b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 1000296 (Thread)

# Todays Lesson : B3ta'ing in the real world
www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,926134,00.html
Can we take it as red that these guys are 'long time listners - first time callers' of b3ta.com?
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:38, archived)
# GCHQ
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:40, archived)
# ah was it...
oh well - nice cock pic btw
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:41, archived)
# that is superb
too, too funny
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:42, archived)
# love that
:)

used to live near there.
Koit? You there?
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:18, archived)
# for a second there
i thought GC was Gatecrasher. but then i realised that it wouldnt make much sense.

Glasscox is serviceable also.

brilliant image.
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:56, archived)
# posted yesterday
yeah they do seem to be related to us (or they are just typical modern artists who will cash in on any popular phenomion..nahh.. they've got loads of talent)
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:40, archived)
# I can't see what the fuss is about.
If I go to Athena (or whatever it's called) and buy a Van Gogh print and draw a big cock on it am I being postmodern and awfully, awfully clever, or am I just being a big twat?
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:46, archived)
# i remember once a buddy o mine called that
antenna once... sorry for reminding people if you are looking ant
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:48, archived)
# I'd do it
to be a twat

;)
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:48, archived)
# I think that's what they are doing too.
They're doing shit stuff and letting twats like Brian Sewell tell them what it's all about. They must be pissing themselves.
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:54, archived)
# Atshly Sewell liked it.
Which amazes me, considering he's usually to the right of Mussolini when it comes to art...
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:07, archived)
# it's called
Artists being TWUNTS.
You see me and you and anyboby who is not a professional artist could do that and it would be like "Oh philistine, but they don't understand or matter so it's fine..

But poncy new modern artists do it JUST TO PISS OFF OTHER PONCES. And to get a reaction, which they do, which sells their crap. Great.

It is of couse due to 95% of all art being utter bollocks and lots of people having to justify themselves as if they don't they are the first up against the wall to be shot.
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:52, archived)
# i like artists being twunts
i don't care whether it's really art or not, i think it's funny
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:59, archived)
# Of course it's funny
it points out the whole irony of "Art"
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:01, archived)
# I saw a documentary about Jackson Pollock and the amount of
emotion and energy he put into his spatter paintings. Shame he didn't realise that they were utter fucking shit, and everyone from the special school down the road had done the same but with special sticks attached to their heads instead of using a brush and a ladder.
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:05, archived)
# i dunno
i thought they were(are) good
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:07, archived)
# but he was the first
and actually he was a very powerful painter..

go and see an actual one of his better ones and then say that - "Blue Poles" for example is great.
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:09, archived)
# Blue Poles is on the cusp of his decline.
By the time he died, he couldn't get arrested. His mid period of about 7 years was fantastic.
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:11, archived)
# The documentary was about the arse-end of his career.
I'm not a mad 'modern art is shit' type person. There is loads of stuff I love. I dug Hirst's dot stuff for exactly the same reason I dislike the work I saw in that documentary. It made me think. Hirst's work made me think "Cheeky bastard". Pollock's made me think "drunk man on ladder"
I'm totally out of my depth now, as I admit I've not seem much Pollock stuff. I'll stop now before I make an even bigger twat of myself.
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:17, archived)
# about 1%
of hirst's stuff is any good - same for pollock unfortunatelt.

Hirst pisses me off because he only comes up with a concept and then gets someone else to make it (who are then uncreditied).
He's just a cynical business man and a rippoff cnut. Hate him for that reason - he is ruining art for those who actually do anything resonable.
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:28, archived)
# .

___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\ \
___ _\:\ \ \:\ \ \:\ \ ___
/\__\ /\ \:\ \ \:\ \ \:\ \ /\__\
/:/ / _\:\ \:\ \ ___ \:\ \ _____\:\ \ /:/ /
/:/__/ /\ \:\ \:\__\ /\ \ \:\__\ /::::::::\__\ /:/__/
/::\ \ \:\ \:\/:/ / \:\ \ /:/ / \:\~~\~~\/__/ /::\ \
/:/\:\ \ \:\ \::/ / \:\ /:/ / \:\ \ /:/\:\ \
\/__\:\ \ \:\/:/ / \:\/:/ / \:\ \ \/__\:\ \
\:\__\ \::/ / \::/ / \:\__\ \:\__\
\/__/ \/__/ \/__/ \/__/ \/__/
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:05, archived)
# i wonder how they would react if....
someone decided to trash a piece of 'their' art?
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:55, archived)
# They drew on prints, not the originals.
Storm in a d-cup
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 14:58, archived)
# The Grauniad had a feature in G2 t'other day,
and they said the originals had been defaced...
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:06, archived)
# they were extemely
rare and valuable prints
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:06, archived)
# 'Course they were.
Defacing copies would've been pointless. I have to say I like it. Nicely shopped, well executed. No kittens though...
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:10, archived)
# kittens are so, like, last year
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:17, archived)
# The prints don't have much intrinsic worth though, do they,
other than to those rich enough to collect such things.
I like the chapmans, and think these look good.
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:30, archived)
# But they
haven't trashed anyone's art - no more than anything that goes on here anyway.
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:01, archived)
# My mistake....
to be honest i didnt actually read the article i just jumped to an ill-concived conclusion based on my Daily Mail induced reactionary views
:)
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:11, archived)
# bloody single mothers!
(, Wed 2 Apr 2003, 15:19, archived)