Serious and thoughtful? I cry bullshit.

[...] Max Papeschi es el autor de esta obra. Provoca más con estas otras, lean su entrevista. [...]

Very cool. FYI, you've got a typo in the title.

[...] portraits a social commentary on the globalization and pervasiveness of media.  viaThe Jailbreak Max Papeschi throws the monarchs of American fantasy into the trenches. Strikes me as a creative [...]

THX 4 the interview Jailbreak!
Pop art =/= thoughtful

btw classic music has a gr8 correlation w/ ultra violence…. clockwork orange!

[...] I think that many of my works can be described as an advertising campaign coming from possible parallel realities. They’re conceived as actual advertisements, just without the claim of a product, slogans, and of course the pay I would receive upon completion. What they sell is rather the real value upon which our society is based, without any sort of lie or hypocrisy hidden within them. (Read more) [...]

[...] In der zwölften Klasse haben wir im Englisch LK das Wort “Juxtaposition” gelernt. Weil meine damalige Englischlehrerin aber völlig unfähig war, habe ich bis heute nicht verstanden, was dieses Wort wirklich bedeutet. Dann bin ich auf Max Papeschis aktuelle Arbeit gestoßen. Ich glaube, ich habe verstanden. Juxtaposing cartoon characters against backdrops of war and destruction is Italian artist Max Papeschi’s idea of honest advertising. His work is provocative, polarizing, and an interesting insight into how foreigners view American ideals. He would suggest that he’s not anti-American, though. Rather anti-consumerist—his portraits a social commentary on the globalization and pervasiveness of media. – The Jailbreak [...]

It's really easy and obvious to juxtapose corporate cuteness with horror. It has been done so many times that now it just evokes a tut, a shrug and an eye-rolling sigh

Hi,

We've just launched a new user-generated Architecture and Design site, AJ Notebook. We're a great fan of your site and would love for you to have a look and post some 'notes' .

We're quite excited about this new site and would love to see your entries.

http://www.ajnotebook.com

Look forward to your posts,

Notebook.

[...] who portray their views through art. We hope you at least view them as opinion and check out the interview with Max Papeschi to find out more of the [...]

he's not very good with photomanips. and they're very overdone concepts…
im tired of seeing micky and ronald mcdonald's faces plastered on everything

BO-RING.

Photo manipulation should not be considered art. Where is the talent? It’s like saying a rapper is a musician. I have know problem recognizing a rapper for their poetic talent, they have an amazing way of telling their stories to a beat, but they are not musicians. They don’t play an instrument, and they don’t sing. Violin, Opera, rock and roll, etc.. much of that is musical talent. If Max was painting these images I would consider it art. Just because someone has abstact thoughts in their head and they have the ability to express it by cropping photo’s on a computer, it does not make them an artist. Max you are making money and getting recognition by utilizing the same system that you are criticising. You are also creating your success with the same tactless vigor that many of the CEO’s of big business use. You are not concerned about other people’s mental well being that may be exposed when they see a nazi symobol or nuclear blast. I think there is something to be said for a man that has the ability to create success by using his mind vs shock. The people that run the art galleries and that buy your art are victims of modern western propaganda. They think because you have talent in your expression of thoughts that you are an artist. You probably have a very interesting mind and I would love to have a glass of wine with you and discuss the modern world. Photo manipulation is not art and it is sad to me that galleries, especially the great European galleries, are so blinded by their thirst for shock and aw that they will stop at nothing to get recognition. Even calling non-art, art. Signed not a sheep.

[...] Cet artiste italien fait dans l’art digital.  Ces thèmes de prĂ©dilection sont la guerre, la religion catholique, la politique et la sociĂ©tĂ© amĂ©ricaine.  Il ne se gène pas pour rapprocher des icĂ´nes de la culture amĂ©ricaine comme Mickey Mouse avec les Ă©lĂ©ments associĂ©s au nazisme.  Ronald MacDonald est un G.I..  Il dĂ©crit son oeuvre comme « an advertising campaign coming from possible parallel realities » (source: The Jailbreak). [...]

to: Jeff McConlogue

As a mass- consumer you constantly look for esthetic and pleasant images but I’m wondering whether this is a way of considering or denying art? Artists do express their feelings by playing with different materials either a paint and canvas or cut pieces of paper or cropped digital image. You little bit sound like narrowing the ‘art’ down to sweet painted pieces of fabric that are pleasant to your eye. If someone is given ability to express their abstract feelings, that are backed up with an explanation and a reason behind it, why not to call this person an artist and his or her work an art? Making art works in a graphic program is just additional method of expressing what the author wanted to say.
Another question has just come to my mind: is it important to care for mental well being of a viewer? If everybody thought this way the art would never develope and it would stop being art. I feel, art is to wake up our senses, make us stop and think more about life and what it brings. Art is about to shock the viewer as well. Art is about to make you feel better or worse and it shouldn’t question popularity or wealth of an artist. There are rich and poor artists in the world. The rich ones were lucky enough to be commissioned or they possessed good marketing skills it’s nothing wrong about it, is it?Just few thoughts after I’ve seen your comment, peace!

to Max Papeschi
If I had to describe your art works in one sentence I would write: ‘Ingenious ideas on mass:- media, – production and globalization expressed in digital collages’. Interesting concepts within your works make me feel more skeptical about the world at present. The essence what a few people think of consumerism and massmedia. Some of your work are intrusive for me e.g. a grotesque firgure of armoured Jesus Christ . What do you mean by juxtaposing the symbol of goodness and guns? Is it your protest against the christian’s churches politics/manipulation? take care

you definitely take the crown for the most reactionary view of art my friend! (by the way, you too seem to have a talent “in your expression of thoughts”, which amounts to ‘articulation’ and has nothing to do with art.) asking “where is the talent?” misses the point in most of modern art and that question became irrelevant the moment when an artist chose a mass manufactured urinal, signed it (r. mutt) and displayed it as art. if art’s relation to the viewer’s “mental well being” mattered, picasso’s ‘guernica’ should have never been painted and the galleries should look like authorized distributors of hallmark. the argument about max utilizing the system that he’s criticizing assumes that an artist creates entirely from scratch while standing outside of the world looking in.
and where are you standing so that you think you are in position to say what should and should not be considered art? you know which regimes in (relatively) recent history saw themselves in that position? yes, you guessed it – totalitarian regimes on the extreme left (like the soviet union) and the extreme right (like nazi germany).
which brings me to the final point. there is one main difference between rap and opera. they both tell a story over music, in other words they both fall in the same tradition (which for the western world originated probably somewhere around the ancient greek tragedies with the chorus singing/explaining the action). the difference is that one of them is old and established as high art (so you have to go to school to get properly trained and pay exorbitant fees to maintain its air of exclusivity), the other one is new and considered pop or low brow. but even more importantly one is the hereditary art form of a white aristocracy, the other originated in the (black) bronx.
so the next time you feel compelled to share your pseudo-fascist musings on the nature of contemporary art, consider john baldessari’s “don judd: various rumors concerning something he said” (google both names if you’re not familiar):

It’s art if an artist says it is.
If an artist says something is not art then it is not art.
Art is still art if someone else says it isn’t.
There is nothing that is art if an artist says so.
An artist is someone who says something is art.
Someone is an artist if he says he is.
An artist cannot be an artist if he says he isn’t.
Someone is an artist if he says something is art.
Someone isn’t an artist if he says he isn’t.
Someone can say something is art but it would not be art; he first must say, “I am an artist.”
Someone can say art is not art but it would not be something.
If something isn’t art, then it is only something.
An artist is a former something.
If an artist says he’s art, he’s art.
If an artist says he isn’t art then he isn’t art, he is something.
An artist that says he is not art is then not art. One can be an artist and not be art.
Anybody can be an artist and anything can be art.