Originally Posted by trumptman
I guess you've never just put down the menu and ordered. I have.
Forgive me but you are not the benchmark..the chances of you straying too far from the acceptable trumpy are on a par with me voting Conservative.
I was merely noting some art that would have impact versus bumper stickers that don't. I can't help it if you prefer the bumper stickers and insinuating insults to actual impact.
I think Banksy has a massive impact though. Is quite well known.
Every article I read about it called characterized it with the term mark. Making his mark, leaving his mark, etc. Easy enough to find several articles on it so I guess it is you who have missed the point along with several articles noting it. Always appreciate the laughs you provide while insulting others related to your own shortcomings though. The irony kills.
Umm...didn't think you did Irony Trump!
Define enough. How much is an impact is it if no one knows who he is and what he does? That sounds like an impact of zero.
Depends. He has inspired many guerilla artists. Not sure about the US but there is a massive underground in the UK who get up to all sorts of things.
You're so cute when you try to insult me and then make this about you.
I know...it's a curse, it really is!
I could have sworn you just said no one knows who Banksy really happens to be. Couldn't he in fact be a she, or a millionaire capitalist. Couldn't he be the very release valve for those attempting to make change pacifying them with his little drawings while he reaps his millions? His mythology is part of his art. If he ends up being some banker with a sharp wit, then the whole folktale falls to pieces.
No. He has been seen in profile and has a man's voice. I don't think millionaire capitalists are much given to painting 'Fuck the State' on people's garden walls.
But, there's nothing wrong with having millions. It's what you do with them. If Banksy had millions I have great faith he would use them 'creatively' in the service of anti-Conservatism and if he didn't well...he would be just another wanker like Al Gore as you say.
But that would mean nothing - it would not mean that all such characters would sell-out. I myself have some very creative plans for if I ever find myself with the odd disposable million.
Projection onto Banksy is exactly the point. You have a little pressure release value that simulates social change while actually providing none. Oh look how sharp the wit was that turned that no trespassing sign into a statement about Native Americans. Now we've all expressed disapproval without doing anything and can go back to our shows, pints and fish and chips. Let's see who's got talent next shall we?
I don't think you get it. I know for a fact that Banksy has radicalized quite a few people. I know at least 4 now hardcore Lefties doing some interesting things got first turned on by Banksy. I think there are many.
You are just not in tune with the underground and what's happening on the streets Trumps...
Banksy is part of what turns you into sheep.
Your view of sheep and how people are transmuted into such is very different to mine.
When I see evidence linking Banksy to unthinking and moronic right-wing subservience then I'll be the first to publically agree with you.
You have the right idea though - many apparently 'radical' figures do serve this function; one might cite the execrable Dalai Lama, that tosser Bono and your fave Obama.
Actually it is my strong suit for I educate them while folks like yourself give them a worldview that leaves them ignorant and declares them to be helpless victims which they then fulfill as their destiny. Really change could have occurred. I know it could if only they hadn't painted over that sharp social commentary posing as change by the likes of Banksy.
I don't know many hopeless victims Trumpy, but then you and I don't move in the same circles I think.
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Counter your simplistic characterization of choice in the marketplace? Are you serious?
Good God man! You are sitting there claiming that a person has no real choice and holding this out as a serious claim or argument. I'm not even sure how to reply to that. Are you looking around you? Are you seriously suggesting that people do not have a plethora of choices? Or is it simply your contention that the marketplace really works on a Producer: "Take it or leave it" basis in which consumers have no other options?
I must confess this is a stunning argument. It's so facile (and unsupportable by simple observation) that didn't think it was actually a serious
It's worse than I thought.
I am not saying that people do not haver a plethora of choices (third time).
I am saying that the available choices are chosen for them by someone else and hence no choice at all.