Topic: Modern Art.....please explain.

[markedasred]

Maurizio Cattelan is a well known art world prankster, from the same Italian school as Piero Manzoni who sold his own shit in cans.

A bit after the event I know: I was just thinking that Oobah Butler, friend of the Anfield Wrap must now be considered an artist, having bottled his and other Amazon drivers piss to sell on Amazon. Also, that the Hirst Mother and Child Divided earlier in the thread with the cow and calf reminded me of the Paul Simon quote, when asked about the inspiration behind his profound song "Mother & Child Reunion", where he said the title came to him as a quip as he was sitting in a Chinese restaurant, looking at his Sweet and Sour Chicken with Egg Fried Rice.

[Only Me]

You think someone's going to look at that and think: "Maybe pollution isn't real after all. Maybe I'm imagining all this increased heat. I was going to actively campaign against global heating but I'm too offended to do that now"? The 'protesters' are doing this to heighten the sense of urgency and highlight the stakes. The message is that everything can't be just business as usual.

Because you may not agree with their methods but the established way - watch governments and big business set far-away net-zero targets and then do nothing - isn't working either. And any climate protests that can't be ignored are invariably going to be painted as lunacy by the right-wing press anyway. So, what do they have to lose?

Can only speak for myself, but I find these protesters to be tiresome self absorbed knobheads, who seemingly achieve nothing other than switching people off from their cause.

I think all right minded people nowadays accept that climate change is real, and that we need to do something about it. But walking slowly to disrupt rush hour traffic, or spoiling a painting or disrupting a sporting event causes more harm than good if you're trying to get people on board to support your cause.

I couldn't give two fucks about Wimbledon, or The Chelsea Flower Show or even the snooker, and it wouldn't bother me either way if these events are disrupted or cancelled because some late middle aged, middle class white loon is flinging orange powder about. But I can imagine if you'd looked forward to attending one of those events, and had paid good money to go, then those actions would piss you right off.

And what's the point of damaging a painting? Especially one that 99% of the population wont have heard of?  Is it because its painted in oils, and the poor dears have got themselves a bit confused?

If a game at Anfield got postponed because of them, how many people in the crowd do you reckon would be saying "Good on 'em, its time to fight the good fight. Me ticket only cost me £50 anyway, and it is the planet we're talking about..."

[Jiminy Cricket]

You think someone's going to look at that and think: "Maybe pollution isn't real after all. Maybe I'm imagining all this increased heat. I was going to actively campaign against global heating but I'm too offended to do that now"? The 'protesters' are doing this to heighten the sense of urgency and highlight the stakes. The message is that everything can't be just business as usual.

Because you may not agree with their methods but the established way - watch governments and big business set far-away net-zero targets and then do nothing - isn't working either. And any climate protests that can't be ignored are invariably going to be painted as lunacy by the right-wing press anyway. So, what do they have to lose?

You are missing the point. It is not highly motivated potential protesters who might be turned off by these kinds of stunts; it is all those (fare greater numbers of) people who might go along with the necessary changes, who might otherwise simply dismiss the protesters as 'vandals'. It is about winning public opinion, and everything done should be with the goal of pulling people in the direction of supporting 'something must be done'.

And you miss the point too.

[Sheer Magnetism]

You are missing the point. It is not highly motivated potential protesters who might be turned off by these kinds of stunts; it is all those (fare greater numbers of) people who might go along with the necessary changes, who might otherwise simply dismiss the protesters as 'vandals'. It is about winning public opinion, and everything done should be with the goal of pulling people in the direction of supporting 'something must be done'.And you miss the point too.

No, you're missing the point. What you're saying is irrelevant. If it isn't dubbing the protesters vandals, it'll be painting environmentalists as elitists or naive, or whatever code the fossil fuel industry wants to use for lefty hippie on that particular day. The alternative is silence, because there is no 'perfect' protest that can't be tarred by the right-wing media, that simultaneously grabs attention and doesn't disrupt in any way. And you can see what's happening otherwise: a ruling party pursuing an anti-environment agenda and an opposition ignoring it almost completely.

I mean, do you really think this hypothetical mass you're thinking of will be earnest art afficionados and Velázquez fans who were on the fence about combatting global heating and will now stop caring? Or are you just recycling an opinion you think has weight because you've seen it in the mass media?

I think all right minded people nowadays accept that climate change is real, and that we need to do something about it. But walking slowly to disrupt rush hour traffic, or spoiling a painting or disrupting a sporting event causes more harm than good if you're trying to get people on board to support your cause.

Well, if the majority accept climate change is real and something needs to be done, they already agree with the protesters' cause, if you can call fighting against vat global disruption and possible extinction a 'cause'. But they aren't voting for parties that are putting that at the top of their agenda, which means the impetus has to be on highlighting the urgency, which is what the protesters are doing. They're ordinary people fighting against a vast industry doing everything they can to slow the process - they don't really have a lot of options.

[bradders1011]

They're all just so Rik from the Young Ones fucking smug though.

[Only Me]

They're all just so Rik from the Young Ones fucking smug though.

Precisely mate.

We know best, you have to listen, its for your own good. Blah blah blah.

They'd serve the cause better if they fucked off back to Islington or Hampstead, or whichever middle class London enclave their from, and shut the fuck up.

[Jiminy Cricket]

You are missing the point. It is not highly motivated potential protesters who might be turned off by these kinds of stunts; it is all those (fare greater numbers of) people who might go along with the necessary changes, who might otherwise simply dismiss the protesters as 'vandals'. It is about winning public opinion, and everything done should be with the goal of pulling people in the direction of supporting 'something must be done'.And you miss the point too.

No, you're missing the point. What you're saying is irrelevant. If it isn't dubbing the protesters vandals, it'll be painting environmentalists as elitists or naive, or whatever code the fossil fuel industry wants to use for lefty hippie on that particular day. The alternative is silence, because there is no 'perfect' protest that can't be tarred by the right-wing media, that simultaneously grabs attention and doesn't disrupt in any way. And you can see what's happening otherwise: a ruling party pursuing an anti-environment agenda and an opposition ignoring it almost completely.

I mean, do you really think this hypothetical mass you're thinking of will be earnest art afficionados and Velázquez fans who were on the fence about combatting global heating and will now stop caring? Or are you just recycling an opinion you think has weight because you've seen it in the mass media?

Let's try this again.

No, you're missing the point. What you're saying is irrelevant. If it isn't dubbing the protesters vandals,

I was clearly characterising the reaction of some people, and used scare quotes to boot:

it is all those (fare greater numbers of) people who might go along with the necessary changes, who might otherwise simply dismiss the protesters as 'vandals'.

I would have assumed that you do not understand how scare quotes are used, but I note that you used them yourself in your response to me:

The alternative is silence, because there is no 'perfect' protest that can't be tarred by the right-wing media, that simultaneously grabs attention and doesn't disrupt in any way.

I can only assume your misunderstanding of my words as willful. You continue to miss my point, apparently, deliberately so. I am not writing about how you, me, or maybe even most people at RAWK might react to the attack on the painting. I am talking about large numbers of people in the general population and how these types of actions might turn them off.

You then move onto a strawman argument:

it'll be painting environmentalists as elitists or naive, or whatever code the fossil fuel industry wants to use for lefty hippie on that particular day.

Of course, I made no suggestion along those lines. Please read my comments in good faith, and perhaps we can have discussion. Else, stop this nonsense and call it day.

Let's test out your hypothesis:

The alternative is silence, because there is no 'perfect' protest that can't be tarred by the right-wing media, that simultaneously grabs attention and doesn't disrupt in any way.

What would your reaction be if this statue was vandalized by Just Stop Oil protesters? How do you think fellow RAWKites would react? Would you argue that 'there is no perfect way to pretest and is justified because of the attention it garnered'?



Get a grip. It is not all about what might or might not personally offend you. There is a bigger picture.

[Alan_X]

You think someone's going to look at that and think: "Maybe pollution isn't real after all. Maybe I'm imagining all this increased heat. I was going to actively campaign against global heating but I'm too offended to do that now"? The 'protesters' are doing this to heighten the sense of urgency and highlight the stakes. The message is that everything can't be just business as usual.

Because you may not agree with their methods but the established way - watch governments and big business set far-away net-zero targets and then do nothing - isn't working either. And any climate protests that can't be ignored are invariably going to be painted as lunacy by the right-wing press anyway. So, what do they have to lose?

The problem I have is that the people this “targets” are people who are for the most part already concerned about climate change. Low paid and overworked museum staff will bear the brunt and the cost of increased security checks will probably lead to more restrictions and cost cutting.

I actually find their protests a bit juvenile. No idea who they are intended to influence. Do they think people who’ve been watching news reports of devastating wildfires and floods will see a couple of twenty year olds attack an oil painting and think “oh, now I need to be concerned…”

[Alan_X]

No, you're missing the point. What you're saying is irrelevant. If it isn't dubbing the protesters vandals, it'll be painting environmentalists as elitists or naive, or whatever code the fossil fuel industry wants to use for lefty hippie on that particular day. The alternative is silence, because there is no 'perfect' protest that can't be tarred by the right-wing media, that simultaneously grabs attention and doesn't disrupt in any way. And you can see what's happening otherwise: a ruling party pursuing an anti-environment agenda and an opposition ignoring it almost completely.

I mean, do you really think this hypothetical mass you're thinking of will be earnest art afficionados and Velázquez fans who were on the fence about combatting global heating and will now stop caring? Or are you just recycling an opinion you think has weight because you've seen it in the mass media?

Well, if the majority accept climate change is real and something needs to be done, they already agree with the protesters' cause, if you can call fighting against vat global disruption and possible extinction a 'cause'. But they aren't voting for parties that are putting that at the top of their agenda, which means the impetus has to be on highlighting the urgency, which is what the protesters are doing. They're ordinary people fighting against a vast industry doing everything they can to slow the process - they don't really have a lot of options.

A perfect protest is one that draws support from like minded people and has an impact on decision makers and climate deniers.

Smashing the Rokeby Venus does neither.

[joe buck]

Quite like some of the pop art and I guess anything that might be considered memoribillia mixed with "art".

Don't know if he would be considered an artist as such but years ago I had some designs signed by Peter Saville for sleeves some hand drawn etc for various artists. None of the original factory stuff though. Also had some stuff drawn by Goldie for Metalheadz. And at the time I just presumed it all to be worthless so never kept it.

I do have a hand drawn butterfly by Damien hirst (signed as well) - drawn in premium bic biro if anyone wants to make a huge bid.

I recon lad you are to cultured lad for this rawk lad i mean lid.