remember the guy that painted with his butt? *including interview*

[spazzy]

Originally posted by Friar

Originally posted by Yramrag
Not quite on the same topic, but it sort is as well....

Last week sometime, the submission deadline for the for the Archibald Awards closed. For anyone who is not aware, this is Australia\'s premier portrait painting competition with a $50,000 winners prize on offer. The only reason i know of this is because they were talking about it on the radio. Anyone they were interviewing one of the chief judges who revealed that one of the entrants painted the picture with his...man bit...lets leave the name at that. Apparently he used it as his brush and has entitled his style \"Pricasso\".
My question is this. If you were looking/judging the competition, would you want to know that is how the portrait was painted?

lol lordy this world is messed up, I would say that as long as the painter uses thought and delibrate method to achieve a painting that relays the intent of the painter then the \"applicator\" wouldn\'t matter, if he just dipped his willy in paint and slapped the canvas then it would fall into the same group as the master ass painter mentioned above.

Just a quick lil somethin bout this ass painter, I see him as being the same as many of the modern art bullshite artists that have turned into the bulk of art today. Folk who lack talent so they vomit color on a canvas call it their art and then create some BS sales pitch of a story as to how it conveys their feelings. Michelangelo would have never been caught running around the sistine chapel with his arse and willy covered in paint covering the place with butt-tulips, that is becouse like most true artists he had talent, respect for his work and his customer, dignity, and a sense of purpose with his work. The butt-tuliper doesn\'t have any of this he takes the creative process and treats it like a scam or a con and most revoltingly he makes a mockery of it.

and I never would have thought that a butt-tuliper would get me goin like this, lol so last post I think I\'ve expressed my feelings about this guy lol

And good luck Spazzy on your paper

Yramrag, that\'s very similar to what Shigeko Kubota did in 1965. She actually put on a performance in New York where she held a paintbrush in her woo-hoo and squatted down over a canvas and painted with it.

Friar, you accept the possibility that the applicator doesn\'t matter. How is the man who painted his picture with his penis for the Archibald Awards different from Murmur? I\'m sure it must have taken a bit of thought and deliberate method to make a parrot with his rump.

 

[PegaZus]

I really dislike gimmicky art. And this isn\'t about just using his ass as a brush. I really dislike things that took little talent to do. And now that I\'ve said that, I\'m wondering where I\'d put Bob Ross?

Okay, revised statement: I dislike gimmicky art that does NOT look like art. (There, got my love for Bob covered.) You can SEE what this guy was using to make his pictures. And it is hard to see the image rather than the tool. (Is that a pun?)

For example, my step mother spent around $1000 twenty years ago on a HUGE painting of some flowers. She was really proud of it as the petals were these large 3D textured things. And this painting bothered me. Something was amiss, and it didn\'t look like art. Then I saw it. The \"artist\" put a big pile of white paint in his hand and smeared the petals onto the canvas. Probably took about twenty minutes to do the entire set of petals. After that, I always saw the impressions from the artist\'s hand rather than the petals of a flower.

And since art is meant to be looked at and enjoy the imagery, this guy\'s ass and tool being used as a tool just isn\'t enjoyable.

My opinion. I return to not posting.

 

[Friar]

well painting a generic parrot and rending a recognizable portrait are two different things, also if the wang-portraiter just slapped the canvas and called it a portrait then he\'s no different then the butt-painter, but if he used his wang with some bit of delibrance then he could move possibly above his gimick. That position on the wang guy is a response to how would I view it as one of the judges, which I figure you need to be somewhat impartial to personal prejudice and view the entry from a more objective angle. I hope that makes sense, and I will admit I severly doubt that a wang can out perform a brush when it comes to painting but I could be wrong lol

and the woman doin art with a brush in her hootie-pootie from what I gather she gave this as a demonstration and it wasn\'t her sole way of painting, while I may think that painting like that is a tad daft if it was a part of her work as an artist then it\'s different then doing hoochie art as her one and only gimick.

semi unrelated but holding a brush in an odd place made me think of a local artist who is awesome and very inspirational to me. He was a student at the University of Towson (if my memorey serves) and he went by the name Dan \"King Gimp\" Keplinger, he has cerebral palsy. Since he has very little muscle control he came up witha rig he wears on his head that a brush attaches to and paints that way. He\'s an incredible person and artist and is a perfect exaple of a true artist producing real art compared to a charlatan like the butt-tulip guy. Heres a link to his site Link

I first got introduced to him by the hbo special on him in 2000 or so, and amazingly enough I was waiting in line to watch a pink floyd cover band and a friend saw me and jumped into line. To my suprise she was friends with Dan and he rolled up with her. That was one of the cooler moments in my life we didn\'t have any deep esoteric conversation or anything like that just hung out (got to cut line and got in free since we were with a v.i.p.) and he was a very cool fella. I\'m glad I got to shake his hand and let him know that his story had helped get me thru a very low point in my life.

That is one of the most important differences between a real artist and a fraud like that ass-tulip guy. A real artist touches peoples lives makes them feel things and think of things in new and rejuvinated ways, real art carries the breath of inspiration to all those who come across it. True art stirs the depths of your spirit. and I\'m not saying that all art will do that for everyone but all true art will do that for someone. Those emotions are something that parrot or those tulips will never give to humanity they will never touch someones life.

 

[flashlight warrior]

Originally posted by PegaZus
And since art is meant to be looked at and enjoy the imagery, this guy\'s ass and tool being used as a tool just isn\'t enjoyable.

In that case art is purely subjective and defined by the person looking at it. Like you said, your mother really loved the painting, so to her it is art, regardless of how you feel about it. I personally don\'t feel that Stan Murmurs \"butt art\" i sanything special, nor do I appreciate the novelty of it, but I can\'t say that just because I dont like it it shouldn\'t be called art.

One issue that hasen\'t been addressed is the matter of Mr. Murmurs dismissal from teaching. I\'m quite surprised that he actually got fired. He wasn\'t doing anything illegal, nor was he doing anything particularly immoral or inappropriate. He wasn\'t sharing his techniques with his students, and he even went out of his way to try to hide his identity online. I dont see anything harmful about his methods of making art.
Again, I feel his techniques are bizarre, and the \"art\" he produces is sub-par at best, but what he was doing on his own time really should have been no concern to the school board or the parents of the students.

 

[spazzy]

@ Friar, I appreciate your clarification, and you\'re right, the woman who did the vagina-painting performance was doing just that, a performance. She did indeed do primarily other things.

@ PegaZus, I think that you are differentiating between good art and bad art. My daughter is pretty good at drawing and coloring as five year olds go, but when placed next to something drawn by one of our high school art students, it doesn\'t look as good. For a five year old, it\'s good art, but all in all, she\'s not producing good art. It is, however, still art. While I don\'t believe that what Murmur is producing can be considered good art, it is art nonetheless.

@ flashlight warrior, I don\'t know if there is something in his contract that specifically prohibits him from appearing on television and the internet wearing a thong and, lets face it, a very poor attempt at disguising himself with a fake nose and glasses and a towel wrapped around his head. Even his \"nom du guerre\" was rather sad, changing only his first name from Stephen to Stan. It\'s not necessarily a matter of the legality of what he is doing, but the percieved lack of propriety. Public schools are much like businesses, and the student\'s parents are the customers. If parents pull the students, then the school looses its funding.

 

[Thunderhawker]

Another fine art major piping in here! (I am very tired so I will try and be brief)

I very much agree with Braveheart\'s thoughts on this one. There is just one major thing that nags at me.
As long as he didn\'t do it in front of students or use the government funded school facilities, equipment or materials, and did not do anything that directly linked his art to his employer, he has a right as an American citizen to express himself in any way he sees fit. It is his right, regardless of his apparent lack of talent or genuine ability. Once he violates any of the previous list, he has abused that right and the school had every right to fire him.

 

[flashlight warrior]

Oh, I understand how the school would definitely want to keep the parents happy, I just feel that the general reaction to Murmurs work is somewhat unreasonable. Sure, he\'s a weird guy, but i don\'t think it is reasonable for the parents to demand his resignation or threaten to remove their children from the school. He wasn\'t doing anything predatory or harmful. Basically I\'m just saying I feel the response from the general public has been a bit more hostile than I think he deserves.

 

[Ritual]

I have seen far worse stuff that also have been receiving far more appraisal. Using gimmicks in art is not at all uncommon and people don\'t seem to mind until the gimmick involves something that is morally challenging in some way. Bad art is completely uninteresting to most people unless it can be perceived as offensive, in which case a lot of people rather take offense than to simply ignore the artist (as they do with most other artists).

I can\'t say I\'m particularly taken by this guy\'s art, but then a lot of artists are fairly uninteresting, in my eyes. It\'s hard to put the finger on what makes something interesting to me and what don\'t, but it\'s not necessarily technical skill. Rough, imperfect or even plain ugly things can sometimes have a great impact on me, just as well as beautiful things can (but can also be completely uninteresting). Also, the next guy probably wouldn\'t agree with my views in the matter, just as I probably wouldn\'t agree with his. It is subjective.

I\'ve noticed that in discussions concerning contemporary art, someone always drags up Michelangelo or Rembrandt or some other \"old master\". Let\'s keep in mind that these artists are some of a very select group of artists from many many centuries ago that are still remembered. Just as there will be a few of today\'s artists that will be remembered in the future. Also, the concept and meaning of \"art\" has changed quite drastically since the Renaissance. At least the artists we know from back then worked mostly as contracted artists and their work can hardly be compared to the work of a contemporary \"hobby artist\".

I won\'t say anything about him getting fired as I don\'t know the circumstances. But, I will say that I would have preferred having an art teacher that was dedicated (regardless of talent or methods) than some of the art teachers I\'ve had. I\'d rather had a guy painting bad pictures with his wang teaching me than someone who treats art as something you learn by following strict instructions and paint what they tell you to paint.

 

[Braveheart712]

Originally posted by Ritual
I\'d rather had a guy painting bad pictures with his wang teaching me than someone who treats art as something you learn by following strict instructions and paint what they tell you to paint.

I respectful have to disagree with this statement and here are my reasons why. When I attended college, I had a professor who insisted that I show up every class with 200 or more new figure sketches. At the time I could have cared less about doing just that, I would have rather focused on one or two drawings. What my teacher was attempting to do was get me to \"loosen up\", I can still remember him saying these words over and over in his heavy Russian accent. As much as I hated his technique at the time, I learned how to sketch quickly and with great proportion and technique. Good teachers teach, bad ones pacify and are no better than overpaid babysitters. A skilled teacher instructs you and guides you into learning and developing your talent, sometimes by forcing techniques that you would not agree with. I am glad I had this teacher who pushed me in this direction and so glad I didn\'t have Professor Butt Brush. In my experience I have found that people like him general tend to hide their lack of skill behind enormously inflated egos, and also are quick to pick a fight with anyone who can\'t see the vision and expression communicated in their \"superior\' work. I am just guessing this but I would bet his dismissal was partial due to his lack of talent both as an artist and a teacher, but also due to him having an ego that was most likely abrasive and unattractive to be around. As for the disguise, again I find it juvenile and childish. I was raised to be proud of what I have done and who I am. If he was so proud, he should have placed his face on his website for all to see. Also, in the US we do have rights to self expression, I agree 100%, but we also have the right to dismiss and ignore things we find unpleasant and distasteful. This guy was not a victim, the only victims involved were the people who had to endure an art opening of his.

 

[Ritual]

@braveheart
Now you assume a lot of things about both what I meant, and also about how mr butt-brush is as a teacher (you haven\'t studied under him, have you?).

First of all, I agree with what you said about your art professor and it\'s not what I meant with \"teaching from strict instructions and telling students what to paint\". What I meant is treating art the same way as learning how to build something. I had a few teachers who dictated exactly how and what I should paint. If I wanted to use the same technique but paint something I felt more interested in I got told off. We never got the chance to express ourselves, but were only given strict instructions on what to do. That pretty much killed the creativity, as far as I\'m concerned. Yes, by all means, force students to try new techniques. I\'m fine with that! But you must allow the students to have some input in it all, or else things will only turn into pointless exercises made to please the teacher. If I have problem feeling enthusiastic about a certain exercise the teacher should try to inspire me and suggest ways that I can combine the exercise and my own creative goals. Not just tell me to be quiet and do what I\'m told. One of these teachers also forbid the students to work on their projects in our spare time, because it would be unfair on those students who didn\'t. What a great way to kill the joy of creating!

I\'ve had other teachers that were great, though, and they all shared the same enthusiasm for creating things. If I had problem feeling enthusiastic for, let\'s say, water colour painting, they came with suggestions based on their knowledge about what I liked to do and usually we could find some middle ground where I could do the exercise and feel enthusiastic about it.

Of course, I don\'t know if mr Butt-brush IS that type of teacher, but you don\'t know that he ISN\'T either. And, what I meant is that at least he is someone who creates things and he seems to have a fairly open mind.

 

[Avelorn]

I like his paintings (I\'m not just saying that). Very nice lines, I could defiantely see them hanging on my wall. They make me smile.

My opinion is if he wants to paint with his butt on his sparetime it\'s more then okay! I mean there are so many more problems with teachers then a guy throwing his testicles around on a canvas.

If he teaches kids to paint with their butts it\'s questionable but still alright with me. Just use paint easily removed with soap and water.

If he teaches with his butt, he should be fired.

@Braveheart: And to add to Ritual, We\'re talking elementary school here (right?). Creativity is the key in my opinion. What role else is there for an arts subject in schools? Sure it shouldn\'t be all butt-painting on schedule but I much rather prefer that then a teacher which can kill creativity. On college though the buttpainting might have to play supporting actor.. but only might

 

[Ritual]

@Avelorn
Yeah, I\'m talking about elementary and high school, not art school. But, some of my points would apply for art school as well, although, of course, it is perfectly acceptable to put higher demands on students there. The aim is still to shape and refine students\' creativity, not to control it.

 

[Avelorn]

Originally posted by Ritual
@Avelorn
Yeah, I\'m talking about elementary and high school, not art school. But, some of my points would apply for art school as well, although, of course, it is perfectly acceptable to put higher demands on students there. The aim is still to shape and refine students\' creativity, not to control it.

Definately. But as you\'ve made some conscious choices on the road, a stricter approach might be more suitable on some occations. Especially if you want to be able to earn a living on painting.

EDIT: But then again some strict bastards might need that butt-painting. Different strokes for different folks...

 

[Sand Rat]

There was probably a morals catch all clause in his contract. Break that and out you go - its how a high school art teacher here in Austin got fired for topless pictures of herself that her girlfriend took and posted to the net.

If painting with his butt was this guy\'s life\'s calling why is he even teaching kids? This is something you do as a college professor, not an elementary school teacher. A good rule of thumb is the more eccentric the behavior, the less you want to do it around the children, cause someone will nail your buttocks to the wall for it.

To me this guy is more of an artist than Mr Cant be Bothered to Read my Contract with the School District.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1wfWPtjxMA&feature=PlayList&p=E22B6B9DBB6C5DE7&index=1

 

[supervike]

Art isn\'t always about the final product, it quite often is only about the process of creating.

That said, the butt guy most likely just wants his 15 minutes of fame. Take away the shock value and I doubt he does this just for \'fun\'.

 

[desertdragon1964]

thanks spazzy my wife and I needed a good laugh.DDlollollol

 

[Thunderhawker]

Bwahahahaha
\"Professor Butt Brush\"lollollollol:moon:

 

[Roger Bunting]

Bah, wannabe \"enfant-terrible\" artist from a wannabe Chesterfield.

I\'ve got no problem with him wanting to paint with his butt and dangly bits. I don\'t think it\'s original or clever, or that the results are any good really. I\'d like to know why he does it. A lot of contemporary art is as much, sometimes more, about the idea. Hell, you can get good marks in art colleges if you can justify your idea well, even if you don\'t appear to have done much at all.

 

[spazzy]

Okay folks, the moment I\'ve been waiting for...I sent him an email with some questions and he responded!

Enjoy.

Me = How do you categorize your art?
Stan = I\'m creating imagery using anthropometric monotypes...that throws my work into a \'printmaking\' category. Art categories would be \'postmodern\' based on concept, content and technique; and \'contemporary\' due to production materials and current ability to suck air on the planet.

Me = How do you believe most other people categorize your art?
Stan = I don\'t believe most other people know what to make of artwork -let alone mine. I\'m sure that most understand that art is directed at them, but many won\'t make conceptual distinctions between my work or anyone else\'s.

Me = Do you take your art seriously, or was it just something that started out funny and you ran with it?
Stan = The only thing we should never take serious is ourselves. I take my artwork and everything else I do very seriously. I don\'t even believe mundane tasks should be undertaken without serious effort.

Me = Do you believe that it has aesthetic value equal to the price tag?
Stan = The work is aesthetically undervalued in relation to price. As with everything, you can only sell something for what others are willing to pay for it.

Me = How well does it really sell?
Stan = The pieces I can mass produce sell well enough to cover work that doesn\'t move as readily. Pieces that focus on matters of public concern won\'t move as fast as imagery that focuses on the human condition. I usually know before I start if a composition will sell and I often think how many Butterflies or Tulip Butts a non-seller is costing me.

Me = Do you have a steady flow of customers asking for new pieces?
Stan = I have a steady flow of referrals that ask for new pieces. There are also clients that request the same mass produced composition over and over. I know they\'re selling for more than they paid me, but without them I wouldn\'t have the money to create non-selling pieces.

Me = If after the first few paintings you discovered that customers were relatively disinterested, would you have continued painting with your buttocks?
Stan = Most certainly. I would have just found something that did sell to cover my models and materials costs.

Me = Are your paintings something you would place in your own home for your family and guests to enjoy?
Stan = I usually have at least two of my own pieces displayed at home until they sell or I swap them for a different non-seller.

Me = Have you ever felt embarrassed about displaying prints of your buttocks and genitals on the internet?
Stan = No, as I\'m sure you\'re not embarrassed by the water prints you leave sitting by the pool.

Me = Finally, Flash Art magazine grouped you with Yves Klein, Shigeko Kubota, and Takeshi Murakami. Do you believe that is an apt grouping?
Stan = Klein was an absolute genius. I\'ll never live up to his Anthropometries. Kubota has been able to move her pieces of public concern. I have not. Murakami has been dabbling with sitting in paint to create imagery, but he owned the \'90s. I do aspire to live up to Flash Art\'s expectations, but I don\'t believe I\'m there yet.

 

[uberdark]

an art teachers take on things .....again...after a year...

i remember this conversation vividly. mainly because it was the first forum topic i spoke on. that said please read this closely


in a general teacher\'s contract, you sign that contract with a morality clause built in. plain and simple, if a teacher who has tenure does something like stripping after school or for example, \"gets jiggy with some paint and his manhood\" then that person is in breach of their contract.

now you may say \"but whats morally right or wrong in your mind uber?\" well my opiniion doesnt matter, its what the school board decides in said community. they are the ones who we have hired democratically to make these decisions. and since they decide to fire the man, due to the morality clause then they are within their and their communities rights.
to some this may stink, but hey this is america and this is how things go in the public school system, if you have a problem with it, then homeschool your kid or if you want to be an art teacher and paint with your wang, then make sure and do it in a school system that wont mind you doing that.