pk- wrote:
it's just that he goes to such great lengths to ram his liberal quasi-socialist agenda down people's throats 
hardly. 
he makes art. how subtle do you think he should be with his opinions/feelings/reactions about the world he lives in?
perhaps he ought to have a little self-awareness and refrain from public discourse, eh? who does he think he is? bloody loudmouth.
if he garners attention, maybe it's because his art is effective, as much as his hidden networking.
and, if someone finds within themself the urge to comment on dominant ideology, psychic oppression and social heirachies, do they neccesarily have to be the most consistent, dedicated socialist evar in order to be worth a look? in order to be entitled to expression?
artistic licence aint a piece of paper, you don't get given it.
/\ /\ what is the point of saying an artist's work is meaningless or empty?
this is not a reflection on the art or the artist, it only tells about the spectator.
the hilton thing...
why can't this be seen as cultural circuit-bending?
to some poor souls, hilton is an idol.
the points of access, the shrines, are live events, officially blessed products, and media promotion/plugging/reportage.
the officially blessed artifacts/fetishes/totums/charms have to be aqquired through sanctioned vendors, a secure mechanism where real money/work-hours can be exchanged for authentically emenated by-products of fame, glory and natural-superiority.
what does it mean if you can go into one of these places, choose your brand, make your sacrifice, and end up with some piece of cottage-industry, giggling vandalism? something that didn't travel the route of databases and freight trucks and uniformed shelf-stackers.
the guy who did that wasn't wearing a name-tag?!?
i reckon, to some people (far too many), that would actually be beyond the pale.
maybe it's not a big thing but it's a part of one.