Welcome to Adholes.

BTW: the link below is a trick question. It's an ad. For Diesel.

Two artists, Amit Pitaru [musician + software devloper] and James Paterson [artist] collaborate to form Intersilence and this http://www.insertsilence.com/delight... Is it art?

Marc – “I’d rather have too much time on my hands, than too many hands on my time.” – anonymous jr (anonymousjr.com)

(rant continuted) ... them how to paint reality? Indeed, was Rembrandt even an artist? That depends upon your definition of art. Art is the conception of an idea not the translation of that idea once it has been conceived. What is the idea behind Rembrandt’s painting? There is none. Yes, Rembrandt was a skilled painter. But he was more of an artisan, than an artist. Yes, an individual feed off other’s ideas, but saying that is what makes art collaborative is like saying oxygen is responsible for art. Oxygen makes possible the creation of art because without oxygen we couldn’t live but oxygen is not a collaborator, oxygen is merely a tool, just as any idea put forth by any human is merely a tool until that idea is reconfigured in the artist’s subconscious and presented to humankind in the conscious as an original thought. The original thought could be expressed via music (I.e. Jazz, Rap, Rock n Roll, Punk, etc.) or painting (I.e. Fauvism, Futurism, Impressionism, Cubism, Dadaism, Mannerism, etc.) Art is art but once. Yet, art is translated many times by the artisan.

Kennedy. I believe the half and half doesn't go bad if you leave it out when it's vacuum sealed. Cartons of it are not vacuum sealed, therefore they must be refridgerated. And Jeffrey and I have lamented the foosball table insider the prison to make staffers feel like they're free. I didn't stay late to play foosball, I went the hell home.

Tom you suddenly have a lot of time on your hands. Shouldn't you be giving me, I mean doing freelance?

Kennedy- I see your point that paint is not the tool of the painter – paint is the medium and the brush is the tool – but in the interest distilling I inferred that the alphabet is the writer’s tool (not the pen/keyboard) just as the paint is the artist’s tool (not the brush/finger).

In certain instances, yes, music is art. And, I suppose, you would argue that since music can be, and often is, collaborative (band) my position that art is not collaborative is leaking. Hold on there, Dutch Boy, not so fast. Music, as well as other ‘collaborative’ expressions such as acting, can be art but only in its’ incarnation. What follows is an artisan’s expression of the art. In all instances when art is created, the inspiration is generated by the individual, which is then contributed to the group. It is that leap from the conscious to the subconscious back to the conscious where the idea originates. There is no sharing of our subconscious, only of our conscious. The musician/band that plays cover music is no more an artist than the painter that paints by numbers. A designer contributes to the book by creating a cover. Yet, the writer created the original idea, or at the very least discovered the idea in his or her subconscious. The first rapper was an artist. Those that follow are interpretative artists. They are interpreting the original idea. The first Jazz pianist was an artist. In both instances, these two musicians created a new form of expression. Same holds true for the first rock n roll musician, the first punk musician. Unless you’re first, you are merely clinging to another’s inspiration. Indeed, Jimi Hendrix revolutionized the guitar but he did not create the electric guitar sound. Those that make watercolor paintings and sell them at carnivals, and on eBay, are painters but they are not artists. The difference is in how you define artist. To me, the one who creates the idea is the artist. Those that interpret this idea are merely art translators, or skilled artisans. Rembrandt certainly could paint realism yet was there any idea to what he was painting? No. He merely could translate reality better than anyone during his time. When Rembrandt taught others to paint, was he teaching them to be artists or merely teaching them h

As one of the "ill-informed bomb throwers around here" i take offense at whatever it is you wrote, which i didn't have time to read. Beyond that, I support your effort to create small, hastily worded blog entries as opposed to ultra-long, insane, hallucinogen-inspired ones, which i write but also dont' have time to read. If you have time, look into a few more tirade topics like: -why do agencies have those single-serve half-n-half creamers and just leave them out in room temperature?? What the hell is IN those things? -ever notice how agencies with tons of money try and have really wacky environments that follow the theory z management style of microsoft where you feel at home and that you have freedom and you won't leave--ever--because of that? (see Maslow's hierarchy of needs, psych 101) -ever notice that the people who are the ones who figure out who gets canned in a layoff are never the ones who get canned but serve little purpose other than canning people who are working their asses off to keep their jobs? -just a small discrepancy: paint is not a tool of the painter. A brush is. Paint is a medium shaped by the tool of the artist, or chimp.

Influences and collaboration are not related. A writer is influenced by the alphabet. The writer must learn the alphabet before writing. The alphabet is a tool, just as paint is a tool of the painter. Certainly, you’re not suggesting that because the color yellow is supplied to the painter that yellow is a collaborator of the artist. Absorbing human nature is to be influenced by human behavior. This is not art. This is observation. Turning observations into inspirations is art. There’s nothing collaborative about it.

I never met an artist who didn’t point to major influences and collaborative learning experiences as essential to their work. These disciples are proud of who they studied under and alongside. Andy Warhol produced most of his work at his studio called “The Factory” where he directed others to produce work to his specifications and preferences. He never claimed otherwise but was unique in acknowledging his process was shared. Monet and Renoir, Morris Louis and Helen Frankenthaler, George and Ira Gershwin, are all good examples of shared inspiration. One person may make the decision, but it is based upon a multitude of influences that should not be denied.

Can you smoke fiber? Shit. I wish. I really wish.

‘Art History’ is little more than man’s insecurity wrapping itself around things it cannot understand. An artist creates independent of others. It takes only one person, an individual of one, (redundantly speaking) to think of an idea. I suppose the Wright Brothers were artists. They both built the plane. On the contrary, the artist is the one who came up with the idea of a plane. In this instance, a cave dweller was probably the artist. “Don’t quote other people’s quotes. Unquote.” – anonymous jr (anonymousjr.com)

Again, art is not collaborative. A movement is not art. Inspiration/Creation is art, which cannot be collaborative. There is no ‘sharing’ in art. Ask Arthur Dove. Oops. He’s dead.

What's with the rash of ill informed bomb throwers around here? Sure, we lionize advertising as Art far too much, but obviously you are not well versed enough in Art History to see that there is a rich history of collaborative work in the creative realm. As Jefferey points out the movements, ie. Dada, Surrealism, Fluxus, Futurism. Maybe it is just the names on the work that confuse you.

I think you've been smoking the fiber. Art is collaborative intellectually, and socially. Although the act of creating is usually solo. That is why there are schools, styles and (back to fiber)movements.

I looked. I didn't see anything. Looks like I need fiber optics, too. Shit. (I wish)

A fair request... I think Martin Puryear has some leftover woodchips in Gallery B - over to your left.

I don’t want to fight. I just want some fiber.

You'll have to fight me to get past the Art is not collaborative statement...too many great collaborations throughout history (and even client commisions) but the rest sounds about right. That whole, selling and message thing. Cause art's got nothin to say to an audience. Right? Hrmm.. Actually, now it sounds like its only the selling... the commercial aspect. Cause artists don't sell the work right? Wait...