|
|
The Simpsons Graffiti, by dgb133 on Jul 19, 2007 19:39:13 GMT 1,
But how come Banksy's allowed to put his art wherever he wants but not Matt Groening?
Of course it's to promote the Simpsons but Banksy's work is to promote Banksy. Banksy wouldn't be nearly as rich or half well as know if he didn't vandalize half of England. I don't quite get the difference? 
But how come Banksy's allowed to put his art wherever he wants but not Matt Groening? Of course it's to promote the Simpsons but Banksy's work is to promote Banksy. Banksy wouldn't be nearly as rich or half well as know if he didn't vandalize half of England. I don't quite get the difference? |
|
|
|
The Simpsons Graffiti, by numusic on Jul 19, 2007 20:23:45 GMT 1, But how come Banksy's allowed to put his art wherever he wants but not Matt Groening? Of course it's to promote the Simpsons but Banksy's work is to promote Banksy. Banksy wouldn't be nearly as rich or half well as know if he didn't vandalize half of England. I don't quite get the difference?
One's art the others not.. to think and say that an artists work exists to simply promote the artist says more about you than anything else. You maybe need to take some time out and reflect a bit more. Not always easy I know.. but really, you need to have a long hard think about things
But how come Banksy's allowed to put his art wherever he wants but not Matt Groening? Of course it's to promote the Simpsons but Banksy's work is to promote Banksy. Banksy wouldn't be nearly as rich or half well as know if he didn't vandalize half of England. I don't quite get the difference? One's art the others not.. to think and say that an artists work exists to simply promote the artist says more about you than anything else. You maybe need to take some time out and reflect a bit more. Not always easy I know.. but really, you need to have a long hard think about things |
|
Strange Al
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,293
👍🏻 64
October 2006
|
The Simpsons Graffiti, by Strange Al on Jul 19, 2007 21:31:40 GMT 1, But how come Banksy's allowed to put his art wherever he wants but not Matt Groening? Of course it's to promote the Simpsons but Banksy's work is to promote Banksy. Banksy wouldn't be nearly as rich or half well as know if he didn't vandalize half of England. I don't quite get the difference? One's art the others not.. to think and say that an artists work exists to simply promote the artist says more about you than anything else. You maybe need to take some time out and reflect a bit more. Not always easy I know.. but really, you need to have a long hard think about things
Nu - I'm not sure this is as black and white as you make out. I'd say the Simpsons is most definitely art. In fact, I think both the series and this particular piece shares a lot of Banksy's subversive humour. Arguably, both Banksy and Groening are socio-political cartoonists. Admittedly, the primary aim of this particular Simpsons illustration is to market the film and maybe that robs this piece of it's status as "art". Though, Cerne Homer has a narrative beyond pure marketing. I'm sure a cynic would ask - is Banksy's Glastonbury Bog henge really any different to this?
But how come Banksy's allowed to put his art wherever he wants but not Matt Groening? Of course it's to promote the Simpsons but Banksy's work is to promote Banksy. Banksy wouldn't be nearly as rich or half well as know if he didn't vandalize half of England. I don't quite get the difference? One's art the others not.. to think and say that an artists work exists to simply promote the artist says more about you than anything else. You maybe need to take some time out and reflect a bit more. Not always easy I know.. but really, you need to have a long hard think about things Nu - I'm not sure this is as black and white as you make out. I'd say the Simpsons is most definitely art. In fact, I think both the series and this particular piece shares a lot of Banksy's subversive humour. Arguably, both Banksy and Groening are socio-political cartoonists. Admittedly, the primary aim of this particular Simpsons illustration is to market the film and maybe that robs this piece of it's status as "art". Though, Cerne Homer has a narrative beyond pure marketing. I'm sure a cynic would ask - is Banksy's Glastonbury Bog henge really any different to this? |
|
|
|
The Simpsons Graffiti, by numusic on Jul 19, 2007 22:48:53 GMT 1, One's art the others not.. to think and say that an artists work exists to simply promote the artist says more about you than anything else. You maybe need to take some time out and reflect a bit more. Not always easy I know.. but really, you need to have a long hard think about things Nu - I'm not sure this is as black and white as you make out. I'd say the Simpsons is most definitely art. In fact, I think both the series and this particular piece shares a lot of Banksy's subversive humour. Arguably, both Banksy and Groening are socio-political cartoonists. Admittedly, the primary aim of this particular Simpsons illustration is to market the film and maybe that robs this piece of it's status as "art". Though, Cerne Homer has a narrative beyond pure marketing. I'm sure a cynic would ask - is Banksy's Glastonbury Bog henge really any different to this?
I see where your coming from, but to be a bit contentious. The important thing about Banksy for me, is that he's opened doors to other worlds for those that wouldn't normally look in. People are buying Guy Denning ! wow.. quite traditional poetic figurative art. Even Banksy is quite traditional and conservative in a peculiarly British way, not unlike Hogarth etc. Very far away from the lazy "pop" tags he's been lumberred with. He slots into the history of British art perfectly and makes a nice link up to NYC Graffiti culture.
Matt's a cartoonist, a different tradition, not more important or less, and agree they share similarities. But one is fine art and the other isn't. If Banksy had done that Homer, then it'd be art. Art's what artists do. Plumbing's what plumber's do and Cartoons are what Cartoonists do, a massive % of Banksy's work references fine art, some obvious some not so.
I think it's much better if we lift mediums such as graphic art and illustration up, rather than try to drag fine art down. It occupies a different sort of head space and attempts to make better, nicer, kinder more thoughtful people of us.
Advertising aims for the opposite..
or something...
That sounds a bit soft.. so
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=djs1yk0SuxQ
Peace 
One's art the others not.. to think and say that an artists work exists to simply promote the artist says more about you than anything else. You maybe need to take some time out and reflect a bit more. Not always easy I know.. but really, you need to have a long hard think about things Nu - I'm not sure this is as black and white as you make out. I'd say the Simpsons is most definitely art. In fact, I think both the series and this particular piece shares a lot of Banksy's subversive humour. Arguably, both Banksy and Groening are socio-political cartoonists. Admittedly, the primary aim of this particular Simpsons illustration is to market the film and maybe that robs this piece of it's status as "art". Though, Cerne Homer has a narrative beyond pure marketing. I'm sure a cynic would ask - is Banksy's Glastonbury Bog henge really any different to this? I see where your coming from, but to be a bit contentious. The important thing about Banksy for me, is that he's opened doors to other worlds for those that wouldn't normally look in. People are buying Guy Denning ! wow.. quite traditional poetic figurative art. Even Banksy is quite traditional and conservative in a peculiarly British way, not unlike Hogarth etc. Very far away from the lazy "pop" tags he's been lumberred with. He slots into the history of British art perfectly and makes a nice link up to NYC Graffiti culture. Matt's a cartoonist, a different tradition, not more important or less, and agree they share similarities. But one is fine art and the other isn't. If Banksy had done that Homer, then it'd be art. Art's what artists do. Plumbing's what plumber's do and Cartoons are what Cartoonists do, a massive % of Banksy's work references fine art, some obvious some not so. I think it's much better if we lift mediums such as graphic art and illustration up, rather than try to drag fine art down. It occupies a different sort of head space and attempts to make better, nicer, kinder more thoughtful people of us. Advertising aims for the opposite.. or something... That sounds a bit soft.. so uk.youtube.com/watch?v=djs1yk0SuxQ Peace |
|
|
|
The Simpsons Graffiti, by dgb133 on Jul 20, 2007 3:47:09 GMT 1,
Wow, somebody's a little touchy? One's art the other isn't? That's ridiculous. Television and film is art. In some ways I respect them more because they're at least honest and upfront about the commercialness of it.
And so Banksy has opened doors for other artists. I don't think that's really that important to the topic but ok, you don't think the Simpsons has opened doors for other animators, writers, comics by making this format and medium more succesful and available? Same difference.
But the simpsons aren't "advertising" the simpsons need advertising dollars to keep going the same way that Banksy needs people to keep spending hundreds and thousands on his work to keep going.
I never said Banksy's work existed solely to promote Banksy but don't think that definitely is a part of it. He definitely has left his name lots of places. He may be anonymous but he definitely wants people to know he was there too. I don't want to sound like I'm anti banksy. Obviously I like his work or I wouldn't be here. But honestly I sometimes get a bit miffed about the idea that "artist" think they can put their "art" any where they want. It's one idea that they want to take art out of the gallery so everyone can see it. But it's also very self righteous of them to think that >they< have the right to put their art anywhere they want. In a way I also see that as kind of an elitist or maybe pompous thing to do. But I'll go with it... for now.
So what's the difference? I don't know. Artists makie art? Animators make animations? But all Banksy does is cut stencils and spray paint on cement. Groening draws characters and animates them on tv or film. I don't think it's so clear cut as to which one is more "art" than the other. Or which one has more of a right to make public sculpture or art or whatevr you want to call it. They often both do the same thing. Make wry comments on culture. Such as this stunt.
Wow, somebody's a little touchy? One's art the other isn't? That's ridiculous. Television and film is art. In some ways I respect them more because they're at least honest and upfront about the commercialness of it.
And so Banksy has opened doors for other artists. I don't think that's really that important to the topic but ok, you don't think the Simpsons has opened doors for other animators, writers, comics by making this format and medium more succesful and available? Same difference.
But the simpsons aren't "advertising" the simpsons need advertising dollars to keep going the same way that Banksy needs people to keep spending hundreds and thousands on his work to keep going.
I never said Banksy's work existed solely to promote Banksy but don't think that definitely is a part of it. He definitely has left his name lots of places. He may be anonymous but he definitely wants people to know he was there too. I don't want to sound like I'm anti banksy. Obviously I like his work or I wouldn't be here. But honestly I sometimes get a bit miffed about the idea that "artist" think they can put their "art" any where they want. It's one idea that they want to take art out of the gallery so everyone can see it. But it's also very self righteous of them to think that >they< have the right to put their art anywhere they want. In a way I also see that as kind of an elitist or maybe pompous thing to do. But I'll go with it... for now.
So what's the difference? I don't know. Artists makie art? Animators make animations? But all Banksy does is cut stencils and spray paint on cement. Groening draws characters and animates them on tv or film. I don't think it's so clear cut as to which one is more "art" than the other. Or which one has more of a right to make public sculpture or art or whatevr you want to call it. They often both do the same thing. Make wry comments on culture. Such as this stunt.
|
|
|
|
The Simpsons Graffiti, by arcam on Aug 6, 2007 22:48:09 GMT 1, ;D
;D |
|
