Why do people like Stik?

[vei]

Jan 2, 2016 19:06:36 GMT 1 Lroy said:

Jan 2, 2016 18:58:44 GMT 1 vei said:

I was going to buy some of Stiks work. Then I thought why should I? He never buys any of mine!

Tout are Banstik ?

I don't know what that means

[Lroy]

Jan 2, 2016 19:10:55 GMT 1 vei said:

Jan 2, 2016 19:06:36 GMT 1 Lroy said:

Tout are Banstik ?

I don't know what that means

sorry, faking phone : you are Bankstik ?
If so I buy !

[vei]

Jan 2, 2016 19:27:13 GMT 1 Lroy said:

Jan 2, 2016 19:10:55 GMT 1 vei said:

I don't know what that means

sorry, faking phone : you are Bankstik ?
If so I buy !

It was a doctored Spike Milligan quote.

[Lroy]

Jan 2, 2016 19:45:12 GMT 1 vei said:

Jan 2, 2016 19:27:13 GMT 1 Lroy said:

sorry, faking phone : you are Bankstik ?
If so I buy !

It was a doctored Spike Milligan quote.

lol I made this quote the sir was not already born.
Yeah rubbish I know , leave me as a fool, I am happy ,
only fools are happy ...

[Lroy]

Boring Saturday, boring Sunday, boring we, boring xnas, boring 2016 weeks to cone.
Just bored , as these lazy koalas in their trees in China...

[avec art]

Chinese koalas !?!

[Deleted]

Jan 2, 2016 14:32:08 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

Jan 1, 2016 22:26:17 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Twobly is still crap in my eyes and so are Gilbert and George.

Twombly is not crap; anyone uttering that thought just comes across as bitter and/or unintelligent.

Gilbert & George are annoying, but in creating some disruption perhaps opened doors for more talented artists.

Stik?  It's all about the nuance.

I should have said Twombly's art is absolute garbage.

   I know he was an intellectual and probably arse licked the right clique.

The fact that so called institutions often run by comittees and curated by people who move in certain cliques  does not prove that Twombly's art is any good.

 Gilbert and George are the same who move in a certain clique.

Just like in the past with people like Anthony Blunt etc.

Rothko promoted by CIA etc and money as some form of propaganda against Russia or the USSR as freedom of expression.


    People should not be afraid to say what they think regardless if art is in a big museum or in a skip.

People should also realise there is often an agenda behind promoting shit art.


 The big joke is on the people who go to a gallery or museum or institute and look at crap and belive that they see some sort of intellectual value behind it.


More fool them.
 

[Hairbland]

Jan 3, 2016 11:59:12 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Jan 2, 2016 14:32:08 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

Twombly is not crap; anyone uttering that thought just comes across as bitter and/or unintelligent.

Gilbert & George are annoying, but in creating some disruption perhaps opened doors for more talented artists.

Stik?  It's all about the nuance.

I should have said Twombly's art is absolute garbage.

I know he was an intellectual and probably arse licked the right clique.

The fact that so called institutions often run by comittees and curated by people who move in certain cliques  does not prove that Twombly's art is any good.


People should not be afraid to say what they think regardless if art is in a big museum or in a skip.

People should also realise there is often an agenda behind promoting s**t art.

No, you are phrasing your thoughts in a way that closes the door on conversation, much like a 15 year old (or frankly someone of any age IMHO) saying "I think Coldplay s*cks!" (which they do).

A more interesting way of posing your thoughts, which would gather more respect and allow for lively conversation would be "I never got Twombly, his art, his scribbles, never did anything for me and seems like proof that many art patrons are lemmings".  

I don't think anyone should be afraid to say what they think.  It's all how one says it - in a way that makes others think and contribute to the general conversation, or in a way that comes across as a grumpy old man.

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2016 16:29:43 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

Jan 3, 2016 11:59:12 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

I should have said Twombly's art is absolute garbage.

I know he was an intellectual and probably arse licked the right clique.

The fact that so called institutions often run by comittees and curated by people who move in certain cliques  does not prove that Twombly's art is any good.


People should not be afraid to say what they think regardless if art is in a big museum or in a skip.

People should also realise there is often an agenda behind promoting s**t art.

No, you are phrasing your thoughts in a way that closes the door on conversation, much like a 15 year old (or frankly someone of any age IMHO) saying "I think Coldplay s*cks!" (which they do).

A more interesting way of posing your thoughts, which would gather more respect and allow for lively conversation would be "I never got Twombly, his art, his scribbles, never did anything for me and seems like proof that many art patrons are lemmings".  

I don't think anyone should be afraid to say what they think.  It's all how one says it - in a way that makes others think and contribute to the general conversation, or in a way that comes across as a grumpy old man.

  My point is valid and I do not need to re write it to suit you.

So tell us what is so great about Cy Twombly's or Rothkos art on an artistic and intellectual level.

Give us an example.

  

[DrWhite]

I like Stik because my wife says I should

[Hairbland]

Jan 3, 2016 16:39:16 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Jan 3, 2016 16:29:43 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

No, you are phrasing your thoughts in a way that closes the door on conversation, much like a 15 year old (or frankly someone of any age IMHO) saying "I think Coldplay s*cks!" (which they do).

A more interesting way of posing your thoughts, which would gather more respect and allow for lively conversation would be "I never got Twombly, his art, his scribbles, never did anything for me and seems like proof that many art patrons are lemmings".  

I don't think anyone should be afraid to say what they think.  It's all how one says it - in a way that makes others think and contribute to the general conversation, or in a way that comes across as a grumpy old man.

  My point is valid and I do not need to re write it to suit you.

So tell us what is so great about Cy Twombly's or Rothkos art on an artistic and intellectual level.

Give us an example.

  

Based on how you state your opinion, and the art you create, I doubt you have studied much when it comes to "art'.  I'm not sure that I said Twombly or Rothko are great, but if you had an art background you wouldn't need to ask these questions as the answers are readily available for you to read / research and then form an educated opinion and present it as such.

Having stood in front of many a Twombly, some move me, some don't.  He created a body of work, some of it stunning.

In a 1994 retrospective, curator Kirk Varnedoe described Twombly's work as “influential among artists, discomfiting to many critics and truculently difficult not just for a broad public, but for sophisticated initiates of postwar art as well.”   Twombly is said to have influenced younger artists such as Jean-Michel Basquiat, Anselm Kiefer, Francesco Clemente, and Julian Schnabel.

As to Rothko, I stand in front of a painting of his and it transports me.  Makes me "feel".  Perhaps it's an emotional thing...being divorced I had a line about staring at the Rothkos at MOMA in my dating profile and it resonated with women. 

[docean]

since I did throw Cy Twombly's name into the mix and it's being discussed I figure I'll toss in my 2 cents:

Yes, a lot of his work is 'scribbles' but there is some talent in the way he executed the painting.

in his untitled piece from 1970, it looks like it was done on a chalkboard.  In fact, everyone I've ever shown that piece to thinks it's a chalkboard.  but it's not...he painted it to look like that and in a rather unique way...he sat on the shoulders of his friend so that he could create continuous lines without pauses in them.

If you challenge anyone to recreate a Stik piece, someone with very basic art skills could do it almost flawlessly.  If you try to recreate a Twombly, you'll come up atrociously short.


would I pay $69.6m (£44.3m at the time) for it?  Even if I had billions; no.  But I can understand why people rave over his work.  Even after all of this I haven't heard an incredible reason why you would buy a Stik.  Even if I liked the style/image I'd take 2 hours out of my day and paint one.

[docean]

Jan 3, 2016 11:59:12 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Jan 2, 2016 14:32:08 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

I should have said Twombly's art is absolute garbage.

**hops on photoshop to create a 4 layer stencil**

[FЯ]

Jan 3, 2016 22:43:17 GMT 1 docean said:

since I did throw Cy Twombly's name into the mix and it's being discussed I figure I'll toss in my 2 cents:

Yes, a lot of his work is 'scribbles' but there is some talent in the way he executed the painting.

in his untitled piece from 1970, it looks like it was done on a chalkboard.  In fact, everyone I've ever shown that piece to thinks it's a chalkboard.  but it's not...he painted it to look like that and in a rather unique way...he sat on the shoulders of his friend so that he could create continuous lines without pauses in them.

If you challenge anyone to recreate a Stik piece, someone with very basic art skills could do it almost flawlessly.  If you try to recreate a Twombly, you'll come up atrociously short.


would I pay $69.6m (£44.3m at the time) for it?  Even if I had billions; no.  But I can understand why people rave over his work.  Even after all of this I haven't heard an incredible reason why you would buy a Stik.  Even if I liked the style/image I'd take 2 hours out of my day and paint one.

I can spraypaint a banksy rat with a stencil for £1.99 off ebay.
easier than drawing a stik, infact ill do you 4 in the time it takes you to do one.
does it matter how easy or hard it is. No.

So many people with their knickers in a twist about stik, if you dont like it why are you wasting so much gas on it. There are other reasons here... Maybe fomo? Who knows.

[docean]

I enjoy Banksy's because of his significance to the scene, not the difficulty of the piece.  He did a lot for the popularization of urban art and if I were to own a print of his it would be to own a piece of the history.

To me, Stik hasn't done a lot for the street art scene other than make a mockery of it.

I buy because I either admire the work that went into the piece, or I appreciate the significance of it and the artist.  Stik appeals to neither of those categories for me.

[FЯ]

Jan 3, 2016 23:14:22 GMT 1 docean said:

I enjoy Banksy's because of his significance to the scene, not the difficulty of the piece.  He did a lot for the popularization of urban art and if I were to own a print of his it would be to own a piece of the history.

To me, Stik hasn't done a lot for the street art scene other than make a mockery of it.

I buy because I either admire the work that went into the piece, or I appreciate the significance of it and the artist.  Stik appeals to neither of those categories for me.

I think this statement puts you firmly in the category of 'up banksys butthole' as quoted on here before.
you are too far gone im afraid!

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2016 22:49:25 GMT 1 docean said:

Jan 3, 2016 11:59:12 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

I should have said Twombly's art is absolute garbage.

**hops on photoshop to create a 4 layer stencil**

 

 I never make stencils using photoshop.

I freehand draw the image in pencil on heavy paper or thin card then directly cut into the hand drawn image to make all of my stencils.

That way destroying the original drawing and turning it into the stencil.

I cut one stencil from the drawing and to make layers I spray an image uing that stencil and cut another stencil to make a layer.

   

[docean]

oh yes forgive me, I'm too far gone because I can recognize the undeniable impact he's had.

I don't even own a piece of his, I said "if I were to."  I think your comment puts you firmly in "reading comprehension issues" category.

I like some Banky's, dislike others.  I was simply (apparently not simple enough) saying that I could justify buying a piece of his if I wanted to because it appeals to one of the reasons I buy art.

Not sure how that qualifies me as "up his butthole"

[Dr Plip]

This all reminds me of the time I wrote to that actor out of Titanic.

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2016 22:43:17 GMT 1 docean said:

since I did throw Cy Twombly's name into the mix and it's being discussed I figure I'll toss in my 2 cents:

Yes, a lot of his work is 'scribbles' but there is some talent in the way he executed the painting.

in his untitled piece from 1970, it looks like it was done on a chalkboard.  In fact, everyone I've ever shown that piece to thinks it's a chalkboard.  but it's not...he painted it to look like that and in a rather unique way...he sat on the shoulders of his friend so that he could create continuous lines without pauses in them.

If you challenge anyone to recreate a Stik piece, someone with very basic art skills could do it almost flawlessly.  If you try to recreate a Twombly, you'll come up atrociously short.


would I pay $69.6m (£44.3m at the time) for it?  Even if I had billions; no.  But I can understand why people rave over his work.  Even after all of this I haven't heard an incredible reason why you would buy a Stik.  Even if I liked the style/image I'd take 2 hours out of my day and paint one.

I know it was painted and he threw a bit of chalk dust on top.

 An average artist and pinstriper could do it easily and so could most people even students

[Coach]

Chaps, interesting debate. But the personal insults let it down a tad. It's a shame if we have to resort to that.

[Coach]

For my own part, I can see why people like Stik.
I like his work too. I respect him for the many hundreds of hours graft he has put in on the streets.
I respect him for having produced a lovely book, with a poster/print, that shot to number 1.
Mostly I respect the fact that he can with a simple line, clearly display an emotion, often a loving one.
That said, I think his secondary prices are crazy!

[docean]

Jan 3, 2016 23:40:41 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

Jan 3, 2016 22:43:17 GMT 1 docean said:

since I did throw Cy Twombly's name into the mix and it's being discussed I figure I'll toss in my 2 cents:

Yes, a lot of his work is 'scribbles' but there is some talent in the way he executed the painting.

in his untitled piece from 1970, it looks like it was done on a chalkboard.  In fact, everyone I've ever shown that piece to thinks it's a chalkboard.  but it's not...he painted it to look like that and in a rather unique way...he sat on the shoulders of his friend so that he could create continuous lines without pauses in them.

If you challenge anyone to recreate a Stik piece, someone with very basic art skills could do it almost flawlessly.  If you try to recreate a Twombly, you'll come up atrociously short.


would I pay $69.6m (£44.3m at the time) for it?  Even if I had billions; no.  But I can understand why people rave over his work.  Even after all of this I haven't heard an incredible reason why you would buy a Stik.  Even if I liked the style/image I'd take 2 hours out of my day and paint one.

I know it was painted and he threw a bit of chalk dust on top.

 An average artist and pinstriper could do it easily and so could most people even students

Let's see it man...I don't see anybody else selling anything remotely similar for remotely the same prices.
Anybody could do it sure, just like anybody could become an astronaut...but they don't because it's hard work.

Great things aren't typically the result of something that only that person can do, it's the fact that they did do it.  Knocking that is clear sign of jealousy.

[Dr Plip]

People say that it's easy to draw a stick person. That their child or niece/nephew could draw something similar. I challenged my nephew to replicate what Stik has done. To paint on walls around London for years. To then travel and slowly build a reputation, a fanbase, helping various charitable causes while continuing to paint on walls and buildings around the world. To paint (simple) stick figures on huge scales, while battling vertigo, wind, rain and seagulls.

If you like yourself a Stik print or canvas, it's not just that "simple" stick figure you're liking. You're also liking the artist and everything that they've done. You're buying into the artist and his work. All of his work. Not just a simple stick figure.

I'm not allowed to visit my nephew anymore. I put too much pressure on him or something.

Anyway, that's just my opinion, but I think we can lock the thread now

[Coach]

Jan 3, 2016 23:23:52 GMT 1 FЯ said:

Jan 3, 2016 23:14:22 GMT 1 docean said:

I enjoy Banksy's because of his significance to the scene, not the difficulty of the piece.  He did a lot for the popularization of urban art and if I were to own a print of his it would be to own a piece of the history.

To me, Stik hasn't done a lot for the street art scene other than make a mockery of it.

I buy because I either admire the work that went into the piece, or I appreciate the significance of it and the artist.  Stik appeals to neither of those categories for me.

I think this statement puts you firmly in the category of 'up banksys butthole' as quoted on here before.
you are too far gone im afraid!

It seems to me that you are trying to cause disharmony on this site. I cannot fathom why.

[Dr Plip]

Lock it now.

[FЯ]

Jan 3, 2016 23:54:29 GMT 1 Coach said:

Jan 3, 2016 23:23:52 GMT 1 FЯ said:

I think this statement puts you firmly in the category of 'up banksys butthole' as quoted on here before.
you are too far gone im afraid!

It seems to me that you are trying to cause disharmony on this site. I cannot fathom why.

Look around yourself coach! Notice a pattern?

[Lroy]

That's true, not so easy to make a Stik ! You can recognize a fake on eBay at the second !
And well, the guy paints alone big wall and I am impressed how many tons of paint he is using !
More than the Titanic !

[Coach]

Jan 3, 2016 23:57:07 GMT 1 FЯ said:

Jan 3, 2016 23:54:29 GMT 1 Coach said:

It seems to me that you are trying to cause disharmony on this site. I cannot fathom why.

Look around yourself coach! Notice a pattern?

What pattern is that?

[Deleted]

Jan 3, 2016 16:50:24 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

Jan 3, 2016 16:39:16 GMT 1 @elviswarhol said:

  My point is valid and I do not need to re write it to suit you.

So tell us what is so great about Cy Twombly's or Rothkos art on an artistic and intellectual level.

Give us an example.

  

Based on how you state your opinion, and the art you create, I doubt you have studied much when it comes to "art'.  I'm not sure that I said Twombly or Rothko are great, but if you had an art background you wouldn't need to ask these questions as the answers are readily available for you to read / research and then form an educated opinion and present it as such.

Having stood in front of many a Twombly, some move me, some don't.  He created a body of work, some of it stunning.

In a 1994 retrospective, curator Kirk Varnedoe described Twombly's work as “influential among artists, discomfiting to many critics and truculently difficult not just for a broad public, but for sophisticated initiates of postwar art as well.”   Twombly is said to have influenced younger artists such as Jean-Michel Basquiat, Anselm Kiefer, Francesco Clemente, and Julian Schnabel.

As to Rothko, I stand in front of a painting of his and it transports me.  Makes me "feel".  Perhaps it's an emotional thing...being divorced I had a line about staring at the Rothkos at MOMA in my dating profile and it resonated with women. 

 How I state my opinion is how I am. I never went to a posh school or married a wasp.

The art online is just a small amount of art I make.

  How do you know my art has not found it's way into an important collection or two?



Clementes art is more Picabia than Twombly.

Kiefer , Dix like , shades of Van Goghs fields but probably influenced by German expressionists combined with black and white second world war images.

 Of course artists like to give platitudes to other artists as they climb the curators favourites ladder.


Basquiat the least pretentious and most honest of the names you mention. Who was influenced by Warhol.

Schnabel influenced by Basquiat as to some of his paintings.

 I have had conversations with one or two art scholars who have made basic mistakes about an artist they have expertise in and who came across as dishonest too.

 Who also pandered to the very wealthy art gallery dealers.


  As for curators, are they like window dressers at Macey's?


 Do curators make expensive mistakes based on that decades art bubble and do all they can to refuse responsibility?

are curators duped by art dealers?


  "December 1991

The Varnedoe debacle: MOMA's New “Low”

by Hilton Kramer

With every passing day it becomes more and more apparent that the appointment two years ago of Kirk Varnedoe to the directorship of the Department of Painting and Sculpture at the Museum of Modern Art has placed this great institution in serious jeopardy. The evidence accumulates—and at an alarming speed—that Mr. Varnedoe has launched MOMA’s most important department upon a course so disastrous that, if not promptly reversed, the very reason for the museum's existence might soon be in doubt."


www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-Varnedoe-debacle--MOMA-s-New--Low--5356


 "Bangi the Chimp."

"In December 2005, the German magazine Bild reported that Dr. Kajta Schneider, director of the State Art Museum of Moritzburg, when asked to identify the artist responsible for a painting, responded that it looked like the work of Guggenheim-Prize winner Ernst Wilhelm Nay, who is famous for using blotches of color. In reality, the canvas was the work of Bangi, a 31-year-old female chimpanzee from the Halle zoo. When her error was revealed to her, Dr. Schneider said, "I did think it looked a bit rushed." Banghi reportedly enjoyed painting, although her mate Satscho had a habit of destroying most of her works. "

hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/bangi_monkey_artist


hoaxes.org/archive/display/category/satirical_art/P20