StoneToss (allegedly, formerly Red Panels)

A flurk with a story

IMG_20211125_041112.png
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Aunt Carol, BlueSpark, Slap47 and 4 others
Lemmingwise said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's gay. Fuck all these people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: (‿ˠ‿)
Lemmingwise said:
black flurks are more expensive than white ones.
Click to expand...
The sheer absolute irony of this
Cat Attack said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
Cat Attack said:
My theory, NFT people desperately want normies to get more involved in NFTs and StoneToss is bad for business.
Click to expand...
Yeah you cant even post peeble anymore without some normalfag crying that you're supporting a notsee
Lemmingwise said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABE LINN COHN, WebLurker and Lemmingwise
Lemmingwise said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything except your quantification.

Bump that bitch up to 99%.

(no, 99.99%)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Junior Faze and Lemmingwise
Super Kami Guru said:
Amogus?
Click to expand...
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:
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Autistic
Reactions: Frost, Bayard Rustin, Memento Malum and 19 others
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Glowing In The Streets, Orange Rhymer, Andthensomeguy and 3 others
Lemmingwise said:
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.

news.bitcoin.com

Political Cartoonist Accuses NFT Platforms Opensea, Rarible of Being 'Tools for Political Censorship' – Bitcoin News

The artist behind Stonetoss Comics, a series of political cartoons, has been censored by two very prominent NFT marketplaces.
news.bitcoin.com news.bitcoin.com
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Orange Rhymer, An Ghost and ABE LINN COHN
Just_a_Bored_Guy said:
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.
archive.ph

Death of the Artist – StoneToss

archived 30 Nov 2021 18:04:18 UTC
archive.ph archive.ph
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Feels
  • Agree
  • Islamic Content
Reactions: Scarface1, Aunt Carol, WebLurker and 3 others
Lemmingwise said:
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.

news.bitcoin.com

Political Cartoonist Accuses NFT Platforms Opensea, Rarible of Being 'Tools for Political Censorship' – Bitcoin News

The artist behind Stonetoss Comics, a series of political cartoons, has been censored by two very prominent NFT marketplaces.
news.bitcoin.com news.bitcoin.com
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ABE LINN COHN
Northern Blockhead said:
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.
Click to expand...
That article is trash, how the fuck can someone use so many words to say so little?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Glowing In The Streets and Lemmingwise
Northern Blockhead said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's some truth to this, but mostly because governments have been trying to pass legislation that would regulate blockchain and crypto-engineering to effectively make it legal ONLY for government use. The US and EU, for example, have been with one hand smearing crypto on top of trying to tax it (how dare you hide money from the government!), and with the other hand signing contracts with major tech companies to attempt to use blockchain technology for things like universal digital identification cards. (Attached to your online activity forever, what could go wrong?)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ddw
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back