Clock Crew

most of it is shit
especially conceptual art fuck i hate that

black ppl

hooray vague generalisations

Quote from: EnglishClock;1757066hooray vague generalisations

and those brits whats with those guys

Stuckists / YBA are fucking shit.

But you're so low-class, Mauserclock.

Quote from: ToyotaClock;1757242Stuckists / YBA are fucking shit.

But you're so low-class, Mauserclock.

I would prefer Stuckists over the YBA at any point.

Also, how dare you
I challenge you to a duel, motherfucker

Quote from: mauserclock;1757264I would prefer Stuckists over the YBA at any point.

Also, how dare you
I challenge you to a duel, motherfucker

The Stuckists, like the YBA, are pretentious as fucking shit. Not only do they perpetuate the exclusive, hierarchical nature of art in contemporary society, they indulge every possible opportunity to make art nothing more than a highly stratified capitalist market. They are literally scum.

Their manifesto is full of generic garbage that we've seen before. Corporations of all trades throw shit like this at us daily to advertise their products. (http://www.stuckism.com/stuckistmanifesto.html)

The surrealists pretty much summed it all up with this statement: Stuckism is " ... a childish kicking against modernity that fails, pathetically, to challenge the underlying realities of capitalism, of the capitalist art market, of material, psychological, psychic and spiritual repression."

If any group could fit the stereotype for the pretentious, rich art snobs who say shit like "you just don't understand art," it would be the Stuckists and the YBA.

"Artists who don’t paint aren’t artists." -Stuckist Manifesto

In conclusion, the Stuckists are iconic reactionaries in the art world, seeking to revive a trite and familiar trend in art. They are "STUCK! STUCK! STUCK!" in the wholly exhausted artistic realm of modernism, which would place them (ironically) in the realm of postmodernity.

(https://clockcrew.net/talk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.myfrogbag.com%2Fxeltqs%2Fcontemporaryart.png&hash=eea31b2de896ed7469d752ea0c15f28cc80b13f5)

duel accepted bitch

the essence of a movement emphasizing the importance of figurative art over conceptual art is actually a concept itself

a weak concept

(https://clockcrew.net/talk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fb3%2FStuckist_International_Gallery_2003_%28shark_1%29.jpg&hash=96a817bfdabf25074fa57f552997b6ab253292d7)

I'm not denying that Stuckists are pretentious as shit, I'm just saying that I prefer the philosophy of "Artists who don’t paint aren’t artists." to saying this is art
 (https://clockcrew.net/talk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F3%2F38%2FHirst-Shark.jpg&hash=9d45e6028f165e97979d9ac20ed191252b015f4d)

Also, how the fuck is a dead shark art

løl

wtf is this oily pigment on linen cloth supposed to be

damien hirst is a (very) successful troll

anyway I'm off to burn £1,000,000

art is an internet

Quote from: mauserclock;1757448I'm not denying that Stuckists are pretentious as shit, I'm just saying that I prefer the philosophy of "Artists who don’t paint aren’t artists." to saying this is art
 

Also, how the fuck is a dead shark art

I said both were pretentious. I'm not supporting the YBA over the Stuckists, I'm saying they're both ostentatious, self-righteous assholes.

But to say that anything other than paint isn't art is asinine. The reason they are both so goddamn pretentious is because they both think that they alone know what the most experimental, avant-garde artistic experience is and they push it as if they were competing to sell a product.

Truly, the whole game is pointless. Their art is a reflection of the comfortable upper-class lifestyle they live, mocking and challenging a paradigm on a strictly superficial level from within. For them to imply authority on what is or isn't art is an insult to artists everywhere. When you treat art like a commodity that can be judged on quality you are a usurper, contributing to the systemic domination of humans by humans. Art (as defined by Google) is "the products of human creativity," and creativity is simply "the ability to create." If you utilize art to figuratively destroy the work or spirit of others, then it is you who should not be an artist.

tl;dr: "fuck you"

http://hirstdamien.blogspot.com/

buy an art

If art is going to be put in a gallery, and written about, and praised, and bought, it should naturally have worth. If you're going to make something that, while creative, has absolutely no skill put into it, then why would you put it in a gallery and try to sell it to people

this art is better than that art

my art is better than your art

Quote from: mauserclock;1757469If art is going to be put in a gallery, and written about, and praised, and bought, it should naturally have worth. If you're going to make something that, while creative, has absolutely no skill put into it, then why would you put it in a gallery and try to sell it to people

other people will find worth in it, some don't take effort into account when considering "value"

i.e. I could scribble all over a piece of paper and even though I don't think it's considerably good art, someone can easily go "oh my, that's beautiful!!!!! i'll take twentyyyy!!" and suddenly it has value to them

Quote from: mauserclock;1757469If art is going to be put in a gallery, and written about, and praised, and bought, it should naturally have worth. If you're going to make something that, while creative, has absolutely no skill put into it, then why would you put it in a gallery and try to sell it to people

Potentially, to mock the fact that people will buy it, or that people would treat art like a marketable commodity at all.

Beside that, if art is to be subjected to the same capitalist market as other commodities, then it should be blatantly obvious to you that effort =/= price.

I'm sure that mocking art as a marketable commodity was original  and  clever 50 years ago

I didn't necessarily mean effort so much as I meant both form and   content. If you don't have creativity in both the idea, and how the   idea is presented, then it's misguided to praise something as a   fantastic, creative artwork that is, by all means, a shit artwork. There's no problem with a well designed, well supported, creative conceptual   artwork; but to make something that's a shit artwork and to claim anything else  is disgusting. Sure, people can think it's the best thing since sliced  bread, and sure, they might want to buy a million of it, but don't stick  it in an art gallery and call it art if it isn't art. Public opinion doesn't decide if something is great art or not.

I bet you 10 bucks that in 50 years people will be looking back and either saying that Damien Hirst was a jackass, or they won't remember him at all

who died and made you art king!

Quote from: mauserclock;1757715I'm sure that mocking art as a marketable commodity was original  and  clever 50 years ago

I didn't necessarily mean effort so much as I meant both form and   content. If you don't have creativity in both the idea, and how the   idea is presented, then it's misguided to praise something as a   fantastic, creative artwork that is, by all means, a shit artwork. There's no problem with a well designed, well supported, creative conceptual   artwork; but to make something that's a shit artwork and to claim anything else  is disgusting. Sure, people can think it's the best thing since sliced  bread, and sure, they might want to buy a million of it, but don't stick  it in an art gallery and call it art if it isn't art. Public opinion doesn't decide if something is great art or not.

I bet you 10 bucks that in 50 years people will be looking back and either saying that Damien Hirst was a jackass, or they won't remember him at all

everything you just said presupposes a definitive qualitative scale for art

that does not exist.