How is this any different to War Boutique and their Mirrorball Riot Helmets?

alternative scene he may live behind closed doors , get a hint from his Instagram 👀😂

I like it, if I get one, def going on my wall :-)
Alexei

Well, there you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen. There you have it. You see how far the termites have spread, and how long and well they've dined.













JFC.

With apologies for the exasperated tone, what is this rubbish?


__________


The most disheartening aspect about the thread is the general absence of scepticism being expressed by members.

There's even a link to a hack-journalism piece — quite possibly paid for, and reading in part like PR guff or paraphrased press releases from a gallery or artist. And this has been posted as if it were a researched news article. Frankly, that amounts to confusing clickbait for legitimate, reliable sources of information.

Mental faculties and senses seem to have been dullened (whether by age-related forgetfulness, sedentariness, physical comfort and/or jadedness) — to the point where some members appear to accept at face value a narrative being presented to them by those with vested interests. And, for that matter, obvious vested interests.

__________


Why are there so few posts challenging this rot?

Where has our attitude of "Question everything!" disappeared to?

Who is asking, "Cui bono?"



It's not as if these types of shenanigans are unfamiliar to longstanding members.

We've already been exposed, multiple times, to parasitic dross and deceptive marketing from pedlars of the likes of Outis, Gonefellow, Ted Patrick and Mrs Banksy.

But also from Mason Storm himself. Remember he's a recidivist. Storm has always reeked of the need to appear relevant, if only by proxy.



____________________


Let's consider things a different way, with a partial thought experiment, to drum home the point.


Imagine for this purpose that:


(i)  it is I who is the inadequate artist, with a history of Banksy coattail-riding and amateur attempts at media manipulation;

(ii)  my fixation with Banksy has been documented for at least 13 years — including with a rather sad "Mason Knows" hype campaign, and the work below from circa 2007:

www.flickr.com/photos/25770208@N03/2423047664/






In addition, assume the following:


(iii)  I am both short on cash and really, really want to be talked about (even by forced association with a famous artist who actually has talent);

(iv)  I get a section of Devolved Parliament cheaply copied after, say, making contact online with a business from Dafen Oil Painting Village in Shenzhen, China;

(v)  the reproduction has some deliberate, noticeable differences to the original image, adding credence to the false notion that (rather than being just a copy) the new painting is actually an early study for Devolved Parliament; and

(vi)  when announcing my print release on Instagram, I make cynically ambiguous comments about the copy painting being an "oil sketch" or a "reference for another painting" — to further imply a genuine Banksy connection and therefore to further mislead my target market, i.e. the more ignorant or naive among collectors of Banksy art and ephemera.



Now, then:


Despite my previous history of playing Banksy enthusiasts for fools, query whether I might be able to repeat the process yet again.

Will my new efforts described in (iv), (v) and (vi) above suffice at deceiving enough patsies to ensure that my prints sell out next week?

Thus far, things are looking very good. My faith in stupidity remains intact.

Well .. I have to learn English I think.. did not understood any words, subject, phrases etc
I’m not mocking. This is real.
Good night all

This is the crazy market right now , people buy anything with association to banksy and not the content of the work
If this piece has a link to banksy , it is amazing if not it’s crap?

Such a well written post.  

1.  On the Banksy / Devolved Parliament side, it seems understandable that, if someone had inside information, they might refrain from disclosing details on a public forum — to avoid betraying the trust given to them by the artist.



2.  Regarding Mason Storm, both his intention and modus operandi seem reasonably clear to me. This, even if we ignore his history of coattail-riding.

It's a case of looking at both paintings, seeing the considerable efforts of the Storm version to very faithfully replicate the Banksy and, notwithstanding the intentional small differences, being conscious this process would not have been followed to such degree if the Storm version were (as vaguely yet knowingly implied) an earlier study of the finished Banksy.


The same thing is evident when comparing Banksy's Vettriano, Beach Rescue with Storm's copy: a couple of deliberately noticeable differences, with the rest of it (cloud formations, sand shadows, etc.) being obvious parroting and just too similar to be a study:







Side note:

Interested members may wish to take the time and closely examine, as I have done, other paintings attributed to Mason Storm. You might share my strong suspicion that many of them were created by different hands — their execution having been outsourced to artists who can actually paint.



3.  If Stowe Gallery, as publisher and distributor of the release, wanted to demonstrate integrity, it could easily offer some clarification.

This would benefit collectors currently under the false impression that the painting on which the Mason Storm prints are based may have been a Banksy commission, or something other than a mere later copy of a section of Devolved Parliament.


The alternative for the gallery is to accept the risk of accusations of dishonesty from its clients — of selling them prints under cynically-implied false pretences.


Artlover has previously identified himself here as Jamie Marchant* of Marchant Group / Stowe Gallery. [printlove, based in Worcester, looks like it could be a duplicate account.]

Since Marchant will surely have had communications with Storm about the background of the painting in question, perhaps he would be kind enough to confirm it has no genuine connection to Banksy and that it was created after Devolved Parliament as a reproduction.

Thanks met very detailed post that's the UAA spirit

In near 1000000 enlightenment and clever comments I just still don’t understand why people are still quoting big posts ( with photos or not) to say «  Such a well written post »
What I’m doing now

On the right side is an @ permitting to quote the name of the poster and to say «  thank you » ...

I’m case anyone wants to hear my hot take:

1) what fucking artist does oil sketches?! Seriously, is that a real thing?

2) this is ugly. Period.

1. On the Banksy / Devolved Parliament side, it seems understandable that, if someone had inside information, they might refrain from disclosing details on a public forum — to avoid betraying the trust given to them by the artist.


This. No artist with actual links to Banksy would come out with "hints" like this.

2 fine and ( long ) analysis - with a bit of anger - I did not said hate -, just why to attack Mason, Gonefellow, Ted , and to put them
All in the same scumbag ?! Anyway I ts a bit difficult to understand where is the real problem !
Gimme the money I will buy one ( yesterday there were already 2000 mails for the 250 edition ! - not joking ).
And you my dear friend ? ( apart posting JPS instead of the miss - just jokin’ ahah )

Opinions are like arseholes. Everybody’s got one.