view additional image 1
View in a Room ArtworkView in a Room Background
"The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself"

Integrates the series "A Dangerous Art", which is a subseries of "A Dangerous Monkey".

LINK to video (in Portuguese) where I talk about the work and show details and references: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8KfAmrNejI&t=289s

An apparently "harmless" work, but which reserves great references to famous and often controversial works.
As it could not be otherwise, I reserve a significant part of my humor as an artist to convey my message. Let´s begin!

The first reference that this "bomb-shark-with-banana-fins-adorned-by-colored-spots" presents is precisely in relation to its title. The extensive title and the figure of the shark obviously refer to the shark in Damien Hirst's formaldehyde tank, entitled "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living".

My game with the title (which I will talk about in more detail at the end) starts there. For now I will focus on the fact that "my" shark is aesthetically based on a Lego shark, and not on a realistic shark like Hirst's.

I understand Hirst's intent with his slowly decomposing work and the scary shark analogy with the idea of ​​life and death - and our difficult understanding while we're alive. However, by taking over the central figure of Hirst's work through this toy shark, I intend to make the work lighter, at the same time that I open doors to, in a way, ridicule the artistic universe in a playful way.

Note that my shark devours the spots. Where there would be blood stains, we see colored marks from the spots that were chewed as he continues to break barriers in this artistic world with the impulse of his ... banana fins!

Ahhhh ... the famous presence of the banana figure in my last works. This fruity figure that appeared with the "A Dangerous Monkey" series.
In a way, I prefer not to restrict the symbolism of the banana in the paintings, but I would like to add that I never thought about Andy Warhol's banana at all when conceiving it. I'm not really a fan of Warhol, although I obviously recognize his important role in the history of recent art.
Let's say that bananas have much more to do with the idea propagated by Cattelan (which I have already talked about in other paintings). If Cattelan derived his idea (also) from Warhol, that's another story. But Cattelan's sarcasm undoubtedly influences the meaning of the bananas that permeate my paintings.

Finishing the central figure, we see that the shark takes the form of a bomb, more specifically a bomb of the Second World War. The design is similar to the Little Boy atomic bomb, which was dropped on Nagasaki. It is ironic that the name of the bomb that killed the most humans at one time in our history is called the little boy, while my shark is a child's toy.

These are connections that were created as I progressed in the development of the work, and were not necessarily thought of at first.

By using the design of a WWII bomb, I tried to bring up the idea of ​​devastating bombings that not only claimed countless lives, but also destroyed human assets of inestimable artistic value, such as the German city of Dresden, whose destruction still generates much controversy about their need (just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Could it be that the paths that modern / contemporary art have taken are also causing the same destruction with the exaggerated post-modernist ideal of deconstruction and relativization of everything and everyone and a mental laziness that approaches a cognitive fraud (see the name of the work)?
This questioning of mine is one of the central ideas of "A Dangerous Art".

Complementing the design of the bomb, I write on the body of the bomb, with a stencil style font, the name of the series "A DANGEROUS ART" and below "1000lbs B-BOMB - CARRAZEDO".
It's a way of signing the job and making the carcass more realistic and interesting, just as I create time stamps and writing on the carcass just as they did during the war.

About the spots, I already talk about them in other works, I don't know if there is a need to repeat myself on the subject. Anyway, contrary to Hirst's idea of ​​making them "as close to what a machine can do" (or in his case, that his assistants can do, mine are made in a more humane way in the sense of that they aim to give a more playful, not robotic air. And yes, I do them myself, one by one.


And finally, to conclude the question of the title of the work, it is worth repeating (because yes, right): "The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself",
Just as it is impossible for someone alive to understand death, I elaborate the theory that it is impossible to involuntarily accept something (be it an idea, situation, etc.) that is of an intellectually low level by someone that is minimally enlightened. By "intellectually low", it can be from a fruitless discussion, a sensationalist TV program, a corrupt and populist government, a work of art that is only considered a work of art because the "artist" said it is, and so many other things that immediately contradict those who are minimally enlightened and sure of themselves.
In order to get on with life with so many things and situations like the ones I described above, it is necessary, therefore, to be mentally willing to accept them (that is, voluntarily) in favor of a greater good, such as ending a fruitless discussion and go on with life or provisionally accept a situation in order to get out of it in the future.

It is in a way a sarcastic piece, but it hides an important strategy of survival in any environment: social, artistic, political, etc.

I do not know if I am understood, but I can say that, at least I am sure that I am gradually reaching my goal of disseminating my message.

Thank you





FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM: @CarrazedoArt
Always mention SaatchiArt.
www.EricCarrazedo.com
"The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself"

Integrates the series "A Dangerous Art", which is a subseries of "A Dangerous Monkey".

LINK to video (in Portuguese) where I talk about the work and show details and references: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8KfAmrNejI&t=289s

An apparently "harmless" work, but which reserves great references to famous and often controversial works.
As it could not be otherwise, I reserve a significant part of my humor as an artist to convey my message. Let´s begin!

The first reference that this "bomb-shark-with-banana-fins-adorned-by-colored-spots" presents is precisely in relation to its title. The extensive title and the figure of the shark obviously refer to the shark in Damien Hirst's formaldehyde tank, entitled "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living".

My game with the title (which I will talk about in more detail at the end) starts there. For now I will focus on the fact that "my" shark is aesthetically based on a Lego shark, and not on a realistic shark like Hirst's.

I understand Hirst's intent with his slowly decomposing work and the scary shark analogy with the idea of ​​life and death - and our difficult understanding while we're alive. However, by taking over the central figure of Hirst's work through this toy shark, I intend to make the work lighter, at the same time that I open doors to, in a way, ridicule the artistic universe in a playful way.

Note that my shark devours the spots. Where there would be blood stains, we see colored marks from the spots that were chewed as he continues to break barriers in this artistic world with the impulse of his ... banana fins!

Ahhhh ... the famous presence of the banana figure in my last works. This fruity figure that appeared with the "A Dangerous Monkey" series.
In a way, I prefer not to restrict the symbolism of the banana in the paintings, but I would like to add that I never thought about Andy Warhol's banana at all when conceiving it. I'm not really a fan of Warhol, although I obviously recognize his important role in the history of recent art.
Let's say that bananas have much more to do with the idea propagated by Cattelan (which I have already talked about in other paintings). If Cattelan derived his idea (also) from Warhol, that's another story. But Cattelan's sarcasm undoubtedly influences the meaning of the bananas that permeate my paintings.

Finishing the central figure, we see that the shark takes the form of a bomb, more specifically a bomb of the Second World War. The design is similar to the Little Boy atomic bomb, which was dropped on Nagasaki. It is ironic that the name of the bomb that killed the most humans at one time in our history is called the little boy, while my shark is a child's toy.

These are connections that were created as I progressed in the development of the work, and were not necessarily thought of at first.

By using the design of a WWII bomb, I tried to bring up the idea of ​​devastating bombings that not only claimed countless lives, but also destroyed human assets of inestimable artistic value, such as the German city of Dresden, whose destruction still generates much controversy about their need (just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Could it be that the paths that modern / contemporary art have taken are also causing the same destruction with the exaggerated post-modernist ideal of deconstruction and relativization of everything and everyone and a mental laziness that approaches a cognitive fraud (see the name of the work)?
This questioning of mine is one of the central ideas of "A Dangerous Art".

Complementing the design of the bomb, I write on the body of the bomb, with a stencil style font, the name of the series "A DANGEROUS ART" and below "1000lbs B-BOMB - CARRAZEDO".
It's a way of signing the job and making the carcass more realistic and interesting, just as I create time stamps and writing on the carcass just as they did during the war.

About the spots, I already talk about them in other works, I don't know if there is a need to repeat myself on the subject. Anyway, contrary to Hirst's idea of ​​making them "as close to what a machine can do" (or in his case, that his assistants can do, mine are made in a more humane way in the sense of that they aim to give a more playful, not robotic air. And yes, I do them myself, one by one.


And finally, to conclude the question of the title of the work, it is worth repeating (because yes, right): "The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself",
Just as it is impossible for someone alive to understand death, I elaborate the theory that it is impossible to involuntarily accept something (be it an idea, situation, etc.) that is of an intellectually low level by someone that is minimally enlightened. By "intellectually low", it can be from a fruitless discussion, a sensationalist TV program, a corrupt and populist government, a work of art that is only considered a work of art because the "artist" said it is, and so many other things that immediately contradict those who are minimally enlightened and sure of themselves.
In order to get on with life with so many things and situations like the ones I described above, it is necessary, therefore, to be mentally willing to accept them (that is, voluntarily) in favor of a greater good, such as ending a fruitless discussion and go on with life or provisionally accept a situation in order to get out of it in the future.

It is in a way a sarcastic piece, but it hides an important strategy of survival in any environment: social, artistic, political, etc.

I do not know if I am understood, but I can say that, at least I am sure that I am gradually reaching my goal of disseminating my message.

Thank you





FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM: @CarrazedoArt
Always mention SaatchiArt.
www.EricCarrazedo.com
"The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself"

Integrates the series "A Dangerous Art", which is a subseries of "A Dangerous Monkey".

LINK to video (in Portuguese) where I talk about the work and show details and references: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8KfAmrNejI&t=289s

An apparently "harmless" work, but which reserves great references to famous and often controversial works.
As it could not be otherwise, I reserve a significant part of my humor as an artist to convey my message. Let´s begin!

The first reference that this "bomb-shark-with-banana-fins-adorned-by-colored-spots" presents is precisely in relation to its title. The extensive title and the figure of the shark obviously refer to the shark in Damien Hirst's formaldehyde tank, entitled "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living".

My game with the title (which I will talk about in more detail at the end) starts there. For now I will focus on the fact that "my" shark is aesthetically based on a Lego shark, and not on a realistic shark like Hirst's.

I understand Hirst's intent with his slowly decomposing work and the scary shark analogy with the idea of ​​life and death - and our difficult understanding while we're alive. However, by taking over the central figure of Hirst's work through this toy shark, I intend to make the work lighter, at the same time that I open doors to, in a way, ridicule the artistic universe in a playful way.

Note that my shark devours the spots. Where there would be blood stains, we see colored marks from the spots that were chewed as he continues to break barriers in this artistic world with the impulse of his ... banana fins!

Ahhhh ... the famous presence of the banana figure in my last works. This fruity figure that appeared with the "A Dangerous Monkey" series.
In a way, I prefer not to restrict the symbolism of the banana in the paintings, but I would like to add that I never thought about Andy Warhol's banana at all when conceiving it. I'm not really a fan of Warhol, although I obviously recognize his important role in the history of recent art.
Let's say that bananas have much more to do with the idea propagated by Cattelan (which I have already talked about in other paintings). If Cattelan derived his idea (also) from Warhol, that's another story. But Cattelan's sarcasm undoubtedly influences the meaning of the bananas that permeate my paintings.

Finishing the central figure, we see that the shark takes the form of a bomb, more specifically a bomb of the Second World War. The design is similar to the Little Boy atomic bomb, which was dropped on Nagasaki. It is ironic that the name of the bomb that killed the most humans at one time in our history is called the little boy, while my shark is a child's toy.

These are connections that were created as I progressed in the development of the work, and were not necessarily thought of at first.

By using the design of a WWII bomb, I tried to bring up the idea of ​​devastating bombings that not only claimed countless lives, but also destroyed human assets of inestimable artistic value, such as the German city of Dresden, whose destruction still generates much controversy about their need (just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Could it be that the paths that modern / contemporary art have taken are also causing the same destruction with the exaggerated post-modernist ideal of deconstruction and relativization of everything and everyone and a mental laziness that approaches a cognitive fraud (see the name of the work)?
This questioning of mine is one of the central ideas of "A Dangerous Art".

Complementing the design of the bomb, I write on the body of the bomb, with a stencil style font, the name of the series "A DANGEROUS ART" and below "1000lbs B-BOMB - CARRAZEDO".
It's a way of signing the job and making the carcass more realistic and interesting, just as I create time stamps and writing on the carcass just as they did during the war.

About the spots, I already talk about them in other works, I don't know if there is a need to repeat myself on the subject. Anyway, contrary to Hirst's idea of ​​making them "as close to what a machine can do" (or in his case, that his assistants can do, mine are made in a more humane way in the sense of that they aim to give a more playful, not robotic air. And yes, I do them myself, one by one.


And finally, to conclude the question of the title of the work, it is worth repeating (because yes, right): "The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself",
Just as it is impossible for someone alive to understand death, I elaborate the theory that it is impossible to involuntarily accept something (be it an idea, situation, etc.) that is of an intellectually low level by someone that is minimally enlightened. By "intellectually low", it can be from a fruitless discussion, a sensationalist TV program, a corrupt and populist government, a work of art that is only considered a work of art because the "artist" said it is, and so many other things that immediately contradict those who are minimally enlightened and sure of themselves.
In order to get on with life with so many things and situations like the ones I described above, it is necessary, therefore, to be mentally willing to accept them (that is, voluntarily) in favor of a greater good, such as ending a fruitless discussion and go on with life or provisionally accept a situation in order to get out of it in the future.

It is in a way a sarcastic piece, but it hides an important strategy of survival in any environment: social, artistic, political, etc.

I do not know if I am understood, but I can say that, at least I am sure that I am gradually reaching my goal of disseminating my message.

Thank you





FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM: @CarrazedoArt
Always mention SaatchiArt.
www.EricCarrazedo.com
"The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself"

Integrates the series "A Dangerous Art", which is a subseries of "A Dangerous Monkey".

LINK to video (in Portuguese) where I talk about the work and show details and references: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8KfAmrNejI&t=289s

An apparently "harmless" work, but which reserves great references to famous and often controversial works.
As it could not be otherwise, I reserve a significant part of my humor as an artist to convey my message. Let´s begin!

The first reference that this "bomb-shark-with-banana-fins-adorned-by-colored-spots" presents is precisely in relation to its title. The extensive title and the figure of the shark obviously refer to the shark in Damien Hirst's formaldehyde tank, entitled "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living".

My game with the title (which I will talk about in more detail at the end) starts there. For now I will focus on the fact that "my" shark is aesthetically based on a Lego shark, and not on a realistic shark like Hirst's.

I understand Hirst's intent with his slowly decomposing work and the scary shark analogy with the idea of ​​life and death - and our difficult understanding while we're alive. However, by taking over the central figure of Hirst's work through this toy shark, I intend to make the work lighter, at the same time that I open doors to, in a way, ridicule the artistic universe in a playful way.

Note that my shark devours the spots. Where there would be blood stains, we see colored marks from the spots that were chewed as he continues to break barriers in this artistic world with the impulse of his ... banana fins!

Ahhhh ... the famous presence of the banana figure in my last works. This fruity figure that appeared with the "A Dangerous Monkey" series.
In a way, I prefer not to restrict the symbolism of the banana in the paintings, but I would like to add that I never thought about Andy Warhol's banana at all when conceiving it. I'm not really a fan of Warhol, although I obviously recognize his important role in the history of recent art.
Let's say that bananas have much more to do with the idea propagated by Cattelan (which I have already talked about in other paintings). If Cattelan derived his idea (also) from Warhol, that's another story. But Cattelan's sarcasm undoubtedly influences the meaning of the bananas that permeate my paintings.

Finishing the central figure, we see that the shark takes the form of a bomb, more specifically a bomb of the Second World War. The design is similar to the Little Boy atomic bomb, which was dropped on Nagasaki. It is ironic that the name of the bomb that killed the most humans at one time in our history is called the little boy, while my shark is a child's toy.

These are connections that were created as I progressed in the development of the work, and were not necessarily thought of at first.

By using the design of a WWII bomb, I tried to bring up the idea of ​​devastating bombings that not only claimed countless lives, but also destroyed human assets of inestimable artistic value, such as the German city of Dresden, whose destruction still generates much controversy about their need (just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Could it be that the paths that modern / contemporary art have taken are also causing the same destruction with the exaggerated post-modernist ideal of deconstruction and relativization of everything and everyone and a mental laziness that approaches a cognitive fraud (see the name of the work)?
This questioning of mine is one of the central ideas of "A Dangerous Art".

Complementing the design of the bomb, I write on the body of the bomb, with a stencil style font, the name of the series "A DANGEROUS ART" and below "1000lbs B-BOMB - CARRAZEDO".
It's a way of signing the job and making the carcass more realistic and interesting, just as I create time stamps and writing on the carcass just as they did during the war.

About the spots, I already talk about them in other works, I don't know if there is a need to repeat myself on the subject. Anyway, contrary to Hirst's idea of ​​making them "as close to what a machine can do" (or in his case, that his assistants can do, mine are made in a more humane way in the sense of that they aim to give a more playful, not robotic air. And yes, I do them myself, one by one.


And finally, to conclude the question of the title of the work, it is worth repeating (because yes, right): "The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself",
Just as it is impossible for someone alive to understand death, I elaborate the theory that it is impossible to involuntarily accept something (be it an idea, situation, etc.) that is of an intellectually low level by someone that is minimally enlightened. By "intellectually low", it can be from a fruitless discussion, a sensationalist TV program, a corrupt and populist government, a work of art that is only considered a work of art because the "artist" said it is, and so many other things that immediately contradict those who are minimally enlightened and sure of themselves.
In order to get on with life with so many things and situations like the ones I described above, it is necessary, therefore, to be mentally willing to accept them (that is, voluntarily) in favor of a greater good, such as ending a fruitless discussion and go on with life or provisionally accept a situation in order to get out of it in the future.

It is in a way a sarcastic piece, but it hides an important strategy of survival in any environment: social, artistic, political, etc.

I do not know if I am understood, but I can say that, at least I am sure that I am gradually reaching my goal of disseminating my message.

Thank you





FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM: @CarrazedoArt
Always mention SaatchiArt.
www.EricCarrazedo.com
"The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself"

Integrates the series "A Dangerous Art", which is a subseries of "A Dangerous Monkey".

LINK to video (in Portuguese) where I talk about the work and show details and references: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8KfAmrNejI&t=289s

An apparently "harmless" work, but which reserves great references to famous and often controversial works.
As it could not be otherwise, I reserve a significant part of my humor as an artist to convey my message. Let´s begin!

The first reference that this "bomb-shark-with-banana-fins-adorned-by-colored-spots" presents is precisely in relation to its title. The extensive title and the figure of the shark obviously refer to the shark in Damien Hirst's formaldehyde tank, entitled "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living".

My game with the title (which I will talk about in more detail at the end) starts there. For now I will focus on the fact that "my" shark is aesthetically based on a Lego shark, and not on a realistic shark like Hirst's.

I understand Hirst's intent with his slowly decomposing work and the scary shark analogy with the idea of ​​life and death - and our difficult understanding while we're alive. However, by taking over the central figure of Hirst's work through this toy shark, I intend to make the work lighter, at the same time that I open doors to, in a way, ridicule the artistic universe in a playful way.

Note that my shark devours the spots. Where there would be blood stains, we see colored marks from the spots that were chewed as he continues to break barriers in this artistic world with the impulse of his ... banana fins!

Ahhhh ... the famous presence of the banana figure in my last works. This fruity figure that appeared with the "A Dangerous Monkey" series.
In a way, I prefer not to restrict the symbolism of the banana in the paintings, but I would like to add that I never thought about Andy Warhol's banana at all when conceiving it. I'm not really a fan of Warhol, although I obviously recognize his important role in the history of recent art.
Let's say that bananas have much more to do with the idea propagated by Cattelan (which I have already talked about in other paintings). If Cattelan derived his idea (also) from Warhol, that's another story. But Cattelan's sarcasm undoubtedly influences the meaning of the bananas that permeate my paintings.

Finishing the central figure, we see that the shark takes the form of a bomb, more specifically a bomb of the Second World War. The design is similar to the Little Boy atomic bomb, which was dropped on Nagasaki. It is ironic that the name of the bomb that killed the most humans at one time in our history is called the little boy, while my shark is a child's toy.

These are connections that were created as I progressed in the development of the work, and were not necessarily thought of at first.

By using the design of a WWII bomb, I tried to bring up the idea of ​​devastating bombings that not only claimed countless lives, but also destroyed human assets of inestimable artistic value, such as the German city of Dresden, whose destruction still generates much controversy about their need (just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
Could it be that the paths that modern / contemporary art have taken are also causing the same destruction with the exaggerated post-modernist ideal of deconstruction and relativization of everything and everyone and a mental laziness that approaches a cognitive fraud (see the name of the work)?
This questioning of mine is one of the central ideas of "A Dangerous Art".

Complementing the design of the bomb, I write on the body of the bomb, with a stencil style font, the name of the series "A DANGEROUS ART" and below "1000lbs B-BOMB - CARRAZEDO".
It's a way of signing the job and making the carcass more realistic and interesting, just as I create time stamps and writing on the carcass just as they did during the war.

About the spots, I already talk about them in other works, I don't know if there is a need to repeat myself on the subject. Anyway, contrary to Hirst's idea of ​​making them "as close to what a machine can do" (or in his case, that his assistants can do, mine are made in a more humane way in the sense of that they aim to give a more playful, not robotic air. And yes, I do them myself, one by one.


And finally, to conclude the question of the title of the work, it is worth repeating (because yes, right): "The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself",
Just as it is impossible for someone alive to understand death, I elaborate the theory that it is impossible to involuntarily accept something (be it an idea, situation, etc.) that is of an intellectually low level by someone that is minimally enlightened. By "intellectually low", it can be from a fruitless discussion, a sensationalist TV program, a corrupt and populist government, a work of art that is only considered a work of art because the "artist" said it is, and so many other things that immediately contradict those who are minimally enlightened and sure of themselves.
In order to get on with life with so many things and situations like the ones I described above, it is necessary, therefore, to be mentally willing to accept them (that is, voluntarily) in favor of a greater good, such as ending a fruitless discussion and go on with life or provisionally accept a situation in order to get out of it in the future.

It is in a way a sarcastic piece, but it hides an important strategy of survival in any environment: social, artistic, political, etc.

I do not know if I am understood, but I can say that, at least I am sure that I am gradually reaching my goal of disseminating my message.

Thank you





FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM: @CarrazedoArt
Always mention SaatchiArt.
www.EricCarrazedo.com
56 Views
7

VIEW IN MY ROOM

The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself Painting

Eric Carrazedo

Brazil

Painting, Acrylic on Canvas

Size: 47.2 W x 35.4 H x 1.6 D in

Ships in a Tube

info-circle
SOLD
Originally listed for $5,500
Primary imagePrimary imagePrimary imagePrimary imagePrimary image Trustpilot Score
56 Views
7

Artist Recognition

link - Featured in the Catalog

Featured in the Catalog

link - Artist featured in a collection

Artist featured in a collection

About The Artwork

"The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself" Integrates the series "A Dangerous Art", which is a subseries of "A Dangerous Monkey". LINK to video (in Portuguese) where I talk about the work and show details and references: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8KfAmrNejI&t=289s An apparently "harmless" work, but which reserves great references to famous and often controversial works. As it could not be otherwise, I reserve a significant part of my humor as an artist to convey my message. Let´s begin! The first reference that this "bomb-shark-with-banana-fins-adorned-by-colored-spots" presents is precisely in relation to its title. The extensive title and the figure of the shark obviously refer to the shark in Damien Hirst's formaldehyde tank, entitled "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living". My game with the title (which I will talk about in more detail at the end) starts there. For now I will focus on the fact that "my" shark is aesthetically based on a Lego shark, and not on a realistic shark like Hirst's. I understand Hirst's intent with his slowly decomposing work and the scary shark analogy with the idea of ​​life and death - and our difficult understanding while we're alive. However, by taking over the central figure of Hirst's work through this toy shark, I intend to make the work lighter, at the same time that I open doors to, in a way, ridicule the artistic universe in a playful way. Note that my shark devours the spots. Where there would be blood stains, we see colored marks from the spots that were chewed as he continues to break barriers in this artistic world with the impulse of his ... banana fins! Ahhhh ... the famous presence of the banana figure in my last works. This fruity figure that appeared with the "A Dangerous Monkey" series. In a way, I prefer not to restrict the symbolism of the banana in the paintings, but I would like to add that I never thought about Andy Warhol's banana at all when conceiving it. I'm not really a fan of Warhol, although I obviously recognize his important role in the history of recent art. Let's say that bananas have much more to do with the idea propagated by Cattelan (which I have already talked about in other paintings). If Cattelan derived his idea (also) from Warhol, that's another story. But Cattelan's sarcasm undoubtedly influences the meaning of the bananas that permeate my paintings. Finishing the central figure, we see that the shark takes the form of a bomb, more specifically a bomb of the Second World War. The design is similar to the Little Boy atomic bomb, which was dropped on Nagasaki. It is ironic that the name of the bomb that killed the most humans at one time in our history is called the little boy, while my shark is a child's toy. These are connections that were created as I progressed in the development of the work, and were not necessarily thought of at first. By using the design of a WWII bomb, I tried to bring up the idea of ​​devastating bombings that not only claimed countless lives, but also destroyed human assets of inestimable artistic value, such as the German city of Dresden, whose destruction still generates much controversy about their need (just like Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Could it be that the paths that modern / contemporary art have taken are also causing the same destruction with the exaggerated post-modernist ideal of deconstruction and relativization of everything and everyone and a mental laziness that approaches a cognitive fraud (see the name of the work)? This questioning of mine is one of the central ideas of "A Dangerous Art". Complementing the design of the bomb, I write on the body of the bomb, with a stencil style font, the name of the series "A DANGEROUS ART" and below "1000lbs B-BOMB - CARRAZEDO". It's a way of signing the job and making the carcass more realistic and interesting, just as I create time stamps and writing on the carcass just as they did during the war. About the spots, I already talk about them in other works, I don't know if there is a need to repeat myself on the subject. Anyway, contrary to Hirst's idea of ​​making them "as close to what a machine can do" (or in his case, that his assistants can do, mine are made in a more humane way in the sense of that they aim to give a more playful, not robotic air. And yes, I do them myself, one by one. And finally, to conclude the question of the title of the work, it is worth repeating (because yes, right): "The cognitive impossibility of unwittingly swallowing bullshit in the mind of a person who is minimally sure of himself", Just as it is impossible for someone alive to understand death, I elaborate the theory that it is impossible to involuntarily accept something (be it an idea, situation, etc.) that is of an intellectually low level by someone that is minimally enlightened. By "intellectually low", it can be from a fruitless discussion, a sensationalist TV program, a corrupt and populist government, a work of art that is only considered a work of art because the "artist" said it is, and so many other things that immediately contradict those who are minimally enlightened and sure of themselves. In order to get on with life with so many things and situations like the ones I described above, it is necessary, therefore, to be mentally willing to accept them (that is, voluntarily) in favor of a greater good, such as ending a fruitless discussion and go on with life or provisionally accept a situation in order to get out of it in the future. It is in a way a sarcastic piece, but it hides an important strategy of survival in any environment: social, artistic, political, etc. I do not know if I am understood, but I can say that, at least I am sure that I am gradually reaching my goal of disseminating my message. Thank you FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM: @CarrazedoArt Always mention SaatchiArt. www.EricCarrazedo.com

Details & Dimensions

Painting:Acrylic on Canvas

Original:One-of-a-kind Artwork

Size:47.2 W x 35.4 H x 1.6 D in

Shipping & Returns

Delivery Time:Typically 5-7 business days for domestic shipments, 10-14 business days for international shipments.

Eric Carrazedo de Andrade (1987 - São Paulo, Brazil) Lives and works in São Paulo. Brazil. -- www.EricCarrazedo.com -- Instagram: @CarrazedoArt -- carrazedoart@gmail.com

Artist Recognition

Featured in the Catalog

Featured in Saatchi Art's printed catalog, sent to thousands of art collectors

Artist featured in a collection

Artist featured by Saatchi Art in a collection

Thousands Of Five-Star Reviews

We deliver world-class customer service to all of our art buyers.

globe

Global Selection

Explore an unparalleled artwork selection by artists from around the world.

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Our 14-day satisfaction guarantee allows you to buy with confidence.

Support An Artist With Every Purchase

We pay our artists more on every sale than other galleries.

Need More Help?

Enjoy Complimentary Art Advisory Contact Customer Support