Every time Kapoor is mentioned on Reddit people shit on him over Vantablack, and it's entirely misguided.
There are 3 main points that need to be made: 1) It is not Kapoor's fault Vantablack is not available to other artists, 2) Vantablack isn't even a pigment that can be sold, and 3) Stuart Semple is a giant conman and grifter who made his entire career by painting (pun intended) Kapoor as the bad guy so he can sell his paints.
So point one, the company that makes/owns Vantablack owns the PATENT to the PROCESS of making Vantablack (copyright is irrelevant here). That company is not an art company, they're an aerospace manufacturing company. The company decided to have one exclusive artist they work with because they don't want a million artists bothering them when they're trying to design satellites and shit. They picked Kapoor, and they refuse to let anyone else use Vantablack. Kapoor didn't demand exclusivity, the company did.
Point two, Vantablack isn't even paint! It's not just some pigment that can be sold in a bottle. It's actually a space-age materials technology that also happens to be super black. It's a carbon nanotubes polymer that is applied using specific and proprietary reactor vessels at the company's factory. Kapoor doesn't just paint some black stuff on a sculpture and refuses to share it with anyone else. The company uses their advanced aerospace manufacturing technology to bond carbon nanotubes to a surface. Going back to point one, you can understand why the company doesn't want to be making 100 sculptures a day with Vantablack and only want to work with one artist. Oh and also, Vantablack is super toxic before it's applied, another reason to restrict it's availability.
Point three, Stuart Semple is a conman and a grifter. He's a nobody, an unremarkable, mediocre artist who never would have been famous for his art. Instead, he made up this whole lie about Vantablack and Kapoor and used it to sell his paints. His lies about Kapoor and Vantablack have made him far richer and more famous than his art ever did. I have no problem with him selling paint, but I have a problem with him selling paint off a lie, pretending like he's some damn hero for what he's doing. He's just a really good, if somewhat dishonest, salesman.
Some people are really, really bad at taking photos. I know a person who can’t take an in-focus, properly lit photo to save his life—and he has a new phone with a new camera so it’s not that.
Thanks for sharing - I'm sad to hear about those pens cause they look awesome on the website.
The only thing I will say regarding the OPs points on postage though is that he ordered his stuff during a really bad time - it was the run up to Xmas and we had the postal worker strikes. I bought from culture hustle and a bunch of other places around the same time, a few things got lost, a few things turned up 6 weeks late. It's just bad luck in that sense and probably not CHs fault.
OP apparently made a mistake (idk how) and said in a comment they ordered it Nov 1st, which I would have thought was early enough to not be too badly affected by Christmas. Secondly OP said CH first told him that they didn't have stock (this was already after several weeks), and then that they hadn't shipped it yet but were making it "high priority", and then when another week had passed he sent another email and got the exact same "high priority" reply
If CH had already shipped it, why would they make themselves look bad by saying it's their fault for not shipping it yet and not say "sorry, but this time of year can cause extended delays with postage"
They picked Kapoor, and they refuse to let anyone else use Vantablack. Kapoor didn't demand exclusivity, the company did.
The crux of the claim is "Kapoor didn't demand exclusivity, the company did." That isn't stated in the FAQ, merely that the company has "chosen to license Vantablack S-VIS exclusively to Kapoor Studios UK to explore its use in works of art." It doesn't say that either party demanded exclusivity, or which party proposed an exclusive license, only that an exclusive license was granted.
I'm late to this, but the FAQ can still be read on the Wayback Machine, and the part about Surrey Nanosystems choosing to only license it to Kapoor checks out
Yes, there's no question that Kapoor was granted an exclusive license. The claim in question suggests that the company demanded Kapoor accept an exclusive license, and Kapoor chose to agree to it. The FAQ doesn't make clear if that's what happened, or if Kapoor proposed an exclusive license, and the company chose to agree to it.
In what way? And what wealth was he born into? That's not a rhetorical question. I genuinely have no idea and also wiki doesn't seem to suggest his father was super wealthy?
His father was a hydrographer and applied physicist who served in the Indian Navy.
That doesn't seem like major wealth to be born into.
So the Doon school, where he was boarded as a kid, is an elite all-boys school. The tuition has come down in recent years, but has always been above half of the yearly income of the average Indian family. He then attended two private art schools that, at the time he attended, adjusted to today, would be over $70,000/yr tuition.
Lol the Doon School is distinctly middle class. Not saying rich kids don't go there, but I know so many guys from there and I can say with 100% certainty that only a small percentage are rich. Yes, middle class in India is a wide range, but it's really not as elite as Eton or St Andrews
That's my assumption, however, directly adjusting for inflation isn't accurate, and it gets worse when you need to convert currencies to understand what, for example, 1.5 million rupee is
I mean.. ok? I get that. I live in the Philippines we have a word for that matapobre because we have actual classism here unlike the US but not a caste system. But the claim is that he was wealthy and a trust fund baby (in other comments on the thread), and I'm having a hard time seeing evidence to either thing in a thread where we're talking about supposedly unjustified witch hunts I think it'd be, you know in theme, to at least provide some examples or evidence instead of simple he's a dick assertions.
So I'm also not seeing the trust fund baby thing, but I'm sure you can also see that his father was military. Not only military, but a rank of military that doesn't have to fight. That carries a lot of social prestige.
I think people were viewing Indian culture from an American lens. Granted, I'm also American, but I'm aware of my biases, and I have interacted with plenty of Indian people and I'm trying to view things through the lens they've provided me.
And it's not even like Anish Kapoor is a bad person. He's likely just a product of the society he was born into, and people are viewing it through a very western lens.
I'm actually looking at it through a global south lens, because that's what I live in, and trying to actually calibrate it. Specifically because the way it's being talked about here doesn't really match the other signals I'm seeing. Like I have a friend here whose dad worked for the UN. She went to an international school that's 30k USD a year for high school which is an utterly unreachable amount for 99.5% of the population here. But she and her family are not wealthy in western terms at all.
And when we talk about 'trust fund baby' that's a quite western term (also because a 'trust fund' would require functioning financial institutions you could, well, trust which are kind of in short supply here and India at the time he grew up but that's a whole other conversation). While military people can get quite wealthy here due to corruption, it's not usually the ones doing non-command roles, because it's the command guys who can skim off the top of their unit equipment and salary allotments and/or extort businessmen.
It more sounds like his dad was 'upper middle class' in India, which is a misnomer since it's actually like 0.5% of the population and not actually the 'middle' of anything within their local context, but in terms of actual wealth in a developed country isn't actually all that much.
What has caste got to do with him or the topic at hand?
People like you are the problem, you are the kind of person who fuels mindless anti or pro internet circlejerk. You just know one thing or have superficial knowledge about a topic and then go around smearing it everywhere no matter if it's relevant or not.
The caste system has a lot to do with everything involving the social/class situation in India. It literally defines what's considered wealthy or upper-class inside of India's social bounds.
It really isn't, not in the cities. And especially in the military, to which this artist's father belonged.
It absolutely does not "define what's considered wealthy". What does that even mean! Anybody who is wealthy is considered wealthy.
You think people will ignore a neighbour living in the same locality or whatever because they are from a different class, say in Delhi or Mumbai or Kolkata or Bangalore or any of the cities? Nope.
I am not saying casteism doesn't exist, i am saying that it is reducing with every generation. And now it's far more prevalent in villages and small towns than in the more modern parts of India.
Classism is present in India to a much greater extent now. If someone is rich and from the "lowest class", everybody will be super nice and friendly. And if someone is from the "upper class" and poor, again, nobody will really try to associate with them just because of their caste.
Casteism is a disease, but it is dying, albeit slowly.
It’s called privilege. Privilege isn’t inherently bad but when one has it they should have to have a level
Of responsibility with or of they don’t want to be look at as a shitheel. Being born wealthy or in a higher social class isn’t bad, acting like the poor have access to the same means of accumulating wealth and that they can work equally hard to accumulate the wealth you do and then criticizing those at a lower standing saying they just don’t try hard enough (perpetuating the lie that the poor are lazy rather than the truth that a poor person has 1 chance at following their dreams and working hard for a success while a rich man may have suveral of those chances well doing that is why people with privilege are looked down on. When a person says to check your privilege that simply means look at your advantages you have and don’t assume the person you call lazy or a failure has the same ability to try multiple times or the automatic exposure thst you do from your station
A child of a music producer will not have to try as hard to get a record deal for instance. Rebekah black getting produced wasn’t because of her tallest or working hard to get seen she got produced cause her dad is a producer and let his daughter have a produced music video. If Rebekah black were to then say to someone who does not have a song produced that they just haven’t tried hard enough to get signed or produced. Anyone would be right to tell her to check her privilege because being born into a position privileged to have something is not the same as having to earn being signed Or produced. And sadly those who have a leg up in the industry will always have more access to becoming successful than even the most talented person born into poverty
Is he a prick for being born into privilege no is he a prick for acting like everyone should be treated as having the same advantages as him. Yes
It's like when people say that Elon Musk is a self-made billionaire. I might believe that if his dad wasn't a white guy who ran an emerald mine in Apartheid South Africa.
Or when people say Trump or Paris Hilton are self-made billionaires, that's not hard when your parents hand you a successful multi-billion dollar company and the only thing you have to do is leave it alone and collect your checks.
Yep it’s easy to follow your dreams and keep trying until you have an amazing winning idea when you have the finances to effectively keep trying infinitely at throwing shit at the wall until something sticks
Who cares, like his art or don't. Do you have any idea how many products, services, and art is made by assholes you probably wouldn't like. Just think of half the Hollywood movies. How many things do you own or use that is a Koch industries product. Enjoy your life and move on but who cares if some dude grew up spoiled, unless he is hurting people I don't care.
Saying someone's accomplishments don't count or shouldn't be enjoyable because they had privilege is a different way of being an asshole in my opinion.
And I have also found his black paints don't create the same bond with surfaces that acrylics should. It cracked on me. Shitty products. The blackest black art paint I have ever seen was the defunct Cartoon Colour's black cel vinyl paint. It's so dark that it gazes back at you.
Thanks, I’ve played around with their pigments a little and found them very hard to use. Granted I’m not an expert, but I do have a fair amount of experience with various finishes, from art to industrial. I appreciate the alternative, my first question was where to get similar products with supporting an alleged conman. Even without Vanta, the super black pigments have some very cool applications, and my kids LOVED what I did with the pinkest pink. Guess I’ll have to actually, like, research stuff lol
Yessass finally someone critiquing Stewart semple. He has some nice paints and I fell in love at first. But I found it odd/annoying how all his marketing revolves around saying "fuck anish kapoor" Even like 5 years later, he's still obsessed with anish Kapoor. Fucking drop it dude, it was funny at first but now it's just annoying. I don't love Kapoor either but Semple is definitely capitalizing off hatred.
If Semple wanted to spread a good message, he could say "paint available for ALL" and maybe make a snide comment about Kapoor. But no, gatekeeping is being encouraged. Imo, Kapoor and Semple both suck for different reasons. Now that I think about it, I wonder if the black 3.0 paint is even that black or if it was just a good marketing campaign to sell "sexed up" black paint (lol)
Edit: has Semple proved that his black actually absorbs 99% light? Do other brands of black paint absorb 99%? I'm looking for paint that absorbs 99.9999% light lol even 99.99% would be cool. I wonder what actual vantablack looks like in person (not saying I would use the vantablack tho- it needs to be handled proffesionally)
Some of the new paints are specifically available to everyone, and his glowing paint/powder is specifically free for Kapoor if he wants it, but it's still done in a snarky way.
This creation by Stuart Semple blends some of the planet's finest light emitting pigments and rare earth activators to provide all artists* with the ultimate light emitting paint.
*Especially Anish Kapoor. If you are Anish Kapoor, can prove you are associated with Anish Kapoor or to the best of your knowledge information and belief this substance is going to make it's way into the hands of Anish Kapoor, your order will be free! We want you to know how lovely it feels to #shareTheLight
I like Stewart because he's great from a marketing perspective, he knows what he's doing.
From a marketing perspective, 100000%. I own about $300 worth of Culture Hustle's products cuz I was dumb and fell for the marketing lol. My most stupid purchase was the "artist blood" which is a tiny vial of synthetic blood. It's not enough to paint with, idk why I bought it lol (and why did he sell it in the first place?) I'm happy I've gotten out of that spending trap and buy stuff more consciously now
You're right tho. Every thing that I loved about the paints was just dumb marketing tactics. Like the smell of the paints, brilliant marketing scheme. Red smells like strawberries, blue smells like raspberry, purple smells like grape, etc.
If anyone reading this wants to buy paint from him, do it! Just try to stay away from the gimmicky products, they're really expensive and kind of useless. We shouldn't have to pay a premium price for experimental paints/supplies
Kapoor is also the guy who threatens to sue people for photographing the Bean in Chicago. He's not some poor misunderstood artist, he's a litigious asshole of an artist.
Literally the only thing I could find about Kapoor suing people over photographing the Bean is him suing the NRA for using it in their promotional footage.
We're not talking him suing tourists for taking holiday snaps, this is organisations using his art to promote their agendas.
The gist of it is that he didn't get gifted exclusive rights. He intentionally bought the exclusive rights. Also, the dude is a huge asshole in general, even ignoring the vantablack thing. It's not hard to find examples of him being a shitty spoiled pretentious ass.
Wow someone bump this to the top. I’m always skeptical of reddits witch hunts and I’m glad I am, more people need to question shit instead of going around spreading misinformation.
Did you question this guy's comment or believe it at face value? I don't give two shits about vanta black but I know that questioning things should involve sources. I'm not saying that the guy is wrong but you should definitely look more into it
You didn't understand my comment. I don't care about vanta black. I was just stating that while you should question things, don't trust someone on Reddit that provides no sources like this person did. That's not the proper way to question anything
We have therefore chosen to license Vantablack S-VIS exclusively to Kapoor Studios UK to explore its use in works of art.
They made the decision to only work with one artist and they picked Kapoor.
For point two, that Vantablack is not just a paint and requires proprietary processes to apply:
Please note that Vantablack S-VIS is not available in a spray can or in solution for people to apply themselves as it requires complex post processing to achieve its high levels of absorption.
As for it's safety/toxicity, here are some of the warnings listed on it's safety data sheet:
P305+351+338: IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses
if present and easy to do – continue rinsing.
P281: Use personal protective equipment as required.
And as for point three about Semple being a grifter and a conman, well that's just using logic. When you know that the exclusivity isn't because of Kapoor, then you realize Semple's entire career as a paint salesman is built on a lie.
Here’s the Safety Data Sheet for Krylon brand Safety Orange fluorescent marking paint. In its much longer hazard and precautionary statement sections, it contains the same (or stronger!) language:
H319 Causes serious eye irritation
H335 May cause respiratory irritation
P260 Do not breathe dust/fume/gas/mist/vapours/spray (note that unlike P261 it doesn’t say “avoid”, it unequivocally says “do not”)
P305 + P351 + P338 IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do. Continue rinsing.
And unlike Vantablack, it has a declaration that at least one of its components is considered to be carcinogenic. Vantablack may not be as easy to use as poster paint, but it‘s no dioxygen difluoride either.
I agreed with you on so many of these points you have made but.. That is a bold-faced lie about it being toxic just on the grounds it has a warning to not inhale and avoid getting it in your eyes - there are millions of eye/lung irritants that are not toxic. If you don't know how nano-particles of carbon chains can affect the lungs, just don't go preaching like you do is all I am asking 😂 Please do carry on dismantling misinformation, just avoid creating new misinformation in the process.
That one is toxic. Carbon nanotubes are similar to asbestos in that regard, they cause molecular damage known to contribute significantly to mesothelioma risk.
I suspect you and I are going to disagree on this, but studies are inconclusive on the matter - some have concluded that CNT cause cancer due following prolonged exposure leading to inflammation of the tissue(which in long cases, produces tumors and thus cancer development), while others deduced that CNTs presented little to none if CNTs are shorter and/or exposure is not maintained constantly, and thus did not result in tumors.
tl;dr There are studies that prove it is and others that it isn't toxic, but it all depends on exposure time and sizing of the CNTs. There is no majority with which experts have made an overwhelming opinion of whether it is true or not.
I never pretended to be an authority on anything, I'm just sharing information I found on the internet, I'm not preaching anything. And the toxicity of carbon nanotubes is well documented. I don't need to be an expert on carbon nanotubes to share this information.
Having to do with poison or something harmful to the body. Toxic substances usually cause unwanted side effects.
I would say severe eye and lung irritation are harmful and unwanted side effects. Oxygen is toxic,water is toxic, I could continue. I don't know what specific definition of toxic you had in mind, but I don't think I'm wrong to say it's a potentially toxic substance.
Firstly, that is a review of studies, not one in itself. Secondly, it establishes that there are dozens of variables that contribute to the effects - not that it is simply the use of CNTs.
Third, and more than enough to make me start finding you to be far less genuine than I had previously thought.. Are you really trying that first grader argument right now..? Sure. Fine. You want to behave like a child, I will speak to you as if you are one then.
Yes. Everything has adverse effects on the body; we are not perfect organisms that will continue to function indefinitely. But no, just because "they can have negative effects and excessive exposure increases the adverse effects exponentially" does not mean you can skip eating your vegetables, Timmy. Kids today with your bigger words for the same ol' excuses 🙄
And why couldn’t you do this to begin with? Oh right, because you don’t realize nobody knows who you are and therefore nobody gives a fuck what you’re saying.
But question everything! How about questioning why the fuck anybody would trust an anonymous source with zero evidence? Ever think about that?
Of course not, because of fundamental attribution error. At the end of the day, you aren’t special. You fell prey to the same pitfalls literally everybody else does.
A few hundred upvotes and a couple dozen comments say that at least a few people do give a fuck about what I'm saying.
I made a statement and presented sources when asked. Sorry I didn't hand-feed you the sources like mushed up peas on a baby's plastic covered spoon. Here comes the airplane, open up!
I went to look for the sources in this particular one and found some (nicely posted in another comment). I definitely agree with you.
You must understand human emotional tendencies, though. This day and age, we are all so ready to taste the sweet dopamine of outrage that we put blinders on.
I mean, just think about how his comment makes sense in reality and how the smear campaign doesn’t… a person can’t force a company into exclusivity for anything. That’s the companies choice.
Yeah that’s clearly what’s happening here. I got downvoted while asking for source on the claims that Surrey NanoSystems are the one that asked for an exclusive license and not Kappoor.
People don’t want to question, they want to be right and everyone else to be wrong, so they downvote questions and somehow that make them right.
Vantablack is generally not suitable for use in art due to the way in-which it's made. Vantablack S-VIS also requires specialist application to achieve its aesthetic effect. In addition, the coating's performance beyond the visible spectrum results in it being classified as a dual-use material that is subject to UK Export Control. We have therefore chosen to license Vantablack S-VIS exclusively to Kapoor Studios UK to explore its use in works of art. This exclusive licence limits the coating’s use in the field of art, but does not extend to any other sectors.
This doesn't actually mean they approached him. All it is is a polite way of saying they aren't selling to anyone else.
To be clear, I neither know nor care who approached who and who asked for or chose exclusivity. I just wanted to point out that that statement doesn't support (or refute) the idea that Kapoor chose the exclusivity.
His support or defense of it is irrelevant; it's not his choice. Whatever artist the company chose would have the exclusive right to use Vantablack.
And if you're making some sort of point based on lofty principles like "a real artist would refuse to work with an exclusive medium" then I'd argue that Stuart Semple's entire career as a paint salesman is proof that any artist would have taken the deal because everyone wants to use it.
Complaining about unsupported claims against one person by levying more unsupported claims against another person, only to have everyone take them at face value because everyone loves an anti-circlejerk? Yeah, sounds like Reddit.
So after this my only question left is why the aerospace company would work with an artist at all? Why market the color or use it outside of the industry in any way? They really don't stand to make anything on a product they don't even intend to sell that way.
My guess would be to bring attention to their product. Even aerospace companies need to advertise their products, and this is a pretty notable and unique way to do that.
I have it saved in a bookmark, this is like the 4th time I've made the comment lol. A few years back I went down a rabbit hole about the whole controversy and that's when I learned the reality of the situation. I don't hunt down mentions of Kapoor to correct the record, but when something pops up on the front page and I see the inevitable "fuck Anish Kapoor" comment at the top I'll drop it in. This is by far the best response it's ever gotten lol.
Anish Kapoor is basically a trustfund baby who "got into art" by just buying the most expensive things he could find and nailing them together. Vantablack, and his exclusive license for it, is yet another example of his entire concept of art: look at how expensive and exclusive this piece is.
Kapoor is, in effect, the anti-banksy. His entire idea of art is about the wealth, extravagance, and waste, while denying anyone else access to it. He wants his art to be seen just so he can brag about all the things he put into it to deny anyone else access to.
And no, as someone with a ton of experience in professional engineering, I don't see "well it's expensive to implement" as a viable reason to make it exclusive. You know what else is expensive to make and toxic during production? Cars. Yet somehow there aren't exclusive licensing deals about how only one person in the world who happens to be born into wealth should be allowed to use them.
Because funny enough if there is demand for something that provides funding which in turn allows it to grow as an economic production line. Which Kapoor stifled in its bed with his exclusivity deal, crippling the ability to manufacture vantablack due to his insistence on "sole collaboration" as he calls it.
And as to point three: Your entire assessment of Stuart Semple as a "conman and grifter" is checks notes based on nothing. You don't like that guy, that's the entire substantive element of your argument.
Especially when your claim for why you don't like him is "he's selling paint off a lie" when he's not. Everything you said has always been public knowledge of why anish kapoor is a dirtbag, you're just trying to argue that greed and capitalism are good, actually.
I don’t claim to be an expert on the topic, but the article linked below has Kapoor bluntly defending the exclusive agreement. In that case, it’s hard to say he’s not at fault at all.
“Why exclusive? Because it’s a collaboration, because I am wanting to push them to a certain use for it. I’ve collaborated with people who make things out of stainless steel for years and that’s exclusive.” interview with Kapoor
Kappor BOUGHT the exclusive rights. That's why he's being criticized, because he knew of the exclusivity when he entered into the agreement.
The second is misleading in that the reason it can't be sold is because of exclusive rights.
What exactly did Stuart lie about? He expressed his disgust at the exclusivity of the deal, which is not a lie. What made him famous does not negate his artistry. What makes people famous is often random and unpredictable. You saying his art is mediocre is just your opinion. You certainly have an ax to grind.
Do I think Kapoor is awful? No. But the criticism is a valid criticism, and your depiction of Stewart has little substance to it besides your own opinion on the matter.
Kappor BOUGHT the exclusive rights. That's why he's being criticized, because he knew of the exclusivity when he entered into the agreement.
Yeah, this is being phrased as if this company just picked some famous artist at random and decided they'd be the exclusive artist.
This was a deal between an artist and a company and it seems like they both wanted it to be exclusive. Maybe the company only wanted to deal with one artist, or maybe they thought they could sell the exclusive rights for more if there was only one artist? Or maybe they thought Kappor would be a great artist given his work, especially on highly reflective sculptures.
But it does seem like Kappor wants to have exclusive use for art, and was happy to pay for it. And as far as I know he's never said anything like he wishes other people could try it or use it or anything like that. He seems perfectly happy to exclude every other artist, which makes sense since he paid for the right.
> "Why exclusive? Because it's a collaboration, because I am wanting to push them to a certain use for it. I've collaborated with people who make things out of stainless steel for years and that's exclusive."
It seems like he's trying to say that he has an exclusive use of stainless steel in art? Which is obviously ridiculous. He must mean something else, but I'm really struggling to see the comparison. Maybe that he's developed custom alloys that other people can't use? But there's a big difference between buying something made to your specs and paying the company to not let anyone else use it for art specifically.
And he also said that people don't like exclusive use because of the emotion of the color black??
> He believes much of the debate comes down to emotion. “The problem is that colour is so emotive – especially black ... I don’t think the same response would occur if it was white.”
Also, the article points out that Kapoor contacted the company to talk about using it. And while there's obviously very limited supplies, I'm still not buying the argument that Kapoor was basically an innocent bystander having exclusive use forced on him by this company or anything even remotely like that.
"Why exclusive? Because it's a collaboration, because I am wanting to push them to a certain use for it. I've collaborated with people who make things out of stainless steel for years and that's exclusive."
I think he's saying that he's had exclusive collaborations with particular people or organizations that manufacture things out of steel.
It's equivalent in that artists aren't generally constructing large stainless steel sculptures themselves by hand but work with others who do the actual construction or whatever.
Eh. He was already using the product before the company wanted it to be exclusive use. I don’t really blame him for wanting to still use it and jumping on the chance. The second point still stands. Your point about exclusive rights doesn’t negate the fact about Vantablacks unique properties.
And my point is it’s not really valid criticism. If given a choice to stop using a medium you’ve already been using for two years or purchase the rights to the medium. I don’t have any criticism for you. What’s the alternative choice he had ? Not purchase it. Someone else does it. We criticize them instead ? That’s stupid. The OP had really good points
It's not a valid criticism to you. To others it is.
There are those who would choose not to encourage exclusivity and would emphasize equal freedoms to their peers. There are those who see this as a perfectly legitimate business transaction.
It's entirely possible for both to have valid arguments.
Kappor BOUGHT the exclusive rights. That’s why he’s being criticized, because he knew of the exclusivity when he entered into the agreement.
Your problem is with the exchange of money? The company chose to license it exclusively to one studio. You don’t think it is fair for the company to ask to be paid by that studio for using the product?
More like "we're an aerospace company with limited time, resources, and manpower that can't waste all of our time with artists, but we want to work with one artist to help advertise our product so let's approach the most famous sculptor in the UK."
I agree with most of your statement except that it appears on each Kapoor made an exclusive deal with the company. So he knew what he was doing.
https://youtu.be/_NzVmtbPOrM I'll direct you to this video which might be part of how the story blew up. It's Tom Scott interviewing Stuart Semple. Nothing that simple says is in disagreement with your explanation of how vantablack works. I really don't see any evidence that's doing Semple is a conman. It seems he wanted to take a job at Kapoor for this exclusive deal, and as some things do it blew up on the internet, and people ended up buying a lot of paint. He never made any claim that was untrue. The problem with these beefs is that for audiences, stories have to have a villain, so if you don't believe that character 1 is secretly evil, then character 2 must be secretly evil.
They picked Kapoor, and they refuse to let anyone else use Vantablack. Kapoor didn't demand exclusivity, the company did.
Interestingly, this isn't how Kapoor described it. From his defense of the agreement, it appears to be mutually desired this way. Kapoor wanted the exclusivity.
Vantablack isn't even paint!
Yeah, that... doesn't matter. It functions as paint. If the process is difficult and expensive, make it expensive enough and they won't have applications for 100 sculptures.
Point three, Stuart Semple is a conman and a grifter.
What's the con? He's still just selling paint and a story. The paint doesn't change from it, it is what he advertises. The story is also not wholly incorrect.
As for my opinion on Kapoor, his reaction to being denied the pinkest pink tells me all I need to know about what kind of guy he is.
The company is doing it for promotional purposes. They do not want to work with artists in general, they want to have one artist help promote their material by using it. There is no way any artist will pay the market price for it, it's way too expensive
There is no way any artist will pay the market price for it, it's way too expensive
That's a question of how much the art will sell for. If your buyer is rich enough, "too expensive" stops being a thing.
No, this isn't about the price. I do think it's plausible that the company wants to avoid legal headache and hence tries to avoid the art space, but Kapoors wording isn't that of someone who got selected for a deal that the company decided alone.
Why exclusive? Because it's a collaboration, because I am wanting to push them to a certain use for it. I've collaborated with people who make things out of stainless steel for years and that's exclusive.
This doesn't sound like "Because the company decided not to sell it to anyone else" to me.
I don't give a shit what Kapoor says, he is not the decision maker here beyond agreeing to their proposal. What they want is exactly one artist using their product to promote it. There is no additional benefit to them from getting a second artist involved. They do not want to get into the art supplies market, they want a salesman who works for free. An exclusive license is the only reasonable way to do that.
I don't give a shit what Kapoor says, he is not the decision maker here beyond agreeing to their proposal.
You can flip this sentence around to dismiss the opinion of the company and it'd be just as in line with the facts to create a story where Kapoor is the man who pushed for the exclusivity. The idea that the company is solely the side that created this situation is not supported by any facts. A contract has two agreeing parties, and is negotiated by both of them.
They do not want to get into the art supplies market
They'd probably change their tune if someone offered enough money. Or, they would have, but now they can't because contracts go both ways.
I have never seen anything even hinting that Kapoor paid for the privilege. I really think you have no idea how expensive this shit is. The company is the patent holder, Kapoor barely more than "some fucking guy" in this context. They hold all the power. They definitely dictated the terms.
Con man - a man who cheats or tricks someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true.
I mean if they made up the whole story, they'd be a con man. If they're doing it for the sole purpose of boosting their own sales, that's even a step further.
https://youtu.be/_NzVmtbPOrM if watch this video for reference. Nothing Stuart Semple says in the interview contradicts anything's kg mentioned above, and fr what I gather the pinkest pink was a joke made at Anish Kapoor's expense that got out of hand. This all seems perfectly above board.
Problem is Reddit loves to have a villain. In my mind it's just a little drama between two artists that sold a lot of paint because people like drama. If people want to buy paint because of drama, that's on them.
Interestingly, this isn't how Kapoor described it. ... it appears to be mutually desired this way.
Yeah. Lawyer here that does licensing. The licensee invariably pays more for an exclusive license, and no one's going to pay more unless they want an exclusive license. There’s no way the company is alone in desiring this setup.
You don't believe that an aerospace company is only interested in working with a single artist to advertise their product? Why would they have any interest at all in being flooded with artist requests when their real business is building satellites?
It makes perfectly logical sense for the company to not want to work with anyone else. To them, the partnership is an advertising venture. A company isn't going to hire 2 marketing firms to make the same commercial, and the same logic applies here.
Is the exclusivity advantageous to Kapoor? Certainly, but that isn't reason to think that he is responsible for the decision to make it exclusive.
I didn’t say the aerospace company wanted more than one licensee. I said there was no way it was just their idea to have it be an exclusive license.
Your post said they demanded it; that it wasn’t Kapoor. I don’t buy that. Both must have wanted it because an artist isn’t going to pay the higher cost of an exclusive license if they are only interested in being a non-exclusive licensee.
And Kapoor himself has said he also wanted to be the exclusive licensee.
He had to pay $3.8M to the company that produces Vantablack to get access to it. I can't imagine he'd have been super eager to have hundreds of other artists use it for free. The point is moot though, since the company that produces Vantablack specifically didn't want to do with more than one artist (as mentioned above, they're an aerospace company, and the paint is incredibly dangerous; it wasn't worth their time to sell to random art stores and get sued when someone died from mishandling it)
He had to pay $3.8M to the company that produces Vantablack to get access to it.
Oh, gee, so he bought exclusive access. Would you look at that. Turns out the story was true after all. That the company was very happy with that deal doesn't change that.
I'm not saying they should sell it to random art stores. That would be irresponsible. But there's a long space between free sales and "only one guy ever can use this".
Did you even read the previous comment? The fundamental issue here is that:
Stuart Semple setup the false narrative that rich evil Anish Kapoor swooped in and took a color that was otherwise available to anyone, when actually
The company that produced Vantablack was going to make it available to either:
a) No one
b) One.single.person that payed millions for exclusive access. Which Kapoor did.
The key is that Kapoor did NOT deprive the rest of the world of Vantablack. The rest of the world (including Semple) was never going to have the option in the first place.
Additionally, there are already darker black colors, so the debate was almost immediately meaningless.
He bought access to use a company's proprietary technology, like anyone in the whole world working with that company would have to do to use their technology. The company decided they only wanted to work with one artist.
Kapoor bought access. Surrey Nanosystems made it exclusive. Those are two separate things, and you can't blame Kapoor for the second one.
All we know is that they have an exclusive contract with each other. As the above poster mentioned, with the amount of money he spent, it's not surprising he wouldn't want competition either. Kooper has a lot of incentive to push for exclusivity from his direction, too.
Thank you for this explanation Anish Kapoor is a great artist and he does not deserve to have his named dragged through the mud for something that isn’t even true.
Most of this is just your opinion. We all have them, but there are far more exapmles of kapoor flaunting his wealth and luck and acting like a dick. At least semple sells cool products i can actually use. In the end, i dont know either of them and neither does anyone else here
It’s odd that they wouldn’t just license a subcontractor to deal with direct to consumer sales and make more money without having to deal with the proletariat. There are many defense contractors that also have consumer product lines and licenses.
THANK YOU. I’ve been saying this for years every time it gets brought up. Anish Kapoor is my favorite contemporary artist, and I’ve hated seeing his name dragged through the mud for absolutely no reason. How anyone can hear about the exclusivity and think HE forced THEM into it, is mind boggling to me. Like that’s just not how anything works.
Hey this is all really fascinating stuff, do you have any sources because I am an art teacher and would like to set the record straight with my students by providing them with articles they can read for themselves rather than just take my word on it.
Fucking thank you. It always baffled me that everyone was so pissed at Kapoor for buying a license to use Vantablack, but not at the seller of that license.
It is also probably not accidental that Stuart Semple decided to paint Anish Kapoor, who is a Jewish Person of Color, as a selfish greedy man colluding with a company to hoard Vantablack from other artists.
What does this have to do with anything? Dude is a multi millionaire, who sells stuff to super rich people. His biggest impact with common people is probably the bean in Chicago which is a joke??
George Soros is also one billionaire of many. And like all billionaires, he is hoarding wealth and has clandestine control of power in multiple rungs of society. But there's a reason that folks focus on him as the powerful man controlling everything. Same as folks focus on Anish Kapoor as selfish, greedy, and manipulative (on a lie). I stopped giving Antisemites the benefit of the doubt around the time they started marching down the street with torches.
Anish Kapoor does not own a patent on Vantablack - he’s just an artist. Vantablack was developed by Surrey Nanosystems. Surrey gave Kapoor an exclusive license to use it in works of art.
...is this Kapoor's alt account? lol. Semple's marketing is a far cry from anything actually fraudulent. Simping for Kapoor is laughable and pathetic my dude
This is entirely misguided. Who told you the company approached Kapoor? It was in fact the other way around with the latter requesting exclusivity. An aerospace company doesn't have to work with any artists so why would they worry about being forced to work with every artists who asks? Your reasoning makes no sense and then devolves into ad hominem.
Any source on the claims that it’s Surrey Nano Systems that wanted an exclusive deal with an artist? EDIT: He gave a source in another comment.
It make little sense for me that they would do that as it’s limiting the potential usage of their product and create some confusion over legal licensing for others usages.
Anish has also defended the exclusivity and support it. I’m sure a few people under Hitler were just following orders, but that doesn’t make it fine…
The fact that the medium is hard to works with doesn’t justify exclusivity, if anything it justify opening it to more people, as this is how you can find interesting usage. Something obvious can be worked on by a single person, it’s potential will probably still be fully used, but that’s not true for something more complex.
At the end of the day, for sure it’s Surrey Nano Systems right to sell exclusive rights, it doesn’t make it fine though.
I tried to find others examples but couldn’t find something better that we can all universally agree that some people were against something but still did it.
If you got any better I would gladly replace my example while quoting you.
You don't need an analogy if you're talking to someone over the age of 8. People can understand an idea without being told "the thing is like another thing." And you certainly don't ever need to compare an insignificant art squabble to Hitler.
EDIT: You have the capacity to understands my analogy isn’t saying whatever he did is analogue to murders, but instead an analogy to not forgive an actions because someone else took that decision.
He is saying the hate is misguided when the guy is supporting and voluntarily doing exactly what people are saying is wrong… sorry but yeah he needs an analogy if he can’t understands why it’s not misguided to hate him for doing theses actions.
If he believe it’s fine what the subordinate did because they were just following orders, than his opinion is fine, but the thing is, and it’s why that analogy is useful here, I don’t believe he does believe that. Again if you can convince him in others ways, be my guest, I’m doing my best.
Yeah it’s just an insignificant arts squabble, no one arguing it isn’t, doesn’t means it’s misguided, nor that his actions are alright. We are arguing here on that latter point, not on the importance of it. Not supporting Anish Kappoor is not a significant action either ;) (nor is the few comments I did about it).
And you're a buzzword spitter. You most likely could not even define what a polymer is, much less synthesize one. "Advanced aerospace manufacturing technology" has me laughing. Which advanced processes are you familiar with? I'd love to hear your experience with CVD or ALD. You bought the marketing hook line and sinker, then regurgitated it with a contrarian viewpoint. Congrats on the Karma. In calling others "unremarkable" and "nobody," I think we may have a glimpse of your character.
You said so much, added virtually nothing, expanded on nothing, said with an air of authority anonymously, all while acting like a dick. Cream of the crop right there buddy.
My guess is that Reddit’s hate is basically racist. If Kapoor was a white dude like Semple then the details of Vanta Black’s exclusivity would have been known right away and Kapoor’s name would be cleared.
Instead it’s just another case of a colonizing British dude fucking an Indian dude’s art, stealing it, and commercializing it while everyone gleefully simps.
They should put all Semple’s work in the Jewel House in the Tower of London right next to all the stolen diamonds and rubies.
Kapoor is Indian and British, having lived in the UK for nearly fifty years.
He's also extremely famous and wealthy - perhaps one of the most well-regarded artists working in the UK - while Semple is a relative nobody. This is not an example of "colonising".
1.6k
u/GO_RAVENS Jan 22 '23
Every time Kapoor is mentioned on Reddit people shit on him over Vantablack, and it's entirely misguided.
There are 3 main points that need to be made: 1) It is not Kapoor's fault Vantablack is not available to other artists, 2) Vantablack isn't even a pigment that can be sold, and 3) Stuart Semple is a giant conman and grifter who made his entire career by painting (pun intended) Kapoor as the bad guy so he can sell his paints.
So point one, the company that makes/owns Vantablack owns the PATENT to the PROCESS of making Vantablack (copyright is irrelevant here). That company is not an art company, they're an aerospace manufacturing company. The company decided to have one exclusive artist they work with because they don't want a million artists bothering them when they're trying to design satellites and shit. They picked Kapoor, and they refuse to let anyone else use Vantablack. Kapoor didn't demand exclusivity, the company did.
Point two, Vantablack isn't even paint! It's not just some pigment that can be sold in a bottle. It's actually a space-age materials technology that also happens to be super black. It's a carbon nanotubes polymer that is applied using specific and proprietary reactor vessels at the company's factory. Kapoor doesn't just paint some black stuff on a sculpture and refuses to share it with anyone else. The company uses their advanced aerospace manufacturing technology to bond carbon nanotubes to a surface. Going back to point one, you can understand why the company doesn't want to be making 100 sculptures a day with Vantablack and only want to work with one artist. Oh and also, Vantablack is super toxic before it's applied, another reason to restrict it's availability.
Point three, Stuart Semple is a conman and a grifter. He's a nobody, an unremarkable, mediocre artist who never would have been famous for his art. Instead, he made up this whole lie about Vantablack and Kapoor and used it to sell his paints. His lies about Kapoor and Vantablack have made him far richer and more famous than his art ever did. I have no problem with him selling paint, but I have a problem with him selling paint off a lie, pretending like he's some damn hero for what he's doing. He's just a really good, if somewhat dishonest, salesman.