8 comments

• 

  Chris

  1 year ago

  Subversion is good, vandalism isn't art.
  
  I'm finding it hard to care.
  Celebrity is an easy target and unconsidered criticism is even easier. I'd like to see him come up with something constructive.
  Yes, advertising can be offensive and I agree that it shouldn't be a one way conversation, but this is not a coherent reply.
  Yes, the works of Banksy et al are in effect vandalism but at least at their heart is artistic self-expression. The Decapitator's work doesn't advance public art or criticism in any way.
  Yes, this kind of work is a valid artistic statement, but in this instance it is so poorly executed it is about as big and as clever as writing on the wall in a lavatory. An artistic statement demands intellectual content, and with the quality - and sophistication - of digital output now available, the potential for home made subversion is limitless. Why confine yourself to this childish scrawl?
  reply
• 

  Ninja

  1 year ago

  Hi Chris,
  
  Hey, haven’t seen you in a while. It’s always a pleasure to hear your thoughts!!
  
  Advertising is an easy target. My guess is that the Decapitator is reacting to what he views as false messages or to the oversaturation of advertising in our cities. I agree that there isn’t a heck of a lot of substance, but the idea is amusing. I’m curious to see what he comes up with next, as this current trend does have the potential to get played out quickly.
  
  What do you think of Ron English's work where he modifies mainstream advertisements with his own art?
  
  -Ninja
  
  PS. Banksy’s work is a lot more meaningful while also being quite humorous. Plus, his prank on Paris had a bigger impact and was much better executed. ~__^
  reply
• 

  NinjaVsPenguin

  1 year ago

  Isn't the very nature of vandalism subversive? At least the non-gang related stuff.
  
  What the decapitator is doing here is taking it to another level. It's a merging of the physical and the digital. My finger isn't on the pulse of the underground world, so it's hard for me to say whether he was the first to do this, but is that really that important?
  
  I agree, his message is kind of weak. The first set kind of made sense. This seems like doing it for the sake of it. Or doing it for the difficulty of it. Grabbing a set of papers, shopping it, and replacing the image in a narrow time frame, isn't something to be sneezed at.
  
  I think he's caught up in the novelty of his "prank".
  
  -Penguin
  reply
• 

  Chris

  1 year ago

  Re - Ron English -
  
  Articulate, intelligent, considered, honest, rigorous, funny, poignant, grotesque?
  
  (Let's get drunk and kill God).
  [ How about Ray Johnson? ]
  reply
• 

  Chris

  1 year ago

  Re - Penguin's comment.
  I agree; it's dull. I think he's just telling us how clever he is. Simply having the balls to photoshop so publicly doesn't make it art.
  (His form of vandalism is dissent - he's saying "I don't want it!". Will he say what he does want? I don't see that he's changing the way people view advertising material or adding any new meaning to the ads he alters. Like when Banksy painted 'boring' on the wall of the South Bank Centre - apparently because he didn't like the architecture - ...Who cares?)
  reply
• 

  NinjaVsPenguin

  1 year ago

  I think a lot of it has to do with how you define art. Early in the life of the site, I tried coming up with a formal definition, but it was just so difficult.
  
  
  In order to do it any justice, I would have to write like a 100 page thesis paper!
  
  
  Today, so much crap is considered art because it's a little different. It's kind of sad.
  reply
• 

  Chris

  1 year ago

  Wow, you tried that? As far as I know no-one ever succeeded.
  reply
• 

  NinjaVsPenguin

  1 year ago

  Yeah. When I was in undergrad, I had wrote a paper on art. So, it's not like I haven't thought about it for a long time. It was just a little too involved for a blog post. Haa haa.
  reply