Guest Iain C Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Plus, if people want to see it - good on them. If it was in London, I'd go and see it. As for buying it, only rich shitheads buy art and they'll buy anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Pretty much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SR4 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 umm... guys hey guys. i need you to whoa, ok calm d- ok. guys. Maybe having an exhibition is more fun than keeping the paintings in your room? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I guess I don't really buy the idea that art has to be deathly-serious or made with po-faced, pious intentions in order to be worth exhibiting. THAT'S pretentiousness in my opinion. These guys have made some funny, wacky paintings, now they want to show them to the world. I really don't see the problem. me neither. what the fuck are you ranting about? you think i give a shit about this? i just said i thought it was shite ffs. there's only 2 reasons to exhibit works of art in my book - the art has to be at least interesting or in some way commercial. if culkin wasn't involved this wouldn't tick either box and there'd be zero interest... if it was just these 2 artfags on their own you wouldn't give a shit and you wouldn't be needlessly ranting at me for whatever reason. look at the painting they did on their own, the kurt cobain one... fucking shite. you think people would rush to see an exhibition of that kind of stuff by 2 unknown art students? would they fuck. Plus, if people want to see it - good on them. If it was in London, I'd go and see it. As for buying it, only rich shitheads buy art and they'll buy anything. of course good on them. good for you iain. well done. as for your last comment, who's curmudgeonly now? ugh puff only idiots with more money than sense buy art uf puff i'm sooooooo fucking self righteous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I guess I don't really buy the idea that art has to be deathly-serious or made with po-faced, pious intentions in order to be worth exhibiting. THAT'S pretentiousness in my opinion. These guys have made some funny, wacky paintings, now they want to show them to the world. I really don't see the problem. me neither. what the fuck are you ranting about? you think i give a shit about this? i just said i thought it was shite ffs. there's only 2 reasons to exhibit works of art in my book - the art has to be at least interesting or in some way commercial. if culkin wasn't involved this wouldn't tick either box and there'd be zero interest... if it was just these 2 artfags on their own you wouldn't give a shit and you wouldn't be needlessly ranting at me for whatever reason. look at the painting they did on their own, the kurt cobain one... fucking shite. you think people would rush to see an exhibition of that kind of stuff by 2 unknown art students? would they fuck. Plus, if people want to see it - good on them. If it was in London, I'd go and see it. As for buying it, only rich shitheads buy art and they'll buy anything. of course good on them. good for you iain. well done. as for your last comment, who's curmudgeonly now? ugh puff only idiots with more money than sense buy art uf puff i'm sooooooo fucking self righteous! Can you knock it off with the 'fag' shit? That's pretty offensive. How about "artniggers"? That aside, I'm not ranting about anything, I just think it's dumb that YOU don't think this is worth an exhibition. And plenty of people "flock" to see work by student artists all the time. Because they actually like that kind of thing. But they're fags too right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I guess I don't really buy the idea that art has to be deathly-serious or made with po-faced, pious intentions in order to be worth exhibiting. THAT'S pretentiousness in my opinion. These guys have made some funny, wacky paintings, now they want to show them to the world. I really don't see the problem. me neither. what the fuck are you ranting about? you think i give a shit about this? i just said i thought it was shite ffs. there's only 2 reasons to exhibit works of art in my book - the art has to be at least interesting or in some way commercial. if culkin wasn't involved this wouldn't tick either box and there'd be zero interest... if it was just these 2 artfags on their own you wouldn't give a shit and you wouldn't be needlessly ranting at me for whatever reason. look at the painting they did on their own, the kurt cobain one... fucking shite. you think people would rush to see an exhibition of that kind of stuff by 2 unknown art students? would they fuck. Plus, if people want to see it - good on them. If it was in London, I'd go and see it. As for buying it, only rich shitheads buy art and they'll buy anything. of course good on them. good for you iain. well done. as for your last comment, who's curmudgeonly now? ugh puff only idiots with more money than sense buy art uf puff i'm sooooooo fucking self righteous! Can you knock it off with the 'fag' shit? That's pretty offensive. How about "artniggers"? That aside, I'm not ranting about anything, I just think it's dumb that YOU don't think this is worth an exhibition. And plenty of people "flock" to see work by student artists all the time. Because they actually like that kind of thing. But they're fags too right? i didn't say anywhere that i don't think it's worthy of exhibition. it IS worthy of an exhibition. in the same way that it's news-worthy, solely because macauley culkin's involved. cynical and curmudgeonly, i'm guilty as charged but stop putting words in my mouth and read more carefully before going on the attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieBees Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 have you seen the sort of people who go to art college? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 yes, i went to art college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soma333 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 How many drugs did we take this morning? Shit is cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I went to art academy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest abusivegeorge Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 dafuq did I just see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I guess I don't really buy the idea that art has to be deathly-serious or made with po-faced, pious intentions in order to be worth exhibiting. THAT'S pretentiousness in my opinion. What is the pretense in taking art seriously? I hope you don't mind me striking through the inflated bits so I'm arguing against something other than an obvious strawman here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Taking art seriously isn't pretentious - the idea that this work is too flippant to be worth exhibiting is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Iain C Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 i didn't say anywhere that i don't think it's worthy of exhibition. it IS worthy of an exhibition. in the same way that it's news-worthy, solely because macauley culkin's involved. But that's not what you said, though. You said: why have an exhibition if it's just for fun? And what I'm saying is, I can't think of a better reason to exhibit something. I get that you don't like these paintings, and that it's only getting the exposure it is because Mac's involved - but it'd be worth exhibiting even if he wasn't. Whether anyone would go or not is kind of beside the point. Anyway it's five so I'm going to the pub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keltoi Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Taking art seriously isn't pretentious - the idea that this work is too flippant to be worth exhibiting is. an idea borne from your very own obtuse mind. enjoy arguing black is white with your friends at the bar iain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweepstakes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Taking art seriously isn't pretentious - the idea that this work is too flippant to be worth exhibiting is. I don't mind stuff being flippant in an interesting way. But this is just garbage, imo. Not that I have any authority as a tastemaker. Obviously he's leveraging the advantage of his (past) fame here. Elitism aside, that's cool, shake your money maker Macaulay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLA FUR BIS FLE Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I dun no bought arts stuff but Kurt Cobain as a hacker (with references to the movie Hacker) made me lol big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.