Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
POW and street art, by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 17:08:58 GMT 1, You should be a fan of street art. It is angry, raw, direct, and comes from the citizenry. Contemporary art, with all its sophisms and pre-packaged concepts, for the most part, sucks. And it is not even aesthetically pleasing anymore.
Most of street art is also highly political, which really means engaged and concerned with, you know, humanity. It is designed to reach the man and woman in the street and make them question why their voice is muted or what molds their preferences and choices. Street art aspires to freedom. In a world of increasing income and wealth inequality, of cement walls and boats packed with refugees left adrift, these are powerful messages. Messages that need to reach everyone.
This means that the supply of street art should not be constrained.
Some artists, at a very instinctual level, understand this and keep churning variations in their messages at high volumes. Shepard Fairey is a great example. His prints are everywhere and I think at personal economic cost. But he is a master of oversupply.
Constraining supply or price fixing is instead the wrong approach. There is evidence of this. Consider what the now defunct Pictures on Walls website writes:
โHowever, inevitably disaster struck - and many of our artists became successful. Street Art was welcomed into mainstream culture with a benign shrug and the art we produced became another tradeable commodity. Despite attempts at price fixing regrettably some POW prints have become worth tens of thousands of pounds. Either unable or unwilling to become part of the art market we once so self-righteously denounced - we called it quits.โ
A signed print by Banksy is $80,000 because there are so few of them and the artist has decided to limit supply. You keep art at low prices and accessible not by price fixing, but by supply being larger than demand. You, at POW, really want to screw with the Art Market? Print or reprint that s**t out like there is no tomorrow. Especially now that most of these artists have probably reached financial security, get that message out.
It is called seigniorage. It is typically the privilege of monopolists or central banks. About time it is used by artists.
You should be a fan of street art. It is angry, raw, direct, and comes from the citizenry. Contemporary art, with all its sophisms and pre-packaged concepts, for the most part, sucks. And it is not even aesthetically pleasing anymore.
Most of street art is also highly political, which really means engaged and concerned with, you know, humanity. It is designed to reach the man and woman in the street and make them question why their voice is muted or what molds their preferences and choices. Street art aspires to freedom. In a world of increasing income and wealth inequality, of cement walls and boats packed with refugees left adrift, these are powerful messages. Messages that need to reach everyone.
This means that the supply of street art should not be constrained.
Some artists, at a very instinctual level, understand this and keep churning variations in their messages at high volumes. Shepard Fairey is a great example. His prints are everywhere and I think at personal economic cost. But he is a master of oversupply.
Constraining supply or price fixing is instead the wrong approach. There is evidence of this. Consider what the now defunct Pictures on Walls website writes:
โHowever, inevitably disaster struck - and many of our artists became successful. Street Art was welcomed into mainstream culture with a benign shrug and the art we produced became another tradeable commodity. Despite attempts at price fixing regrettably some POW prints have become worth tens of thousands of pounds. Either unable or unwilling to become part of the art market we once so self-righteously denounced - we called it quits.โ
A signed print by Banksy is $80,000 because there are so few of them and the artist has decided to limit supply. You keep art at low prices and accessible not by price fixing, but by supply being larger than demand. You, at POW, really want to screw with the Art Market? Print or reprint that s**t out like there is no tomorrow. Especially now that most of these artists have probably reached financial security, get that message out.
It is called seigniorage. It is typically the privilege of monopolists or central banks. About time it is used by artists.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
POW and street art, by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 17:34:47 GMT 1, You should be a fan of street art. It is angry, raw, direct, and comes from the citizenry. Contemporary art, with all its sophisms and pre-packaged concepts, for the most part, sucks. And it is not even aesthetically pleasing anymore. Most of street art is also highly political, which really means engaged and concerned with, you know, humanity. It is designed to reach the man and woman in the street and make them question why their voice is muted or what molds their preferences and choices. Street art aspires to freedom. In a world of increasing income and wealth inequality, of cement walls and boats packed with refugees left adrift, these are powerful messages. Messages that need to reach everyone. This means that the supply of street art should not be constrained. Some artists, at a very instinctual level, understand this and keep churning variations in their messages at high volumes. Shepard Fairey is a great example. His prints are everywhere and I think at personal economic cost. But he is a master of oversupply. Constraining supply or price fixing is instead the wrong approach. There is evidence of this. Consider what the now defunct Pictures on Walls website writes: โHowever, inevitably disaster struck - and many of our artists became successful. Street Art was welcomed into mainstream culture with a benign shrug and the art we produced became another tradeable commodity. Despite attempts at price fixing regrettably some POW prints have become worth tens of thousands of pounds. Either unable or unwilling to become part of the art market we once so self-righteously denounced - we called it quits.โ A signed print by Banksy is $80,000 because there are so few of them and the artist has decided to limit supply. You keep art at low prices and accessible not by price fixing, but by supply being larger than demand. You, at POW, really want to screw with the Art Market? Print or reprint that s**t out like there is no tomorrow. Especially now that most of these artists have probably reached financial security, get that message out. It is called seigniorage. It is typically the privilege of monopolists or central banks. About time it is used by artists.
Bollocks to that, then everyone will have one, and i won't be special
You should be a fan of street art. It is angry, raw, direct, and comes from the citizenry. Contemporary art, with all its sophisms and pre-packaged concepts, for the most part, sucks. And it is not even aesthetically pleasing anymore. Most of street art is also highly political, which really means engaged and concerned with, you know, humanity. It is designed to reach the man and woman in the street and make them question why their voice is muted or what molds their preferences and choices. Street art aspires to freedom. In a world of increasing income and wealth inequality, of cement walls and boats packed with refugees left adrift, these are powerful messages. Messages that need to reach everyone. This means that the supply of street art should not be constrained. Some artists, at a very instinctual level, understand this and keep churning variations in their messages at high volumes. Shepard Fairey is a great example. His prints are everywhere and I think at personal economic cost. But he is a master of oversupply. Constraining supply or price fixing is instead the wrong approach. There is evidence of this. Consider what the now defunct Pictures on Walls website writes: โHowever, inevitably disaster struck - and many of our artists became successful. Street Art was welcomed into mainstream culture with a benign shrug and the art we produced became another tradeable commodity. Despite attempts at price fixing regrettably some POW prints have become worth tens of thousands of pounds. Either unable or unwilling to become part of the art market we once so self-righteously denounced - we called it quits.โ A signed print by Banksy is $80,000 because there are so few of them and the artist has decided to limit supply. You keep art at low prices and accessible not by price fixing, but by supply being larger than demand. You, at POW, really want to screw with the Art Market? Print or reprint that s**t out like there is no tomorrow. Especially now that most of these artists have probably reached financial security, get that message out. It is called seigniorage. It is typically the privilege of monopolists or central banks. About time it is used by artists. Bollocks to that, then everyone will have one, and i won't be special
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
POW and street art, by Deleted on Sept 23, 2018 17:37:00 GMT 1, Yes, there is that problem. Sell it to an art gallery now and buy it back later.You should be a fan of street art. It is angry, raw, direct, and comes from the citizenry. Contemporary art, with all its sophisms and pre-packaged concepts, for the most part, sucks. And it is not even aesthetically pleasing anymore. Most of street art is also highly political, which really means engaged and concerned with, you know, humanity. It is designed to reach the man and woman in the street and make them question why their voice is muted or what molds their preferences and choices. Street art aspires to freedom. In a world of increasing income and wealth inequality, of cement walls and boats packed with refugees left adrift, these are powerful messages. Messages that need to reach everyone. This means that the supply of street art should not be constrained. Some artists, at a very instinctual level, understand this and keep churning variations in their messages at high volumes. Shepard Fairey is a great example. His prints are everywhere and I think at personal economic cost. But he is a master of oversupply. Constraining supply or price fixing is instead the wrong approach. There is evidence of this. Consider what the now defunct Pictures on Walls website writes: โHowever, inevitably disaster struck - and many of our artists became successful. Street Art was welcomed into mainstream culture with a benign shrug and the art we produced became another tradeable commodity. Despite attempts at price fixing regrettably some POW prints have become worth tens of thousands of pounds. Either unable or unwilling to become part of the art market we once so self-righteously denounced - we called it quits.โ A signed print by Banksy is $80,000 because there are so few of them and the artist has decided to limit supply. You keep art at low prices and accessible not by price fixing, but by supply being larger than demand. You, at POW, really want to screw with the Art Market? Print or reprint that s**t out like there is no tomorrow. Especially now that most of these artists have probably reached financial security, get that message out. It is called seigniorage. It is typically the privilege of monopolists or central banks. About time it is used by artists. Bollocks to that, then everyone will have one, and i won't be special
Yes, there is that problem. Sell it to an art gallery now and buy it back later. You should be a fan of street art. It is angry, raw, direct, and comes from the citizenry. Contemporary art, with all its sophisms and pre-packaged concepts, for the most part, sucks. And it is not even aesthetically pleasing anymore. Most of street art is also highly political, which really means engaged and concerned with, you know, humanity. It is designed to reach the man and woman in the street and make them question why their voice is muted or what molds their preferences and choices. Street art aspires to freedom. In a world of increasing income and wealth inequality, of cement walls and boats packed with refugees left adrift, these are powerful messages. Messages that need to reach everyone. This means that the supply of street art should not be constrained. Some artists, at a very instinctual level, understand this and keep churning variations in their messages at high volumes. Shepard Fairey is a great example. His prints are everywhere and I think at personal economic cost. But he is a master of oversupply. Constraining supply or price fixing is instead the wrong approach. There is evidence of this. Consider what the now defunct Pictures on Walls website writes: โHowever, inevitably disaster struck - and many of our artists became successful. Street Art was welcomed into mainstream culture with a benign shrug and the art we produced became another tradeable commodity. Despite attempts at price fixing regrettably some POW prints have become worth tens of thousands of pounds. Either unable or unwilling to become part of the art market we once so self-righteously denounced - we called it quits.โ A signed print by Banksy is $80,000 because there are so few of them and the artist has decided to limit supply. You keep art at low prices and accessible not by price fixing, but by supply being larger than demand. You, at POW, really want to screw with the Art Market? Print or reprint that s**t out like there is no tomorrow. Especially now that most of these artists have probably reached financial security, get that message out. It is called seigniorage. It is typically the privilege of monopolists or central banks. About time it is used by artists. Bollocks to that, then everyone will have one, and i won't be special
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
POW and street art, by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 6:53:47 GMT 1, An alternative perspective is that street artists like Banksy understand perfectly the basic economics of it.
In fact, even the almost exact ownership profile of each edition is known and probably, at this point, the wealth of the owners.
Once a sufficient number of those "morons" (using his word) has bought in on ยฃ60,000 prints, why then not flood the market with exact equivalents.
Think of the perverse genius of it. A bit scary for a collector on this forum, but the most anti art market thing possible. Sell at marginal cost.
At least the welfare gains for all those who'd like to own a real print would not be small.
Is anybody wondering about this or am I taking the subversive message in some of this art too literally? I am assuming nobody is pricing in this risk.
Sorry for the rambling.
An alternative perspective is that street artists like Banksy understand perfectly the basic economics of it.
In fact, even the almost exact ownership profile of each edition is known and probably, at this point, the wealth of the owners.
Once a sufficient number of those "morons" (using his word) has bought in on ยฃ60,000 prints, why then not flood the market with exact equivalents.
Think of the perverse genius of it. A bit scary for a collector on this forum, but the most anti art market thing possible. Sell at marginal cost.
At least the welfare gains for all those who'd like to own a real print would not be small.
Is anybody wondering about this or am I taking the subversive message in some of this art too literally? I am assuming nobody is pricing in this risk.
Sorry for the rambling.
|
|
iamzero
Full Member
Posts โข 9,188
Likes โข 8,537
May 2011
|
POW and street art, by iamzero on Sept 26, 2018 7:14:51 GMT 1, Your idea would surely achieve the exact opposite of what youโd want to happen.
Your idea would surely achieve the exact opposite of what youโd want to happen.
|
|
Pysgod
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,677
Likes โข 1,347
December 2016
|
POW and street art, by Pysgod on Sept 26, 2018 8:19:30 GMT 1, Dafteddie
Dafteddie
|
|
|
k2
New Member
Posts โข 528
Likes โข 971
November 2016
|
POW and street art, by k2 on Sept 26, 2018 8:38:40 GMT 1, An alternative perspective is that street artists like Banksy understand perfectly the basic economics of it. In fact, even the almost exact ownership profile of each edition is known and probably, at this point, the wealth of the owners. Once a sufficient number of those "morons" (using his word) has bought in on ยฃ60,000 prints, why then not flood the market with exact equivalents. Think of the perverse genius of it. A bit scary for a collector on this forum, but the most anti art market thing possible. Sell at marginal cost. At least the welfare gains for all those who'd like to own a real print would not be small. Is anybody wondering about this or am I taking the subversive message in some of this art too literally? I am assuming nobody is pricing in this risk. Sorry for the rambling.
This theory seems to come up every now and then on this forum. Seems like itโs normally raised by those who have gone โall inโ on prints they canโt really afford in the hope of making a few quid, and now find themselves lying awake at night with worry. Morons indeed.
Not saying thatโs the case with you, but youโre not the first person to have asked this.
An alternative perspective is that street artists like Banksy understand perfectly the basic economics of it. In fact, even the almost exact ownership profile of each edition is known and probably, at this point, the wealth of the owners. Once a sufficient number of those "morons" (using his word) has bought in on ยฃ60,000 prints, why then not flood the market with exact equivalents. Think of the perverse genius of it. A bit scary for a collector on this forum, but the most anti art market thing possible. Sell at marginal cost. At least the welfare gains for all those who'd like to own a real print would not be small. Is anybody wondering about this or am I taking the subversive message in some of this art too literally? I am assuming nobody is pricing in this risk. Sorry for the rambling. This theory seems to come up every now and then on this forum. Seems like itโs normally raised by those who have gone โall inโ on prints they canโt really afford in the hope of making a few quid, and now find themselves lying awake at night with worry. Morons indeed. Not saying thatโs the case with you, but youโre not the first person to have asked this.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
POW and street art, by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 13:20:33 GMT 1, Your idea would surely achieve the exact opposite of what youโd want to happen. If the goal is to have as many people as possible partake in street art and increase welfare, that is what it would achieve. Not, if the goal is to keep prices high or to maintain visibility (maybe that's what they mean by "successful" in the POW quote). But it's basic logic.
Your idea would surely achieve the exact opposite of what youโd want to happen. If the goal is to have as many people as possible partake in street art and increase welfare, that is what it would achieve. Not, if the goal is to keep prices high or to maintain visibility (maybe that's what they mean by "successful" in the POW quote). But it's basic logic.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
POW and street art, by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 13:34:29 GMT 1, An alternative perspective is that street artists like Banksy understand perfectly the basic economics of it. In fact, even the almost exact ownership profile of each edition is known and probably, at this point, the wealth of the owners. Once a sufficient number of those "morons" (using his word) has bought in on ยฃ60,000 prints, why then not flood the market with exact equivalents. Think of the perverse genius of it. A bit scary for a collector on this forum, but the most anti art market thing possible. Sell at marginal cost. At least the welfare gains for all those who'd like to own a real print would not be small. Is anybody wondering about this or am I taking the subversive message in some of this art too literally? I am assuming nobody is pricing in this risk. Sorry for the rambling. This theory seems to come up every now and then on this forum. Seems like itโs normally raised by those who have gone โall inโ on prints they canโt really afford in the hope of making a few quid, and now find themselves lying awake at night with worry. Morons indeed. Not saying thatโs the case with you, but youโre not the first person to have asked this. Not my case.
You would agree that it seems a risk that mainstream and less subversive artists would not carry.
I hope Banksy carries that risk. No, I do not wish ill on current owners, but if art becomes your speculative asset of choice, then I think the artist has all the right to refuse that or even make a statement with that. Plus, governments renege their debts all the time and two years later are back at it. I don't see why he could not do it.
An alternative perspective is that street artists like Banksy understand perfectly the basic economics of it. In fact, even the almost exact ownership profile of each edition is known and probably, at this point, the wealth of the owners. Once a sufficient number of those "morons" (using his word) has bought in on ยฃ60,000 prints, why then not flood the market with exact equivalents. Think of the perverse genius of it. A bit scary for a collector on this forum, but the most anti art market thing possible. Sell at marginal cost. At least the welfare gains for all those who'd like to own a real print would not be small. Is anybody wondering about this or am I taking the subversive message in some of this art too literally? I am assuming nobody is pricing in this risk. Sorry for the rambling. This theory seems to come up every now and then on this forum. Seems like itโs normally raised by those who have gone โall inโ on prints they canโt really afford in the hope of making a few quid, and now find themselves lying awake at night with worry. Morons indeed. Not saying thatโs the case with you, but youโre not the first person to have asked this. Not my case. You would agree that it seems a risk that mainstream and less subversive artists would not carry. I hope Banksy carries that risk. No, I do not wish ill on current owners, but if art becomes your speculative asset of choice, then I think the artist has all the right to refuse that or even make a statement with that. Plus, governments renege their debts all the time and two years later are back at it. I don't see why he could not do it.
|
|