"graffiti is about the most honest way you can be an artist. it takes no money to do it..." no money but a fat profit eh banksy? his work is cool though.
Zorio why not just disable the comments on your videos, good material like that is rare on here as it is but true youtube is plagued by pests.
I didn't want them on the internet anymore. 99% percent of the comments were stupid and I don't have the patience to deal with bullshit when I have more important work to do.
I know EXACTLY where you're coming from. Well, not really since I didn't have the immensity of knowledge that was in your videos nor the number of subscribers you had.
I think anyone with anything intelligent to say on YouTube knows exactly where I'm coming from. You would certainly be part of that group. I don't think the internet is the ideal place for intellectual discourse, considering the number of people who will come along and say "OMG COMMUNISM EVIL DON'T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT" outnumber those who want to learn and share knowledge and have discussions by a huge margin.
you could disable comments.. It's really a shame you removed your videos, I didn't subscribe until more recently and probably missed a lot of good stuff..
If you google him. Go into Patricia Dorfmann dot com. There you can see one of my favourite art-works of alltime; his "Les ombres". The way he captures time by "freezing" the contures of shadows is so clever... Enjoy my friend
Do you mean "does it remain (possibly) revolutionary if it is sold for a profit"? I've said before that what makes a thing a work of art is not anything to do with the thing, but rather has everything to do with the experience, the "mingling" or relation of the work with the observer. So yes, a work of art always has the possibility to be revolutionary so long as the relation (the art-ness) exists.
Not necessarily, but it can be worded as such. Agreed, the 'relative' 'value' ascribed to a piece of work is indeed a subjective one. However, I'm hypothetically referring to a kind of aesthetics that's contra the State, God, Hieararchy, Patriarchy, Capitalism etc. If such an aesthetics can be, does it lose its 'aura' as soon as its re-absorbed back into the systems its revolting against? After it's absorbed it still can be interpreted according to taste, but what about before that moment?
Any "aura" is posited onto a piece by the viewer, although it could be said that what they "see" is constructed based on the System they are a part of. This does not preclude the possibility of viewing any and all pieces of art as revolutionary however. A piece can always be whatever you want it to be, no matter which system it has become a part of.
Comment removed
Sherwulff 3 years ago
"graffiti is about the most honest way you can be an artist. it takes no money to do it..." no money but a fat profit eh banksy? his work is cool though.
Zorio why not just disable the comments on your videos, good material like that is rare on here as it is but true youtube is plagued by pests.
Ceadem 3 years ago
I don't disable comments because I want comments, just intelligent, thought out ones, not streams of idiocy.
zorio 3 years ago
thats the thing, there are not only streams of idiocy but floods! the rains are coming...
Ceadem 3 years ago
So... I have to ask, why'd you remove your vids? If it's an okay question - feel free to not answer :)
mistawulf 3 years ago
I didn't want them on the internet anymore. 99% percent of the comments were stupid and I don't have the patience to deal with bullshit when I have more important work to do.
zorio 3 years ago
I know EXACTLY where you're coming from. Well, not really since I didn't have the immensity of knowledge that was in your videos nor the number of subscribers you had.
mistawulf 3 years ago
I think anyone with anything intelligent to say on YouTube knows exactly where I'm coming from. You would certainly be part of that group. I don't think the internet is the ideal place for intellectual discourse, considering the number of people who will come along and say "OMG COMMUNISM EVIL DON'T EVEN TALK ABOUT IT" outnumber those who want to learn and share knowledge and have discussions by a huge margin.
zorio 3 years ago
you could disable comments.. It's really a shame you removed your videos, I didn't subscribe until more recently and probably missed a lot of good stuff..
Mariborchan 3 years ago
zorio, how are you?
sugizodx 3 years ago
I am alright, how are you?
zorio 3 years ago
Josh was here, watched this video.
Joshbuckler 3 years ago
Nice one Z. Are you familiar with artist called Zevs? - I think he´s pretty damn smooth....
ScientificDiscussion 3 years ago
Thanks, I've never heard of this Zevs fellow.
zorio 3 years ago
If you google him. Go into Patricia Dorfmann dot com. There you can see one of my favourite art-works of alltime; his "Les ombres". The way he captures time by "freezing" the contures of shadows is so clever... Enjoy my friend
ScientificDiscussion 3 years ago
Those shadows are great. Thanks for that.
zorio 3 years ago
Good to see a vid from you Zorio! Do you think Art - which retains the possibility of being revolutionary - can be sold for a profit?
eyemran 3 years ago
Do you mean "does it remain (possibly) revolutionary if it is sold for a profit"? I've said before that what makes a thing a work of art is not anything to do with the thing, but rather has everything to do with the experience, the "mingling" or relation of the work with the observer. So yes, a work of art always has the possibility to be revolutionary so long as the relation (the art-ness) exists.
zorio 3 years ago
Not necessarily, but it can be worded as such. Agreed, the 'relative' 'value' ascribed to a piece of work is indeed a subjective one. However, I'm hypothetically referring to a kind of aesthetics that's contra the State, God, Hieararchy, Patriarchy, Capitalism etc. If such an aesthetics can be, does it lose its 'aura' as soon as its re-absorbed back into the systems its revolting against? After it's absorbed it still can be interpreted according to taste, but what about before that moment?
eyemran 3 years ago
Any "aura" is posited onto a piece by the viewer, although it could be said that what they "see" is constructed based on the System they are a part of. This does not preclude the possibility of viewing any and all pieces of art as revolutionary however. A piece can always be whatever you want it to be, no matter which system it has become a part of.
zorio 3 years ago