Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2 | Hacker News Reader

Marc Jacobs vs. The Graffiti Artist, Round 2

observer.com

22 pointsgruseom19 comments

That is some pretty lame graffiti. Check out Style Wars, or just watch a train next time one goes by. Three monochrome letters in a shaky script is extremely underwhelming compared to real graffiti art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_Wars

Indeed-- this is closer to performance art than graffiti.

Can we please stop calling them "artists" and start calling them what they really are, vandals? There is nothing creating about what this guy did.

People slap the label "art" on crap too quickly. No, not all of it is art. Some of it is; but not all. Just because you can sling some pigment against a flat surface doesn't make it art, and just because you can draw disapproving looks from people doesn't make you an "artist".

Just like putting a urinal in a gallery doesn't make you an artist, right?

Exactly.

In case you're not trying to be facetious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

Too quickly compared to what? How long do we have to wait before something's declared "art"?

Not claiming this particular graffiti is art - it's rather uncreative compared to Banksy and other such clever artists - just wondering who decides, and how.

Also, good for Mark Jacobs for his elegant response, and for trolling the pretentious.

He's an artist and a vandal.

Your definition of art implies that only things that you respect can be labeled as such.

This had an artistic and communicative intent, although i would concede that it's not particularly clever or innovative.

Fucking up Marc Jacobs or other massive commercial brands is a cogent statement to be made, and i don't think one that should simply be dismissed as thoughtless vandalism (though vandalism it may be).

RE you contending that simply because something has artistic intent it is, by definition 'art'?

I have argued for days about what does and doesn't constitute art, and it's almost always a futile endeavor.

The artist intended it to be art, and had a message to convey. Those are definitely components which make me lean towards considering it art.

Flinging pigment against a flat surface made Jackson Pollack an artist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Pollack

It's funny because this article missed the whole other half of this "Story".

1. It went meta:

http://www.highsnobiety.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/...

2. The artist himself made T-Shirts and sold them for $6.89:

http://kidultone.com/?p=1763

Yeah but that's genuinely lame.

Kidult's shirts play as completely non-clever. His original prank was interesting, but Marc Jacobs' definitely out clever'd Kidult.

Ever since I saw the following image, I have disliked this guy. http://imgur.com/gallery/CQvWO

This is satire.

Really? I feel bad now, I had no idea. My opinion of him has changed :-)

Edit: wait, how do you know this? I've googled a bit but found nothing to suggest it. Whilst it definitely seems like it could be satirical, I wouldn't put it past the fashion industry.

That was a joke, intended by Marc Jacobs to satirize the fashion industry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com