Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Art that people rave about that's actually shit.

bubblesmcgrath said:
Seriously?
High art?
She sells her videos "uncensored" (her description) online for €4.99 a download.
:facepalm:

Look.
You and I are never going to agree on this...particularly if your so called "positivity" about art in general then moves you to denegrate landscapes as an entire genre :facepalm:
Click to expand...

wtf? when did I ever say that? I paint landscapes myself.

I've also worked in large galleries selling a lot of similar stuff and I know it doesn't exactly fly off the shelves, but anyway....
 
Miss Caphat said:
well, isn't it performance art, by definition? and I think what would separate that into the category of high art vs. a forgettable landscape someone hangs in an office, is that it challenges the viewer to think, and might make a long-lasting impression and even change how the viewer sees the world.
Click to expand...

Miss Caphat said:
wtf? when did I ever say that? I paint landscapes myself.

I've also worked in large galleries selling a lot of similar stuff and I know it doesn't exactly fly off the shelves, but anyway....
Click to expand...

Nothing flies off the shelves.
But I'd rather sell my happy landscapes than shit on a board thanks.
 
Miss Caphat said:
um, not quite sure you understood my point there, but that's hardly news.
Click to expand...


Yeah I got what you meant and frankly you telling me I'm fraudulently reproducing a work of art by painting in the style of Rothko and labelling it as such with my signature on it.. is tantamount to libel and is defamatory.
Get your facts straight before you start accusing me of fraudulently selling a painting as a Rothko.
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
Nothing flies off the shelves.
But I'd rather sell my happy landscapes than shit on a board thanks.
Click to expand...

no, nothing does. shaking your fist at the sky about the unfairness of certain artists you don't like getting paid when you're not isn't going to change that either. I'm sure you know that, but I think it's worth saying.
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
Yeah I got what you meant and frankly you telling me I'm fraudulently reproducing a work of art by painting in the style of Rothko and labelling it as such with my signature on it.. is tantamount to libel and is defamatory.
Get your facts straight before you start accusing me of fraudulently selling a painting as a Rothko.
Click to expand...

:facepalm:

I wasn't accusing you of anything...I was saying what you did doesn't seem to hold up to your own standards of how you judge other artists very well.
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
If I rubbed dog shit on a canvas and sold it as art I'd feel like a fraud.
Quite honestly...I would feel like I was getting money under false pretences selling shit as a piece of art. My brain might attempt to persuade me to come up with a narrative or context for the shit on a canvas but my conscience would prevent me from selling it no matter how good the narrative.
So I'll keep paintimg my landscapes and a few field paintings a la Rothko. And if I'm happy with them I'll hang them and be happy that in all conscience I've done my best to ensure that they are worthy of a place in someone's home.
Click to expand...

Here's one I made with sheep shit many years ago.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    211.8 KB · Views: 15
Miss Caphat said:
no, nothing does. shaking your fist at the sky about the unfairness of certain artists you don't like getting paid when you're not isn't going to change that either. I'm sure you know that, but I think it's worth saying.
Click to expand...

I couldn't give a flying fuck if I never sell another painting. I don't need the money. I paint for my own enjoyment and sometimes sell if I've too many. Ive paintings in a few galleries by invitation. If they sell..grand. if not..I'm not arsed...
But I also dont give a flying fuck if someone wants to pay millions for a blob of shit on a canvas. That's their choice. My argument is with the reverence attached to what is currently viewed as "high art" ... the shit on a stick ... the egg plops out of vagina...the "shock" factor that is now boringly predictable.
 
Miss Caphat said:
:facepalm:

I wasn't accusing you of anything...I was saying what you did doesn't seem to hold up to your own standards of how you judge other artists very well.
Click to expand...


I've said umpteen times that my three paintings in the style of Rothko were in my opinion, no good. I was very honest about them. Others here also said this. You said they were rubbish too as I recall.
But funnily enough (at least I think so) the second one went down very well with someone who loves Rothko's art and it was sold.
Who knew? :rolleyes:
The world of art is a confusing one :D
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
I've said umpteen times that my three paintings in the style of Rothko were in my opinion, no good. I was very honest about them. Others here also said this. You said they were rubbish too as I recall.
But funnily enough (at least I think so) the second one went down very well with someone who loves Rothko's art and it was sold.
Who knew? :rolleyes:
The world of art is a confusing one :D
Click to expand...

ok, but this is my point. You just said yourself they were "rubbish" yet you sold them? How is that ok for you to do, but not for others (who do similarly fraudulent things for money by selling their art, according to you)?
 
A continuation of that piece done a year or so later, but this time attempting to remove the canvas as mediation between artist and landscape. The plan was to hang/exhibit the white suits in place of canvases.

Like many of my works I never got around to completing the project.

It was fun though.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    137.9 KB · Views: 11
Miss Caphat said:
ok, but this is my point. You just said yourself they were "rubbish" yet you sold them? How is that ok for you to do, but not for others (who do similarly fraudulent things for money by selling their art, according to you)?
Click to expand...


Jesus..where did I say any modern artist was fraudulently selling anything? I said if people want to buy shit that's their business.
Did you read my post at all?
As for my painting, I enjoyed painting it. I spent 8 hours on it. I didn't think it was very good. I'd like if it had been better. It was of course nothing as good as a Rothko but it also wasn't shit on a canvas and because the buyer really wanted it I sold it. I had no price on it and refused the buyers first two offers as too much. The buyer left very pleased and there was nothing fraudulent or untoward about anything.


You keep making accusations that I copied a Rothko and that I sold it fraudulently. That is libelous.
So unless you are either joking or thick it would be a good idea if you retracted that accusation.
 
wow, you're completely insane.

the premise of this entire thread has been about how you think modern artists are conning people out of money.

I never said you were a fraud, just that you should expect to be judged as such according to your own standards
 
maybe this whole thread is some sort of performance art on your part? if so, good work because you completely played your part to a t.
 
Miss Caphat said:
wow, you're completely insane.

the premise of this entire thread has been about how you think modern artists are conning people out of money.

I never said you were a fraud, just that you should expect to be judged as such according to your own standards
Click to expand...

How the fuck would you know what the premise of this thread is?
You've misread and misinterpreted it to represent your own blinkered interptetation.
 
chilango said:
A continuation of that piece done a year or so later, but this time attempting to remove the canvas as mediation between artist and landscape. The plan was to hang/exhibit the white suits in place of canvases.

Like many of my works I never got around to completing the project.

It was fun though.
Click to expand...

I saw a series of paintings of trees created using mostly white canvas and either tar or oil. The juxtaposition of a medium associated with technology and environmental destruction and nature was interesting.
 
Here's something to think about.
In the past and up to 60 years ago the world of art communicated messages, information, political commentaries, revolutionary thoughts on society, descriptions depictions criticisms of war.
Then the world got that box in the corner of the sitting room. The world was instantly there in front of us in all its humanity, horror, carnage. The world of Hironimous Bosch entered the homes of people all over the world. Since then art (contemporary art..modern abstract .. whichever branch you chose) seems to have lost its way. It is no longer the messenger it used to be so it has been in a state of flux since. Reinventing itself over and over.
It cannot compete with modern media, (some would say it shouldn't have to) in the sense that media is instantly in your face. So...in my opinion it needs to move in the opposite direction and provide the world with something that the media is incapable of doing....
This is where Rothko was truly a pioneer. He searched for the spiritual and wanted his expressionism to be experienced at a soul level. I'm waiting for the next Rothko to appear and hoping that the mediocrity that is held up as great art will be seen as a transition to greater things.

It's a thought. I'm not forcing it down anyone's throat. Take it or leave it.
 
Dr_Herbz said:
This is another by the same guy.

15404881746_3a9f6313c7_b.jpg
Click to expand...
Please put photoshop down for a minute :rolleyes:
 
bubblesmcgrath said:
Here's something to think about.
In the past and up to 60 years ago the world of art communicated messages, information, political commentaries, revolutionary thoughts on society, descriptions depictions criticisms of war.
Then the world got that box in the corner of the sitting room. The world was instantly there in front of us in all its humanity, horror, carnage. The world of Hironimous Bosch entered the homes of people all over the world. Since then art (contemporary art..modern abstract .. whichever branch you chose) seems to have lost its way. It is no longer the messenger it used to be so it has been in a state of flux since. Reinventing itself over and over.
It cannot compete with modern media, (some would say it shouldn't have to) in the sense that media is instantly in your face. So...in my opinion it needs to move in the opposite direction and provide the world with something that the media is incapable of doing....
This is where Rothko was truly a pioneer. He searched for the spiritual and wanted his expressionism to be experienced at a soul level. I'm waiting for the next Rothko to appear and hoping that the mediocrity that is held up as great art will be seen as a transition to greater things.

It's a thought. I'm not forcing it down anyone's throat. Take it or leave it.
Click to expand...

yet, so many people think Rothko is shit a 5 year old can do! hello?!? how is this not registering?

surely, with that in mind it's absurd to keep arguing that any other well-regarded modern/conceptual art is worthless just because you can't see it's worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chemn
Geometric Art/ Mandala
Replies
22
Views
336
Sweet FA
Sweet FA
A
  • Poll
Is photorealistic art really "art"?
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
182
Views
5K
Dr. Furface
Dr. Furface
A
"The Hanging Committee:": thread for amusing tales about arts events.
Replies
6
Views
486
moochedit
moochedit
A
Art Fraud stories.
Replies
0
Views
239
Aladdin
A
Mumbles274
The 2023 Art Thread
5 6 7 8 9
Replies
247
Views
10K
JimW
JimW
Back
Top Bottom