Brilliant idea made possible by the capacity to explore in and out, a macro and micro perspective combined together inside each one of us. The many logic ways brain can operate, expressed by behavioural pattern could be seen both as therapeutic or empowerment
Where can I see the video Sin wai kin is talking about , I saw it at a Liverpool musems and I was just in a trance. I could just watch it over and over and zone out . But I can't find it anywhere.
I saw a talk by this artist a few years ago and they couldn't really answer any questions about their work or their motivations. I really got the impression that it's more about ego and what will be aesthetically and rhetorically pleasing enough to give them a career, combined with immense navel-gazing narcissism, rather than any legitimate artistic motivation. There's a ton of this vague, pseudo-intellectual performance/video work floating around at the moment, none of which has any intellectual underpinnings or progresses anything other than the artist's career. SWK's work is just the most popular example of this, for now.
@@emilecrowther7706 I disagree. While artists don't need to fully understand the motivations for individual works, especially at the moment of creation, as cultural and social communicators they have a responsibility to ground their practice. Without grounding and understand of their practice it's just pretentious, meaningless aestheticism and egoism. We expect musicians to be able to play their instruments, and so we expect artists to justify their practice.
I think you're making really good points here. And the thing is, the whole "play-acting with characters to question self-identity" isn't a new idea. Cindy Sherman has been doing pretty much the exact same thing for decades. To me, the only reason why this person is getting attention is because they are throwing in the phrase "questioning living in a binary world" which is sort of a trendy topic to explore right now, coupled with "I want people to live in my world", which is the current confrontational aspect associated with current LGBTQ+ activism. They act like a polite person, but in reality they want to get in your face and force you to contemplate your "binary" thinking. The Turner Prize committee may think this is interesting, but, frankly, I don't because I have other things to think about. It's annoying and invasive, but I suppose that's the point. And it's good for self-promotion.
@@jaydubya3698 I agree with all your points except that it is invasive. It is not invasive at all, the fact that it is so derivative from early more imaginative and compelling artists makes it have no effect. It is flat and forgettable.
2:47 "things that everybody can identify with..." Lol by trying to make the obvious look contrivingly ridiculous? 😅 The thing is, I don't disagree with her thesis that a lot of pop culture identities are constructed by media for commercial gains. But I don't see any merit in her regurgitating those obvious constructions in a new manner. These neither look like critiques, nor as celebrations etc, but just as making weird in order to look like "contemporary art". This is what we have been getting out of the Marxist indoctrination in art colleges, and we are all the worse off for it (do take note of Marxist jargon here, such as "archive", "construct" and "deconstruction (improperly used here; 'deconstruction' doesn't mean breaking things down).
"I don't see any merit in her regurgitating those obvious constructions in a new manner." Then her art is clearly not for you. It's that simple. "This is what we have been getting out of the Marxist indoctrination in art colleges, and we are all the worse off for it" Here we go with the "everything I dislike in liberal arts is the fault of Marxist indoctrination"-rhetoric that have been popularized for the last 5 years or so. You're projecting your ideology (which has taught you that Marxism is bad and leads to cultural/societal degeneration) onto an artist you know nothing about, which says a lot more about your own psychology than the artist's. Additionally, creatives shouldn't change the way they express themselves just because faceless critics don't understand or like it; believe it or not, but you are not the arbiter of good art.
@@Hassanthehorse Lol you clearly don't know much about the art world scam then. I tried to enlighten you, but you want to keep living delusionally-your choice 🤷♂️
I find a lot of the comments about their art is fully rooted in bigotry, racism and queerphobia and especially by people who aren’t critically thinking about their art because if you were to criticise Sin’s work - you wouldn’t bring their ethnicity or their sexuality or their gender into it. You’d instead look at their actual concept and context of their art.
I didn’t read one comment about race, sexuality or gender…. But I guess if you can’t have a grown up conversation & deal with criticisms or a divergent POV, these are the standard go to arsenal (& yes, I’m a queer, POC saying this)
The Cockettes did this 50 years ago with humor and love and energy -instead this is the self-pitying tantrum of someone who ironically represents the largest majority on the planet, but is touted for the banal trend of diminishing Western culture.
@@pearlsammo1638 You're the one whining about how an artist you don't know won't cater to your particular taste and preferences. You thinking your assessment is factual and rooted in some kind of objectivity rather than it being emotional is laughable.
Agreed, just the final result of a generation taught that they are the most people in the world, and you can be whatever you dream. Where art is akin to total narcissism.
@@emilecrowther7706: No, I don't but if I did, what? As for me this is not art. Just simple drag in an overly pretentious way. As I said: intellectualized drag.
@@emilecrowther7706: Guess what? 😄 Not all that they name or do as art is art. Art doesn't happen to be just because they say so. This is not art evidently. You can see more interesting makeup and ideas in a drag contest or in cosplayers.
Saw their work in Dundee in 2020 and I am blown away by how far they've come.
Great video Sin Wai Kin! Fabulous artist.
Any artist that Paints there face like me in a way is cool with me . 👺
Philistine!
Brilliant idea made possible by the capacity to explore in and out, a macro and micro perspective combined together inside each one of us. The many logic ways brain can operate, expressed by behavioural pattern could be seen both as therapeutic or empowerment
Where can I see the video Sin wai kin is talking about , I saw it at a Liverpool musems and I was just in a trance. I could just watch it over and over and zone out . But I can't find it anywhere.
Fr I kind of wish it was on RUclips or something. Their art is so beautiful in my opinion
I saw a talk by this artist a few years ago and they couldn't really answer any questions about their work or their motivations. I really got the impression that it's more about ego and what will be aesthetically and rhetorically pleasing enough to give them a career, combined with immense navel-gazing narcissism, rather than any legitimate artistic motivation. There's a ton of this vague, pseudo-intellectual performance/video work floating around at the moment, none of which has any intellectual underpinnings or progresses anything other than the artist's career. SWK's work is just the most popular example of this, for now.
@@emilecrowther7706 I disagree. While artists don't need to fully understand the motivations for individual works, especially at the moment of creation, as cultural and social communicators they have a responsibility to ground their practice. Without grounding and understand of their practice it's just pretentious, meaningless aestheticism and egoism. We expect musicians to be able to play their instruments, and so we expect artists to justify their practice.
I think you're making really good points here. And the thing is, the whole "play-acting with characters to question self-identity" isn't a new idea. Cindy Sherman has been doing pretty much the exact same thing for decades. To me, the only reason why this person is getting attention is because they are throwing in the phrase "questioning living in a binary world" which is sort of a trendy topic to explore right now, coupled with "I want people to live in my world", which is the current confrontational aspect associated with current LGBTQ+ activism. They act like a polite person, but in reality they want to get in your face and force you to contemplate your "binary" thinking. The Turner Prize committee may think this is interesting, but, frankly, I don't because I have other things to think about. It's annoying and invasive, but I suppose that's the point. And it's good for self-promotion.
It's clear that you're projecting
@@jaydubya3698 I agree with all your points except that it is invasive. It is not invasive at all, the fact that it is so derivative from early more imaginative and compelling artists makes it have no effect. It is flat and forgettable.
Welcome to Marxism.
Reminds me a tonne of Dorian Electra are they connected or work together?
Cindy Sherman combine with Yasumasa Morimura?
Excellent ☘
Fantastic :)
We have something in common
Ciò che ho visto è meraviglioso! Greetings
wow mind blown
Wow, they're such an impressive artist, love their work, just very honest and touches so close to our relationship to our identities
mind is b l o w n
2:47 "things that everybody can identify with..." Lol by trying to make the obvious look contrivingly ridiculous? 😅 The thing is, I don't disagree with her thesis that a lot of pop culture identities are constructed by media for commercial gains. But I don't see any merit in her regurgitating those obvious constructions in a new manner. These neither look like critiques, nor as celebrations etc, but just as making weird in order to look like "contemporary art". This is what we have been getting out of the Marxist indoctrination in art colleges, and we are all the worse off for it (do take note of Marxist jargon here, such as "archive", "construct" and "deconstruction (improperly used here; 'deconstruction' doesn't mean breaking things down).
"I don't see any merit in her regurgitating those obvious constructions in a new manner."
Then her art is clearly not for you. It's that simple.
"This is what we have been getting out of the Marxist indoctrination in art colleges, and we are all the worse off for it"
Here we go with the "everything I dislike in liberal arts is the fault of Marxist indoctrination"-rhetoric that have been popularized for the last 5 years or so. You're projecting your ideology (which has taught you that Marxism is bad and leads to cultural/societal degeneration) onto an artist you know nothing about, which says a lot more about your own psychology than the artist's. Additionally, creatives shouldn't change the way they express themselves just because faceless critics don't understand or like it; believe it or not, but you are not the arbiter of good art.
@@Hassanthehorse Lol you clearly don't know much about the art world scam then. I tried to enlighten you, but you want to keep living delusionally-your choice 🤷♂️
They talk and they talk and they talk and they talk and they say absolutely nothing.
Common tateW
Solipsism and Vanity.
I find a lot of the comments about their art is fully rooted in bigotry, racism and queerphobia and especially by people who aren’t critically thinking about their art because if you were to criticise Sin’s work - you wouldn’t bring their ethnicity or their sexuality or their gender into it. You’d instead look at their actual concept and context of their art.
I didn’t read one comment about race, sexuality or gender…. But I guess if you can’t have a grown up conversation & deal with criticisms or a divergent POV, these are the standard go to arsenal (& yes, I’m a queer, POC saying this)
The Cockettes did this 50 years ago with humor and love and energy -instead this is the self-pitying tantrum of someone who ironically represents the largest majority on the planet, but is touted for the banal trend of diminishing Western culture.
No, that's your narrow-minded and rageful projection and interpretation of her art.
@@Hassanthehorse Facts over feelz.
@@pearlsammo1638 You're the one whining about how an artist you don't know won't cater to your particular taste and preferences. You thinking your assessment is factual and rooted in some kind of objectivity rather than it being emotional is laughable.
This person's unfortunate vocal fry makes this unwatchable.
Intellectual narcissism or cultural Marxism?
Maybe both
Agreed, just the final result of a generation taught that they are the most people in the world, and you can be whatever you dream.
Where art is akin to total narcissism.
@@emilecrowther7706 your right, it’s just narcissism
It's just intellectualized drag.
@@emilecrowther7706: No, I don't but if I did, what?
As for me this is not art. Just simple drag in an overly pretentious way.
As I said: intellectualized drag.
@@emilecrowther7706: Guess what? 😄 Not all that they name or do as art is art.
Art doesn't happen to be just because they say so.
This is not art evidently.
You can see more interesting makeup and ideas in a drag contest or in cosplayers.
Depressing, feeble, time-wasting rot.
Sick sick sickart...