The Artist : Why sometimes they are A**holes?

What WJHScrimshaw just did might be considered Assholeish...

Ohhhhhhhhhhh MY!

Somewhere in this long thread someone must have mentioned that artists are a bit temperamental, too, sometimes.... :)

On 2010-06-16 19:26, WJHScrimshaw wrote:
are tikis made by artists?

[ Edited by: WJHScrimshaw 2010-06-16 19:36 ]

Anyone who creates something is an Artist,But not everything that they create is Art.
be it Paint,Clay,Wood,broken glass etc.

Wow! I was gone for a few days and missed something - I'm not even sure what I missed?????

On an unrelated note, are there any "Artist" that are registered republicans? anyone?

I am sure I am a registered Republican (maybe the only one in all of tiki-dom :D), I wish is were so simple to tell if I were an artist!

On 2010-06-16 19:29, Tipsy McStagger wrote:
there's where you are wrong.......i've always been an asshole.....and i make tiki art......

Well who would dare to object --there always is the exception to the rule! :D

What I don't understand is that when I mention the effects of your "problematic nature", I get pegged as being one! :lol:

Again,Oohhhhhhhhhhhh MY!

On 2010-06-16 19:42, MadDogMike wrote:
I am sure I am a registered Republican (maybe the only one in all of tiki-dom :D)....

I know two more...but I ain't tellin', so you guys don't congregate!

great topic, great insight, real truth.

MDM, you may be the only one! a possible mutation in the gene pool?

These posts come faster than e-bay snipes!

On 2010-06-16 19:46, bigbrotiki wrote:

On 2010-06-16 19:42, MadDogMike wrote:
I am sure I am a registered Republican (maybe the only one in all of tiki-dom :D)....

I know two more...but I ain't tellin', so you guys don't congregate!

Just as long as they don't form some kind of "Artist Tea Party!"

[ Edited by: Atomic Tiki Punk 2010-06-16 19:51 ]

See, you typed too fast. Or even worse, a Tiki Tea Party! Cuz I am a member of the Tiki Ti Party, and I don't want to be confused with those....

Derailment, derailment!

I forgot to include some of these.
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

I stand accused? yes I am typing to fast with no proper excuse.
I am a substandard typist........

How about a Tiki Cookie Party!

Time to get on the short but sweet kidding around track...what can I say, first day fumbles.

More tiki eye candy...made by assholes? open to your interpretation...

I have to apologize to Zeta for this hijacking, I got all crazy and stuff.

I would buy that for a dollar!

What about Jackson Pollock? He is the quintessential "fraud" artist. And "not a nice person" I always (exaggeration) hear someone next to me saying "My daughter could paint that"

Sorry, I am out, gotta pick up my son...and tell him not to become an artist! :D

WJHScrimshaw, welcome back! but the damage is done... Your previous posts where solid gold... Do you have a time machine?

I don't know who made these and not being a carver myself...
just thought they were cool...

a$$hole as applied to creator doesn't always fit,
more like the critic fits that since they don't produce anything.

Zeta when you bring up the quintessential Artist who where assholes Jackson Pollock and Picasso are the very first to come to mind
my own taste being that I dislike Pollocks work immensely, not to degrade his stature as an Artist, but his approach and concept
is so far from my own Aesthetics.

But he was a big asshole, no doubt about it.

Sven,always a pleasure!

I know a few tiki artists that are assholes.

But that is not the real burning question.

John O knows the post I want him to do.
Do it John, I dare ya.
:wink:

Jeff(btd)

yes- anyone can paint like pollack but that's never been the point. The point is that prior to him, no one did paint like that and that is why his work is signifigant for that time as with most pop artists. Anyone can paint campbell's soup cans but prior to warhol, no one did.....these artists and more helped expand the cultural and social boundaries of what was considered art. Duchamp made his audience view everyday objects we take for granted as potenial works of art when taken out of their everyday context (i.e a porcelian urinal). most folks tend to confuse substance with aesthetics when viewing these types of things but these artists and others of the time were ground breakers in their own ways.....important culturally for the doors they opened with their art, not neccessarily for the type of art they made.....

Yeah! do it, jeje! (Beavis laugh) I double dare you!

On 2010-06-16 21:06, Tipsy McStagger wrote:

yes- anyone can paint like pollack but that's never been the point. The point is that prior to him, no one did paint like that and that is why his work is signifigant for that time as with most pop artists. Anyone can paint campbell's soup cans but prior to warhol, no one did.....these artists and more helped expand the cultural and social boundaries of what was considered art. Duchamp made his audience view everyday objects we take for granted as potenial works of art when taken out of their everyday context (i.e a porcelian urinal). most folks tend to confuse substance with aesthetics when viewing these types of things but these artists and others of the time were ground breakers in their own ways.....important culturally for the doors they opened with their art, not neccessarily for the type of art they made.....

I knew that! I'ts all about being a pioneer. But what about the Tiki-Pollock connection? Why does abstact expressionism and primitive art go so well together? Besides the era and all that. They just look good together... I guess Pollock represents the primitive among the moderns... Pollock art kind of reminds me of Papua New Guinea art... I dunno.
More cliches please! More images too!

Artists hate to "explain" their work

Josh makes the point, but I still don't have to like it! :lol:
If your talking abstract I would go with Rothko

[ Edited by: Atomic Tiki Punk 2010-06-16 22:02 ]

I don't believe Rothko was an Asshole

But I really dig Francis Bacon who may have not been an Asshole
but was a troubled Painter.

On 2010-06-16 21:14, Zeta wrote:

Artists hate to "explain" their work.

Not really. Like everyone else, artists love to talk about themselves. Read any interview with a living artist and you'll always find mention of their interests and their "influences" for certain works or series. But, the dichotomy is this: Because a work should stand on its own, any particular artistic work that has to be "explained" usually means that the artist has failed to communicate the work's message. And artists hate that.

On 2010-06-16 21:06, Tipsy McStagger wrote:

yes- anyone can paint like pollack but that's never been the point. The point is that prior to him, no one did paint like that and that is why his work is signifigant for that time as with most pop artists. Anyone can paint campbell's soup cans but prior to warhol, no one did.....these artists and more helped expand the cultural and social boundaries of what was considered art. Duchamp made his audience view everyday objects we take for granted as potenial works of art when taken out of their everyday context (i.e a porcelian urinal). most folks tend to confuse substance with aesthetics when viewing these types of things but these artists and others of the time were ground breakers in their own ways.....important culturally for the doors they opened with their art, not neccessarily for the type of art they made.....

Nice post. I'd add to the list Andres Serrano, Jock Sturges, Robert Mapplethorpe, etc. as recent artists who broke new ground with their ideas.

If you're a Metallica fan and own the albums "Load" or "Re-Load," you've seen Serrano's work. What you probably don't know is that the abstract red and white album art is actually the artist's own blood and semen photographed through a microscope. Previously, he'd scandalized conservative America with an NEA funded piece known colloquially as "Piss Christ" (a crucifix suspended in a yellow liquid that resembles urine.) Yes, anyone can do it. But who has done it before ? And who has done it well ?

So, yes, there IS value in breaking new ground with a fresh concept even if the technical requirements aren't necessarily rigorous.

Artists are A-holes sometimes because they are constantly trying to provoke.

I think its because they are shy and fear rejection. Shy people would rather be feared and rejected than loved and accepted. Just because someone is mean to you doesn't mean that they don'y actually crave your attention and respect.

On 2010-06-16 09:39, BigToe wrote:
here's another kid i had to punch. JOey was sugared up and bothering me for an autograph...with those sticky little fingers.

Yeah, but he took you in the second round. KID JOEY!

I know that Joey kid!
he's a reeeal a-hole!

On 2010-06-16 20:03, Zeta wrote:
What is Pollock's connection to tiki? I know there is one, but tonight I don't feel like thinking. I'll just post the question and wait for someone to bite... Bigbro or John-O probably, :wink:

Here is the missing link between Pollock and Tiki

Sam Gambino
"the Onlookers"

"Plaid"

Do i win a prize?

On 2010-06-17 07:14, atomictonytiki wrote:
Just because someone is mean to you doesn't mean that they don't actually crave your attention and respect.

Now you're talking just like Big Toe!

Oh!
i forgot!
:)

This thread just gets betterer and betterer...
Sorry about the derailing earlier...
real asshole-ish of me.

What were we talking about?

Can we do a Why are DJ's/Record or Mixologists orSpinners so A**holish (and Ugly)?
:) :)
you know i joke,Jeff!

FYI you kids...

Are Caricature Artists The Assholes of the Art World?
http://www.freedomhaters.org/content/are-caricature-artists-assholes-art-world?page=3

If you kids want to read a GREAT BIOGRAPHY of a totally proud/brash/a**hole of an artist
Read
"the Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini"
The guy is such a jerk sometimes and is really really into himself
but when you see all he's accomplished
plus the fact he gave us a peek into
the life of an artist
as well as his society
who can blame him?

There's a great version of it illustrated by another genius a-hole Dali.

Also read My Life,My Art by Diego Rivera
Despite all his dalliances and battles,both outer and personal
he stuck to his art
to art itself
and man! for a bif old bulgy eyed toad of a man
he sure nailed a lot of chicks! :)

Athens, Georgia (home of world-famous Basement Kahuna), where I operate my shop, is overpopulated by self-described "artists" of both the traditional and musical type. On the whole they are unskilled, untalented narcissists-without-portfolio who think they're the universe's gift to the world. They constantly bitch about being forced to work service industry jobs while their talents go unrecognized by the general public, fifteen million of whom are unemployed and would dearly love to have that public service job.

On the other hand, I also consider myself to be of the "creative type," and I consider the uncreative, non-participatory observers of genuine creative talent to be the true assholes. They are the bandwagon-jumping, bargain-hunting, back-slapping asshole c*nts who can't so much as draw a smiley face in the sand with their dicks. They have no brow, high or low, with which to interpret the mysteries of creation, and it's only the herd instinct that drives them to stampede Wal-Mart when word gets out of a dollar sale on mass-produced fuckadiddles. If they happen to see their favorite fuckadiddle priced fifty cents on a flea market table, they're the ones who inevitably smile and ask if the seller can "do any better" on the price.

The clueless of all stripes are the assholes, and they comprise 98% of the human population: maybe more.

kid puncher or self proclaimed "artist"
you decide.....

:)

On 2010-06-17 08:30, little lost tiki wrote:

I know that Joey kid!
he's a reeeal a-hole!

........

Easy there little lost line crosser! :wink:
I mean photoshoped abuse is one thing, but...
(quite the hostile thread going on here...)

Artists hate to be called artists but get pissed when they are not considered as such.

Artists prefer stripes over plaids. They also like spicy foods. But artists don't like hockey.

-Randy

If one artist is intimidated by the talent of another, they will do anything to discredit, undermine or block their potential...I speak from experience.

Someone needs to make a movie about a$$hole artists called:
"Clash of the Egos."

Artists are a-holes because they do what is not allowed.

On 2010-06-17 11:00, WJHScrimshaw wrote:
Someone needs to make a movie about a$$hole artists called:
"Clash of the Egos."

Have you seen "Art School Confidential" ?
Directed by Terry Zwigoff. Based on the comic story that appeared originally on Eight Ball Comics by Daniel Clowes. The comic book is even better!

On 2010-06-17 11:00, WJHScrimshaw wrote:
If one artist is intimidated by the talent of another, they will do anything to discredit, undermine or block their potential...I speak from experience.

Someone needs to make a movie about a$$hole artists called:
"Clash of the Egos."

What I don't understand is, why are you still posting on this thread????

I mean...wtf? you acted like a terrific ass and started crap and blocked all other points of view (without even introducing yourself...you came off as SUPER defensive) and then....ya go ahead and edit everything as if nothing happened?

Editing does not negate the first impression you gave...

I think it would have been a lot more ballsier and hell...a lot more character of a person to have left their posts as is. Remember, some folks get notifications when posts are made and can in fact see the original post made before your ridiculous edits...just something to think about for the future if ya decide on editing everything again...

I don't mean to further derail the thread, but it's just laughable and ridiculous on ANY FORUM (not just TC) that members believe that with quick editing, all will be glorious and sunshine and forgiven. Nope. Sorry! This is the internet...and what's posted online, STAYS ONLINE...

On 2010-06-17 11:16, Zeta wrote:
Artists are a-holes because they do what is not allowed.

...Supongo con lo que yo hecho horita...:lol: :lol: :lol:

No...I'll have to check that out.

There seems to be a formula to all of this...
The greater the insecurity and lesser the talent...the bigger the a-hole.

<I + >T = A

The lesser the insecurity and greater the talent...the lesser the a-hole.

I +