6 ms·

Personal opinion as a lifelong artist, so take it with a grain of salt: What a consummate jackass - not an artist, not an innovator, just a sleazy rip-off gutt

Personal opinion as a lifelong artist, so take it with a grain of salt: What a consummate jackass - not an artist, not an innovator, just a sleazy rip-off gutter dweller. He's essentially a fore-father for the mentality perpetrated by "The Fat Jew" on Twitter, who is, rightfully, being excoriated for making a business model of profit by way of theft. If Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk wanted to achieve something useful in the space race, they'd find a way to grab both those guys, shove them in a rocket on a one way trip to the moon, broadcasting a camera feed back to Earth, and with just enough water to make it there before they have to turn to cannabalism as a last resort before their inevitable, well-deserved end. By Richard Prince's logic, I should totally be entitled to steal his identity and empty his bank account in the name of performance art. He doesn't believe in copyright? Fine. I don't believe in the illegality of stealing from thieves.

chasing 11y ago
Art is like comedy... In comedy, you can get away with a lot. As long as you're funny. In art, you can get away with a lot. As long as the art is good. (I'm not talking legally, I'm talking morally/ethically/aesthetically/culturally.) (Banksy's a good example. I'd really rather not have to see shitty graffiti all over the neighborhood. But when a Banksy piece turns up, I'm okay with it. Because I think his art is interesting and relevant.) Prince's "New Portraits" series is shitty art. It's somewhere between tone deaf and behind-the-times. It's obvious. He's not adding anything interesting to the photos. He's not saying anything interesting about copyright. Etc.
- vlehto 11y ago
  But having bad art in a gallery is always interesting.
  - bweitzman 11y ago
    Meh it's been done. Not that interesting anymore IMO
    - vlehto 11y ago
      Parody is ageless art form. I would not have canned shit in gallery over and over again. Having different kinds of bad art in gallery is always hilarious. But I have to admit I'm but of troll. The real treat is art snob fetishising over paint stains.
- kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
  You can view it as a commentary on the shallowness of the elitist art collector world. Artists like Prince are all playing a game trying to con multi-millionaires into forking over megabucks for crap that everyone in their client's social sphere fawns over as some sort of status symbol.
  - chasing 11y ago
    Yup, that's the sort of dim, obvious commentary I get from the piece. Which is why I consider it shitty art.
  - jspiral 11y ago
    There are financial effects of overvalued art: charitable donation valuation for one
- Nadya 11y ago
  Two words: money laundering http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/ http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-l...
  - Dirlewanger 11y ago
    How about you actually link a somewhat-credible source claiming that, and not a bunch of commenters? Also, googling "Onement VI money laundering", the first result is StormFront...nice.
    - Nadya 11y ago
      A blue painting with a white stripe does not take an ounce of talent. Nor should that painting sell for more than the cost of paint to paint the canvas with. Believing it is a front for money laundering is far easier to believe than a fool spending millions of dollars for a color separated by a stripe of another color. There's also "Voice of Fire" [0]. Same concept but uh... red and blue instead of blue and white. Really speaks to me ya know? Don't forget Onement I [1]. The same painting, again, but brown with a yellow stripe! How does he come up with it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Newman#/media/File:Newman-Onement_1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Newman#/media/File:New...
      - charlesdm 11y ago
        I actually quite like those paintings. Maybe not worth $44m (to me, maybe to others), but probably a lot more than paint + canvas. From afar, it seems that being an artist is actually sort of similar to being a developer/entrepreneur. Let's say you're a technically able artist. You can create anything. But what do you actually deliver? How do you create "value" (i.e. a piece someone, somewhere, loves) As a comparison: there are plenty of developers who can reverse engineer device drivers. But knowing which driver to actually reverse engineer, that can actually deliver value to someone, that's the tricky part.
- tajano 11y ago
  > He's not adding anything interesting to the photos. I like this about it. He adds a banal, trivial, perhaps non-sensical comment that satirizes the emptiness and one-sidedness of communication on today's most popular social platform. And the timing was perfect.
cerebrum 11y ago
Why all this moral outrage? Isn't a lot of art basically bullshit? Just take a look at modern art paintings and how much they sell for. Probably everybody would be laughing about this guy if he wasn't making big bucks. The problem is in the art market where millions can be made by just selling overhyped garbage. Can anyone seriously make the point that a picture of a smiling woman is worth 1 billion?
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Show me where Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothko stole their art from somebody else and I'd be just as morally indignant. Do I think their art is worth millions? Nope. Can I appreciate their works as individual expressions in spite of not sharing the perceived value? Yep. "Creating" unauthorized, uncredited, compensation-free derivative works, in this case in particular, is what fuels the hostility. And yes, many people can seriously make the point that the original, 1 of 1 version of the Mona Lisa is worth $1 billion because of the amassed cultural value and exlcusivity of the original, in that the demand for that one original painting far exceeds the available supply. Pretty simple, actually.
  - lojack 11y ago
    Curious about your opinion on Andy Warhol?
    - 6stringmerc 11y ago
      Not really a fan, but his framing of his techniques as social commentary are, to me, quite functional and a verifiable artistic endeavor; as in, he may have used and somewhat appropriated pop-culture reference points, but with genuine thought and constructive 'addition' in the nature of art.
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    Just to add on to your point, I tend to think of relative value in terms of my relationship to a cheeseburger and a vegan's relationship to same cheeseburger. I might spend $10, maybe even $20 on a good cheeseburger. The vegan would spend money to not have to eat a cheeseburger. Does that change the cheeseburger at all? Not one whit. Does that make either consumer better than the other? Well, only the vegan thinks so, but that's a different issue entirely.
flycaliguy 11y ago
There are artists who are born to craft art. They wake up and want to paint, no matter what, they have a drive to refine their craft. They better the world through pure visual joy. There are artists who are born to scheme. The art is the vessel, the craft is the thought. The concept is king and and to be successful is to create tight, conceptually sound pieces. To craft relevant and provoking statements out of abstract language. They better the world through debate and response. Many successful artists combine the two but it's not a necessity. I don't think you should dismiss somebody because they provoked you with their work. Your statement, your imagery of blasting him into space, is ultimately the execution of his piece. He built a frame and your comment filled it in. Therefor, my review of Richard Prince and 6stringmerc's collaboration... 3 out of 5. Deductions made due to the cruelty of your "well-deserved end" bit. Maybe next time consider a scenario in which they are trapped and punished but are given an opportunity to redeem themselves through an exercise of traditional craft. Also a smaller deduction due to your trite invocation of Musk and Bezos. Even the most casual HN comment readers have explored their entrepreneurial motif enough.
- rsp1984 11y ago
  > I don't think you should dismiss somebody because they provoked you with their work. Your statement, your imagery of blasting him into space, is ultimately the execution of his piece. He built a frame and your comment filled it in. Which, according to logic, makes people who successfully provoke others already artists half way. Not a very good definition of art in my opinion...
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  While I can see the humor in your taking a stance as an arbiter and unquestionable authority on all things artistic and therefore leveling criticism at my personal opinion as conveyed using over-the-top creative writing for effect, I kindly decline the relevance, necessity, or functional benefit of your review, and believe it should be shot into space, where it will meet its well deserved audience.
- bweitzman 11y ago
  > I don't think you should dismiss somebody because they provoked you with their work. Your statement, your imagery of blasting him into space, is ultimately the execution of his piece. He built a frame and your comment filled it in. But it's not like it's an interesting reaction, it's so obvious. It's like when kids say "Hey look at that over there" and then "Made you look" when you look. You don't have a reason not to look, it's maybe funny the first time because it's so stupid but after it's been done over and over (and appropriation has) then there's nothing left. Or like an older brother who maneuvers his siblings hands and then says "Stop hitting yourself". These produce exactly the same reaction as the provocateur is intending but it's not an interesting reaction at all. Personally, I think the only reason that this guy is famous is because some very wealthy people chose him specifically because he can generate an endless stream of his art so that they can buy and trade them to make more money. The art is an investment for them and has no aesthetic value.
hellbanner 11y ago
Have you ever torrented files you didn't legally own? Say, pirated a movie and watched with family and friends?

chasing 11y ago

Art is like comedy... In comedy, you can get away with a lot. As long as you're funny. In art, you can get away with a lot. As long as the art is good. (I'm not talking legally, I'm talking morally/ethically/aesthetically/culturally.) (Banksy's a good example. I'd really rather not have to see shitty graffiti all over the neighborhood. But when a Banksy piece turns up, I'm okay with it. Because I think his art is interesting and relevant.) Prince's "New Portraits" series is shitty art. It's somewhere between tone deaf and behind-the-times. It's obvious. He's not adding anything interesting to the photos. He's not saying anything interesting about copyright. Etc.

vlehto 11y ago
But having bad art in a gallery is always interesting.
- bweitzman 11y ago
  Meh it's been done. Not that interesting anymore IMO
  - vlehto 11y ago
    Parody is ageless art form. I would not have canned shit in gallery over and over again. Having different kinds of bad art in gallery is always hilarious. But I have to admit I'm but of troll. The real treat is art snob fetishising over paint stains.
kevin_thibedeau 11y ago
You can view it as a commentary on the shallowness of the elitist art collector world. Artists like Prince are all playing a game trying to con multi-millionaires into forking over megabucks for crap that everyone in their client's social sphere fawns over as some sort of status symbol.
- chasing 11y ago
  Yup, that's the sort of dim, obvious commentary I get from the piece. Which is why I consider it shitty art.
- jspiral 11y ago
  There are financial effects of overvalued art: charitable donation valuation for one
Nadya 11y ago
Two words: money laundering http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/ http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-l...
- Dirlewanger 11y ago
  How about you actually link a somewhat-credible source claiming that, and not a bunch of commenters? Also, googling "Onement VI money laundering", the first result is StormFront...nice.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    A blue painting with a white stripe does not take an ounce of talent. Nor should that painting sell for more than the cost of paint to paint the canvas with. Believing it is a front for money laundering is far easier to believe than a fool spending millions of dollars for a color separated by a stripe of another color. There's also "Voice of Fire" [0]. Same concept but uh... red and blue instead of blue and white. Really speaks to me ya know? Don't forget Onement I [1]. The same painting, again, but brown with a yellow stripe! How does he come up with it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Newman#/media/File:Newman-Onement_1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Newman#/media/File:New...
    - charlesdm 11y ago
      I actually quite like those paintings. Maybe not worth $44m (to me, maybe to others), but probably a lot more than paint + canvas. From afar, it seems that being an artist is actually sort of similar to being a developer/entrepreneur. Let's say you're a technically able artist. You can create anything. But what do you actually deliver? How do you create "value" (i.e. a piece someone, somewhere, loves) As a comparison: there are plenty of developers who can reverse engineer device drivers. But knowing which driver to actually reverse engineer, that can actually deliver value to someone, that's the tricky part.
tajano 11y ago
> He's not adding anything interesting to the photos. I like this about it. He adds a banal, trivial, perhaps non-sensical comment that satirizes the emptiness and one-sidedness of communication on today's most popular social platform. And the timing was perfect.

cerebrum 11y ago

Why all this moral outrage? Isn't a lot of art basically bullshit? Just take a look at modern art paintings and how much they sell for. Probably everybody would be laughing about this guy if he wasn't making big bucks. The problem is in the art market where millions can be made by just selling overhyped garbage. Can anyone seriously make the point that a picture of a smiling woman is worth 1 billion?

6stringmerc 11y ago
Show me where Jackson Pollack or Mark Rothko stole their art from somebody else and I'd be just as morally indignant. Do I think their art is worth millions? Nope. Can I appreciate their works as individual expressions in spite of not sharing the perceived value? Yep. "Creating" unauthorized, uncredited, compensation-free derivative works, in this case in particular, is what fuels the hostility. And yes, many people can seriously make the point that the original, 1 of 1 version of the Mona Lisa is worth $1 billion because of the amassed cultural value and exlcusivity of the original, in that the demand for that one original painting far exceeds the available supply. Pretty simple, actually.
- lojack 11y ago
  Curious about your opinion on Andy Warhol?
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Not really a fan, but his framing of his techniques as social commentary are, to me, quite functional and a verifiable artistic endeavor; as in, he may have used and somewhat appropriated pop-culture reference points, but with genuine thought and constructive 'addition' in the nature of art.
- moron4hire 11y ago
  Just to add on to your point, I tend to think of relative value in terms of my relationship to a cheeseburger and a vegan's relationship to same cheeseburger. I might spend $10, maybe even $20 on a good cheeseburger. The vegan would spend money to not have to eat a cheeseburger. Does that change the cheeseburger at all? Not one whit. Does that make either consumer better than the other? Well, only the vegan thinks so, but that's a different issue entirely.

flycaliguy 11y ago

There are artists who are born to craft art. They wake up and want to paint, no matter what, they have a drive to refine their craft. They better the world through pure visual joy. There are artists who are born to scheme. The art is the vessel, the craft is the thought. The concept is king and and to be successful is to create tight, conceptually sound pieces. To craft relevant and provoking statements out of abstract language. They better the world through debate and response. Many successful artists combine the two but it's not a necessity. I don't think you should dismiss somebody because they provoked you with their work. Your statement, your imagery of blasting him into space, is ultimately the execution of his piece. He built a frame and your comment filled it in. Therefor, my review of Richard Prince and 6stringmerc's collaboration... 3 out of 5. Deductions made due to the cruelty of your "well-deserved end" bit. Maybe next time consider a scenario in which they are trapped and punished but are given an opportunity to redeem themselves through an exercise of traditional craft. Also a smaller deduction due to your trite invocation of Musk and Bezos. Even the most casual HN comment readers have explored their entrepreneurial motif enough.

rsp1984 11y ago
> I don't think you should dismiss somebody because they provoked you with their work. Your statement, your imagery of blasting him into space, is ultimately the execution of his piece. He built a frame and your comment filled it in. Which, according to logic, makes people who successfully provoke others already artists half way. Not a very good definition of art in my opinion...
6stringmerc 11y ago
While I can see the humor in your taking a stance as an arbiter and unquestionable authority on all things artistic and therefore leveling criticism at my personal opinion as conveyed using over-the-top creative writing for effect, I kindly decline the relevance, necessity, or functional benefit of your review, and believe it should be shot into space, where it will meet its well deserved audience.
bweitzman 11y ago
> I don't think you should dismiss somebody because they provoked you with their work. Your statement, your imagery of blasting him into space, is ultimately the execution of his piece. He built a frame and your comment filled it in. But it's not like it's an interesting reaction, it's so obvious. It's like when kids say "Hey look at that over there" and then "Made you look" when you look. You don't have a reason not to look, it's maybe funny the first time because it's so stupid but after it's been done over and over (and appropriation has) then there's nothing left. Or like an older brother who maneuvers his siblings hands and then says "Stop hitting yourself". These produce exactly the same reaction as the provocateur is intending but it's not an interesting reaction at all. Personally, I think the only reason that this guy is famous is because some very wealthy people chose him specifically because he can generate an endless stream of his art so that they can buy and trade them to make more money. The art is an investment for them and has no aesthetic value.

hellbanner 11y ago

Have you ever torrented files you didn't legally own? Say, pirated a movie and watched with family and friends?