Is Hunter Hunt-Hendrix the Corey Feldman of our generation?

Is Hunter Hunt-Hendrix the Corey Feldman of our generation?

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.art21.org/2011/11/25/my-stance-right-now-is-that-everything-i-ever-make-will-be-transcendental-black-metal/#.V-6Ek_krK00
vimeo.com/24858799
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

he is burnt toast

Is that Björn "Speed" Strid?

more like david bowie

He got a studio in MoMA, set up a camera and lived in it and didn't really do anything other than wank. I'm not sure if that's an amazing commentary on MoMA being shit or if he's a pretentious knob. It's probably both.

ofc

He's not bald

source?

I had a lecture on black metal years ago and it was all said, never bothered finding evidence. There might be something on it here blog.art21.org/2011/11/25/my-stance-right-now-is-that-everything-i-ever-make-will-be-transcendental-black-metal/#.V-6Ek_krK00

thanks
thats cool if he just went to MoMA to wank hate those fuckers. them and jeff koons are cancer

Lay off of Koons, man. His whole schtick works as a parody of the Renaissance masters. If they're 'artists' than so is he. He himself is the product, it's pretty clever. Hirst is somewhat similar, but in more of a 'lads bants' sort of way and not nearly as well read.

I'm starting to doubt the whole wanking thing now, since I can't find evidence, though.

Nevermind, I found the actual video
vimeo.com/24858799
Turns out he didn't have a studio, but he did show it in MoMA.

I get that about him. but I want some sincerity
thx yous

Are you seriously equating Koons to renaissance masters?

Look I know that renaissance masters had tons of assistants are are more famous for their reputation than for their works, but they made beautiful paintings, whereas Koons only makes shit, and that's what he's famous for.
So it's really not an effective parody.

Ah, yeah I get you. I love him in a "hey that's really smart, but I'm not going to go see it" sort of way.

>they made beautiful paintings
What's your point? That would make them painters. Plus, they were sculptors as well - as far as we know, anyway. We have no proof that any of them really did any of the work at all.
Anyhow, craftsmanship =/= artistic merit. A painter is a painter. Koons has the idea, making him the Artist. Technically speaking, none of the Renaissance masters have half as much weight behind them as Koons does in terms of earning the title of Artist. While he makes kitschy monstrosities (on purpose in step forwards from where Warhol left off), those monstrosities say a lot more about the world and humanity as a whole than Religious commissions and portraits of Royal Dignitaries ever did. Of course, Koons benefits from the time he was born into and the systems he's been allowed to respond to, but that's about as valid a criticism as you can make on his part. That's why he wins all the awards - objectively he's faultless. He's like an evil villain.

making cool things gives you artistic merit.

Koons never did anything cool.
Renaissance masters did.

That's all there is to it.
Social commentary is worthless and Koons' is especially boring. He's not a villain he's a mild public nuisance, like your neighbor's kid who whines in the middle of the night despite being 7.

>I have no understanding of what does or does not constitute 'Art' but I'll try to discuss it with supposed authority anyway
Koons is the foremost Art maker of our time, alongside Damien Hirst. They both are incredibly similar conceptually. That's a fact, regardless of your random, hot opinions.

Sure, neither of them is anything special and sure there are plenty of practitioners currently working that have way more significance behind their produce, but those guys have the tightest concepts and are famous because of it.
"Cool" is a temperature and a colloquial term for aloofness deemed preferable mutated into a subjective term for "I like this". You can't bring a term like that into a discussion of a person's creative output unless that discussion is "hey guys, congratulate me for having an opinion", which is a conversation you can't have in the context of Art and what it is.

You're the nuisance, mate.
I'll drag the thread back from derailment now:
HHH's stuff is arguable as Art but for the same reasons it can be deemed pretentious wank due to sitting across too many classifications tied to his self-importance. He's a pretty interesting figure.

it's Vektor - Terminal Redux

>conceptually
concept is actually irrelevant to art.
It's relevant to art historians who are hired by collectors to assert the monetary value of the pieces they purchase, and to the hack frauds who make those pieces.

But it's irrelevant to art.

"Cool" isn't what you say it is and you intuitively know it, you're just clumsily trying to piece together an artificial definition based on etymology and vague social connotation.

Cool is what causes you to say "hey that's pretty cool!".

If Koons' shit ever made you utter that sentence then you have no taste.

You've been force-fed university advertisements for contemporary art.

It's a thing they mostly do to undergraduates in order to teach them the ropes. Past your first 3 years of university, teachers tend to cut down on the bullshit and let you in on how much of a scam contemporary art really is and how none of it really matters because nobody fucking knows what art means anymore or even gives a shit.

Guess you've got one or two more years to go.

>those monstrosities say a lot more about the world and humanity as a whole than Religious commissions and portraits of Royal Dignitaries ever did

dude you're clueless

Anne Hathaway-lookin' motherfucker

>He's a pretty interesting figure
Yes, that type of figure is called a complete clown.

He's actually the Devo of our generation
using his music to promote a weird philosophical concept borrowed from other philosophical concepts that no one actually believes.

What I wrote is literally Koons' deal; it's exactly what he does and exactly what he was writing about even when he was in college.
You see unlike you, who doesn't know anything about anything. I'm an actual professional Art-maker and I'm well versed in what is and is not Art. "Cool", as I said already, not even a thing.

No, nice projections there.

No I'm not. Go ahead and explain how my knowing what I'm on about makes me clueless. Are you going to tell literally every significant person in the Art world they're clueless too? Because that's why he's won literally everything.

Nah, I'm not sure about that. He's definitely way too full of himself, but he's definitely on to some solid ideas. I can't stand Joseph Beuys so I have a hard time taking HHH's explanations seriously and his essay pissed me off, but I can't write him off.

That's a really concise summary, actually.

Oh so you're a social parasite who isn't even aware of it?
That's pretty embarrassing.

I mean there certainly is some dignity in being an actual scammer, but if you honestly think that you're an artist when you don't make anything cool, then you really are clueless.

Either you're baiting or you're an actual retard, either way you're a fucking retard anyway.

How come the only smart people on Cred Forums show up for liturgy and grimes threads

No, you're well-versed in what goes for high prices and gets exposed in galleries.
Like it or not, art as it own thing is fundamentally a romantic concept, and anything that calls itself art without even remotely adhering to romantic standards is actually a fraud.

you seriously think that? those are just pseuds. lmaoing at your life lad

>Are you going to tell literally every significant person in the Art world they're clueless too?
No, of course not. Everybody is in on the joke, because that's what it is (except there's money involved) and you not being aware of that joke makes you the butt of it.

>is fundamentally a romantic concept
Where are you getting that from? Romanticism? Because that was a brief phase during the 'trick the middle-class into buying paintings because they want to look cultured' era.

I've never ever made anything for the sake of a sale and commercial galleries are cancer. Koons has a concept and part of it is based in commodities so it has to be able to sell to an idiot to make sense.

Huyghe and Parreno are the guys I rate highest at present. I'm sure you can name people too, right? Like Picasso and Dali and literally no one else, right?

So... You're just completely dense, alright. Congrats on getting a reply.

Koons' concept is a joke. That doesn't make him an artist, that makes him a comedian. A very bad one too, basically a high-budget shitposter.

>Because that was a brief phase during the 'trick the middle-class into buying paintings because they want to look cultured' era.

Maybe, but the meme caught on and now it's its own thing, which contemporary shit is masquerading as.

Huyghe makes pretty cool things I guess. It's almost worth taking pictures of it to use them as phone desktops.

I can point to a few guys who paint really pretty miniatures of space barbarians with weird hair. They're pretty cool too.

So you are just baiting, alright, thanks for the confirmation.

Koons' concept isn't 'a joke', anyway. It's reactionary to the capitalist structure it exists under. The end of your post there and attitudes like that are why Koons is important - he's highlighting that there are people like you who think 'aesthetics' and desirability are important in an Art work and creating work so gaudy and horrible that emphasises just how fucking stupid that mindset is. He can exist because your hot opinions do.

>but the meme caught on
No, the saloons and the vapid, painterly commodities have been a laughing stock since Duchamp turned a urinal upside-down 100 years ago. What you're getting at is unrelated to 'Art' entirely. Painting in general has been next to dead for years and has only sort of reemerged in the past 18 months.

David Shrigley is currently in the process of taking over Koons' throne as 'famous guy who polarises people that don't understand Art at all', which is great since he's not in the Pop Art nonsense hole that's long outdated, but he's also just a sarcastic illustrator so he may have a more negative effect than Koons ever had.

Koons is faultless, anyhow. Generally people are pissed off about it and don't like him because of how annoying he is, but he's faultless.

Excellent music discussion.

Thank you for explaining in detail why Koons is a comedian.

His style of comedy is gross-out humor with a tinge of satire. But the issue is that he fails to realize that everyone else is also aware that contemporary art is a joke (apart from you apparently) and that nobody needs him to make it any more obvious than it's already been ever since Duchamp made his fountain goof.

So that's where his fault lies: he's not a very good comedian because he doesn't manage to highlight silly things that escaped public awareness. Instead he highlights silly things that everyone is aware of, such as "the art market is a farce".

Art is entertainment with a touch of solemnity (which is sometimes worth a laugh but is part of what makes it entertaining), Koons' pieces are neither entertaining nor solemn.

>fountain goof
Yeah, because the most significant creative work of the 20th Century that revolutionised Artistic practice across all media and stole the term 'art' back from commercial enterprise. returning it to the creative pursuits that merit its use is such a joke.

The fact that you wrote that post says one of two things:
(1) You're baiting hard/'only pretending to be retarded' or
(2) You are mentally challenged and can't read or analyse properly and are completely incapable of so much as comprehending how a discussion works.
Either way, you're a worthless piece of shit.

To be posting on a board dedicated to one of the classical 'arts' and yet be capable of posting such utter, uneducated bullshit is just laughable.

>Art is this combination of things I pulled out of my ass
No, it's not.
Art, as hold true to all works universally considered Art, is a classification given to something presented by an individual to an audience that conveys a concept in and of itself in such a way that no other format could better communicate said idea. It needs to be devoid of superfluous elements and completely impart its intended message within itself.
That's why people refuse to explain themselves - in case they invalidate themselves. Koons, however, loves explaining himself and his work does what he wants it to.

You see I know this because I'm not just posting bullshit I imagined, I work as an art maker.

Posts like yours... Imagine approaching a programmer and saying "programming is entertainment with a touch of solemnity" like you had half a clue. Imagine saying it to a chemist. You have no right to do that, you know?

It still amazes me every day how many people think they understand 'art' based on bizarro preconceptions they picked up from misinformed sources.

Dude, you aren't pitching your shit to any buyers here, you don't need to pretend that you're anything other than an entertainer.

Just because you put a lot of thought and shit into it doesn't mean you are anything more than that. And if you aren't trying to be a good entertainer you're a failure as an artist.

Don't fucking take yourself so seriously. And entertainment is a more noble pursuit than programming or selling pharmaceutic products anyway.

It certainly is a more noble pursuit than trying to impress academics and critics who don't buy into your "concept" and are just looking for products to sell.

Jesus (you)'re a brick wall, lad. Fucking hell.
I've not encountered someone more completely clueless than you in my life before. I was having a bad day, but now knowing that at least I've never had to see someone as stupid as you are has completely turned that around. Thanks user, you complete fucking mong.

Keep living in your fantasy world of deep intellectual wankery while everyone is laughing behind your back at your pitiful self-importance, little lad. Maybe if you keep doing it long enough you'll manage to fool a few other gullible people like yourself.

>deep intellectual wankery
T.Brainlet

>I'm an actual professional Art-maker and I'm well versed in what is and is not Art
>he's won literally everything
>sarcastic illustrator
>Art, is a classification given to something presented by an individual to an audience that conveys a concept in and of itself in such a way that no other format could better communicate said idea
>Imagine approaching a programmer and saying "programming is entertainment with a touch of solemnity" like you had half a clue. Imagine saying it to a chemist. You have no right to do that, you know?

dude,
clueless

Sure, while I'm showing in galleries and being praised by my peers, deep down I'll be crying inside because some absolute mong on Cred Forums doesn't understand a three-letter word.

Great post, excellent points. I never realised how random greentexts and a complete lack of intelligence was the true approach to debate and discourse.

HHH is responsible for the greatest album ever produced.

Fucking pseuds lmao

nope hes the morton feldman

did he broke up with angelina dreem/paul?