4 ms·

Your link indicated nothing about the exclusivity being his idea, though he defended it and clearly benefits from it. I find that besides the point because I'm

Your link indicated nothing about the exclusivity being his idea, though he defended it and clearly benefits from it. I find that besides the point because I'm just judging this one situation vs. the entirety of his character. I already think Kapoor is a bit up his own ass due to his hilarious displeasure for the people of Chicago calling his sculpture "The Bean". But in this situation, it doesn't matter to me. Vantablack is not his to control, period. He doesn't make it, he can't make it, he doesn't sell it, he doesn't have the right to license it to others. It's not a paint, it's not a color, it's a space-age manufactured materials for which the one company that can legally produce it views the artistic application as an advertising spend and have apparently chosen the convenience of one big name vs. a bigger-tent approach. Kapoor is not to blame.

Karellen 4y ago
> Your link indicated nothing about the exclusivity being his idea, That... is an interesting point. As I remember, that's how it was reported at the time, even though that specific article doesn't mention it. Given that is the impression I get now from reading the article, what with him initiating the deal, it's possible that I might have merely inferred it from similar reporting in the past. So it's possible that although he approached them to use it for his art, they said OK, but then said they'd only do so if they wouldn't sell it to anyone else. And he agreed, but defends the arrangement anyway rather than saying something like "yeah, but they wouldn't let me use it at all otherwise." So maybe that's what happened, but it doesn't sound plausible, it's not how I remember the story, and it happened nine years ago so I don't really give enough of a shit to go looking through near-decade-old reports from the time to actually double-check the details. If it does matter enough to you and you can provide a reliable source that definitively refutes it being his idea, I'll happily edit my comments and retract calling him a fucking douchebag. In the meantime, I'll risk being a random nobody on the internet who happens to be angrily wrong about an artist they've never paid any attention to the art of. Because in the grand scheme of things, who cares what I think about him anyway?

Karellen 4y ago

> Your link indicated nothing about the exclusivity being his idea, That... is an interesting point. As I remember, that's how it was reported at the time, even though that specific article doesn't mention it. Given that is the impression I get now from reading the article, what with him initiating the deal, it's possible that I might have merely inferred it from similar reporting in the past. So it's possible that although he approached them to use it for his art, they said OK, but then said they'd only do so if they wouldn't sell it to anyone else. And he agreed, but defends the arrangement anyway rather than saying something like "yeah, but they wouldn't let me use it at all otherwise." So maybe that's what happened, but it doesn't sound plausible, it's not how I remember the story, and it happened nine years ago so I don't really give enough of a shit to go looking through near-decade-old reports from the time to actually double-check the details. If it does matter enough to you and you can provide a reliable source that definitively refutes it being his idea, I'll happily edit my comments and retract calling him a fucking douchebag. In the meantime, I'll risk being a random nobody on the internet who happens to be angrily wrong about an artist they've never paid any attention to the art of. Because in the grand scheme of things, who cares what I think about him anyway?