Video: Idiot suffers for his art
posted at 8:40 pm on April 26, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Creative, but if he’d used his schwanz as a brush instead he’d probably qualify for a degree at Yale.
Still not as cool as the paintin’ pachyderm, though. Exit question: The Last Supper, Gandhi on the cross, and … Osama with a rifle on his lap? Huh?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Why does the chick next to the nursing bearded lady in the background hold her blanket between her boobs without covering them up? That doesn’t make any sense.
ninjapirate on April 26, 2008 at 8:48 PM
More proof that artists (not the elephant kind) are really just performing for themselves.
Spirit of 1776 on April 26, 2008 at 8:48 PM
What an idiot! I didn’t think he could be out done until they introduced the student who apparently is paying to learn the technique from him. I could almost overlook it all if the art didn’t suck so bad on top of everything. Sheeesh!
gideon on April 26, 2008 at 8:49 PM
This dude has a big future waiting for him in San Francisco.
Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Indian April Fools!
BJ* on April 26, 2008 at 8:54 PM
I’m sure he’s a hit with all of the chicks!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 26, 2008 at 8:56 PM
I bet there’s a high lead content in his paint.
Bill Brasky on April 26, 2008 at 9:00 PM
I hope, for his sake, the BillyJeff does not commission him for any special projects.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 26, 2008 at 9:03 PM
He’ll be dead of the toxic ingredients in his tubes.
And he sucks.
profitsbeard on April 26, 2008 at 9:06 PM
This is a camp for retarded people, no?
robblefarian on April 26, 2008 at 9:07 PM
I’m guessing he’s from a really, really low cast.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 26, 2008 at 9:08 PM
The pigment in paint comes from a variety of minerals, many of which are toxic, none of which I would choose to imbibe. The binders used to carry the pigment have issues of their own. His application technique is an incredibly bad idea and he won’t be the first artist to become ill from exposure to paint.
obladioblada on April 26, 2008 at 9:10 PM
He’s using watercolors. They’re pretty much all non-toxic. Yes, during The Renaissance paints were quite toxic–well on through Impressionism, but modern paints of all types are no longer toxic. Green oil paint contained arsenic and certain yellows and oranges contained massive amounts of lead.
But I agree–I wouldn’t be using my tongue to paint anything. As an artist, I prefer the earlobe or outie belly-button of a drink Wiccan girl.
robblefarian on April 26, 2008 at 9:18 PM
DRUNK Wiccan Girl. Crap, I need a new prescription.
robblefarian on April 26, 2008 at 9:21 PM
It’s all a matter of taste.
29Victor on April 26, 2008 at 9:25 PM
That was really, um, odd… but the whole paintin’ pachyderm thing, well – wait, what’s that – okay, who’s the wise guy who used the paintbrush on my tush…
;-)
Pachyderm
Pachyderm on April 26, 2008 at 10:04 PM
robble–
Are watercolors really non-toxic? I know the binders are different, but aren’t the pigments the same? I thought the cads have a cad base regardless of the medium. Watercolors probably have a lighter pigment load, but I wouldn’t think you’d want to load up on cad, zinc, or any of the others?
I do use solvents that require masks and ventilation. Not saying that risk is bad.
obladioblada on April 26, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Hope his watercolors don’t come from China.
4shoes on April 26, 2008 at 10:10 PM
Not so true. Modern watercolors contain all kinds of pigments, some are not very good for you. Watercolors made for kids are non-toxic, but the ones artists use have all sorts of things you wouldn’t want to ingest in them. Take a look here if you don’t believe me.
Buford on April 26, 2008 at 10:14 PM
His paintings are pretty good, imagine how much better they’d be if he used a brush. Holy hell, if I’m going to spend big bucks on a freaking painting I don’t buy it because the artist used his/her ______ (fill in the blank) to paint it.
4shoes on April 26, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Can understand the desire to work w/o brushes or knives, but this sounds more like pica.
obladioblada on April 26, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Buy em quick…he might be dead in a couple years after ingesting all that paint.
Body art?
91Veteran on April 26, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Some of that stuff is so toxic. What a bone head.
ronsfi on April 27, 2008 at 12:00 AM
I am standing here beside myself.
greggriffith on April 27, 2008 at 12:55 AM
New use for condoms?
Tongue-doms?
(Imagine the pointillistic effects of a French Tickler.)
This is not exactly a new idea, since the some of cave painting effects of Lascaux and Altamira were done by neolithic artists spraying mouthfuls of pigment onto the cave walls, as a kind of primeval “airbrushing” technique, and I’m sure a Stone Age tongue slipped out and landed somewhere on one of those iconic images of aurochs or mastodons (Ganesha’s great-great grandfathers) …which might be the subject for a thesis by some enterprising, tongue-in-cheek archeologist.
profitsbeard on April 27, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Someone get the guy a computer and Wacom tablet.. :\
Chakra Hammer on April 27, 2008 at 2:10 AM
LOL.
I bet he’ll drive his square-wheeled car all the way to the bank with that plan.
Dummy. His art sucks, too.
Black Adam on April 27, 2008 at 5:22 AM
When asked what he has in mind for his next painting, he drew a blank and said, “You know, it’s on the tip of my tongue.” Anyway, so he tried to think of what he could do that was different. That’s sort of modern art philosophy in a nutshell. It’s all about novelty, no matter how puerile.
NNtrancer on April 27, 2008 at 6:28 AM
He is to art what Tay Zonday is to singing.
Bob Ross is rolling over in his grave over this moron. At least this joker won’t get his own PBS show. Can’t talk to the camera and eat paint at the same time, I’d guess.
Captain Scarlet on April 27, 2008 at 7:13 AM
All works of art are equally valid.
For instance, in New England culture artists have been known to deliberately have miscarriages and then splooge them onto canvas.
Whilst some people might find this distasteful you need to understand context here.
Ares on April 27, 2008 at 8:44 AM
He must be auditioning for the Darwin awards.
Corsair on April 27, 2008 at 8:48 AM
I use Windsor and Newton paints–both oil and watercolor. If you look at the beginning of the video, there is a huge AP on the paint tube. That stands for “Non-Toxic.”
http://www.dickblick.com/zz003/19/
Almost all paints manufactured today are synthetic. Some do contain trace or small amounts of minerals, but for the most part not enough to cause any risk whatsoever. I went through HUNDREDS of tubes of oil, acrylic and watercolors during college (I have a BFA in Painting and Sculpture) and all were non-toxic.
Of course, that’s not saying much when you get high off the mineral spirits. HA!
robblefarian on April 27, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Will Gene Simmons commission him for a portrait?
Wade on April 27, 2008 at 10:16 AM
My ex-girlfriend used to do that all the time. I don’t know why. I never complained, though.
Illyahkuryahkin on April 27, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Ha! The reporter said “Indian artist,” and I swear I thought he said “Idiot artist.” Freudian slip, perhaps?
aero on April 27, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Could it be he’s having a flashback back to when he was a frog with an addiction absorbing paint thru his tongue?
The more appropriate question: Is this an example of the mal-effects of inter-family breeding or what happens when you’re dropped on your head as an infant.
Van Gogh’s story would have been a cautionary tale, but I don’t think this guy got the memo.
Christine on April 27, 2008 at 2:22 PM
…addiction TO absorbing paint…duh.
Christine on April 27, 2008 at 2:24 PM
This guy’s tongue-dyed (pun intended).
Travis1 on April 27, 2008 at 4:06 PM
Maybe, but I would think some of those San Francisco freaks would enjoy turning him to the dark side. Since he is a freaky artist, he’s already halfway there.
Guardian on April 27, 2008 at 5:12 PM
Doing silly things which don’t need to be done, and doing them the hard way: looks like another Democrat congressional candidate!
landlines on April 27, 2008 at 8:20 PM
usless gimmick.
IMHO people use gimmicks because they believe that their talent is lacking. Since their talent will not sell maybe their gimmick will.
allrsn on April 27, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Comment pages: