Comments on: A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter

By: Scarp Godenot

Scarp Godenot — Sat, 01 Jan 2011 03:33:09 +0000

Ha ha ha. Well

dihs can spot bullshit when he/she sees it, as can ALL of us who have been at the art game for decent period of time.

By: connard

connard — Sun, 29 Aug 2010 06:58:17 +0000

I think It sucks, It shows that the Artist thinks there is a commercial value to art andd that the Artist wants to know ho much his work is valued at all times.

TL;DR, the Artist is whoring itself.

By: Frank

Frank — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:53:28 +0000

Hey Joe, that’s quite an unfair assumption. Just because dihs, and myself for that matter, find that stipulation amusing does not either of us our out of the loop here. I heard about this work and thought to myself that it was a poignant commentary on our current ideals of consumerism. This device ridicules the idea of ownership and the marketability of fine art. For me, that is pretty funny. How about you?

By: john kotrla

john kotrla — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:44:19 +0000

joe wrote “then you don’t understand any modern artwork created since 1930.”

does anyone?

By: schnelle.bunte.bilder » Blog Archive » A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter

schnelle.bunte.bilder » Blog Archive » A Tool to Deceive and Slaughter — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:13:35 +0000

[...] via tat [...]

By: joe

joe — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:21:46 +0000

dihs: then you don’t understand any modern artwork created since 1930.

By: dihs

dihs — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 00:56:38 +0000

“12. Any failure to follow these terms without prior consent of Artist will forfeit the status of the Artwork as a legitimate work of art. The item will no longer be considered a genuine work by the Artist and any value associated with it will be reduced to its value as a material object and not a work of art.”

I find this stipulation beyond amusing.