Art Wank Questions (extended)

“Shit Rock” by Odd Nerdrum 2001

Doing street art is difficult, while I do enjoy it, sometimes it really gripes me. So I woke up today with questions that have been asked of me while I work on the street. Now, at the time I’m usually focused on art and in a mindstate that is unable to eloquently respond to these questions. Being in a mood today I wrote down a series of questions and my wishful responses (Originally posted on facebook.) I’ve put them here and also included an additional question, not asked on the street – yet asked a lot in the art world.


Art Wank Question No. 1: Are pastels drawing or painting?

Me: I don’t fucking care! If I was forced down and interrogated via torture though, I would have to say it depends on the application of pastels. When one looks at what makes a pastel. it’s actually no different from any other paint, it just lacks a medium to make it sloppy. So you can draw with it (just as you can draw with ink or acrylics) or you can paint with it (just as you can paint with ink or acrylics). My application of pastels is in layers, purposely designed to be built up. Sometimes between 2 to 10+ layers of pastel. Therefore I categorise *my* use of pastel as painting. But I use drawing/painting interchangeable because I DON’T CARE.


Art Wank Question No. 2: Is what I do on the street “Craft” or “Art”?

Me: I love Ancient Greece and look back to it a lot. They had no definition between a craftsman or an artist. The whole conception of an artist is very European and not really seen in other cultures, throw modern art theory into the mix… and boy… do you get a lot of pretentious philosophical bullshit. Like seriously… have you read the shit they say? I have, and I feel like doing a turd on their fucking faces after reading that blubbering diarrhoea.
A lot of folk say a reproduction of an artwork is “craft”, but the original is “art”. But I regard them as both. That said, in our case. as street artists and applying wank art theory, Wayne and I are being “artists” because of context of environment. Our street art is a performance, we are performance artists. That does not mean we’re faking it or anything, it means that the act of creating art (be it original or reproduction) is the art itself.


Art Wank Question No. 3: Do you consider your art kitsch?

Me: Okay, big fucking can of worms there, *cunt*. I get your subtle insult and it makes me angry, so I propose an art project: go lay on the tram tracks.
For one, kitsch art is an art movement, with a philosophical –art theory- backing. Do I agree with it? No. But if someone like Odd Nerdrum calls his art “kitsch”, it is (even though I would not regard it as kitsch). Second, I have two views on our art, our original art I do not regard as kitsch, because that is not the intention – in actuality the original art does not fall into modern art theory because it is devotional. But the reproduction art… maybe… it is designed and chosen to please people, however we do choose artworks that we like and will find entertaining for ourselves to reproduce… as art making can be *really* boring.
Anyways, in this Post-post-“Pomo” era, any art can be regarded as kitsch, modern art is old hat now and it got fucked over by Pop-Art and continues to do so ever since. I’ve never seen a contemporary piece which has truly made me feel awe or any emotion, (not even “shock” art) thus I’m pretty jaded towards art. Actually, if there is anything to say about this culture is that it is jaded as fuck. Everyone has the ability to see anything, read anything, do anything – people are over saturated to the point they can’t feel anything. The one fear I have is that Nietzsche will turn out to be a prophet with his “last-man” of nihilism, the cynic in me thinks that’s our next evolutionary step and maybe it should be.


*Bonus* Art Wank Question No. 4: What is an Artist?

Many of my gen are shying away from calling themselves artists, opting for stupid terms like a “creative”, like sit back for a moment and think on that:  *in a dry, stiffy, jaded hipster voice*: “Oh, I am a creative”, how fucking stupid does that sound?! Whatever.

I can’t tell you want and artist is because an artist is someone who calls themselves that. That’s the answer, simple and flat out.

Art is a broad spectrum of topics and subjects. One of the very few things I agree with modern art theory is that anything can be art. On a personal level I think anyone that endeavours to make something is an artist and if they don’t want to call themselves that, or do – fine by me. With The Dionysian Artists of old, not only the actors, writer or the director were considered artists, (craftspeople in their sense, as mentioned above), but everyone was given credit towards the play and named a Dionysian Artist. This echoes in film today with the credit reel including everyone, even the caterers, the drivers, the first aid etc., all of these people are involved in creating the film, which is indisputably a piece of art, thus they are all artists in that sense. This is how art should be viewed and what I encourage with The Dionysian Artist guild today. It’s a matter of altering our way of looking at “what is art”, “what is an artist/craftsman” and fucking respect art.


I think about art a lot, a lot more than other artists. I’ve studied it, read about it and write about it. You know what? I just find it so fucking frustrating that these are serious questions! That books, entire books, are written on these subjects here. Art should be direct, confrontational, without consent. In these moments there should be no thought or questions only awe.

Advertisements

Grazie!

I want to say thanks to whoever reported the link to my interview by The Wild Hunt on facebook. In the first 24 hours the interview has gone viral and my blog hits have skyrocketed.

Censoring artists is always a terrible thing for the artist themselves: on an emotional and personal level. That said,  it’s great publicity for them too. Some of the most well-known living artists are controversial, actually there was an art movement called the “Shock” that went out its way to cause controversy. Guess what? It worked.

I’m not going out of my way to do this, our art is devotional in nature, intended for the gods, but attempts at iconoclast in this era is only spreading the gods more.

So my sincere thanks to whoever reported me.

Shock of the Old and the Mysteries of Decorum

(Note: I’m going through my old blog and republishing choice articles here. Eventually the old blog will be deactivated.)

Cock and Bull – Damien Hirst

I think art theory is a wank, I despise reading and writing about it. Last night however I found myself on a conversation level discussing art theory, I said something like: I suppose we’re now the Post-Shock* generation. It won’t be long until we become so jaded we’ll be Nietzsche’s last man, epitomising nihilism.

I came to this conclusion as I find the shock movement well and truly banal. Although I never gave it much credence in the first place. Apart from that, the population has been exposed to the internet for at least two generations, where in a matter of keystrokes one can witness videos and images of abuse of humans and animals, of any sexual fantasy one can imagine, of seeing sacred mountains and holy places.

Apparently we’ve been exposed to all the mysteries the world has to offer and if we do observe something sacred we respond to it in jaded manner.

The problem with this behaviour is we fail to see the beauty of it. It’s like owning a painting you really like in your living room, you love that painting, but after years and years of seeing it, it simply becomes part of your environment and no amount of contemplation can return you to the of point feeling you had when you first saw it.

Over exposure in general does this to you. For myself I’ve been experiencing a fear that I’ve seen too much art. I no longer experience the flutters of amazement, of awe, when I look at new art.

Then there are greater implications to this problem. We forget that others have not experienced what we’ve experience. We fail to recognise mystery for what it is and freely talk about things without consideration to the effects it may have on others.

You see this is what I hate about art critics and art writers. When I go to a gallery I never read or listen to the guides, because they are stripping the magic away from the art by dictating what it means to you. The value of art should be found by the admirer alone. Two people can look at one painting and see it in a completely different light.

There are so many voices out there talking about stuff, about movies, TV shows, art – giving away spoilers – that when we’re struck with something that should be just between initiated we fail apply proper decorum.

This is an issue we should all be actively conscious of.

*The Shock Art movement was an art movement in the late 1980 throughout to the 2000’s where artists would deliberately create ‘shocking’ art to arouse the public’s emotions and cause controversy.


Like my writing, like my art? You can now support it on Patreon. I’m offering exclusive content, from articles, art previews, tutorials and more!

Authority

Ask Pentheus about authority.
Ask Pentheus about authority.

Last week’s discussion on devotion has gone in a predictable direction of the authority of the gods, and priests, and also the agency of devotees.

Now, before I begin I am not a priest, at least not by the modern ideas of a priest. I do however adopt priest-like roles. These roles are temporary, like an actor playing a character in a play. In this priest role I do not deal with mortals, I deal with the gods. I also have other roles where I sometimes deal with people the main being the Dionysian Artist, the other is a mentor with knowledge of the Mysteries. If these roles grant me authority it is because someone is applying that authority to me, I speak only from my own experience and relationship with the gods. I never impose myself onto others, I only offer suggestions – if a person follows through with those suggestions that is no longer my responsibility and in no part my authority.

I do however believe in authority: the authority of the gods, the authority of our ancestors, the authority of history, the authority of myth, the authority of art. Compared to these forms of authority I don’t believe I have the right to claim my own authority because in the end I am just a speck of stardust, this then leads to claiming that I have my own agency which again I don’t believe in as this is ignoring nature, ignoring that the ultimate authority, and truth, of life is death.

At some time in this life I must submit to death, just like everyone else, it is not something I can revolt against, it is not something I can contest with political ideologies. To believe otherwise is presumptuous and self-delusional. After my death the gods will still be here, hopefully I’ll contribute something to them, which is my goal.

Now what does this mean to the gods? I don’t know for sure, I can tell you that I have been given divine praise for my efforts, it’s been acknowledged, but there is nothing stopping the reader from discounting my claims. What I will say with a definite is that the art I’ve made has resulted in friends, family and strangers discussing the gods, which in turn continues the Zoë of the divine – this is admittedly a human component of devotional art, but one I like.

As a result of knowing the truth of life, I don’t put much stock in fame and success. It’s a mere side effect that is short lived in the spectrum of the gods. This is why I’m a devotional artist because in my tiny amount of time on this planet I can think of no reason to live other than serving the gods.