject matter in many works creates a tone which is often too sentimental for my own taste, even if popular with the wider public.
It's great too that the artist himself openly accepts his work isn't always up to standard. I remember being pleased reading about his change of heart towards an image whose wide appeal always baffled me — Pulp Fiction. From the POW website:
Banksy came to hate this print and its easy to see why. An image that was mildly amusing and pretty ballsy when painted at night on a rooftop in Shoreditch, becomes a distinctly flimsy one-note joke on paper. A few years after its release the artist begged us to announce a product recall and offer refunds on the grounds "its total shit", but the company couldn't afford the market price for the whole edition by then. Sorry Banksy, can't win 'em all.
Thanks for the clarification. No need to apologise for causing offence. That (at least in itself) isn't worth caring about. Far more offence actually deserves to be caused here, in my view. More poking fun is needed. I support words or actions which rattle the appropriate cages, calling out double standards or hypocrisy. It takes courage, since it can easily lead to blowback. Whether from the people you're shining a light on, or their partners and stooges. In this respect, I'm with you shoulder to shoulder. Separately, certain forum members are indeed sometimes guilty of the situations you've described above — including what can come across as blind loyalty towards particular artists, a fanboy mentality almost comparable to religious or political zealotry. __________ My issue was that many, if not all, of the specific members you were pointing at (i.e. "all of those people" who expressed negative opinions about the Lego portraits on this thread) were unfairly selected. [If the portraits were the recent work of Banksy, I myself would have been more critical. Simply because Banksy has set the bar so high for himself in recent years. Even an okay piece by him is now a slight disappointment.]And so, whilst your comments seemed legitimate to me, on this occasion I believe you were aiming at the wrong targets. Thanks, your point is well made and taken to heart . In hindsight I shouldn’t have said or focused on saying “all of those people would magically love it”, and instead should have said “while the work may be weak or unoriginal, but if it were Banksy who created it than all or some of those criticizing this artists work would possibly still be criticizing it just the same but they would be doing it while waiting in line to pay for one of them”. Fair enough? My point wasn’t that the work was good but rather generally speaking it couldn’t be good because no one has told us it’s good yet. I do appreciate what you’re saying but to imply that everyone is a purist and only buy Banksy’s work because it’s brilliant is just without merit as while it is brilliant it doesn’t matter anymore because it’s become blue chip at this point. I include myself in my earlier point about being open to new artists and work. Thanks for the dialogue. Much appreciated. Regarding the distinction you now make between the calibre of art on one hand, and mere financial opportunism on the other, fair enough indeed. __________ The follow-on — that, generally speaking, the work "couldn't be good because no one has told us it's good yet" — is a different point which I'd strongly qualify. Such comment is unlikely to apply to art enthusiasts who: (i) use their eyes and brains (as opposed to just their ears); and (ii) have the requisite level of knowledge, allowing them to make art-quality distinctions according to their chosen criterion or criteria. These people don't need to wait for third-party endorsements. They're capable of determining for themselves what is good art. The phenomenon you've described is something I make efforts to fight against. By way of illustration, see this post from 2014. My position has always been that we all need to be proactive in learning more, thinking more, questioning more. When a collector for example is unable to clearly articulate why they like or dislike a piece, they're probably being intellectually lazy and not trying hard enough. It leaves them exposed to manipulation by others with vested interests. The latter are of course happy telling anybody who'll listen what they should love — and what they should buy. __________ I never implied "everyone is a purist". But if this is what you inferred from my posts, then I expressed my thoughts poorly. It's worth emphasising as well that, while Ban ksy is one artist I'm fond of and pay attention to, I'm wary of blanket statements along the lines of "His work is brilliant." These types of assertions don't differentiate. And, in my view, they're thought-terminating. Many of us here are fans. But it doesn't mean we're sycophants. Or unquestioning. When we do like pieces, one hopes the reasons are down to the art rather than its creator. I believe plenty are also comfortable criticising when disappointed by any given work. __________ In case they're of interest, here are examples of critical comments relating to Ban ksy imagery: 2014 series of posts about Love Rat: urbanartassociation.com/post/1244140/thread2014 series of posts about Virgin Mary (a.k.a. Toxic Mary): urbanartassociation.com/post/1299495/thread[Also mentioned was the regrettable tendency of some buyers who seek to purchase "a Banksy" — where the actual image is either of secondary importance to them, or perhaps irrelevant. This would support your point about the artist's status having now eclipsed his art.] 2016 post about Golf Sale: urbanartassociation.com/post/1497525/thread'Least loved Banksy', a thread started in 2018 by rockbeer, includes posts worth reading: urbanartassociation.com/thread/149581/least-loved-banksyThe use of children as subject matter in many works creates a tone which is often too sentimental for my own taste, even if popular with the wider public. It's great too that the artist himself openly accepts his work isn't always up to standard. I remember being pleased reading about his change of heart towards an image whose wide appeal always baffled me — Pulp Fiction. From the POW website: Banksy came to hate this print and its easy to see why. An image that was mildly amusing and pretty ballsy when painted at night on a rooftop in Shoreditch, becomes a distinctly flimsy one-note joke on paper. A few years after its release the artist begged us to announce a product recall and offer refunds on the grounds "its total shit", but the company couldn't afford the market price for the whole edition by then. Sorry Banksy, can't win 'em all. |
|
rodgro
New Member
🗨️ 539
👍🏻 295
January 2011
|
Your honest opinions please, by rodgro on Feb 7, 2019 4:38:12 GMT 1, Thanks, your point is well made and taken to heart . In hindsight I shouldn’t have said or focused on saying “all of those people would magically love it”, and instead should have said “while the work may be weak or unoriginal, but if it were Banksy who created it than all or some of those criticizing this artists work would possibly still be criticizing it just the same but they would be doing it while waiting in line to pay for one of them”. Fair enough? My point wasn’t that the work was good but rather generally speaking it couldn’t be good because no one has told us it’s good yet. I do appreciate what you’re saying but to imply that everyone is a purist and only buy Banksy’s work because it’s brilliant is just without merit as while it is brilliant it doesn’t matter anymore because it’s become blue chip at this point. I include myself in my earlier point about being open to new artists and work. Thanks for the dialogue. Much appreciated. Regarding the distinction you now make between the calibre of art on one hand, and mere financial opportunism on the other, fair enough indeed. __________ The follow-on — that, generally speaking, the work "couldn't be good because no one has told us it's good yet" — is a different point which I'd strongly qualify. Such comment is unlikely to apply to art enthusiasts who: (i) use their eyes and brains (as opposed to just their ears); and (ii) have the requisite level of knowledge, allowing them to make art-quality distinctions according to their chosen criterion or criteria. These people don't need to wait for third-party endorsements. They're capable of determining for themselves what is good art. The phenomenon you've described is something I make efforts to fight against. By way of illustration, see this post from 2014. My position has always been that we all need to be proactive in learning more, thinking more, questioning more. When a collector for example is unable to clearly articulate why they like or dislike a piece, they're probably being intellectually lazy and not trying hard enough. It leaves them exposed to manipulation by others with vested interests. The latter are of course happy telling anybody who'll listen what they should love — and what they should buy. __________ I never implied "everyone is a purist". But if this is what you inferred from my posts, then I expressed my thoughts poorly. It's worth emphasising as well that, while Ban ksy is one artist I'm fond of and pay attention to, I'm wary of blanket statements along the lines of "His work is brilliant." These types of assertions don't differentiate. And, in my view, they're thought-terminating. Many of us here are fans. But it doesn't mean we're sycophants. Or unquestioning. When we do like pieces, one hopes the reasons are down to the art rather than its creator. I believe plenty are also comfortable criticising when disappointed by any given work. __________ In case they're of interest, here are examples of critical comments relating to Ban ksy imagery: 2014 series of posts about Love Rat: urbanartassociation.com/post/1244140/thread2014 series of posts about Virgin Mary (a.k.a. Toxic Mary): urbanartassociation.com/post/1299495/thread[Also mentioned was the regrettable tendency of some buyers who seek to purchase "a Banksy" — where the actual image is either of secondary importance to them, or perhaps irrelevant. This would support your point about the artist's status having now eclipsed his art.] 2016 post about Golf Sale: urbanartassociation.com/post/1497525/thread'Least loved Banksy', a thread started in 2018 by rockbeer, includes posts worth reading: urbanartassociation.com/thread/149581/least-loved-banksyThe use of children as subject matter in many works creates a tone which is often too sentimental for my own taste, even if popular with the wider public. It's great too that the artist himself openly accepts his work isn't always up to standard. I remember being pleased reading about his change of heart towards an image whose wide appeal always baffled me — Pulp Fiction. From the POW website: Banksy came to hate this print and its easy to see why. An image that was mildly amusing and pretty ballsy when painted at night on a rooftop in Shoreditch, becomes a distinctly flimsy one-note joke on paper. A few years after its release the artist begged us to announce a product recall and offer refunds on the grounds "its total shit", but the company couldn't afford the market price for the whole edition by then. Sorry Banksy, can't win 'em all.
Hmmm, interesting comments but once again I’m left feeling like my comments have somehow slighted you and the folks you are referring to so once again please accept my apology. I’ll also say that I wish I was you as to suggest that I’m not at all influenced by what others are talking about, on the pages of magazines, in museums, movies, etc. is simply silly as literally everyone of those things do influence me and my collection. That’s not to say that I don’t consider myself as someone who knows what he likes but to tell someone that my likes are not influenced by things just wouldn’t be true. I’d also like to say that I can “clearly articulate” why I like or dislike a particular piece of art but I simply can’t so I think...wait, I know I’m not part of that crowd of people you refer to as not being influenced, persuaded or knows exactly why they like something. Also, I wasn’t suggesting that you/anyone else didn’t criticize Banksy’s work. I was simply trying to say that while people were criticizing they were standing in line to buy it. Maybe that doesn’t include you but I’m fairly confident saying thats a fair comment as regardless of whether a piece is considered strong or weak it sells out in seconds. It’s also worth saying that something beyond people really loving Banksy’s work is driving a 100 print to now sell for 30,000 with no end in sight. So, to circle back to the beginning...it’s just my opinion that good or bad work is more often than not subject to who created it. If it’s someone we know than it more often than not sells and if it’s someone we don’t than it doesn’t. Since we are on the Banksy topic, didn’t he himself prove my point in Central Park? Images that sell for tens of thousands of dollars DIDNT sell for $60 so is it the image that people love or is it who created the image? As always, stimulating dialogue. Best. R
Thanks, your point is well made and taken to heart . In hindsight I shouldn’t have said or focused on saying “all of those people would magically love it”, and instead should have said “while the work may be weak or unoriginal, but if it were Banksy who created it than all or some of those criticizing this artists work would possibly still be criticizing it just the same but they would be doing it while waiting in line to pay for one of them”. Fair enough? My point wasn’t that the work was good but rather generally speaking it couldn’t be good because no one has told us it’s good yet. I do appreciate what you’re saying but to imply that everyone is a purist and only buy Banksy’s work because it’s brilliant is just without merit as while it is brilliant it doesn’t matter anymore because it’s become blue chip at this point. I include myself in my earlier point about being open to new artists and work. Thanks for the dialogue. Much appreciated. Regarding the distinction you now make between the calibre of art on one hand, and mere financial opportunism on the other, fair enough indeed. __________ The follow-on — that, generally speaking, the work "couldn't be good because no one has told us it's good yet" — is a different point which I'd strongly qualify. Such comment is unlikely to apply to art enthusiasts who: (i) use their eyes and brains (as opposed to just their ears); and (ii) have the requisite level of knowledge, allowing them to make art-quality distinctions according to their chosen criterion or criteria. These people don't need to wait for third-party endorsements. They're capable of determining for themselves what is good art. The phenomenon you've described is something I make efforts to fight against. By way of illustration, see this post from 2014. My position has always been that we all need to be proactive in learning more, thinking more, questioning more. When a collector for example is unable to clearly articulate why they like or dislike a piece, they're probably being intellectually lazy and not trying hard enough. It leaves them exposed to manipulation by others with vested interests. The latter are of course happy telling anybody who'll listen what they should love — and what they should buy. __________ I never implied "everyone is a purist". But if this is what you inferred from my posts, then I expressed my thoughts poorly. It's worth emphasising as well that, while Ban ksy is one artist I'm fond of and pay attention to, I'm wary of blanket statements along the lines of "His work is brilliant." These types of assertions don't differentiate. And, in my view, they're thought-terminating. Many of us here are fans. But it doesn't mean we're sycophants. Or unquestioning. When we do like pieces, one hopes the reasons are down to the art rather than its creator. I believe plenty are also comfortable criticising when disappointed by any given work. __________ In case they're of interest, here are examples of critical comments relating to Ban ksy imagery: 2014 series of posts about Love Rat: urbanartassociation.com/post/1244140/thread2014 series of posts about Virgin Mary (a.k.a. Toxic Mary): urbanartassociation.com/post/1299495/thread[Also mentioned was the regrettable tendency of some buyers who seek to purchase "a Banksy" — where the actual image is either of secondary importance to them, or perhaps irrelevant. This would support your point about the artist's status having now eclipsed his art.] 2016 post about Golf Sale: urbanartassociation.com/post/1497525/thread'Least loved Banksy', a thread started in 2018 by rockbeer, includes posts worth reading: urbanartassociation.com/thread/149581/least-loved-banksyThe use of children as subject matter in many works creates a tone which is often too sentimental for my own taste, even if popular with the wider public. It's great too that the artist himself openly accepts his work isn't always up to standard. I remember being pleased reading about his change of heart towards an image whose wide appeal always baffled me — Pulp Fiction. From the POW website: Banksy came to hate this print and its easy to see why. An image that was mildly amusing and pretty ballsy when painted at night on a rooftop in Shoreditch, becomes a distinctly flimsy one-note joke on paper. A few years after its release the artist begged us to announce a product recall and offer refunds on the grounds "its total shit", but the company couldn't afford the market price for the whole edition by then. Sorry Banksy, can't win 'em all.Hmmm, interesting comments but once again I’m left feeling like my comments have somehow slighted you and the folks you are referring to so once again please accept my apology. I’ll also say that I wish I was you as to suggest that I’m not at all influenced by what others are talking about, on the pages of magazines, in museums, movies, etc. is simply silly as literally everyone of those things do influence me and my collection. That’s not to say that I don’t consider myself as someone who knows what he likes but to tell someone that my likes are not influenced by things just wouldn’t be true. I’d also like to say that I can “clearly articulate” why I like or dislike a particular piece of art but I simply can’t so I think...wait, I know I’m not part of that crowd of people you refer to as not being influenced, persuaded or knows exactly why they like something. Also, I wasn’t suggesting that you/anyone else didn’t criticize Banksy’s work. I was simply trying to say that while people were criticizing they were standing in line to buy it. Maybe that doesn’t include you but I’m fairly confident saying thats a fair comment as regardless of whether a piece is considered strong or weak it sells out in seconds. It’s also worth saying that something beyond people really loving Banksy’s work is driving a 100 print to now sell for 30,000 with no end in sight. So, to circle back to the beginning...it’s just my opinion that good or bad work is more often than not subject to who created it. If it’s someone we know than it more often than not sells and if it’s someone we don’t than it doesn’t. Since we are on the Banksy topic, didn’t he himself prove my point in Central Park? Images that sell for tens of thousands of dollars DIDNT sell for $60 so is it the image that people love or is it who created the image? As always, stimulating dialogue. Best. R |
|
|
|
Your honest opinions please, by dolamite24 on Feb 7, 2019 5:44:06 GMT 1, It's cool work but I agree with the previous idea of seeing/using less popular images. One of the images looks like George Washington to me...
Probably not something I'd add to my collection. Either way, thanks for sharing.
It's cool work but I agree with the previous idea of seeing/using less popular images. One of the images looks like George Washington to me...
Probably not something I'd add to my collection. Either way, thanks for sharing.
|
|
