rebelate
New Member
Posts โข 813
Likes โข 520
November 2010
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by rebelate on Oct 23, 2014 0:12:45 GMT 1, Pass, poorly executed IMHO and I'm a DDD fan...
Pass, poorly executed IMHO and I'm a DDD fan...
|
|
Poster Bob
Junior Member
Posts โข 5,800
Likes โข 5,417
September 2013
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Poster Bob on Oct 23, 2014 0:13:14 GMT 1, The knee-jerk, hyper-sensitive, liberal reactions to this print are depressing.
The knee-jerk, hyper-sensitive, liberal reactions to this print are depressing.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 0:20:53 GMT 1, Coward, there's nothing I hate more than glib put downs with no thought for the critique
Knee jerk blah over reaction blah hyper sensitive blah
There a couple a COUPLE of posts discussing the wording of the title, discuss that term and critique
Think just a little please
Coward, there's nothing I hate more than glib put downs with no thought for the critique
Knee jerk blah over reaction blah hyper sensitive blah
There a couple a COUPLE of posts discussing the wording of the title, discuss that term and critique
Think just a little please
|
|
thomasmer
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,107
Likes โข 565
July 2014
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by thomasmer on Oct 23, 2014 0:30:51 GMT 1, Funny, this is in my opinion the best image he's created to date, not sure if I like the print, but I'd rather it than Nepolian in a fucking paper hat thats for sure!
Funny, this is in my opinion the best image he's created to date, not sure if I like the print, but I'd rather it than Nepolian in a fucking paper hat thats for sure!
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by randomname on Oct 23, 2014 0:32:41 GMT 1, If you need it spelled out for you, the title of the piece is most likely meant to be ironic, based on society's negative perceptions of the homeless. If you don't understand the message behind a piece of art, you should probably make an effort to understand it before attacking the artist's character. Or in other words, try thinking before speaking for a change.
If you need it spelled out for you, the title of the piece is most likely meant to be ironic, based on society's negative perceptions of the homeless. If you don't understand the message behind a piece of art, you should probably make an effort to understand it before attacking the artist's character. Or in other words, try thinking before speaking for a change.
|
|
chitownhero
New Member
Posts โข 237
Likes โข 17
July 2014
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by chitownhero on Oct 23, 2014 2:41:09 GMT 1, Fabulous piece. This will be quite a hard one to obtain. Good luck.
Fabulous piece. This will be quite a hard one to obtain. Good luck.
|
|
|
Poster Bob
Junior Member
Posts โข 5,800
Likes โข 5,417
September 2013
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Poster Bob on Oct 23, 2014 7:21:18 GMT 1, Glib put-downs? Oh you mean like calling someone a coward you cunt.
Coward, there's nothing I hate more than glib put downs with no thought for the critique Knee jerk blah over reaction blah hyper sensitive blah There a couple a COUPLE of posts discussing the wording of the title, discuss that term and critique Think just a little please
Glib put-downs? Oh you mean like calling someone a coward you cunt. Coward, there's nothing I hate more than glib put downs with no thought for the critique Knee jerk blah over reaction blah hyper sensitive blah There a couple a COUPLE of posts discussing the wording of the title, discuss that term and critique Think just a little please
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 7:53:42 GMT 1, I do hope the disgraceful choice of title is purely down to clumsiness and language barriers. Leaving aside the tasteless wordplay, the whole tone of this image suggests the individuals responsible (both artist and print house employees) lead ignorant, overly sheltered lives. If you choose to use vulnerable members of society as the subject matter of your commercial, for-profit, print release, such a decision comes with a duty of care. A duty to be extra cautious. That includes being aware of and sensitive to how the work may be interpreted or misinterpreted by others. As a viewer, what I don't pick up here is any sense of empathy. Instead, I see a term often considered derogatory included in the print's name, and a shallow image that appears to mock, trivialise, and arguably further marginalise homeless people. For shame. Very very important points f**k this release and f**k the artist quite frankly, street art was about bringing art to everyone to inclusivity, to giving the powerless a voice, to standing up to those with the power and making a mockery of the stereotypes we should adhere too. With that one word this release does the exact opposite. Do you really think that street artists, or any artist for that matter, spends their time thinking up amusing ways to disparage the homeless. I think some people on here are projecting their own values.
The piece was created to draw attention (see the sign ?) to the otherwise invisible (to many) homeless problem in LA. The print is created to bring the homeless into your homes.
Think a little hey. A little thought goes a long way.
I do hope the disgraceful choice of title is purely down to clumsiness and language barriers. Leaving aside the tasteless wordplay, the whole tone of this image suggests the individuals responsible (both artist and print house employees) lead ignorant, overly sheltered lives. If you choose to use vulnerable members of society as the subject matter of your commercial, for-profit, print release, such a decision comes with a duty of care. A duty to be extra cautious. That includes being aware of and sensitive to how the work may be interpreted or misinterpreted by others. As a viewer, what I don't pick up here is any sense of empathy. Instead, I see a term often considered derogatory included in the print's name, and a shallow image that appears to mock, trivialise, and arguably further marginalise homeless people. For shame. Very very important points f**k this release and f**k the artist quite frankly, street art was about bringing art to everyone to inclusivity, to giving the powerless a voice, to standing up to those with the power and making a mockery of the stereotypes we should adhere too. With that one word this release does the exact opposite. Do you really think that street artists, or any artist for that matter, spends their time thinking up amusing ways to disparage the homeless. I think some people on here are projecting their own values. The piece was created to draw attention (see the sign ?) to the otherwise invisible (to many) homeless problem in LA. The print is created to bring the homeless into your homes. Think a little hey. A little thought goes a long way.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 8:00:21 GMT 1, Quick question ddd cough sorry nu
Is bum a derogatory term for a homeless person?
Quick question ddd cough sorry nu
Is bum a derogatory term for a homeless person?
|
|
eschiff
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,062
Likes โข 995
January 2010
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by eschiff on Oct 23, 2014 8:19:07 GMT 1, Very very important points f**k this release and f**k the artist quite frankly, street art was about bringing art to everyone to inclusivity, to giving the powerless a voice, to standing up to those with the power and making a mockery of the stereotypes we should adhere too. With that one word this release does the exact opposite. Do you really think that street artists, or any artist for that matter, spends their time thinking up amusing ways to disparage the homeless. I think some people on here are projecting their own values. The piece was created to draw attention (see the sign ?) to the otherwise invisible (to many) homeless problem in LA. The print is created to bring the homeless into your homes. Think a little hey. A little thought goes a long way.
Your defence of tasteless, money grubbing, insulting art discredits the rest of your work. Nothing like someone who benefits from these artists telling the people that buy it that their opinions are wrong. There's not one redeeming this about this hack photoshop job except it will make money for the print house and artist. I suppose he can do another billboard for a print in Norway soon though. We all eagerly anticipate you telling us how great that is.
Very very important points f**k this release and f**k the artist quite frankly, street art was about bringing art to everyone to inclusivity, to giving the powerless a voice, to standing up to those with the power and making a mockery of the stereotypes we should adhere too. With that one word this release does the exact opposite. Do you really think that street artists, or any artist for that matter, spends their time thinking up amusing ways to disparage the homeless. I think some people on here are projecting their own values. The piece was created to draw attention (see the sign ?) to the otherwise invisible (to many) homeless problem in LA. The print is created to bring the homeless into your homes. Think a little hey. A little thought goes a long way. Your defence of tasteless, money grubbing, insulting art discredits the rest of your work. Nothing like someone who benefits from these artists telling the people that buy it that their opinions are wrong. There's not one redeeming this about this hack photoshop job except it will make money for the print house and artist. I suppose he can do another billboard for a print in Norway soon though. We all eagerly anticipate you telling us how great that is.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 8:25:35 GMT 1, Quick question ddd cough sorry nu Is bum a derogatory term for a homeless person? We get that you didn't get it. It's ok.
Quick question ddd cough sorry nu Is bum a derogatory term for a homeless person? We get that you didn't get it. It's ok.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 8:30:25 GMT 1, Do you really think that street artists, or any artist for that matter, spends their time thinking up amusing ways to disparage the homeless. I think some people on here are projecting their own values. The piece was created to draw attention (see the sign ?) to the otherwise invisible (to many) homeless problem in LA. The print is created to bring the homeless into your homes. Think a little hey. A little thought goes a long way. Your defence of tasteless, money grubbing, insulting art discredits the rest of your work. Nothing like someone who benefits from these artists telling the people that buy it that their opinions are wrong. There's not one redeeming this about this hack photoshop job except it will make money for the print house and artist. I suppose he can do another billboard for a print in Norway soon though. We all eagerly anticipate you telling us how great that is. I wont dignify your typical nonsense with a response other than to say please stop trolling my posts, it's embarrassing mate. It's ok that you lean to the right, but please don't "project" your own values onto other peoples work.
Kisses.
Do you really think that street artists, or any artist for that matter, spends their time thinking up amusing ways to disparage the homeless. I think some people on here are projecting their own values. The piece was created to draw attention (see the sign ?) to the otherwise invisible (to many) homeless problem in LA. The print is created to bring the homeless into your homes. Think a little hey. A little thought goes a long way. Your defence of tasteless, money grubbing, insulting art discredits the rest of your work. Nothing like someone who benefits from these artists telling the people that buy it that their opinions are wrong. There's not one redeeming this about this hack photoshop job except it will make money for the print house and artist. I suppose he can do another billboard for a print in Norway soon though. We all eagerly anticipate you telling us how great that is. I wont dignify your typical nonsense with a response other than to say please stop trolling my posts, it's embarrassing mate. It's ok that you lean to the right, but please don't "project" your own values onto other peoples work. Kisses.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 8:31:18 GMT 1, If you need it spelled out for you, the title of the piece is most likely meant to be ironic, based on society's negative perceptions of the homeless. If you don't understand the message behind a piece of art, you should probably make an effort to understand it before attacking the artist's character. Or in other words, try thinking before speaking for a change. This
If you need it spelled out for you, the title of the piece is most likely meant to be ironic, based on society's negative perceptions of the homeless. If you don't understand the message behind a piece of art, you should probably make an effort to understand it before attacking the artist's character. Or in other words, try thinking before speaking for a change. This
|
|
eschiff
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,062
Likes โข 995
January 2010
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by eschiff on Oct 23, 2014 8:40:41 GMT 1, Your defence of tasteless, money grubbing, insulting art discredits the rest of your work. Nothing like someone who benefits from these artists telling the people that buy it that their opinions are wrong. There's not one redeeming this about this hack photoshop job except it will make money for the print house and artist. I suppose he can do another billboard for a print in Norway soon though. We all eagerly anticipate you telling us how great that is. I wont dignify your typical nonsense with a response other than to say please stop trolling my posts, it's embarrassing mate. It's ok that you lean to the right, but please don't "project" your own values onto other peoples work. Kisses. huh? Sorry DDD, didn't mean to insult you on here. God forbid people don't like your cookie cutter, IKEA worthy art. Bad for business!
Your defence of tasteless, money grubbing, insulting art discredits the rest of your work. Nothing like someone who benefits from these artists telling the people that buy it that their opinions are wrong. There's not one redeeming this about this hack photoshop job except it will make money for the print house and artist. I suppose he can do another billboard for a print in Norway soon though. We all eagerly anticipate you telling us how great that is. I wont dignify your typical nonsense with a response other than to say please stop trolling my posts, it's embarrassing mate. It's ok that you lean to the right, but please don't "project" your own values onto other peoples work. Kisses. huh? Sorry DDD, didn't mean to insult you on here. God forbid people don't like your cookie cutter, IKEA worthy art. Bad for business!
|
|
|
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by searchandrescue on Oct 23, 2014 8:44:26 GMT 1, late to the fandango but always thought "Bumfire" was like an oil can / petrol drum chopped down to create a hearth for a street / beach fire??? Dunno, maybe I watched too many miners strikes, T.U.C. picket lines / Wu-Tang videos as a child?
late to the fandango but always thought "Bumfire" was like an oil can / petrol drum chopped down to create a hearth for a street / beach fire??? Dunno, maybe I watched too many miners strikes, T.U.C. picket lines / Wu-Tang videos as a child?
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 8:45:23 GMT 1, I wont dignify your typical nonsense with a response other than to say please stop trolling my posts, it's embarrassing mate. It's ok that you lean to the right, but please don't "project" your own values onto other peoples work. Kisses. huh? Sorry DDD, didn't mean to insult you on here. God forbid people don't like your cookie cutter, IKEA worthy art. Bad for business! There you go again attacking street artists and focusing on Business. But no stress, apology accepted.
I wont dignify your typical nonsense with a response other than to say please stop trolling my posts, it's embarrassing mate. It's ok that you lean to the right, but please don't "project" your own values onto other peoples work. Kisses. huh? Sorry DDD, didn't mean to insult you on here. God forbid people don't like your cookie cutter, IKEA worthy art. Bad for business! There you go again attacking street artists and focusing on Business. But no stress, apology accepted.
|
|
tab1
Full Member
Posts โข 8,519
Likes โข 3,678
September 2011
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by tab1 on Oct 23, 2014 8:52:10 GMT 1, Any proceeds going to Homeless charities ?
Any proceeds going to Homeless charities ?
|
|
eschiff
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,062
Likes โข 995
January 2010
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by eschiff on Oct 23, 2014 9:01:41 GMT 1, huh? Sorry DDD, didn't mean to insult you on here. God forbid people don't like your cookie cutter, IKEA worthy art. Bad for business! There you go again attacking street artists and focusing on Business. But no stress, apology accepted. sigh. One day you'll wake up. You're the one making money on art Martyn, not us. You're the one using government subsidised money, tax payer money, for your own benefit. Your arrogance is unsurprising yet disappointing. I'm not sure how tightly that wool is pulled over your eyes but hopefully one day it will come off.
huh? Sorry DDD, didn't mean to insult you on here. God forbid people don't like your cookie cutter, IKEA worthy art. Bad for business! There you go again attacking street artists and focusing on Business. But no stress, apology accepted. sigh. One day you'll wake up. You're the one making money on art Martyn, not us. You're the one using government subsidised money, tax payer money, for your own benefit. Your arrogance is unsurprising yet disappointing. I'm not sure how tightly that wool is pulled over your eyes but hopefully one day it will come off.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 9:09:02 GMT 1, If you need it spelled out for you, the title of the piece is most likely meant to be ironic, based on society's negative perceptions of the homeless. If you don't understand the message behind a piece of art, you should probably make an effort to understand it before attacking the artist's character. Or in other words, try thinking before speaking for a change. This ah yes ironic
you've got to laugh really
it's a pretty clumsy use of 'irony' wouldn't you say? I mean, you know using a derogatory term with a jokey image and expecting to not look, well, demeaning?
it's all in the perspective I guess and mine would be leaning to saying 'bad judgement call on the image and title' rather than 'take that all you people ignoring the homeless with my wonderfully ironic picture and title that all your urban art followers will get or (actually not even notice because hey it's not important if it flips)'
If you need it spelled out for you, the title of the piece is most likely meant to be ironic, based on society's negative perceptions of the homeless. If you don't understand the message behind a piece of art, you should probably make an effort to understand it before attacking the artist's character. Or in other words, try thinking before speaking for a change. This ah yes ironic
you've got to laugh really
it's a pretty clumsy use of 'irony' wouldn't you say? I mean, you know using a derogatory term with a jokey image and expecting to not look, well, demeaning?
it's all in the perspective I guess and mine would be leaning to saying 'bad judgement call on the image and title' rather than 'take that all you people ignoring the homeless with my wonderfully ironic picture and title that all your urban art followers will get or (actually not even notice because hey it's not important if it flips)'
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 9:29:57 GMT 1, The image on the street works well(ignoring the lame title) not as a print, if the artist wants to draw attention to and help the homeless in the area he should release a print and give something to shelters etc then do some media coverage which will make a lot more people aware of the problems than releasing this print to solely profit from.
The image on the street works well(ignoring the lame title) not as a print, if the artist wants to draw attention to and help the homeless in the area he should release a print and give something to shelters etc then do some media coverage which will make a lot more people aware of the problems than releasing this print to solely profit from.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Deleted on Oct 23, 2014 14:16:22 GMT 1, There you go again attacking street artists and focusing on Business. But no stress, apology accepted. sigh. One day you'll wake up. You're the one making money on art Martyn, not us. You're the one using government subsidised money, tax payer money, for your own benefit. Your arrogance is unsurprising yet disappointing. I'm not sure how tightly that wool is pulled over your eyes but hopefully one day it will come off. Money, money money.. there you go again. Subsidised arts bad, bad, bad..tax payers money wasted on art.. lefty nonsense. Just more of your silly free market right wing nonsense, are you really sure you should be collecting activist inspired art ?. Look at the piece again, it's a much loved street piece in Norway, Berlin and LA that pretty much everyone apart from a couple of people on here, yourself included, misunderstood. Just admit it, move on. cheers
There you go again attacking street artists and focusing on Business. But no stress, apology accepted. sigh. One day you'll wake up. You're the one making money on art Martyn, not us. You're the one using government subsidised money, tax payer money, for your own benefit. Your arrogance is unsurprising yet disappointing. I'm not sure how tightly that wool is pulled over your eyes but hopefully one day it will come off. Money, money money.. there you go again. Subsidised arts bad, bad, bad..tax payers money wasted on art.. lefty nonsense. Just more of your silly free market right wing nonsense, are you really sure you should be collecting activist inspired art ?. Look at the piece again, it's a much loved street piece in Norway, Berlin and LA that pretty much everyone apart from a couple of people on here, yourself included, misunderstood. Just admit it, move on. cheers
|
|
randomname
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,962
Likes โข 1,810
June 2013
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by randomname on Oct 23, 2014 14:31:51 GMT 1, ah yes ironic
you've got to laugh really
it's a pretty clumsy use of 'irony' wouldn't you say? I mean, you know using a derogatory term with a jokey image and expecting to not look, well, demeaning?
it's all in the perspective I guess and mine would be leaning to saying 'bad judgement call on the image and title' rather than 'take that all you people ignoring the homeless with my wonderfully ironic picture and title that all your urban art followers will get or (actually not even notice because hey it's not important if it flips)'
There's nothing jokey about the image. When I first saw it, I thought they looked dignified. To me, it humanizes the homeless, while society in general does the opposite.
If you don't understand a piece of art, you should ask. When you fly off the handle and wrongly attack an artist's character, it only exposes the flaws in your own.
ah yes ironic
you've got to laugh really
it's a pretty clumsy use of 'irony' wouldn't you say? I mean, you know using a derogatory term with a jokey image and expecting to not look, well, demeaning?
it's all in the perspective I guess and mine would be leaning to saying 'bad judgement call on the image and title' rather than 'take that all you people ignoring the homeless with my wonderfully ironic picture and title that all your urban art followers will get or (actually not even notice because hey it's not important if it flips)'
There's nothing jokey about the image. When I first saw it, I thought they looked dignified. To me, it humanizes the homeless, while society in general does the opposite. If you don't understand a piece of art, you should ask. When you fly off the handle and wrongly attack an artist's character, it only exposes the flaws in your own.
|
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,674
Likes โข 6,274
June 2009
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by met on Oct 24, 2014 22:33:30 GMT 1, For increased reader-friendliness, I'm using separate posts to reply to some of the comments on this thread. The points made are interrelated but also distinct.
Apologies for the length of the posts that follow. I aspire to conciseness, but it often falls victim to comprehensiveness.
For those who are uninterested in the debate, please feel free to just ignore. It's hardly a casual Friday-night read.
For increased reader-friendliness, I'm using separate posts to reply to some of the comments on this thread. The points made are interrelated but also distinct.
Apologies for the length of the posts that follow. I aspire to conciseness, but it often falls victim to comprehensiveness.
For those who are uninterested in the debate, please feel free to just ignore. It's hardly a casual Friday-night read.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,674
Likes โข 6,274
June 2009
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by met on Oct 24, 2014 22:33:45 GMT 1, As previously mentioned, I take issue with the title of the work. There may be geo-cultural variations regarding usage of the word "bum", but it's not generally uttered when referring to homeless people in a respectful, dignified manner. For me, the term is scornful.
I note the point by randomname about 'Bumfire' probably meaning to be ironic. If the choice was not the result of a Norwegian-to-English communication barrier, or ignorance of linguistic nuances, then he may be right. Even in this case, however, the decision regarding the title seems blundering and poorly thought through.
An artist whom I suspect has a roof over his head using the term "bum" โ and rationalising this by claiming they're being ironic or making some form of social commentary โ leaves me uncomfortable, for different reasons:
- First, because such an intent can too easily be overlooked or misconstrued by the public, an issue I'll address in more detail in my next post.
- Second, because at least in principle one could claim (albeit very contentiously) it isn't dissimilar to a white person using words like "nรญgger", "chรญnk" or "spรญc", and then hiding behind the oft-abused, catch-all, protective cloak of irony.
- Third, because that argument just feels insincere. If your use of a derogatory term is based on a truly genuine desire to hold a mirror up to "society's negative perceptions of the homeless", then you use the word in a standalone manner. You don't turn it into a cheap pun.
In this instance, priority appears to have been given to finding a ha-ha title. The justification of irony sounds more like of a damage-control afterthought.
As previously mentioned, I take issue with the title of the work. There may be geo-cultural variations regarding usage of the word "bum", but it's not generally uttered when referring to homeless people in a respectful, dignified manner. For me, the term is scornful. I note the point by randomname about 'Bumfire' probably meaning to be ironic. If the choice was not the result of a Norwegian-to-English communication barrier, or ignorance of linguistic nuances, then he may be right. Even in this case, however, the decision regarding the title seems blundering and poorly thought through. An artist whom I suspect has a roof over his head using the term "bum" โ and rationalising this by claiming they're being ironic or making some form of social commentary โ leaves me uncomfortable, for different reasons: - First, because such an intent can too easily be overlooked or misconstrued by the public, an issue I'll address in more detail in my next post. - Second, because at least in principle one could claim (albeit very contentiously) it isn't dissimilar to a white person using words like "nรญgger", "chรญnk" or "spรญc", and then hiding behind the oft-abused, catch-all, protective cloak of irony. - Third, because that argument just feels insincere. If your use of a derogatory term is based on a truly genuine desire to hold a mirror up to "society's negative perceptions of the homeless", then you use the word in a standalone manner. You don't turn it into a cheap pun. In this instance, priority appears to have been given to finding a ha-ha title. The justification of irony sounds more like of a damage-control afterthought.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,674
Likes โข 6,274
June 2009
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by met on Oct 24, 2014 22:33:59 GMT 1, Something I should have emphasised more strongly in my initial post on the subject: My comments were unrelated to the artist's intentions or the meaning he attributes to his own work. As an aside, I also don't doubt that (more likely than not) the artist is a decent person.
Instead, my focus was on how others might interpret or misinterpret 'Bumfire'. A few remarks here:
1. Art being misunderstood by the public certainly isn't new. It's commonplace, happens all the time. And generally it doesn't matter. If some or even most people don't grasp or understand the artist's intent, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, I have a greater appreciation for work that can be seen on different levels, and also interpreted in different โ even conflicting โ ways. To me, this makes the art stronger and more interesting.
2. The exception I make to point 1 above is with art and design purporting to be activistic in nature, i.e. where the work claims or is said to have a specific objective to carry out. That role for example could be to shift attitudes, disrupt the status quo, bring about socio-political change, or highlight or champion a particular cause. According to the understanding of randomname and @martedanielsen, 'Bumfire' has taken on such a role, i.e. to draw attention to homelessness.
If art or design has this kind of purpose, then โ in order to succeed โ the work's message needs to be clear and unambiguous, at least for the majority of viewers. This is especially important when the cause embraced is a delicate one. Hence the notion of duty I referred to in my initial post.
When artwork has the potential to influence the manner in which the general public sees and relates to disadvantaged or vulnerable members of society, there's a heavy responsibility resting on the shoulders of the artist. They need to tread carefully because the perception they create is so crucial. And disregarding possible or likely misinterpretations of their work is arguably a betrayal by the artist of their cause.
Here, we're dealing with the homeless (or "bums", as Dot Dot Dot puts it), but of course the same applies to others who are vulnerable: the elderly and infirm, individuals with physical or mental disabilities, those suffering from mental illness, people with dependency issues, etc.
In these types of cases, it just isn't good enough for the artist or print house to shriek, "You've misunderstood the work!" Their job, their duty is to ensure the work is not misunderstood.
3. randomname's well-crafted and considered posts are among those I make an effort to look out for on this forum (for that matter, the same applies to posts by @badrobot). Regarding 'Bumfire', our opinions happen to differ.
I appreciate how the image could be interpreted as drawing attention to homelessness, with the warning sign alerting people to something they might otherwise ignore.
However, I myself don't see it as shining any real light upon the plight of the homeless. For me it treats a serious subject in a flippant manner, to the point where it seems dismissive of the problem. The men in the picture are reduced to being part of a visual gag. This impression is further strengthened by the work's title.
randomname believes the image humanises the homeless. To me it does the opposite, treating the three men less as people than as some wretched, anonymous group. It's speculation on my part, but for others still, the image could even reinforce negative, often ignorant stereotypes about the homeless. As in, "Look at those losers. Typical. So off their heads on drugs and alcohol, they think the warning sign is an actual fire. Vagrant scum."
4. One of my key grievances with 'Bumfire' is the scope for interpretation or misinterpretation of the artist's message (assuming the artist has one).
I believe the breadth of that scope is far too wide. And given the sensitivity of the subject matter, the artist and others responsible for the print release have in my opinion failed. I would press this point further: Not only have they failed, they potentially harmed the very cause they were supposedly trying to increase people's awareness of.
Something I should have emphasised more strongly in my initial post on the subject: My comments were unrelated to the artist's intentions or the meaning he attributes to his own work. As an aside, I also don't doubt that (more likely than not) the artist is a decent person. Instead, my focus was on how others might interpret or misinterpret 'Bumfire'. A few remarks here: 1. Art being misunderstood by the public certainly isn't new. It's commonplace, happens all the time. And generally it doesn't matter. If some or even most people don't grasp or understand the artist's intent, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, I have a greater appreciation for work that can be seen on different levels, and also interpreted in different โ even conflicting โ ways. To me, this makes the art stronger and more interesting. 2. The exception I make to point 1 above is with art and design purporting to be activistic in nature, i.e. where the work claims or is said to have a specific objective to carry out. That role for example could be to shift attitudes, disrupt the status quo, bring about socio-political change, or highlight or champion a particular cause. According to the understanding of randomname and @martedanielsen, 'Bumfire' has taken on such a role, i.e. to draw attention to homelessness. If art or design has this kind of purpose, then โ in order to succeed โ the work's message needs to be clear and unambiguous, at least for the majority of viewers. This is especially important when the cause embraced is a delicate one. Hence the notion of duty I referred to in my initial post. When artwork has the potential to influence the manner in which the general public sees and relates to disadvantaged or vulnerable members of society, there's a heavy responsibility resting on the shoulders of the artist. They need to tread carefully because the perception they create is so crucial. And disregarding possible or likely misinterpretations of their work is arguably a betrayal by the artist of their cause. Here, we're dealing with the homeless (or "bums", as Dot Dot Dot puts it), but of course the same applies to others who are vulnerable: the elderly and infirm, individuals with physical or mental disabilities, those suffering from mental illness, people with dependency issues, etc. In these types of cases, it just isn't good enough for the artist or print house to shriek, "You've misunderstood the work!" Their job, their duty is to ensure the work is not misunderstood. 3. randomname's well-crafted and considered posts are among those I make an effort to look out for on this forum (for that matter, the same applies to posts by @badrobot). Regarding 'Bumfire', our opinions happen to differ. I appreciate how the image could be interpreted as drawing attention to homelessness, with the warning sign alerting people to something they might otherwise ignore. However, I myself don't see it as shining any real light upon the plight of the homeless. For me it treats a serious subject in a flippant manner, to the point where it seems dismissive of the problem. The men in the picture are reduced to being part of a visual gag. This impression is further strengthened by the work's title. randomname believes the image humanises the homeless. To me it does the opposite, treating the three men less as people than as some wretched, anonymous group. It's speculation on my part, but for others still, the image could even reinforce negative, often ignorant stereotypes about the homeless. As in, "Look at those losers. Typical. So off their heads on drugs and alcohol, they think the warning sign is an actual fire. Vagrant scum."4. One of my key grievances with 'Bumfire' is the scope for interpretation or misinterpretation of the artist's message (assuming the artist has one). I believe the breadth of that scope is far too wide. And given the sensitivity of the subject matter, the artist and others responsible for the print release have in my opinion failed. I would press this point further: Not only have they failed, they potentially harmed the very cause they were supposedly trying to increase people's awareness of.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts โข 2,674
Likes โข 6,274
June 2009
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by met on Oct 24, 2014 22:34:19 GMT 1, For what it's worth, I think the image works alright on the street. But then, as well all know, context is everything.
tab1 and @andy3636 also raised points that are worth exploring a little further.
I stated earlier my issue about the ease with which 'Bumfire' can be interpreted in such conflicting ways. However, this discrepancy could be greatly reduced, even eliminated, if the image were released in conjunction with โ and with the blessing of โ a homeless charity. And where the sale proceeds after costs went to that charity.
In its sales pitches, PIECE OF SHEET makes zero reference to a charitable contribution or to any association with a homeless charity. The way it looks at present is that all the cash from the prints being sold for ยฃ175.00 / ยฃ350.00 apiece will be banked by the artist and print house.
If that is indeed the reality of the situation, then hopefully the decision-makers will reconsider their position. Otherwise, the supposed intention of the artist rings hollow, with the release itself coming across as exploitative.
"Let's sell prints of this picture of homeless people and make ourselves some money." Who came up with this idea? Who agreed to it? At best, it's distasteful. Though I have mixed feelings about some of Shepard Fairey's work, what I truly appreciate with Fairey is that when he creates art to highlight or support a cause, he also backs it financially. And that really does make a world of difference โ both concretely and in terms of public perception. The man cannot be accused of latching on to a cause to fill his own pockets. There are plenty of examples to choose from, but here's one that immediately comes to mind:
www.obeygiant.com/headlines/aung-san-suu-kyi
PIECE OF SHEET and Dot Dot Dot, please take note.
For what it's worth, I think the image works alright on the street. But then, as well all know, context is everything. tab1 and @andy3636 also raised points that are worth exploring a little further. I stated earlier my issue about the ease with which 'Bumfire' can be interpreted in such conflicting ways. However, this discrepancy could be greatly reduced, even eliminated, if the image were released in conjunction with โ and with the blessing of โ a homeless charity. And where the sale proceeds after costs went to that charity. In its sales pitches, PIECE OF SHEET makes zero reference to a charitable contribution or to any association with a homeless charity. The way it looks at present is that all the cash from the prints being sold for ยฃ175.00 / ยฃ350.00 apiece will be banked by the artist and print house. If that is indeed the reality of the situation, then hopefully the decision-makers will reconsider their position. Otherwise, the supposed intention of the artist rings hollow, with the release itself coming across as exploitative. "Let's sell prints of this picture of homeless people and make ourselves some money." Who came up with this idea? Who agreed to it? At best, it's distasteful. Though I have mixed feelings about some of Shepard Fairey's work, what I truly appreciate with Fairey is that when he creates art to highlight or support a cause, he also backs it financially. And that really does make a world of difference โ both concretely and in terms of public perception. The man cannot be accused of latching on to a cause to fill his own pockets. There are plenty of examples to choose from, but here's one that immediately comes to mind: www.obeygiant.com/headlines/aung-san-suu-kyi PIECE OF SHEET and Dot Dot Dot, please take note.
|
|
chitownhero
New Member
Posts โข 237
Likes โข 17
July 2014
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by chitownhero on Oct 24, 2014 22:46:55 GMT 1, This hatred towards the man DDD himself was amusing at best. You simple-minded folk who were mindlessly attacking him need to reevaluate yourselves and your worth.
The amount of butthurt this place possesses is borderline fictionistic. Get a grip, you simple-minded peons.
That man is more successful than ANY of you haters can ever fathom, or possibly DREAM of achieving. Your hatred and attempts at thwarting his happiness I'm sure are well avoided.
Keyboard warriors. That's all you haters are.
This hatred towards the man DDD himself was amusing at best. You simple-minded folk who were mindlessly attacking him need to reevaluate yourselves and your worth.
The amount of butthurt this place possesses is borderline fictionistic. Get a grip, you simple-minded peons.
That man is more successful than ANY of you haters can ever fathom, or possibly DREAM of achieving. Your hatred and attempts at thwarting his happiness I'm sure are well avoided.
Keyboard warriors. That's all you haters are.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by Deleted on Oct 24, 2014 23:05:19 GMT 1, This hatred towards the man DDD himself was amusing at best. You simple-minded folk who were mindlessly attacking him need to reevaluate yourselves and your worth. The amount of butthurt this place possesses is borderline fictionistic. Get a grip, you simple-minded peons. That man is more successful than ANY of you haters can ever fathom, or possibly DREAM of achieving. Your hatred and attempts at thwarting his happiness I'm sure are well avoided. Keyboard warriors. That's all you haters are. Lol, says he who has achieved so much No hate for ddd here
This hatred towards the man DDD himself was amusing at best. You simple-minded folk who were mindlessly attacking him need to reevaluate yourselves and your worth. The amount of butthurt this place possesses is borderline fictionistic. Get a grip, you simple-minded peons. That man is more successful than ANY of you haters can ever fathom, or possibly DREAM of achieving. Your hatred and attempts at thwarting his happiness I'm sure are well avoided. Keyboard warriors. That's all you haters are. Lol, says he who has achieved so much No hate for ddd here
|
|
chitownhero
New Member
Posts โข 237
Likes โข 17
July 2014
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by chitownhero on Oct 24, 2014 23:13:03 GMT 1, You're a horse shit gallery, my man. What exactly are you boasting about? At least I don't have to place my gallery in my forum name. Derp.
You're a horse shit gallery, my man. What exactly are you boasting about? At least I don't have to place my gallery in my forum name. Derp.
|
|
chitownhero
New Member
Posts โข 237
Likes โข 17
July 2014
|
Dot Dot Dot โข Bumfire, by chitownhero on Oct 24, 2014 23:23:13 GMT 1, PS: The party is at my place tonight.
PS: The party is at my place tonight.
|
|