Comments on: Video: Idiot suffers for his art

By: allrsn

allrsn — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:58:52 +0000

usless gimmick.

IMHO people use gimmicks because they believe that their talent is lacking. Since their talent will not sell maybe their gimmick will.

By: landlines

landlines — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:20:15 +0000

Doing silly things which don’t need to be done, and doing them the hard way: looks like another Democrat congressional candidate!

By: Guardian

Guardian — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:12:18 +0000

This dude has a big future waiting for him in San Francisco.

Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 8:50 PM

Body art?

91Veteran on April 26, 2008 at 11:29 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.

By: Travis1

Travis1 — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:06:00 +0000

This guy’s tongue-dyed (pun intended).

By: Christine

Christine — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:24:20 +0000

…addiction TO absorbing paint…duh.

By: Christine

Christine — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:22:13 +0000

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.

By: aero

aero — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:49:46 +0000

Ha! The reporter said “Indian artist,” and I swear I thought he said “Idiot artist.” Freudian slip, perhaps?

By: Illyahkuryahkin

Illyahkuryahkin — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:42:42 +0000

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.

My ex-girlfriend used to do that all the time. I don’t know why. I never complained, though.

By: Wade

Wade — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:16:47 +0000

Will Gene Simmons commission him for a portrait?

By: robblefarian

robblefarian — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:49:42 +0000

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.

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!

By: Corsair

Corsair — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:48:46 +0000

He must be auditioning for the Darwin awards.

By: Ares

Ares — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:44:28 +0000

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.

By: Captain Scarlet

Captain Scarlet — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:13:26 +0000

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.

By: NNtrancer

NNtrancer — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:28:50 +0000

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.

By: Black Adam

Black Adam — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:22:51 +0000

LOL.

I bet he’ll drive his square-wheeled car all the way to the bank with that plan.

Dummy. His art sucks, too.

By: Chakra Hammer

Chakra Hammer — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 06:10:24 +0000

Someone get the guy a computer and Wacom tablet.. :\

By: profitsbeard

profitsbeard — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 05:28:02 +0000

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.

By: greggriffith

greggriffith — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:55:07 +0000

I am standing here beside myself.

By: ronsfi

ronsfi — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:00:58 +0000

Some of that stuff is so toxic. What a bone head.

By: 91Veteran

91Veteran — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 03:29:24 +0000

Buy em quick…he might be dead in a couple years after ingesting all that paint.

This dude has a big future waiting for him in San Francisco.

Guardian on April 26, 2008 at 8:50 PM

Body art?

By: obladioblada

obladioblada — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:22:05 +0000

Can understand the desire to work w/o brushes or knives, but this sounds more like pica.

By: 4shoes

4shoes — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:14:40 +0000

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.

By: Buford

Buford — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:14:01 +0000

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

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.

By: 4shoes

4shoes — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:10:24 +0000

Hope his watercolors don’t come from China.

By: obladioblada

obladioblada — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:07:34 +0000

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.