Guerrilla Artist Strikes Paris Hilton

RandFan

Mormon Atheist
RandFan
Joined
Dec 18, 2001
Messages
60,135
Banksy targets Paris Hilton

Now, the "guerrilla graffiti" artist Banksy has taken aim at the cult of empty celebrity and its current poster child, Paris Hilton.
The secretive artist has smuggled 500 doctored copies of Paris Hilton's debut album into music stores throughout the UK, where they have sold without the shops' knowledge.

In place of Ms Hilton's bubble-gum pop songs, the CDs feature Banksy's own rudimentary compositions. On the cover of the doctored CD, Ms Hilton's dress has been digitally repositioned to reveal her bare breasts; on an inside photo, her head has been replaced with that of her dog.
On the back cover, the original song titles have been replaced with a list of questions: "Why am I famous?", "What have I done?" and "What am I for?"
Click to expand...
:D "God help me, I do love it so!" Appologies to George Patton.
 
I wonder how long it will be before his version is more sought after than the real thing?

If anyone sees a torrent for it, let me know! :D
 
I wish I knew where I could get a copy. I wouldn't mind digital copies of the songs but I would love the actual CD.
 
Last edited:
I'm a capitalist and I'm not against high society though I do find the disparity between rich and poor frustrating at times. I have a serious dislike of celebrity culture. Why do humans need to worship or fawn over celebrities? I confess that there are celebrities that I like and admire. None of them however are famous simply because they are famous and none, as far as I know, are as shallow and self indulgent as Hilton. This woman brags that she is paid millions to show up to events.
 
RandFan said:
I'm a capitalist and I'm not against high society though I do find the disparity between rich and poor frustrating at times. I have a serious dislike of celebrity culture. Why do humans need to worship or fawn over celebrities? I confess that there are celebrities that I like and admire. None of them however are famous simply because they are famous and none, as far as I know, are as shallow and self indulgent as Hilton. This woman brags that she is paid millions to show up to events.
Click to expand...

does celebrity culture show that humans have a base desire to "worship" ?

In the old days it was kings, gods and saints......maybe celebrities are filling the vacuum.....

Paris Hilton is our new God :)
 
RandFan said:
I'm a capitalist and I'm not against high society though I do find the disparity between rich and poor frustrating at times. I have a serious dislike of celebrity culture. Why do humans need to worship or fawn over celebrities? I confess that there are celebrities that I like and admire. None of them however are famous simply because they are famous and none, as far as I know, are as shallow and self indulgent as Hilton. This woman brags that she is paid millions to show up to events.
Click to expand...
Frankly I find "banksy" more objectionable than Paris, as irritating as she is, she doesn't resort to (and glamorize) crime to make her money.
 
brodski said:
Frankly I find "banksy" more objectionable than Paris, as irritating as she is, she doesn't resort to (and glamorize) crime to make her money.
Click to expand...
That's a fair perspective. I won't debate your point of view I just disagree. I think there are a lot of arguments pro and con to be made. Though Paris isn't in any shape or form the government I think one could make a civil disobedient argument for banksy's "art". Of course one could argue that banksy is himself self indulgent. To be honest I'm usually not impressed with such acts so perhaps I'm simply being inconsistent here and my visceral dislike of Hilton is coloring my perception which is why I included the quote by George Scott's character in the movie Patton.

It really does make me happy. :) Perhaps it is me that is self indulgent.
 
I love Banksy, but I'm not keen on this latest stunt, because he's only gotten away with it because he's Banksy. If someone else did the same tomorrow, HMV would come down on them like a ton of bricks. But then, maybe that's his point.

I do think HMV have handled this very well though, they're just playing along with it rather than getting mad. They know his fans are their customers.
 
The sad part about the Paris Hilton song I've heard is that I said, "oh that isn't nearly as bad as I expected."

It's BAD, but it's not horrific.
 
RandFan said:
I think one could make a civil disobedient argument for banksy's "art".
Click to expand...

I don't, most of his "art" involves vandalism, he's a talentless "conceptual" graffiti artist, spray painting crappy stenciled images on other people's property and calling it "art". Eh gets away with (and is celebrated for) committing crimes just because he is a white (probably) middle class self publicist, the same crimes committed by a black kid from Lewisham (which would probably be executed with more artistic flair) would (and does) result in prosecutions, ASBOs and vilification by the media.
 
brodski said:
I don't, most of his "art" involves vandalism, he's a talentless "conceptual" graffiti artist, spray painting crappy stenciled images on other people's property and calling it "art". Eh gets away with (and is celebrated for) committing crimes just because he is a white (probably) middle class self publicist, the same crimes committed by a black kid from Lewisham (which would probably be executed with more artistic flair) would (and does) result in prosecutions, ASBOs and vilification by the media.
Click to expand...
Good points. I note your argument. I'm not so sure on some of your premises though. I'm not even sure what is even art anymore. It seems to be a subjective thing, or so I'm told. But that is beside the point. Please note that I put quotes around the word "art". Civil disobedience need not be artistic to be of merit.

FWIW, I would not object to his being prosecuted. I hold that those who commit crime for whatever reason should be prepared to suffer the consequences even if the reason is for a greater good, supposed or real.

I know nothing of banksy other than what I have read in this article. I'm more than willing to stipulate to all of your premises and still find the article to be warming to my heart and to bring a tear to my eye. It's a good day, now if Fred Phelps could just get hit by a bus and Kevin Treadau (sp?) could be convicted of fraud.
 
RandFan said:
Good points. I note your argument. I'm not so sure on some of your premises though. I'm not even sure what is even art anymore. It seems to be a subjective thing, or so I'm told. But that is beside the point. Please note that I put quotes around the word "art". Civil disobedience need not be artistic to be of merit.

FWIW, I would not object to his being prosecuted. I hold that those who commit crime for whatever reason should be prepared to suffer the consequences even if the reason is for a greater good, supposed or real.

I know nothing of banksy other than what I have read in this article. I'm more than willing to stipulate to all of your premises and still find the article to be warming to my heart and to bring a tear to my eye. It's a good day, now if Fred Phelps could just get hit by a bus and Kevin Treadau (sp?) could be convicted of fraud.
Click to expand...
I don't object to this latests stunt by Banksy unlike some of his other work, he's not done any real damage, so I can write it off as a bit of a joke.

RANT! What originally pissed me off about banksy is the crap he spray painted on the walls of one of my favorite little alleyways in Borough (London, SE1). One of the things I love about walking around(especially central) London, are the odd little Victorian and pre Victorian alleyways, and some twat has to go and vandalize my faveriout one ruining its timeless feel.
If Banksy wants to spend the rest of his carer taking the piss out of vacuous "celebrities" fair enough, so Long's he stops f***ing up my city.


I realsie that this rant has nothign to do with your opions Randfan, it's just that Banksy sets me off.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
What got me, was that no one who bought the vandalized album brought it back.
Click to expand...

May be naughty of me, but I fimly believe that the people who "decided" art was whatever we feel like calling it did so because they could not produce and would not recognize real art if it defecated on them (which it would not likely do). Graphitti "artists" do not produce art, they produce ugly, or pretty or large letters generally making up words. They may do it in a way that is vaguely "artistic" to some. That does not make it art. I may even, and have, found some of them interesting - but I have never deluded myself that I was observing art. I think the album thing is funny, as I have found things done to Barbie dolls and Teddy Bears cute or funny - but art may be funny while at the same time things that are funny may well not be art (For example, Parody paintings or sculptures are almost never art - they may be hugely funny - even poke fun at artistic conventions - but that does not make them art.:cool:
 
fuelair said:
May be naughty of me, but I fimly believe that the people who "decided" art was whatever we feel like calling it did so because they could not produce and would not recognize real art if it defecated on them (which it would not likely do). Graphitti "artists" do not produce art, they produce ugly, or pretty or large letters generally making up words. They may do it in a way that is vaguely "artistic" to some. That does not make it art. I may even, and have, found some of them interesting - but I have never deluded myself that I was observing art. I think the album thing is funny, as I have found things done to Barbie dolls and Teddy Bears cute or funny - but art may be funny while at the same time things that are funny may well not be art (For example, Parody paintings or sculptures are almost never art - they may be hugely funny - even poke fun at artistic conventions - but that does not make them art.:cool:
Click to expand...
I don't care if it's "art" or not, I care if it's criminal. I am usually a big supporter of the idea that "art" is whatever the audience considers it to be (I don't believe that art can exist without an audience), but I don't believe that the description of something as "art" gives it any moral superiority over things labeled "not art".
 
brodski said:
I don't object to this latests stunt by Banksy unlike some of his other work, he's not done any real damage, so I can write it off as a bit of a joke.

RANT! What originally pissed me off about banksy is the crap he spray painted on the walls of one of my favorite little alleyways in Borough (London, SE1). One of the things I love about walking around(especially central) London, are the odd little Victorian and pre Victorian alleyways, and some twat has to go and vandalize my faveriout one ruining its timeless feel.
If Banksy wants to spend the rest of his carer taking the piss out of vacuous "celebrities" fair enough, so Long's he stops f***ing up my city.


I realsie that this rant has nothign to do with your opions Randfan, it's just that Banksy sets me off.
Click to expand...
I'm here for you and I'm with you. Agreed. No problem whatsoever. The guy was a jerk to mar those walls. I say that with all sincerity.
 
RandFan said:
I'm here for you and I'm with you. Agreed. No problem whatsoever. The guy was a jerk to mar those walls. I say that with all sincerity.
Click to expand...
I know. :)
It's a pity that it wasn't someone else who did this to Paris, maybe "the K foundation" or whatever they call themselves these days, I would have found it brilliant then.
It's just that my dislike of Banksy overrides my sense of humour or my disdain for Ms Hilton.
 
RandFan said:
Though Paris isn't in any shape or form the government I think one could make a civil disobedient argument for banksy's "art".
Click to expand...
Civil disobience is when you disobey a law in order to protest it. Breaking a law to protest something completely different isn't "civil disobedience", it's just plain criminality.
 
Art Vandelay said:
Civil disobience is when you disobey a law in order to protest it. Breaking a law to protest something completely different isn't "civil disobedience", it's just plain criminality.
Click to expand...
That is a fair argument. I alluded to such earlier. However I don't think there are really any such hard and fast rules as it pertains to civil disobedience. The Boston Tea Party wasn't protesting any law against throwing tea into the bay but rather protesting the tax on tea. But to be fair, the disobedience was in opposition to established laws and I think that is the strict definition which is why I conceded Hilton wasn't government and based on that definition you are correct.

That being said, I do think banksy is engaged in a form of civil disobedience. But I didn't coin the term and perhaps there really is a true Scotsman when it comes to civil disobedience. I'm not trying to make a case that banksy was strictly being civilly disobedient but instead trying to convey the spirit for which I think he acted. If you don't like the language then fair enough. It really isn't that important. I hardly see the point of debating whether it was or was not strictly civil disobedience.

The only point that I would like to make is that I think there is some value in making social statements by being disobedient even if those acts don't follow the strict rules governing civil disobedience (assuming that those rules exist).

To me, not following civil laws to make social statements embodies the very spirit of civil disobedience. And what banksy did WAS a crime and I would happily see banksy prosecuted. All acts of civil disobedience should be prosecuted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom