fuzzed
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,446
๐๐ป 344
April 2008
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by fuzzed on Oct 18, 2008 16:47:16 GMT 1, Fair play then!
Fair play then!
|
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by snausages on Oct 19, 2008 0:19:53 GMT 1, Well, just because a method of getting up has been used before doesn't mean that anybody has ownership over it. For example, if I wanted to use a specific channel of communication, such as hijacking a billboard then would that be an invalid means of expression because various others have done it before? I suspect that Banksy himself has 'borrowed' a lot more ideas from other artists than most people know about.
Banksy has definitely borrowed a lot. Most artists borrow a lot. And almost everything has been done before. It's just that when Banksy has borrowed things and done things that have been done before I've never felt as though it's been quite so obviously derivative, it's felt unique & fresh on it's own and haven't felt as though it's been an attempt to capitalize and profit off of others ideas.
Well, just because a method of getting up has been used before doesn't mean that anybody has ownership over it. For example, if I wanted to use a specific channel of communication, such as hijacking a billboard then would that be an invalid means of expression because various others have done it before? I suspect that Banksy himself has 'borrowed' a lot more ideas from other artists than most people know about. Banksy has definitely borrowed a lot. Most artists borrow a lot. And almost everything has been done before. It's just that when Banksy has borrowed things and done things that have been done before I've never felt as though it's been quite so obviously derivative, it's felt unique & fresh on it's own and haven't felt as though it's been an attempt to capitalize and profit off of others ideas. |
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by 2301 on Oct 19, 2008 0:19:57 GMT 1, Ok, finally found some info about the guy who preceded Banksy with the smuggling art into museums idea. I remember seeing this all over the London television news programmes at the time. The sculpture looked like a highly polished male version of the Venus of Willendorf but with an even more exaggerated physique. This happened in 1997. www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/02/03/ntat03.html
Ok, finally found some info about the guy who preceded Banksy with the smuggling art into museums idea. I remember seeing this all over the London television news programmes at the time. The sculpture looked like a highly polished male version of the Venus of Willendorf but with an even more exaggerated physique. This happened in 1997. www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/02/03/ntat03.html |
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by 2301 on Oct 19, 2008 2:30:16 GMT 1, It's just that when Banksy has borrowed things and done things that have been done before I've never felt as though it's been quite so obviously derivative, it's felt unique & fresh on it's own and haven't felt as though it's been an attempt to capitalize and profit off of others ideas. Well, not sure I can agree with that, but each to their own. I personally didn't feel that Banksy's Warhol rip off's/homages were that unique or fresh, just a very literal update of an old idea. And as for Winston Churchill with a green mohican, that was a straight copy of someone else's creation that happened at an ANTI-capitalist demonstration. Which for me was another example of the recuperation and commodification of dissent, in the same way that Che Guevara t-shirts have become an icon of consumerism. Banksy is a marketing genius and media manipulator to rival Malcolm McClaren or Richard Branson. What worries me is that some people seem to have swallowed the hype so completely that they have become self-appointed enforcers, slavishly devoted to the cult of Banksy and can no longer recognise reality, almost to the point where he has now become above criticism and history is virtually being re-written to accommodate certain people's hero-worship fantasies. The fact that people on here think that the sun shines out of his arse doesn't bother me in itself, but when they start making officious sounding pronouncements to try to dictate or enforce what is valid or permissible in street art, based on nothing more than their own zealotry, then I feel it has a negative effect on the whole genre and can lead to stagnation. I think it stems from some kind of anally retentive desire to recapture a nice safe era of the recent past that is always just out of reach and bathe in a warm glow of nostalgia out of a fear of being left behind and alone as everybody else moves into the future. So they impose rules, seek to classify everything, and cling tightly to their specialist knowledge and the illusion of power and control that it gives them, for it is their comfort blanket and insulation against the forces of anarchy that they fear so much. Thus there exists a tension on here between those who have an authoritarian mindset regarding street art and the more liberated, who reject the newly constructed orthodoxies and are therefore able to resist the pressure to conform to GROUPTHINK.
It's just that when Banksy has borrowed things and done things that have been done before I've never felt as though it's been quite so obviously derivative, it's felt unique & fresh on it's own and haven't felt as though it's been an attempt to capitalize and profit off of others ideas. Well, not sure I can agree with that, but each to their own. I personally didn't feel that Banksy's Warhol rip off's/homages were that unique or fresh, just a very literal update of an old idea. And as for Winston Churchill with a green mohican, that was a straight copy of someone else's creation that happened at an ANTI-capitalist demonstration. Which for me was another example of the recuperation and commodification of dissent, in the same way that Che Guevara t-shirts have become an icon of consumerism. Banksy is a marketing genius and media manipulator to rival Malcolm McClaren or Richard Branson. What worries me is that some people seem to have swallowed the hype so completely that they have become self-appointed enforcers, slavishly devoted to the cult of Banksy and can no longer recognise reality, almost to the point where he has now become above criticism and history is virtually being re-written to accommodate certain people's hero-worship fantasies. The fact that people on here think that the sun shines out of his arse doesn't bother me in itself, but when they start making officious sounding pronouncements to try to dictate or enforce what is valid or permissible in street art, based on nothing more than their own zealotry, then I feel it has a negative effect on the whole genre and can lead to stagnation. I think it stems from some kind of anally retentive desire to recapture a nice safe era of the recent past that is always just out of reach and bathe in a warm glow of nostalgia out of a fear of being left behind and alone as everybody else moves into the future. So they impose rules, seek to classify everything, and cling tightly to their specialist knowledge and the illusion of power and control that it gives them, for it is their comfort blanket and insulation against the forces of anarchy that they fear so much. Thus there exists a tension on here between those who have an authoritarian mindset regarding street art and the more liberated, who reject the newly constructed orthodoxies and are therefore able to resist the pressure to conform to GROUPTHINK. |
|
mace
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,491
๐๐ป 288
August 2008
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by mace on Oct 19, 2008 5:12:33 GMT 1, It's just that when Banksy has borrowed things and done things that have been done before I've never felt as though it's been quite so obviously derivative, it's felt unique & fresh on it's own and haven't felt as though it's been an attempt to capitalize and profit off of others ideas. Well, not sure I can agree with that, but each to their own. I personally didn't feel that Banksy's Warhol rip off's/homages were that unique or fresh, just a very literal update of an old idea. And as for Winston Churchill with a green mohican, that was a straight copy of someone else's creation that happened at an ANTI-capitalist demonstration. Which for me was another example of the recuperation and commodification of dissent, in the same way that Che Guevara t-shirts have become an icon of consumerism. Banksy is a marketing genius and media manipulator to rival Malcolm McClaren or Richard Branson. What worries me is that some people seem to have swallowed the hype so completely that they have become self-appointed enforcers, slavishly devoted to the cult of Banksy and can no longer recognise reality, almost to the point where he has now become above criticism and history is virtually being re-written to accommodate certain people's hero-worship fantasies. The fact that people on here think that the sun shines out of his arse doesn't bother me in itself, but when they start making officious sounding pronouncements to try to dictate or enforce what is valid or permissible in street art, based on nothing more than their own zealotry, then I feel it has a negative effect on the whole genre and can lead to stagnation. I think it stems from some kind of anally retentive desire to recapture a nice safe era of the recent past that is always just out of reach and bathe in a warm glow of nostalgia out of a fear of being left behind and alone as everybody else moves into the future. So they impose rules, seek to classify everything, and cling tightly to their specialist knowledge and the illusion of power and control that it gives them, for it is their comfort blanket and insulation against the forces of anarchy that they fear so much. Thus there exists a tension on here between those who have an authoritarian mindset regarding street art and the more liberated, who reject the newly constructed orthodoxies and are therefore able to resist the pressure to conform to GROUPTHINK. Mr. B - you're in this forum ?
It's just that when Banksy has borrowed things and done things that have been done before I've never felt as though it's been quite so obviously derivative, it's felt unique & fresh on it's own and haven't felt as though it's been an attempt to capitalize and profit off of others ideas. Well, not sure I can agree with that, but each to their own. I personally didn't feel that Banksy's Warhol rip off's/homages were that unique or fresh, just a very literal update of an old idea. And as for Winston Churchill with a green mohican, that was a straight copy of someone else's creation that happened at an ANTI-capitalist demonstration. Which for me was another example of the recuperation and commodification of dissent, in the same way that Che Guevara t-shirts have become an icon of consumerism. Banksy is a marketing genius and media manipulator to rival Malcolm McClaren or Richard Branson. What worries me is that some people seem to have swallowed the hype so completely that they have become self-appointed enforcers, slavishly devoted to the cult of Banksy and can no longer recognise reality, almost to the point where he has now become above criticism and history is virtually being re-written to accommodate certain people's hero-worship fantasies. The fact that people on here think that the sun shines out of his arse doesn't bother me in itself, but when they start making officious sounding pronouncements to try to dictate or enforce what is valid or permissible in street art, based on nothing more than their own zealotry, then I feel it has a negative effect on the whole genre and can lead to stagnation. I think it stems from some kind of anally retentive desire to recapture a nice safe era of the recent past that is always just out of reach and bathe in a warm glow of nostalgia out of a fear of being left behind and alone as everybody else moves into the future. So they impose rules, seek to classify everything, and cling tightly to their specialist knowledge and the illusion of power and control that it gives them, for it is their comfort blanket and insulation against the forces of anarchy that they fear so much. Thus there exists a tension on here between those who have an authoritarian mindset regarding street art and the more liberated, who reject the newly constructed orthodoxies and are therefore able to resist the pressure to conform to GROUPTHINK. Mr. B - you're in this forum ? |
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by weaver on Oct 19, 2008 10:08:18 GMT 1, 2301, you are obviously a very devoted fan of Cartrain, the majority of your posts are based arround defending his work. There is is also a regular undercurrent / negative vibe towards Banksy fans, to paraphrase several of your comments, Banksy fans follow a herd mentality, blindly following and praising any of his work, and only like established, middle class / middle of the road art. People who dare to criticise cartrain's work are quickly descricbed as haveing a hate fuelled vendetta against him.....
Bearing in mind this is a banksy forum, and Cartrain, an artist you seek to champion, has a consistent habbit of paying very close homage to banksy's work, I am intreagued.
You will not hear a word said againt cartrain be it constructive or simply negative ( even though, by posting his cheeky escapades on a public forum, it opens up these escapades to public opinion).
The blinkered mindset, you describe as being shown by Banksy fans, being unable to accept criticism, seems to be more that adequately / fanatically displayed by yourself and your devotion to Cartrain. You have labelled me as a very negative person several times and sugested that I may have mental problems in your posts, ( which I tend to disagree with), after reading your posts, I hardly find them to be of a possitive nature. It might be worth following your own advice when it comes to blind devotion 
The clip of the tate stick up made me smile, its a cheeky prank at best, and not an artistic expression. The trouble with cheeky things is they stop being cheeky quickly.
2301, you are obviously a very devoted fan of Cartrain, the majority of your posts are based arround defending his work. There is is also a regular undercurrent / negative vibe towards Banksy fans, to paraphrase several of your comments, Banksy fans follow a herd mentality, blindly following and praising any of his work, and only like established, middle class / middle of the road art. People who dare to criticise cartrain's work are quickly descricbed as haveing a hate fuelled vendetta against him..... Bearing in mind this is a banksy forum, and Cartrain, an artist you seek to champion, has a consistent habbit of paying very close homage to banksy's work, I am intreagued. You will not hear a word said againt cartrain be it constructive or simply negative ( even though, by posting his cheeky escapades on a public forum, it opens up these escapades to public opinion). The blinkered mindset, you describe as being shown by Banksy fans, being unable to accept criticism, seems to be more that adequately / fanatically displayed by yourself and your devotion to Cartrain. You have labelled me as a very negative person several times and sugested that I may have mental problems in your posts, ( which I tend to disagree with), after reading your posts, I hardly find them to be of a possitive nature. It might be worth following your own advice when it comes to blind devotion The clip of the tate stick up made me smile, its a cheeky prank at best, and not an artistic expression. The trouble with cheeky things is they stop being cheeky quickly. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by 2301 on Oct 19, 2008 11:18:25 GMT 1, You really don't know when to give up do you weaver. You're obviously still smarting from the verbal b**chslapping I gave you last time, hence bringing up all of that stuff I'd already left behind. I actually made a point of not replying to your last comments on the other thread, because I felt you were like a second-rate boxer who had been repeatedly knocked down, yet still thought that he could somehow clamber to his feet each time and stagger around punchdrunk for a while pretending he was still in the fight. It was very embarrassing and it doesn't really fool anyone except yourself. Shame there isn't a ref here to step in and put a stop to this for your sake. Anyway, you might feel it's your duty to act as the self-appointed gatekeeper of Banksy's legacy, but I'm not going to get drawn into your sad little personal fanboy trauma of how you were made to look like a fool on an internet forum and now lust after revenge, because as I said before...I feel a bit sorry for you now, so therefore I don't want to inflict any more mental distress or anguish on you than is necessary, as I'm worried it might cause you long-term or even permanent damage.
Thus I'd appreciate if you left me alone from now on, because I don't have time to keep replying to all of the grudges you've decided to hold against me, and frankly, it seems like you've now started to transfer your twisted destructive obsession with Cartrain onto me, and are verging on being a stalker, which feels a bit creepy to be honest mate.
You really don't know when to give up do you weaver. You're obviously still smarting from the verbal b**chslapping I gave you last time, hence bringing up all of that stuff I'd already left behind. I actually made a point of not replying to your last comments on the other thread, because I felt you were like a second-rate boxer who had been repeatedly knocked down, yet still thought that he could somehow clamber to his feet each time and stagger around punchdrunk for a while pretending he was still in the fight. It was very embarrassing and it doesn't really fool anyone except yourself. Shame there isn't a ref here to step in and put a stop to this for your sake. Anyway, you might feel it's your duty to act as the self-appointed gatekeeper of Banksy's legacy, but I'm not going to get drawn into your sad little personal fanboy trauma of how you were made to look like a fool on an internet forum and now lust after revenge, because as I said before...I feel a bit sorry for you now, so therefore I don't want to inflict any more mental distress or anguish on you than is necessary, as I'm worried it might cause you long-term or even permanent damage.
Thus I'd appreciate if you left me alone from now on, because I don't have time to keep replying to all of the grudges you've decided to hold against me, and frankly, it seems like you've now started to transfer your twisted destructive obsession with Cartrain onto me, and are verging on being a stalker, which feels a bit creepy to be honest mate.
|
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by icky on Oct 19, 2008 11:24:18 GMT 1, You really don't know when to give up do you weaver. You're obviously still smarting from the verbal b**chslapping I gave you last time, hence bringing up all of that stuff I'd already left behind. I actually made a point of not replying to your last comments on the other thread, because I felt you were like a second-rate boxer who had been repeatedly knocked down, yet still thought that he could somehow clamber to his feet each time and stagger around punchdrunk for a while pretending he was still in the fight. It was very embarrassing and it doesn't really fool anyone except yourself. Shame there isn't a ref here to step in and put a stop to this for your sake. Blah blah blah
In what universe did the things you describe happen?
You really don't know when to give up do you weaver. You're obviously still smarting from the verbal b**chslapping I gave you last time, hence bringing up all of that stuff I'd already left behind. I actually made a point of not replying to your last comments on the other thread, because I felt you were like a second-rate boxer who had been repeatedly knocked down, yet still thought that he could somehow clamber to his feet each time and stagger around punchdrunk for a while pretending he was still in the fight. It was very embarrassing and it doesn't really fool anyone except yourself. Shame there isn't a ref here to step in and put a stop to this for your sake. Blah blah blah In what universe did the things you describe happen? |
|
sfdoddsy
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 267
๐๐ป 0
August 2008
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by sfdoddsy on Oct 19, 2008 11:40:35 GMT 1, The universe where Cartrain's 'statement' was anything other than a really lame Banksy ripoff.
The universe where Cartrain's 'statement' was anything other than a really lame Banksy ripoff.
|
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by giiiant on Oct 19, 2008 11:41:14 GMT 1, It's just that when Banksy has borrowed things and done things that have been done before I've never felt as though it's been quite so obviously derivative, it's felt unique & fresh on it's own and haven't felt as though it's been an attempt to capitalize and profit off of others ideas. Well, not sure I can agree with that, but each to their own. I personally didn't feel that Banksy's Warhol rip off's/homages were that unique or fresh, just a very literal update of an old idea. And as for Winston Churchill with a green mohican, that was a straight copy of someone else's creation that happened at an ANTI-capitalist demonstration. Which for me was another example of the recuperation and commodification of dissent, in the same way that Che Guevara t-shirts have become an icon of consumerism. Banksy is a marketing genius and media manipulator to rival Malcolm McClaren or Richard Branson. What worries me is that some people seem to have swallowed the hype so completely that they have become self-appointed enforcers, slavishly devoted to the cult of Banksy and can no longer recognise reality, almost to the point where he has now become above criticism and history is virtually being re-written to accommodate certain people's hero-worship fantasies. The fact that people on here think that the sun shines out of his arse doesn't bother me in itself, but when they start making officious sounding pronouncements to try to dictate or enforce what is valid or permissible in street art, based on nothing more than their own zealotry, then I feel it has a negative effect on the whole genre and can lead to stagnation. I think it stems from some kind of anally retentive desire to recapture a nice safe era of the recent past that is always just out of reach and bathe in a warm glow of nostalgia out of a fear of being left behind and alone as everybody else moves into the future. So they impose rules, seek to classify everything, and cling tightly to their specialist knowledge and the illusion of power and control that it gives them, for it is their comfort blanket and insulation against the forces of anarchy that they fear so much. Thus there exists a tension on here between those who have an authoritarian mindset regarding street art and the more liberated, who reject the newly constructed orthodoxies and are therefore able to resist the pressure to conform to GROUPTHINK. Put down the thesaurus and have a glass of water.
It's just that when Banksy has borrowed things and done things that have been done before I've never felt as though it's been quite so obviously derivative, it's felt unique & fresh on it's own and haven't felt as though it's been an attempt to capitalize and profit off of others ideas. Well, not sure I can agree with that, but each to their own. I personally didn't feel that Banksy's Warhol rip off's/homages were that unique or fresh, just a very literal update of an old idea. And as for Winston Churchill with a green mohican, that was a straight copy of someone else's creation that happened at an ANTI-capitalist demonstration. Which for me was another example of the recuperation and commodification of dissent, in the same way that Che Guevara t-shirts have become an icon of consumerism. Banksy is a marketing genius and media manipulator to rival Malcolm McClaren or Richard Branson. What worries me is that some people seem to have swallowed the hype so completely that they have become self-appointed enforcers, slavishly devoted to the cult of Banksy and can no longer recognise reality, almost to the point where he has now become above criticism and history is virtually being re-written to accommodate certain people's hero-worship fantasies. The fact that people on here think that the sun shines out of his arse doesn't bother me in itself, but when they start making officious sounding pronouncements to try to dictate or enforce what is valid or permissible in street art, based on nothing more than their own zealotry, then I feel it has a negative effect on the whole genre and can lead to stagnation. I think it stems from some kind of anally retentive desire to recapture a nice safe era of the recent past that is always just out of reach and bathe in a warm glow of nostalgia out of a fear of being left behind and alone as everybody else moves into the future. So they impose rules, seek to classify everything, and cling tightly to their specialist knowledge and the illusion of power and control that it gives them, for it is their comfort blanket and insulation against the forces of anarchy that they fear so much. Thus there exists a tension on here between those who have an authoritarian mindset regarding street art and the more liberated, who reject the newly constructed orthodoxies and are therefore able to resist the pressure to conform to GROUPTHINK. Put down the thesaurus and have a glass of water. |
|
|
|
sfdoddsy
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 267
๐๐ป 0
August 2008
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by sfdoddsy on Oct 19, 2008 12:37:18 GMT 1, It's just that when Banksy has borrowed things and done things that have been done before I've never felt as though it's been quite so obviously derivative, it's felt unique & fresh on it's own and haven't felt as though it's been an attempt to capitalize and profit off of others ideas. Well, not sure I can agree with that, but each to their own. I personally didn't feel that Banksy's Warhol rip off's/homages were that unique or fresh, just a very literal update of an old idea. And as for Winston Churchill with a green mohican, that was a straight copy of someone else's creation that happened at an ANTI-capitalist demonstration. Which for me was another example of the recuperation and commodification of dissent, in the same way that Che Guevara t-shirts have become an icon of consumerism. Banksy is a marketing genius and media manipulator to rival Malcolm McClaren or Richard Branson. What worries me is that some people seem to have swallowed the hype so completely that they have become self-appointed enforcers, slavishly devoted to the cult of Banksy and can no longer recognise reality, almost to the point where he has now become above criticism and history is virtually being re-written to accommodate certain people's hero-worship fantasies. The fact that people on here think that the sun shines out of his arse doesn't bother me in itself, but when they start making officious sounding pronouncements to try to dictate or enforce what is valid or permissible in street art, based on nothing more than their own zealotry, then I feel it has a negative effect on the whole genre and can lead to stagnation. I think it stems from some kind of anally retentive desire to recapture a nice safe era of the recent past that is always just out of reach and bathe in a warm glow of nostalgia out of a fear of being left behind and alone as everybody else moves into the future. So they impose rules, seek to classify everything, and cling tightly to their specialist knowledge and the illusion of power and control that it gives them, for it is their comfort blanket and insulation against the forces of anarchy that they fear so much. Thus there exists a tension on here between those who have an authoritarian mindset regarding street art and the more liberated, who reject the newly constructed orthodoxies and are therefore able to resist the pressure to conform to GROUPTHINK. Mr. B - you're in this forum ? I actually agree with most of what you say. And if you'd said it in defense of someone doing fresh and new work I'd be right behind you. Unfortunately, you have decided to champion someone who epitomizes all that is stale, repetitious and derivative in this 'scene'. Surely the best way to separate yourself from Banksy and still the doubters is to do something non-Banksyish - ie not an 'ironic' stencil and especially ones featuring skulls, queens, Guernica, Mickey and George Bush. Next up monkeys?
It's just that when Banksy has borrowed things and done things that have been done before I've never felt as though it's been quite so obviously derivative, it's felt unique & fresh on it's own and haven't felt as though it's been an attempt to capitalize and profit off of others ideas. Well, not sure I can agree with that, but each to their own. I personally didn't feel that Banksy's Warhol rip off's/homages were that unique or fresh, just a very literal update of an old idea. And as for Winston Churchill with a green mohican, that was a straight copy of someone else's creation that happened at an ANTI-capitalist demonstration. Which for me was another example of the recuperation and commodification of dissent, in the same way that Che Guevara t-shirts have become an icon of consumerism. Banksy is a marketing genius and media manipulator to rival Malcolm McClaren or Richard Branson. What worries me is that some people seem to have swallowed the hype so completely that they have become self-appointed enforcers, slavishly devoted to the cult of Banksy and can no longer recognise reality, almost to the point where he has now become above criticism and history is virtually being re-written to accommodate certain people's hero-worship fantasies. The fact that people on here think that the sun shines out of his arse doesn't bother me in itself, but when they start making officious sounding pronouncements to try to dictate or enforce what is valid or permissible in street art, based on nothing more than their own zealotry, then I feel it has a negative effect on the whole genre and can lead to stagnation. I think it stems from some kind of anally retentive desire to recapture a nice safe era of the recent past that is always just out of reach and bathe in a warm glow of nostalgia out of a fear of being left behind and alone as everybody else moves into the future. So they impose rules, seek to classify everything, and cling tightly to their specialist knowledge and the illusion of power and control that it gives them, for it is their comfort blanket and insulation against the forces of anarchy that they fear so much. Thus there exists a tension on here between those who have an authoritarian mindset regarding street art and the more liberated, who reject the newly constructed orthodoxies and are therefore able to resist the pressure to conform to GROUPTHINK. Mr. B - you're in this forum ? I actually agree with most of what you say. And if you'd said it in defense of someone doing fresh and new work I'd be right behind you. Unfortunately, you have decided to champion someone who epitomizes all that is stale, repetitious and derivative in this 'scene'. Surely the best way to separate yourself from Banksy and still the doubters is to do something non-Banksyish - ie not an 'ironic' stencil and especially ones featuring skulls, queens, Guernica, Mickey and George Bush. Next up monkeys? |
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by 2301 on Oct 19, 2008 13:29:57 GMT 1, LOL, you are a funny one 2301, I'm still waiting for the b1tchslapping as you so positively put it  I'm not exercising any type of self-agrandised persecution as you seem to believe I have, but I will respond to your misguided and slightly strange opinions regarding all other art fans other than those of the poor chap you have decided to champion. You seem to hold quite a serious persecution complex. If you feel the need to open up anyother cans of whoopass on me feel free. I believe the venting of some of that misplaced anger and frustration might do you some good. You seem to have a very negative outlook and in your anger overlooked my points regarding your cartrain obsession mirroring what you appear to feel many Banksy fans act. PM me if you feel the need to chat and open up... release your anger and negativity. 
Yeah, I must come across as negative to you weaver because I say what I think in an upfront and honest manner, instead of having to conceal snide little insults with ironic smiley faces and kisses. It's got boring, because you just take everything I say and repeat it back to me, seemingly unable to come up with anything original.
Cheers though for the offer to act as some kind of patronising passive-aggressive social worker for me, but I think you'd better work on your own issues first, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that PM.
LOL, you are a funny one 2301, I'm still waiting for the b1tchslapping as you so positively put it I'm not exercising any type of self-agrandised persecution as you seem to believe I have, but I will respond to your misguided and slightly strange opinions regarding all other art fans other than those of the poor chap you have decided to champion. You seem to hold quite a serious persecution complex. If you feel the need to open up anyother cans of whoopass on me feel free. I believe the venting of some of that misplaced anger and frustration might do you some good. You seem to have a very negative outlook and in your anger overlooked my points regarding your cartrain obsession mirroring what you appear to feel many Banksy fans act. PM me if you feel the need to chat and open up... release your anger and negativity. Yeah, I must come across as negative to you weaver because I say what I think in an upfront and honest manner, instead of having to conceal snide little insults with ironic smiley faces and kisses. It's got boring, because you just take everything I say and repeat it back to me, seemingly unable to come up with anything original. Cheers though for the offer to act as some kind of patronising passive-aggressive social worker for me, but I think you'd better work on your own issues first, so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that PM. |
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by 2301 on Oct 19, 2008 13:34:05 GMT 1, I actually agree with most of what you say. And if you'd said it in defense of someone doing fresh and new work I'd be right behind you. Unfortunately, you have decided to champion someone who epitomizes all that is stale, repetitious and derivative in this 'scene'. Surely the best way to separate yourself from Banksy and still the doubters is to do something non-Banksyish - ie not an 'ironic' stencil and especially ones featuring skulls, queens, Guernica, Mickey and George Bush. Next up monkeys? Most of what I said there was not specifically regarding Cartrain, although his is a case of how a nasty group mentality can arise to demonise somebody or even in some extreme cases, a whole section of society. I just got sick of seeing him get picked on all the time. It's ugly to watch and has gone much too far. Yeah, he might have been heavily influenced by Banksy, but the whole stencil genre is AWASH with poor Banksy imitators, most who are a lot closer in style to Banksy than Cartrain is, but I don't see any of those receiving anything like the harsh treatment Cartrain has had to suffer on here. He was a 14 or 15 year old kid when he did a couple of stencils next to Banksy in an attempt to emulate his hero, yet most on here can't seem to ever forgive what they see as such a deadly sin. Banksy himself seems to have respect for Cartrain and has no problem with him, so I don't see why anyone else should feel it's their place to always rush to Banksy's defence. This is an example of the severe distortion and lack of perspective of some Banksy fanatics that I alluded to in the previous post. And If anyone wants to bring up the museum thing again, then I refer them back to the fact that Banksy wasn't the originator of this idea, nor in fact did he invent political graffiti, irony or stencilling, although you would think so from the way some people go on about him on here. Anyway, now Cartrain he is trying to develop his own style, (which takes time and isn't easy) but yet he still has to deal with all of the prejudice that exists against him, which he copes with very well actually, because I think it would have broken most people by now. I'd just like people to give him a chance and not constantly try to destroy him before he's even started.
I actually agree with most of what you say. And if you'd said it in defense of someone doing fresh and new work I'd be right behind you. Unfortunately, you have decided to champion someone who epitomizes all that is stale, repetitious and derivative in this 'scene'. Surely the best way to separate yourself from Banksy and still the doubters is to do something non-Banksyish - ie not an 'ironic' stencil and especially ones featuring skulls, queens, Guernica, Mickey and George Bush. Next up monkeys? Most of what I said there was not specifically regarding Cartrain, although his is a case of how a nasty group mentality can arise to demonise somebody or even in some extreme cases, a whole section of society. I just got sick of seeing him get picked on all the time. It's ugly to watch and has gone much too far. Yeah, he might have been heavily influenced by Banksy, but the whole stencil genre is AWASH with poor Banksy imitators, most who are a lot closer in style to Banksy than Cartrain is, but I don't see any of those receiving anything like the harsh treatment Cartrain has had to suffer on here. He was a 14 or 15 year old kid when he did a couple of stencils next to Banksy in an attempt to emulate his hero, yet most on here can't seem to ever forgive what they see as such a deadly sin. Banksy himself seems to have respect for Cartrain and has no problem with him, so I don't see why anyone else should feel it's their place to always rush to Banksy's defence. This is an example of the severe distortion and lack of perspective of some Banksy fanatics that I alluded to in the previous post. And If anyone wants to bring up the museum thing again, then I refer them back to the fact that Banksy wasn't the originator of this idea, nor in fact did he invent political graffiti, irony or stencilling, although you would think so from the way some people go on about him on here. Anyway, now Cartrain he is trying to develop his own style, (which takes time and isn't easy) but yet he still has to deal with all of the prejudice that exists against him, which he copes with very well actually, because I think it would have broken most people by now. I'd just like people to give him a chance and not constantly try to destroy him before he's even started. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by weaver on Oct 19, 2008 13:39:03 GMT 1, LOL 2301, there is no hidden messages, meanings or insults in my replies ( might be back to your P-complex again), your replies are on the other hand really not saying much and making less relative sense to the reader. I'll make it nice and easy for you....
Why is a banksy fans willingness to defend banksy's work less valid than your defence of cartrains work?
Not quite following the coment that you made regarding just copying everything you sat and just saying it back, I'll leave the babbling fool bit to you
LOL 2301, there is no hidden messages, meanings or insults in my replies ( might be back to your P-complex again), your replies are on the other hand really not saying much and making less relative sense to the reader. I'll make it nice and easy for you.... Why is a banksy fans willingness to defend banksy's work less valid than your defence of cartrains work? Not quite following the coment that you made regarding just copying everything you sat and just saying it back, I'll leave the babbling fool bit to you |
|
sfdoddsy
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 267
๐๐ป 0
August 2008
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by sfdoddsy on Oct 19, 2008 13:51:56 GMT 1, QUOTE
"Anyway, now Cartrain he is trying to develop his own style, (which takes time and isn't easy) but yet he still has to deal with all of the prejudice that exists against him, which he copes with very well actually, because I think it would have broken most people by now. I'd just like people to give him a chance and not constantly try to destroy him before he's even started."
But he's not developing his own style. Check out his Myspace page:
profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=144464359
The beginning of developing your own style should be to develop your own signature, let alone a signature style. Mind you he's not alone in this - Dolk comes to mind.
Surely he realizes that the people seeing artistic success are those who stand out from the pack - Faile, Bast, Micallef, Neate, Parla etc etc?
If he can't, and you can't, it's strong evidence why urban art will become a flash in the pan.
QUOTE "Anyway, now Cartrain he is trying to develop his own style, (which takes time and isn't easy) but yet he still has to deal with all of the prejudice that exists against him, which he copes with very well actually, because I think it would have broken most people by now. I'd just like people to give him a chance and not constantly try to destroy him before he's even started." But he's not developing his own style. Check out his Myspace page: profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=144464359The beginning of developing your own style should be to develop your own signature, let alone a signature style. Mind you he's not alone in this - Dolk comes to mind. Surely he realizes that the people seeing artistic success are those who stand out from the pack - Faile, Bast, Micallef, Neate, Parla etc etc? If he can't, and you can't, it's strong evidence why urban art will become a flash in the pan. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by Deleted on Oct 19, 2008 14:11:51 GMT 1, I actually agree with most of what you say. And if you'd said it in defense of someone doing fresh and new work I'd be right behind you. Unfortunately, you have decided to champion someone who epitomizes all that is stale, repetitious and derivative in this 'scene'. Surely the best way to separate yourself from Banksy and still the doubters is to do something non-Banksyish - ie not an 'ironic' stencil and especially ones featuring skulls, queens, Guernica, Mickey and George Bush. Next up monkeys? Most of what I said there was not specifically regarding Cartrain, although his is a case of how a nasty group mentality can arise to demonise somebody or even in some extreme cases, a whole section of society. I just got sick of seeing him get picked on all the time. It's ugly to watch and has gone much too far. Yeah, he might have been heavily influenced by Banksy, but the whole stencil genre is AWASH with poor Banksy imitators, most who are a lot closer in style to Banksy than Cartrain is, but I don't see any of those receiving anything like the harsh treatment Cartrain has had to suffer on here. He was a 14 or 15 year old kid when he did a couple of stencils next to Banksy in an attempt to emulate his hero, yet most on here can't seem to ever forgive what they see as such a deadly sin. Banksy himself seems to have respect for Cartrain and has no problem with him, so I don't see why anyone else should feel it's their place to always rush to Banksy's defence. This is an example of the severe distortion and lack of perspective of some Banksy fanatics that I alluded to in the previous post. And If anyone wants to bring up the museum thing again, then I refer them back to the fact that Banksy wasn't the originator of this idea, nor in fact did he invent political graffiti, irony or stencilling, although you would think so from the way some people go on about him on here. Anyway, now Cartrain he is trying to develop his own style, (which takes time and isn't easy) but yet he still has to deal with all of the prejudice that exists against him, which he copes with very well actually, because I think it would have broken most people by now. I'd just like people to give him a chance and not constantly try to destroy him before he's even started. Thanks mate ;D The witch hunt (  )against me rarely bothers me now, seeing the patten of repeated non objectivity in some comments lead me to believe that some people cannot go beyond their own narrow frame of reference when looking at the world and their place in it. that isn't to say all the negative comments have fallen into this category. some harsh but honest comments had no axe to grind.
I actually agree with most of what you say. And if you'd said it in defense of someone doing fresh and new work I'd be right behind you. Unfortunately, you have decided to champion someone who epitomizes all that is stale, repetitious and derivative in this 'scene'. Surely the best way to separate yourself from Banksy and still the doubters is to do something non-Banksyish - ie not an 'ironic' stencil and especially ones featuring skulls, queens, Guernica, Mickey and George Bush. Next up monkeys? Most of what I said there was not specifically regarding Cartrain, although his is a case of how a nasty group mentality can arise to demonise somebody or even in some extreme cases, a whole section of society. I just got sick of seeing him get picked on all the time. It's ugly to watch and has gone much too far. Yeah, he might have been heavily influenced by Banksy, but the whole stencil genre is AWASH with poor Banksy imitators, most who are a lot closer in style to Banksy than Cartrain is, but I don't see any of those receiving anything like the harsh treatment Cartrain has had to suffer on here. He was a 14 or 15 year old kid when he did a couple of stencils next to Banksy in an attempt to emulate his hero, yet most on here can't seem to ever forgive what they see as such a deadly sin. Banksy himself seems to have respect for Cartrain and has no problem with him, so I don't see why anyone else should feel it's their place to always rush to Banksy's defence. This is an example of the severe distortion and lack of perspective of some Banksy fanatics that I alluded to in the previous post. And If anyone wants to bring up the museum thing again, then I refer them back to the fact that Banksy wasn't the originator of this idea, nor in fact did he invent political graffiti, irony or stencilling, although you would think so from the way some people go on about him on here. Anyway, now Cartrain he is trying to develop his own style, (which takes time and isn't easy) but yet he still has to deal with all of the prejudice that exists against him, which he copes with very well actually, because I think it would have broken most people by now. I'd just like people to give him a chance and not constantly try to destroy him before he's even started. Thanks mate ;D The witch hunt ( )against me rarely bothers me now, seeing the patten of repeated non objectivity in some comments lead me to believe that some people cannot go beyond their own narrow frame of reference when looking at the world and their place in it. that isn't to say all the negative comments have fallen into this category. some harsh but honest comments had no axe to grind. |
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by imbue on Oct 19, 2008 14:23:01 GMT 1, QUOTE "Anyway, now Cartrain he is trying to develop his own style, (which takes time and isn't easy) but yet he still has to deal with all of the prejudice that exists against him, which he copes with very well actually, because I think it would have broken most people by now. I'd just like people to give him a chance and not constantly try to destroy him before he's even started." But he's not developing his own style. Check out his Myspace page: profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=144464359The beginning of developing your own style should be to develop your own signature, let alone a signature style. Mind you he's not alone in this - Dolk comes to mind. Surely he realizes that the people seeing artistic success are those who stand out from the pack - Faile, Bast, Micallef, Neate, Parla etc etc? If he can't, and you can't, it's strong evidence why urban art will become a flash in the pan.
Wow I just found out from Cartrains myspace that he earns more than ยฃ250,000 a year. Well done
QUOTE "Anyway, now Cartrain he is trying to develop his own style, (which takes time and isn't easy) but yet he still has to deal with all of the prejudice that exists against him, which he copes with very well actually, because I think it would have broken most people by now. I'd just like people to give him a chance and not constantly try to destroy him before he's even started." But he's not developing his own style. Check out his Myspace page: profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=144464359The beginning of developing your own style should be to develop your own signature, let alone a signature style. Mind you he's not alone in this - Dolk comes to mind. Surely he realizes that the people seeing artistic success are those who stand out from the pack - Faile, Bast, Micallef, Neate, Parla etc etc? If he can't, and you can't, it's strong evidence why urban art will become a flash in the pan. Wow I just found out from Cartrains myspace that he earns more than ยฃ250,000 a year. Well done |
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by 2301 on Oct 19, 2008 14:29:28 GMT 1, QUOTE " But he's not developing his own style. Check out his Myspace page: profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=144464359The beginning of developing your own style should be to develop your own signature, let alone a signature style. Mind you he's not alone in this - Dolk comes to mind. Surely he realizes that the people seeing artistic success are those who stand out from the pack - Faile, Bast, Micallef, Neate, Parla etc etc? If he can't, and you can't, it's strong evidence why urban art will become a flash in the pan.
Yeah, well I'm not really into those artists you mentioned there, so it's all relative to individual taste I suppose. How you define 'artistic success' is also problematic, I personally don't use commercial appeal or mass popularity as the way to judge that.
Interesting that you mention 'Urban art' because that to me is another source of frequent misunderstanding on here. I think a lot of people on this forum want more of a contemporary art gallery type product, whereas Cartrain's work is much more raw and a lot closer to the street, so it's like two different worlds colliding here....worlds which incidentally I feel are moving ever further apart and becoming increasingly polarised. Which I'm not saying is necessarily a bad thing, as I'd rather see street art return to the authenticity it once had, before commerce became involved.
QUOTE " But he's not developing his own style. Check out his Myspace page: profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=144464359The beginning of developing your own style should be to develop your own signature, let alone a signature style. Mind you he's not alone in this - Dolk comes to mind. Surely he realizes that the people seeing artistic success are those who stand out from the pack - Faile, Bast, Micallef, Neate, Parla etc etc? If he can't, and you can't, it's strong evidence why urban art will become a flash in the pan. Yeah, well I'm not really into those artists you mentioned there, so it's all relative to individual taste I suppose. How you define 'artistic success' is also problematic, I personally don't use commercial appeal or mass popularity as the way to judge that. Interesting that you mention 'Urban art' because that to me is another source of frequent misunderstanding on here. I think a lot of people on this forum want more of a contemporary art gallery type product, whereas Cartrain's work is much more raw and a lot closer to the street, so it's like two different worlds colliding here....worlds which incidentally I feel are moving ever further apart and becoming increasingly polarised. Which I'm not saying is necessarily a bad thing, as I'd rather see street art return to the authenticity it once had, before commerce became involved. |
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by iwouldfollow youanywhere on Oct 19, 2008 14:37:42 GMT 1, it's funny really, because this is all very simple.
cartrain's "art" is GCSE standard, sloppily executed, mind-numbing trash. The 'anger' as 2301 would call it, derives from the fact that certain people (including the 'artist') feel it is worthy of selling. It is not, and frankly smacks of trying to cash in on the minority of sad bastards who may actually swallow the faux-intellectual nonsense that accompanies the crappy collages and "official cartrain mounts"
now onto this latest stunt- why not subvert the idea and try placing work in more unusual public locations and seeing how long it lasts instead of sticking to a well known and deeply unoriginal idea. It surely cannot be that hard to have some creativity of your own, even if most 15/1 whatever year olds are near enough brain dead.
this person gets waaay to much attention, when much more talented artists barely get a mention. Doze Green at Levine anyone? barely a whisper.
As to Cartrains legal guardian 2301, i suggest you stop coming across like a social worker /guardian reader on smack and take a longer look at the shabby and amateurish art produced by the person you are so keen to defend...
it's funny really, because this is all very simple.
cartrain's "art" is GCSE standard, sloppily executed, mind-numbing trash. The 'anger' as 2301 would call it, derives from the fact that certain people (including the 'artist') feel it is worthy of selling. It is not, and frankly smacks of trying to cash in on the minority of sad bastards who may actually swallow the faux-intellectual nonsense that accompanies the crappy collages and "official cartrain mounts"
now onto this latest stunt- why not subvert the idea and try placing work in more unusual public locations and seeing how long it lasts instead of sticking to a well known and deeply unoriginal idea. It surely cannot be that hard to have some creativity of your own, even if most 15/1 whatever year olds are near enough brain dead.
this person gets waaay to much attention, when much more talented artists barely get a mention. Doze Green at Levine anyone? barely a whisper.
As to Cartrains legal guardian 2301, i suggest you stop coming across like a social worker /guardian reader on smack and take a longer look at the shabby and amateurish art produced by the person you are so keen to defend...
|
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by iwouldfollow youanywhere on Oct 19, 2008 14:40:29 GMT 1, QUOTE " But he's not developing his own style. Check out his Myspace page: profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=144464359The beginning of developing your own style should be to develop your own signature, let alone a signature style. Mind you he's not alone in this - Dolk comes to mind. Surely he realizes that the people seeing artistic success are those who stand out from the pack - Faile, Bast, Micallef, Neate, Parla etc etc? If he can't, and you can't, it's strong evidence why urban art will become a flash in the pan. Yeah, well I'm not really into those artists you mentioned there, so it's all relative to individual taste I suppose. How you define 'artistic success' is also problematic, I personally don't use commercial appeal or mass popularity as the way to judge that. Interesting that you mention 'Urban art' because that to me is another source of frequent misunderstanding on here. I think a lot of people on this forum want more of a contemporary art gallery type product, whereas Cartrain's work is much more raw and a lot closer to the street, so it's like two different worlds colliding here....worlds which incidentally I feel are moving ever further apart and becoming increasingly polarised. Which I'm not saying is necessarily a bad thing, as I'd rather see street art return to the authenticity it once had, before commerce became involved.
give me a break! "raw..street work"
when?
QUOTE " But he's not developing his own style. Check out his Myspace page: profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=144464359The beginning of developing your own style should be to develop your own signature, let alone a signature style. Mind you he's not alone in this - Dolk comes to mind. Surely he realizes that the people seeing artistic success are those who stand out from the pack - Faile, Bast, Micallef, Neate, Parla etc etc? If he can't, and you can't, it's strong evidence why urban art will become a flash in the pan. Yeah, well I'm not really into those artists you mentioned there, so it's all relative to individual taste I suppose. How you define 'artistic success' is also problematic, I personally don't use commercial appeal or mass popularity as the way to judge that. Interesting that you mention 'Urban art' because that to me is another source of frequent misunderstanding on here. I think a lot of people on this forum want more of a contemporary art gallery type product, whereas Cartrain's work is much more raw and a lot closer to the street, so it's like two different worlds colliding here....worlds which incidentally I feel are moving ever further apart and becoming increasingly polarised. Which I'm not saying is necessarily a bad thing, as I'd rather see street art return to the authenticity it once had, before commerce became involved. give me a break! "raw..street work" when? |
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by 2301 on Oct 19, 2008 15:07:53 GMT 1, it's funny really, because this is all very simple. cartrain's "art" is GCSE standard, sloppily executed, mind-numbing trash. The 'anger' as 2301 would call it, derives from the fact that certain people (including the 'artist') feel it is worthy of selling. It is not, and frankly smacks of trying to cash in on the minority of sad bastards who may actually swallow the faux-intellectual nonsense that accompanies the crappy collages and "official cartrain mounts" now onto this latest stunt- why not subvert the idea and try placing work in more unusual public locations and seeing how long it lasts instead of sticking to a well known and deeply unoriginal idea. It surely cannot be that hard to have some creativity of your own, even if most 15/1 whatever year olds are near enough brain dead. this person gets waaay to much attention, when much more talented artists barely get a mention. Doze Green at Levine anyone? barely a whisper. As to Cartrains legal guardian 2301, i suggest you stop coming across like a social worker /guardian reader on smack and take a longer look at the shabby and amateurish art produced by the person you are so keen to defend...
This is precisely the bile-laden kind of invective that makes those who spew it look like bitter dunces. You might think you appear sophisticated by disrespecting people's work in such a manner, but that you state your own opinions regarding what constitutes art or not as inviolable fact reveals that you are arrogant to the point of delusion, and not even worthy of my time. As for the question of 'street work', it seems that you are completely unaware of the background to all of this, yet at the same time seem strangely desperate to flaunt your ignorance as a badge of honour. By doing so though you've actually gone a long way toward illustrating my point about how this forum loses credibility and is spoilt by a section of people on here who act in such a foul and domineering way. If I'm a Guardian reader then you surely must be a Sun reader, and proud of it by the sounds of things.
it's funny really, because this is all very simple. cartrain's "art" is GCSE standard, sloppily executed, mind-numbing trash. The 'anger' as 2301 would call it, derives from the fact that certain people (including the 'artist') feel it is worthy of selling. It is not, and frankly smacks of trying to cash in on the minority of sad bastards who may actually swallow the faux-intellectual nonsense that accompanies the crappy collages and "official cartrain mounts" now onto this latest stunt- why not subvert the idea and try placing work in more unusual public locations and seeing how long it lasts instead of sticking to a well known and deeply unoriginal idea. It surely cannot be that hard to have some creativity of your own, even if most 15/1 whatever year olds are near enough brain dead. this person gets waaay to much attention, when much more talented artists barely get a mention. Doze Green at Levine anyone? barely a whisper. As to Cartrains legal guardian 2301, i suggest you stop coming across like a social worker /guardian reader on smack and take a longer look at the shabby and amateurish art produced by the person you are so keen to defend... This is precisely the bile-laden kind of invective that makes those who spew it look like bitter dunces. You might think you appear sophisticated by disrespecting people's work in such a manner, but that you state your own opinions regarding what constitutes art or not as inviolable fact reveals that you are arrogant to the point of delusion, and not even worthy of my time. As for the question of 'street work', it seems that you are completely unaware of the background to all of this, yet at the same time seem strangely desperate to flaunt your ignorance as a badge of honour. By doing so though you've actually gone a long way toward illustrating my point about how this forum loses credibility and is spoilt by a section of people on here who act in such a foul and domineering way. If I'm a Guardian reader then you surely must be a Sun reader, and proud of it by the sounds of things. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by iwouldfollow youanywhere on Oct 19, 2008 15:35:57 GMT 1, I'd be interested to know how these sloppy collages relate to the "background to all of this". Or how about the 'cardboard mounts'?
please look at the work and then tell me how and why these are worthy of anyones time, much less of attempts to sell them.
Don't get me wrong, collage is an effective medium and can be used to strong effect to put across a message. BUT these are done so crudely and so with such simplistic (although occasionally bizarre and unintentionally hilarious juxtapositions) i simply do not buy the fact that any intelligent or adult thought has gone into them. I'd say that, if anyone, it is the 'artist' who is the Sun reader here.
i may appear arrogant but i like to think i have a reasonably sophisticated eye for art that can pick out the good from the bad, and jesus is your boy BAD.
but, please, keep the highly vocal defense up it makes for entertaining reading, convinced as you are in your own moral superiority and the artistic integrity of this precocious "talent"
I'd be interested to know how these sloppy collages relate to the "background to all of this". Or how about the 'cardboard mounts'?
please look at the work and then tell me how and why these are worthy of anyones time, much less of attempts to sell them.
Don't get me wrong, collage is an effective medium and can be used to strong effect to put across a message. BUT these are done so crudely and so with such simplistic (although occasionally bizarre and unintentionally hilarious juxtapositions) i simply do not buy the fact that any intelligent or adult thought has gone into them. I'd say that, if anyone, it is the 'artist' who is the Sun reader here.
i may appear arrogant but i like to think i have a reasonably sophisticated eye for art that can pick out the good from the bad, and jesus is your boy BAD.
but, please, keep the highly vocal defense up it makes for entertaining reading, convinced as you are in your own moral superiority and the artistic integrity of this precocious "talent"
|
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by snausages on Oct 19, 2008 16:01:14 GMT 1, I personally didn't feel that Banksy's Warhol rip off's/homages were that unique or fresh... ...as for Winston Churchill with a green mohican, that was a straight copy of someone else's creation that happened at an ANTI-capitalist demonstration.
Well I'll just pick these two examples that you mentioned.
I could see how you feel that way as I don't think Kate is Banksy's greatest work but he took something that someone else did and put a nice spin on it and it seemed to come at the right time ...in another era and another iconic and ironic model.
It wasn't done immediately after Warhol did it nor by another 'pop' artist in something that might look like a mere attempt to capitalize on a current trend while it was still in 'fashion.'
And even if Banksy ripped off the turf mohawk idea it's pretty different to this Tate situation. For Banksy wasn't ripping off the idea of another successful artist trying to ride their coat tails. It was just something that he noticed in the real world and was smart enough to be inspired by it and immortalized it.
I personally didn't feel that Banksy's Warhol rip off's/homages were that unique or fresh... ...as for Winston Churchill with a green mohican, that was a straight copy of someone else's creation that happened at an ANTI-capitalist demonstration. Well I'll just pick these two examples that you mentioned. I could see how you feel that way as I don't think Kate is Banksy's greatest work but he took something that someone else did and put a nice spin on it and it seemed to come at the right time ...in another era and another iconic and ironic model. It wasn't done immediately after Warhol did it nor by another 'pop' artist in something that might look like a mere attempt to capitalize on a current trend while it was still in 'fashion.' And even if Banksy ripped off the turf mohawk idea it's pretty different to this Tate situation. For Banksy wasn't ripping off the idea of another successful artist trying to ride their coat tails. It was just something that he noticed in the real world and was smart enough to be inspired by it and immortalized it. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by Deleted on Oct 19, 2008 17:16:19 GMT 1, I'd be interested to know how these sloppy collages relate to the "background to all of this". Or how about the 'cardboard mounts'? please look at the work and then tell me how and why these are worthy of anyones time, much less of attempts to sell them. Don't get me wrong, collage is an effective medium and can be used to strong effect to put across a message. BUT these are done so crudely and so with such simplistic (although occasionally bizarre and unintentionally hilarious juxtapositions) i simply do not buy the fact that any intelligent or adult thought has gone into them. I'd say that, if anyone, it is the 'artist' who is the Sun reader here. i may appear arrogant but i like to think i have a reasonably sophisticated eye for art that can pick out the good from the bad, and jesus is your boy BAD. but, please, keep the highly vocal defense up it makes for entertaining reading, convinced as you are in your own moral superiority and the artistic integrity of this precocious "talent"
You crack me up. Your evaluation and the wording you use about the ''sloppy collage'' only goes to show your lack of knowledge and lack of openess to new Art To refer to any positive asspects of the work as unintentional is a judgment your not qualified to make.
you clearly feel a need to belittle the things you don't understand.rather than ask for help you crack me up ;D
I'd be interested to know how these sloppy collages relate to the "background to all of this". Or how about the 'cardboard mounts'? please look at the work and then tell me how and why these are worthy of anyones time, much less of attempts to sell them. Don't get me wrong, collage is an effective medium and can be used to strong effect to put across a message. BUT these are done so crudely and so with such simplistic (although occasionally bizarre and unintentionally hilarious juxtapositions) i simply do not buy the fact that any intelligent or adult thought has gone into them. I'd say that, if anyone, it is the 'artist' who is the Sun reader here. i may appear arrogant but i like to think i have a reasonably sophisticated eye for art that can pick out the good from the bad, and jesus is your boy BAD. but, please, keep the highly vocal defense up it makes for entertaining reading, convinced as you are in your own moral superiority and the artistic integrity of this precocious "talent" You crack me up. Your evaluation and the wording you use about the ''sloppy collage'' only goes to show your lack of knowledge and lack of openess to new Art To refer to any positive asspects of the work as unintentional is a judgment your not qualified to make. you clearly feel a need to belittle the things you don't understand.rather than ask for help you crack me up ;D |
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by ricosg11 on Oct 19, 2008 17:35:10 GMT 1, ugh hippies
ugh hippies
|
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by giiiant on Oct 19, 2008 17:42:21 GMT 1, I'd be interested to know how these sloppy collages relate to the "background to all of this". Or how about the 'cardboard mounts'? please look at the work and then tell me how and why these are worthy of anyones time, much less of attempts to sell them. Don't get me wrong, collage is an effective medium and can be used to strong effect to put across a message. BUT these are done so crudely and so with such simplistic (although occasionally bizarre and unintentionally hilarious juxtapositions) i simply do not buy the fact that any intelligent or adult thought has gone into them. I'd say that, if anyone, it is the 'artist' who is the Sun reader here. i may appear arrogant but i like to think i have a reasonably sophisticated eye for art that can pick out the good from the bad, and jesus is your boy BAD. but, please, keep the highly vocal defense up it makes for entertaining reading, convinced as you are in your own moral superiority and the artistic integrity of this precocious "talent" You crack me up. Your evaluation and the wording you use about the ''sloppy collage'' only goes to show your lack of knowledge and lack of openess to new Art To refer to any positive asspects of the work as unintentional is a judgment your not qualified to make. you clearly feel a need to belittle the things you don't understand.rather than ask for help you crack me up ;D
dude just explain one of your colleges, its hard to do the "figure it out for yourself" thing when the viewer has no idea what wavelength the artist is even on.
I'd be interested to know how these sloppy collages relate to the "background to all of this". Or how about the 'cardboard mounts'? please look at the work and then tell me how and why these are worthy of anyones time, much less of attempts to sell them. Don't get me wrong, collage is an effective medium and can be used to strong effect to put across a message. BUT these are done so crudely and so with such simplistic (although occasionally bizarre and unintentionally hilarious juxtapositions) i simply do not buy the fact that any intelligent or adult thought has gone into them. I'd say that, if anyone, it is the 'artist' who is the Sun reader here. i may appear arrogant but i like to think i have a reasonably sophisticated eye for art that can pick out the good from the bad, and jesus is your boy BAD. but, please, keep the highly vocal defense up it makes for entertaining reading, convinced as you are in your own moral superiority and the artistic integrity of this precocious "talent" You crack me up. Your evaluation and the wording you use about the ''sloppy collage'' only goes to show your lack of knowledge and lack of openess to new Art To refer to any positive asspects of the work as unintentional is a judgment your not qualified to make. you clearly feel a need to belittle the things you don't understand.rather than ask for help you crack me up ;D dude just explain one of your colleges, its hard to do the "figure it out for yourself" thing when the viewer has no idea what wavelength the artist is even on. |
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by weaver on Oct 19, 2008 17:47:05 GMT 1, You crack me up. Your evaluation and the wording you use about the ''sloppy collage'' only goes to show your lack of knowledge and lack of openess to new Art To refer to any positive asspects of the work as unintentional is a judgment your not qualified to make. you clearly feel a need to belittle the things you don't understand.rather than ask for help you crack me up ;D dude just explain one of your colleges, its hard to do the "figure it out for yourself" thing when the viewer has no idea what wavelength the artist is even on.
"I would suggest that if you can't find your own meaning in the work then it's probably better to just accept that fact and not get stressed about it. Art isn't about delivering literal explanations anyway, if that's what you want then you would be better off with a book about physics. And have you ever thought that maybe Cartrain isn't trying to tell you things, but wants you to find them out for yourselves instead? "
You crack me up. Your evaluation and the wording you use about the ''sloppy collage'' only goes to show your lack of knowledge and lack of openess to new Art To refer to any positive asspects of the work as unintentional is a judgment your not qualified to make. you clearly feel a need to belittle the things you don't understand.rather than ask for help you crack me up ;D dude just explain one of your colleges, its hard to do the "figure it out for yourself" thing when the viewer has no idea what wavelength the artist is even on. Here's an explanation from cartrains biggest fan 2301 G, it should explain everything. "I would suggest that if you can't find your own meaning in the work then it's probably better to just accept that fact and not get stressed about it. Art isn't about delivering literal explanations anyway, if that's what you want then you would be better off with a book about physics. And have you ever thought that maybe Cartrain isn't trying to tell you things, but wants you to find them out for yourselves instead? " |
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by graeme501 on Oct 19, 2008 17:49:13 GMT 1, "I would suggest that if you can't find your own meaning in the work then it's probably better to just accept that fact and not get stressed about it. Art isn't about delivering literal explanations anyway, if that's what you want then you would be better off with a book about physics. And have you ever thought that maybe Cartrain isn't trying to tell you things, but wants you to find them out for yourselves instead? "
translation
"he cut out a lot of stuff from magazines and stuck them down with a pritt stick, but it does come with a lovely official cartain cardboard mount"
"I would suggest that if you can't find your own meaning in the work then it's probably better to just accept that fact and not get stressed about it. Art isn't about delivering literal explanations anyway, if that's what you want then you would be better off with a book about physics. And have you ever thought that maybe Cartrain isn't trying to tell you things, but wants you to find them out for yourselves instead? "
translation
"he cut out a lot of stuff from magazines and stuck them down with a pritt stick, but it does come with a lovely official cartain cardboard mount"
|
|
|
|
Cartrain ๐ฌ๐ง Tate Gallery โข Damien Hirst โข Gilbert & George, by iwouldfollow youanywhere on Oct 19, 2008 19:10:14 GMT 1, You crack me up. Your evaluation and the wording you use about the ''sloppy collage'' only goes to show your lack of knowledge and lack of openess to new Art To refer to any positive asspects of the work as unintentional is a judgment your not qualified to make. you clearly feel a need to belittle the things you don't understand.rather than ask for help you crack me up ;D
the only thing i don't understand is why you think these pathetic and laughable attempts at "art" should be put up for sale. It's a bit embarrassing really.
Also, stop regurgitating crap written by 2301 please, your number one fan is sadly mistaken, no amount of "knowledge" would/should stop anyone seeing that what you produce is amateurish shite...
not that i ever expect you to agree with me of course, just be aware you aren't a misunderstood talent who is being mauled by simpleton critics who "just don't get it..." Your stuff will never be acclaimed, never be remembered. If you stopped posting here and your "gallery" representatives went bust i doubt anyone would ever mention you again.
Unless they started a thread about "remember when" (i.e. Elliott) - you get the picture.
You crack me up. Your evaluation and the wording you use about the ''sloppy collage'' only goes to show your lack of knowledge and lack of openess to new Art To refer to any positive asspects of the work as unintentional is a judgment your not qualified to make. you clearly feel a need to belittle the things you don't understand.rather than ask for help you crack me up ;D the only thing i don't understand is why you think these pathetic and laughable attempts at "art" should be put up for sale. It's a bit embarrassing really. Also, stop regurgitating crap written by 2301 please, your number one fan is sadly mistaken, no amount of "knowledge" would/should stop anyone seeing that what you produce is amateurish shite... not that i ever expect you to agree with me of course, just be aware you aren't a misunderstood talent who is being mauled by simpleton critics who "just don't get it..." Your stuff will never be acclaimed, never be remembered. If you stopped posting here and your "gallery" representatives went bust i doubt anyone would ever mention you again. Unless they started a thread about "remember when" (i.e. Elliott) - you get the picture. |
|
)against me rarely bothers me now, seeing the patten of repeated non objectivity in some comments lead me to believe that some people cannot go beyond their own narrow frame of reference when looking at the world and their place in it. that isn't to say all the negative comments have fallen into this category. some harsh but honest comments had no axe to grind. 
