| 
 Thursday, 5 January 2017 
quote [ It seems drama just follows Anish Kapoor, who has been in a paint-lined war with the art world for years now. Since having his controversial ?vagina? sculpture vandalized two years ago, the British-Indian artist was given exclusive rights to use ?Vantablack? ? the world?s blackest ever black pigment that absorbs 99.96% of visible light ? in 2014 to the dismay of fellow artists. ] 
Marked NSFW due to thumb image. YMMV. 
			
			
  | 
|  
 
HP Lovekraftwerk said @ 8:47pm GMT on 5th Jan  
[Score:3 Insightful]
  What's worse, he violated the "two in the pink" rule. 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
XregnaR said @ 9:01pm GMT on 5th Jan  
[Score:1 Underrated]
  [eye roll]Artists...[/eye roll] 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
foobar said @ 12:06am GMT on 6th Jan  
  I think there's a distinction to be made between an artist and a mere attention whore. 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
sanepride said @ 3:23am GMT on 6th Jan  
  Kapoor though is a legitimate artist, so he could be both. 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
foobar said @ 4:26am GMT on 6th Jan  
  Looking at what he's done, I can't agree. I see no message beyond "I have too much money and not enough ideas." 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
sanepride said @ 4:31am GMT on 6th Jan  
  Well you know, the thing about art is that everyone gets something different out of it. 
	
	
	
I find his best works to be magical and mesmerizing, but they have to be seen in person to be appreciated. Photos do not convey this.  | 
|  
 
foobar said @ 4:57am GMT on 6th Jan  
  Art can be ugly or pretty, but it can't be just those things. If there's no message, it's just self-indulgence. 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
sanepride said @ 5:35am GMT on 6th Jan  
  If a viewer gets somethiing from it then it's not really self-indulgence, is it? A 'message' need not be some kind of overt statement, it can be a purely sensory experience, well beyond simply 'ugly' or 'pretty'.  
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
foobar said @ 5:53am GMT on 6th Jan  
  Hmm. 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
sanepride said @ 9:24pm GMT on 5th Jan  
  For those not familiar with Kapoor's sculptural works, they really are beautiful and compelling, often due to his uncompromising use of intense pigments. 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
mechavolt said @ 9:30pm GMT on 5th Jan  
  He's still an ass for keeping the rights to vantablack to himself. 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
eidolon said @ 9:32pm GMT on 5th Jan  
  The pettiness of it all is so amusing to me. 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
sanepride said @ 10:04pm GMT on 5th Jan  
  Sure, of course history is replete with artists who were dicks but still made great art. 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
Loki said @ 4:02am GMT on 6th Jan  
  Any chance you can link or name works you'd recommend?  Because I've seen a lot of his work (mostly by sifting through stuff tagger "Anish Kapoor" on Tumblr), and honestly, he strikes me as a pretentious wanker.  For instance, I saw at least four pieces that looked like he'd spraypainted a giant salad bowl a bright color and glued it to a wall, posted by people who thought it was deep and meaningful.  I also saw the Vanta hole in the ground.  So far, I'm not impressed. 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
sanepride said @ 4:27am GMT on 6th Jan  
  Photos of his smaller sculptures just don't do them justice, mainly because you lose the experience of the color and depth. Probably the first thing I ever saw of his was this piece at the Hirshhorn in DC. Yeah, the photo looks meh, but the interior of this thing is such a deep hue of indigo receding into black that you really feel like you're staring into an infinite void. It's a trippy, disorienting experience. Also check out his monumental works, like the Cloud Gate in Chicago 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
foobar said @ 4:59am GMT on 6th Jan  
  It's a giant funhouse mirror. 
	
	
	
 | 
|  
 
Loki said @ 1:52pm GMT on 6th Jan  
  On one hand, I'm kinda impressed and wondering just how he went about making a huge, perfectly reflective stainless steel kidney bean. 
	
	
	
On the other hand... it's a kidney bean. Admittedly a gigantic kidney bean, but still a kidney bean. I suspect I'm one of those people who just can't get modern art. Because wankers.  |