(15-11-09, 02:22 PM)mr.pure Wrote:  Any chance of a bigger picture ?

It’s still not as big, as the red king pure’s in the miadidas thread, I had to link up two monitors to see those babies.

Yeah but, no but..............
Oh, bollocks !
I changed it within the hour, eventually.

so when pochoir go bust do we just fill in the "2008 - " bit on that ridiculous label thingy??

(15-11-09, 05:13 PM)streak Wrote:  so when pochoir go bust do we just fill in the "2008 - " bit on that ridiculous label thingy??

An artist go bust?

so what does the "2008 - " mean then?

(15-11-09, 06:20 PM)streak Wrote:  so what does the "2008 - " mean then?

2008 was last year, '-' is a dash.

ok...

Oo so dashing!

Usually thats the lifespan of the artist, say:

Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies, 1899.
Monet, 1840 -1926

but utterly pointless if the artist in question aint dead

well that's what I would of thought.. if that's the case they're not bad for a 1 year old..

i was fooking awesome when i was a year old! Much better than that
I suppose it could be acceptable if the artist's moniker was created that paricular year.
But all a bit fussy if you ask me, especially if the artist is not even established.

fer example: "Pure 101% 1802 -" makes more sense.

(15-11-09, 06:47 PM)DasBill Wrote:  Usually thats the lifespan of the artist, say:

Bridge over a Pond of Water Lilies, 1899.
Monet, 1840 -1926

but utterly pointless if the artist in question aint dead

Showing the birth year of the artist is not pointless if the artist is still alive. But it is more commonly expressed as b1982 rather than '1982 - ' I agree. Either way, this is not the case with blue plaques. Have you seen the blue plaques in London? They do not give the lifespan of the resident, just years at the location.

Word !

How the fuck did a one year old artfag get to do a collab with Adidas anyway ?

So you're saying you're a location?