Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2

Re:Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2 by ajays on Sunday May 20, 2012 @01:18PM (#3999352)

Can we please stop calling them "artists" and start calling them what they really are, vandals? There is nothing creating about what this guy did.

People slap the label "art" on crap too quickly. No, not all of it is art. Some of it is; but not all. Just because you can sling some pigment against a flat surface doesn't make it art, and just because you can draw disapproving looks from people doesn't make you an "artist".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2 by knowtheory on Sunday May 20, 2012 @02:25PM (#3999579)

This had an artistic and communicative intent, although i would concede that it's not particularly clever or innovative.

Fucking up Marc Jacobs or other massive commercial brands is a cogent statement to be made, and i don't think one that should simply be dismissed as thoughtless vandalism (though vandalism it may be).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2 by Angostura on Sunday May 20, 2012 @06:35PM (#4000324)

RE you contending that simply because something has artistic intent it is, by definition 'art'?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2 by knowtheory on Sunday May 20, 2012 @06:51PM (#4000376)

I have argued for days about what does and doesn't constitute art, and it's almost always a futile endeavor.

The artist intended it to be art, and had a message to convey. Those are definitely components which make me lean towards considering it art.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2 by drcube on Sunday May 20, 2012 @03:02PM (#3999700)

Flinging pigment against a flat surface made Jackson Pollack an artist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollack

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2 by theorique on Sunday May 20, 2012 @01:24PM (#3999379)

Too quickly compared to what? How long do we have to wait before something's declared "art"?

Not claiming this particular graffiti is art - it's rather uncreative compared to Banksy and other such clever artists - just wondering who decides, and how.

Also, good for Mark Jacobs for his elegant response, and for trolling the pretentious.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2 by rudiger on Sunday May 20, 2012 @01:48PM (#3999469)

He's an artist and a vandal.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2 by zoop on Sunday May 20, 2012 @02:14PM (#3999546)

Your definition of art implies that only things that you respect can be labeled as such.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2 by jaems33 on Sunday May 20, 2012 @01:22PM (#3999373)

Just like putting a urinal in a gallery doesn't make you an artist, right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2 by ajays on Sunday May 20, 2012 @11:08PM (#4001072)

Exactly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2 by rudiger on Monday May 21, 2012 @06:11PM (#4005179)

In case you're not trying to be facetious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

[ Parent | on HN ]