Bike porn

ah i see i didnt know about the whole anti-comsumerist thing!

i would probably change my mind about something if i was going to be making £££££££

I'm down for companies like Zoo York. Yep, they're making money, but why is that such a crime? They've alway supported the skate industry and are a legit company.

Imagine that you have a job that you love and you're earning ten grand. Your boss decides that he really likes what you're doing and offers you a pay rise to thirty grand - do you turn it down because you want to 'keep it real'?

At least Zoo York aren't fucking Quiksilver

i don't think this is about becoming successful. it's more about what a person's message is. there's something inherently wrong about someone showing up to a marxist ralley in their bentley.

Ha!Remindes me of a mate of mines dad commented on his brother, something like, " he is part of the socilist wokers party, but he has never actually worked in his life".

Hovis that was one time

anyway, back to the bike porn

she was mine til someone stole her, the bars and the record caliper from outside a pub in hackers last xmas

People only say banksy sold out because he got more popular, and found a bigger audience and a bigger market for his work. This meant he got rich, and I think his original 'fans' or appreciators or whatever felt exploited. As if he'd used them and now he was famous he'd forgotten them, or 'forgotten his roots'. I think this isn't really true, he seems more remote & less underground only because more people know his name. As people have said, you're not going to turn down more money in a situation like that, because there's no reason not to. Money sort of causes the problem - when large sums of it get involved with stuff like banksy or zoo york, the original fans get upset and feel suddenly cold and just one of many, and its not the fault of the company or artist.

no what pissed me off with banksy was his exhibition in LA where some well known singers and actors including Christina Aguilera (who happens to be on sony BMG record label) bought his work......if Sony isnt a corparation then i dont know what is.in my opinion that goes against banksy anti-establishment views.and he worked for puma!

the sad thing about art these days is that its all caught up in hedge funds, i dont know the details cause it's all complicated, hovis tried explaining it once at college but basically alot of art these days are owned by banks because they're seen as an investment and banks hold alot of money really so they buy it all up...is that close enough hovis? im sure its much much much more complicated so feel free to step in, explain it much more simplily and make me look like a bell end :)

I expect what they do is find up and comming artist and do thing like sell short on them (sell stuff they don't yet own) or people sell them options on peoples art just like they do with any other comodity and stuff like that.

indeed its a fucked up system that i decided i wanted nothing more to do with

Turd Fergurson the sad thing about art these days is that its all caught up in hedge funds, i dont know the details cause it's all complicated, hovis tried explaining it once at college but basically alot of art these days are owned by banks because they're seen as an investment and banks hold alot of money really so they buy it all up...is that close enough hovis? im sure its much much much more complicated so feel free to step in, explain it much more simplily and make me look like a bell end :)

it's a bit more complicated than that, but buying certain types of art are good investments. certain kind art doesn't devalue like precious metals or currency, so investment firms can sell it on to raise capital quite quickly. art as commodity isn't interesting to me. art as catalyst for discourse is. once it becomes commodity, it ceases to be art for me -- it becomes more like a vase or a lump of gold.

Hovis Brown [quote]Turd Fergurson the sad thing about art these days is that its all caught up in hedge funds, i dont know the details cause it's all complicated, hovis tried explaining it once at college but basically alot of art these days are owned by banks because they're seen as an investment and banks hold alot of money really so they buy it all up...is that close enough hovis? im sure its much much much more complicated so feel free to step in, explain it much more simplily and make me look like a bell end :)

it's a bit more complicated than that, but buying certain types of art are good investments. certain kind art doesn't devalue like precious metals or currency, so investment firms can sell it on to raise capital quite quickly. art as commodity isn't interesting to me. art as catalyst for discourse is. once it becomes commodity, it ceases to be art for me -- it becomes more like a vase or a lump of gold.[/quote]

i hear ya, im totally hanging with the discursive massive, are you a fan of node.london mr hovis

The problem with Banksy, and all underground anti-establishment stuff when if gets big is not a problem of them making money for art or whatever. Clearly there isn't a problem with making money from art, or pretty much anything you do as long as it's not exploitative, hurtful to anyone or illegal.

Their problem is that it exposes the naivety and general weakness of an anarchist/anti-establishment/anti-capitalist/anti-market ethos. It's all very well to be anti one or all of these things, but you generally have to accept that you are against, and therefore exempting yourself from, the normal mode of modern society. In the west, and indeed most of the world, we live in market based economies, with democratic governments and the rule of law. If you are anti-government or anti-establishment you are generally saying you are against these systems. While there may be grave problems with our democratic systems, or policing, the generally "anti" anarchist stance is kind of weak.

Banksy et al. get a lot of popularity and success from tapping into the general feelings of antipathy towards large corporations, the rich and those in power. Most people feel a little resentful towards those with more power than them, and find it easy to wholesale blame a system that allows them to be. Whether or not they would do any better, or whether we can actually live without some people being more powerful is rarely thought through. With true anarchism we would probably just end up with other forms of government in the end, and communism had a good go in the 20th century at making everyone as poor (er, economically equal) as everyone else. The communist experiment can largely be said to have failed in the gulag, or the starving peasantry of China.

So Banksy is not wrong to be earning money, whether it be a commission from Puma, the selling of his works or the large amounts he charges charities. He is also not in the wrong for being popular, nothing wrong with that. But he does fit the charge of hypocrite. Having accepted market economics by selling his work for the going price he has put into doubt a lot of the things fans held him as standing for. People will generally not like you one way or another if they think that you're no longer one of "them". Now a lot of his former fans are simply left wondering what he actually stands for. Just as I wonder what half of them and their anti establishment movement actually stand for.

I just thought he was funny.

was it cos he drew silly pictures?

Well yeah. Truth is I thought he was more just taking the piss from what I saw... kissing policemen etc, so it's not his fault. Just that a lot of people projected this "political" stance atop it all.

Anyway back to bike porn, I stumbled across this site:

SMEEAR [quote]Hovis Brown [quote]Turd Fergurson the sad thing about art these days is that its all caught up in hedge funds, i dont know the details cause it's all complicated, hovis tried explaining it once at college but basically alot of art these days are owned by banks because they're seen as an investment and banks hold alot of money really so they buy it all up...is that close enough hovis? im sure its much much much more complicated so feel free to step in, explain it much more simplily and make me look like a bell end :)

it's a bit more complicated than that, but buying certain types of art are good investments. certain kind art doesn't devalue like precious metals or currency, so investment firms can sell it on to raise capital quite quickly. art as commodity isn't interesting to me. art as catalyst for discourse is. once it becomes commodity, it ceases to be art for me -- it becomes more like a vase or a lump of gold.[/quote]

i hear ya, im totally hanging with the discursive massive, are you a fan of node.london mr hovis[/quote]

i do like node.london. i like what their ethos is, but since their practice lies primarily in new media (which lies outside my own practice), i can't relate too much. have a look at Bitstreams at the Whitney

I like that swing tag for the handlebars...

Oh god, I am a dork...

http://www.43bikes.com/d/136-3/bohemian-12-05.jpg

i think the caption for that bike should be "bling"

Art as a commodity gets me down so much... I stand outside banks and financial establishments screaming in anger and shaking my fist vigorously because of it. Because I can't really do much else to oppose it!

I just reaally hope that it doesnt get any worse! What do you think Hovis?

pfffft fuking sculpture students ha ha ha ha

im not going to get into this conversation otherwise ill end up doing what i did on friday and spend the afternoon on here instead of what i was ment to be doing ha ha