AFC Doesn’t Ask Stuckists For Comment on Russia’s Central Museum of Armed Forces

They should rename themselves the SUCKISTS

They should rename themselves the SUCKISTS

They should rename themselves the SUCKISTS

They should rename themselves the SUCKISTS

I’ve given the matter considerable thought for many years.

I’ve given the matter considerable thought for many years.

That last was a reply to the original post, not Eric’s, which has been mooted on a number of occasions and wasn’t all that good to start with, not that there’s anything wrong with sucking.

That last was a reply to the original post, not Eric’s, which has been mooted on a number of occasions and wasn’t all that good to start with, not that there’s anything wrong with sucking.

Among the STUCKISTS, some suck less than others. I don’t want to generalize. And yes, as Paddy has pointed out in the past, there is something to be had from good and bad art. Bad art criticism on the other hand, is worthless.

Among the STUCKISTS, some suck less than others. I don’t want to generalize. And yes, as Paddy has pointed out in the past, there is something to be had from good and bad art. Bad art criticism on the other hand, is worthless.

Among the STUCKISTS, some suck less than others. I don’t want to generalize. And yes, as Paddy has pointed out in the past, there is something to be had from good and bad art. Bad art criticism on the other hand, is worthless.

Well, as long as we’re not all as bad as each other, it can’t be too bad. But which bit of the criticism did you not like – people laughing in the future, people laughing now, or Damien laughing on the way to the bank? I thought it summed it up rather well. I mean, how do you view the Edwin Long, who had the highest price for a living British artist with his painting The Babylonian Marriage Market in 1875? Surely it gives you a chuckle at those misguided Victorians?

Well, as long as we’re not all as bad as each other, it can’t be too bad. But which bit of the criticism did you not like – people laughing in the future, people laughing now, or Damien laughing on the way to the bank? I thought it summed it up rather well. I mean, how do you view the Edwin Long, who had the highest price for a living British artist with his painting The Babylonian Marriage Market in 1875? Surely it gives you a chuckle at those misguided Victorians?

Well, as long as we’re not all as bad as each other, it can’t be too bad. But which bit of the criticism did you not like – people laughing in the future, people laughing now, or Damien laughing on the way to the bank? I thought it summed it up rather well. I mean, how do you view the Edwin Long, who had the highest price for a living British artist with his painting The Babylonian Marriage Market in 1875? Surely it gives you a chuckle at those misguided Victorians?

I like the work of EAMON EVERALL and Jesse Todd Dockery.

I like the work of EAMON EVERALL and Jesse Todd Dockery.

I like the work of EAMON EVERALL and Jesse Todd Dockery.

Listen it is just my opinion so who gives a turd. Most of the Stuckists’ work is boring figural stuff, Modernism for coffee houses. It is perfectly fine for what it is. The work isn’t elitist, which is refreshing in this day and age. I just wonder why the stuff isn’t a little more adventurous, less dated looking. I am sure there are exceptions. The work or the artists don’t seem too concerned with the world we actually live in. It is mostly fanstasy stuff, self consciously cartoonish. Does this make sense?

Listen it is just my opinion so who gives a turd. Most of the Stuckists’ work is boring figural stuff, Modernism for coffee houses. It is perfectly fine for what it is. The work isn’t elitist, which is refreshing in this day and age. I just wonder why the stuff isn’t a little more adventurous, less dated looking. I am sure there are exceptions. The work or the artists don’t seem too concerned with the world we actually live in. It is mostly fanstasy stuff, self consciously cartoonish. Does this make sense?

Listen it is just my opinion so who gives a turd. Most of the Stuckists’ work is boring figural stuff, Modernism for coffee houses. It is perfectly fine for what it is. The work isn’t elitist, which is refreshing in this day and age. I just wonder why the stuff isn’t a little more adventurous, less dated looking. I am sure there are exceptions. The work or the artists don’t seem too concerned with the world we actually live in. It is mostly fanstasy stuff, self consciously cartoonish. Does this make sense?

Listen it is just my opinion so who gives a turd. Most of the Stuckists’ work is boring figural stuff, Modernism for coffee houses. It is perfectly fine for what it is. The work isn’t elitist, which is refreshing in this day and age. I just wonder why the stuff isn’t a little more adventurous, less dated looking. I am sure there are exceptions. The work or the artists don’t seem too concerned with the world we actually live in. It is mostly fanstasy stuff, self consciously cartoonish. Does this make sense?

“The work or the artists don’t seem too concerned with the world we actually live in.”

Eric, I think they are concerned with the here and now. I think that is their point. Most of the Stuckists I’ve communicated with online and in person are dedicated to the aesthetic of the public at large. The art of the people… not the art praised by top art critics and wealthy collectors– which tends to be the art that obtains the most press. Your average joe can relate to Stuckist work more than they can a golden Kate Moss or preserved shark. It is as simple as that.

“The work or the artists don’t seem too concerned with the world we actually live in.”

Eric, I think they are concerned with the here and now. I think that is their point. Most of the Stuckists I’ve communicated with online and in person are dedicated to the aesthetic of the public at large. The art of the people… not the art praised by top art critics and wealthy collectors– which tends to be the art that obtains the most press. Your average joe can relate to Stuckist work more than they can a golden Kate Moss or preserved shark. It is as simple as that.

“The work or the artists don’t seem too concerned with the world we actually live in.”

Eric, I think they are concerned with the here and now. I think that is their point. Most of the Stuckists I’ve communicated with online and in person are dedicated to the aesthetic of the public at large. The art of the people… not the art praised by top art critics and wealthy collectors– which tends to be the art that obtains the most press. Your average joe can relate to Stuckist work more than they can a golden Kate Moss or preserved shark. It is as simple as that.

“The work or the artists don’t seem too concerned with the world we actually live in.”

Eric, I think they are concerned with the here and now. I think that is their point. Most of the Stuckists I’ve communicated with online and in person are dedicated to the aesthetic of the public at large. The art of the people… not the art praised by top art critics and wealthy collectors– which tends to be the art that obtains the most press. Your average joe can relate to Stuckist work more than they can a golden Kate Moss or preserved shark. It is as simple as that.

Uh…I don’t agree. I think the Stuckists represent a faux-populism. I think the ‘average Joe’, as you put it, is an imaginary construct, but lets go with it. The majority of humanity, which is completely oblivious to the goings on in the world of the visual arts, have no clue who Damien Hirst, the Stuckists, or Marc Quinn are. As much as the Stuckists try to stand out from the high art crowd, the elite, by creating yet another version of art brut, they are not more popular with everyone outside the rarified circles of high art. I think people who immerse themselves in the art world for a long time lose perspective on these things. I think the Stuckists want their particular style of painting to become more prominent in the art world, the context they allegedly dispise. They offer up a stylistic alternative to other styles more prominent perhaps in today’s art market. But we see a lot of this ‘bad painting’ nowadays, so I think this invalidates the Stuckists’ alleged rebel/misanthrope status. The Stuckists are not purer, closer to the truth, appealing to larger swathes of humanity, they are marketing a different style of high art and their attitude is part of the package.

Uh…I don’t agree. I think the Stuckists represent a faux-populism. I think the ‘average Joe’, as you put it, is an imaginary construct, but lets go with it. The majority of humanity, which is completely oblivious to the goings on in the world of the visual arts, have no clue who Damien Hirst, the Stuckists, or Marc Quinn are. As much as the Stuckists try to stand out from the high art crowd, the elite, by creating yet another version of art brut, they are not more popular with everyone outside the rarified circles of high art. I think people who immerse themselves in the art world for a long time lose perspective on these things. I think the Stuckists want their particular style of painting to become more prominent in the art world, the context they allegedly dispise. They offer up a stylistic alternative to other styles more prominent perhaps in today’s art market. But we see a lot of this ‘bad painting’ nowadays, so I think this invalidates the Stuckists’ alleged rebel/misanthrope status. The Stuckists are not purer, closer to the truth, appealing to larger swathes of humanity, they are marketing a different style of high art and their attitude is part of the package.

Uh…I don’t agree. I think the Stuckists represent a faux-populism. I think the ‘average Joe’, as you put it, is an imaginary construct, but lets go with it. The majority of humanity, which is completely oblivious to the goings on in the world of the visual arts, have no clue who Damien Hirst, the Stuckists, or Marc Quinn are. As much as the Stuckists try to stand out from the high art crowd, the elite, by creating yet another version of art brut, they are not more popular with everyone outside the rarified circles of high art. I think people who immerse themselves in the art world for a long time lose perspective on these things. I think the Stuckists want their particular style of painting to become more prominent in the art world, the context they allegedly dispise. They offer up a stylistic alternative to other styles more prominent perhaps in today’s art market. But we see a lot of this ‘bad painting’ nowadays, so I think this invalidates the Stuckists’ alleged rebel/misanthrope status. The Stuckists are not purer, closer to the truth, appealing to larger swathes of humanity, they are marketing a different style of high art and their attitude is part of the package.

Uh…I don’t agree. I think the Stuckists represent a faux-populism. I think the ‘average Joe’, as you put it, is an imaginary construct, but lets go with it. The majority of humanity, which is completely oblivious to the goings on in the world of the visual arts, have no clue who Damien Hirst, the Stuckists, or Marc Quinn are. As much as the Stuckists try to stand out from the high art crowd, the elite, by creating yet another version of art brut, they are not more popular with everyone outside the rarified circles of high art. I think people who immerse themselves in the art world for a long time lose perspective on these things. I think the Stuckists want their particular style of painting to become more prominent in the art world, the context they allegedly dispise. They offer up a stylistic alternative to other styles more prominent perhaps in today’s art market. But we see a lot of this ‘bad painting’ nowadays, so I think this invalidates the Stuckists’ alleged rebel/misanthrope status. The Stuckists are not purer, closer to the truth, appealing to larger swathes of humanity, they are marketing a different style of high art and their attitude is part of the package.

Eric, I don’t know. I’ve seen a lot of support for them on sites like Myspace and Facebook in artist groups. Stuckism, from what I have seen, appears to have a large base of grassroots support that goes far beyond the art world itself.

A few of those people are very active in spreading the word about the movement. People ‘get it’, so to speak. There are thousands of artists who associate themselves with Stuckism. That does not mean they agree with the founding Stuckists 100%.

As for me, I try not to draw lines in the sand. I also try to avoid calling a piece ‘good’ or ‘bad’ art just because an influential critic has voiced his or her opinion. I decide for myself what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Unfortunately, I think many people make that decision based on the opinion of influential critics and to some degree collectors.

Eric, I don’t know. I’ve seen a lot of support for them on sites like Myspace and Facebook in artist groups. Stuckism, from what I have seen, appears to have a large base of grassroots support that goes far beyond the art world itself.

A few of those people are very active in spreading the word about the movement. People ‘get it’, so to speak. There are thousands of artists who associate themselves with Stuckism. That does not mean they agree with the founding Stuckists 100%.

As for me, I try not to draw lines in the sand. I also try to avoid calling a piece ‘good’ or ‘bad’ art just because an influential critic has voiced his or her opinion. I decide for myself what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Unfortunately, I think many people make that decision based on the opinion of influential critics and to some degree collectors.

Eric, I don’t know. I’ve seen a lot of support for them on sites like Myspace and Facebook in artist groups. Stuckism, from what I have seen, appears to have a large base of grassroots support that goes far beyond the art world itself.

A few of those people are very active in spreading the word about the movement. People ‘get it’, so to speak. There are thousands of artists who associate themselves with Stuckism. That does not mean they agree with the founding Stuckists 100%.

As for me, I try not to draw lines in the sand. I also try to avoid calling a piece ‘good’ or ‘bad’ art just because an influential critic has voiced his or her opinion. I decide for myself what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Unfortunately, I think many people make that decision based on the opinion of influential critics and to some degree collectors.

There will always be an audience for genre work in any medium. Influence equals having an audience for your criticism. I don’t know one writer or artist who does not want an audience or to sell their work. People want to get paid to write or make art. I don’t see how artists who make art that fits into a particular genre category in an easily pigeonholed style undermine the art world hierarchy. If they are selling more art to more people than those artists who are represented by big name galleries it is more a matter of economics than anything else. There is always going to be a hierarchy of values in any category of consumer goods.

There will always be an audience for genre work in any medium. Influence equals having an audience for your criticism. I don’t know one writer or artist who does not want an audience or to sell their work. People want to get paid to write or make art. I don’t see how artists who make art that fits into a particular genre category in an easily pigeonholed style undermine the art world hierarchy. If they are selling more art to more people than those artists who are represented by big name galleries it is more a matter of economics than anything else. There is always going to be a hierarchy of values in any category of consumer goods.

There will always be an audience for genre work in any medium. Influence equals having an audience for your criticism. I don’t know one writer or artist who does not want an audience or to sell their work. People want to get paid to write or make art. I don’t see how artists who make art that fits into a particular genre category in an easily pigeonholed style undermine the art world hierarchy. If they are selling more art to more people than those artists who are represented by big name galleries it is more a matter of economics than anything else. There is always going to be a hierarchy of values in any category of consumer goods.

To respond to the question of reach: I expect the Stuckists are better known in Europe than they are here, if only because I seldom see them quoted in American publications, and when I do, it tends to be a quote that originated in an English newspaper, (though clearly there are plenty of American Stuckists).

Now, Brian may find this information without much relevance because he decides for himself what he thinks is good or bad, but I find this a rather dangerous position to be taking. It’s not like we haven’t seen the media exert a huge amount of political sway, particularly over the 16 years, and the country’s certainly suffering for it now. So just as the Democrats are marginalized by Fox News when they choose poor experts to represent the political view points of that party, the counter point to the Hirst sale is poorly presented when the most often cited opposition, are the Stuckists. Hughes offered much more specificity in his response to the sale, yet he was not quoted nearly as much.

The Stuckists just don’t carry that kind of authority in their work or their statements. Citing them as an expert on large news stories such as this, is to my mind, the mark of a media community that responds to spectacle over substance.

To respond to the question of reach: I expect the Stuckists are better known in Europe than they are here, if only because I seldom see them quoted in American publications, and when I do, it tends to be a quote that originated in an English newspaper, (though clearly there are plenty of American Stuckists).

Now, Brian may find this information without much relevance because he decides for himself what he thinks is good or bad, but I find this a rather dangerous position to be taking. It’s not like we haven’t seen the media exert a huge amount of political sway, particularly over the 16 years, and the country’s certainly suffering for it now. So just as the Democrats are marginalized by Fox News when they choose poor experts to represent the political view points of that party, the counter point to the Hirst sale is poorly presented when the most often cited opposition, are the Stuckists. Hughes offered much more specificity in his response to the sale, yet he was not quoted nearly as much.

The Stuckists just don’t carry that kind of authority in their work or their statements. Citing them as an expert on large news stories such as this, is to my mind, the mark of a media community that responds to spectacle over substance.

To respond to the question of reach: I expect the Stuckists are better known in Europe than they are here, if only because I seldom see them quoted in American publications, and when I do, it tends to be a quote that originated in an English newspaper, (though clearly there are plenty of American Stuckists).

Now, Brian may find this information without much relevance because he decides for himself what he thinks is good or bad, but I find this a rather dangerous position to be taking. It’s not like we haven’t seen the media exert a huge amount of political sway, particularly over the 16 years, and the country’s certainly suffering for it now. So just as the Democrats are marginalized by Fox News when they choose poor experts to represent the political view points of that party, the counter point to the Hirst sale is poorly presented when the most often cited opposition, are the Stuckists. Hughes offered much more specificity in his response to the sale, yet he was not quoted nearly as much.

The Stuckists just don’t carry that kind of authority in their work or their statements. Citing them as an expert on large news stories such as this, is to my mind, the mark of a media community that responds to spectacle over substance.

They have more press in the UK… and not just for the Turner protests. If you do a search for Charles Thomson on Youtube you will most likely find a few TV interviews and panel dicussions about art that he has done with news programs. However, I don’t know much about those specific programs as compared to the programs we have in the US. I do know that the Stuckists are quoted often in the UK though.

Don’t get me wrong… I take what I read and hear into account when thinking about art today or specific artists and from there I form my own conclusion. Same goes for politics. I loathe fanatic acceptance because it is often an agreement that is not based on facts or knowledge of the subject at hand. Instead it is based on emotive reasoning… which is not very rational at all. Kind of like how Donald lashed out at the Stuckists on the other post after reading a few negative opinions of them even though, based off of some of his comments, I think that he would agree with many of their opinions.

I will agree that Hughes should have been quoted more than he was. However, I think the Stuckists are valid in their own right as far as Hirst and the UK art scene is concerned. Like I said, they have a lot of support on the streets in the UK and the media takes notice of that sort of thing. Especially as far as frustration over conceptual art and the art that is representing the UK at this time. If it had been a different artist I don’t think they would have been quoted. Simple as that.

“Citing them as an expert on large news stories such as this, is to my mind, the mark of a media community that responds to spectacle over substance.”

They view the UK art scene as being in a state of turmoil. That might be why the paper quoted them. Many people view Hirst’s work and the UK scene as a spectacle. Many people feel that Hirst and other big name UK artists lack substance in their art. In that sense, the choice to quote them showed some balance. That said, adding Hughes would have made the impact greater.

They have more press in the UK… and not just for the Turner protests. If you do a search for Charles Thomson on Youtube you will most likely find a few TV interviews and panel dicussions about art that he has done with news programs. However, I don’t know much about those specific programs as compared to the programs we have in the US. I do know that the Stuckists are quoted often in the UK though.

Don’t get me wrong… I take what I read and hear into account when thinking about art today or specific artists and from there I form my own conclusion. Same goes for politics. I loathe fanatic acceptance because it is often an agreement that is not based on facts or knowledge of the subject at hand. Instead it is based on emotive reasoning… which is not very rational at all. Kind of like how Donald lashed out at the Stuckists on the other post after reading a few negative opinions of them even though, based off of some of his comments, I think that he would agree with many of their opinions.

I will agree that Hughes should have been quoted more than he was. However, I think the Stuckists are valid in their own right as far as Hirst and the UK art scene is concerned. Like I said, they have a lot of support on the streets in the UK and the media takes notice of that sort of thing. Especially as far as frustration over conceptual art and the art that is representing the UK at this time. If it had been a different artist I don’t think they would have been quoted. Simple as that.

“Citing them as an expert on large news stories such as this, is to my mind, the mark of a media community that responds to spectacle over substance.”

They view the UK art scene as being in a state of turmoil. That might be why the paper quoted them. Many people view Hirst’s work and the UK scene as a spectacle. Many people feel that Hirst and other big name UK artists lack substance in their art. In that sense, the choice to quote them showed some balance. That said, adding Hughes would have made the impact greater.

Damn! i cant believe I am agreeing with Eric, perhaps there is hope for art afterall. And though i see the Stuckists as being correct in ways, it is still so naive and illformed, as to be at childbirth. Perhaps they will grow up, or others will surpase them. One can only hope.

Art collegia delenda est

Damn! i cant believe I am agreeing with Eric, perhaps there is hope for art afterall. And though i see the Stuckists as being correct in ways, it is still so naive and illformed, as to be at childbirth. Perhaps they will grow up, or others will surpase them. One can only hope.

Art collegia delenda est

This comment is by Eric Gelber. If anyone else is having problems posting comments let me know.

“Kind of like how Donald lashed out at the Stuckists on the other post after reading a few negative opinions of them even though, based off of some of his comments, I think that he would agree with many of their opinions.”

Backdoor slight noted.

The Stuckists would switch places with the conceptual artists they mock in a heartbeat. This makes their rhetoric mostly sour grapes, but at least they can be clever on occasion. The Stuckists, as an art brand, did a nice job of bringing a lot of artists together informally, to boost their sales and marketing. For this they should be commended. However, I am sure that any given Stuckist, would love to have their every gesture recorded by the press like the artists they mock do, rather than getting wheeled out on occasion, when the press needs a funny quote.

Again this all goes back to a question of audience and ability to make a living as an artist. The Stuckists don’t want the critics and academics and galleries and auction houses and museums to go away. They just want their stuff to make more money and garner more attention. Their ability to maintain the viability of a specific format, the easel painting, should not be dismissed. But by saying that all other so called works of art are shit and they are the only ones who are truly in touch with the ‘people’s zeitgeist’ is manipulative bullshit, bitter conservatism, which plays well to a press that can do no better than to mock those who are financially successful.

You should look at this phenomena more closely and see it for what it is. An all out attack on the creative class. If the Stuckists ruled the roost so to speak, the press would find some art world contrarian to make smart ass comments about the Stuckists’ drawing ability or paint handling, etc. This binarism: conceptual artists who make a lot of money=bad/ artists who work in traditional media and make figural work but don’t earn a lot of money=good, is really dumb. But what else would you expect from the press? Artists can do better than that.

This comment is by Eric Gelber. If anyone else is having problems posting comments let me know.

“Kind of like how Donald lashed out at the Stuckists on the other post after reading a few negative opinions of them even though, based off of some of his comments, I think that he would agree with many of their opinions.”

Backdoor slight noted.

The Stuckists would switch places with the conceptual artists they mock in a heartbeat. This makes their rhetoric mostly sour grapes, but at least they can be clever on occasion. The Stuckists, as an art brand, did a nice job of bringing a lot of artists together informally, to boost their sales and marketing. For this they should be commended. However, I am sure that any given Stuckist, would love to have their every gesture recorded by the press like the artists they mock do, rather than getting wheeled out on occasion, when the press needs a funny quote.

Again this all goes back to a question of audience and ability to make a living as an artist. The Stuckists don’t want the critics and academics and galleries and auction houses and museums to go away. They just want their stuff to make more money and garner more attention. Their ability to maintain the viability of a specific format, the easel painting, should not be dismissed. But by saying that all other so called works of art are shit and they are the only ones who are truly in touch with the ‘people’s zeitgeist’ is manipulative bullshit, bitter conservatism, which plays well to a press that can do no better than to mock those who are financially successful.

You should look at this phenomena more closely and see it for what it is. An all out attack on the creative class. If the Stuckists ruled the roost so to speak, the press would find some art world contrarian to make smart ass comments about the Stuckists’ drawing ability or paint handling, etc. This binarism: conceptual artists who make a lot of money=bad/ artists who work in traditional media and make figural work but don’t earn a lot of money=good, is really dumb. But what else would you expect from the press? Artists can do better than that.

“You should look at this phenomena more closely and see it for what it is. An all out attack on the creative class.”

Eric, as far as that goes we have more to worry about than the Stuckists and their opinions. Our schools need to focus more on art appreciation and development. Most teens, at least in the United States, can only name a few artists. Picasso, Warhol, Pollock, Van Gogh… and the like. The education of our youth concerning visual art needs to run a bit deeper than that.

We have students in rural settings who have never had the opportunity to visit an art gallery… other than mom and pop shops. We have millions of young students who have been conditioned by mass marketing to accept anime as the end all be all of art– which often has the end result of limiting their artistic growth. There are many problems that need to be solved so that art as whole is secured from a cultural standpoint.

“The Stuckists don’t want the critics and academics and galleries and auction houses and museums to go away.”

True. However, from their viewpoint they want those institutions to have more balance. Most of the Stuckists I’ve came in contact with don’t follow the Stuckism manifesto 100%. You have to keep that in mind. Some are actually accepting of conceptual art to a point. Also, Stuckism is not just about painting. In fact, some artists have taken the ideas of Stuckism into their video art.

I guess it depends on which branch you are talking about… as in the founders of Stuckism or the thousands of artists who associate themselves with Stuckism. Anyone can be a Stuckist, but not everyone follows the manifesto to the letter. There are actually several splinter groups– the Defastenists for example.

“They just want their stuff to make more money and garner more attention.”

I think most artists want that even if they will not admit it. However, to suggest that their opinions are based only on the desire for money and attention is a rather closed minded way of viewing them. By implication that would mean that anyone who is passionate about an issue is doing it only for the money and attention rather than to make their opinions known in order to spur honest change.

I’m not an expert on the Stuckists nor do I agree with every position they have… but I have interviewed some of the founders and others who call themselves Stuckists now. I think their message and the following they have is worth observing. It has went beyond what the founders expected. Writing them off as ‘bad’ artists with ‘bad’ ideas is the easy route. I try to understand where they are coming from and why. I try to understand why an artist decides to say, “I’m a Stuckist”.

“You should look at this phenomena more closely and see it for what it is. An all out attack on the creative class.”

Eric, as far as that goes we have more to worry about than the Stuckists and their opinions. Our schools need to focus more on art appreciation and development. Most teens, at least in the United States, can only name a few artists. Picasso, Warhol, Pollock, Van Gogh… and the like. The education of our youth concerning visual art needs to run a bit deeper than that.

We have students in rural settings who have never had the opportunity to visit an art gallery… other than mom and pop shops. We have millions of young students who have been conditioned by mass marketing to accept anime as the end all be all of art– which often has the end result of limiting their artistic growth. There are many problems that need to be solved so that art as whole is secured from a cultural standpoint.

“The Stuckists don’t want the critics and academics and galleries and auction houses and museums to go away.”

True. However, from their viewpoint they want those institutions to have more balance. Most of the Stuckists I’ve came in contact with don’t follow the Stuckism manifesto 100%. You have to keep that in mind. Some are actually accepting of conceptual art to a point. Also, Stuckism is not just about painting. In fact, some artists have taken the ideas of Stuckism into their video art.

I guess it depends on which branch you are talking about… as in the founders of Stuckism or the thousands of artists who associate themselves with Stuckism. Anyone can be a Stuckist, but not everyone follows the manifesto to the letter. There are actually several splinter groups– the Defastenists for example.

“They just want their stuff to make more money and garner more attention.”

I think most artists want that even if they will not admit it. However, to suggest that their opinions are based only on the desire for money and attention is a rather closed minded way of viewing them. By implication that would mean that anyone who is passionate about an issue is doing it only for the money and attention rather than to make their opinions known in order to spur honest change.

I’m not an expert on the Stuckists nor do I agree with every position they have… but I have interviewed some of the founders and others who call themselves Stuckists now. I think their message and the following they have is worth observing. It has went beyond what the founders expected. Writing them off as ‘bad’ artists with ‘bad’ ideas is the easy route. I try to understand where they are coming from and why. I try to understand why an artist decides to say, “I’m a Stuckist”.

Sorry Brian but I feel like you have missed just about everything I said and have decided to cherry pick quotes and go on with your own take on things. That is why comment chains on blogs often are the MOST futile form of communication.

I have said over and over again that the whole notion of Stuckism, or whatever the fuck we are talking about at this point, is simply a bunch of artists staking out a claim. They want more attention in galleries because why? To make money one would assume. Is it because they want to give their works away for free for the sake of educating the public and improving their critical gaze? I don’t think so.

Many of their styles and final works blend together in my mind because they are so similarly made. The whole attitude that there is a more ‘people friendly’ way to make visual art is absurd. The notion that they are giving the people what they want, is arguable, considering that kids don’t give a fuck about visual art and would rather spend huge chunks of their lives staring at mesmerizing video game graphics.

Throwing matches at the straw dogs, Hirst, Koons, Emin, etc., is easy to do, but I DO NOT think it serves a higher purpose as you seem to suggest. I tried to make that point clear earlier.

Taking one quote out of context and then saying that I am missing the larger issues is disingenuous because I thought we were discussing a SPECIFIC issue and not the whole caboodle. If we were discussing the problem with our youth today I can promise you that the Stuckists and all of the other artists we mentioned in this comment chain would not get mentioned by me even once.

Sorry Brian but I feel like you have missed just about everything I said and have decided to cherry pick quotes and go on with your own take on things. That is why comment chains on blogs often are the MOST futile form of communication.

I have said over and over again that the whole notion of Stuckism, or whatever the fuck we are talking about at this point, is simply a bunch of artists staking out a claim. They want more attention in galleries because why? To make money one would assume. Is it because they want to give their works away for free for the sake of educating the public and improving their critical gaze? I don’t think so.

Many of their styles and final works blend together in my mind because they are so similarly made. The whole attitude that there is a more ‘people friendly’ way to make visual art is absurd. The notion that they are giving the people what they want, is arguable, considering that kids don’t give a fuck about visual art and would rather spend huge chunks of their lives staring at mesmerizing video game graphics.

Throwing matches at the straw dogs, Hirst, Koons, Emin, etc., is easy to do, but I DO NOT think it serves a higher purpose as you seem to suggest. I tried to make that point clear earlier.

Taking one quote out of context and then saying that I am missing the larger issues is disingenuous because I thought we were discussing a SPECIFIC issue and not the whole caboodle. If we were discussing the problem with our youth today I can promise you that the Stuckists and all of the other artists we mentioned in this comment chain would not get mentioned by me even once.

Sorry Brian but I feel like you have missed just about everything I said and have decided to cherry pick quotes and go on with your own take on things. That is why comment chains on blogs often are the MOST futile form of communication.

I have said over and over again that the whole notion of Stuckism, or whatever the fuck we are talking about at this point, is simply a bunch of artists staking out a claim. They want more attention in galleries because why? To make money one would assume. Is it because they want to give their works away for free for the sake of educating the public and improving their critical gaze? I don’t think so.

Many of their styles and final works blend together in my mind because they are so similarly made. The whole attitude that there is a more ‘people friendly’ way to make visual art is absurd. The notion that they are giving the people what they want, is arguable, considering that kids don’t give a fuck about visual art and would rather spend huge chunks of their lives staring at mesmerizing video game graphics.

Throwing matches at the straw dogs, Hirst, Koons, Emin, etc., is easy to do, but I DO NOT think it serves a higher purpose as you seem to suggest. I tried to make that point clear earlier.

Taking one quote out of context and then saying that I am missing the larger issues is disingenuous because I thought we were discussing a SPECIFIC issue and not the whole caboodle. If we were discussing the problem with our youth today I can promise you that the Stuckists and all of the other artists we mentioned in this comment chain would not get mentioned by me even once.

p.s.

I don’t think that going back in time to the early twentieth century, the day of the fascist-lite manifesto, is going to improve the overall quality of art being shown to the public in galleries and museums. Defastenists, Stuckists, I mean come on! I can understand how an artist would want to rely entirely upon modernist styles, but the silly tribalism that the whole notion of the manifesto represents, should remain in the dustbin.

If you think that Stuckism does not represent a form of branding then that is your prerogative. The difference between a quirky painting you might come across in a thrift store and a Stuckist work is what? Perhaps that gets to the heart of what makes a Stuckist work charming. But one can’t ignore the fact that when an art collector (how many of those are there in the lower and middle classes nowadays?) buys a Stuckist work they think they are making an investment, they are doing something that they are not doing when they buy a completely anonymous painting or whatever from a thrift store. What’s my point? I am just trying to make clear that the Stuckists are maneuvering within the same confines that the blue chip gallery artists do, in the sense that they are allegedly making high art, the opposite of Sunday painter fare, but they are providing a product for people who don’t have a lot of money to spend on art. So, in and of itself that might be a noble thing, to make works of art for this particular market, but it doesn’t automatically make the art better or more real or truthful. And implicit in the Stuckists attack on specific big name artists, is the notion that their targets are frauds.

p.s.

I don’t think that going back in time to the early twentieth century, the day of the fascist-lite manifesto, is going to improve the overall quality of art being shown to the public in galleries and museums. Defastenists, Stuckists, I mean come on! I can understand how an artist would want to rely entirely upon modernist styles, but the silly tribalism that the whole notion of the manifesto represents, should remain in the dustbin.

If you think that Stuckism does not represent a form of branding then that is your prerogative. The difference between a quirky painting you might come across in a thrift store and a Stuckist work is what? Perhaps that gets to the heart of what makes a Stuckist work charming. But one can’t ignore the fact that when an art collector (how many of those are there in the lower and middle classes nowadays?) buys a Stuckist work they think they are making an investment, they are doing something that they are not doing when they buy a completely anonymous painting or whatever from a thrift store. What’s my point? I am just trying to make clear that the Stuckists are maneuvering within the same confines that the blue chip gallery artists do, in the sense that they are allegedly making high art, the opposite of Sunday painter fare, but they are providing a product for people who don’t have a lot of money to spend on art. So, in and of itself that might be a noble thing, to make works of art for this particular market, but it doesn’t automatically make the art better or more real or truthful. And implicit in the Stuckists attack on specific big name artists, is the notion that their targets are frauds.

p.s.

I don’t think that going back in time to the early twentieth century, the day of the fascist-lite manifesto, is going to improve the overall quality of art being shown to the public in galleries and museums. Defastenists, Stuckists, I mean come on! I can understand how an artist would want to rely entirely upon modernist styles, but the silly tribalism that the whole notion of the manifesto represents, should remain in the dustbin.

If you think that Stuckism does not represent a form of branding then that is your prerogative. The difference between a quirky painting you might come across in a thrift store and a Stuckist work is what? Perhaps that gets to the heart of what makes a Stuckist work charming. But one can’t ignore the fact that when an art collector (how many of those are there in the lower and middle classes nowadays?) buys a Stuckist work they think they are making an investment, they are doing something that they are not doing when they buy a completely anonymous painting or whatever from a thrift store. What’s my point? I am just trying to make clear that the Stuckists are maneuvering within the same confines that the blue chip gallery artists do, in the sense that they are allegedly making high art, the opposite of Sunday painter fare, but they are providing a product for people who don’t have a lot of money to spend on art. So, in and of itself that might be a noble thing, to make works of art for this particular market, but it doesn’t automatically make the art better or more real or truthful. And implicit in the Stuckists attack on specific big name artists, is the notion that their targets are frauds.

Just to be clear, Eric at no point labeled the Stuckists as bad artists with bad ideas, although I did as much in a subsequent post.

For the record, I’ve gone through EVERY ARTIST on that site, and while some are better than others, I like none of it. On a very basic level the art lacks originality and skill. Frankly, I’d rather invest my time thinking about artists who warrant the attention, (though I think Eric’s discussion of branding is valuable.)

Just to be clear, Eric at no point labeled the Stuckists as bad artists with bad ideas, although I did as much in a subsequent post.

For the record, I’ve gone through EVERY ARTIST on that site, and while some are better than others, I like none of it. On a very basic level the art lacks originality and skill. Frankly, I’d rather invest my time thinking about artists who warrant the attention, (though I think Eric’s discussion of branding is valuable.)

Thanks for pointing that out Paddy. I failed to do so.

“You should look at this phenomena more closely and see it for what it is. An all out attack on the creative class.”

The above quote refers to the false binaries that the press sets up when they write about big selling art and artists. I was not refering to the Stuckists in the above quote. Also, I am not saying one type of art or individual artist is better than any other. I was trying to discuss the limited impact the art world has on the rest of humanity, and branding and marketing as specific phenomena in the art world context.

Thanks for pointing that out Paddy. I failed to do so.

“You should look at this phenomena more closely and see it for what it is. An all out attack on the creative class.”

The above quote refers to the false binaries that the press sets up when they write about big selling art and artists. I was not refering to the Stuckists in the above quote. Also, I am not saying one type of art or individual artist is better than any other. I was trying to discuss the limited impact the art world has on the rest of humanity, and branding and marketing as specific phenomena in the art world context.

Thanks for pointing that out Paddy. I failed to do so.

“You should look at this phenomena more closely and see it for what it is. An all out attack on the creative class.”

The above quote refers to the false binaries that the press sets up when they write about big selling art and artists. I was not refering to the Stuckists in the above quote. Also, I am not saying one type of art or individual artist is better than any other. I was trying to discuss the limited impact the art world has on the rest of humanity, and branding and marketing as specific phenomena in the art world context.

Thanks for pointing that out Paddy. I failed to do so.

“You should look at this phenomena more closely and see it for what it is. An all out attack on the creative class.”

The above quote refers to the false binaries that the press sets up when they write about big selling art and artists. I was not refering to the Stuckists in the above quote. Also, I am not saying one type of art or individual artist is better than any other. I was trying to discuss the limited impact the art world has on the rest of humanity, and branding and marketing as specific phenomena in the art world context.

Again, I know almost nothing about them, they are incredibly niave, and lack any skill in handling paint. Thats not the point, they are correct if truthful, though you claim otherwise. But art is as out of control as the internationl economy. Both are built on lies and deceptions, false, and leading to this present moment, a time where we have a choice, to sacrifice our own personal goals and desires for the greater good. a neccesity for survivalo, as this bailout package is doomed for failure if there is not revenue enhancement, and thought to be a cure all, it is just a first step. And art is doomed, with no real substance ever to come from it again, if it is not reformed. It is a show, a bad show, and played to keep itself going, not perform its function.

both have failed, what wil come from it I have no idea. Stuckists are not the way, but could be an embryo to grow from, Unformed, unliving, but life could come from it. Or not, we will see. Most of these people may very well fade to nothing, but still, its time. Stop worrying about individuals, and look for relevance only. I will study them later, but ther are far more important things than art going on at thie very moment. How can art help? Thats the question.

Again, I know almost nothing about them, they are incredibly niave, and lack any skill in handling paint. Thats not the point, they are correct if truthful, though you claim otherwise. But art is as out of control as the internationl economy. Both are built on lies and deceptions, false, and leading to this present moment, a time where we have a choice, to sacrifice our own personal goals and desires for the greater good. a neccesity for survivalo, as this bailout package is doomed for failure if there is not revenue enhancement, and thought to be a cure all, it is just a first step. And art is doomed, with no real substance ever to come from it again, if it is not reformed. It is a show, a bad show, and played to keep itself going, not perform its function.

both have failed, what wil come from it I have no idea. Stuckists are not the way, but could be an embryo to grow from, Unformed, unliving, but life could come from it. Or not, we will see. Most of these people may very well fade to nothing, but still, its time. Stop worrying about individuals, and look for relevance only. I will study them later, but ther are far more important things than art going on at thie very moment. How can art help? Thats the question.

Again, I know almost nothing about them, they are incredibly niave, and lack any skill in handling paint. Thats not the point, they are correct if truthful, though you claim otherwise. But art is as out of control as the internationl economy. Both are built on lies and deceptions, false, and leading to this present moment, a time where we have a choice, to sacrifice our own personal goals and desires for the greater good. a neccesity for survivalo, as this bailout package is doomed for failure if there is not revenue enhancement, and thought to be a cure all, it is just a first step. And art is doomed, with no real substance ever to come from it again, if it is not reformed. It is a show, a bad show, and played to keep itself going, not perform its function.

both have failed, what wil come from it I have no idea. Stuckists are not the way, but could be an embryo to grow from, Unformed, unliving, but life could come from it. Or not, we will see. Most of these people may very well fade to nothing, but still, its time. Stop worrying about individuals, and look for relevance only. I will study them later, but ther are far more important things than art going on at thie very moment. How can art help? Thats the question.

Again, I know almost nothing about them, they are incredibly niave, and lack any skill in handling paint. Thats not the point, they are correct if truthful, though you claim otherwise. But art is as out of control as the internationl economy. Both are built on lies and deceptions, false, and leading to this present moment, a time where we have a choice, to sacrifice our own personal goals and desires for the greater good. a neccesity for survivalo, as this bailout package is doomed for failure if there is not revenue enhancement, and thought to be a cure all, it is just a first step. And art is doomed, with no real substance ever to come from it again, if it is not reformed. It is a show, a bad show, and played to keep itself going, not perform its function.

both have failed, what wil come from it I have no idea. Stuckists are not the way, but could be an embryo to grow from, Unformed, unliving, but life could come from it. Or not, we will see. Most of these people may very well fade to nothing, but still, its time. Stop worrying about individuals, and look for relevance only. I will study them later, but ther are far more important things than art going on at thie very moment. How can art help? Thats the question.

Donald: The Internet is a vast resource you leave untapped. Read about the Stuckists, form your own opinion, then write a meaningful comment. Please stay on topic. We aren’t talking about bail outs, nor have we been discussing art being doomed. Even if we were, you’d still have to provide examples for your assertions, which you haven’t.

Donald: The Internet is a vast resource you leave untapped. Read about the Stuckists, form your own opinion, then write a meaningful comment. Please stay on topic. We aren’t talking about bail outs, nor have we been discussing art being doomed. Even if we were, you’d still have to provide examples for your assertions, which you haven’t.

Here too, really, that was quite relevant. Just not what is usually heard in the art world, somethng I have purposely stayed apart from. You all need some frsh views, if you are correct you will be fine and triumph over my evil cynicism anyway. Its called debate. Come on now, your better than that, rather like your site, in its own quirky way. I add hits, ask Dion and Brian. But if its just about business, well, I am outta here anyway. As you can see where business has landed us. Somethings are more important, like art.

Here too, really, that was quite relevant. Just not what is usually heard in the art world, somethng I have purposely stayed apart from. You all need some frsh views, if you are correct you will be fine and triumph over my evil cynicism anyway. Its called debate. Come on now, your better than that, rather like your site, in its own quirky way. I add hits, ask Dion and Brian. But if its just about business, well, I am outta here anyway. As you can see where business has landed us. Somethings are more important, like art.

Here too, really, that was quite relevant. Just not what is usually heard in the art world, somethng I have purposely stayed apart from. You all need some frsh views, if you are correct you will be fine and triumph over my evil cynicism anyway. Its called debate. Come on now, your better than that, rather like your site, in its own quirky way. I add hits, ask Dion and Brian. But if its just about business, well, I am outta here anyway. As you can see where business has landed us. Somethings are more important, like art.

I have to agree that debating online has its flaws.

“Throwing matches at the straw dogs, Hirst, Koons, Emin, etc., is easy to do, but I DO NOT think it serves a higher purpose as you seem to suggest. I tried to make that point clear earlier.”

I’m suggesting that the Stuckists view it as purpose not just as scheme as you suggest. I’m suggesting that artists who relate to some of their philosophy may find purpose in it and perhaps that passion should be respected for what it is and what it means to them instead of suggesting that said artists are nothing more than coffee house casualties hoping to cash in by targeting famed artists. Why would an artist want to be labeled as a Stuckist unless he or she supports their philosophy? I don’t think the choice of association is making any of them richer. To them it is a higher purpose and the press has taken notice. That is why they are quoted as an authoritative art movement.

On a side note, when I interviewed Michael Craig-Martin he said, “I feel sorry for those who build their lives on feeling bitter about other people. They often have a misunderstanding about what it means to ‘understand’ a work of art and therefore feel threatened by what they don’t ‘understand’. ‘Understanding’ art is like having a sense of humour – if you don’t have one, no amount of explanation is going to make you laugh.” concerning the views of the Stuckists and art critic David Lee about conceptual art. I think that shoe can easily be placed on the other foot as to the charges supporters of Hirst and others make against people who don’t ‘get it’, so to speak. There is anger and frustration on both sides and from that generalizations take shape.

Donald said, “I add hits, ask Dion and Brian.”. Just so you know, comments don’t really matter as far as traffic to a blog is concerned. Some of the high traffic art blogs, and blogs in general, have comments disabled. Comments are nice, but they don’t always make or break a blog. Art Fag City, Winkleman, and Artnewsblog are three art blogs that I really enjoy. That is why I put the links to their blog on my blog. In fact, they are the only blogs I have listed on the Myartspace Blog at this time. It was not a business choice if that is what you are suggesting.

I have to agree that debating online has its flaws.

“Throwing matches at the straw dogs, Hirst, Koons, Emin, etc., is easy to do, but I DO NOT think it serves a higher purpose as you seem to suggest. I tried to make that point clear earlier.”

I’m suggesting that the Stuckists view it as purpose not just as scheme as you suggest. I’m suggesting that artists who relate to some of their philosophy may find purpose in it and perhaps that passion should be respected for what it is and what it means to them instead of suggesting that said artists are nothing more than coffee house casualties hoping to cash in by targeting famed artists. Why would an artist want to be labeled as a Stuckist unless he or she supports their philosophy? I don’t think the choice of association is making any of them richer. To them it is a higher purpose and the press has taken notice. That is why they are quoted as an authoritative art movement.

On a side note, when I interviewed Michael Craig-Martin he said, “I feel sorry for those who build their lives on feeling bitter about other people. They often have a misunderstanding about what it means to ‘understand’ a work of art and therefore feel threatened by what they don’t ‘understand’. ‘Understanding’ art is like having a sense of humour – if you don’t have one, no amount of explanation is going to make you laugh.” concerning the views of the Stuckists and art critic David Lee about conceptual art. I think that shoe can easily be placed on the other foot as to the charges supporters of Hirst and others make against people who don’t ‘get it’, so to speak. There is anger and frustration on both sides and from that generalizations take shape.

Donald said, “I add hits, ask Dion and Brian.”. Just so you know, comments don’t really matter as far as traffic to a blog is concerned. Some of the high traffic art blogs, and blogs in general, have comments disabled. Comments are nice, but they don’t always make or break a blog. Art Fag City, Winkleman, and Artnewsblog are three art blogs that I really enjoy. That is why I put the links to their blog on my blog. In fact, they are the only blogs I have listed on the Myartspace Blog at this time. It was not a business choice if that is what you are suggesting.

I have to agree that debating online has its flaws.

“Throwing matches at the straw dogs, Hirst, Koons, Emin, etc., is easy to do, but I DO NOT think it serves a higher purpose as you seem to suggest. I tried to make that point clear earlier.”

I’m suggesting that the Stuckists view it as purpose not just as scheme as you suggest. I’m suggesting that artists who relate to some of their philosophy may find purpose in it and perhaps that passion should be respected for what it is and what it means to them instead of suggesting that said artists are nothing more than coffee house casualties hoping to cash in by targeting famed artists. Why would an artist want to be labeled as a Stuckist unless he or she supports their philosophy? I don’t think the choice of association is making any of them richer. To them it is a higher purpose and the press has taken notice. That is why they are quoted as an authoritative art movement.

On a side note, when I interviewed Michael Craig-Martin he said, “I feel sorry for those who build their lives on feeling bitter about other people. They often have a misunderstanding about what it means to ‘understand’ a work of art and therefore feel threatened by what they don’t ‘understand’. ‘Understanding’ art is like having a sense of humour – if you don’t have one, no amount of explanation is going to make you laugh.” concerning the views of the Stuckists and art critic David Lee about conceptual art. I think that shoe can easily be placed on the other foot as to the charges supporters of Hirst and others make against people who don’t ‘get it’, so to speak. There is anger and frustration on both sides and from that generalizations take shape.

Donald said, “I add hits, ask Dion and Brian.”. Just so you know, comments don’t really matter as far as traffic to a blog is concerned. Some of the high traffic art blogs, and blogs in general, have comments disabled. Comments are nice, but they don’t always make or break a blog. Art Fag City, Winkleman, and Artnewsblog are three art blogs that I really enjoy. That is why I put the links to their blog on my blog. In fact, they are the only blogs I have listed on the Myartspace Blog at this time. It was not a business choice if that is what you are suggesting.

I have to agree that debating online has its flaws.

“Throwing matches at the straw dogs, Hirst, Koons, Emin, etc., is easy to do, but I DO NOT think it serves a higher purpose as you seem to suggest. I tried to make that point clear earlier.”

I’m suggesting that the Stuckists view it as purpose not just as scheme as you suggest. I’m suggesting that artists who relate to some of their philosophy may find purpose in it and perhaps that passion should be respected for what it is and what it means to them instead of suggesting that said artists are nothing more than coffee house casualties hoping to cash in by targeting famed artists. Why would an artist want to be labeled as a Stuckist unless he or she supports their philosophy? I don’t think the choice of association is making any of them richer. To them it is a higher purpose and the press has taken notice. That is why they are quoted as an authoritative art movement.

On a side note, when I interviewed Michael Craig-Martin he said, “I feel sorry for those who build their lives on feeling bitter about other people. They often have a misunderstanding about what it means to ‘understand’ a work of art and therefore feel threatened by what they don’t ‘understand’. ‘Understanding’ art is like having a sense of humour – if you don’t have one, no amount of explanation is going to make you laugh.” concerning the views of the Stuckists and art critic David Lee about conceptual art. I think that shoe can easily be placed on the other foot as to the charges supporters of Hirst and others make against people who don’t ‘get it’, so to speak. There is anger and frustration on both sides and from that generalizations take shape.

Donald said, “I add hits, ask Dion and Brian.”. Just so you know, comments don’t really matter as far as traffic to a blog is concerned. Some of the high traffic art blogs, and blogs in general, have comments disabled. Comments are nice, but they don’t always make or break a blog. Art Fag City, Winkleman, and Artnewsblog are three art blogs that I really enjoy. That is why I put the links to their blog on my blog. In fact, they are the only blogs I have listed on the Myartspace Blog at this time. It was not a business choice if that is what you are suggesting.

Yeah, overbaring personalities(moi?) CAN run off his, at least thsoe who reply as they might get demolished with the next reply. Some like watching train wrecks, though not a good analogy after what happened here in LA last week. But can get new people interested which should be the goal.

But much of art noW is exactly that, a train wreck. Wondering when this guy is gonna collapse, what new Ism will take over, all have Andy Warhols shelf life, fifteen minutes. As they have no substance. once artists get back to that first, and let the style develop FROM content, emotion, ideas, not illustrating adolescent desires that become a trap, as its style only that they are looking for
THEN art can become relevant again, not trapped in the now,the fashion, the political or hip current, which always becmes passe. But work towards solidity and reflect all of life. Then it wil be useful aagin. Til then, its entertainment for the rich, illustrating the absurdities of the moment.

Maybe Stuckists are still taht, but then, what hasnt been?

Art collegia delenda est .

Yeah, overbaring personalities(moi?) CAN run off his, at least thsoe who reply as they might get demolished with the next reply. Some like watching train wrecks, though not a good analogy after what happened here in LA last week. But can get new people interested which should be the goal.

But much of art noW is exactly that, a train wreck. Wondering when this guy is gonna collapse, what new Ism will take over, all have Andy Warhols shelf life, fifteen minutes. As they have no substance. once artists get back to that first, and let the style develop FROM content, emotion, ideas, not illustrating adolescent desires that become a trap, as its style only that they are looking for
THEN art can become relevant again, not trapped in the now,the fashion, the political or hip current, which always becmes passe. But work towards solidity and reflect all of life. Then it wil be useful aagin. Til then, its entertainment for the rich, illustrating the absurdities of the moment.

Maybe Stuckists are still taht, but then, what hasnt been?

Art collegia delenda est .

Yeah, overbaring personalities(moi?) CAN run off his, at least thsoe who reply as they might get demolished with the next reply. Some like watching train wrecks, though not a good analogy after what happened here in LA last week. But can get new people interested which should be the goal.

But much of art noW is exactly that, a train wreck. Wondering when this guy is gonna collapse, what new Ism will take over, all have Andy Warhols shelf life, fifteen minutes. As they have no substance. once artists get back to that first, and let the style develop FROM content, emotion, ideas, not illustrating adolescent desires that become a trap, as its style only that they are looking for
THEN art can become relevant again, not trapped in the now,the fashion, the political or hip current, which always becmes passe. But work towards solidity and reflect all of life. Then it wil be useful aagin. Til then, its entertainment for the rich, illustrating the absurdities of the moment.

Maybe Stuckists are still taht, but then, what hasnt been?

Art collegia delenda est .

“coffee house casualties hoping to cash in by targeting famed artists”

Nice phrase.

I don’t want to limit my comparisons to coffee house wall hangings. Their work is very redolent of the stuff being churned out by the tens of thousands of art students who are entering undergraduate arts programs each year aroun the world. The Stuckists’ art is not unique and their viewpoints aren’t either.

Whether or not you want to associate yourself with a group has to do with how you decide to promote yourself. I don’t think an individual is seeking depth and profundity when they decide to call themselves a whatever-ist.

In a world where branding is everything it is a question of survival. The loner misnathrope is guaranteed to fail in this day and age and self promotion requires networking. Stuckism, in my mind, does not represent some untainted philosophical stance, one that is detached from the world of commerce.

If a Stuckist does not want to call themselves a Stuckist in order to call attention to their work and public persona, then they shouldn’t supply quotes to reporters. They certainly aren’t causing a drop of harm to the artists they target. And I do not necessarily sympathize with the artists the Stuckists often poke fun at. I just don’t buy into this notion that any artist or art work is morally superior to any other.

“coffee house casualties hoping to cash in by targeting famed artists”

Nice phrase.

I don’t want to limit my comparisons to coffee house wall hangings. Their work is very redolent of the stuff being churned out by the tens of thousands of art students who are entering undergraduate arts programs each year aroun the world. The Stuckists’ art is not unique and their viewpoints aren’t either.

Whether or not you want to associate yourself with a group has to do with how you decide to promote yourself. I don’t think an individual is seeking depth and profundity when they decide to call themselves a whatever-ist.

In a world where branding is everything it is a question of survival. The loner misnathrope is guaranteed to fail in this day and age and self promotion requires networking. Stuckism, in my mind, does not represent some untainted philosophical stance, one that is detached from the world of commerce.

If a Stuckist does not want to call themselves a Stuckist in order to call attention to their work and public persona, then they shouldn’t supply quotes to reporters. They certainly aren’t causing a drop of harm to the artists they target. And I do not necessarily sympathize with the artists the Stuckists often poke fun at. I just don’t buy into this notion that any artist or art work is morally superior to any other.

“coffee house casualties hoping to cash in by targeting famed artists”

Nice phrase.

I don’t want to limit my comparisons to coffee house wall hangings. Their work is very redolent of the stuff being churned out by the tens of thousands of art students who are entering undergraduate arts programs each year aroun the world. The Stuckists’ art is not unique and their viewpoints aren’t either.

Whether or not you want to associate yourself with a group has to do with how you decide to promote yourself. I don’t think an individual is seeking depth and profundity when they decide to call themselves a whatever-ist.

In a world where branding is everything it is a question of survival. The loner misnathrope is guaranteed to fail in this day and age and self promotion requires networking. Stuckism, in my mind, does not represent some untainted philosophical stance, one that is detached from the world of commerce.

If a Stuckist does not want to call themselves a Stuckist in order to call attention to their work and public persona, then they shouldn’t supply quotes to reporters. They certainly aren’t causing a drop of harm to the artists they target. And I do not necessarily sympathize with the artists the Stuckists often poke fun at. I just don’t buy into this notion that any artist or art work is morally superior to any other.

I simply dont see what all the fuss is about, looks like typical art gallery stuff to me. Yeah, its badly done, on purpose they claim, and as alot of them are as old as I am, and show no improvement or actual change in their work, they are stuckists. Stuck in the past. Sorta like communism, sounds good, better than old capitalism, but cant move, grow, mutate, evolve. But then, look at what we mutated into. 99% of mutations are bad, only 1%, or less, aid in evolution. And we are on the brink of collapse. We are again treating the symtom, and not the disease. Well, for one, I aint goin down without a fight. Not my way.

Basics of revolt are fine, but revolt for and to what? Again, they have no purpose. What they spout is about 5% of what is needed to evolve a style of substance, they are lacking. So call them Lackers if you want. But again, like what they are against is so much better. The quote that Childish is one of the most interesting artists in Britain, is what we used to call, damning with faint praise. They are all suckists. At least they kinda know it, but just none of them truly has any talent. Should go into other fields, like art is really all that important anymore. Could be, should be, perhaps will be. But isnt.

I simply dont see what all the fuss is about, looks like typical art gallery stuff to me. Yeah, its badly done, on purpose they claim, and as alot of them are as old as I am, and show no improvement or actual change in their work, they are stuckists. Stuck in the past. Sorta like communism, sounds good, better than old capitalism, but cant move, grow, mutate, evolve. But then, look at what we mutated into. 99% of mutations are bad, only 1%, or less, aid in evolution. And we are on the brink of collapse. We are again treating the symtom, and not the disease. Well, for one, I aint goin down without a fight. Not my way.

Basics of revolt are fine, but revolt for and to what? Again, they have no purpose. What they spout is about 5% of what is needed to evolve a style of substance, they are lacking. So call them Lackers if you want. But again, like what they are against is so much better. The quote that Childish is one of the most interesting artists in Britain, is what we used to call, damning with faint praise. They are all suckists. At least they kinda know it, but just none of them truly has any talent. Should go into other fields, like art is really all that important anymore. Could be, should be, perhaps will be. But isnt.

I simply dont see what all the fuss is about, looks like typical art gallery stuff to me. Yeah, its badly done, on purpose they claim, and as alot of them are as old as I am, and show no improvement or actual change in their work, they are stuckists. Stuck in the past. Sorta like communism, sounds good, better than old capitalism, but cant move, grow, mutate, evolve. But then, look at what we mutated into. 99% of mutations are bad, only 1%, or less, aid in evolution. And we are on the brink of collapse. We are again treating the symtom, and not the disease. Well, for one, I aint goin down without a fight. Not my way.

Basics of revolt are fine, but revolt for and to what? Again, they have no purpose. What they spout is about 5% of what is needed to evolve a style of substance, they are lacking. So call them Lackers if you want. But again, like what they are against is so much better. The quote that Childish is one of the most interesting artists in Britain, is what we used to call, damning with faint praise. They are all suckists. At least they kinda know it, but just none of them truly has any talent. Should go into other fields, like art is really all that important anymore. Could be, should be, perhaps will be. But isnt.

I simply dont see what all the fuss is about, looks like typical art gallery stuff to me. Yeah, its badly done, on purpose they claim, and as alot of them are as old as I am, and show no improvement or actual change in their work, they are stuckists. Stuck in the past. Sorta like communism, sounds good, better than old capitalism, but cant move, grow, mutate, evolve. But then, look at what we mutated into. 99% of mutations are bad, only 1%, or less, aid in evolution. And we are on the brink of collapse. We are again treating the symtom, and not the disease. Well, for one, I aint goin down without a fight. Not my way.

Basics of revolt are fine, but revolt for and to what? Again, they have no purpose. What they spout is about 5% of what is needed to evolve a style of substance, they are lacking. So call them Lackers if you want. But again, like what they are against is so much better. The quote that Childish is one of the most interesting artists in Britain, is what we used to call, damning with faint praise. They are all suckists. At least they kinda know it, but just none of them truly has any talent. Should go into other fields, like art is really all that important anymore. Could be, should be, perhaps will be. But isnt.

There seem to be some misunderstandings about Stuckism, at least my proposition for it. I don’t posit myself as against the establishment as such: I’m for it. I’m just against this particular art establishment, at least as it operates in the UK. Stuckism was established to promote the work of the artists in the group, so that doesn’t actually need any further enquiry to establish. I just say what I think about things and express my reaction to them. Some things I find empty, so I say so. I say what I like as well. It’s not restricted to Stuckists, but a lot of them do art that works for me.

There seem to be some misunderstandings about Stuckism, at least my proposition for it. I don’t posit myself as against the establishment as such: I’m for it. I’m just against this particular art establishment, at least as it operates in the UK. Stuckism was established to promote the work of the artists in the group, so that doesn’t actually need any further enquiry to establish. I just say what I think about things and express my reaction to them. Some things I find empty, so I say so. I say what I like as well. It’s not restricted to Stuckists, but a lot of them do art that works for me.

There seem to be some misunderstandings about Stuckism, at least my proposition for it. I don’t posit myself as against the establishment as such: I’m for it. I’m just against this particular art establishment, at least as it operates in the UK. Stuckism was established to promote the work of the artists in the group, so that doesn’t actually need any further enquiry to establish. I just say what I think about things and express my reaction to them. Some things I find empty, so I say so. I say what I like as well. It’s not restricted to Stuckists, but a lot of them do art that works for me.

At this point I have to agree with Mr. Thomson, that “There seem to be some misunderstandings about Stuckism” in the sense that I took the term and ran with it. I could have been talking about any number of things when I used the term “Stuckists”. I may or may not have made some cogent points along the way but like Paddy, I think that “I’d rather invest my time thinking about artists who warrant the attention.”

At this point I have to agree with Mr. Thomson, that “There seem to be some misunderstandings about Stuckism” in the sense that I took the term and ran with it. I could have been talking about any number of things when I used the term “Stuckists”. I may or may not have made some cogent points along the way but like Paddy, I think that “I’d rather invest my time thinking about artists who warrant the attention.”

At this point I have to agree with Mr. Thomson, that “There seem to be some misunderstandings about Stuckism” in the sense that I took the term and ran with it. I could have been talking about any number of things when I used the term “Stuckists”. I may or may not have made some cogent points along the way but like Paddy, I think that “I’d rather invest my time thinking about artists who warrant the attention.”

At this point I have to agree with Mr. Thomson, that “There seem to be some misunderstandings about Stuckism” in the sense that I took the term and ran with it. I could have been talking about any number of things when I used the term “Stuckists”. I may or may not have made some cogent points along the way but like Paddy, I think that “I’d rather invest my time thinking about artists who warrant the attention.”