Art is a difficult something to discuss, and always will be. But please try to think about what you see, and stop being short minded. And If you choose to go for the last option: go back to your celebrities or whatever, where you don't have to think at all.

Here comes a sycophantic applause: Nice!

Kayla: People like yourself make memories of 1st year Art school come crashing back to the surface ... Although I agree, any artist worth their salt should refine their "old-fashioned" skills to a point of excellence (up through high school)... but there usually comes a point after studying Art History, where one has an awakening. Duchamp was not only one of the true progenitors of this evolution, probably the greatest given the context. Andy of course, but in modern times, guys like Koons, Hirst, Friedman and Delvoye are pushing the envelope further ... I would argue not nearly as much or as far as some of the "greats" from the past ... but it's a push. I was actually getting a real giggle out of all the reactionary comments here ... if that was your intent, then kudos, otherwise it could be a case of an ostrich with it's head in the sand, argument would be pointless. Personally, I don't think this guy is a bad ass at all ... artist or otherwise.

kayla, great art requires hours to complete and what you call talent, you say?

not since the beginning of the 20th century, i'm afraid!

Nowadays, art is more than pretty landscapes and portrait (in case you didn't realize already) and no, not every idiot on the street can become an "artist".

That's why a drunken hobo pissing in a street corner isn't an artist, but Warhol's piss art(a series of "paintings" if you want to put it that way in which he had handsome young men urinate on canvases, or in the case of the Oxidation series, specially prepared metal plates) is actually art.

There's a few things at work there called intent and poetry. something devoyed of meaning isn't art. And if something is pretty, or took a long time or much talent to make, it doesn't mean it's art.

A painting by numbers of a cat playing with a pink yarn ball could be considered art. but you won't see this in any museum, because it's almost meaningless. it's just meant to be nice to look at.

And why do you think shit isn't a good way to make a statement? oil paints are better, you think? Colored pigment particles in suspension in oil and in a binder. Great for putting color and texture, there's no doubt about it. But feces add another dimension to a work of art. An artist that work with his own feces is creating a work of art with something his body has rejected after absorbing everything it needed to live. it's much more poetic!

And you guys must admit that it made you all react. it made you think. most of you didn't think much farther than the first thing that crossed your mind, though, which is rather unfortunate. to those who took time to try to understand what the artist meant, thank you! you're not the ones polluting the comment section with close-minded reactions.

---

now, about those poor little piggies that mean ol' wim tattooed. So what? why do most of you get all pissy about that? he's not mauling them, he's not killing them, and when you see how thick pig skin is, i'd be ready to bet that it's nothing more than a slightly annoying sensation for them to get tattooed. Farmers tattoo and brand their animals all the time, get over it!

---

Ruby: I understand you perfectly, as I also do photography, painting and graphism a lot. But unlike you, I know why this guy got featured on neatorama.

Because he's smart enough to stand out of the crowd, to make people talk (as a proof, look at the reaction of the neatorama readers. I don't see much indifference here!) However, the world is full of pretty pictures. people are used to that kind of art. if you don't make them think, if you don't make them react, if you don't innovate, you'll never become anything more than a part of a crowd of artists who still have old-fashioned values.

---

As for the fact of him being the most badass artist, now that's something people are right to comment against!

many many many artists died for their art.

An artist who's name I can't remember starved himself to the edge of death for the sake of art and took pictures of the process. One of them I'll always remember is him, reduced to skin and bones, smeared with his own feces (yeah, I know, It's getting redundant) and his skin, now flaccid because of the massive weight loss, pulled away from his bones by hooks piercing it. A haunting picture to say the least.

Delvoye, however, is very interesting, but not such a badass if I may say.

you will see from his posted photos that he actually came up with a project to tattoo people, buying their skins through contract way before wim's new project of "tattooing" a human skin..you will also notice that castellano is not only a tattoo artist, but a contemporary artist...

cheto stopped working on the art farm with the pigs because the pigs ended up being just one more collectible piece instead of being saved from the slaughterhouse as delvoye always claims in his interviews.

the most beautiful pigs were done by cheto...wim knows that, anyone who looks at his portfolio will know that.

To Moodindigo: "creepy" does not begin to describe that "friend of a friend". There's a reason some people are classified as mentally disturbed.

I know I'm a know-it-all, but am I really insufferable? I didn't know that...

This is the reason I do not frequent art houses or museums or callaborate with these pretentious butt heads.

Mind you, I guess maybe the stark contrast between appreciation and vitriol displayed in peoples' reactions is what makes it great art. Maybe indifference is the contrast.

A friend of a friend used to keep a record of every girl he slept with by taking an imprint of their anuses. He used paper napkins and India ink and collated them in ring binders. He called it his collection of "miffy squeaks". Not sure whether he gathered their permission first or not. Maybe that distinction is where the art lies.

Actually, thanks for reminding me.

Always good to see irrational behavior justified using logical fallacies.

About the shit machine, as he said pretty clearly, it's about creating something overly complex and totally useless while proving that was the actual intent. And then actually giving value to the shit and selling it in vacuum pack. Something you would have a hard time doing with your own shit. The conceptual idea of a "shit machine" that produces a sellable product is actually a valid comment about current society - think of all the useless crap that gets produced and sold and disposed of everyday.

And the salami floor, well that's just pure genius!

Personally, I have to share others' distaste for this kind of conceptual art. Not because of a particular aversion to feces or because necessarily even because of the Freudian implications. It just.... gosh, guys, we get it, alright? Modern art is a farce. Duly noted, now pull up your pants please. Now can someone kindly do something worth making?

I'm reminded of a quote by an old art teacher of mine. He was talking about vomiting, but it applies equally to defecation:

"Vomiting is one of the lowest forms of creation in everyday life. You ARE creating something, but nobody wants it."

I love this guy!

And I question why he would call himself a vegetarian and then cause suffering to pigs by tattooing them. Ouch.

The Gothic laser-cut heavy machinery sculptures are about the only thing that's neat here. The rest of it I could do myself... if I was obsessed with crap and had questionable morals and a huge ego.

Because he's taking the limits and, quite literally, shitting all over them. Not only is he making art out of shit, he's making art out of shit that comes out of a simulated digestive system, which takes guts and brains.