StoneToss (allegedly, formerly Red Panels)

Lemmingwise

I paid the right click price, not the crypto price
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
Say what you like about Jackson Pollock or just say he was a retard randomly throwing paint at a wall, but try to make a Jackson Pollock that would convince anyone.
This just isn't true.

Nevermind the fact that the paintings were poured, so the paintings are dripped onto the floor instead (hence, "dripping paintings")


The test to find out if a pollock painting is real is neither looking at a database of what he painted or visually identified. It is entirely decided on forensic testing.

There was the whole debacle of his former lover claiming "red black and silver" to be a real pollock while this was contested by the experts, saying it looked nothing like a pollock painting (and the later fractal analysis that supposedly could detect pollocks didn't catch it either).

It wasn't until forensic testing that they found particles of his polar bear rug and his hair and other particles from things in his home, that it was deemed to be a true pollock.

This is follows a pattern. Pollock paintings authenticity is typically decided by these kind of forensic methods; canvas type, paint type, is it signed (fake signed paintings increase criminal liability) and oyher forensic testing.

Most of the pollock paintings sold in the art marketplace are deemed to be fake. So yes, any retard can throw paint at a canvas and convince people it's a pollock.

There was also an art teacher that invited his class to say what emotions the pollock displayed on the overhead projector evoked in them. Only it wasn't a pollock but a closeup picture of an overall he wore when painting and all the random splatters on it. In decades of teaching no student had spotted the fake in advance.

I guess my point, if I have one, is just saying "modern art is the suxorz" is the art equivalent of the chick saying "I love all music but country and rap" and not knowing who Hanks Williams, Sr. was or who Kurtis Blow is. It's a Sturgeon's Law thing. Sturgeon said 90% of sci-fi is crap. And the corollary is 90% of everything is crap. The remainder is still worth something.
Sturgeon's law supports what I was saying, it doesn't undermine it as you seem to think.

Not that I don't think modernist art has a higher percentage than 90% of being crap (and yes I include fountain and pollock in that), but my point was rather that despite the dollar value placed on these, they would still overwhelmingly be regarded as crap popularly. People pretend to like these things because they're afraid of being seen as philistines if they don't get it, even while they provably don't get it when tested.

And of course the whole modernist art was heavily pushed by the cia in one of the early propaganda steps towards the cold war.

Conclusion

The point is that most people thinking nfts suck doesn't really diminish their value if a couple of people really love the idea.
 
Last edited:

Lemmingwise

I paid the right click price, not the crypto price
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
A flurk with a story

IMG_20211125_041112.png
 

Mike Stoklasa

v=YbsRfRmL5Kc
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 20, 2019
This just isn't true.

Nevermind the fact that the paintings were poured, so the paintings are dripped onto the floor instead (hence, "dripping paintings")


The test to find out if a pollock painting is real is neither looking at a database of what he painted or visually identified. It is entirely decided on forensic testing.

There was the whole debacle of his former lover claiming "red black and silver" to be a real pollock while this was contested by the experts, saying it looked nothing like a pollock painting (and the later fractal analysis that supposedly could detect pollocks didn't catch it either).

It wasn't until forensic testing that they found particles of his polar bear rug and his hair and other particles from things in his home, that it was deemed to be a true pollock.

This is follows a pattern. Pollock paintings authenticity is typically decided by these kind of forensic methods; canvas type, paint type, is it signed (fake signed paintings increase criminal liability) and oyher forensic testing.

Most of the pollock paintings sold in the art marketplace are deemed to be fake. So yes, any retard can throw paint at a canvas and convince people it's a pollock.

There was also an art teacher that invited his class to say what emotions the pollock displayed on the overhead projector evoked in them. Only it wasn't a pollock but a closeup picture of an overall he wore when painting and all the random splatters on it. In decades of teaching no student had spotted the fake in advance.


Sturgeon's law supports what I was saying, it doesn't undermine it as you seem to think.

Not that I don't think modernist art has a higher percentage than 90% of being crap (and yes I include fountain and pollock in that), but my point was rather that despite the dollar value placed on these, they would still overwhelmingly be regarded as crap popularly. People pretend to like these things because they're afraid of being seen as philistines if they don't get it, even while they provably don't get it when tested.

And of course the whole modernist art was heavily pushed by the cia in one of the early propaganda steps towards the cold war.

Conclusion

The point is that most people thinking nfts suck doesn't really diminish their value if a couple of people really love the idea.
That's gay. Fuck all these people.
 

Cool Dog

No longer a dog, still cool
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
black flurks are more expensive than white ones.
The sheer absolute irony of this
I would say a better comparison to NFTs would be if an art gallery was selling the rights to take a picture of a painting for thousands of dollars but also they just left the painting hanging in front of a giant window so anyone walking by on the street could take a picture any time they wanted. At least in a traditional art sale you get something physical and unique.
I know right? when this shit started I thought it was like copyright on the blockchain but you dont even get the rights to a shitty autogenerated jpeg nobody was going to license anyway
My theory, NFT people desperately want normies to get more involved in NFTs and StoneToss is bad for business.
Yeah you cant even post peeble anymore without some normalfag crying that you're supporting a notsee
This just isn't true.

Nevermind the fact that the paintings were poured, so the paintings are dripped onto the floor instead (hence, "dripping paintings")


The test to find out if a pollock painting is real is neither looking at a database of what he painted or visually identified. It is entirely decided on forensic testing.

There was the whole debacle of his former lover claiming "red black and silver" to be a real pollock while this was contested by the experts, saying it looked nothing like a pollock painting (and the later fractal analysis that supposedly could detect pollocks didn't catch it either).

It wasn't until forensic testing that they found particles of his polar bear rug and his hair and other particles from things in his home, that it was deemed to be a true pollock.

This is follows a pattern. Pollock paintings authenticity is typically decided by these kind of forensic methods; canvas type, paint type, is it signed (fake signed paintings increase criminal liability) and oyher forensic testing.

Most of the pollock paintings sold in the art marketplace are deemed to be fake. So yes, any retard can throw paint at a canvas and convince people it's a pollock.

There was also an art teacher that invited his class to say what emotions the pollock displayed on the overhead projector evoked in them. Only it wasn't a pollock but a closeup picture of an overall he wore when painting and all the random splatters on it. In decades of teaching no student had spotted the fake in advance.


Sturgeon's law supports what I was saying, it doesn't undermine it as you seem to think.

Not that I don't think modernist art has a higher percentage than 90% of being crap (and yes I include fountain and pollock in that), but my point was rather that despite the dollar value placed on these, they would still overwhelmingly be regarded as crap popularly. People pretend to like these things because they're afraid of being seen as philistines if they don't get it, even while they provably don't get it when tested.

And of course the whole modernist art was heavily pushed by the cia in one of the early propaganda steps towards the cold war.

Conclusion

The point is that most people thinking nfts suck doesn't really diminish their value if a couple of people really love the idea.
I remember a guy making fake pollocks with old mustard bottles filled with random colors hanging from strings. He would swing them around randomly over a canvas

Think I also saw some geezer doing that with an R/C car, fucking hilarious

Anyway, gonna get some old bottles and a polar bear rug, time to make analog NFTs
 

Orange Rhymer

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 12, 2019
This just isn't true.

Nevermind the fact that the paintings were poured, so the paintings are dripped onto the floor instead (hence, "dripping paintings")


The test to find out if a pollock painting is real is neither looking at a database of what he painted or visually identified. It is entirely decided on forensic testing.

There was the whole debacle of his former lover claiming "red black and silver" to be a real pollock while this was contested by the experts, saying it looked nothing like a pollock painting (and the later fractal analysis that supposedly could detect pollocks didn't catch it either).

It wasn't until forensic testing that they found particles of his polar bear rug and his hair and other particles from things in his home, that it was deemed to be a true pollock.

This is follows a pattern. Pollock paintings authenticity is typically decided by these kind of forensic methods; canvas type, paint type, is it signed (fake signed paintings increase criminal liability) and oyher forensic testing.

Most of the pollock paintings sold in the art marketplace are deemed to be fake. So yes, any retard can throw paint at a canvas and convince people it's a pollock.

There was also an art teacher that invited his class to say what emotions the pollock displayed on the overhead projector evoked in them. Only it wasn't a pollock but a closeup picture of an overall he wore when painting and all the random splatters on it. In decades of teaching no student had spotted the fake in advance.


Sturgeon's law supports what I was saying, it doesn't undermine it as you seem to think.

Not that I don't think modernist art has a higher percentage than 90% of being crap (and yes I include fountain and pollock in that), but my point was rather that despite the dollar value placed on these, they would still overwhelmingly be regarded as crap popularly. People pretend to like these things because they're afraid of being seen as philistines if they don't get it, even while they provably don't get it when tested.

And of course the whole modernist art was heavily pushed by the cia in one of the early propaganda steps towards the cold war.

Conclusion

The point is that most people thinking nfts suck doesn't really diminish their value if a couple of people really love the idea.
I agree with everything except your quantification.

Bump that bitch up to 99%.

(no, 99.99%)
 

Lemmingwise

I paid the right click price, not the crypto price
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019
The amogus is a subtle joke. The comic is called "Stonetoss's Foss & Suss", where foss and suss both end in the sound "-oss", thus rhyming with the name of the owner, Stonetoss. The sign says that the shop was "Formerly Amogus", implying that the two words beginning with "F" and "S" would have ended with "-mogus", rhyming with "Amogus". So, when Amogus owned the shop, it would have been called "Amogus's Famogus and Samogus".
 
Last edited:

Lemmingwise

I paid the right click price, not the crypto price
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Feb 2, 2019

Puck

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 24, 2019
My last post was three days ago. Since then, I'm surprised that bitcoin.com even picked up the story:

View attachment 2759232

Reading the article, I have to say that stonetoss knows how to write a press release so the article writes itself.

Stones always been one of the more clever and thoughtful online rightoids, I'm more surprised that a cryptotrannie website posted an article that showed him in a somewhat positive light.
 

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 17, 2019
Death of the Artist
Caption is more Flurk stuff and mentions the bitcoin news article.
There's a reason you don't see right-wing art, and it isn't because right-wingers aren't making art.
I'll add that in cases of people like HP Lovecraft the left just coopts the shit out of their work, tries to constantly subvert their messages (the Deep Ones were good all along!) and will not let anyone get in without telling them that it's racist and wrong.
 

Northern Blockhead

A definition of an idiot
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jul 8, 2019
My last post was three days ago. Since then, I'm surprised that bitcoin.com even picked up the story:

View attachment 2759232

Reading the article, I have to say that stonetoss knows how to write a press release so the article writes itself.

I'll be honest, I never exactly believed that cryptocurrencies are censorship-resistant, let alone censorship proof. They are just like any other currency that can be used and abused by authoritarian regimes and corporate overlords, as this article from 2017 discussed that I still agree with to this day.

Of course, whether the article is true or not would depend on how things play out in El Salvador since they made Bitcoin legal tender in September.
 

KateHikes14

YWNBARW
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
I'll be honest, I never exactly believed that cryptocurrencies are censorship-resistant, let alone censorship proof. They are just like any other currency that can be used and abused by authoritarian regimes and corporate overlords, as this article from 2017 discussed that I still agree with to this day.

Of course, whether the article is true or not would depend on how things play out in El Salvador since they made Bitcoin legal tender in September.
That article is trash, how the fuck can someone use so many words to say so little?