Fuck Series 4

I want to know about series 5.

BigC wrote:I want to know about series 5.

I'm pretty sure Ferg will post some teasers for the series 6 in the next week

Fuck all that, I wanna know about the long-rumoured Kozik series!!

dreamattack27 wrote:Fuck all that, I wanna know about the long-rumoured Kozik series!!

I was thinking the same thing, but we are talking about fictional shit right now fucker. Why ruin the joking with some serious shit?

Who the hell knows what's real or fictional nowadays? I want my 10" F BOMB!

dreamattack27 wrote:Who the hell knows what's real or fictional nowadays? I want my 10" F BOMB!

how about a 3' F-bomb?

dreamattack27 wrote:Who the hell knows what's real or fictional nowadays? I want my 10" F BOMB!

Nah, fuck that. I'd rather have 10" versions of Ferg's Series 1 & 2 Gohst designs.

dreamattack27 wrote:Who the hell knows what's real or fictional nowadays? I want my 10" F BOMB!

biting my tongue

dreamattack27 wrote:Fuck all that, I wanna know about the long-rumoured Kozik series!!

Why?
I mean.. if it is anything like most other Kozik series it will ahve a black & white BUD of every sculpt with an Anarchy A on it and maybe some blood.

very exciting...

whacko wrote:

dreamattack27 wrote:Fuck all that, I wanna know about the long-rumoured Kozik series!!

Why?
I mean.. if it is anything like most other Kozik series it will ahve a black & white BUD of every sculpt with an Anarchy A on it and maybe some blood.

very exciting...

I thought I was the only one that never felt so "OMG IT'S A KOZIK'S!!!"
It's pretty bland

I think Kozik is capable of doing some damn fine toys. His busts are amazingly sculpted as are some of his other toys like the Army Men. I love the designs he did for BUD Series 1 & 2, with the Nade Trooper being the main reason I started collecting BUDS in the first place.

But a lot of his other stuff he throws out there. The Anarchy A's put out by Jamungo, all of his 'smorkin' shit and anything Black or White with an Anarchy A on its just feels like "merchandising" instead of being a well thought out design. Like the main reason he is making that stuff is so that he (or the toy company requesting it) will have something to sell.

I know all of these toys are made with one of the main goals (at least partially) to earn a living by the sale of them. I don't mind if FERG gets rich off my Jamungo obsession as long as he does it by turning out mostly amazing toys with well thought out designs. I would rather have an amazing design by a relatively unknown artist than a bland design by a more famous artist because at the end of the day I am buying a toy, not a name.

well said, whacko, i feel that anarchy A and the red,black, and white theme has been branded on kozik, but i do like the all of the designs he did for the jamungo. especialy che and nade trooper

I just want a 3" clockwork nade.

BigC wrote:I just want a 3" clockwork nade.

That would be awesome

There isn't much point to a Kozik pros and cons argument. You can't argue the merits of art, it's all a matter of personal taste. Kozik has a style, Touma has a style, Joe Ledbetter has a style, Ron English has a style, Mad has a style, Jon Burgerman has a style, Kaws has a style, Ferg has a style, Van Beater has a style, Dan Mccarthy has a style, Shepherd Fairey has a style, Sam Flores has a style, Huck has a style,.. If you don't like one style, then go and buy things done in someone else's style. But let's not pretend there's a tangible difference in quality of design, because it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Kozik has done a ton of stuff that isn't redrum, anarchy, etc. He's known for that stuff, and people love that stuff, and people collect that stuff. The man is so talented, he could turn in 200 designs in an hour that none of you would guess were done by him. So bring on the Kozik series.

dreamattack27 wrote:There isn't much point to a Kozik pros and cons argument. You can't argue the merits of art, it's all a matter of personal taste. Kozik has a style, Touma has a style, Joe Ledbetter has a style, Ron English has a style, Mad has a style, Jon Burgerman has a style, Kaws has a style, Ferg has a style, Van Beater has a style, Dan Mccarthy has a style, Shepherd Fairey has a style, Sam Flores has a style, Huck has a style,.. If you don't like one style, then go and buy things done in someone else's style. But let's not pretend there's a tangible difference in quality of design, because it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Kozik has done a ton of stuff that isn't redrum, anarchy, etc. He's known for that stuff, and people love that stuff, and people collect that stuff. The man is so talented, he could turn in 200 designs in an hour that none of you would guess were done by him. So bring on the Kozik series.

I would be amazed at anyone who could turn in 200 designs an hours..

In any case I didn't say that Kozik was a bad artist. I said that most of his series are the black & white figures with the Anarchy A on their forehead. They are boring and played out, I don't care how many people collect them.

Also, you can most definitely argue the merits of art. Just because an artist is famous or "has a style" doesn't mean he makes good art. And just because an artist can create amazing art doesn't mean he only creates amazing art, even great artists turn out crap at least every once in a while. Its just that most of the artists who make crap choose not to share it with the public so it seems they only turn out great stuff (mostly).

Like I said, to each their own. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Art is what it means to the person who is looking at it, and the person that made it. So it may be boring and played out to you, but other people are enjoying it. Does the fact that you don't like it make it bad art? It's all a matter of opinion, and you can't argue opinion. The quality of art cannot be measured, or no one would make "bad art."

People said the same thing about Warhol, and yet now he is known as one of the great artists of the 20th century.

My view on design and art is directly dependent my taste
staff.
everything is in beauty, and the construction of the artist.
there are all different tastes, and for there to be many choices in our passion.
i think ;;

dreamattack27 wrote:Like I said, to each their own. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Art is what it means to the person who is looking at it, and the person that made it. So it may be boring and played out to you, but other people are enjoying it. Does the fact that you don't like it make it bad art? It's all a matter of opinion, and you can't argue opinion. The quality of art cannot be measured, or no one would make "bad art."

People said the same thing about Warhol, and yet now he is known as one of the great artists of the 20th century.

I wouldn't buy it. But if the choice was for Ferg to spend his time putting together a Kozik set that is exactly like all the other Kozik sets, and pretty much anything else, I would choice the "anything else" and take my chances. I haven't noticed Ferg having a really hard time with his toys not selling.

The fact that I do not like something does not make it bad art. The fact that it is has been played out ad-nauseum with little variation, evolution or meaningful intent is what makes it "bad art." Is bad art not commercially viable? I dunno, ask Thomas Kinkade.

Your last statement doesn't make sense. If the quality of art cannot be measured than all art would be either "bad art" or "good art." Yet we both know that some artistic endeavors produce finer results than others, so obviously there is some measurable quality that defines what makes a particular piece of artwork good. It might be hard to define because of its subjective nature and the fact that the criteria for this evaluation of quality is not the same across all works of art, but still it is generally easy to get a consensus on whether a particular work of art is good or bad.

People now mostly consider Andy Warhol great artist and at the same time they mostly agree that there was little technical skill or artistic merit in his paintings and sculptures (even though they sell for a lot of money, a high price tag doesn't necessarily mean something is "good"). The reason Andy Warhol was considered a great artist was for the quality of the thought that went into the artwork he displayed, not the quality of the physical artwork that was shown in galleries. The same could be said for Marcel Duchamp. I seriously doubt that an old urinal put up on a pedestal would be considered an amazing work of art, but it was the thought behind displaying that object as art that is the real artwork. The urinal was just incidental as the idea could have been represented with almost any physical object.

In any case this argument is not relevant anyway. We were talking about toys not art.

arent toys art? They are for me.

I dont really like kozik toys that hes done for kidrobot, but as far as his ad's and box designs hes pretty fucking fantastic. While i was in art school i saw his name come up alot when it came to design awards for boxes, or advertisements etc. This was all before i even knew there was such a thing as urban/vinyl toys.

but like was said, its a style issue more so then a shitty artist. Like doktor A's stuff is just stunning to me, but thats just my taste.

If theres a kozik jamungo series coming out, i'll most likely skip it. I'm hoping to see woebots and dok A get some buds made. A steam punk style squadt or bud by dok A would look so good! And i bet would just look killer next to kenny wongs squadt.

whacko wrote:

dreamattack27 wrote:Like I said, to each their own. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Art is what it means to the person who is looking at it, and the person that made it. So it may be boring and played out to you, but other people are enjoying it. Does the fact that you don't like it make it bad art? It's all a matter of opinion, and you can't argue opinion. The quality of art cannot be measured, or no one would make "bad art."

People said the same thing about Warhol, and yet now he is known as one of the great artists of the 20th century.

I wouldn't buy it. But if the choice was for Ferg to spend his time putting together a Kozik set that is exactly like all the other Kozik sets, and pretty much anything else, I would choice the "anything else" and take my chances. I haven't noticed Ferg having a really hard time with his toys not selling.

The fact that I do not like something does not make it bad art. The fact that it is has been played out ad-nauseum with little variation, evolution or meaningful intent is what makes it "bad art." Is bad art not commercially viable? I dunno, ask Thomas Kinkade.

Your last statement doesn't make sense. If the quality of art cannot be measured than all art would be either "bad art" or "good art." Yet we both know that some artistic endeavors produce finer results than others, so obviously there is some measurable quality that defines what makes a particular piece of artwork good. It might be hard to define because of its subjective nature and the fact that the criteria for this evaluation of quality is not the same across all works of art, but still it is generally easy to get a consensus on whether a particular work of art is good or bad.

People now mostly consider Andy Warhol great artist and at the same time they mostly agree that there was little technical skill or artistic merit in his paintings and sculptures (even though they sell for a lot of money, a high price tag doesn't necessarily mean something is "good"). The reason Andy Warhol was considered a great artist was for the quality of the thought that went into the artwork he displayed, not the quality of the physical artwork that was shown in galleries. The same could be said for Marcel Duchamp. I seriously doubt that an old urinal put up on a pedestal would be considered an amazing work of art, but it was the thought behind displaying that object as art that is the real artwork. The urinal was just incidental as the idea could have been represented with almost any physical object.

In any case this argument is not relevant anyway. We were talking about toys not art.

Marcel Duchamp would have a field day with your entire statement.

All of your statements go back to opinions, man. Artistic merit, quality of thought, meaningful intent, finer results.. they aren't tangible. What you are trying to put across here is that your opinion or the consensus opinion are "measurable qualities." Sorry, but they aren't. We get it, you don't like these designs, that's fine. Considering that Kozik is one of the most successful toy designers out there, your consensus argument is shot.

There hasn't even been an announcement about a Kozik set (thusfar it's only rumor and conjecture) so you can hardly say that you know what the designs might look like or that it would be the same as "every other Kozik set."

And the portion of my statement you referred to as making no sense, makes perfect sense. It was a reference to this mythical system by which art is judged. It was expressing that if there were indeed such a system, then people would make art based on said system, and no one would make what you call "bad art" or what you call "good art." People make art. Some people like said art. Some people don't like said art. The end.

Warhol did the same damn portraits for near 25 years. There wasn't any greater quality of thought that went into the "16 Jackies" than there was on his paid portraits of random celebrities in the later part of his career. Yet some are considered "masterpieces" and some are not. In some art circles Warhol was a genius. In other art circles, Warhol was a hack. Which is it? Who makes the final decision? Is there a "Supreme Court of Art?"

You have clearly had a great art education, I find it hard to believe you don't see the contradictions between your statements and the school of thought expressed by many of the great critically-acclaimed Pop artists of the 20th century.

Ok, I'm done now. We shall agree to disagree as always, Whacko. I hope someday we will meet at a show or event and we can have a fistfight or a beer! It definitely keeps things interesting.

you guy are both wrong.

benswift wrote:you guy are both wrong.

shut up grunt.

BigC wrote:

benswift wrote:you guy are both wrong.

shut up grunt.