Interesting effect, but it strikes me as more of an advertising stunt for the ink manufacturer, than a piece of art. Particularly since the ink manufacturer is using the video on their website that sells the ink.

I suppose, in a way, it becomes art when we start discussing if it IS art or not. I'm tempted to say that it cannot be art because any idiot can dribble ink down a car, but, on the other hand, since when has art been defined by it's technical difficulty? I may not get it, and I definitely don't like it, but I can't quite say it isn't art.

 

What a bunch of B.S. NOT ART!

 

BUT..... though he may not have anything to say, it apparently makes a statement that we feel compelled to "critique" it thus rendering it as art, I guess.


What is that saying? Bad publicity is better than no publicity....





Mark

 

I actually like it.

 

I read somewhere that Chappelle originally pitched this but called it skeet.

 

Just because some have created real art with graffiti techniqes does not make all graffiti art. I was referring to the MINI in specific, and KR's work in general. I was not referring to all graffiti works.

Takahashi Murakami uses art to comment on otaku and commercial culture. His work has some similarities to that of Andy Warhol. However, because he uses his "superflat style" to create art, that doesn't mean all of his commercial ventures using the same style are also art. It depends on whether they are carrying a message, or are simply decorative.

I find it disappointing that you cannot see the difference between Fountain or An Oak Tree and the KRINKED MINI. The Fountain and An Oak Tree both have a lot to say. I don't see much being said with the MINI beyond simple decoration.

Yes, it is little more than commercial exploitation of a style.

Our discussing whether or not it is art, does not make it art. I could start a discussion about whether a tomato is or isn't art. That wouldn't make it art. We are discussing whether or not is art because it is presented as though it were art. IMO, both MINI and KR are attempting to exploit the prestige of art for commercial purposes.

Whether or not "any idiot" can execute the craft of a work has no bearing on whether or not it is art. The skill of the craft involved does not determine whether it is art. To be art, it needs to be expressing something. Without expression, it is simply decoration.

The KRINKED MINI is pure advertising. I see no art in it.

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean to compare or liken them to the KRINK MINI on any level other than the "pretentiousness" we were discussing originally. I was simply comparing them on the level of pretentious nature to back up my original joke/statement that any art could be considered "pretentious". There's no doubt in my mind that either piece stands leagues above this MINI on any of the other levels.

 

Looks like a variation of the "SPIN ART" I used to see at county fairs and school fundraisers. Almost no talent needed. Folk art.... maybe.

 

Being from Savannah and having seen what SCAD (they almost dominant Savannah) is capable of this doesn't surprise me. However I fail to find any artistic value (as with many of SCAD's projects) myself. IMO if a monkey can do it then it's not creative art.

 

nearly as controversial as this:

 

I won't even read all the "this isn't art" bs.

if you didn't go to art school you probably don't get it
( i did go so i can appreciate it even though it might not be my thing )

 

Kwilson, that is a weak argument.

Art school doesn't make you GET anything.

 

Ground-breaking art is often controversial. Therefore all controversial works are art. Not.

 

Except, in some cases, a holier than though attitude. Although that probably gets acquired before art school.

 

I can't believe there's an entire discussion about watching paint dry.

I can't believe I'm part of the discussion.

 

oh so true

 

+1

 

We've discussed the paint wet, and dry. Drying is irreverent. No wait, I mean malevolent... Irrelevant, yea that's it.

 

You might say my argument is weak but so is claiming anyone could do it is just as weak.

" It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child. " Pablo Picasso

My point is that it can take next to nothing to make a piece that is interesting and the fact this whole thing has a sparked such a heated debate has a lot to say about the project...

 

nope it comes with the degree.

 

+1 ... Agreed!

Since Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and "art" itself is a subjective concept I will throw my .02 in here by saying that IMO this Krinking seems to take very little talent to produce (other than the mixing of the paint) as the laws of physics (ie. Gravity) is the real artist here... Hard for me to even consider this as art.

 

Honestly...I'd recommend you to try the mixing some yourself and creating a mop marker to get similar results for fun. See what kind of work goes into getting something to drip so successfully without hurting the opacity in any way. It's a skill in and of itself. I'm not saying that it validates it as art....just suggesting that you can't say that something requires "no talent" when you haven't given it a shot. I'm also not saying it takes a prodigy or anything, but it's hardly skill-less or talentless.

I was the same way for a while until I needed some drips in one of my paintings. Took quite a bit of work to get it to drip well enough while still looking so clean/opaque. Without trying it yourself, it's like sitting and watching an NFL game saying "Pfft...I can throw a football into an end zone too. That takes no talent."

 

Yup, it isn't the skill of the craft that makes art, it is the expression that matters.

What, exactly, do it have to say? Many things can cause a heated debate on NAM. Surely, you don't believe that controversy = art?

[/quote]
I think the problem is that it takes very little thought, and expresses very little. I don't car how easy or difficult it is, what, exactly, is KR trying to express? IMO, without expression, it is simply craft, not art.

[quote]OK, so KR is a skillful formulator of paints. So what? Nothing to do with whether it is art, or commercial promotion pretending to be art.

 

As I said in the post you quoted. I'm not saying that his skill for mixing the paint validates it as art. Just saying that it's not a talent/skill-less act regardless of whether someone considers it art or not.

I still fail to see why it wouldn't be art, though. It's not GREAT art, and it doesn't say as much as other more successful art but it still seems like art to me.

But just because you don't sense any expression, that means it's not expressing anything?

How is it any different than the "Art Car" Warhol did with BMW? That certainly took just as little skill and that was a BMW marketing campaign too...and yet it was openly received in the art community as an art car. I'm sure the expression being presented by warhol wasn't seen by some, just as you don't see it on the KRINK car.

 

Perhaps the fact that he has no statement is his statement.

...I'm probably spending way too much time around ECIAD.