Artist or sick bastard

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-20 02:19am

weemadando wrote:Wow. The delusion rocks on.

Yes, you took the words right out of my mouth.

The fact that the guy has been doing "falling" stunts for many a year, just points to this being the next logical step for him. And yes, he was inspired by the WTC events. Cry me a fucking river. Its 4 fucking years later. Aside from inspiration 4 years ago, he has taken NO steps to recreate the WTC events.

What in the fuck do you think you have there, asshole, a point? Explain what in the fuck the passage of time has to do with a goddamned thing.
What in the fuck could a lack of recreations in the past have to do with a recreation today?

This has been a work of art from start to finish. He has done NOTHING to mock, belittle or begrudge WTC victims or survivors.

Seeing as how posting it twice in thread isn't enough, I'll post it a third time:

2 times I wrote:At best, it's in poor taste, at worst it's mockery.

...I guess I didn't make a fierce enough stance to satisfy you, so resorting to a couple added terms couldn't possibly constitute a strawman, now could it.

His "art" has merely taken a form that has had to be so obtusely viewed to be linked to the WTC events that it amazes me that people crying foul over this are able to exist in normal society. When you bring me some definitive proof, that the artist INTENDED TO MIMIC THE WTC EVENTS, then I'll back off. But in the meantime take your suitcase of sorrows and get the fuck out of of town.

You just accepted that September 11th was his inspiration in this fucking post, idiot!

weemadando wrote: And yes, he was inspired by the WTC events.

Those are your own words, take the chip off your shoulder and go fuck yourself with it, asshole.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-20 02:24am

Frank Hipper wrote:
His "art" has merely taken a form that has had to be so obtusely viewed to be linked to the WTC events that it amazes me that people crying foul over this are able to exist in normal society. When you bring me some definitive proof, that the artist INTENDED TO MIMIC THE WTC EVENTS, then I'll back off. But in the meantime take your suitcase of sorrows and get the fuck out of of town.
You just accepted that September 11th was his inspiration in this fucking post, idiot!
weemadando wrote: And yes, he was inspired by the WTC events.
Those are your own words, take the chip off your shoulder and go fuck yourself with it, asshole.

Being inspired by the WTC events doesn't necessarily mean he's intending to mimic them. He could have seen the people falling from the building, jumping to avoid the flames, and seen it in his own mind as an analogy for life, as he stated. You can have a new idea based off of something that happens, and the intention won't necessarily be to mimic the event. Understand?

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-06-20 02:25am

How many times previously since the quote "Skarbakka, 34, said he started thinking about falling after watching on television as workers jumped to their deaths from the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001." was listed BY YOU, I have no problem with saying that it was inspired by it. By his word, he was. BUT. Being inspired by something is one thing. Setting out to RECREATE/MIMIC is another. And setting out to recreate/mimic with a motive to cause emotional harm is something else entirely...

Call it poor-taste, or bad art. Or whatever the fuck you want to. Just don't try and turn it into a personal insult to "those poor devastated families". Because, it JUST ISN'T.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-20 02:41am

weemadando wrote:How many times previously since the quote "Skarbakka, 34, said he started thinking about falling after watching on television as workers jumped to their deaths from the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001." was listed BY YOU, I have no problem with saying that it was inspired by it. By his word, he was. BUT. Being inspired by something is one thing. Setting out to RECREATE/MIMIC is another. And setting out to recreate/mimic with a motive to cause emotional harm is something else entirely...

Moving the goalposts in this thread, are we?
I wonder if there's any amount of evidence that would satisfy you at this point, especially in light of this:

weemadando wrote:You're stretching a very thin point Hipper. I watched the footage of people jumping on September 11, and when I read this article, I thought that there was no fucking link at all. Its not like he's built a fucking replica facade or anything.

If anything I though it was a parody of the stereotype "stockmarket jumpers".

Some people are just way too sensitive about this shit.

Call it poor-taste, or bad art. Or whatever the fuck you want to. Just don't try and turn it into a personal insult to "those poor devastated families". Because, it JUST ISN'T.

Ridiculous strawman of my position.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-20 02:45am

Zero132132 wrote:Being inspired by the WTC events doesn't necessarily mean he's intending to mimic them. He could have seen the people falling from the building, jumping to avoid the flames, and seen it in his own mind as an analogy for life, as he stated. You can have a new idea based off of something that happens, and the intention won't necessarily be to mimic the event. Understand?

I understand that perfectly, as anyone who'd take the time to read my responses to salm would see; but when you make the link between September 11th clear in an interview about the event you stage, and the further visual link to it by wearing a suit, I wonder what kind of delusion you have to be operating under to deny this.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-20 02:55am

It isn't hard at all to imagine that his actions, his art has nothing to do with 9/11, in terms of mimicry and mocking. It doesn't even really have to be in poor taste. It's this man's idea. If people don't like, it that's fine. I won't praise his work, but I'm not going to say its shit just because his inspiration isn't perhaps the greatest.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-20 03:05am

Zero132132 wrote:It isn't hard at all to imagine that his actions, his art has nothing to do with 9/11, in terms of mimicry and mocking. It doesn't even really have to be in poor taste. It's this man's idea. If people don't like, it that's fine. I won't praise his work, but I'm not going to say its shit just because his inspiration isn't perhaps the greatest.

Recreation is mimicry, any recreation of any actual event does attempt to mimic it.

Poor taste is subjective, but if anyone cares to show how this is in good taste, I'm all ears.

As to it being shit, I wouldn't call it shit because of the subject matter or quality of execution, but I do call it shit because of the self promoting aspects of it's staging and it's lack of creativity.
Anyone who explores the metaphor that falling reflects life through photography and performance art needs to be severely beaten about the head and neck with a Robert Williams painting.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2005-06-20 03:10am

Frank Hipper wrote:Show us what you've got by way of evidence for this.

You're asking me to prove that this art is of the stock market crash when none of us even have the pictures, and art is all about interpretation anyway. But here's my evidence.

1) Images are not of the WTC (so it's not doing something related to 9/11)

2) Images are not in New York (so it's not doing something related to 9/11)

3) Guys in suits falling can be either 9/11 or stock market crash. This imagery is not specific to 9/11. There is more to history than 9/11.

I can tell you what it's not of. It is not of 9/11. It has no specific imagery in it hasn't been seen elsewhere.

You also used circular logic in an attempt to prove your point: his other images weren't of 9/11, so this one must be of 9/11! He must've done something related to 9/11!

You're using a circular logic fallacy, plain and simple.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-20 03:24am

Frank Hipper wrote:
Zero132132 wrote:It isn't hard at all to imagine that his actions, his art has nothing to do with 9/11, in terms of mimicry and mocking. It doesn't even really have to be in poor taste. It's this man's idea. If people don't like, it that's fine. I won't praise his work, but I'm not going to say its shit just because his inspiration isn't perhaps the greatest.
Recreation is mimicry, any recreation of any actual event does attempt to mimic it.

Poor taste is subjective, but if anyone cares to show how this is in good taste, I'm all ears.

As to it being shit, I wouldn't call it shit because of the subject matter or quality of execution, but I do call it shit because of the self promoting aspects of it's staging and it's lack of creativity.
Anyone who explores the metaphor that falling reflects life through photography and performance art needs to be severely beaten about the head and neck with a Robert Williams painting.

It could be recreation of many events, not just 9/11. People have suggested alternatives to this board. It seems that you've just accepted one point of view, and run with it. This guy must be doing something wrong because you've already accepted in your mind that this must be mimicry of 9/11, when really he sees it as a symbol of human life in general. Explain why this act must be a recreation of 9/11, and you have a point. Yes, it was inspired by 9/11. That doesn't make it a recreation. Find a good reason, and I'll concede.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-20 03:48am

Mad wrote:You're asking me to prove that this art is of the stock market crash when none of us even have the pictures, and art is all about interpretation anyway. But here's my evidence.

1) Images are not of the WTC (so it's not doing something related to 9/11)

The World Trade Center no longer exists.

2) Images are not in New York (so it's not doing something related to 9/11)

Why would it need to be in New York, it's not as if the buildings are extant, and he plans on digitally removing the safety wires used. If he plans anything other than the sky to be in the background, that can be digitally added later as well.
Furthermore, many, many films and TV shows are filmed in cities other than New York while purporting to take place in New York.
This shows nothing.

3) Guys in suits falling can be either 9/11 or stock market crash. This imagery is not specific to 9/11. There is more to history than 9/11.

Why not stage it on Wall Street in vintage clothing?

Seriously, though, what has he said that ties this to 1929? He's already admitted ties to September 11th. Why assume this is supposed to depict 1929 when he claims September 11th as his inspiration?

I can tell you what it's not of. It is not of 9/11. It has no specific imagery in it hasn't been seen elsewhere.

How can you come to this conclusion? A single man is a business suit falling cannot be a specific jumper from the World Trade Center because other people at other times have jumped from buildings?
Pure sophistry.
That in absolutely NO way precludes that this is not September 11th inspired, in light of his statements that the World Trade Center jumpers inspired him, how can you possibly claim this not related to it?

You also used circular logic in an attempt to prove your point: his other images weren't of 9/11, so this one must be of 9/11! He must've done something related to 9/11! You're using a circular logic fallacy, plain and simple.

That is not what I said and you'd better be goddamned aware of it, and it sure as fuck is not cirular logic.
In the interview for this event he claims September 11th as his original inspiration, this is the only work of his I've seen where he wears a business suit, that is an undeniable link.
Nowhere do I say this must depict September 11th because no other work of his does, I say that because of his admittedly being inspired by World Trade Center jumpers and the costume he's wearing it does.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-20 04:02am

Zero132132 wrote:It could be recreation of many events, not just 9/11.

There is no evidence for that, only opinions that are not supported by the artist's own words.

People have suggested alternatives to this board. It seems that you've just accepted one point of view, and run with it.

It seems to me that people are grasping at straws, desperately.

This guy must be doing something wrong because you've already accepted in your mind that this must be mimicry of 9/11, when really he sees it as a symbol of human life in general.

And, as I've said in my responces to salm, if this was merely an exploration of the metaphor, why not jump in clothing that wouldn't be linked to his statement in the interview?

Explain why this act must be a recreation of 9/11, and you have a point. Yes, it was inspired by 9/11. That doesn't make it a recreation. Find a good reason, and I'll concede.

How many fucking times do I have to repeat myself? He claimed September 11th as his inspiration in an interview specific to this event, and he wears a business suit which is something I haven't seen him wear in any other photographs of his performances. That's one definite, self admitted allusion that ties this event to September 11th, and one interpretive piece of evidence that makes that tie stronger.
In light of that, why should anyone think this is anything but him playing at being a World Trade Center jumper?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-20 04:17am

Inspiration doesn't equate to mimicry. In his interview, he did say that he got the idea from the 9/11 tragedy, but who's to say what his thoughts were on the matter? He may have seen it and remembered similar kinds of people jumping from buildings during the great depression. It isn't even that far to stretch, considering there was a bit of an economic recession following 9/11. You can't claim to actually know just WHAT thoughts were inspired by his viewing of 9/11. The business suit thing doesn't really mean... anything. Why would it? Lots of people wear business suits. Lots of people have in the past. Why does a business suit lead to WTC jumper? Your entire thing is based off of one statement of the man, which is that he was inspired by 9/11. Aside from that, you have nothing, so until you can actually demonstrate that it's a WTC jumper he's mimicking, you're just copmlaining because you don't like what it reminds you of.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-20 04:24am

Zero132132 wrote:Inspiration doesn't equate to mimicry. In his interview, he did say that he got the idea from the 9/11 tragedy, but who's to say what his thoughts were on the matter? He may have seen it and remembered similar kinds of people jumping from buildings during the great depression. It isn't even that far to stretch, considering there was a bit of an economic recession following 9/11. You can't claim to actually know just WHAT thoughts were inspired by his viewing of 9/11. The business suit thing doesn't really mean... anything. Why would it? Lots of people wear business suits. Lots of people have in the past. Why does a business suit lead to WTC jumper? Your entire thing is based off of one statement of the man, which is that he was inspired by 9/11. Aside from that, you have nothing, so until you can actually demonstrate that it's a WTC jumper he's mimicking, you're just copmlaining because you don't like what it reminds you of.

Either post something that does not rely soley on your opinion, or shut up.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-20 04:26am

Frank Hipper wrote:
Zero132132 wrote:Inspiration doesn't equate to mimicry. In his interview, he did say that he got the idea from the 9/11 tragedy, but who's to say what his thoughts were on the matter? He may have seen it and remembered similar kinds of people jumping from buildings during the great depression. It isn't even that far to stretch, considering there was a bit of an economic recession following 9/11. You can't claim to actually know just WHAT thoughts were inspired by his viewing of 9/11. The business suit thing doesn't really mean... anything. Why would it? Lots of people wear business suits. Lots of people have in the past. Why does a business suit lead to WTC jumper? Your entire thing is based off of one statement of the man, which is that he was inspired by 9/11. Aside from that, you have nothing, so until you can actually demonstrate that it's a WTC jumper he's mimicking, you're just copmlaining because you don't like what it reminds you of.
Either post something that does not rely soley on your opinion, or shut up.

What have you said that hasn't been solely reliant on your own oppinion? Besides, it's art. It's supposed to be interpretive. Oppinions matter.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-20 04:33am

Zero132132 wrote:What have you said that hasn't been solely reliant on your own oppinion? Besides, it's art. It's supposed to be interpretive. Oppinions matter.

Opinions do not matter when they contradict the artist's own statements. The artist's statements are not my opinions, the artist's statements support my stance on this.

You, however, only offer opinions on possibilities with no evidence.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-06-20 04:36am

Anyone who explores the metaphor that falling reflects life through photography and performance art needs to be severely beaten about the head and neck with a Robert Williams painting.

Why?

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-20 04:37am

Skarbakka, 34, said he started thinking about falling after watching on television as workers jumped to their deaths from the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

“I was so distraught, I needed some way to find an artistic response,” he told the Chicago Sun-Times. Now, he says he sees falling as a metaphor for life.

Where has he said here that he was trying to duplicate the 9/11 jumpings? He does say that seeing the events made him think about falling, and that he thinks of it as a metaphor for life. Where here do you find him stating that he's trying to reenact 9/11? How is your claim any less oppinion then what I say? Hell, personally, I do think he just sees it as a metaphor for life, which is exactly what he fucking said.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-20 04:46am

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:
Anyone who explores the metaphor that falling reflects life through photography and performance art needs to be severely beaten about the head and neck with a Robert Williams painting.
Why?

First, that was meant to be half-assed funny, and a plug for Robert Williams.

Second, and more seriously, falling is an experience that cannot be conveyed visually or verbally, a picture of a person falling in no way transmits the experience to the viewer. You don't get the adrenaline rush, the feeling of having your stomach in your throat, or any exhilaration fro looking at a picture, and only the palest exilaration through watching someone fall (in a controlled situation, at least).
His work is hubris.

If this guy is trying to convey a metaphor, he chose poorly. Some things can only be understood by experiencing them. Trying to convey "life as falling" is visually is doomed to failure; he should try and set up something like an amusement park ride so people can experience that metaphor, he'd be more successful. Figuratively and practically, I'd think.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-06-20 04:50am

Second, and more seriously, falling is an experience that cannot be conveyed visually or verbally, a picture of a person falling in no way transmits the experience to the viewer.

Does this apply to only still-life, or motion as well?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-20 04:59am

Zero132132 wrote:
Skarbakka, 34, said he started thinking about falling after watching on television as workers jumped to their deaths from the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001.

“I was so distraught, I needed some way to find an artistic response,” he told the Chicago Sun-Times. Now, he says he sees falling as a metaphor for life.
Where has he said here that he was trying to duplicate the 9/11 jumpings? He does say that seeing the events made him think about falling, and that he thinks of it as a metaphor for life. Where here do you find him stating that he's trying to reenact 9/11? How is your claim any less oppinion then what I say? Hell, personally, I do think he just sees it as a metaphor for life, which is exactly what he fucking said.

He's never quoted directly as saying exactly that; but he most defintely is quoted, directly, as saying he needed to find an artistic response to the World Trade Center jumpers.
Does he need to say "I am trying to duplicate September 11th." before you can see the painfully obvious?

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-20 05:02am

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:
Second, and more seriously, falling is an experience that cannot be conveyed visually or verbally, a picture of a person falling in no way transmits the experience to the viewer.
Does this apply to only still-life, or motion as well?

I'd say so, yes. Having been bungee jumping and sky diving, the sensation of falling any distance is one that can only be understood through direct experience, just like an emotion.

Language is a very poor instrument for conveying the experience of joy, for instance, wouldn't you say? This is very similar.

Post by **weemadando** » 2005-06-20 06:36am

Frank Hipper wrote: Does he need to say "I am trying to duplicate September 11th." before you can see the painfully obvious?

Well, seeing as he hasn't and the overwhelming majority of opinion AND evidence in this thread points to people holding the belief that it was not his intention AND facts that SHOW he didn't go to ANY lengths to mimic the events - some people would think that he didn't try and duplicate it... But that might just be me.

Zero · Post by **Zero** » 2005-06-20 06:52am

Frank Hipper wrote:He's never quoted directly as saying exactly that; but he most defintely is quoted, directly, as saying he needed to find an artistic response to the World Trade Center jumpers.
Does he need to say "I am trying to duplicate September 11th." before you can see the painfully obvious?

Since he isn't quoted as saying that he was trying to duplicate 9/11, and did actually state another meaning/motive behind his work, you're essentially just trying to say that your oppinion is more valuable then mine.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2005-06-20 11:18am

Frank Hipper wrote:The World Trade Center no longer exists.

And they never said anything about adding it in. The only manipulation that was stated was for removing the safety harnesses. Nothing else.

Why would it need to be in New York, it's not as if the buildings are extant, and he plans on digitally removing the safety wires used. If he plans anything other than the sky to be in the background, that can be digitally added later as well.

Prove that they will do more editing than was already stated. This is a huge assumption.

Furthermore, many, many films and TV shows are filmed in cities other than New York while purporting to take place in New York.
This shows nothing.

As far as I'm aware, when we see a decent portion of the city, we get stock footage of New York. Filming scenes in apartments and street-level shots can be done anywhere, nobody can tell the difference.

Why not stage it on Wall Street in vintage clothing?

Seriously, though, what has he said that ties this to 1929? He's already admitted ties to September 11th. Why assume this is supposed to depict 1929 when he claims September 11th as his inspiration?

Nothing. He never linked this picture to anything. He linked "falling" in all of his art to 9/11, but nothing else. The imagery just happens to fit better with the stock market crash than it does with 9/11.

Personally, I doubt he's trying to imitate either. It's probably something about how even a clean-cut businessman can find himself falling morally or something to that effect.

How can you come to this conclusion? A single man is a business suit falling cannot be a specific jumper from the World Trade Center because other people at other times have jumped from buildings?
Pure sophistry.

Because there is nothing in the image that links it specifically to 9/11. Where's the fire and smoke? There's just as much evidence to link this picture to 9/11 as there is to the stock market crash.

That in absolutely NO way precludes that this is not September 11th inspired, in light of his statements that the World Trade Center jumpers inspired him, how can you possibly claim this not related to it?

All of his falling pictures are inspired by 9/11. The images of a guy falling off a ladder and out of a tree are both inspired by 9/11. However, it is painfully obvious by looking at them that they are not imitating 9/11, but are doing something completely different. This particular picture is no more likely to be representing 9/11 than the others are.

That is not what I said and you'd better be goddamned aware of it, and it sure as fuck is not cirular logic.

How else am I supposed to interpret this exchange (bolding mine, of course):

Lord Poe wrote:If you look up Kerry Skarbakka on Google, you'll find pictures of him falling down stairs, from ladders, off bridges, out of trees, etc.

Frank Hipper wrote:That reinforces my point that this particular event was inspired by the World Trade Center jumpers, I never questioned that he has a fascination with falling in general.

That is essentially "because the others aren't 9/11, this one must be because he's in a suit."

In the interview for this event he claims September 11th as his original inspiration, this is the only work of his I've seen where he wears a business suit, that is an undeniable link.

Wrong! He has another picture of falling in a suit: porch. I'm sure that must be related to 9/11, too, because the guy is wearing a suit.

You really should try to look at the guy's previous works before you spout claims about his intentions.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2005-06-20 04:07pm

weemadando wrote:
Frank Hipper wrote: Does he need to say "I am trying to duplicate September 11th." before you can see the painfully obvious?
Well, seeing as he hasn't and the overwhelming majority of opinion AND evidence in this thread points to people holding the belief that it was not his intention AND facts that SHOW he didn't go to ANY lengths to mimic the events - some people would think that he didn't try and duplicate it... But that might just be me.

You're displaying an unreasonable standard in your demands. I'm beginning to think that the only thing that would convince you would be a cast of thousands and full-scale sets.

You've already displayed enough rationality to change your position from categorically denying any tie at all between this and the World Trade Center, so I guess if I bang my head against your wall some more there could still be hope.