Macaulay Culkin ~ artist.

Plus, if people want to see it - good on them. If it was in London, I'd go and see it. As for buying it, only rich shitheads buy art and they'll buy anything.

Pretty much.

umm...

guys

hey

guys.

i need you to

whoa, ok calm d-

ok.

guys.

Maybe having an exhibition is more fun than keeping the paintings in your room?

  On 9/21/2012 at 3:54 PM, Iain C said:

I guess I don't really buy the idea that art has to be deathly-serious or made with po-faced, pious intentions in order to be worth exhibiting. THAT'S pretentiousness in my opinion. These guys have made some funny, wacky paintings, now they want to show them to the world. I really don't see the problem.

me neither. what the fuck are you ranting about? you think i give a shit about this? i just said i thought it was shite ffs. there's only 2 reasons to exhibit works of art in my book - the art has to be at least interesting or in some way commercial. if culkin wasn't involved this wouldn't tick either box and there'd be zero interest... if it was just these 2 artfags on their own you wouldn't give a shit and you wouldn't be needlessly ranting at me for whatever reason. look at the painting they did on their own, the kurt cobain one... fucking shite. you think people would rush to see an exhibition of that kind of stuff by 2 unknown art students? would they fuck.

  On 9/21/2012 at 3:59 PM, Iain C said:

Plus, if people want to see it - good on them. If it was in London, I'd go and see it. As for buying it, only rich shitheads buy art and they'll buy anything.

of course good on them. good for you iain. well done.

as for your last comment, who's curmudgeonly now? ugh puff only idiots with more money than sense buy art uf puff i'm sooooooo fucking self righteous!

  On 9/21/2012 at 4:26 PM, keltoi said:

  On 9/21/2012 at 3:54 PM, Iain C said:

I guess I don't really buy the idea that art has to be deathly-serious or made with po-faced, pious intentions in order to be worth exhibiting. THAT'S pretentiousness in my opinion. These guys have made some funny, wacky paintings, now they want to show them to the world. I really don't see the problem.

 

me neither. what the fuck are you ranting about? you think i give a shit about this? i just said i thought it was shite ffs. there's only 2 reasons to exhibit works of art in my book - the art has to be at least interesting or in some way commercial. if culkin wasn't involved this wouldn't tick either box and there'd be zero interest... if it was just these 2 artfags on their own you wouldn't give a shit and you wouldn't be needlessly ranting at me for whatever reason. look at the painting they did on their own, the kurt cobain one... fucking shite. you think people would rush to see an exhibition of that kind of stuff by 2 unknown art students? would they fuck.

 

 

  On 9/21/2012 at 3:59 PM, Iain C said:

Plus, if people want to see it - good on them. If it was in London, I'd go and see it. As for buying it, only rich shitheads buy art and they'll buy anything.

 

of course good on them. good for you iain. well done.

 

as for your last comment, who's curmudgeonly now? ugh puff only idiots with more money than sense buy art uf puff i'm sooooooo fucking self righteous!

Can you knock it off with the 'fag' shit? That's pretty offensive. How about "artniggers"?

That aside, I'm not ranting about anything, I just think it's dumb that YOU don't think this is worth an exhibition. And plenty of people "flock" to see work by student artists all the time. Because they actually like that kind of thing. But they're fags too right?

  On 9/21/2012 at 4:35 PM, Iain C said:

  On 9/21/2012 at 4:26 PM, keltoi said:

  On 9/21/2012 at 3:54 PM, Iain C said:

I guess I don't really buy the idea that art has to be deathly-serious or made with po-faced, pious intentions in order to be worth exhibiting. THAT'S pretentiousness in my opinion. These guys have made some funny, wacky paintings, now they want to show them to the world. I really don't see the problem.

 

me neither. what the fuck are you ranting about? you think i give a shit about this? i just said i thought it was shite ffs. there's only 2 reasons to exhibit works of art in my book - the art has to be at least interesting or in some way commercial. if culkin wasn't involved this wouldn't tick either box and there'd be zero interest... if it was just these 2 artfags on their own you wouldn't give a shit and you wouldn't be needlessly ranting at me for whatever reason. look at the painting they did on their own, the kurt cobain one... fucking shite. you think people would rush to see an exhibition of that kind of stuff by 2 unknown art students? would they fuck.

 

 

  On 9/21/2012 at 3:59 PM, Iain C said:

Plus, if people want to see it - good on them. If it was in London, I'd go and see it. As for buying it, only rich shitheads buy art and they'll buy anything.

 

of course good on them. good for you iain. well done.

 

as for your last comment, who's curmudgeonly now? ugh puff only idiots with more money than sense buy art uf puff i'm sooooooo fucking self righteous!

 

Can you knock it off with the 'fag' shit? That's pretty offensive. How about "artniggers"?

 

That aside, I'm not ranting about anything, I just think it's dumb that YOU don't think this is worth an exhibition. And plenty of people "flock" to see work by student artists all the time. Because they actually like that kind of thing. But they're fags too right?

i didn't say anywhere that i don't think it's worthy of exhibition. it IS worthy of an exhibition. in the same way that it's news-worthy, solely because macauley culkin's involved.

cynical and curmudgeonly, i'm guilty as charged but stop putting words in my mouth and read more carefully before going on the attack.

have you seen the sort of people who go to art college?

yes, i went to art college.

How many drugs did we take this morning?

Shit is cool.

I went to art academy.

dafuq did I just see

  On 9/21/2012 at 3:54 PM, Iain C said:

I guess I don't really buy the idea that art has to be deathly-serious or made with po-faced, pious intentions in order to be worth exhibiting. THAT'S pretentiousness in my opinion.

What is the pretense in taking art seriously? I hope you don't mind me striking through the inflated bits so I'm arguing against something other than an obvious strawman here.

Taking art seriously isn't pretentious - the idea that this work is too flippant to be worth exhibiting is.

  On 9/21/2012 at 5:02 PM, keltoi said:

i didn't say anywhere that i don't think it's worthy of exhibition. it IS worthy of an exhibition. in the same way that it's news-worthy, solely because macauley culkin's involved.

But that's not what you said, though. You said:

  On 9/21/2012 at 2:49 PM, keltoi said:

why have an exhibition if it's just for fun?

And what I'm saying is, I can't think of a better reason to exhibit something. I get that you don't like these paintings, and that it's only getting the exposure it is because Mac's involved - but it'd be worth exhibiting even if he wasn't. Whether anyone would go or not is kind of beside the point.

Anyway it's five so I'm going to the pub.

  On 9/21/2012 at 6:04 PM, Iain C said:

Taking art seriously isn't pretentious - the idea that this work is too flippant to be worth exhibiting is.

an idea borne from your very own obtuse mind.

enjoy arguing black is white with your friends at the bar iain.

  On 9/21/2012 at 6:04 PM, Iain C said:

Taking art seriously isn't pretentious - the idea that this work is too flippant to be worth exhibiting is.

I don't mind stuff being flippant in an interesting way. But this is just garbage, imo. Not that I have any authority as a tastemaker. Obviously he's leveraging the advantage of his (past) fame here. Elitism aside, that's cool, shake your money maker Macaulay.

I dun no bought arts stuff but Kurt Cobain as a hacker (with references to the movie Hacker) made me lol big time.