PDA

View Full Version : Banksy in NYC



thinnerair
11-30-2007, 11:45 AM
http://www.slamxhype.com/images/posts/t-shirtback._FB_.jpg
http://www.slamxhype.com/2007/11/27/banksy-does-new-york

December will see the arrival of the ever popular Banksy in NYC, find the details for "Banksy New York: "A Bankrobber Crime"' below....in association with Bank Robber London, theres more info here.

BANKSY DOES NEW YORK
DECEMBER 2ND – DECEMBER 29TH, 2007
OPENING RECEPTION: SUNDAY, DECEMBER 2ND, 1 PM -5 PM

BANKROBBER GALLERY, London, in collaboration with VANINA HOLASEK GALLERY, are pleased to present for the first time in New York, an exhibition of works by Banksy, on view from December 2nd through December 29th, 2007.

Laughing all the way to the Banksy.

Think you haven’t heard of Banksy? Think you don’t know who he is? Let us remind you; whilst others spray their names, Banksy paints pictures, pictures that have made Banksy a household name. He is the most controversial and downright interesting graffiti artist at large in the UK today and the chances are that you have already heard of, or seen some of his work, smiled and moved on. Variously described as a "guerrilla artist", an "art terrorist" or - by those of a more prosaic turn of phrase - as a "prankster" Banksy is someone for whom celebrity is anathema. So much so that he has never let the world know his real name - and he has never even posed for a photograph. And yet everybody is talking about him…he is unknown but his work is unmistakable.

He’s the maniac who got on the news for managing to smuggle one of his pieces of art into Tate Britain and embarrassed everyone because nobody seemed to notice…He’s the wit behind the stencilled “Mind the Crap” writing that appeared overnight on the steps to Tate Modern. He is the prankster who smuggled 500 alternative copies of the Paris Hilton CD into record stores. He is the subversive who placed a life-size replica of a Guantanamo Bay detainee in Disneyland. He’s the jester who gave LA a painted elephant. He is the trickster whose hoax cave painting of a man pushing a supermarket trolley sat in the British Museum unnoticed for three days. He is the infiltrator who disguised as a pensioner hung his perfectly framed pieces in the Metropolitan, MOMA, Brooklyn Museum and his "dead beetle with glued on sidewinder missiles and satellite dish" had pride of place in the Museum of Natural History NYC. Get the picture, get this. Banksy images are even being used to sell 900k condos in
Williamsburg.

Is Banksy the new Warhol? Following record auction sales of both Warhol and Banksy, critics have examined the similarities in both aesthetic and content between the two artists, their interest in celebrity culture, and their examination of social values. Like Warhol, Banksy has become a darling of the stars, with his works gracing the homes of Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Jude Law, Damien Hirst, Kate Moss, Robbie Williams. Banksy is undoubtedly a major player in terms of advancing the envelope of what art is with the result that over the past several years, his art has escalated in value faster than pretty much any substance known to man. He is a visionary, the leader of a new artistic movement and the anonymous poster boy for free speech. Come and see what all the fuss is about.

J~$$$
11-30-2007, 11:48 AM
"The anonymous poster boy for free speech."

puke.

wmgaretjax
11-30-2007, 12:07 PM
banksy is a moron

Jagh20
11-30-2007, 12:10 PM
Damn...looks like I be flying to the New City....Dope

J~$$$
11-30-2007, 12:11 PM
Dope?

Ill_Eagle
11-30-2007, 12:11 PM
DO NOT WANT...dope

brando4n82
11-30-2007, 12:12 PM
Banksy is lame, along with the kidrobot, dunnys, and all that bs

nocigarettes
11-30-2007, 12:22 PM
banksy is fucken amazing

Courtney
11-30-2007, 02:34 PM
Is Banksy the new Warhol?

Ohhh don't bait me!

Banksy is not the new Warhol. To be the new Warhol, he would need to be using more innovative methods to critique mass culture. As far as I can see, most of his stuff is fairly derivative.

canexplain
11-30-2007, 02:36 PM
Ohhh don't bait me!

Banksy is not the new Warhol. To be the new Warhol, he would need to be using more innovative methods to critique mass culture. As far as I can see, most of his stuff is fairly derivative.

coming from Courtney, we can pretty much close this thread .. she is our art board expert :) canx**

Courtney
11-30-2007, 02:48 PM
It's not that I think Banksy is totally without merit. His stuff is quite amusing and sometimes clever, and I'm pleased that he is bringing art to a whole different audience than would usually be interested in the museum or gallery art scene. But I do think that his work is strongly rooted in the installation art, performance art and pop art of the 1960s and 70s. That debt should be acknowledged. His ideas aren't coming out of thin air.

RotationSlimWang
11-30-2007, 03:54 PM
Sneaking your art into museums is pretty nifty though.

bballarl
11-30-2007, 04:05 PM
How is Banksy going to top the painted elephant from LA? The only thing I can think of is painting Rudy Guiliani.

PotVsKtl
11-30-2007, 06:15 PM
http://www.briansewell.com/images/banksy-palestinian-sandcastles.jpg

shakermaker113
11-30-2007, 08:51 PM
http://www.briansewell.com/images/banksy-palestinian-sandcastles.jpg

exactly!

bballarl
11-30-2007, 08:56 PM
But he did those before the painted elephant.

shakermaker113
11-30-2007, 09:02 PM
It's not that I think Banksy is totally without merit. His stuff is quite amusing and sometimes clever, and I'm pleased that he is bringing art to a whole different audience than would usually be interested in the museum or gallery art scene. But I do think that his work is strongly rooted in the installation art, performance art and pop art of the 1960s and 70s. That debt should be acknowledged. His ideas aren't coming out of thin air.

good point. but are there any artists whose ideas come out of thin air? (I ask honestly because I know little about art, and you seem to know more...)

chrislasf
11-30-2007, 09:17 PM
Courtney only pretends. Dont be fooled. She loves Bob Ross more than anyone else here.

thelastgreatman
11-30-2007, 09:32 PM
Ask Courtney literally ANYTHING about high-priced lithographs inked in Nice, France between 1734 and 1739. She got paid to know this shit.

I'M NOT EVEN KIDDING.

instinct
11-30-2007, 09:43 PM
I can't believe there are so many Banksy haters.. He has way more talent than me or any of you (most likely) have. Seriously, his stuff is not just "clever", it's more than that.

Is anyone on here really into graffiti? Just curious.

wmgaretjax
11-30-2007, 09:51 PM
As far as art goes, it's up there with glass blowing in my book.

take that for what it is.

instinct
11-30-2007, 10:13 PM
As far as art goes, it's up there with glass blowing in my book.

take that for what it is.

lol.. are you really into glass blowing? I mean i'm sure a lot of people find a real beauty in it.. but as far as the context you put it in i'm assuming you mean "It's cool, but not really into it".. Anyone have the book "Graffiti World".. I think it's the best Graffiti book there is, it's pretty popular and sold at a lot of stores.

wmgaretjax
11-30-2007, 11:12 PM
lol.. are you really into glass blowing?

no. i'm impressed by the craft of it. but consider it just that. crafts. i feel the same way about most graffiti and the large majority of banksy's work.

it is hardly art in my mind.

instinct
11-30-2007, 11:34 PM
no. i'm impressed by the craft of it. but consider it just that. crafts. i feel the same way about most graffiti and the large majority of banksy's work.

it is hardly art in my mind.



Very good answer.

thinnerair
12-01-2007, 12:25 AM
no. i'm impressed by the craft of it. but consider it just that. crafts. i feel the same way about most graffiti and the large majority of banksy's work.

it is hardly art in my mind.

that is your opinion and i suppose you are entitled to it
whether or not Banksy owes anything to generations before him or art movements before him is somewhat irrelevant. I mean, for those that are saying he is the most original artist ever, then sure. But, I think what is great about him is that he has the balls to do what he does. Its not the most brilliant crafty 'oh look at his brushstrokes' type of stuff, but the things that he does has meaning and is well executed. Done. As far as the Hollywood bigwigs that are sweating his nuts and buying up his stuff....Good for them. They can afford. Has he sold out? No. I dont really think he has. He has achieved a high profile doing what he has always done. Should he stop because some actors and celebs want a piece of his stuff? No. Absolutely not.

I ll take pictures at the gallery opening...assuming they allow me to take pix.

wmgaretjax
12-01-2007, 06:09 AM
Should he stop because some actors and celebs want a piece of his stuff? No. Absolutely not.


I actually like what he's doing more this way. It makes it pretty fucking ironic and funny to see pictures of his "low-profile" opening in LA with the likes of Brad Pitt. I'm sure he is aware of this irony.

Courtney
12-01-2007, 09:51 AM
no. i'm impressed by the craft of it. but consider it just that. crafts. i feel the same way about most graffiti and the large majority of banksy's work.

it is hardly art in my mind.

What is your definition of art vs. craft?

wmgaretjax
12-01-2007, 10:04 AM
What is your definition of art vs. craft?

that is an insane question :) I suppose I brought it on my self. The skinny of of it would be that art teaches me something about who I am (and who we all are), but it does so in a way that draws a poetic response from me. It transcends what I bring to it, and even what the artist brought to it. There is always struggle involved for me (in it's creation, in it's experience).

Craft is neat, and there is often a lot of talent involved in it's creation.

This is by no means a comprehensive answer. It is vague and frustrating. I have a few definitions of art jotted down that are more involved. By they are constantly evolving and changing (appropriately so I think, one because of how young I am, and two because I believe that is the nature of art).

Courtney
12-01-2007, 10:19 AM
Ok. Does that mean that for you, art requires an audience to become art?

J~$$$
12-01-2007, 10:23 AM
I dont see the originality in his graffiti. He uses graffiti/stencils to create anti whatever the hot topic of the moment images.

I respect his work on his other guerilla installments like sneaking his work into musems or disneyland ect.

I guess he has to make money some how, and if that means selling stencil-aerosol work to celebs it works.

wmgaretjax
12-01-2007, 10:42 AM
Ok. Does that mean that for you, art requires an audience to become art?

yes (I can't think of an example that is otherwise). for me, art is generally also conscious of it's audience. the best art is aware of how it will be received, and attempts to take advantage of understanding that. all of the great art that I am aware of does this. there are always exceptions, pieces that are done in complete isolation, drawn purely from a personal space. The intimacy and the purity involved in such projects (not to mention the genius of the creators) often moves it into a space that transcends a lack of awareness of it's audience into a more universal space.

art is a social act. i mean, let's not kid ourselves. Art is not art until someone considers it art. Even if that is the creator itself (and then, is that not an audience?).

Courtney
12-01-2007, 10:50 AM
For me, art in no way needs to have or be conscious of an audience. It is a categorical entity regardless of viewer-response function, although I suppose some of my favorite art does play with that function. But there's a difference between defining good art and just defining art.

I'm not really sure if there are correct answers, anyway. But I do like hearing how different people think about these things.

wmgaretjax
12-01-2007, 10:59 AM
For me, art in no way needs to have or be conscious of an audience. It is a categorical entity regardless of viewer-response function, although I suppose some of my favorite art does play with that function. But there's a difference between defining good art and just defining art.

I'm not really sure if there are correct answers, anyway. But I do like hearing how different people think about these things.

I did not mean to imply that it "needs" to be, I think it just generally is, but there are all kinds of exceptions.

I agree though, it is an entirely different beast to try and define good art vs. art... often it becomes hard to separate the two once you get started trying to pull the layers apart.

Courtney
12-01-2007, 12:15 PM
Courtney only pretends. Dont be fooled. She loves Bob Ross more than anyone else here.

Also, this is true.


Ask Courtney literally ANYTHING about high-priced lithographs inked in Nice, France between 1734 and 1739. She got paid to know this shit.

I'M NOT EVEN KIDDING.

This too.

bballarl
12-01-2007, 12:40 PM
Courtney, please analyze Bob Ross' body of work.

Courtney
12-01-2007, 12:47 PM
http://content.ytmnd.com/content/e/3/c/e3cfe403359777e31e7aed1b34cef59e.gif

bballarl
12-01-2007, 12:53 PM
I can't believe he died. In 1995. My friend and I watched Bob Ross when we got home from Coachella 04 Sunday evening. It was the perfect capper to the whole weekend.

Courtney
12-01-2007, 12:55 PM
I think his tight brushwork and immaculate handling of pigment is especially effective in capturing the nostalgic ennui of our consumerist society.

thefunkylama
12-01-2007, 12:57 PM
Buuurrrn.

Mr.Nipples
12-01-2007, 01:01 PM
does anyone know where i can purchase a bob ross original?

kitt kat
12-02-2007, 09:50 AM
It's not that I think Banksy is totally without merit. His stuff is quite amusing and sometimes clever, and I'm pleased that he is bringing art to a whole different audience than would usually be interested in the museum or gallery art scene. But I do think that his work is strongly rooted in the installation art, performance art and pop art of the 1960s and 70s. That debt should be acknowledged. His ideas aren't coming out of thin air.


You literally stole the words right out of my mouth.

However, you could argue that his methods of delivering his art into the public sphere are a bit revolutionary by 21st century standards. Banksy---at least the pre-public hype Banksy---utilized that odd, confrontational "guerilla art" style, ambushing the London streets, sides of buildings, buses, anywhere he could get his stencils painted up. Nowadays, he's shifted to that screenprinted canvas feel ala Warhol, et al. However, I do think that examining how he got to such a stage of prominence gives the man a smidgeon of legitimacy.

But I must admit now that he has gotten quite gimmicky. Everytime I drive down Melrose and see one of his old tags from last year (when he held that one-day secret show in Los Angeles) and wish he stuck with the ambush art tactics.

I read some of his manifestos last year for my term paper on guerilla art for my Art and Revolution class. The man has some interesting things so say, but I think the money has gotten in the way of him being able to follow through on said ideas.

bballarl
12-02-2007, 10:03 AM
PUNK ROCK

wmgaretjax
12-02-2007, 10:52 AM
However, you could argue that his methods of delivering his art into the public sphere are a bit revolutionary by 21st century standards.

Until you go and visit Roman and Greek ruins and talk to ruin historians and find out that guerilla art was something that even existed back then (in the form of carvings on the sides of buildings, bridges, and public sculptures).

I was in Tunisia at ruins near where Carthage was. There was a statue there that had been slightly transformed by a second set of carvings. Well, turns out they had done their best to date them (very close to the same time based on the tools and styles), and it was a case of manipulating a public work of art to make a political statement. Sound familiar? It is nothing new.

thinnerair
12-02-2007, 01:33 PM
I went to the exhibit.
It opened at 1pm and the line was down the block. I got there around 230, saw someone I knew about 10 people from the entrance and cut the line. I'm the best.

Anyways...It was a tight building. 3 floors. Each floor approximately 14x14.
Framed pieces on the walls and prices scrawled in pencil below most of the pieces. Everything was over $10K. His print of the guy throwing the flowers was on a diamond shaped canvas and was going for $130K. I don't know if they were really being sold for that or if someone went and scribbled while passing through. I wanted to take some pics but it was way too crowded to move and get shots of everything. He had a few installation type pieces that were interesting, like the chalk outline of a body on the floor in white with its heart outlined in red and blood trails coming from the body.
The handrails up the stairs had mousetraps covered in blood going up the steps. He had a pile of t shirts for sale too, but I dont know if they were free or for sale but they said ' I AM BANKSY " in stenciled black on white. It was funny seeing a few ppl out side wearing I AM BANKSY shirts when everyone is running around trying to figure out if he really was there.

bballarl
12-02-2007, 01:35 PM
So no painted animals this time?

thinnerair
12-02-2007, 01:41 PM
No. It really was a simple gallery in this (http://vaninaholasekgallery.com/gallery.html) tiny building on the West side of Manhattan. There was a stuffed rat that poked out from behind a section of one of the walls. That's basically it.

woogie846
12-02-2007, 02:40 PM
This thread makes me feel so cultured and refined when I read it.

The only way it could make me feel smarter is if I was listening to NPR right now.

kitt kat
12-02-2007, 09:50 PM
Until you go and visit Roman and Greek ruins and talk to ruin historians and find out that guerilla art was something that even existed back then (in the form of carvings on the sides of buildings, bridges, and public sculptures).

I was in Tunisia at ruins near where Carthage was. There was a statue there that had been slightly transformed by a second set of carvings. Well, turns out they had done their best to date them (very close to the same time based on the tools and styles), and it was a case of manipulating a public work of art to make a political statement. Sound familiar? It is nothing new.


Ah, see, well I've never been to Greece or Rome or anything remotely similar. Thnx for the enlightenment.

wmgaretjax
12-02-2007, 10:00 PM
Ah, see, well I've never been to Greece or Rome or anything remotely similar. Thnx for the enlightenment.

i mean, nothing about it being an old tradition makes it unappealing. I can't stand how much attention and money Banksy whores the tradition out for.

PotVsKtl
12-02-2007, 10:36 PM
How can you whore out guerrilla art?

wmgaretjax
12-02-2007, 11:05 PM
How can you whore out guerrilla art?

clearly he's not whoring out "guerilla art," rather he's pulling form the tradition to sell $130k prints of graffiti he has done.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 01:32 AM
Jared, not that I'm defending this guy in particular 'cause I really couldn't give a fuck, but can you really draw a direct comparison between renegade sculptors/ancient graffiti artists running up and tag-sculpting stone work on buildings and someone sneaking their own work unnoticed into a highly monitored museum? I'm not saying it's a light-jump ahead or anything, but there is a certain panache there.

thinnerair
12-03-2007, 05:40 AM
clearly he's not whoring out "guerilla art," rather he's pulling form the tradition to sell $130k prints of graffiti he has done.

I think it's part of the joke that he charges obscene amounts of money for these simple silkscreens or 'graffiti' prints. The fact that people would pay that much loot for his work is nuts. The fact that someone would spend $130K on a spraypainted canvas is nuts.

Boourns
12-03-2007, 06:05 AM
As far as I'm concerned, art begins and ends with Thomas Kinkade.

shakermaker113
12-03-2007, 07:50 AM
his stunts always remind me of something Tyler Durden would do. I always liked the stunts he did in zoos as well. like when he gave the monkeys signs saying "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here" and "they won't let me go home" etc.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 08:52 AM
Jared, not that I'm defending this guy in particular 'cause I really couldn't give a fuck, but can you really draw a direct comparison between renegade sculptors/ancient graffiti artists running up and tag-sculpting stone work on buildings and someone sneaking their own work unnoticed into a highly monitored museum? I'm not saying it's a light-jump ahead or anything, but there is a certain panache there.

take this shift in 2000 years, and compare it to, say, the shift in sculpture from Rodin to Ben Rubin in 100 and I say that Banksy is obsolete from the get go. Panache... undoubtedly...

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 08:52 AM
I think it's part of the joke that he charges obscene amounts of money for these simple silkscreens or 'graffiti' prints. The fact that people would pay that much loot for his work is nuts. The fact that someone would spend $130K on a spraypainted canvas is nuts.

Yes, it is undoubtedly part of the joke.

J~$$$
12-03-2007, 09:03 AM
“low-concept art event ever” Bansky and fwends.

http://www.santasghetto.com/

Bethlehem is one of the most contentious places on earth.

Perched at the edge of the Judaen desert at the intersection of Europe, Asia and Africa in the state of Palestine it was governed by the British following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. After World War II the United Nations voted to partition the region into two states - one Jewish, one Arab and there’s been fighting ever since.

It’s obviously not the job of a loose collection of idiot doodlers to tell you what’s right or wrong about this situation, so you’re advised to do further reading yourself (this month’s National Geographic has an excellent article all about Bethlehem).

We would like to make it very clear Santa’s Ghetto is not allied to ANY race, creed, religion, political organization or lobby group. As an organisation the only thing we’ll say on behalf of our artists is that we don’t speak on behalf of our artists. This show simply offers the ink-stained hand of friendship to ordinary people in an extraordinary situation.

Every shekel made in the store will be used on local projects for children and young people. Not one cent will go to any political groups, governmental institutions or, in fact, any grown-ups at all.

Salaam.

TomAz
12-03-2007, 12:10 PM
As far as I'm concerned, art begins and ends with Thomas Kinkade.

whether or not Kinkade owes anything to generations before him or art movements before him is somewhat irrelevant. I mean, for those that are saying he is the most original artist ever, then sure. But, I think what is great about him is that he has the balls to do what he does. Its the most brilliant crafty 'oh look at his brushstrokes' type of stuff, and the things that he does have meaning and are well executed. Done. As far as the Hollywood bigwigs that are sweating his nuts and buying up his stuff....Good for them. They can afford. Has he sold out? No. I dont really think he has. He has achieved a high profile doing what he has always done. Should he stop because some actors and celebs want a piece of his stuff? No. Absolutely not.

full on idle
12-03-2007, 12:34 PM
The best artists are the ones you've never heard of.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 12:39 PM
As far as I'm concerned, art begins and ends with cave drawings. The rest of this derivate neo-cave drawing horseshit can suck a cock.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 12:39 PM
The best artists are the ones you've never heard of.

i GISed that and couldn't find anything.

bigc1
12-03-2007, 01:54 PM
his art is humorous and most have a message... but the fact that he sometimes makes a profit (selling to Brad and Angelina, etc.) off of it just makes him an every day painter/artist IMO.

PotVsKtl
12-03-2007, 02:35 PM
his art is humorous and most have a message... but the fact that he sometimes makes a profit (selling to Brad and Angelina, etc.) off of it just makes him an every day painter/artist IMO.

What in the fucksmoke are you talking about? Artists that make money are just journeymen?

Banksy can't sell out. You can't prostitute a concept. Furthermore, he was never "in." Graffiti is purposefully outside of the "real" art world and guerrilla installation art as a tradition is served appropriately simply be being engaged in, regardless of content or intent.

Dude makes loot off of retards, how are you going to fault him?

PrettyRagdoll
12-03-2007, 02:57 PM
What in the fucksmoke are you talking about? Artists that make money are just journeymen?

Banksy can't sell out. You can't prostitute a concept. Furthermore, he was never "in." Graffiti is purposefully outside of the "real" art world and guerrilla installation art as a tradition is served appropriately simply be being engaged in, regardless of content or intent.

Dude makes loot off of retards, how are you going to fault him?

I agree with this. I love Banksy and whether he's a 'true' or 'real' artist by traditional standards doesn't matter much to me.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 02:59 PM
I agree with this. I love Banksy and whether he's a 'true' or 'real' artist by traditional standards doesn't matter much to me.

what does matter?

PotVsKtl
12-03-2007, 03:06 PM
what does matter?

Something that is relevant? Nobody, including the man himself, ever tried to make him out to be a conceptually challenging, refreshing new art world wunderkind. He's a counter-culture celebrity and prankster. Judging him on some ethical purity scale is pointless.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 03:13 PM
Something that is relevant? Nobody, including the man himself, ever tried to make him out to be a conceptually challenging, refreshing new art world wunderkind. He's a counter-culture celebrity and prankster. Judging him on some ethical purity scale is pointless.

where the fuck did you get ethical purity from? he's not relevant, he's one step up from Ashton Kutcher. Only less meta.

EDIT: I'm joking in case anyone missed it. My problem with Banksy isn't the money. I find that ironic, but I bet he does as well. My problem is that I just don't think Banksy is as clever as people give him credit it for. And if he WAS at one point, he has run it into the ground.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 03:15 PM
*waves Pot flag*

PotVsKtl
12-03-2007, 03:23 PM
where the fuck did you get ethical purity from? he's not relevant, he's one step up from Ashton Kutcher. Only less meta.

EDIT: I'm joking in case anyone missed it. My problem with Banksy isn't the money. I find that ironic, but I bet he does as well. My problem is that I just don't think Banksy is as clever as people give him credit it for. And if he WAS at one point, he has run it into the ground.

I don't think he's consistently clever but I do enjoy some of his work and enjoy it on its merits, such as they are. I just don't see the point in factoring other peoples' retardery into the equation.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 03:25 PM
I just don't see the point in factoring other peoples' retardery into the equation.

fair enough. although, I think other peoples' retardery is kind of intrinsic to the work. for better or worse.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 03:26 PM
Isn't letting the audience's reaction determine the value of the art kinda defeating the purpose of artistic expression?

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 03:28 PM
I mean, seriously. Have you been talking to PassiveTheory or something?

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 03:29 PM
Isn't letting the audience's reaction determine the value of the art kinda defeating the purpose of artistic expression?

depends on the work in my opinion. I mean, art is personal, but at the same time if everyone is processing it in a way that doesn't correspond to your artistic intention, you messed up somewhere. btw, I'm not saying this is the case with Banksy's work.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 03:29 PM
I mean, seriously. Have you been talking to PassiveTheory or something?

i take grave insult in that comment. i'm not speaking to you anymore randy.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 03:30 PM
Well, if the shoe fits, stop speaking to it.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 03:32 PM
Well, if the shoe fits, stop speaking to it.

respond to my answer then. bring it on cum-guzzling gutter slut. and, how do you like CD2?

kitt kat
12-03-2007, 03:36 PM
As far as I'm concerned, art begins and ends with Thomas Kinkade.

Ah, Thomas Kinkade. I must admit I have a connection with this fellow, so my hatred for him and his art runs deep.

Thomas Kinkade's daughter (whom I knew somewhat well) was in the same grade as me in high school. When she entered the school, TomTom threw money at the school like paint on a canvas.

What did we get?

The Thomas Kinkade Center for the Performing Arts---complete with GIANT HIDEOUS phony Kinkade painting of a bridge and TomTom's signature scrawled across the side of the building in steel.

We also got a giant mountain made of fake rocks and a fake wooden cross on top. We affectionately labeled it "Mt. Kinkade" upon it's completion the end of my freshman year of high school.

Basically, if you went to my high school you hated Thomas Kinkade because you knew how he made his money---making one painting, selling 39483204 prints labeled "original" but actually sent through factories where little asian ladies sit with paint and dab splatters of acrylic onto the printed canvas to "highlight" the picture. Barf barf barf.

Ironically, the Thomas Kinkade store at our mall closed down last year and was replaced with a Hot Topic.

I only wish I had photographic evidence of the mountain and the building, but I don't have any :(

but you can see it's 100% for real on my alma mater's website
http://www.mitty.com/performingarts/

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 03:39 PM
It's growing on me. I wish I had drugs for it.

Um, respond to your answer... I mean I think that you overanalyze almost all the art in our discussions to begin with. As for this particular hypothetical argument--with regards to Banksy I'd say no, you're way off. If anything it only fits what he does better that everyone embraces it. Pisses in the ear of the established art scene even more, plus it basically makes a joke out of every one of his customers which I think adds to the idea of prank art.

In a general sense, I dunno. It would have to be very case-by-case basis, but for the most part I'd lean to no. People are fucking idiots. I sure as hell don't expect most people to get out of my art what I intended them to. I expect some to--if there isn't at least a tiny minority who get it then you have some issues. But at the same time, no, fuck that. Art communicates whatever it communicates, as long as it produces a sensation it's effective. That art is entirely subjective and can be processed as many many different things depending on the recepticle is part of what's so fucking cool about it. I suppose it's the emotional content that's important--the contextual breakdown thereafter can't be controlled or expected to be controlled.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 03:39 PM
Ironically, the Thomas Kinkade store at our mall closed down last year and was replaced with a Hot Topic.

hahahahahaha.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 03:41 PM
... what's the irony?

TomAz
12-03-2007, 03:42 PM
I sure as hell don't expect most people to get out of my art what I intended them to.

one can only imagine.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 03:43 PM
Ah, Arizona, where the wit is as dry as the sand.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 03:45 PM
plus it basically makes a joke out of every one of his customers which I think adds to the idea of prank art.

In a general sense, I dunno. It would have to be very case-by-case basis, but for the most part I'd lean to no. People are fucking idiots. I sure as hell don't expect most people to get out of my art what I intended them to.

In all these senses, Banksy has succeeded. He has clearly intended to make a joke out of these people. Again, for me, the joke is tired.

People may not "get" your art exactly how you intend it, but the "sensation," as you so eloquently put, is communicated, and that's what is important. That's what I was trying to get at.

For me it has little to do with analysis, and everything to do with response and experience.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 03:47 PM
Oh please, you analyze the shit out of everything. If you think he's beating the joke to death, fine, but say that--don't base the judgment on how the audience is receiving it or whether or not he's being embraced. That's Passive Theory.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 03:49 PM
don't base the judgment on how the audience is receiving it or whether or not he's being embraced.

no, because the audience is intrinsic to his "joke." what is guerilla/street art without an audience response?

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 03:54 PM
No no no, fuck that. Once the paint's dry that's it. It is what it is. I mean the bigger problem in this discussion is that it's strictly visual art, which frankly doesn't thrill me to begin with but more importantly is always interpreted half a million different fucking ways, and frequently the "right" way sounds like bullshit to me. You look at it. If it's interesting to look at, good, job well done. There's sort of a joke or message or whatever in the manner in which he does it, but it's just a vehicle, not a manifesto. The target of his art isn't the audience from my perspective, it's the art community.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 03:57 PM
No no no, fuck that. Once the paint's dry that's it. It is what it is. I mean the bigger problem in this discussion is that it's strictly visual art, which frankly doesn't thrill me to begin with but more importantly is always interpreted half a million different fucking ways, and frequently the "right" way sounds like bullshit to me. You look at it. If it's interesting to look at, good, job well done. There's sort of a joke or message or whatever in the manner in which he does it, but it's just a vehicle, not a manifesto. The target of his art isn't the audience from my perspective, it's the art community.

this isn't about "interpreting" something "right." Nothing we have talked about has anything to do with that.

the vehicle has to get somewhere right? then the "audience" (and destination) IS the "art community." you are talking yourself in circles.

and as far as "interesting to look at, good, job well done" well, so is my shit sometimes, but that doesn't make it art (until I say it is, and offer it agency of some kind). And believe me Randy, once I do, we can apply all of these questions to it. But I'll be damn ready, and the joke will be really fucking funny.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 04:00 PM
No. You don't mock your audience--you mock someone else for the benefit of your audience. The art community should never be the intended audience, the second you start making art for other artists to appreciate you're a cunt.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 04:01 PM
"Audience" and "target" are not synonymous in this instance I guess is my point.

EDIT: And no, you do not get to decide when your work has "become" art. Sorry, but no. It becomes art the instant it has transferred a sensation to an audience.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 04:02 PM
No. You don't mock your audience--you mock someone else for the benefit of your audience. The art community should never be the intended audience, the second you start making art for other artists to appreciate you're a cunt.

Why can't they be one and the same? Throughout history artists have comprised the better part of the critical audience of the art community. There are others that offer up critical perspective that aren't artists. and then there are gomers that just buy. Most artists cycle through poking fun at all three parties. None of this is new.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 04:03 PM
"Audience" and "target" are not synonymous in this instance I guess is my point.

EDIT: And no, you do not get to decide when your work has "become" art. Sorry, but no. It becomes art the instant it has transferred a sensation to an audience.

All kinds of things transfer sensations. I (or someone else) have to call it art first, then those sensations are evaluated.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 04:04 PM
Cause the entire idea of a "prank" is to hold something up to ridicule by a third party. That's the only way it's art. Somebody has to be on the outside laughing at them.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 04:05 PM
All kinds of things transfer sensations. I (or someone else) have to call it art first, then those sensations are evaluated.

Absolutely not. So if you paint a painting and it sits fully painted for a year before someone comes up and deems it art, it was never art that whole time until the naming? Fucking absurd.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 04:06 PM
Cause the entire idea of a "prank" is to hold something up to ridicule by a third party. That's the only way it's art. Somebody has to be on the outside laughing at them.

often the person pranked laughs too.

see "Ashton Kutcher's" tv show.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 04:07 PM
Absolutely not. So if you paint a painting and it sits fully painted for a year before someone comes up and deems it art, it was never art that whole time until the naming? Fucking absurd.

It's not the naming, it's consideration. The word "art" is only the label we are ascribing at this moment (see Duchamp). Chances are, I consider my painting more than just an object or idea (in this case "art") while I'm making it. I challenge you to provide an example of good, unintentional art.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 04:08 PM
... interesting analogy. I haven't really watched that show all that much, but from what I recall a lot of people don't laugh, and the ones that do are most likely doing it because they don't want to look bad on camera. Maybe they laugh in relief from finding out that it wasn't true, but that's a completely different kind of prank. There's a reveal that none of it was ever really happening. yeah, that disqualifies your analogy.

God I hate these conversations.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 04:09 PM
from what I recall a lot of people don't laugh, and the ones that do are most likely doing it because they don't want to look bad on camera. Maybe they laugh in relief from finding out that it wasn't true, but that's a completely different kind of prank. There's a reveal that none of it was ever really happening. yeah, that disqualifies your analogy.


no. it makes it perfect. i love you too randy.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 04:10 PM
It's not the naming, it's consideration. The word "art" is only the label we are ascribing at this moment (see Duchamp). Chances are, I consider my painting more than just an object or idea (in this case "art") while I'm making it. I challenge you to provide an example of good, unintentional art.

See Duchamp? See my cock. Don't reference some art history or art theory crap, I didn't study it. Why would it have to be good art to prove my point? Unintentional is the only requirement. I'll think about it. But as a hypothetical I stand by my point.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 04:11 PM
no. it makes it perfect. i love you too randy.

Fucking bullshit, no it doesn't. That completely nullifies any analagous qualities it might have had. They're two completely different kinds of pranks.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 04:13 PM
Fucking bullshit, no it doesn't. That completely nullifies any analagous qualities it might have had. They're two completely different kinds of pranks.

no. i'm pretty sure it makes it perfect. perfect balance of "it works" with "that doesn't make any sense." art works best like that right?

i threw duchamp in there as a bibliographical reference, it's not entirely my idea there, and didn't want to take complete credit.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 04:15 PM
... no. This isn't art we're doing now, it's argument, and there are rules. There's logic to be followed. Analogy is not a fucking art form. There are nice, conveniently firm guidelines that must be adhered to.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 04:16 PM
next time you do drugs:

http://universalacid.net/

via

http://linkoln.net/netartparade/

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 04:17 PM
I'm going home. I'm hungry and I'm frustrated and I'm out of beer and I'm drugless. Fuck a bunch of art.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 04:20 PM
... interesting analogy. I haven't really watched that show all that much, but from what I recall a lot of people don't laugh, and the ones that do are most likely doing it because they don't want to look bad on camera. Maybe they laugh in relief from finding out that it wasn't true, but that's a completely different kind of prank. There's a reveal that none of it was ever really happening. yeah, that disqualifies your analogy.


I'll bite.

1) the ones that do are most likely doing it because they don't want to look bad on camera.

Think about what this might mean in relationship to the art consuming community. In terms of getting these jokes, but buying the art specifically to save face. etc. etc.

2) Maybe they laugh in relief from finding out that it wasn't true

Same thing. Maybe they laugh because the see the joke. They've escaped disaster, but at the same time the joke (and ashton's pranks) point towards human behavior in general. The situation itself is gone, but the response and what it implies about them/him/us remains.

I don't care about the analogy so much, but there are significant parallels there.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 05:21 PM
Oh my god, you twerp, no. No no no. Does Banksy jump out at the end of his installation and yell, "Gotcha! I was just kidding, I'll take this out of here now." NO.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 06:29 PM
Oh my god, you twerp, no. No no no. Does Banksy jump out at the end of his installation and yell, "Gotcha! I was just kidding, I'll take this out of here now." NO.

no. it happens through cultural customization.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 06:33 PM
... "cultural customization?"


Jared, would you care to explain what the fuck that's supposed to mean and then cram it with walnuts, ugly?

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 06:51 PM
... "cultural customization?"
Jared, would you care to explain what the fuck that's supposed to mean and then cram it with walnuts, ugly?

all right dipshit, if you don't want to talk seriously, we don't have to.

i'm gonna go get drunk now. ya little bitch.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 06:52 PM
Hey, I'M talking seriously. YOU'RE the one who pulls the phrase "cultural customization" out of his ass like those two words together actually mean something.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 07:11 PM
Hey, I'M talking seriously. YOU'RE the one who pulls the phrase "cultural customization" out of his ass like those two words together actually mean something.

meaning. We as a "culture" have become "accustomed" to guerilla marketing and subversive distribution of images and messages. You are right, when Banksy started he didn't jump out from behind the curtain, but slowly, cultural conceptions of what he was doing were revealed as his tactics, and those of people like him, were popularized by contemporary culture.

This is a divergent point (althought the process is similar) in the "analogy" (which was intended as an off-hand, ironic remark), but in reality the parallels between the two are meaningful.

kitt kat
12-03-2007, 08:57 PM
... what's the irony?

Thomas Kinkade: Happy cottages, lighthouses, cheery suburban bullshit
Hot Topic: the opposite

Both are rooted in materialistic culture.


meh, not really ironic, but funny as shit.



And this is my new fav. thread. Whoever brought up the Duchamp thing WINS. I think that Duchamp's ideas of appropriation (ie: "Fountain") do align with Banksy and his appropriation of what is/isn't "art." They both spring from the same confrontation of the public's established ideas of the overarching idea of art as a medium of expression by bringing in objects and images not readily associated with the lofty, classical forms of paintings, sculpture, etc. (Other artists do this too, like Warhol and his Brillo boxes, but I'm leaving them out for the sake of relevancy.)

Both Banksy and Duchamp use this outward confrontation as vehicles for mocking the established art norm more so than other artists, in my honest opinion. If you have any previous knowledge on Duchamp's "Fountain" and how/why it came to be, you'll see it's quite on par with Banksy's overpriced screenprints and public installations (ie: Guantanamo prisoner at Disneyland).

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 09:08 PM
If you have any previous knowledge on Duchamp's "Fountain" and how/why it came to be, you'll see it's quite on par with Banksy's overpriced screenprints and public installations (ie: Guantanamo prisoner at Disneyland).

No it's not. Medium is the message. etc. etc. You are comparing apples and oranges.

"Fountain" was self-referential within the context of the art world, and in Duchamp's work, one that was totally unparalleled at the time. It signified not only a moment in history, but a shift in historical and empirical perceptions of art that reached both forwards and backwards simultaneously. The Guantanamo prisoners was a clever, ironic political statement with no staying power.

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 09:25 PM
Jesus Christ, do you art fags actually listen to yourself?

Are you ALWAYS this full of shit?

SillyGrl<3
12-03-2007, 09:51 PM
LOL it's like watching a professor talk to a bum LOL

thelastgreatman
12-03-2007, 10:03 PM
meaning. We as a "culture" have become "accustomed" to guerilla marketing and subversive distribution of images and messages. You are right, when Banksy started he didn't jump out from behind the curtain, but slowly, cultural conceptions of what he was doing were revealed as his tactics, and those of people like him, were popularized by contemporary culture.

This is a divergent point (althought the process is similar) in the "analogy" (which was intended as an off-hand, ironic remark), but in reality the parallels between the two are meaningful.

Jared, seriously, I like you and everything but sometimes I want to take a fucking baseball bat to your head. =)

You just dive further and further into pseudo-intellectual art critic babble to try to back up your flawed points. These conversations you people have are bullshit contests and nothing more. It has nothing to do with some failure on my part to grasp the language being used, but the way you use it it loses all effective meaning.

No, your analogy is still flawed. If we've become desensitized or accustomed to "pranks" as a factor in life that in no way changes that critical distinction between Punk'd and Banksy (Jesus Christ, I can't believe I'm having this discussion right now). If we're accustomed to it then we're equally accustomed to Banksy and Punk'd, and it doesn't fucking matter because Banksy is ACTUALLY DOING his prank. He actually makes the art, he actually sneaks it in. The pranks on Punk'd are complete illusions, they're just a big lie that gets revealed with a wink at the end, there's no fucking comparison. And even if it was analogous, most of the people on Punk'd don't find it particularly funny. They're mostly pissed off. Much like Banksy's victims.

You drew this analogy in the first place to try to defend the bullshit contention that the people getting the prank played on them are the audience for the respects "artworks." Um, dude, who is the audience on Punk'd? Is it the people on the television? NO. It's the people WATCHING. The same way it is with Banksy. There is a target and then there is an audience, and they are not the same people.

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 11:01 PM
Um, dude, who is the audience on Punk'd? Is it the people on the television? NO. It's the people WATCHING. The same way it is with Banksy. There is a target and then there is an audience, and they are not the same people.

it's both. all the time. every time. I didn't intend for this analogy to really be taken seriously. It was mostly a joke, but something that popped into my head over the course of our discussion.

Regardless, I'll stand by it. How is Banksy's target simply the art community? How come it isn't the celebrities he is selling his shit to (EDIT: and the shits that buy his coffee table books etc.)? Seems like it could be potentially both... but then, both are the audience as well, because both pay attention to him and experience his work...

Maybe celebrities watch themselves on Punkd? ;)

wmgaretjax
12-03-2007, 11:10 PM
Jared, seriously

that might be the problem actually.

Young blood
10-11-2008, 09:20 PM
I dissed his art in the past but this is awesome.


http://www.woostercollective.com/2008/10/the_village_pet_store_and_charchoal_gril.html

The "Village Pet Store And Charcoal Grill" Opens in New York City
http://www.woostercollective.com/villagepetstore.jpg

While New Yorkers have been consumed by the stock market meltdown, a tiny little pet store quietly opened four days ago at 89 7th Avenue between West 4th and Bleeker Street in the West Village of New York City.
There are no puppies or kittens in the windows here.
Instead, a live leopard lounges on a tree in the window.
Or is it?


http://www.woostercollective.com/villagepetstore2.jpg

In other windows, things get a bit more bizarre.
McDonald's Chicken McNuggets sip barbecue sauce. A rabbit puts on her makeup. A CCTV camera nurtures its young.
http://www.woostercollective.com/chicken1.jpg
http://www.woostercollective.com/banksyrabbit.jpg

Clearly, that this isn't your typical pet store.
So who's the "owner" of the Village Pet Store and Charcoal Grill at 89 West 7th Avenue?
Banksy.
Once inside Banksy's pet store, you discover such things as breaded fish that swim in a large round bowl while hot dogs are living the high life under heat lamps in cages near the cash register.
http://www.woostercollective.com/banksyhotdogs.jpg
http://www.woostercollective.com/banksyfishtank2.jpg

This is the first time that Banksy has used animatronics, and the effect is absolutely amazing.
A clear departure form last year's behemoth show in Los Angeles, Banksy's first ever show in New York City (the others have been fakes) is being held in a tiny storefront that's less than 300 square feet and can't hold more than 20 people at any one time.
One of our favorite things about what Banksy has done is that the entire show is completely visible to the public both day and night through the store front windows. And unless you're a hard core Banksy fan, or until someone like us tells you, it's absolutely impossible to know that the work has been done by Banksy. There are no paintings or graffiti in the entire space.
We're sure that as soon as people start reading this, photos and video will be all over the web. But Sara and I don't want to give too much away. It's just too much fun to be surprised (and delighted) in person.
So here's just a taste of what you'll experience in Banksy's "Village Pet Store and Charcoal Grill".

Starting the moment you read this, until October 31st (Halloween), Banksy's pet store is officially open each and every daily from 10am until midnight.
One piece of advice - Bring a video camera as still images don't do the place justice!
__________________

Young blood
10-11-2008, 09:24 PM
c1laBLYjuqM&eurl

indietron
10-11-2008, 10:14 PM
Thats really awesome... He continues to amaze

shakermaker113
10-12-2008, 09:38 AM
that's awesome. someone claims to have caught him on camera: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/7069870.stm