As a quick prediction, if afronerdism or anyone in their circle reads my posts asking afronerdism to retract their misinformation, I'm anticipating that they'll say something horrible about me. Instead of actually engaging with the subject matter and reading anything of what really happened.
Because that's how afronerdism has responded so far, and I'm guessing they're not alone in behaving that way. Their post has legs, after all, and plenty of people who blindly support it. When they're reblogging from someone who's cool saying people are weird and stupid as a way to insult them, I don't have a lot of hope.
I mean, I do have some hope, I'm just trying to be honest about what will probably happen.
Tumblr often works high school popularity contest. All that matters is that the people calling me a stupid nerd are louder and more aggressive than I am. I guess we'll see!
I have no idea how to work tumblr! But I'm getting so much hate all over the internet, and my poor students are too. So I wrote a thing:https://www.tumblr.com/thunderfrommyheart/742915963562983424/breaking-down-the-misinformation-in-afronerdism?source=share
Hope it helps stop this from spreading any more. It's a nightmare!!
breaking down the misinformation in @afronerdism post about me.
Debunked by Stuart Semple himself.
I’ve taken the time to do this because nobody wants mis-information bouncing around the internet.
The key thing to know - in the artworld rich people have access to processes and companies that most artists don’t. That’s how they get to create giant beans which cost $20million. At the top the rich get richer, and at the bottom artists struggle to make their mark with what they’ve got.
Vantablack is an example of a group of rich, entitled people getting together to pat themselves on the back, whilst the rest of the world watched horrified at the tone-deafness of the whole thing.
it's also worth noting whilst OP is clearly educated and understands politics they are not in any way an expert in the artworld, art discourse. I however have been in the artworld for 25 years, have written for the guardian, art of england and vogue. I have presented art programs for the BBC and have a properly published book on art history - it's out in June called 'Make Art or Die Trying'. I have studied art and art history and spoken at Oxford University, The ICA, Denver Art Msueum, Dublin Art Museum and at Frieze. I have lectured at the Royal College of Art in London. I have curated over 20 contemporary art exhibitions internationally, I have directed two galleries. I am by definition an expert.
MY BREAKDOWN: OP is @afronerdism - I've gone below them point by point
A: What Vantablack is not: a pigment. A paint. Vantablack is not something that you were supposed to use to paint with.
SS: CORRECT - However nor is glass, chrome, powder coating, sandblasting, booze casting, tar, concrete or steel yet they are used by artists everyday.
Whether the material/process is a paint or pigment or not doesn’t matter.
A: Who creates and distributes Vantablack: an engineering company named Surrey NanoSystems.
SS: True. And many artists work with engineering companies every day, notable examples are Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst. Lots of artists collaborate with industry to get their work made, that is what fabrication is. You go to Surrey NanoSystems - not to buy paint but for them to coat your work in Vantablack.
A: Who does not do those things: an art house. A distribution company. Any kind of company that creates and distributes pigments on a massive, artistic scale.
SS: Which is totally true and fine. However they do coat things in Vantablack for a series of clients in many different industries including fashion designers, jewelers, brands, car companies, and watch companies. They will coat anything for anyone who has the money unless they are an artist. They only accept work from Anish Kapoor as he has an exclusive license with them for art.
A: Who was Vantablack made for: Vanta Black was made by aerospace engineers for aerospace engineers, looking for something to coat the insides of massive NASA telescopes.
SS: Initially, but quickly was used by a lot of other industries including architects, fashion designers, bands, brands, car companies and even a deodorant.
They are able to make it in quantities large enough to coat whole buildings as we saw when architect Asif Khan used it to coat a whole pavilion during the Pyeongchang Winter Olympic Games.
Asif Khan has unveiled a pavilion at the Pyeongchang Winter Olympic Games in South Korea, described as the "darkest building on earth".
(If had told Surrey nanoSytems he was an artist - not an architect, this would never have happened)
A: Who it was not made for: artists.
SS: Except the one with the license. (Anish Kapoor)
———————————-——————————————
A: Hopefully already just by understanding what Vantablack is, what it was made for, and who it’s made by you and other people are beginning to see what the problem is with Stuart simples narrative around Vanta black.
SS: It’s Semple not simple.
SS: The narrative was not created by Semple as for a few months before he shared his pink the world media was criticizing Kapoor for his Monopoly with major articles in the Guardian, Daily Mail, and BBC news. Each featured reactions from a broad spectrum of artists who spoke about the unnecessary license and the elitism in the artworld.
A: But you may be wondering if Vanta black is a highly toxic unstable substance made out of carbon nano tubes by aerospace engineers for aerospace engineers, working in space, then how did we get here? well, Vanta, black 2.0, if you will was created in such a way that it could be sprayed onto substances in a certain way meaning that theoretically it could be used artistically.
SS: Yes VBX2 can be sprayed, and Surrey Nanosystems have training days where they teach in-house teams how to do that. The VBX2, however, arrived quite late in the story and Kapoor’s rights started with the first version.
A: Surround nanosystems held an exhibition where they displayed Vanta black and when artist saw this, they were inundated with calls from artist, wanting to use it in their work.
SS:
Surrey nano systems (not surround)
They actually debut it at an airshow in England, it was all over the world media, many artists saw it. They then went on a massive PR mission and the material was seen on CNN etc.
Kapoor became aware of it and approached them to see if he could use it in his work.
Together they struck up an exclusive deal which would mean if any artist asked them to coat a piece of work with the stuff they would be turned away.
That deal was something Surrey and Kapoor were initially proud of. They couldn’t see the inherent elitism in the exclusivity so they went on another PR pr to tell he world Kapoor was signed up to use it.
It was then the artists of the world really became aware of it, and sure enough, when any of them wrote to Surrey - even really huge ones with plenty of money, they were turned away. These artists including Christian Furr and Ron Arad, amongst others were all featured across the media. =
A: But as we’ve already established surrey nanosystems is not a distribution company. They’re an engineering company. And they made the decision that they could only work with one artist, because they simply did not have the physical ability to produce Vantablack at a scale that allowed them to work with more than one person.
SS: They did say that, but a lot later. They were always a fabrication / engineering place and there was never an idea that they would distribute the material. That’s not the problem any artists ever had with it, they all fully understood what the material was. The issue was that even if the artist had the money and could ship their work to Surrey, they would not coat the object with it, but they would serve other industries. This is seen as deeply prejudicial towards artists.
A: (To this day, vanta Black has to be distributed by a specialized robotic arm that creates it in painfully small amounts in an enclosed box that can then be given to someone in a lab. )
SS: This is untrue - the arm is used to spray the objects that Surrey have agreed to coat.
It does not make the material. The material is made by growing carbon nano tubes on a surface.
And the spray version contains nano particles. The robot arm is used for precision when coating.
You often see a robot arm spray cars for example. The arm is used like this.
A: Enter Anish Kapoor: Anish Kapoor, at this time was already a world, renowned artist, and the creator of many public facing pieces, such as cloud gate, a.k.a. the Chicago Bean. His entire life‘s work was dedicated to how light is refracted and interplays with the void, making him not only the perfect person to be chosen because of prestige but also because his life‘s work spoke to the engineers who created Vanta black.
SS: Whist as an artist he has dealt with reflection and the void at length, it’s a stretch to claim his entire life’s work is dedicated to it.
SS: It is true that as a figurehead for Vantablack he is a good choice, he’s very rich, extremely famous, he’s a Sir (i.e knighted by the queen and a turner prize winner). Plus he makes work that would look good in Vantablack.
SS: None of this means that he needed exclusivity to do it, the company could simply have collaborated with him and if any other artist asked to have something coated, they could have easily said they were too busy or didn’t have enough of the material.
SS: The issue is the way they couldn’t see the prejudice, elitism and lack of access in the exclusivity.
A: Now this should’ve been seen as an incredible accomplishment and honor for this Indian artist to be chosen as the soul licensor of Vantablack as this company was only able to choose one person and people were really excited about this for him and that’s where the story ends, right? Right? Right?
SS: It’s unclear why his race matters. He is one of the richest, most well known, most famous artists in the world. The fact he has exclusive access to a material/process like this is not a reason for people to be excited for him, people are free to be excited or not. This is purely your opinion not a fact.
A: Enter Stuart Semple: Stuart simple was a 25-year-old man in the UK living with his mother when she came into his room and told him about Vantablack.
SS: Stuart was born in 1980, which would make him 36 at the time.
SS: He was not living with his mother, in fact he was living in London with his own family.
SS: His mother did not come into his room however on a phone call she spoke to him about an article she had read in the guardian about how artists were upset by Kapoor having Vantablack.
SS: Stuart was (and is) a well-known contemporary artist, very embedded int hat world. He has had over 20 solo exhibitions dedicated to his work all over the world and his pieces are in major collections and museums. He’s not in the league of Kapoor but in the artworld is well known as an artist.
A: As an artist himself, Stewart simple wanted to try Vanta Black, and was told by the company that he could not.
SS: This is untrue - Stuart did not want to use the colour, nor did he approach the company.
A: It was then that he discovered the only person on earth licensed to use Vantablack was Anish Kapoor.
SS: This is untrue, he was aware of this when his mother told him what she had read in the newspaper.
A: Please keep in mind that Vantablack is not a paint, and it is so difficult to work with that Anish Kapoor has only ever produced one singular piece of art with Vantablack.
SS: This is untrue. Tens of thousands of items have now been coated in VantaBlack, from soda cans to watches. Initially, Kapoor used his rights to create a series of limited edition wrist watches that sold for $100,000 each, and then went on to create a whole series of large sculptures that were initially shown at a huge palazzo in Venice that Kapoor bought, during the Venice Biennale, and then at an exhibition at the Lisson in NYC where there works were for sale with an average price of $500,000USD.
A: So like a child who has just been told by their mom that they can’t use something, Stewart simple decided to throw a hissy fit.
SS: It’s Stuart Semple (not stewart simple) - and there is no evidence of any kind of Hissy Fit. However he did create a piece of internet performance art, where he put a jar of pinkest pink paint on the internet, humorously, and asked anyone who bought the paint to sign an agreement that they ‘weren’t Anish Kapoor and Associate of Kapoor and that to the best of their knowledge information and belief, the material would not make its way into the hands of Anish Kapoor’. Semple has always explained it was a tongue-in-cheek piece of performance art, and that he was never expecting anyone would actually buy any pink. The best source for this is an article in Wired in which the journalist concludes with the piece being a powerful piece of online performance art. Bearing in mind Semple is an artist who works with performance, that is extremely likely.
A: He created a pink pigment that he conditionally said everyone could use except Anish Kapoor and then launch this pigment with the hashtag #ShareTheBlack.
SS: He created the pink pigment in 2010 - and has made his own paints to use in his own work since he was a child. It was not made in response to Kapoor. However he did not make them public they were for his own use, and the Kapoor situation made him question his own exclusivity in keeping the materials he was making for himself. He decided to share his pink as a gesture and a piece of art in it's own right.
A: This caught the attention of the news media, and when asked about this situation, that was previously relatively unheard of, Stuart simple,
SS: Neither Stuart nor the Vantablack situation were unheard of. The media was already reporting on the controversy around vantablack long before Stuart put the pink up. Stuart was also well known which is why the media wanted to talk to him about it.
When GQ came to do a 5 page feature on him they were clear it was because he was an established and well-known artist in his own right.
He had already been hosting art shows for the BBC, had written for the guardian and Huffington post and had collaborated with major musicians.
A: went onto describe Anish Kapoor as this tyrannical elitist who “banned“ the use of Vantablack to keep other artists from using it.
SS: There’s no evidence that Semple said that, however, he was critical of the exclusive license and did feel the story opened up a well-needed discussion about access to art and the trend in which those with the money could afford to have works fabricated when others couldn’t. He is at heart an egalitarian and has made free art studios, his Designs for humanity charity, his creative therapies fund at Mind (a mental health charity) etc.. and a major free art gallery in his hometown that shows some of the biggest living artists. So Semple’s opinion is allowed, to him Kapoor epitomizes an elitism that is dominated by the super-rich, after all, Kapoor is getting close to being a billionaire.
A: But hopefully you can already see how that is Literally not true. Anish Kapoor does not make Vanta black. Anish Kapoor cannot sell Vanta black. Anish Kapoor cannot give you permission to use Vanta black. And Vanta black is not even a paint.
SS: He does not make it, but he does hold the exclusive right to use it in art.
SS: No other material or process has been exclusively licensed by one artist in the history of the world.
SS: Jeff Koons does not make his own giant steel sculptures, a factory does. Jeff can’t book your work into the factory, and steel is not a paint either. He doesn't have an exclusive agreement with the steel fabricators. If they aren't too busy with Jeff, and you've got the cash, they'll make something for you too. This is standard with art fabrication.
SS: I didn't physically make the giant steel and foam smiley sculpture of mine for the city of Denver, fabricators helped with that, and engineers. They work with several artists.
SS: This makes no sense given it is understood vantablack is a material and a process of application.
SS: However Kapoor could surrender his exclusive right and Surrey would then be able to take bookings from artists.
A: meanwhile Stuart has launched an entire very lucrative career around slandering and smearing Anish Kapoor
SS: Untrue, Semple had a very successful career and his day job is as a contemporary artist. Actually speaking up about elitism in the artworld is a risky move for someone who relies on that artworld to pay his bills.
A: when Anish Kapoor literally never did anything but be qualified enough to be the one person chosen by a company that is literally only able to work with one person at a time.
SS: He did do something, he signed an exclusive agreement and he felt he was entirely justified in doing so. He also went out in the media and with surrey nono systems and gloated about it.
SS: They can’t only work with one person at a time, we have seen whole buildings covered in vantback, jewellery, cars and soda cans and many sculptures by Kapoor. Surrey have collaborated with thousands of brands, designers, architects and companies.
A: The fact remains Stewart simple, very intentionally allows this narrative to continue because it makes him money.
SS: It is unclear how it makes him money as the pink was sold for $3 which was what it cost to make, and his website which researches and distributes cutting edge materials is a non profit that collaborates with artists. They even did a crowd funder to make Black 3.0 - a super black acrylic that any artist can use. It's also unclear how he is perpetuating this narrative, when he's clearly moved on to other projects many years ago and rarely mentions it. In Semple's world it's a very small thing.
A: He has made a ton of money off of slandering Anish Kapoor as if Anish Kapoor is the reason he can’t use Vanta black when the reason he can’t use Vanta black is because no one can use Vanta black, and the only person who might be able to use it is Anish Kapoor and that is not Anish Kapoor‘s fault.
SS: There’s no evidence at all that he’s slandered Kapoor. Kapoor being extremely wealthy, and the level of media that covered the story back in 2016 would never have allowed it. It would have been a legal nightmare. All the publications who write about the story GQ, BBC, The Guardian, Wired, have journalistic laws and it would not have happened.
SS: There’s no evidence that Semple has made a ton of money.
A: It is not lost on me that there are racial connotations to the story as well. There are actual companies and artists in the world who have trademarks around certain colors that they do not allow other people to use in public showcases.
SS: There are colour marks or if you like 'trademarked colours'. The public showcases point doesn't make sense in this context - colours are protected in classes i.e certain uses on Serbian products are prohibited. EG - Tiffany blue cannot be used on jewellery boxes.
A: But we really as a community allowed this white man to smear and slander an Indian artist,
SS: Again it’s unclear what the ethnicity of the artists has to do with the core issue.
SS: It’s a little bit of a leap given Semple has also liberated Klein Blue (made by a white French man), Barbie Pink (owned by Mattel a corporation), and created the Brightest White.
A: based entirely off of misinformation, and to this day people jump on the Internet, saying fuck Anish Kapoor because of it.
SS: Kapoor secured the rights to the blackest material ever made. Everyone else who can afford to, can use it, unless they identify as an artist.
SS: Many people feel like that is wrong.
A: Now, Anish Kapoor is not some struggling person. He is probably a multibajillionaire
SS: He’s worth about 800 million according to Forbes, he’s within the top 5 most wealthy living artists.
A: And doesn’t necessarily need our sympathy. But I think the story of Vantablack is a really good case study of how misinformation spreads, and how people never bother to question the framework of a story.
SS: In my opinion, your post is misinformation, that has been spread unquestioningly.
Is there a reason the Anish Kapoor Vantablack situation post is locked for reblogs? Seems like useful/important info on a messy situation to share and I'm bummed I can't pass it on
I locked it because I felt it was getting out of control. After Stewart Semple himself decided to get on ,Tumblr after four years, and replied to me saying very odd things in my opinion about the race of his child and other such, there started being an influx of anon hate etc. not like constructive or dissenting opinions which I was happy to respond to and debate with, but just crass and useless hateful rhetoric about me is an individual. Before that particular side of Tumblr, who are rabbid Stuart Semple fans start to flood my inbox. I just locked it there. I gave Stuart like 10 hours to respond if he wanted to and then just decided to call it. 
But if you care about the information, there are tons of posts on Tumblr that detailed the situation in similar detail with the same opinion, which is actually how I found out about the other side years ago. If people stop sending me ugly messages about it, I’ll probably unlock it but for now I’m just not in the mood.
I have to admit, the timing was so perfect that I wondered if the post got locked because I just dropped a debunk of afronerdism's post...about 3 hours ago, but no, I was wrong. Stuart Semple really did comment on it around the same time.
Alas, afronerdism probably hasn't even seen my post. I'm guessing it got locked sometime after I queued up my reblog about 9 hours ago.
So!
Here's a link to the post where I debunk the argument:
It does not correct the narrative. Instead, it presents a biased view that is deceptive and inaccurate.
Let's go through a few corrections t
afronerdism, would you consider reviewing the evidence again to retract your original statements? I laid out most of the major issues in my debunk post, along with sources if you'd like to do some research on the topic before hand.
If you were willing to review the facts of the issue and correct your previous post I think it'd do a lot to help correct the misinformation that your post spread. It would really help if you'd be willing to reconsider your position.
Hey, so I read through what you said, and I think I actually may have even read it earlier. The problem here is that you’re attempting to correct what you’re calling misinformation that was already plainly stated or given, and in some areas you’re just wrong. Most of the points that you have raised have already been raised by other people and addressed. I’m not gonna go through piece by piece, but I will point out a few things.
Your arguments that Anish did not have to have exclusive rights, and, pointing to a quote that he said, regarding the exclusivity of it, is weirdly never shared in tandem with the quotes directly from SNS, stating that they were only going to work with one artist, and why they were only going to work with one artist, the technicalities of that, and why they chose Anish Kapoor.
I’m pretty sure I said in my original post that they were inundated with calls, and they chose Anish. So trying to lay out a story about how there were other artists involved Was already explained.
I’m also pretty sure that I explicitly said in my post that Anish Kapoor was very wealthy and very successful and didn’t necessarily need our sympathy
Also, most of this has been addressed in the article, I myself shared. So the fact that other artists were already kind of upset, but the reason I said it was relatively unheard of is because the general public had no knowledge of this until Stuart simple entered the chat. Which is why I phrased it exactly the way that I did.
I stand on every single thing that I said, and I fundamentally believe that everything that I said barring me making tongue and cheek comments about Stuart simple, living with his mother, are backed up by the evidence. And it’s not just me at this point hundreds of people have been providing articles and contacts that literally all just say exactly what I already said. 
You’re not gonna be happy about this, but I’m sorry the additions to this post that you’ve made are neither really all that supplemental nor transformational. You have not successfully shifted the narrative and I think based on both my research and all the research done by people in the crowd following this that we’re all pretty confident that yeah Stewart simple as a fucking asshole. Anish Kapoor is also an asshole. And people have been adding some context around Stewart and his career that I do think is interesting and should color the conversation.
So I’m not amending my original post because I stand by it and I really personally don’t think that you’ve added anything to debunk anything I’ve said, especially in the context of actual quotes and articles from SNS at the time along with everything else that everybody else has already shared. But I have responded to this, against my better judgment, and people can read your post and decide for themselves.
Thank you for replying, I appreciate you looking at it.
However, what you've said here doesn't actually defend your statements. You haven't rebutted anything, you've just repeated that you're right and that you won't be correcting it because you don't believe anything that you've said was misinformation.
A couple of examples of what I mean:
1) If you reread the section I wrote on Kapoor and Semple's wealth, you'll see that I'm highlighting how you frame the argument dishonestly. You portray Semple was as a working class artist who was slandering Kapoor as part of a racist grift, when he was already richer than I'll ever be, before he ever criticized Kapoor.
That means your argument relies on people seeing Semple as a struggling artist, specifically so he could disguise a racist attack on Kapoor's reputation. If you can't demonstrate that Semple was seen as a struggling artist, that argument doesn't hold water.
Also, Kapoor's reputation and wealth are relevant to the conversation when we're talking about why the controversy exists, because you portrayed it as being manufactured by Semple. People already saw Kapoor as a wealthy elitist beforehand. It's not about Kapoor deserving or not deserving sympathy, it's that he was the controversial figure first.
So, like I mentioned before, you've specifically called out Semple as being a slanderer several times in your writings on the topic, but people were openly criticizing Kapoor's elitism before Semple ever entered the conversation.
And this doesn't even touch on how you've talked about this as though it's all about Semple getting rich off Kapoor's back, when Culture Hustle (the company Semple started) has been a collaborative effort on the part of a community of artists who sought to fill an unmet need?
2) It was clearly reported on at the time that Kapoor pursued an exclusive contract with Surrey Nanosystems and we weren't party to how that came about. Since Kapoor talked about acquiring exclusive rights, it seems believable that he played a part in shaping Surrey Nanosystem's decision on the matter.
Additionally, they will let people use Vantablack, just not as an artistic material. Popular Science talked a little bit about their side of the conversation, and does confirm that they agreed to an exclusive contract for a few reasons, like not wanting to deal with the difficulty of exporting it outside the UK:
Thing is, that doesn't change Kapoor's part in the situation. He still pursued and acquired those exclusive rights and then defended it.
He still chose to monopolize the material and it's pretty fair to describe that as literal elitism. You haven't said anything to refute that.
3) You assert that the general public didn't know any of this, when not only was it widely reported on, enough people know about it that as soon as I came across your post I knew it didn't match up with what really happened. I'm a part of the general public, I don't follow the art world, and yet I knew about it because of the reporting that came out at the time.
By portraying the general public as ignorant of the facts, you're framing your own narrative as shining light on an untold story. That's okay, as long as you get the facts right, but you haven't, hence my post.
-
As a final point, has anyone ever mentioned that you talk like a conservative in these posts?
You misspelled Semple's name as Simple, mention that he was living with his mother for seemingly no reason, and lean heavily on the idea that the reason the Vantablack controversy exists is because he's a racist and a slanderer. That's exactly how people on the right use emotionally charged language and weasel words to try to persuade their audience rather than make a solid argument backed up by evidence. Semple himself pointed out that you misspelled his name and you brushed it off as being...idk, grammatical pedantry?
Are you asking me to believe that it's a coincidence that you made your argument sound like this? Are you asking me to take it as an excuse that you're composing on mobile and thus can't go into more detail? What sort of details would make it appropriate to call someone simple and say that they live with their mother to imply that they're pathetic, anyhow?
It's your choice if you want to dig in your heels, but I would really encourage you to reconsider. It's not ethical to spread misinformation.
I'm somewhat skeptical that you reviewed the available sources on the matter and reconsidered your position in the 28 minutes it took you to see my reply and compose this one. That doesn't sound like you actually considered that you might have gotten something wrong, that sounds like you fired off a quick reply as soon as you saw that I'd asked you to consider retracting and revising your statement.
EDIT: Apologies, I've presented this like I'm interested in a back and forth. I just wanted to leave this as my final thoughts on the matter. Barring unusual circumstances, this is all I want to say about it.
Ok so this is spot on. Almost all there - only thing to correct - I wish I had $20million not quite ;P.
Pinkest Pink - I put it up as a bit of performance art to raise awareness for the issue of eletism and access in art. i didn't expect to sell any paint.
Made paint since I was a kid but never sold any or even tried to, as my career was and is being an artist. It's how I pay the bills.
Culturehustle remains a non-profit and I put everything back into developing and sharing these materials with brave artists. I'm amazed at how far we've come as community. I do CH as a labour of love, I just enjoy seeing artists making work. It's not my main thing.
That's what I get for taking the first estimated net worth figure I found in a google search. I knew it wasn't a good idea to try to guess at that. A lesson for next time.
-
Still hoping that afronerdism actually reviews any of the evidence of what actually happened and retracts the original post, since that didn't happen the first time around, like I described above.
Like, one can say 'oh, well people will see both posts and make up their own minds' but that's a little rich coming from afronerdism when the original post has thousands of notes on it and debunking it will reach a tiny fraction of that audience.
That's still on you to fix, afronerdism. You fabricated a bunch of misinformation and then spread it to thousands of people. Maybe you came up with the story yourself, maybe you repeated what you got from someone else, but it took me all of a few minutes to write a debunk of the original post.
It's your responsibility to clean up your mess. When can we see you demonstrate some accountability?
The amount of hate I'm getting after afronerdism's post is ridiculous. I've literally had people who get their news from tumblr start commenting on the work of students in my art school - so unfair on them. And my gosh what people are saying about me. It's totally untrue. But sadly people belive what they read on tumblr. I wish your debunking could reach the people who've been duped by that post, but unfortuately I don't think it will, the origianl post is spreading like wildfire. I guess that's the fake-news world we live in these days, where someone on tumblr can invent something based on something they read on tumblr once and tens of thousands of people will fall for it. So sad. But also very specific to tumblr, I don;t get this on facebook, insta or twitter. I think maybe because people on those platforms actually know me.
Is there a reason the Anish Kapoor Vantablack situation post is locked for reblogs? Seems like useful/important info on a messy situation to share and I'm bummed I can't pass it on
I locked it because I felt it was getting out of control. After Stewart Semple himself decided to get on ,Tumblr after four years, and replied to me saying very odd things in my opinion about the race of his child and other such, there started being an influx of anon hate etc. not like constructive or dissenting opinions which I was happy to respond to and debate with, but just crass and useless hateful rhetoric about me is an individual. Before that particular side of Tumblr, who are rabbid Stuart Semple fans start to flood my inbox. I just locked it there. I gave Stuart like 10 hours to respond if he wanted to and then just decided to call it. 
But if you care about the information, there are tons of posts on Tumblr that detailed the situation in similar detail with the same opinion, which is actually how I found out about the other side years ago. If people stop sending me ugly messages about it, I’ll probably unlock it but for now I’m just not in the mood.
I have to admit, the timing was so perfect that I wondered if the post got locked because I just dropped a debunk of afronerdism's post...about 3 hours ago, but no, I was wrong. Stuart Semple really did comment on it around the same time.
Alas, afronerdism probably hasn't even seen my post. I'm guessing it got locked sometime after I queued up my reblog about 9 hours ago.
So!
Here's a link to the post where I debunk the argument:
It does not correct the narrative. Instead, it presents a biased view that is deceptive and inaccurate.
Let's go through a few corrections t
afronerdism, would you consider reviewing the evidence again to retract your original statements? I laid out most of the major issues in my debunk post, along with sources if you'd like to do some research on the topic before hand.
If you were willing to review the facts of the issue and correct your previous post I think it'd do a lot to help correct the misinformation that your post spread. It would really help if you'd be willing to reconsider your position.
Hey, so I read through what you said, and I think I actually may have even read it earlier. The problem here is that you’re attempting to correct what you’re calling misinformation that was already plainly stated or given, and in some areas you’re just wrong. Most of the points that you have raised have already been raised by other people and addressed. I’m not gonna go through piece by piece, but I will point out a few things.
Your arguments that Anish did not have to have exclusive rights, and, pointing to a quote that he said, regarding the exclusivity of it, is weirdly never shared in tandem with the quotes directly from SNS, stating that they were only going to work with one artist, and why they were only going to work with one artist, the technicalities of that, and why they chose Anish Kapoor.
I’m pretty sure I said in my original post that they were inundated with calls, and they chose Anish. So trying to lay out a story about how there were other artists involved Was already explained.
I’m also pretty sure that I explicitly said in my post that Anish Kapoor was very wealthy and very successful and didn’t necessarily need our sympathy
Also, most of this has been addressed in the article, I myself shared. So the fact that other artists were already kind of upset, but the reason I said it was relatively unheard of is because the general public had no knowledge of this until Stuart simple entered the chat. Which is why I phrased it exactly the way that I did.
I stand on every single thing that I said, and I fundamentally believe that everything that I said barring me making tongue and cheek comments about Stuart simple, living with his mother, are backed up by the evidence. And it’s not just me at this point hundreds of people have been providing articles and contacts that literally all just say exactly what I already said. 
You’re not gonna be happy about this, but I’m sorry the additions to this post that you’ve made are neither really all that supplemental nor transformational. You have not successfully shifted the narrative and I think based on both my research and all the research done by people in the crowd following this that we’re all pretty confident that yeah Stewart simple as a fucking asshole. Anish Kapoor is also an asshole. And people have been adding some context around Stewart and his career that I do think is interesting and should color the conversation.
So I’m not amending my original post because I stand by it and I really personally don’t think that you’ve added anything to debunk anything I’ve said, especially in the context of actual quotes and articles from SNS at the time along with everything else that everybody else has already shared. But I have responded to this, against my better judgment, and people can read your post and decide for themselves.
Thank you for replying, I appreciate you looking at it.
However, what you've said here doesn't actually defend your statements. You haven't rebutted anything, you've just repeated that you're right and that you won't be correcting it because you don't believe anything that you've said was misinformation.
A couple of examples of what I mean:
1) If you reread the section I wrote on Kapoor and Semple's wealth, you'll see that I'm highlighting how you frame the argument dishonestly. You portray Semple was as a working class artist who was slandering Kapoor as part of a racist grift, when he was already richer than I'll ever be, before he ever criticized Kapoor.
That means your argument relies on people seeing Semple as a struggling artist, specifically so he could disguise a racist attack on Kapoor's reputation. If you can't demonstrate that Semple was seen as a struggling artist, that argument doesn't hold water.
Also, Kapoor's reputation and wealth are relevant to the conversation when we're talking about why the controversy exists, because you portrayed it as being manufactured by Semple. People already saw Kapoor as a wealthy elitist beforehand. It's not about Kapoor deserving or not deserving sympathy, it's that he was the controversial figure first.
So, like I mentioned before, you've specifically called out Semple as being a slanderer several times in your writings on the topic, but people were openly criticizing Kapoor's elitism before Semple ever entered the conversation.
And this doesn't even touch on how you've talked about this as though it's all about Semple getting rich off Kapoor's back, when Culture Hustle (the company Semple started) has been a collaborative effort on the part of a community of artists who sought to fill an unmet need?
2) It was clearly reported on at the time that Kapoor pursued an exclusive contract with Surrey Nanosystems and we weren't party to how that came about. Since Kapoor talked about acquiring exclusive rights, it seems believable that he played a part in shaping Surrey Nanosystem's decision on the matter.
Additionally, they will let people use Vantablack, just not as an artistic material. Popular Science talked a little bit about their side of the conversation, and does confirm that they agreed to an exclusive contract for a few reasons, like not wanting to deal with the difficulty of exporting it outside the UK:
Thing is, that doesn't change Kapoor's part in the situation. He still pursued and acquired those exclusive rights and then defended it.
He still chose to monopolize the material and it's pretty fair to describe that as literal elitism. You haven't said anything to refute that.
3) You assert that the general public didn't know any of this, when not only was it widely reported on, enough people know about it that as soon as I came across your post I knew it didn't match up with what really happened. I'm a part of the general public, I don't follow the art world, and yet I knew about it because of the reporting that came out at the time.
By portraying the general public as ignorant of the facts, you're framing your own narrative as shining light on an untold story. That's okay, as long as you get the facts right, but you haven't, hence my post.
-
As a final point, has anyone ever mentioned that you talk like a conservative in these posts?
You misspelled Semple's name as Simple, mention that he was living with his mother for seemingly no reason, and lean heavily on the idea that the reason the Vantablack controversy exists is because he's a racist and a slanderer. That's exactly how people on the right use emotionally charged language and weasel words to try to persuade their audience rather than make a solid argument backed up by evidence. Semple himself pointed out that you misspelled his name and you brushed it off as being...idk, grammatical pedantry?
Are you asking me to believe that it's a coincidence that you made your argument sound like this? Are you asking me to take it as an excuse that you're composing on mobile and thus can't go into more detail? What sort of details would make it appropriate to call someone simple and say that they live with their mother to imply that they're pathetic, anyhow?
It's your choice if you want to dig in your heels, but I would really encourage you to reconsider. It's not ethical to spread misinformation.
I'm somewhat skeptical that you reviewed the available sources on the matter and reconsidered your position in the 28 minutes it took you to see my reply and compose this one. That doesn't sound like you actually considered that you might have gotten something wrong, that sounds like you fired off a quick reply as soon as you saw that I'd asked you to consider retracting and revising your statement.
EDIT: Apologies, I've presented this like I'm interested in a back and forth. I just wanted to leave this as my final thoughts on the matter. Barring unusual circumstances, this is all I want to say about it.
Ok so this is spot on. Almost all there - only thing to correct - I wish I had $20million not quite ;P.
Pinkest Pink - I put it up as a bit of performance art to raise awareness for the issue of eletism and access in art. i didn't expect to sell any paint.
Made paint since I was a kid but never sold any or even tried to, as my career was and is being an artist. It's how I pay the bills.
Culturehustle remains a non-profit and I put everything back into developing and sharing these materials with brave artists. I'm amazed at how far we've come as community. I do CH as a labour of love, I just enjoy seeing artists making work. It's not my main thing.
Spot on - this is about as accurate as you can get. Couple of points - I wish I had $20million! I really don't. I never expected anyone to buy the pink, it was more a piece of performance art to raise awareness about eletism and access in artworld. I was surprised anyone bought it, but glad they did as culturehustle was born (although I made paint since I was a kid I never did it for others or sold any). Culturehustle is actually a non-profit and everything goes back into making and researching materials for artists. I want brave artists to have access to materials to help them take their work to the next level. YES my job is as a contemporary artist, it's how I pay my bills and have done for 25 years. CH is a labour of love and something I do because I enjoy it and love collaborating with the art community on it. Black 4.0 proves it's possible to make a readily available super black, and we raised the funds to do 3.0 with a crowdfunder on Kickstarter. Anyway. Thanks so much for actually doing the research and getting it right. Means a lot, because it's hard work doing what I do and I don't want artists to miss out on being part of this exciting adventure just because some tumblr post fills their head with nonsense. LOVE YOU ALL x
It does not correct the narrative. Instead, it presents a biased view that is deceptive and inaccurate.
Let's go through a few corrections
Apparently I’ve just only been exposed to extremely biased sources on the situation. I was under the impression that Anish kapoor bought vanta black and made it so he was the only artist who could use it commercially
I figured as much. And it’s really not your fault, that’s what everybody thinks, because that is very specifically the narrative that Stewart simple propagated to the media, which worked because it launched his career. We all hate the idea of an elitist asshole gatekeeping something, especially in the name of art. But as I’m about to explain, nothing is further from the truth than that narrative.
So in order for me to explain this to people who’ve only ever heard the Stewart simple version of the story. I need to reset the narrative around Vantablack so let’s discuss the following framework.:
What Vantablack is: Vantablack is a substance made out of carbon nano tubes, originally grown in a lab and functions as the darkest synthetic material on earth. Under a microscope Vanta black looks more like shards of glass, sticking out as tubes. The original version of Vanta Black was so difficult to work with that there was no possible way it could be used outside of its original intent.
What Vantablack is not: a pigment. A paint. Vantablack is not something that you were supposed to use to paint with.
Who creates and distributes Vantablack: an engineering company named Surrey NanoSystems.
Who does not do those things: an art house. A distribution company. Any kind of company that creates and distributes pigments on a massive, artistic scale.
Who was Vantablack made for: Vanta Black was made by aerospace engineers for aerospace engineers, looking for something to coat the insides of massive NASA telescopes.
Who it was not made for: artists.
———————————-——————————————
Hopefully already just by understanding what Vantablack is, what it was made for, and who it’s made by you and other people are beginning to see what the problem is with Stuart simples narrative around Vanta black. 
But you may be wondering if Vanta black is a highly toxic unstable substance made out of carbon nano tubes by aerospace engineers for aerospace engineers, working in space, then how did we get here? well, Vanta, black 2.0, if you will was created in such a way that it could be sprayed onto substances in a certain way meaning that theoretically it could be used artistically. Surround nanosystems held an exhibition where they displayed Vanta black and when artist saw this, they were inundated with calls from artist, wanting to use it in their work. But as we’ve already established surrey nanosystems is not a distribution company. They’re an engineering company. And they made the decision that they could only work with one artist, because they simply did not have the physical ability to produce Vantablack at a scale that allowed them to work with more than one person. (To this day, vanta Black has to be distributed by a specialized robotic arm that creates it in painfully small amounts in an enclosed box that can then be given to someone in a lab. )
Enter Anish Kapoor: Anish Kapoor, at this time was already a world, renowned artist, and the creator of many public facing pieces, such as cloud gate, a.k.a. the Chicago Bean. His entire life‘s work was dedicated to how light is refracted and interplays with the void, making him not only the perfect person to be chosen because of prestige but also because his life‘s work spoke to the engineers who created Vanta black.
Now this should’ve been seen as an incredible accomplishment and honor for this Indian artist to be chosen as the soul licensor of Vantablack as this company was only able to choose one person and people were really excited about this for him and that’s where the story ends, right? Right? Right? 
Enter Stuart Semple: Stuart simple was a 25-year-old man in the UK living with his mother when she came into his room and told him about Vantablack. As an artist himself, Stewart simple wanted to try Vanta Black, and was told by the company that he could not. It was then that he discovered the only person on earth licensed to use Vantablack was Anish Kapoor. Please keep in mind that Vantablack is not a paint, and it is so difficult to work with that Anish Kapoor has only ever produced one singular piece of art with Vantablack. So like a child who has just been told by their mom that they can’t use something, Stewart simple decided to throw a hissy fit. He created a pink pigment that he conditionally said everyone could use except Anish Kapoor and then launch this pigment with the hashtag #ShareTheBlack. 
This caught the attention of the news media, and when asked about this situation, that was previously relatively unheard of, Stuart simple, went onto describe Anish Kapoor as this tyrannical elitist who “banned“ the use of Vantablack to keep other artists from using it. But hopefully you can already see how that is Literally not true. Anish Kapoor does not make Vanta black. Anish Kapoor cannot sell Vanta black. Anish Kapoor cannot give you permission to use Vanta black. And Vanta black is not even a paint. 
But the narrative of some elitist asshole gatekeeping, a color, versus some poor, struggling artist, was so catching that tens of thousands of people on the Internet flooded Anish Kapoor‘s social media, pages to talk shit about him and to this day when Anish Kapoor is brought up, it’s always “fuck Anish Kapoor“ meanwhile Stuart has launched an entire very lucrative career around slandering and smearing Anish Kapoor when Anish Kapoor literally never did anything but be qualified enough to be the one person chosen by a company that is literally only able to work with one person at a time. 
The fact remains Stewart simple, very intentionally allows this narrative to continue because it makes him money. He has made a ton of money off of slandering Anish Kapoor as if Anish Kapoor is the reason he can’t use Vanta black when the reason he can’t use Vanta black is because no one can use Vanta black, and the only person who might be able to use it is Anish Kapoor and that is not Anish Kapoor‘s fault. 
It is not lost on me that there are racial connotations to the story as well. There are actual companies and artists in the world who have trademarks around certain colors that they do not allow other people to use in public showcases. But we really as a community allowed this white man to smear and slander an Indian artist, based entirely off of misinformation, and to this day people jump on the Internet, saying fuck Anish Kapoor because of it. Now, Anish Kapoor is not some struggling person. He is probably a multibajillionaire And doesn’t necessarily need our sympathy. But I think the story of Vantablack is a really good case study of how misinformation spreads, and how people never bother to question the framework of a story. 
This is an incredibly important post about how we need to question sensationalized stories and double check what we hear and learn. Thank you so much to @afronerdism for bringing this up and writing such a concise post. I'm incredibly grateful for your work here.
Stories like this are really fun to engage with, and I've even said "fuck Anish Kapoor" before, without knowing much about his history or work. That's usually not like me! But it's easy to get caught up in something that feels righteous on a surface level and seems easy to get behind. It's really nice sometimes for things to feel clear cut.
So spending time to learn more about Anish Kapoor and his work, I highly recommend you look! His Wikipedia is of course, a nice first glance. But what I found was a sensitive and thoughtful man exploring so many themes both deeply personal and also so very relatable. His art really speaks to me.
"In the end, I’m talking about myself. And thinking about making nothing, which I see as a void. But then that’s something, even though it really is nothing." -Anish Kapoor
Anish Kapoor also works with stainless steel, which requires permission to use. He was confused by the backlash because no one seemed bothered by that. I suppose Stuart Semple wasn't in the business of making complex metal compounds. Just like he lacks the training and extensive spray systems (he could probably now afford from his success with selling Black 2.0 and 3.0) to work with Vantablack VBx2.3: A liquid paint by Surrey Nanosystems available to studios who have the correct tools and training for use as mentioned above.
I generally consider myself an art cat man, not a science cat man - so I'll let Surrey NanoSystems explain the development and innovation of Vantablack and its further iterations, which can be found: Here
( If any of those sources go down, I'm referencing the Surrey NonSystems site directly, where they talk about all their work and have extensive information on Vantablack and its development. )
[ It's also of note that Kapoor HAS made more pieces with Vantablack and its iterations. He sold a set of luxury watches in 2017 and released new works using Vantablack in 2022. ]
If you were saying "Aw man, I really do like using Black 2.0 and Black 3.0 as pigments, but I don't want to support a branded campaign meant to disparage one artist to grow a following and lucrative business for another: Try Musou Black by KOYO Orient Japan Co., Ltd.
That's quite expensive you may muse, considering importation fees. But, if your goal is the blackest black, Musou Black is darker than Black 3.0.
There are TONS of videos, reddit posts, and blogs documenting the difference between the two paints.
Particularly useful is The Black Market, which is KOYO Orient Japan's English storefront that sells not only Musou Black, but Kiwami Black Fabric.
If that cost is not something you can manage, any variety of Mars Black is perfectly serviceable. It's the most opaque black not created with a carbon base.
It's been widely available and affordable since the 1950s.
It ages well, and is the safest of the black pigments to use (considered non-toxic).
I'm not paid to say this, but when I want a very smooth, very opaque black I go for Liquitex's Mars Black, but any brand's variation of Mars Black will do.
Go forth with this information, and be very metal in echoing the *true dark* you need in your works.
This post has been recently updated to include that Anish Kapoor has made more pieces recently with Vantablack and appropriate links to source that!
Thanks,
The Cat Man MGMT (who is just me).
Can I just say how proud of you all I am that you aren’t just taking my word for it and that you’re all fact checking this and even if you’re realizing that I was correct, I am super proud of all of you for doing your due diligence because I could’ve just been some crackhead on the Internet. 
I think it's important to note that Anish Kapoor is also Jewish, and there's a Subtle Additional Bit Of Shittiness when you aim all of that "oooh, that greedy person is keeping this thing from you," at a Jew.
For these savvy fact checkers who can’t even spell my name.
I’d just like to say - what a load of nonsense you type, to make yourself look like you’ve uncovered something.
Actually you’re totally misinformed, you’re reading too much into it. And you’re a bit lost.
I was 36
My name is Stuart Semple not Stewart Simple (how you can fact check something if you can’t even spell the name worries me)
Living with my partner and doing shows all over the world.
Already well known in the artworld (google will help you)
Vanta story covered by BBC, Times, Washington Post, Wired etc… all of them have journalistic rules and codes, they spoke to the creators of vanta and those articles were all fact checked by law. You can rely on them.
Vantablack has been used by Kapoor on several works at the Venice biennale.
Many other creators jewellers, brands, architects even bands have had items coated in vantablack.
The only category of person excluded from using vantablack are people who identify as ‘artists’
If you call the company, and you’ve got the cash and you’re not an artist they’ll coat an object for you or sell you the spray version.
The only time in history an artist has been disallowed to pay to use something that everyone else can pay to use is vantablack.
Black 4.0 was created over 7 years with the art community as a collaboration.
Every bottle is non-profit and it enabled the creation of affordable art studios, research into new materials for artists, and a totally free to visit gallery and education program.
Ethnicity - not an issue here as colours by Yves Klein, Barbie and even Pantone have been liberated, Kapoor wasn’t in any way singled out by me.
(Note, my partner is half Indian - which means my son is mixed race - my family were European jews that fled Eastern Europe as refugees during the war to settle here)
This is about access to materials and elitism within the artworld not race or religion.
Black 4.0 proves that the creators of vanta with their billions of pounds and amazing resources had no reason to exclude artists.
I'll leave you to research kapoors behaviour when it came to his neighbors in south london, suing people for taking photos of the bean and even suing china. If you're really interested in all this you can read my review of Kapoors exhibition at Haughton Hall here, and you'll see how I feel about his work (spoiler - you might be surprised that I don;t hate it at all) https://artlyst.com/features/anish-kapoor-country-house-splendour-stuart-semple/
Black 4.0 is about elitism and access in the artworld - which is the real issued and the best way to understand that is to watch this video:
Had no idea you were here on tumblr, but wanted to say love your work!! The things you do for the art community and art pieces you make are incredible!! and the fact that you and your friends/team actually like?? Make?? Really freaking cool paints i wish i could buy?? Its hella inspiring and hella awesome to see!! Wishing you the best, hope you have a good day and good 2021 when it comes, take care n stay hydrated :D
Awww thank you!!! Actually my new year's resolution is to drink more water thanks for the reminder! And thanks for being so lovely! Happy holidays X
I didn't hold back - for the first time I felt confident enough to share what I think. I'm hoping there might be some biggest in here that other creators have the confidence to make their work! Love Stuart X
Hey I'm sorry that person on tumblr is spreading misinformation about you. Tumblr does that to people sometimes. I promise the majority of people still hold your name in good light.
Thanks that means a lot I'm just really upset to read such strange untrue stuff about what I've been doing! I've been trying to help people :( it's really sad! Anyway I'm stepping away from all this in the new year - but thanks for messaging it means a lot to have some support! Happy holidays love Stuart X
@yoursaltness
ok so i dont have the original post that detailed exactly why, actually, anish kapoor did not deserve all the shit he got, because i can only find stuff against kapoor by looking him up (which is part of the problem..) but basically what i recall on this (do NOT quote me bc this is just my recollection of reading a much better overview of this issue which i cant find anymore):
1. the pigment anish kapoor copyrighted, vantablack, was never originally going to be made for public use, and therefore he wasnt “stealing” its use from other artists
2. vantablack was not an art pigment in the first place and generally not useable for most art, and was not made for art.
3. stuart semple already was going to release his pigments before the anish kapoor copyright happened, and just jumped on it as a publicity stunt.
the root of the issue is that stuart semple, a white british artist, painted himself as this big proletariat hero SAVING ART from the evil indian rich person, even though semple is rich himself, and his use of an artist of color as a stepping stone for publicity while villainizing him as greedy and selfish was cheered on by everyone everywhere - including me! i also fell for it!
i dont exactly care about kapoor. hes a very rich man, which i despise, and i dont hold his art in my heart either. but its more about the fact that we all fell into the trap of making a man of colors whole career into a big old farce for the benefit of a white competitor, and if we can do it to a VERY RICH man of color, then were doing it to people of color everywhere who dont have kapoors millions. so thats the issue for me ig
i like to believe that if the kapoor/semple feud happened today i would be smart and discerning enough to actually look into the facts instead of jumping on the bandwagon of treating people of color as cartoon villains the moment a white person paints them like such in the media. but idk that i really would, and maybe id fall for it again. i think its a good reminder that just because someone is telling a good story, or an entertaining or satisfying one, doesnt mean the story is true, and that we shouldnt question it when its about the real world.
oh yeah, also, millionaire semple didnt pay his employees, who were fellow artists. proletariat hero indeed! this is from 2014, the kapoor drama started in 2016, so i wouldnt be surprised if he started it not just for the benefit of his own reputation and publicity for his product, but also to build himself a better image after defrauding smaller artists.
Not sure if the Tumblr community has got the memo. I've spent lockdown work with my friends and some geeks on a totally free digital museum for everyone. I think it's import art is accessible and available - if you'd like to visit you can head to https://voma.space
(unless you're Kapoor)
Stay Arty my lovelies!
Hugs Stuart x
I'm not sure if you lovely tumblrs got the memo but I spent lockdown with some geeky friends building everyone a totally free online museum - I think art should be for everyone. VOMA isn't quite finished but with the museum's and galleries shut I thought I'd share it as a wip - you can visit it at https://voma.space
Right guys after quite a heavy legal letter on behalf of he-who-shall-not-be-named last week :( and on seeing that one of our cult members (CJ) decided to start a petition to rename the bean
Rename “The Bean”
And the fact that he never apologised for nicking off with our pink even though I was being lovely, and that he succeeded in stealing the light from his neighbor's and his latest exhibition is in a house funded by the evil end of colonial slavery
Anish Kapoor is about objects and the nature of objects. He finds a historical pantheon of sculptural form and materials at Houghton Hall
I have decided that the best thing to do is to release a video and a song and have a big old party (socially distanced and masked of course) at the bean in Chicago!
So come down and join in - the more we listen to the song the further it will go up the charts and the more likely it is for bean boy to hear it everywhere he goes!
The bean event is here:
Art event in Chicago, IL, United States by Stuart Semple on Saturday, September 5 2020
Spread the word!
Ps - any proceeds from streams of the song will go to CALM (campaign against living miserably) a male suicide charity, as sadly the single biggest cause if death for young males in my country is suicide, with covid and job losses, CALM will be needed more than ever!
For more info on the song or to watch the video check:
I've made you all a real life art shop in the center of London - *anyone can come in and use the colourist colours and paint it's totally free!! Come down we are open 10-7 everyday except Sunday (11-4) we would love to meet you! Info on where to find us is here: culturehustle.com
Guys!!! I can't actually believe our little PINK made it onto QI last night - weird but cool! Kapoor got a bit of a roasting - almost makes me feel sorry for him :(
By watching this you confirm that you are not kapoor - this was the last art war... The next one will be bigger - much bigger I'm going to plunder all the colours back for artists
THUNDER FROM MY HEART @thunderfrommyheart - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
tangentwithtanner
2087
discoholicmusic
germansingergirl
yousharknotpass
kianamaiart
