5 ms·

Can we please stop calling them "artists" and start calling them what they really are, vandals? There is nothing creating about what this guy did. People slap

by ajays 14y ago

Can we please stop calling them "artists" and start calling them what they really are, vandals? There is nothing creating about what this guy did. People slap the label "art" on crap too quickly. No, not all of it is art. Some of it is; but not all. Just because you can sling some pigment against a flat surface doesn't make it art, and just because you can draw disapproving looks from people doesn't make you an "artist".

jaems33 14y ago
Just like putting a urinal in a gallery doesn't make you an artist, right?
- ajays 14y ago
  Exactly.
  - rudiger 14y ago
    In case you're not trying to be facetious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)
theorique 14y ago
Too quickly compared to what? How long do we have to wait before something's declared "art"? Not claiming this particular graffiti is art - it's rather uncreative compared to Banksy and other such clever artists - just wondering who decides, and how. Also, good for Mark Jacobs for his elegant response, and for trolling the pretentious.
rudiger 14y ago
He's an artist and a vandal.
zoop 14y ago
Your definition of art implies that only things that you respect can be labeled as such.
knowtheory 14y ago
This had an artistic and communicative intent, although i would concede that it's not particularly clever or innovative. Fucking up Marc Jacobs or other massive commercial brands is a cogent statement to be made, and i don't think one that should simply be dismissed as thoughtless vandalism (though vandalism it may be).
- Angostura 14y ago
  RE you contending that simply because something has artistic intent it is, by definition 'art'?
  - knowtheory 14y ago
    I have argued for days about what does and doesn't constitute art, and it's almost always a futile endeavor. The artist intended it to be art, and had a message to convey. Those are definitely components which make me lean towards considering it art.
drcube 14y ago
Flinging pigment against a flat surface made Jackson Pollack an artist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollack

by ajays 14y ago

jaems33 14y ago

Just like putting a urinal in a gallery doesn't make you an artist, right?

ajays 14y ago
Exactly.
- rudiger 14y ago
  In case you're not trying to be facetious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

theorique 14y ago

Too quickly compared to what? How long do we have to wait before something's declared "art"? Not claiming this particular graffiti is art - it's rather uncreative compared to Banksy and other such clever artists - just wondering who decides, and how. Also, good for Mark Jacobs for his elegant response, and for trolling the pretentious.

rudiger 14y ago

He's an artist and a vandal.

zoop 14y ago

Your definition of art implies that only things that you respect can be labeled as such.

knowtheory 14y ago

This had an artistic and communicative intent, although i would concede that it's not particularly clever or innovative. Fucking up Marc Jacobs or other massive commercial brands is a cogent statement to be made, and i don't think one that should simply be dismissed as thoughtless vandalism (though vandalism it may be).

Angostura 14y ago
RE you contending that simply because something has artistic intent it is, by definition 'art'?
- knowtheory 14y ago
  I have argued for days about what does and doesn't constitute art, and it's almost always a futile endeavor. The artist intended it to be art, and had a message to convey. Those are definitely components which make me lean towards considering it art.

drcube 14y ago

Flinging pigment against a flat surface made Jackson Pollack an artist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollack