mediocrity is on top! yes! yes! yes! aim low you fucking art twats! go for that easy shock! yes! its a piece of poo on a dinner plate! yes! why didnt i think of that? oh shit... i just did! can i be known as the best artist now? go mediocrity! no one understands it but i sure do! cuz im better than anyone who criticizes shit as shit! i know the secret! that if i call shit gold then I will be popular! yes!
IT'S SO GOSH DARN LOVELY! to see a wonderful working class warrior/poet/artiste/fighter/hero win this glorious awarde' for his amazing GLORIOUS art piece.
THIS CHARMING YOUNG SOUL is what great britain needs more of.
Oh he 'delves into popular culture' does he? I have honestly never heard of that idea before. It's incredible really that people haven't been doing that for the last 60 years or so. Isn't conceptual art so wonderful? No, no it's not and these fucking artists should grow out of it. It's easy, it's simple, anyone could do it and too many have. This is shame upon Turner. Look at him in his fashionable clothes; Turner would have never approved of that ugh... xXx
People like leckey are charlatans. They confuse originality with quality. The worst thing about them is that they no longer even own the intellectual rights of what they produce, all they do is churn out shite and then stand back and let the critics do the rest. Pretentious art critics, by legitimising this toss, are attempting to hijack the creative power that used to belong to genuine artistic talents.
it seems to me that the only charlatans are the ones that post badly researched points on youtube videos about artists, because they know they can get away with it. Who are 'they' who no longer ownthe intellectual rights of what they do. The whole point of what mark leckey is getting at- whether you agree or not- is that he is supposedly trying to forge some kind of personal relationship with the things that he appropriates. Where are these critics you are speaking of?
If you want to make a constructive comment about something, atleast take the time make it more worth while than some standard base shit that is so trite that you no longer 'own the intellectual rights' to it.
wow you sound pretty bitter. I never actually showed any appreciation or 'felation' for mark leckey. Purely pointed out that your comments are ill informed and a waste of time- and do nothing in the way of construcive criticism. I meant specifically who are these people you speak ok- there seems alot of weighty criticism that is being generalised.
'They' are people like Leckey (read the answer properly dick head)
I forge a personal relationship with toilet paper when i wipe my arse, who do you think cares about that? No-one, its not art.
The result of leckeys navel gazing isn't art either, its a perfect demonstration of self obsessed pretension. He knows he's full of shit. He also knows that there are plenty of art school twat groupie's like you, who'll fulfill the roll of wannabe, highbrow critic to fill in the gaps.
wow you sound pretty bitter. I never actually showed any appreciation or 'felation' for mark leckey. Purely pointed out that your comments are ill informed and a waste of time- and do nothing in the way of construcive criticism. I meant specifically who are these people you speak ok- there seems alot of weighty criticism that is being generalised.
Constructive criticism implies you occupy a position of contemporary or even professorial status in regard to the person being criticised. I.e. you have the capacity to offer a critique that could help elevate an artists work, which implies that either (a.) Leckey is shit and needs all the help he can get (b.) you have a skewed sense of your own artistic talent/knowledge/importance or (c.) all of the above.
none of this comes any closer to legitimising your erlier comments, which were too general and assuming too much. All you seem to be able to muster are cheap, (and again general), digs at my art school aspirations (of which i have none). If you are to offer any criticism WHICH YOU DID, and i repeat, all I am saying is- dont bother unless it is of some use. Which your's was not. (doesnt that make you b))
The first statement i made was legitimising my comments you simpleton. I didn't just say he was shit, i followed it up by saying why he is shit. Your contributions to our little debate so far are hard evidence of your art school aspirations, assumption has nothing to do with it! ha-ha!
Now lets get down to brass tacks sweetheart, What is your PRECISE definition of useful criticism? This should be funny!
"They confuse originality with quality. The worst thing about them is that they no longer even own the intellectual rights of what they produce, all they do is churn out shite and then stand back and let the critics do the rest" this is too general and is assuming things that i dont think were there in his turner prize show. My idea of a useful criticism would be something a little more detailed than 'churn out shite.' What specifically is shite about it.
plus this sassy tone you are putting on isnt fooling anyone so just cut the shit and say something useful or fuck off. A useful criticism suggests what you think is good art which doesnt rely on the work on behalf of the critic. Sounds to me like you have a chip on your shoulder about art school- and that is about as deep as this gets. If all you have is unconvincing (and bad) sass and trite, easy to get away with, comments then get out of the kitchen because it is too hot for you.
What am i assuming? tell me, you ask for specifics and provide none!
And since when is only good criticism useful criticism you nob!? You make it sound like its a crime to criticise wankers like Leckey and Martin creed!
Great art is produced in the communication of an idea or concept, it isn't the concept itself. besides which leckey's concepts are appalling 'i want to make people feel something' he says. Everybody is feeling something all the time, Isn't that a bit fuckin general? tit
You are assuming that his work is all about a concept rather then the presence of the work itself which is not true. I think that art can be good without the sentiment being in line. I also happen to think that his sentiment is good. I have seen him at a talk and he is an interesting guy. Who mentioned martin creed, he is nothing like mark leckey in any way. I judge criticism on its ability to be useful (thus making useful=good)
the artist? Art students? you? the wider public? who? Answer the question for fuck sake.
Concept and sentiment are exactly the same thing, and how does anything created by the hand of man materialise without a prior concept or sentiment, art or otherwise? It can't!
you said that bad art is exists as the concept itself, i.e. and illustration. You havent actually said yet SPECIFICALLY which part of his work exhibits those bad points that you pointed out. If everyone makes good criticisms (i.e. well thought out) then it stops perpetuating the idea that people can get away with saying shit things- resulting in shit criticisms churning round in circles. I am talking criticism in a more braod sense- not criticism as an industry...
applying your own critical standards against a given thing., and so i get annoyed when I see people being half arsed and not bothering to go the whole hog- I fail to believe that your your critical standards- or taste- is so under developed that the result is such sweeping generalisations. I think that there are some truths in what you have said but because you aren't being specific about it-meaning that you are bring unfair to a degree.
by rounding your argument off as 'mark leckey is shite', even with the rest of your argument, rather than taking the things he has done apart- you are actually giving the man inportance- as opposed to discerning which ideas work and which maybe dont. So i can only conclude that either A) you are being lazy, B) you want to start youtube fights, C) you havent looked at his work in enough detail to make the claims that you do.
I've already said earlier, his ideas do not constitue art. By evaluating them as art you legitimise them. criticism, of the type you espouse i.e total, pseudo-intellectual gibberish, becomes a substitute for the actual work, soon we'll be critiquing the critics!
This is only possible the if artist responsible for the original work has such a flimsy concept that it makes it impossible to nail down and criticise. This enables your kind to ooh and aah at non-existant genius. ridiculous.
im sorry but I never ood'd or aah'd. I just purely said that your criticism was lazy. Plus I haven't said anything psuedo intellectual at all, I'm not for art criticism either, but I think if you are going to be critical about something, which you were, then just make sure there is a point. You seem to be placing your entire argument on this video. I didnt say he was a genius- that is equally as lazy and stupid.
Look, this is getting ridiculous, I'm obviously not getting through to you and you are obviously not getting through to me, lets agree to differ. And i apologise for calling you names, i just get passionate.
I have been far more specific in my analysis of Leckey, and you for that matter, than leckey is in his work, or you have been in your advocacy of him and his 'art'.
Leckey claims that with his work he 'just wants to make people feel something' I'm pretty sure that he didn't have total indifference in mind.
You're just a sychophantic cheerleader of the worse than mediocre. Pathetic.
This paragraph is gibberish, it makes no sense grammatically or theoretically. I didn't say what makes bad art, i said what makes good art. Leckey doesn't deliver.
You are the guilty party in terms of badly thoughtout critique and generalisations 'His sentiment is good' woolly generalisation, makes no sense, 'art can be good without the sentiment being in line' non-specific, generalised, made up bollocks! ha-ha!
Ah, so you ARE an aspiring member of the critical community. you sound like Leckey's biggest fan. You must have done lots of 'research' on him. Yet the best you can muster by way of an informed critical defence of his work is 'he is supposedly trying to forge some kind of personal relationship with the things he appropriates'
All at bit vague isn't it? And as paper thin as your pseudo intelllectual musings. Keep working at it petal, you'll get there one day, ha-ha!
They've gone to such effort to convey such a simple, uninteresting concept.
What, do I worry maybe a little bit too much about crockery falling over? Even if I do, it's not a problem I really need to address unless I were to take up a job in ceramics.
And why limit thinking about supermarkets to when youre actually in the supermarket? let's go home and analyze and consider every inch of them in "art"
Im on the dole and I dont even have that much time on my hands.
your a joke Mark Leckey
roncove 1 month ago
Yah boo sucks to the lot of you. I won!
MrLeckey 3 months ago
this guy sucks...the new generation of real art is coming from latin american.
roncove 4 months ago
when this "artist" read about me and see my paints he will shrink his shoulders
roncove 4 months ago
mediocrity is on top! yes! yes! yes! aim low you fucking art twats! go for that easy shock! yes! its a piece of poo on a dinner plate! yes! why didnt i think of that? oh shit... i just did! can i be known as the best artist now? go mediocrity! no one understands it but i sure do! cuz im better than anyone who criticizes shit as shit! i know the secret! that if i call shit gold then I will be popular! yes!
ColonelKucemeken 8 months ago
TV show plus Art = "general Idea" a Toronto art group from the 1980s and 1990s.
daphnemohajer 1 year ago
nothing new here,move on people
chrisjoneschrisjones 1 year ago
We are the official distributors of Mark Leckey's works and you can learn more about him in the artists section on the LUX homepage.
We look forward to finding out more about your work and opinions!
luxmovingimage 1 year ago
the Two Ronnies with Art, Haha!
ScottRoseVideo 2 years ago
IT'S SO GOSH DARN LOVELY! to see a wonderful working class warrior/poet/artiste/fighter/hero win this glorious awarde' for his amazing GLORIOUS art piece.
THIS CHARMING YOUNG SOUL is what great britain needs more of.
MyStaticAge 2 years ago
its greit tuu hev en ifect on greet britsh culcer but i dunt nuu whoat iim seeyn ..its oll i wont
ninjakidou 3 years ago
Oh he 'delves into popular culture' does he? I have honestly never heard of that idea before. It's incredible really that people haven't been doing that for the last 60 years or so. Isn't conceptual art so wonderful? No, no it's not and these fucking artists should grow out of it. It's easy, it's simple, anyone could do it and too many have. This is shame upon Turner. Look at him in his fashionable clothes; Turner would have never approved of that ugh... xXx
curzmg 3 years ago
His Liverpool accent starts slipping about 2:40
hawaiisaywhat 3 years ago
Mark Lekey is an amzing artist and tbh I'd like to see you do better. I know he worked so hard for this so shut your trap.
ThisIsImperfection 3 years ago
How is he so amazing? You tell me why, i'll tell you why not. Imbecile.
spaced9999 3 years ago
Because he put his life and soul into his work. And I'd like to see you win the Turner Prize for your work.
ThisIsImperfection 3 years ago
Yes he put the ESSENCE OF TRUE LOVE AND PASSION into his art work.
Me and my GLAZED ENCHANTED AFRICAN Ju-Ju plank only came third.
MyStaticAge 2 years ago
People like leckey are charlatans. They confuse originality with quality. The worst thing about them is that they no longer even own the intellectual rights of what they produce, all they do is churn out shite and then stand back and let the critics do the rest. Pretentious art critics, by legitimising this toss, are attempting to hijack the creative power that used to belong to genuine artistic talents.
spaced9999 3 years ago
it seems to me that the only charlatans are the ones that post badly researched points on youtube videos about artists, because they know they can get away with it. Who are 'they' who no longer ownthe intellectual rights of what they do. The whole point of what mark leckey is getting at- whether you agree or not- is that he is supposedly trying to forge some kind of personal relationship with the things that he appropriates. Where are these critics you are speaking of?
ruffbum 3 years ago
If you want to make a constructive comment about something, atleast take the time make it more worth while than some standard base shit that is so trite that you no longer 'own the intellectual rights' to it.
ruffbum 3 years ago
Heres a constructive comment; Mark, stop trying to be an artist, you aren't any good. Pass the message on the next time you fellate him. tit.
spaced9999 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wow you sound pretty bitter. I never actually showed any appreciation or 'felation' for mark leckey. Purely pointed out that your comments are ill informed and a waste of time- and do nothing in the way of construcive criticism. I meant specifically who are these people you speak ok- there seems alot of weighty criticism that is being generalised.
ruffbum 3 years ago
im not saying there are no criticisms to make- im just saying that I would prefer people were not so lazy with their criticism.
ruffbum 3 years ago
'They' are people like Leckey (read the answer properly dick head)
I forge a personal relationship with toilet paper when i wipe my arse, who do you think cares about that? No-one, its not art.
The result of leckeys navel gazing isn't art either, its a perfect demonstration of self obsessed pretension. He knows he's full of shit. He also knows that there are plenty of art school twat groupie's like you, who'll fulfill the roll of wannabe, highbrow critic to fill in the gaps.
spaced9999 3 years ago
wow you sound pretty bitter. I never actually showed any appreciation or 'felation' for mark leckey. Purely pointed out that your comments are ill informed and a waste of time- and do nothing in the way of construcive criticism. I meant specifically who are these people you speak ok- there seems alot of weighty criticism that is being generalised.
ruffbum 3 years ago
Constructive criticism implies you occupy a position of contemporary or even professorial status in regard to the person being criticised. I.e. you have the capacity to offer a critique that could help elevate an artists work, which implies that either (a.) Leckey is shit and needs all the help he can get (b.) you have a skewed sense of your own artistic talent/knowledge/importance or (c.) all of the above.
I think its c.
spaced9999 3 years ago
none of this comes any closer to legitimising your erlier comments, which were too general and assuming too much. All you seem to be able to muster are cheap, (and again general), digs at my art school aspirations (of which i have none). If you are to offer any criticism WHICH YOU DID, and i repeat, all I am saying is- dont bother unless it is of some use. Which your's was not. (doesnt that make you b))
ruffbum 3 years ago
The first statement i made was legitimising my comments you simpleton. I didn't just say he was shit, i followed it up by saying why he is shit. Your contributions to our little debate so far are hard evidence of your art school aspirations, assumption has nothing to do with it! ha-ha!
Now lets get down to brass tacks sweetheart, What is your PRECISE definition of useful criticism? This should be funny!
spaced9999 3 years ago
"They confuse originality with quality. The worst thing about them is that they no longer even own the intellectual rights of what they produce, all they do is churn out shite and then stand back and let the critics do the rest" this is too general and is assuming things that i dont think were there in his turner prize show. My idea of a useful criticism would be something a little more detailed than 'churn out shite.' What specifically is shite about it.
ruffbum 3 years ago
plus this sassy tone you are putting on isnt fooling anyone so just cut the shit and say something useful or fuck off. A useful criticism suggests what you think is good art which doesnt rely on the work on behalf of the critic. Sounds to me like you have a chip on your shoulder about art school- and that is about as deep as this gets. If all you have is unconvincing (and bad) sass and trite, easy to get away with, comments then get out of the kitchen because it is too hot for you.
ruffbum 3 years ago
What am i assuming? tell me, you ask for specifics and provide none!
And since when is only good criticism useful criticism you nob!? You make it sound like its a crime to criticise wankers like Leckey and Martin creed!
Great art is produced in the communication of an idea or concept, it isn't the concept itself. besides which leckey's concepts are appalling 'i want to make people feel something' he says. Everybody is feeling something all the time, Isn't that a bit fuckin general? tit
spaced9999 3 years ago
You are assuming that his work is all about a concept rather then the presence of the work itself which is not true. I think that art can be good without the sentiment being in line. I also happen to think that his sentiment is good. I have seen him at a talk and he is an interesting guy. Who mentioned martin creed, he is nothing like mark leckey in any way. I judge criticism on its ability to be useful (thus making useful=good)
ruffbum 3 years ago
You're a master at not actually saying anything at all.
WHO.........IS..........THE........FUCKING..........CRITICISM.........USEFUL...........TO?!
the artist? Art students? you? the wider public? who? Answer the question for fuck sake.
Concept and sentiment are exactly the same thing, and how does anything created by the hand of man materialise without a prior concept or sentiment, art or otherwise? It can't!
poor concept, badly executed, weak defence, non-art.
spaced9999 3 years ago
you said that bad art is exists as the concept itself, i.e. and illustration. You havent actually said yet SPECIFICALLY which part of his work exhibits those bad points that you pointed out. If everyone makes good criticisms (i.e. well thought out) then it stops perpetuating the idea that people can get away with saying shit things- resulting in shit criticisms churning round in circles. I am talking criticism in a more braod sense- not criticism as an industry...
ruffbum 3 years ago
applying your own critical standards against a given thing., and so i get annoyed when I see people being half arsed and not bothering to go the whole hog- I fail to believe that your your critical standards- or taste- is so under developed that the result is such sweeping generalisations. I think that there are some truths in what you have said but because you aren't being specific about it-meaning that you are bring unfair to a degree.
ruffbum 3 years ago
by rounding your argument off as 'mark leckey is shite', even with the rest of your argument, rather than taking the things he has done apart- you are actually giving the man inportance- as opposed to discerning which ideas work and which maybe dont. So i can only conclude that either A) you are being lazy, B) you want to start youtube fights, C) you havent looked at his work in enough detail to make the claims that you do.
ruffbum 3 years ago
I've already said earlier, his ideas do not constitue art. By evaluating them as art you legitimise them. criticism, of the type you espouse i.e total, pseudo-intellectual gibberish, becomes a substitute for the actual work, soon we'll be critiquing the critics!
This is only possible the if artist responsible for the original work has such a flimsy concept that it makes it impossible to nail down and criticise. This enables your kind to ooh and aah at non-existant genius. ridiculous.
spaced9999 3 years ago
im sorry but I never ood'd or aah'd. I just purely said that your criticism was lazy. Plus I haven't said anything psuedo intellectual at all, I'm not for art criticism either, but I think if you are going to be critical about something, which you were, then just make sure there is a point. You seem to be placing your entire argument on this video. I didnt say he was a genius- that is equally as lazy and stupid.
ruffbum 3 years ago
Look, this is getting ridiculous, I'm obviously not getting through to you and you are obviously not getting through to me, lets agree to differ. And i apologise for calling you names, i just get passionate.
spaced9999 3 years ago
hahahaha, it is all in good fun.
ruffbum 3 years ago
I have been far more specific in my analysis of Leckey, and you for that matter, than leckey is in his work, or you have been in your advocacy of him and his 'art'.
Leckey claims that with his work he 'just wants to make people feel something' I'm pretty sure that he didn't have total indifference in mind.
You're just a sychophantic cheerleader of the worse than mediocre. Pathetic.
spaced9999 3 years ago
This paragraph is gibberish, it makes no sense grammatically or theoretically. I didn't say what makes bad art, i said what makes good art. Leckey doesn't deliver.
You are the guilty party in terms of badly thoughtout critique and generalisations 'His sentiment is good' woolly generalisation, makes no sense, 'art can be good without the sentiment being in line' non-specific, generalised, made up bollocks! ha-ha!
spaced9999 3 years ago
"sassy" fuuuuuuuck offffffff! ha-ha!
spaced9999 3 years ago
Ah, so you ARE an aspiring member of the critical community. you sound like Leckey's biggest fan. You must have done lots of 'research' on him. Yet the best you can muster by way of an informed critical defence of his work is 'he is supposedly trying to forge some kind of personal relationship with the things he appropriates'
All at bit vague isn't it? And as paper thin as your pseudo intelllectual musings. Keep working at it petal, you'll get there one day, ha-ha!
spaced9999 3 years ago
All these works were shit
They've gone to such effort to convey such a simple, uninteresting concept.
What, do I worry maybe a little bit too much about crockery falling over? Even if I do, it's not a problem I really need to address unless I were to take up a job in ceramics.
And why limit thinking about supermarkets to when youre actually in the supermarket? let's go home and analyze and consider every inch of them in "art"
Im on the dole and I dont even have that much time on my hands.
funny1930 3 years ago
i'm with you all the way.
spaced9999 3 years ago