Permanently Deleted

    • No_Values [none/use name]
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      in a vacuum he's okish imo at least the earlier stuff, its the mainstream popularity and a BBC article on him like once a month gives what is supposed to be subversive art a 'safe' and 'approved' feeling, which makes it seem inauthentic

    • Grownbravy [they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      he’s an odd character because he’s sort of based, but the art market is complete lib shit

    • vertexarray [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      what's lamer is the people removing the wall his work is painted on and sticking it in museums

    • a_jug_of_marx_piss [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I think his art in itself is pretty boring and is only made interesting by the medium, and it's not like his approach to the medium is that unique either.

      • PorkrollPosadist [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        That's fair. I'd say the only thing I find impressive about his work is the scale of some of it (assuming its actually being done surreptitiously). Besides that, the motifs are mostly unremarkable as far as wheatpasting/tagging goes. On the whole, he strikes me as the vanguard of turning street art into a sign of gentrification. When he first started getting recognized internationally he seemed like some kind of subversive spiderman figure but nowadays there's nothing gentrifying hipsters like more than a mural.

        That said, tagging and wheatpasting is rad as hell and you all should try it if it's not too much of a risk. You don't need to be very artistically inclined to slap some glue and newsprint on a wall.

    • ElGosso [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I don't know anything about art but that one piece that shredded itself at auction was funny as hell