[darwin]

The Diving Bell & The Butterfly is a really great movie.  Schnabel did good with that one.

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2014 15:30:48 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

Nov 1, 2014 14:56:40 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Space Invader.

makes art that any primary school kid could make and copying the space invaders and slapping them on walls is not art.

This statement is what many said to dismiss the entire Pop Art / Modern Art movement of the 60's.  

Whether Franz Kline, Robert Rauschenberg, Andy Warhol,Claes Oldenberg, Ad Reinhardt or an endless list.

Or the minimalism of Donald Judd. The yarn of Fred Sandback.

The list is endless.

I don't mean to pick on you, but you describe yourself as an untrained naive outsider artist, and to make grand sweeping statements about art history is embarrassing at best.  Unless of course you studied art history and have an MFA, if so then please accept my apology.

It's just my view from where i'm standing.

Of course it's not easy having an unbiased discussion on this forum or opinion if some who psot are involved with certain artists as friends or some are galleries dealers that make money from selling certain artists.

I googled Space Invaders merchandise as opposed to Invader and there is shed loads of Space Invaders merchandise and art out there for sale based on the space invaders game characters.

 Fekner mades Space Invaders on walls since 1982 as street art and it was part of his original street art he made.

Space Invader to me looks like he just milks it as long as it sells.

 Now as for the names you mentioned.

   Would their art be considered any good or important if none of the galleries and dealers in the USA didn't make money from selling their art. If no one wanted their art.

 The fact that their art was picked up by dealers and sold for high prices gives their art credibility and importance in so called art history.  Also the art that everyone wanted at the time of Pollocks success meant that galleries in NY etc could sell similar type of abstract expressionist action painting or whatever art to the noeuveau riche.

 Warhol came along at the right time and the tv and newspaper articles about his selling soup cans as art gave him massive publicity. At the time it was hip cool and a novelty. He didn't expect it to last but dealers created the market in Warhol and some say control the market.

  None of this though, the high prices and the fact it's on display in institutions means the art is any good or important.

  It's just paint on canvas.

Rothko art was promoted by the CIA using huge funds during the cold war to show the USSR that freedom of expression is encouraged in the west.

  Hence his art being classed as important and ending up in institutions.

Weiwei is being use dpolitically too.

It's not always about the actual art.

  Take away the slogans writings witty words from Banksy's stencils and what are you left with.

A very poor version of Blek le Rat.

   Art has a history but fashion and media television and newspapers are the 20th century tools used by dealers etc to hype and promote that which they can make a big and sometimes fast profit from.

 

[Deleted]

Paul Roberts.

Real talent.

  www.paulrobertspaintings.co.uk/index.html

Paul Roberts was born in Tiverton Devon in 1948. Brought up by artist parents in Wales. He studied at Newport, Cardiff and Goldsmiths colleges of Art. Gaining early recognition in the 1970′s his career as a painter was interrupted when he had worldwide success with th rockband Sniff’n'The Tears in 1978.Commitments to music meant that until 2000 time needed to develop his career as a painter was to some degree curtailed. In 1988 he moved with his family to Somerset, where he has continued to paint and make music. His work can currently be seen at the Plus One Gallery London. ‘

sweet-station.com/blog/2009/09/paul-roberts/

[Deleted]

Nov 1, 2014 22:24:39 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

Nov 1, 2014 17:11:54 GMT 1 @hxfour said:

Thats a tough comparison with Schnabel and Basquiat as one is still alive, and still doing amazing work.

I think youre comparing hype, with longevity, not necessarily talent. I got into art and the industry in 1996 and bought into street artists before the bubbles. Kaws was one of them, I noticed his graffiti in The Source magazine in the mid 90's and then really started following back in 99-01 when he created the character. Futura, Twist, Kostas Seremetis, Flores, Mars1, Revok, etc etc etc. Had my eye on them from the mid nineties, and theyve all proven themselves to this day.

Zacharevic, I believe is incredible. Im not talking about prints here, Im talking about art, and talent and conceptual ideas, skill. The guy can paint. Banksy can paint, hes proven that, and his marketing and brand positioning is stellar. Chevrier can clearly paint, and excites me, plus shes Canadian, which is why I have 2 original pieces.

Faile - No comment. Flat out dislike the work.

I completely agree with your Kaws statement, he's jumped into high art and has made an incredible career, I love his work and wish I could jump into the originals. Add banksy in that list, he's going very very strong and I dont see it slowing down, wether he's caught or not. High artists like Koons, Oehlen, and a bunch of others could easily keep it up, and are producing awesome work. Id kill for a Koons dog, and an Oehlen abstract. Id have to sell the house though.

Harrington and Chloe Early, sure, theyre great. Talented, and loved, but theres a million artists in a similar style. I prefer Early over Harrington, more feminine and soft which im drawn to.

I know this forum loves its prints, and since joining ive bought a couple I wouldnt have known about otherwise, but those prints will never determine an artists career or longevity. The important originals and the street pieces will. When looking at these artists and their works, consider the importance of their works to this complete era and genre of art, are these artists works amongst the most important of the genre? And which pieces are the most important works by the artist? many artists on this forum dont make that list.

No I was comparing talent as a NYCer when they were both alive and happening what I experienced was a bit of a snickering re Schnabel...and he did move on to direct the Basquiat movie, which opened doors to at least a second movie and producing Lou Reed's Berlin in Brooklyn. I wasn't aware of new art work at all, much less any that might be good.

But I think the discussion is good because it involves a bit of history, current affairs and personal biases.

Check it out, works beautiful: 

[Lroy]

Could we say that hype ( as fashion, Hype is the new world of fashion anyway ; or " In " and '" out " - in the sixties ) , could revelaed great talents, with future or not ?

I am thinking to  the punk. I prefer ( punk became hype and Malcom Mc Laren was a genius ) hundred times the Sex Pistols and only a God save the Queen ( what an LP ! What a sound ! Never any bands found that , Rotten complained recently about the underratting ) , than the Stranglers ( that I liked of course - No more heroes single, and  Féline almost all - a pop album  -  with their big  carrer ! ) per example.

Do we need that famous people ( actors, mediatic  people ) talk to the TV of Banksy or Rotten, to say that they have talent ? Maybe, in our unconsciousness, it plays...

Anyway, at a moment, when a band or an artist become so much popular we could not talk anymore about hype.

I think that it is the world " hipster " who sounds very wrong and bad : it means rich people showing or playing to be poors and fashioned.
As yippies before.. Never trust an hippie anyway...

www.nme.com/news/john-lydon/80787?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sexpistols

[South Bound]

Really great thread!!! Not going to add and risk looking ignorant, but I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion.

[mojo]

Depends if the 'hype' is coming from a reliable source otherwise just buy with your eyes, if you're purely buying for investment purposes prepare to lose as well as win. 
Or just make like public enemy and don't believe any of it!

[Deleted]

Nov 2, 2014 3:46:39 GMT 1 @hxfour said:

Nov 1, 2014 22:24:39 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

No I was comparing talent as a NYCer when they were both alive and happening what I experienced was a bit of a snickering re Schnabel...and he did move on to direct the Basquiat movie, which opened doors to at least a second movie and producing Lou Reed's Berlin in Brooklyn. I wasn't aware of new art work at all, much less any that might be good.

But I think the discussion is good because it involves a bit of history, current affairs and personal biases.

Check it out, works beautiful: 

Video of a fat bloke sploshing paint over printed images.

[Deleted]

Talent.

Talent

[Deleted]

Oct 31, 2014 14:44:36 GMT 1 LonelyFarmer said:

I love hype, it makes the word go round.

I think I see what you did there.....

[dazarino]

I agree I think chloe earlys paintings are more sharp than harringtons work. Still both have great futures

Still think geddes has immense talent

[Bbb]

Nov 1, 2014 13:48:41 GMT 1 @hxfour said:

I find Whatsons hype to be a bit crazy. I like a few of his works, but his "posterization" tactic when he does people is very amateur and basic. Once he graduates out of that Im sure he'll gain my respect a bit more.

Zacharevic I find has an amazing Talent.

Chevrier has an incredible talent.

Banksy is super hyped but conceptually, and even through his evolution, use of fame, and money I think is the top artist of our generation.

Ive been following Snik lately and his stencil's are amazing, far better than the screen prints.

Maya Hayuk, man I wish I bought something years back. Incredible

Hirst - Im on the fence. I do get excited by some of his work, and I can simply walk past a great bit of it.

I have to agree - especially with regard to maya hayuk. Her work is so powerful,  and the X based work to me has so many different dimensions and ways about it, incredibly intimate. I can see why so many people want that kind of work in their homes.

i believe that maya will go down as a great artist of the early 21st century,  it is also very refreshing to have a female making such big waves in the urban art world which is pretty male dominated.

furthemore, whilst banksy, hirst, faile have global fan bases, maya is one of the few up and coming artists (dare I say that) who has a truly global fan base and  has a deep international following. Her work certainly seems to be reaching an inflection point where soon originals will just be unaffordable and out of most peoples reach.

whilst her popularity is soaring and it is Incredibly difficult to source her originals outside of a few galleries, I think, her work should do incredibly well especially for those lucky enough to have originals. 

go maya!!

[Deleted]

My name is Tommy and I am a sensation; all the rest (this thread included) is hyped !

[johnnyh]

I love Tommy's work he is producing some of the best stuff out there.

Definitely gonna be big I would say. Really worth investing in a piece particularly while they are still affordable. There aren't many around so there pretty hard to get. I have an amazing commission that he did for me.

But promised not to show it before his new show. If you get the chance to order before the show do it as I reckon all will sell out before it opens

[Deleted]

Nov 11, 2014 9:06:34 GMT 1 johnnyh said:

I love Tommy's work he is producing some of the best stuff out there.

Definitely gonna be big I would say. Really worth investing in a piece particularly while they are still affordable. There aren't many around so there pretty hard to get. I have an amazing commission that he did for me.

But promised not to show it before his new show. If you get the chance to order before the show do it as I reckon all will sell out before it opens

What I love with Tommy is that he like to be idle, no pressure, no hype, no stupid heavy marketing/brainwashing.  I am bit sad to see that he is gonna have a show in December in a well known gallery; I expect we shall get the Dran effect (remember Dran was totally unknown and the small gallery in Toulouse had lot of them at bargain price and only a few here took time to google "Dran + his hometown")

Anyway, I am sure the small gallery working with Tommy's hometown must be happy to see that Tommy is gonna be popular.  I know you know which gallery johnnyh , there are still some great small original for about 100 USD... and totally agree a commission at 350 USD is the deal of the year.  Still waiting for mine "Untitled, shampoo", delayed due to the upcoming show... but that's life !

[graffuturism]

Nov 2, 2014 1:18:12 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Nov 1, 2014 15:30:48 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

This statement is what many said to dismiss the entire Pop Art / Modern Art movement of the 60's.  

Whether Franz Kline, Robert Rauschenberg, Andy Warhol,Claes Oldenberg, Ad Reinhardt or an endless list.

Or the minimalism of Donald Judd. The yarn of Fred Sandback.

The list is endless.

I don't mean to pick on you, but you describe yourself as an untrained naive outsider artist, and to make grand sweeping statements about art history is embarrassing at best.  Unless of course you studied art history and have an MFA, if so then please accept my apology.

It's just my view from where i'm standing.

Of course it's not easy having an unbiased discussion on this forum or opinion if some who psot are involved with certain artists as friends or some are galleries dealers that make money from selling certain artists.

I have to disagree with most of what you said but Ill stick to the Space invader and Banksy comments, I am not a fan of Street art and prefer many artists to Banksy or Invader. That being said if you are honest with yourself and understand the genre's history you have to give both these artists their due regardless if you like or appreciate their work. As with many of artists and movement there have always been artists who define the genre for a reason. The reason you are missing this point is that both artists are actively engaged in the real power of street art and that is in the street. Whatever issue you have with the message, the aesthetics, or the concept, you have to always take into account the amount of work both have done on the streets in order for their work to be considered authentic in my opinion.

I am not saying Blek isn't important, but I am saying Banksy is more important due to the amount of work ane influence he has done in the street and studio. He outworked most artists and was a huge influence on many. Its not always about who came first, its usually about who mattered most and why. Why both Invader and Banksy matter is because they are well rounded working equally in the street and studio. The power of the act should not be overlooked, anyone can make an invader and he sells kits so you can DIY. But can you make the same amount of impact in the street as he did? Invader is everywhere you go when you visit France and he also has done a decent amount of work around the world, this is the power of invader not his aesthetic or conceptual mastery of art. This is the power really of the best street artists in my opinion.

[johnnyh]

Very nicely put sir.

Think I'm gonna have a cup of tea a ginger snap and read that again

Reckon that post in more than one way highlights the difference between hype and real talent!!!

[Deleted]

Nov 11, 2014 10:42:11 GMT 1 graffuturism said:

Nov 2, 2014 1:18:12 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

It's just my view from where i'm standing.

Of course it's not easy having an unbiased discussion on this forum or opinion if some who psot are involved with certain artists as friends or some are galleries dealers that make money from selling certain artists.

I have to disagree with most of what you said but Ill stick to the Space invader and Banksy comments, I am not a fan of Street art and prefer many artists to Banksy or Invader. That being said if you are honest with yourself and understand the genre's history you have to give both these artists their due regardless if you like or appreciate their work. As with many of artists and movement there have always been artists who define the genre for a reason. The reason you are missing this point is that both artists are actively engaged in the real power of street art and that is in the street. Whatever issue you have with the message, the aesthetics, or the concept, you have to always take into account the amount of work both have done on the streets in order for their work to be considered authentic in my opinion.

I am not saying Blek isn't important, but I am saying Banksy is more important due to the amount of work ane influence he has done in the street and studio. He outworked most artists and was a huge influence on many. Its not always about who came first, its usually about who mattered most and why. Why both Invader and Banksy matter is because they are well rounded working equally in the street and studio. The power of the act should not be overlooked, anyone can make an invader and he sells kits so you can DIY. But can you make the same amount of impact in the street as he did? Invader is everywhere you go when you visit France and he also has done a decent amount of work around the world, this is the power of invader not his aesthetic or conceptual mastery of art. This is the power really of the best street artists in my opinion.

I'm no rocket scientist but think Banksy is 75%hype and 25% talent and his sayings about rats and how they live etc is very very similar to what Blek said about rats and other similarities between Bank$y and Blek too.

 So no I doub't Banksy is that great an influence on graffiti and street art.

Banksy's schoolboy humour appeals to many who find it witty and read into it meanings which are convenient for them.

 Invader just ripped off space invaders and stuck em on walls using square tiles as it was easier than painting them anyway.

 It was ok and fun and quirky but how long can you keep doing the same thing for and making unimaginative tile shaped prints based on Bowie and other icons?

  It's a gimmick and nothing more.

[graffuturism]

Nov 12, 2014 16:00:29 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Nov 11, 2014 10:42:11 GMT 1 graffuturism said:

I have to disagree with most of what you said but Ill stick to the Space invader and Banksy comments, I am not a fan of Street art and prefer many artists to Banksy or Invader. That being said if you are honest with yourself and understand the genre's history you have to give both these artists their due regardless if you like or appreciate their work. As with many of artists and movement there have always been artists who define the genre for a reason. The reason you are missing this point is that both artists are actively engaged in the real power of street art and that is in the street. Whatever issue you have with the message, the aesthetics, or the concept, you have to always take into account the amount of work both have done on the streets in order for their work to be considered authentic in my opinion.

I am not saying Blek isn't important, but I am saying Banksy is more important due to the amount of work ane influence he has done in the street and studio. He outworked most artists and was a huge influence on many. Its not always about who came first, its usually about who mattered most and why. Why both Invader and Banksy matter is because they are well rounded working equally in the street and studio. The power of the act should not be overlooked, anyone can make an invader and he sells kits so you can DIY. But can you make the same amount of impact in the street as he did? Invader is everywhere you go when you visit France and he also has done a decent amount of work around the world, this is the power of invader not his aesthetic or conceptual mastery of art. This is the power really of the best street artists in my opinion.

I'm no rocket scientist but think Banksy is 75%hype and 25% talent and his sayings about rats and how they live etc is very very similar to what Blek said about rats and other similarities between Bank$y and Blek too.

 So no I doub't Banksy is that great an influence on graffiti and street art.

Banksy's schoolboy humour appeals to many who find it witty and read into it meanings which are convenient for them.

 Invader just ripped off space invaders and stuck em on walls using square tiles as it was easier than painting them anyway.

 It was ok and fun and quirky but how long can you keep doing the same thing for and making unimaginative tile shaped prints based on Bowie and other icons?

  It's a gimmick and nothing more.

You missed my whole point or just simply ignored it, read it maybe one more time slow. You are arguing again about the same argument trying to describe why or why not these artists are talent due to concept or their work. There work is only one aspect of what I am describing and that is debatable as you have pointed out, what isnt debatable is what and who these artists are. I dont get the feeling you really understand what these artists mean to the whole genre and their place amongst their peers. You can read wikipedia or google whatever you like about Fekner or Blek, but nobody besides art critics, collectors, or academics know either of those name in graffiti or street art. Ask any graffiti artist or street artist and I am talking about real active artists painting with 10-25 years experience what banksy and Invader mean to the history and you would see that even if they thought they were hype, cheating, sellouts, whatever negative response you can get in the end they would all have a respect for them. Ask them the same about Fekner and Blek and I doubt the know them or would even respect their contribution.

Im part of a small percentage that understands both but I know I am the minority. If you can explain to me more in depth why Fekner's invaders over Space Invaders conceptually, or explain why Bleks stencil's aesthetically or conceptually are more important than Banksy I will listen. Yet I doubt beside your argument of who came first, there is no comparison at all.

[natstan]

Nov 12, 2014 16:00:29 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Nov 11, 2014 10:42:11 GMT 1 graffuturism said:

I have to disagree with most of what you said but Ill stick to the Space invader and Banksy comments, I am not a fan of Street art and prefer many artists to Banksy or Invader. That being said if you are honest with yourself and understand the genre's history you have to give both these artists their due regardless if you like or appreciate their work. As with many of artists and movement there have always been artists who define the genre for a reason. The reason you are missing this point is that both artists are actively engaged in the real power of street art and that is in the street. Whatever issue you have with the message, the aesthetics, or the concept, you have to always take into account the amount of work both have done on the streets in order for their work to be considered authentic in my opinion.

I am not saying Blek isn't important, but I am saying Banksy is more important due to the amount of work ane influence he has done in the street and studio. He outworked most artists and was a huge influence on many. Its not always about who came first, its usually about who mattered most and why. Why both Invader and Banksy matter is because they are well rounded working equally in the street and studio. The power of the act should not be overlooked, anyone can make an invader and he sells kits so you can DIY. But can you make the same amount of impact in the street as he did? Invader is everywhere you go when you visit France and he also has done a decent amount of work around the world, this is the power of invader not his aesthetic or conceptual mastery of art. This is the power really of the best street artists in my opinion.

I'm no rocket scientist but think Banksy is 75%hype and 25% talent and his sayings about rats and how they live etc is very very similar to what Blek said about rats and other similarities between Bank$y and Blek too.

 So no I doub't Banksy is that great an influence on graffiti and street art.

Banksy's schoolboy humour appeals to many who find it witty and read into it meanings which are convenient for them.

 Invader just ripped off space invaders and stuck em on walls using square tiles as it was easier than painting them anyway.

 It was ok and fun and quirky but how long can you keep doing the same thing for and making unimaginative tile shaped prints based on Bowie and other icons?

  It's a gimmick and nothing more.

I have always wonder what the fuss about invader is all about, but obviously one man's poison is another man's meat. Was in paris just a few weeks back and chanced upon a wall with his little tiled art. Wasn't impressed...

To be fair, I was looking at his latest print recently. But soon realised it isn't the image that draw me so much as the blue-red combi of colors when I started asking myself what was the initial appeal. So obviously, the colors caught me, not the work - same situation as with his past works.

Not saying he is not talented but would any fan care to explain the attraction to his works? Or is he revered and respected simply because he has been at this game for a long time? Is there even a technique behind his craft?

[Deleted]

Nov 12, 2014 16:19:19 GMT 1 graffuturism said:

Nov 12, 2014 16:00:29 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

I'm no rocket scientist but think Banksy is 75%hype and 25% talent and his sayings about rats and how they live etc is very very similar to what Blek said about rats and other similarities between Bank$y and Blek too.

 So no I doub't Banksy is that great an influence on graffiti and street art.

Banksy's schoolboy humour appeals to many who find it witty and read into it meanings which are convenient for them.

 Invader just ripped off space invaders and stuck em on walls using square tiles as it was easier than painting them anyway.

 It was ok and fun and quirky but how long can you keep doing the same thing for and making unimaginative tile shaped prints based on Bowie and other icons?

  It's a gimmick and nothing more.

You missed my whole point or just simply ignored it, read it maybe one more time slow. You are arguing again about the same argument trying to describe why or why not these artists are talent due to concept or their work. There work is only one aspect of what I am describing and that is debatable as you have pointed out, what isnt debatable is what and who these artists are. I dont get the feeling you really understand what these artists mean to the whole genre and their place amongst their peers. You can read wikipedia or google whatever you like about Fekner or Blek, but nobody besides art critics, collectors, or academics know either of those name in graffiti or street art. Ask any graffiti artist or street artist and I am talking about real active artists painting with 10-25 years experience what banksy and Invader mean to the history and you would see that even if they thought they were hype, cheating, sellouts, whatever negative response you can get in the end they would all have a respect for them. Ask them the same about Fekner and Blek and I doubt the know them or would even respect their contribution.

Im part of a small percentage that understands both but I know I am the minority. If you can explain to me more in depth why Fekner's invaders over Space Invaders conceptually, or explain why Bleks stencil's aesthetically or conceptually are more important than Banksy I will listen. Yet I doubt beside your argument of who came first, there is no comparison at all.

The art world today is the same as WWF wrestling.

It's fixed and hyped up.

 Just like X factor and todays music.

I agree tha younger artists think Banksy etc have a great influence on street art but street art was great when it was anonymous.

  One would see graffiti years ago and not care if the graffer is releasing a print or who they are and just see it for what it is.

Part of underground urban existence.

Now it's all above ground and all about making money.

  The street art festivals and constant hype makes it bland.

There again, I don't believe in art history and do understand that people need to be entertained.

hence we have Banksy entertaining people with his sometimes witty stencils and Brainwash playing the clown who throws paint on a Mondrian image without realising that it just doesn't work.

[graffuturism]

Nov 12, 2014 16:24:22 GMT 1 natstan said:

Nov 12, 2014 16:00:29 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

I'm no rocket scientist but think Banksy is 75%hype and 25% talent and his sayings about rats and how they live etc is very very similar to what Blek said about rats and other similarities between Bank$y and Blek too.

 So no I doub't Banksy is that great an influence on graffiti and street art.

Banksy's schoolboy humour appeals to many who find it witty and read into it meanings which are convenient for them.

 Invader just ripped off space invaders and stuck em on walls using square tiles as it was easier than painting them anyway.

 It was ok and fun and quirky but how long can you keep doing the same thing for and making unimaginative tile shaped prints based on Bowie and other icons?

  It's a gimmick and nothing more.

I have always wonder what the fuss about invader is all about, but obviously one man's poison is another man's meat. Was in paris just a few weeks back and chanced upon a wall with his little tiled art. Wasn't impressed...

To be fair, I was looking at his latest print recently. But it isn't the image that draw me so much as the blue-red combi of colors when I started asking myself what was the initial appeal. So obviously, the colors caught me, not the work.

Not saying he is not talented but would any fans care to explain the attraction to his works? Or is it he is revered because he has been at this game for a long time?

You can insert any artist or type of art into that first sentence you want starting from the first forms of modern art, van gogh, picasso, matisse, pollock, mondrian, and now invader. Modern art, contemporary art is no longer an artform that has a wrong or right answer. We can view a work on how skillfully it was crafted or who labor intensive the work took. The old masters are there for those that appreciate the historical narrative of painting for pure painting and aesthetics. But if you dont want to look at the old masters and enter the realm of Modern Art and now Street art you have to engage in interpretation the work and understanding not only its aesthetic footprint you will need to dig deeper and learn more about it. You can also say hey I dont want to think about it and walk by it thats ok as well, but like I said in the end art has changed and if we want to truly understand or interpret it we need as much information as we can get. Your still not going to like it, but you might just understand it.

[natstan]

Nov 12, 2014 16:38:22 GMT 1 graffuturism said:

Nov 12, 2014 16:24:22 GMT 1 natstan said:

I have always wonder what the fuss about invader is all about, but obviously one man's poison is another man's meat. Was in paris just a few weeks back and chanced upon a wall with his little tiled art. Wasn't impressed...

To be fair, I was looking at his latest print recently. But it isn't the image that draw me so much as the blue-red combi of colors when I started asking myself what was the initial appeal. So obviously, the colors caught me, not the work.

Not saying he is not talented but would any fans care to explain the attraction to his works? Or is it he is revered because he has been at this game for a long time?

You can insert any artist or type of art into that first sentence you want starting from the first forms of modern art, van gogh, picasso, matisse, pollock, mondrian, and now invader. Modern art, contemporary art is no longer an artform that has a wrong or right answer. We can view a work on how skillfully it was crafted or who labor intensive the work took. The old masters are there for those that appreciate the historical narrative of painting for pure painting and aesthetics. But if you dont want to look at the old masters and enter the realm of Modern Art and now Street art you have to engage in interpretation the work and understanding not only its aesthetic footprint you will need to dig deeper and learn more about it. You can also say hey I dont want to think about it and walk by it thats ok as well, but like I said in the end art has changed and if we want to truly understand or interpret it we need as much information as we can get. Your still not going to like it, but you might just understand it.

Yes, well noted. But that's precisely the point of my post. i wish to learn and find out what is the draw to his works (and some of those masters mentioned). If I listen to those points and agree from the bottom of my heart, no doubt I will begin to look at what he do with an open mind from now on. If it doesn't convince me, at least I know what is happening in other fans' minds and walk away quietly.

Maybe you can first start to share what you think of his works? Talent?

[graffuturism]

Nov 12, 2014 16:31:16 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Nov 12, 2014 16:19:19 GMT 1 graffuturism said:

You missed my whole point or just simply ignored it, read it maybe one more time slow. You are arguing again about the same argument trying to describe why or why not these artists are talent due to concept or their work. There work is only one aspect of what I am describing and that is debatable as you have pointed out, what isnt debatable is what and who these artists are. I dont get the feeling you really understand what these artists mean to the whole genre and their place amongst their peers. You can read wikipedia or google whatever you like about Fekner or Blek, but nobody besides art critics, collectors, or academics know either of those name in graffiti or street art. Ask any graffiti artist or street artist and I am talking about real active artists painting with 10-25 years experience what banksy and Invader mean to the history and you would see that even if they thought they were hype, cheating, sellouts, whatever negative response you can get in the end they would all have a respect for them. Ask them the same about Fekner and Blek and I doubt the know them or would even respect their contribution.

Im part of a small percentage that understands both but I know I am the minority. If you can explain to me more in depth why Fekner's invaders over Space Invaders conceptually, or explain why Bleks stencil's aesthetically or conceptually are more important than Banksy I will listen. Yet I doubt beside your argument of who came first, there is no comparison at all.

The art world today is the same as WWF wrestling.

It's fixed and hyped up.

 Just like X factor and todays music.

I agree tha younger artists think Banksy etc have a great influence on street art but street art was great when it was anonymous.

  One would see graffiti years ago and not care if the graffer is releasing a print or who they are and just see it for what it is.

Part of underground urban existence.

Now it's all above ground and all about making money.

  The street art festivals and constant hype makes it bland.

There again, I don't believe in art history and do understand that people need to be entertained.

hence we have Banksy entertaining people with his sometimes witty stencils and Brainwash playing the clown who throws paint on a Mondrian image without realising that it just doesn't work.

Go outside this forum and look at some artwork, you might actually realize that there are plenty of artists painting interesting work and innovative work. Your sitting in a forum based on Banksy and most are concerned with market values or getting a deal on print, but I will say fortunately that outside this forum their is actual art that does inspire and progress. This Forum is the exact place you seem to Hate yet keep coming back for more. So instead of being cynical put some of that energy into finding what brought you to even appreciate art, I guarantee its still out there, but most likely not in here.

[Deleted]

Rothko was promoted by the CIA and millions of dollars and now we have put people in prison for writing on a Rothko.

Wei wei is promoted as a political tool by the west as well.

Picasso copied every artist under the sun in his early career and plenty of other artists of that erar made similar looking primitive art but Picasso had the name, it was saleable.
van Gogh wa signored by all the galleries and dealers and only after he died that his paintings became valuable.

Same happens today with dealers buying up all the art and paintings made by recently dead artists and manipulating the market to push prices up and therefore turning their name into someone who is important in the realm of art and art history.


Tate modern has a lot of Junk and it's in tate modern only because it is or has been sold at auction for very high prices.

In a fictional parallel universe,

Lets say Banksy made stencils on walls in the style of Blek and no one bought it and Banksy never met Hirst.

Lets say that Banksy continued making stencils on walls now and then and he wa signored by the media etc and twenty years later he still sells his canvased down the pub for fifty quid or décorâtes a cafe wall wit a canvas stencil and has got no farther than that.

Now even though he still makes the art on walls but no one is interested.

Does it mean he has the same effect and place in art history in a parallel universe?

Or does a place in art history depend on how many people buy into your particular brand of art and promotion?

[graffuturism]

Nov 12, 2014 16:42:48 GMT 1 natstan said:

Nov 12, 2014 16:38:22 GMT 1 graffuturism said:

You can insert any artist or type of art into that first sentence you want starting from the first forms of modern art, van gogh, picasso, matisse, pollock, mondrian, and now invader. Modern art, contemporary art is no longer an artform that has a wrong or right answer. We can view a work on how skillfully it was crafted or who labor intensive the work took. The old masters are there for those that appreciate the historical narrative of painting for pure painting and aesthetics. But if you dont want to look at the old masters and enter the realm of Modern Art and now Street art you have to engage in interpretation the work and understanding not only its aesthetic footprint you will need to dig deeper and learn more about it. You can also say hey I dont want to think about it and walk by it thats ok as well, but like I said in the end art has changed and if we want to truly understand or interpret it we need as much information as we can get. Your still not going to like it, but you might just understand it.

Yes, well noted. But that's precisely the point of my post. i wish to learn and find out what is the draw to his works (and some of those masters mentioned). If I listen to those points and agree from the bottom of my heart, no doubt I will begin to look at what he do with an open mind from now on. If it doesn't convince me, at least I know what is happening in other fans' minds and walk away quietly.

Maybe you can first start to share what you think of his works, even though you might not be that big on street art in general?

Best advice I can give is to read as many essays or articles about his work you will be suprised how much you can learn outside of a Forum where everyone is more concerned with obtaining the print than understanding it. This forum is great for what it is and for market speculation, learning about collecting and how to buy these prints there is no better place to get up to speed on the buying and value aspect of street art but you need to do outside research to really learn about the artform without a bias from people who own or are trying to flip the work. I will say invader's power lays in the act of painting in the street, consistently representing the act and repition of illegally placing these pieces in public. Aesthetically and conceptually you can read different perspectives, but I appreciate his ability to use the street and the act of illegally placing his work consistently even he doesn't have to. There are far better and brighter artists but there is the rare original and real authentic thing, Invader is that. Yet that doesn't mean he is what you like, thats the beauty of today there are plenty of others who are also genuine and represent something important that you might like.

[Deleted]

Banksy is the IPhone of street art.

[natstan]

Nov 12, 2014 16:55:42 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Banksy is the IPhone of street art.

And Invader the samsung?

[graffuturism]

Nov 12, 2014 16:50:39 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Rothko was promoted by the CIA and millions of dollars and now we have put people in prison for writing on a Rothko.

Wei wei is promoted as a political tool by the west as well.

Picasso copied every artist under the sun in his early career and plenty of other artists of that erar made similar looking primitive art but Picasso had the name, it was saleable.
van Gogh wa signored by all the galleries and dealers and only after he died that his paintings became valuable.

Same happens today with dealers buying up all the art and paintings made by recently dead artists and manipulating the market to push prices up and therefore turning their name into someone who is important in the realm of art and art history.


Tate modern has a lot of Junk and it's in tate modern only because it is or has been sold at auction for very high prices.

In a fictional parallel universe,

Lets say Banksy made stencils on walls in the style of Blek and no one bought it and Banksy never met Hirst.

Lets say that Banksy continued making stencils on walls now and then and he wa signored by the media etc and twenty years later he still sells his canvased down the pub for fifty quid or décorâtes a cafe wall wit a canvas stencil and has got no farther than that.

Now even though he still makes the art on walls but no one is interested.

Does it mean he has the same effect and place in art history in a parallel universe?

Or does a place in art history depend on how many people buy into your particular brand of art and promotion?

Your all over the place on this and each statement is a generic statement made time and again. Argue with something that is not a generalization or something that I cant find on google. Give us some insight into what you think, what is your real perspective. Maybe the Parallel universe is as close to a real perspective we can get but its still a hypothetical and we can see here all day and make up what ifs. Lets deal with reality first.

[otomi]

One thing that I like about Invader is the over all concept. He set up a game where he invades spaces and gets points for it. When it comes to street art that's what it is all about. Each Alias has a point value, if you where his sneakers you add up points. Looking at one piece on a wall is not going to send you to Nirvana but it can make you happy to find one if you like his work and he keeps pushing as what you can do within the limits he set himself. Almost all artists have style or medium they use throughout their career. Repetition is what most artists do. His gallery shows have some new medium each time. (Side note he never used any of the space invaders from the computer game ...)

About Banksy either you like his art or not. It really doesn't need a lot of explanation. He is great in creating hype around him but I don't think he is hype. He can paint, he can draw, he is creative, and took/takes a lot of risk to do his thing. He started it when there was only risk and no reward in doing street work. You had to be really passionate and committed to do what he did. The much talked about anonymity was a must when he started not a choice to create media interest.

If you read the books by those two guys it might make you appreciate what they are doing more. Many years ago I thought Fairey was a lame sell out but after reading his books and seeing some shows I respect him as a good artist (and business man).

On the other hand Blek might have been one of the early wheat paste/stencil guys but his show and his books are not on the level of other street artists. I love his stuff on the street but he doesn't transfer to the indoors well compared to lets say Herakut.