iamzero
Full Member
Posts • 9,190
Likes • 8,542
May 2011
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by iamzero on Jul 24, 2018 15:19:03 GMT 1, I imagine you could cover it with ‘in my opinion’.
I imagine you could cover it with ‘in my opinion’.
|
|
mose
New Member
Posts • 410
Likes • 424
May 2017
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by mose on Jul 24, 2018 15:21:19 GMT 1, Winners have been selected and monetized. Losers will quickly be forgotten. High-quality losers will re-emerge in 30 years and fly.
The number of artists actually worth a damn(in terms of market, or merit), from any genre/scene, is exceptionally small. With this in mind, 99% of the urban art genre will be, or already is, worthless/unsaleable.
Art is not democratic. There is a small percentage of humanity that has the creativity, talent, work ethic, determination, and luck (let's include insanity and stupidity in this too, as with the odds you have to be a damn fool to try artist as a career), to produce great art that transcends just the here and now.
Winners have been selected and monetized. Losers will quickly be forgotten. High-quality losers will re-emerge in 30 years and fly.
The number of artists actually worth a damn(in terms of market, or merit), from any genre/scene, is exceptionally small. With this in mind, 99% of the urban art genre will be, or already is, worthless/unsaleable.
Art is not democratic. There is a small percentage of humanity that has the creativity, talent, work ethic, determination, and luck (let's include insanity and stupidity in this too, as with the odds you have to be a damn fool to try artist as a career), to produce great art that transcends just the here and now.
|
|
saint
Junior Member
Posts • 4,887
Likes • 1,881
September 2010
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by saint on Jul 24, 2018 15:40:00 GMT 1, Street art is not dead. I think Banksy is "holding" up the progress of street art as an investment-- it is certainly his move at this point. The Banksy prints are going to be tough to track who exactly did which piece and what signature is on what print unless there's a very detailed reveal of Banksy. It explains why we are in this strange in limbo period right now. POW is working on expanding their authentication process so that might be a clue... but really I don't know. The quantity Sheppard puts out is ridiculous. He's not in it for the long haul he's cashing out now-- which is his move in my opinion. Of course his iconic pieces will do well. KAWS could turn into the next NIKE who the hell knows whats going on over there. They are ambitious but I also wouldn't be surprised if it bombed as well. So hang on is Banksy not just the one guy? I feel like you should have mentioned this before, over and over and again, repetitively, and in different places on the forum.
Street art is not dead. I think Banksy is "holding" up the progress of street art as an investment-- it is certainly his move at this point. The Banksy prints are going to be tough to track who exactly did which piece and what signature is on what print unless there's a very detailed reveal of Banksy. It explains why we are in this strange in limbo period right now. POW is working on expanding their authentication process so that might be a clue... but really I don't know. The quantity Sheppard puts out is ridiculous. He's not in it for the long haul he's cashing out now-- which is his move in my opinion. Of course his iconic pieces will do well. KAWS could turn into the next NIKE who the hell knows whats going on over there. They are ambitious but I also wouldn't be surprised if it bombed as well. So hang on is Banksy not just the one guy? I feel like you should have mentioned this before, over and over and again, repetitively, and in different places on the forum.
|
|
saint
Junior Member
Posts • 4,887
Likes • 1,881
September 2010
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by saint on Jul 24, 2018 15:42:26 GMT 1, And per this thread, this same thing is brought up year after year.
Some artists get hyped, loads of people buy, secondary prices crash, urban art market is dead.
Anyway, I thought you lot were all buying prints of macdonalds workers by some guy I've never heard of and saying he was the best thing since sliced bread? It cant be dead if thats the case.
And per this thread, this same thing is brought up year after year.
Some artists get hyped, loads of people buy, secondary prices crash, urban art market is dead.
Anyway, I thought you lot were all buying prints of macdonalds workers by some guy I've never heard of and saying he was the best thing since sliced bread? It cant be dead if thats the case.
|
|
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Coach on Jul 24, 2018 15:52:02 GMT 1, I imagine you could cover it with ‘in my opinion’.
Well, yes, but that misses the point I was trying to make, or at least the question I was posing. And, I raise it only because I think it’s an interesting point. I often read people saying all art is subjective (or words to that effect). I wonder if that’s true, or whether one can correctly say that some art is bad (and even if some people like it).
I imagine you could cover it with ‘in my opinion’. Well, yes, but that misses the point I was trying to make, or at least the question I was posing. And, I raise it only because I think it’s an interesting point. I often read people saying all art is subjective (or words to that effect). I wonder if that’s true, or whether one can correctly say that some art is bad (and even if some people like it).
|
|
jimbofatz
New Member
Posts • 705
Likes • 362
June 2017
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by jimbofatz on Jul 24, 2018 15:59:50 GMT 1, Street art is not dead. I think Banksy is "holding" up the progress of street art as an investment-- it is certainly his move at this point. The Banksy prints are going to be tough to track who exactly did which piece and what signature is on what print unless there's a very detailed reveal of Banksy. It explains why we are in this strange in limbo period right now. POW is working on expanding their authentication process so that might be a clue... but really I don't know. The quantity Sheppard puts out is ridiculous. He's not in it for the long haul he's cashing out now-- which is his move in my opinion. Of course his iconic pieces will do well. KAWS could turn into the next NIKE who the hell knows whats going on over there. They are ambitious but I also wouldn't be surprised if it bombed as well. So hang on is Banksy not just the one guy? I feel like you should have mentioned this before, over and over and again, repetitively, and in different places on the forum.
Long term Banksy could end up as a chapter in a business textbook about pop up shops/cop and flips just about as easily as he could end up in a museum. It is a project still in progress and that is worthy of discussion in my opinion. There is nothing more embarrassing than the guy mocking parody...if you're not smart enough to handle a dialogue and discussion maybe stay clear.
Street art is not dead. I think Banksy is "holding" up the progress of street art as an investment-- it is certainly his move at this point. The Banksy prints are going to be tough to track who exactly did which piece and what signature is on what print unless there's a very detailed reveal of Banksy. It explains why we are in this strange in limbo period right now. POW is working on expanding their authentication process so that might be a clue... but really I don't know. The quantity Sheppard puts out is ridiculous. He's not in it for the long haul he's cashing out now-- which is his move in my opinion. Of course his iconic pieces will do well. KAWS could turn into the next NIKE who the hell knows whats going on over there. They are ambitious but I also wouldn't be surprised if it bombed as well. So hang on is Banksy not just the one guy? I feel like you should have mentioned this before, over and over and again, repetitively, and in different places on the forum.
Long term Banksy could end up as a chapter in a business textbook about pop up shops/cop and flips just about as easily as he could end up in a museum. It is a project still in progress and that is worthy of discussion in my opinion. There is nothing more embarrassing than the guy mocking parody...if you're not smart enough to handle a dialogue and discussion maybe stay clear.
|
|
|
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Happy Shopper on Jul 24, 2018 16:05:18 GMT 1, So hang on is Banksy not just the one guy? I feel like you should have mentioned this before, over and over and again, repetitively, and in different places on the forum.
Long term Banksy could end up as a chapter in a business textbook about pop up shops/cop and flips just about as easily as he could end up in a museum. It is a project still in progress and that is worthy of discussion in my opinion. There is nothing more embarrassing than the guy mocking parody...if you're not smart enough to figure it out maybe stay clear.
Are you David Icke?
So hang on is Banksy not just the one guy? I feel like you should have mentioned this before, over and over and again, repetitively, and in different places on the forum.
Long term Banksy could end up as a chapter in a business textbook about pop up shops/cop and flips just about as easily as he could end up in a museum. It is a project still in progress and that is worthy of discussion in my opinion. There is nothing more embarrassing than the guy mocking parody...if you're not smart enough to figure it out maybe stay clear.
Are you David Icke?
|
|
sugar72
Junior Member
Posts • 2,379
Likes • 1,817
August 2016
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by sugar72 on Jul 24, 2018 16:06:49 GMT 1, Hang on, can we all wait until ive sold my pieces!!!
Hang on, can we all wait until ive sold my pieces!!!
|
|
jimbofatz
New Member
Posts • 705
Likes • 362
June 2017
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by jimbofatz on Jul 24, 2018 16:07:40 GMT 1,
Long term Banksy could end up as a chapter in a business textbook about pop up shops/cop and flips just about as easily as he could end up in a museum. It is a project still in progress and that is worthy of discussion in my opinion. There is nothing more embarrassing than the guy mocking parody...if you're not smart enough to figure it out maybe stay clear.
Are you David Icke? It is better to invest in the joke teller -- than it is to invest in and become the joke.
Long term Banksy could end up as a chapter in a business textbook about pop up shops/cop and flips just about as easily as he could end up in a museum. It is a project still in progress and that is worthy of discussion in my opinion. There is nothing more embarrassing than the guy mocking parody...if you're not smart enough to figure it out maybe stay clear.
Are you David Icke? It is better to invest in the joke teller -- than it is to invest in and become the joke.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 16:09:38 GMT 1, Thats kind of my point Saint. Yes I know its year after year, but I think these days its different.
It seems that "good art" is fewer and further between. I don't think people will want those "drive-through MacD worker" prints in a year, and we'll see them listed for months in the for-sale thread with no sale.
Art gets hyped, always has, but today people want to hold it for shorter amounts of time. It feels like everything has become the Outis print in a way. Massive hype on first release, trades for a crazy price, then nobody gives a damn. Most importantly, relative to the Outis print, nobody has ever heard of these artists to begin with. The hype fairy comes, blesses them with a good marketer or social media assistant, and then they explode into temporary stardom. Then, they're quickly forgotten (quickly in art terms). Its just instagram mentality.
I believe the urban art market WAS strong, stable, and interesting when people put time and work into their art, buyers paid a fair to high price after researching the pieces AND artists they enjoyed, and were motivated to collect artwork because they believe in the work AND the long term value of the piece based on its quality AND the buying community.
I simply don't think either of those motivations exist these days, at least 99% of the time. I think people buy for the same reason they buy anything by "off-white" or "supreme", and they hold it only long enough for it not to be cool anymore, then firesale it. Its the way of the millennial world, and I just think that although we've been claiming street art is dead from the beginning, this is truly a paradigm shift in mentality.
That said, the things that I believe will hold up are the things that were bought in the past era, but only the upper echelon. So, blue chip it is if you're talking investment, but otherwise, finding anything of long term value and quality in the urban art / print world will be increasingly difficult.
(And please don't take what I'm saying as an absolute, there will always be SOME great releases, but the of crap to gold distribution is going in one direction)
Thats kind of my point Saint. Yes I know its year after year, but I think these days its different.
It seems that "good art" is fewer and further between. I don't think people will want those "drive-through MacD worker" prints in a year, and we'll see them listed for months in the for-sale thread with no sale.
Art gets hyped, always has, but today people want to hold it for shorter amounts of time. It feels like everything has become the Outis print in a way. Massive hype on first release, trades for a crazy price, then nobody gives a damn. Most importantly, relative to the Outis print, nobody has ever heard of these artists to begin with. The hype fairy comes, blesses them with a good marketer or social media assistant, and then they explode into temporary stardom. Then, they're quickly forgotten (quickly in art terms). Its just instagram mentality.
I believe the urban art market WAS strong, stable, and interesting when people put time and work into their art, buyers paid a fair to high price after researching the pieces AND artists they enjoyed, and were motivated to collect artwork because they believe in the work AND the long term value of the piece based on its quality AND the buying community.
I simply don't think either of those motivations exist these days, at least 99% of the time. I think people buy for the same reason they buy anything by "off-white" or "supreme", and they hold it only long enough for it not to be cool anymore, then firesale it. Its the way of the millennial world, and I just think that although we've been claiming street art is dead from the beginning, this is truly a paradigm shift in mentality.
That said, the things that I believe will hold up are the things that were bought in the past era, but only the upper echelon. So, blue chip it is if you're talking investment, but otherwise, finding anything of long term value and quality in the urban art / print world will be increasingly difficult.
(And please don't take what I'm saying as an absolute, there will always be SOME great releases, but the of crap to gold distribution is going in one direction)
|
|
caruso
Junior Member
Posts • 1,181
Likes • 818
August 2017
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by caruso on Jul 24, 2018 16:55:43 GMT 1, Please don't compare Impressionism with Urban Art. Back then, they went to school and were classically trained. They could paint, regardless. But instead of painting religious or allegorical images, they painted real life. They shunned the brush strokes and went full impression mode. Today, the spraycan and stencils has allowed a lot more individuals to make pictures. That means folks with no experience can start putting out pictures into the world. And a lot of that is tat. That being said, I can't wait to see an Apish Angel or a Vandal in the Tate Modern or Pompidou permanent collections. Art is subjective and prices determined by offer and demand. Anything tagged art eg with no intrinsic value other than beauty is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. In times of economic or political uncertainty prices go down because investors - who, like it or not, are always making up a part of the market along with genuine collectors and therefore contribute to drive prices up or down - investors become cautious and invest in gold and other safe investments rather than anything volatile. This being said, read up on how impressionism was received initially and the initial value of the first pieces. Not too difficult to draw a parallel from it to urban art, then you will understand the main factor here is: time. Will it go down? At first, sure. Will it go up? On the longer term, absolutely. Some pieces you've had/have in your hands will belong in museums. And yet I will. Impressionism was not well received at the time, it was deemed ugly, profane, name it, it has been said about impressionism. Yet some found beauty there and embraced a new way of expression, which was breaking with the codes of romanticism (when naturalism wasn't).
Today it is accepted as one of the most important art movement in history, alongside all cited previously and many others. I could mention dadaism and so on. My point is: urban art will find its place in the main 'accepted' art movements of history and will have its place in museums that are not currently exhibiting it. It is only a matter of time.
This is regardless of skills by the way, some painters exhibited in museums today were copiously destroyed by critics of their time, the same will happen the urban and any other art movement after that.
Please don't compare Impressionism with Urban Art. Back then, they went to school and were classically trained. They could paint, regardless. But instead of painting religious or allegorical images, they painted real life. They shunned the brush strokes and went full impression mode. Today, the spraycan and stencils has allowed a lot more individuals to make pictures. That means folks with no experience can start putting out pictures into the world. And a lot of that is tat. That being said, I can't wait to see an Apish Angel or a Vandal in the Tate Modern or Pompidou permanent collections. Art is subjective and prices determined by offer and demand. Anything tagged art eg with no intrinsic value other than beauty is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. In times of economic or political uncertainty prices go down because investors - who, like it or not, are always making up a part of the market along with genuine collectors and therefore contribute to drive prices up or down - investors become cautious and invest in gold and other safe investments rather than anything volatile. This being said, read up on how impressionism was received initially and the initial value of the first pieces. Not too difficult to draw a parallel from it to urban art, then you will understand the main factor here is: time. Will it go down? At first, sure. Will it go up? On the longer term, absolutely. Some pieces you've had/have in your hands will belong in museums. And yet I will. Impressionism was not well received at the time, it was deemed ugly, profane, name it, it has been said about impressionism. Yet some found beauty there and embraced a new way of expression, which was breaking with the codes of romanticism (when naturalism wasn't). Today it is accepted as one of the most important art movement in history, alongside all cited previously and many others. I could mention dadaism and so on. My point is: urban art will find its place in the main 'accepted' art movements of history and will have its place in museums that are not currently exhibiting it. It is only a matter of time. This is regardless of skills by the way, some painters exhibited in museums today were copiously destroyed by critics of their time, the same will happen the urban and any other art movement after that.
|
|
Hairbland
Junior Member
Posts • 2,943
Likes • 2,731
November 2010
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Hairbland on Jul 24, 2018 18:58:02 GMT 1, It's all subjective, that's the beauty of it right. Be boring if we all just had the same things on our walls. For the record I actually really like that one, I just don't think he's doing anything that special. The Connection print especially I didn't understand the appeal at all. People just jump on trends, but most trends don't last. But as long as you like it that's all that matters. I know for certain I probably paid too much for some of my art but I'm still happy with them. But is it “all” subjective? I appreciate fully that what I like may not be to your taste and vice versa. And to that extent there is an element of subjectivity. But is it not possible to conclude also that some art is simply bad? I have in mind, as an example, a wall that Mr Brainwash painted a while ago. It was shocking. Can I not say that that wall is awful art? Do I have to say it’s simply not to my taste? Having access to art supplies does not make one an artist.
It's all subjective, that's the beauty of it right. Be boring if we all just had the same things on our walls. For the record I actually really like that one, I just don't think he's doing anything that special. The Connection print especially I didn't understand the appeal at all. People just jump on trends, but most trends don't last. But as long as you like it that's all that matters. I know for certain I probably paid too much for some of my art but I'm still happy with them. But is it “all” subjective? I appreciate fully that what I like may not be to your taste and vice versa. And to that extent there is an element of subjectivity. But is it not possible to conclude also that some art is simply bad? I have in mind, as an example, a wall that Mr Brainwash painted a while ago. It was shocking. Can I not say that that wall is awful art? Do I have to say it’s simply not to my taste? Having access to art supplies does not make one an artist.
|
|
mojo
Junior Member
Posts • 2,030
Likes • 3,312
May 2014
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by mojo on Jul 24, 2018 19:14:40 GMT 1, No, the REAL BOOM is not for another 25 years! Graff/Street Art has come a long way in the last 20 years (Respect to all the original graffiti artists out there that predate 20 years) In my opinion it will absolutely be remembered as an Art Movement. It's a shame so many people expect instant financial gain from buying an artwork. It takes years for most artists to get to a place where they can actually be artists and paint for a living so buying their work kind of supports their career and development. I think whats changed on this forum is the focus on buying expensive investment pieces ie. Hirst/ KAWS/Banksy/Richter/WeiWei understandable if $£ & investment is your thing. I'm more interested in discovering artists before they get to those dizzy heights. Many of the original artists on POW's books are doing really well right now as well as many others that are rarely mentioned on here, bare in mind not all artists want to be 'the next Banksy' they just like painting. If there is a slow down and we're heading for recession ....again! historically that's when the huge jumps in value occur. Poor folk have to sell up and only the filthy rich can afford it. Obviously that doesn't include every artist but the art world has been working like that for many years and will keep on turning no matter what.
No, the REAL BOOM is not for another 25 years! Graff/Street Art has come a long way in the last 20 years (Respect to all the original graffiti artists out there that predate 20 years) In my opinion it will absolutely be remembered as an Art Movement. It's a shame so many people expect instant financial gain from buying an artwork. It takes years for most artists to get to a place where they can actually be artists and paint for a living so buying their work kind of supports their career and development. I think whats changed on this forum is the focus on buying expensive investment pieces ie. Hirst/ KAWS/Banksy/Richter/WeiWei understandable if $£ & investment is your thing. I'm more interested in discovering artists before they get to those dizzy heights. Many of the original artists on POW's books are doing really well right now as well as many others that are rarely mentioned on here, bare in mind not all artists want to be 'the next Banksy' they just like painting. If there is a slow down and we're heading for recession ....again! historically that's when the huge jumps in value occur. Poor folk have to sell up and only the filthy rich can afford it. Obviously that doesn't include every artist but the art world has been working like that for many years and will keep on turning no matter what.
|
|
caruso
Junior Member
Posts • 1,181
Likes • 818
August 2017
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by caruso on Jul 24, 2018 21:34:19 GMT 1, Exactly.
Exactly.
|
|
|
irl1
Full Member
Posts • 9,274
Likes • 9,380
December 2017
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by irl1 on Jul 24, 2018 21:42:52 GMT 1, Super thread. Great to see all the comments
Super thread. Great to see all the comments
|
|
The Rat King
New Member
Posts • 678
Likes • 423
September 2016
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by The Rat King on Jul 24, 2018 21:53:33 GMT 1, If you are concerned street art is dead then just go to upfest .
If you are concerned street art is dead then just go to upfest .
|
|
Express Post
Junior Member
Posts • 3,330
Likes • 2,479
January 2008
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Express Post on Jul 24, 2018 22:00:58 GMT 1, Impressionists could paint what was taught at schools back then. They mastered their art and challenged the status quo.
Today's urban artists can't put oils on canvas even if their lives depended on it. And don't name the odd one that might, but ALL of them should be expected to know how to paint/draw.
Urban art will be a movement, but it will never rise to the heights of the Impressionists.
Still waiting on Faile, Adam Neate, Bäst, Zevs, Labrona, Eine, Espo, Nick Walker and a whole bunch of others. These guys don't get savaged by critics today, because they just don't care. What's worse than being talked about? Not being talked about....or cancer (Alan Partridge reference - all you leftards can sit down please)
Please don't compare Impressionism with Urban Art. Back then, they went to school and were classically trained. They could paint, regardless. But instead of painting religious or allegorical images, they painted real life. They shunned the brush strokes and went full impression mode. Today, the spraycan and stencils has allowed a lot more individuals to make pictures. That means folks with no experience can start putting out pictures into the world. And a lot of that is tat. That being said, I can't wait to see an Apish Angel or a Vandal in the Tate Modern or Pompidou permanent collections. And yet I will. Impressionism was not well received at the time, it was deemed ugly, profane, name it, it has been said about impressionism. Yet some found beauty there and embraced a new way of expression, which was breaking with the codes of romanticism (when naturalism wasn't). Today it is accepted as one of the most important art movement in history, alongside all cited previously and many others. I could mention dadaism and so on. My point is: urban art will find its place in the main 'accepted' art movements of history and will have its place in museums that are not currently exhibiting it. It is only a matter of time. This is regardless of skills by the way, some painters exhibited in museums today were copiously destroyed by critics of their time, the same will happen the urban and any other art movement after that.
Impressionists could paint what was taught at schools back then. They mastered their art and challenged the status quo. Today's urban artists can't put oils on canvas even if their lives depended on it. And don't name the odd one that might, but ALL of them should be expected to know how to paint/draw. Urban art will be a movement, but it will never rise to the heights of the Impressionists. Still waiting on Faile, Adam Neate, Bäst, Zevs, Labrona, Eine, Espo, Nick Walker and a whole bunch of others. These guys don't get savaged by critics today, because they just don't care. What's worse than being talked about? Not being talked about....or cancer (Alan Partridge reference - all you leftards can sit down please) Please don't compare Impressionism with Urban Art. Back then, they went to school and were classically trained. They could paint, regardless. But instead of painting religious or allegorical images, they painted real life. They shunned the brush strokes and went full impression mode. Today, the spraycan and stencils has allowed a lot more individuals to make pictures. That means folks with no experience can start putting out pictures into the world. And a lot of that is tat. That being said, I can't wait to see an Apish Angel or a Vandal in the Tate Modern or Pompidou permanent collections. And yet I will. Impressionism was not well received at the time, it was deemed ugly, profane, name it, it has been said about impressionism. Yet some found beauty there and embraced a new way of expression, which was breaking with the codes of romanticism (when naturalism wasn't). Today it is accepted as one of the most important art movement in history, alongside all cited previously and many others. I could mention dadaism and so on. My point is: urban art will find its place in the main 'accepted' art movements of history and will have its place in museums that are not currently exhibiting it. It is only a matter of time. This is regardless of skills by the way, some painters exhibited in museums today were copiously destroyed by critics of their time, the same will happen the urban and any other art movement after that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Deleted on Jul 24, 2018 22:15:44 GMT 1, If you are concerned street art is dead then just go to upfest .
i am thinking about it this year with the wife for the weekend, she quite likes art, we have not been before. Sell it to me please, i dont want her to get the hump with me
If you are concerned street art is dead then just go to upfest . i am thinking about it this year with the wife for the weekend, she quite likes art, we have not been before. Sell it to me please, i dont want her to get the hump with me
|
|
Express Post
Junior Member
Posts • 3,330
Likes • 2,479
January 2008
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Express Post on Jul 24, 2018 22:26:13 GMT 1, We're talking Street Art Market.
Not a festival where mums and dads take their kids on weekends, and no art world movers and shakers will tread.
Abramovich or Serota would never be caught dead there.
If you are concerned street art is dead then just go to upfest .
We're talking Street Art Market. Not a festival where mums and dads take their kids on weekends, and no art world movers and shakers will tread. Abramovich or Serota would never be caught dead there. If you are concerned street art is dead then just go to upfest .
|
|
Express Post
Junior Member
Posts • 3,330
Likes • 2,479
January 2008
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Express Post on Jul 24, 2018 22:44:48 GMT 1, Uhuh...readymades came after he put out paintings that demonstrated his abilities. Check out Nude descending a staircase in Philly Art Museum.
Faile tried painting too, they sucked so hard.
You gotta know the foundations and be good at it, so you can then criticise and challenge it
Today's urban artists can't put oils on canvas even if their lives depended on it. And don't name the odd one that might, but ALL of them should be expected to know how to paint/draw. Ummmmm, why? Duchamp put an end to that.
Uhuh...readymades came after he put out paintings that demonstrated his abilities. Check out Nude descending a staircase in Philly Art Museum. Faile tried painting too, they sucked so hard. You gotta know the foundations and be good at it, so you can then criticise and challenge it Today's urban artists can't put oils on canvas even if their lives depended on it. And don't name the odd one that might, but ALL of them should be expected to know how to paint/draw. Ummmmm, why? Duchamp put an end to that.
|
|
Express Post
Junior Member
Posts • 3,330
Likes • 2,479
January 2008
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Express Post on Jul 25, 2018 1:07:03 GMT 1, I appreciate where you are coming from.
The concept was groundbreaking.
But Duchamp was an intellect. He hung out with some important painters that had deep discussions about art. He helped change the art world.
Because of his idea that anything can be art, there have been reckless amounts of crap art put out there.
Given how long Bäst, Dolk, Faile, Adam Neate, Micallef and Nick Walker have been active for, their secondary markets do not commensurate with their experience. They aren't wanted by the auction houses because there is no demand from the client side.
The influential collectors and curators are looking elsewhere now and urban art had its moment 10 years ago.
Duchamps readymades did not change the art world because he was actually able to paint a little. They changed art because suddenly anyone could say anything was art...not necessarily very good art but that doesn't matter.
I appreciate where you are coming from. The concept was groundbreaking. But Duchamp was an intellect. He hung out with some important painters that had deep discussions about art. He helped change the art world. Because of his idea that anything can be art, there have been reckless amounts of crap art put out there. Given how long Bäst, Dolk, Faile, Adam Neate, Micallef and Nick Walker have been active for, their secondary markets do not commensurate with their experience. They aren't wanted by the auction houses because there is no demand from the client side. The influential collectors and curators are looking elsewhere now and urban art had its moment 10 years ago. Duchamps readymades did not change the art world because he was actually able to paint a little. They changed art because suddenly anyone could say anything was art...not necessarily very good art but that doesn't matter.
|
|
shaneray
New Member
Posts • 161
Likes • 73
April 2013
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by shaneray on Jul 25, 2018 2:44:55 GMT 1, I visit Martin Lawrence Gallery every time I go to Vegas, I asked one of their sales people and in "his opinion" he thinks Mr Brainwash and Blek Le Rat will be the best investments, which I laughed a little, although just his opinion. Jeffrey Deitch in conversation mentioned Swoon being the future of art. I do love all the heavy hitters mentioned above (KAWS, FAILE, BANKSY, INVADER, STIK etc.) I have also followed the Obey Market for years and all the icons continue to increase heavily imo, esp pre '00 usually anything Andre related. Overall; art is a part of my life and unfortunately it seems I always have expensive taste :/ (sorry for the ramble)
Not that any of this REALLY matters anyways, apparently google translate is coming out with strange doomsday messages saying jesus is coming. so. just saying..
I visit Martin Lawrence Gallery every time I go to Vegas, I asked one of their sales people and in "his opinion" he thinks Mr Brainwash and Blek Le Rat will be the best investments, which I laughed a little, although just his opinion. Jeffrey Deitch in conversation mentioned Swoon being the future of art. I do love all the heavy hitters mentioned above (KAWS, FAILE, BANKSY, INVADER, STIK etc.) I have also followed the Obey Market for years and all the icons continue to increase heavily imo, esp pre '00 usually anything Andre related. Overall; art is a part of my life and unfortunately it seems I always have expensive taste :/ (sorry for the ramble)
Not that any of this REALLY matters anyways, apparently google translate is coming out with strange doomsday messages saying jesus is coming. so. just saying..
|
|
|
laguy34
New Member
Posts • 70
Likes • 93
August 2013
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by laguy34 on Jul 25, 2018 3:00:34 GMT 1, It is a long game. It's odd to me that people would mention urban art dying "10 years ago". That is barely a blip on the radar in a long game. Haring seems to be starting to hit the stratosphere and he first started tagging the streets of NY 30 years ago. The movement does not live or die with Banksy, contrary to what this forum may think. Is there a plethora of bad work, of course. Will some artist rise and fall, absolutely. But strong artists and strong images will last. Not to mention some of the "urban/street" artists are quite young which leaves plenty of future ahead. IMO of course
It is a long game. It's odd to me that people would mention urban art dying "10 years ago". That is barely a blip on the radar in a long game. Haring seems to be starting to hit the stratosphere and he first started tagging the streets of NY 30 years ago. The movement does not live or die with Banksy, contrary to what this forum may think. Is there a plethora of bad work, of course. Will some artist rise and fall, absolutely. But strong artists and strong images will last. Not to mention some of the "urban/street" artists are quite young which leaves plenty of future ahead. IMO of course
|
|
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Adam The Collector on Jul 25, 2018 4:55:29 GMT 1, So.... is the lesson just to save your coins until you can buy just Banksy's works for investment? Then you can sleep soundly...zzz...
So.... is the lesson just to save your coins until you can buy just Banksy's works for investment? Then you can sleep soundly...zzz...
|
|
Carl Cashman
Artist
Junior Member
Posts • 1,775
Likes • 3,147
August 2017
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Carl Cashman on Jul 25, 2018 7:34:55 GMT 1, Cool, so on that logic spot paintings are worth fk all now and retnas calligraphy will crash ? My point though was more about what £400/500 gets you from Someone that is a current favourite, his style may have moved on but he'll certainly still be around in another decade. Retna seems 1 session away from being locked up for a long time... id try to not put all the eggs in his basket. Since when is Damien Hirst street art? Micallef's style, moved on? He's downright disowned those works! Don't worry, your boy Eine will beat Retna to it and my eggs are somewhere else, so i'm cool, innit. I don't condone hitting women, what ever font is used to make the artists work
.. and what ever Micallef thinks of those images, Girl Tokyo etc are 'imo' classics.
Cool, so on that logic spot paintings are worth fk all now and retnas calligraphy will crash ? My point though was more about what £400/500 gets you from Someone that is a current favourite, his style may have moved on but he'll certainly still be around in another decade. Retna seems 1 session away from being locked up for a long time... id try to not put all the eggs in his basket. Since when is Damien Hirst street art? Micallef's style, moved on? He's downright disowned those works! Don't worry, your boy Eine will beat Retna to it and my eggs are somewhere else, so i'm cool, innit. I don't condone hitting women, what ever font is used to make the artists work .. and what ever Micallef thinks of those images, Girl Tokyo etc are 'imo' classics.
|
|
Mirus Gallery
Art Gallery
New Member
Posts • 193
Likes • 284
March 2014
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Mirus Gallery on Jul 25, 2018 8:47:12 GMT 1, For me this is a transition, same as many before them. Many serious artists are transitioning and making new work that might not be their signature style. Many collectors won't buy this right away as they are attached to older styles, Then you have some artists that have been riding this instagram momentum to do tons of commercial and paid mural work. It was my observation awhile back that instagram would lead to more direct to artist sales and artists in general not really creating new bodies of work and not exhibiting. I think many of these factors and more have lead to a stagnate scene.
Buyers and art speculators are self curating their own collections and galleries are selling less and less to veteran collectors. Many people think they know now who will rise and going direct to artists saves them money, and in many cases it could be true. But all these things are having a cause and effect. I see less and less exhibiting, more commercial murals, and more random print artists that cant create a real body of work let alone an exhibition. Some artists are selling work as well but it might not be the ones you think are successful, and the collectors buying aren't the old guard either. New collectors from my experience aren't buying much for investment, they are buying what they like and an artist that they might collect. Artsy, Art fairs, and fans of certain artists are still providing support.
For me this is a transition, same as many before them. Many serious artists are transitioning and making new work that might not be their signature style. Many collectors won't buy this right away as they are attached to older styles, Then you have some artists that have been riding this instagram momentum to do tons of commercial and paid mural work. It was my observation awhile back that instagram would lead to more direct to artist sales and artists in general not really creating new bodies of work and not exhibiting. I think many of these factors and more have lead to a stagnate scene.
Buyers and art speculators are self curating their own collections and galleries are selling less and less to veteran collectors. Many people think they know now who will rise and going direct to artists saves them money, and in many cases it could be true. But all these things are having a cause and effect. I see less and less exhibiting, more commercial murals, and more random print artists that cant create a real body of work let alone an exhibition. Some artists are selling work as well but it might not be the ones you think are successful, and the collectors buying aren't the old guard either. New collectors from my experience aren't buying much for investment, they are buying what they like and an artist that they might collect. Artsy, Art fairs, and fans of certain artists are still providing support.
|
|
NYart
Junior Member
Posts • 1,221
Likes • 843
January 2016
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by NYart on Jul 25, 2018 12:20:15 GMT 1, I think some are putting too much weight in how just a handful of artists careers have gone. Several of which still can quickly sell out an edition.
Along with that I think the necessity of an artists education/technical ability is also being over stated. A few reasons behind this belief; first is many of the biggest artists don’t/didn’t even produce their own work (Hirst, Koons). So what’s the need for technical ability? Sure they have the education but why does that give them a pass from producing their own work? Both my examples also don’t exactly overwhelm with their creativity or originality. There are only so many ways you can paint dots or animals to make balloons of. Which is one of the biggest complaints here about some artists, yet no one knocks them for it. Seems once artists reach a certain point in their career, standards others are held to go out the window.
As far as education is concerned, what about it is so important? Creativity and inspiration isn’t exactly something that can be taught. Sure you can learn about styles, time periods, artists to come before. But if anything I feel that promotes borrowing from others, as opposed to being uninflunced and original. Is there any advantage in learning how to master oils when you aren’t going to create anything that hasn’t been done better before?
Educatation and technical ability certainly will contribute to a career but in the world today I think it is irrelevant in who blows up and who doesn’t. Look at other fields of ‘art’, how many famous musicians in the news, on the radio, have a music background? If you have the talent, right people behind you, and maybe a lucky break that’s all it takes. Basquiat is a fairly recent example - all it took is meeting Warhol to make it - not education or technical ability.
If Banksy has any education or technical training it’d be hard to argue that contributed to his success. The support of a few celebrities did more for his career than any art critics or supporting galleries. When they’re all slinging Mr Brainwash and Alec Monopoly, who would trust their opinion anyway? People today are more inclined to check out an artist mentioned by Kim Kardashian than Jerry Saltz. If 1% of her followers looked into an artist, and of that 1%, 1% went on to buy a piece you’d be looking at 11,400 sales. That’d do more for an artist than a decade of exhibitions.
Maybe in 100 years people will look back and say the entire time period was crap and produced nothing note worthy (urban, contemporary, pop art all included). The jump between levels of talent and technical ability between Van Gogh and Warhol is greater than that of Warhol and Whatson in my opinion (maybe Banksy would be a better example, but to emphasize my point I believe whatson also fits here). But more has changed in technology and society as a whole in the past 30 years -about the entire existence of urban art- than ever in history. The criteria necessary to ‘succeed’ has changed and I believe the only thing that is really on its way out is the Ponzi scheme of the elite, galleries, and auction houses. There’s less and less need for artists and collectors to buy into it.
I think some are putting too much weight in how just a handful of artists careers have gone. Several of which still can quickly sell out an edition.
Along with that I think the necessity of an artists education/technical ability is also being over stated. A few reasons behind this belief; first is many of the biggest artists don’t/didn’t even produce their own work (Hirst, Koons). So what’s the need for technical ability? Sure they have the education but why does that give them a pass from producing their own work? Both my examples also don’t exactly overwhelm with their creativity or originality. There are only so many ways you can paint dots or animals to make balloons of. Which is one of the biggest complaints here about some artists, yet no one knocks them for it. Seems once artists reach a certain point in their career, standards others are held to go out the window.
As far as education is concerned, what about it is so important? Creativity and inspiration isn’t exactly something that can be taught. Sure you can learn about styles, time periods, artists to come before. But if anything I feel that promotes borrowing from others, as opposed to being uninflunced and original. Is there any advantage in learning how to master oils when you aren’t going to create anything that hasn’t been done better before?
Educatation and technical ability certainly will contribute to a career but in the world today I think it is irrelevant in who blows up and who doesn’t. Look at other fields of ‘art’, how many famous musicians in the news, on the radio, have a music background? If you have the talent, right people behind you, and maybe a lucky break that’s all it takes. Basquiat is a fairly recent example - all it took is meeting Warhol to make it - not education or technical ability.
If Banksy has any education or technical training it’d be hard to argue that contributed to his success. The support of a few celebrities did more for his career than any art critics or supporting galleries. When they’re all slinging Mr Brainwash and Alec Monopoly, who would trust their opinion anyway? People today are more inclined to check out an artist mentioned by Kim Kardashian than Jerry Saltz. If 1% of her followers looked into an artist, and of that 1%, 1% went on to buy a piece you’d be looking at 11,400 sales. That’d do more for an artist than a decade of exhibitions.
Maybe in 100 years people will look back and say the entire time period was crap and produced nothing note worthy (urban, contemporary, pop art all included). The jump between levels of talent and technical ability between Van Gogh and Warhol is greater than that of Warhol and Whatson in my opinion (maybe Banksy would be a better example, but to emphasize my point I believe whatson also fits here). But more has changed in technology and society as a whole in the past 30 years -about the entire existence of urban art- than ever in history. The criteria necessary to ‘succeed’ has changed and I believe the only thing that is really on its way out is the Ponzi scheme of the elite, galleries, and auction houses. There’s less and less need for artists and collectors to buy into it.
|
|
Leotard
New Member
Posts • 57
Likes • 32
July 2018
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Leotard on Jul 25, 2018 14:14:39 GMT 1, I think some are putting too much weight in how just a handful of artists careers have gone. Several of which still can quickly sell out an edition. Along with that I think the necessity of an artists education/technical ability is also being over stated. A few reasons behind this belief; first is many of the biggest artists don’t/didn’t even produce their own work (Hirst, Koons). So what’s the need for technical ability? Sure they have the education but why does that give them a pass from producing their own work? Both my examples also don’t exactly overwhelm with their creativity or originality. There are only so many ways you can paint dots or animals to make balloons of. Which is one of the biggest complaints here about some artists, yet no one knocks them for it. Seems once artists reach a certain point in their career, standards others are held to go out the window. As far as education is concerned, what about it is so important? Creativity and inspiration isn’t exactly something that can be taught. Sure you can learn about styles, time periods, artists to come before. But if anything I feel that promotes borrowing from others, as opposed to being uninflunced and original. Is there any advantage in learning how to master oils when you aren’t going to create anything that hasn’t been done better before? Educatation and technical ability certainly will contribute to a career but in the world today I think it is irrelevant in who blows up and who doesn’t. Look at other fields of ‘art’, how many famous musicians in the news, on the radio, have a music background? If you have the talent, right people behind you, and maybe a lucky break that’s all it takes. Basquiat is a fairly recent example - all it took is meeting Warhol to make it - not education or technical ability. If Banksy has any education or technical training it’d be hard to argue that contributed to his success. The support of a few celebrities did more for his career than any art critics or supporting galleries. When they’re all slinging Mr Brainwash and Alec Monopoly, who would trust their opinion anyway? People today are more inclined to check out an artist mentioned by Kim Kardashian than Jerry Saltz. If 1% of her followers looked into an artist, and of that 1%, 1% went on to buy a piece you’d be looking at 11,400 sales. That’d do more for an artist than a decade of exhibitions. Maybe in 100 years people will look back and say the entire time period was crap and produced nothing note worthy (urban, contemporary, pop art all included). The jump between levels of talent and technical ability between Van Gogh and Warhol is greater than that of Warhol and Whatson in my opinion (maybe Banksy would be a better example, but to emphasize my point I believe whatson also fits here). But more has changed in technology and society as a whole in the past 30 years -about the entire existence of urban art- than ever in history. The criteria necessary to ‘succeed’ has changed and I believe the only thing that is really on its way out is the Ponzi scheme of the elite, galleries, and auction houses. There’s less and less need for artists and collectors to buy into it.
A very considered & well written piece,thanks. Particularly like the Kim Kardashian scenario and agree that Jerry Saltz’s words reach a fraction of KK’s ( albeit all of his will be art enthusiasts/Collectors).
I think some are putting too much weight in how just a handful of artists careers have gone. Several of which still can quickly sell out an edition. Along with that I think the necessity of an artists education/technical ability is also being over stated. A few reasons behind this belief; first is many of the biggest artists don’t/didn’t even produce their own work (Hirst, Koons). So what’s the need for technical ability? Sure they have the education but why does that give them a pass from producing their own work? Both my examples also don’t exactly overwhelm with their creativity or originality. There are only so many ways you can paint dots or animals to make balloons of. Which is one of the biggest complaints here about some artists, yet no one knocks them for it. Seems once artists reach a certain point in their career, standards others are held to go out the window. As far as education is concerned, what about it is so important? Creativity and inspiration isn’t exactly something that can be taught. Sure you can learn about styles, time periods, artists to come before. But if anything I feel that promotes borrowing from others, as opposed to being uninflunced and original. Is there any advantage in learning how to master oils when you aren’t going to create anything that hasn’t been done better before? Educatation and technical ability certainly will contribute to a career but in the world today I think it is irrelevant in who blows up and who doesn’t. Look at other fields of ‘art’, how many famous musicians in the news, on the radio, have a music background? If you have the talent, right people behind you, and maybe a lucky break that’s all it takes. Basquiat is a fairly recent example - all it took is meeting Warhol to make it - not education or technical ability. If Banksy has any education or technical training it’d be hard to argue that contributed to his success. The support of a few celebrities did more for his career than any art critics or supporting galleries. When they’re all slinging Mr Brainwash and Alec Monopoly, who would trust their opinion anyway? People today are more inclined to check out an artist mentioned by Kim Kardashian than Jerry Saltz. If 1% of her followers looked into an artist, and of that 1%, 1% went on to buy a piece you’d be looking at 11,400 sales. That’d do more for an artist than a decade of exhibitions. Maybe in 100 years people will look back and say the entire time period was crap and produced nothing note worthy (urban, contemporary, pop art all included). The jump between levels of talent and technical ability between Van Gogh and Warhol is greater than that of Warhol and Whatson in my opinion (maybe Banksy would be a better example, but to emphasize my point I believe whatson also fits here). But more has changed in technology and society as a whole in the past 30 years -about the entire existence of urban art- than ever in history. The criteria necessary to ‘succeed’ has changed and I believe the only thing that is really on its way out is the Ponzi scheme of the elite, galleries, and auction houses. There’s less and less need for artists and collectors to buy into it. A very considered & well written piece,thanks. Particularly like the Kim Kardashian scenario and agree that Jerry Saltz’s words reach a fraction of KK’s ( albeit all of his will be art enthusiasts/Collectors).
|
|
Express Post
Junior Member
Posts • 3,330
Likes • 2,479
January 2008
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Express Post on Jul 25, 2018 15:02:56 GMT 1, Firstly, I like how you put a lot of thought into your response. At least there can be a proper discussion.
This thread is about the market, so we'll address this. All Hirst and Koons are doing is satisfying the demand by scaling up. They are famous too which helps their brands. Classical masters had their own studios with armies of assistants, but they were still credited for the works. Koons and Hirst still have a hand in creating the concepts, monitoring the wip, and then signing off on it. Murakami does the same too. It hasn't got anything to do with creativity or originality. Being good at business is the best kind of art.
Basquiat, was a supersmart kid, whose curiousity, wit and intelligence carried him far. All you have to do is watch a few interviews with him, and you know he is something special. He wanted to change the world by addressing social issues. None of the urban artists bar Banksy are in that league. Hence why if you are not as switched on as Basquiat, it would be better to get an education to get an awareness of whether what you are putting out there is derivative tat, or actually going to add something of value.
Learning a discipline helps you master a medium. It will mean that it will be easier to break down processes and create. Doesnt have to be oil painting, but I'll use picasso as an example where he dominated realism at a young age, and then threw it all out to create new and exciting things.
I wouldnt compare other fields because those industries have very short life spans. Art can last for generations. I dont think lil pump, trippie redd or tekashi 6ixty 9ine will have markets in ten years, but Koons, Hirst and Murakami will still be relevant.
The market is dead for the urban artists who peaked ten years ago. They were given an opportunity to really say something, and they've pissed it away. Also collectors' tastes have changed.
Gonna sign off for now, but will add to this piece as ideas come.
I think some are putting too much weight in how just a handful of artists careers have gone. Several of which still can quickly sell out an edition. Along with that I think the necessity of an artists education/technical ability is also being over stated. A few reasons behind this belief; first is many of the biggest artists don’t/didn’t even produce their own work (Hirst, Koons). So what’s the need for technical ability? Sure they have the education but why does that give them a pass from producing their own work? Both my examples also don’t exactly overwhelm with their creativity or originality. There are only so many ways you can paint dots or animals to make balloons of. Which is one of the biggest complaints here about some artists, yet no one knocks them for it. Seems once artists reach a certain point in their career, standards others are held to go out the window. As far as education is concerned, what about it is so important? Creativity and inspiration isn’t exactly something that can be taught. Sure you can learn about styles, time periods, artists to come before. But if anything I feel that promotes borrowing from others, as opposed to being uninflunced and original. Is there any advantage in learning how to master oils when you aren’t going to create anything that hasn’t been done better before? Educatation and technical ability certainly will contribute to a career but in the world today I think it is irrelevant in who blows up and who doesn’t. Look at other fields of ‘art’, how many famous musicians in the news, on the radio, have a music background? If you have the talent, right people behind you, and maybe a lucky break that’s all it takes. Basquiat is a fairly recent example - all it took is meeting Warhol to make it - not education or technical ability. If Banksy has any education or technical training it’d be hard to argue that contributed to his success. The support of a few celebrities did more for his career than any art critics or supporting galleries. When they’re all slinging Mr Brainwash and Alec Monopoly, who would trust their opinion anyway? People today are more inclined to check out an artist mentioned by Kim Kardashian than Jerry Saltz. If 1% of her followers looked into an artist, and of that 1%, 1% went on to buy a piece you’d be looking at 11,400 sales. That’d do more for an artist than a decade of exhibitions. Maybe in 100 years people will look back and say the entire time period was crap and produced nothing note worthy (urban, contemporary, pop art all included). The jump between levels of talent and technical ability between Van Gogh and Warhol is greater than that of Warhol and Whatson in my opinion (maybe Banksy would be a better example, but to emphasize my point I believe whatson also fits here). But more has changed in technology and society as a whole in the past 30 years -about the entire existence of urban art- than ever in history. The criteria necessary to ‘succeed’ has changed and I believe the only thing that is really on its way out is the Ponzi scheme of the elite, galleries, and auction houses. There’s less and less need for artists and collectors to buy into it.
Firstly, I like how you put a lot of thought into your response. At least there can be a proper discussion. This thread is about the market, so we'll address this. All Hirst and Koons are doing is satisfying the demand by scaling up. They are famous too which helps their brands. Classical masters had their own studios with armies of assistants, but they were still credited for the works. Koons and Hirst still have a hand in creating the concepts, monitoring the wip, and then signing off on it. Murakami does the same too. It hasn't got anything to do with creativity or originality. Being good at business is the best kind of art. Basquiat, was a supersmart kid, whose curiousity, wit and intelligence carried him far. All you have to do is watch a few interviews with him, and you know he is something special. He wanted to change the world by addressing social issues. None of the urban artists bar Banksy are in that league. Hence why if you are not as switched on as Basquiat, it would be better to get an education to get an awareness of whether what you are putting out there is derivative tat, or actually going to add something of value. Learning a discipline helps you master a medium. It will mean that it will be easier to break down processes and create. Doesnt have to be oil painting, but I'll use picasso as an example where he dominated realism at a young age, and then threw it all out to create new and exciting things. I wouldnt compare other fields because those industries have very short life spans. Art can last for generations. I dont think lil pump, trippie redd or tekashi 6ixty 9ine will have markets in ten years, but Koons, Hirst and Murakami will still be relevant. The market is dead for the urban artists who peaked ten years ago. They were given an opportunity to really say something, and they've pissed it away. Also collectors' tastes have changed. Gonna sign off for now, but will add to this piece as ideas come. I think some are putting too much weight in how just a handful of artists careers have gone. Several of which still can quickly sell out an edition. Along with that I think the necessity of an artists education/technical ability is also being over stated. A few reasons behind this belief; first is many of the biggest artists don’t/didn’t even produce their own work (Hirst, Koons). So what’s the need for technical ability? Sure they have the education but why does that give them a pass from producing their own work? Both my examples also don’t exactly overwhelm with their creativity or originality. There are only so many ways you can paint dots or animals to make balloons of. Which is one of the biggest complaints here about some artists, yet no one knocks them for it. Seems once artists reach a certain point in their career, standards others are held to go out the window. As far as education is concerned, what about it is so important? Creativity and inspiration isn’t exactly something that can be taught. Sure you can learn about styles, time periods, artists to come before. But if anything I feel that promotes borrowing from others, as opposed to being uninflunced and original. Is there any advantage in learning how to master oils when you aren’t going to create anything that hasn’t been done better before? Educatation and technical ability certainly will contribute to a career but in the world today I think it is irrelevant in who blows up and who doesn’t. Look at other fields of ‘art’, how many famous musicians in the news, on the radio, have a music background? If you have the talent, right people behind you, and maybe a lucky break that’s all it takes. Basquiat is a fairly recent example - all it took is meeting Warhol to make it - not education or technical ability. If Banksy has any education or technical training it’d be hard to argue that contributed to his success. The support of a few celebrities did more for his career than any art critics or supporting galleries. When they’re all slinging Mr Brainwash and Alec Monopoly, who would trust their opinion anyway? People today are more inclined to check out an artist mentioned by Kim Kardashian than Jerry Saltz. If 1% of her followers looked into an artist, and of that 1%, 1% went on to buy a piece you’d be looking at 11,400 sales. That’d do more for an artist than a decade of exhibitions. Maybe in 100 years people will look back and say the entire time period was crap and produced nothing note worthy (urban, contemporary, pop art all included). The jump between levels of talent and technical ability between Van Gogh and Warhol is greater than that of Warhol and Whatson in my opinion (maybe Banksy would be a better example, but to emphasize my point I believe whatson also fits here). But more has changed in technology and society as a whole in the past 30 years -about the entire existence of urban art- than ever in history. The criteria necessary to ‘succeed’ has changed and I believe the only thing that is really on its way out is the Ponzi scheme of the elite, galleries, and auction houses. There’s less and less need for artists and collectors to buy into it.
|
|
Hairbland
Junior Member
Posts • 2,943
Likes • 2,731
November 2010
|
I THINK THE STREET ART MARKET IS DEAD. DO YOU?, by Hairbland on Jul 25, 2018 15:10:34 GMT 1, 'bout due for Godwin's Law....
'bout due for Godwin's Law....
|
|