pezlow
Junior Member
Posts • 5,388
Likes • 254
January 2007
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by pezlow on May 31, 2010 19:25:17 GMT 1, I don't have the audacity to think I can aesthetically rank artists of this level in any realistically objective way, so consequently I would base my choice on my subjective opinion alone. Therefore, an Ed Ruscha is worth an Ed Ruscha, and 10 Richard Princes are worth 10 Richard Princes to me.
I think this sentence shows the difference between us James. It seems like you are saying that you would buy art broadly based on other people's opinions. But ultimately your opinion of the aesthetic appeal of the piece is the only thing that matters, it should be the reason why you buy a piece.
And I think the comparisons with banksy are a little forced , I personally consider that there is often considerably more depth to banksy's work than Princes. But again that is just my opinion.
I don't have the audacity to think I can aesthetically rank artists of this level in any realistically objective way, so consequently I would base my choice on my subjective opinion alone. Therefore, an Ed Ruscha is worth an Ed Ruscha, and 10 Richard Princes are worth 10 Richard Princes to me. I think this sentence shows the difference between us James. It seems like you are saying that you would buy art broadly based on other people's opinions. But ultimately your opinion of the aesthetic appeal of the piece is the only thing that matters, it should be the reason why you buy a piece. And I think the comparisons with banksy are a little forced , I personally consider that there is often considerably more depth to banksy's work than Princes. But again that is just my opinion. |
|
pezlow
Junior Member
Posts • 5,388
Likes • 254
January 2007
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by pezlow on May 31, 2010 19:31:25 GMT 1, no mention of his photographs? why do you choose to ignore the marlboro man and brooke shields and girlfriends, etc.?
Because I'm not writing a dissertation I was discussing things on an internet forum. But we did discuss appropriation further up, which would include the marlboro man work.
me thinks your biggest problem is that you have no appreciation of conceptual art vs. easily understandable, get it in a second type illustrations.
Maybe that shows how little you know about me. I suggest you go back and maybe look at some of the art I have posted that I own, or read any number of posts I have written from me. Alternatively you could just take it from me that you are talking crap.
And there is a delicious irony in someone having a go at me for not liking Richard Prince and saying that it is because I only appreciate get it in a second type art.
and seriously, a huge reason banksy is where he is is because of the internet. an artist like prince would be who he is and has gotten where he is with or without the internet.
I agree but ultimately who cares where an artist is or isn't and how they got there? Isn't it about what you like not who they are, how big they are and how they got there?
no mention of his photographs? why do you choose to ignore the marlboro man and brooke shields and girlfriends, etc.? Because I'm not writing a dissertation I was discussing things on an internet forum. But we did discuss appropriation further up, which would include the marlboro man work. me thinks your biggest problem is that you have no appreciation of conceptual art vs. easily understandable, get it in a second type illustrations. Maybe that shows how little you know about me. I suggest you go back and maybe look at some of the art I have posted that I own, or read any number of posts I have written from me. Alternatively you could just take it from me that you are talking crap. And there is a delicious irony in someone having a go at me for not liking Richard Prince and saying that it is because I only appreciate get it in a second type art. and seriously, a huge reason banksy is where he is is because of the internet. an artist like prince would be who he is and has gotten where he is with or without the internet. I agree but ultimately who cares where an artist is or isn't and how they got there? Isn't it about what you like not who they are, how big they are and how they got there? |
|
Francis
Junior Member
Posts • 2,571
Likes • 137
September 2007
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by Francis on May 31, 2010 19:31:46 GMT 1, I personally consider that there is often considerably more depth to banksy's work than Princes.
pezlow, you are living in Bizzaro world.
I personally consider that there is often considerably more depth to banksy's work than Princes. pezlow, you are living in Bizzaro world. |
|
|
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by wilfsboy on May 31, 2010 19:33:47 GMT 1, I suppose you could say that about some of Banksy's work yes, but it is equally appropriate for much, not quite all, of Prince's work. I don't dispute that Richard prince is a big name, I don't dispute that he will be around. But I'm still entitled not to think much of his work. The use of appropriation, yeah sure, but I struggle to accept on a personal level that this is much of commendation. As I say once you get to the top of the art world it doesn't really become about the work, sadly. All the talk around Prince focuses on his prices. I struggle with a few of the artists you mention, maybe I'm too parochial or European but a number of them just don't do it for me. no mention of his photographs? why do you choose to ignore the marlboro man and brooke shields and girlfriends, etc.? me thinks your biggest problem is that you have no appreciation of conceptual art vs. easily understandable, get it in a second type illustrations. and seriously, a huge reason banksy is where he is is because of the internet. an artist like prince would be who he is and has gotten where he is with or without the internet.
"and seriously, a huge reason banksy is where he is is because of the internet."
very true...
I suppose you could say that about some of Banksy's work yes, but it is equally appropriate for much, not quite all, of Prince's work. I don't dispute that Richard prince is a big name, I don't dispute that he will be around. But I'm still entitled not to think much of his work. The use of appropriation, yeah sure, but I struggle to accept on a personal level that this is much of commendation. As I say once you get to the top of the art world it doesn't really become about the work, sadly. All the talk around Prince focuses on his prices. I struggle with a few of the artists you mention, maybe I'm too parochial or European but a number of them just don't do it for me. no mention of his photographs? why do you choose to ignore the marlboro man and brooke shields and girlfriends, etc.? me thinks your biggest problem is that you have no appreciation of conceptual art vs. easily understandable, get it in a second type illustrations. and seriously, a huge reason banksy is where he is is because of the internet. an artist like prince would be who he is and has gotten where he is with or without the internet. "and seriously, a huge reason banksy is where he is is because of the internet." very true... |
|
taxidermot
New Member
Posts • 88
Likes • 0
June 2008
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by taxidermot on May 31, 2010 19:40:05 GMT 1, banksy..an artist of our times
prince..an artist of times past
banksy..an artist of our times
prince..an artist of times past
|
|
|
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by snausages on May 31, 2010 19:46:09 GMT 1,
Doesn't matter to me if you like Prince or not, but to read criticisms of Prince as being a "get it in a second" artist and an "artist for the twitter generation" on an internet forum devoted to street art which is quite literally designed to be get it in a second as you drive by it ...and because of that lacking serious intellectual depth almost across the board is a bigger irony in my book.
Doesn't matter to me if you like Prince or not, but to read criticisms of Prince as being a "get it in a second" artist and an "artist for the twitter generation" on an internet forum devoted to street art which is quite literally designed to be get it in a second as you drive by it ...and because of that lacking serious intellectual depth almost across the board is a bigger irony in my book.
|
|
|
|
pezlow
Junior Member
Posts • 5,388
Likes • 254
January 2007
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by pezlow on May 31, 2010 19:55:18 GMT 1, I'm not talking for an internet forum Snausages I am talking for myself alone. I'd very happily listen to what you or anyone else has to say about Prince that may persuade me that I have been wrong about him and that there is more depth to his work than meets the eye. I have had my mind totally changed about artists in the past as people have discussed and explained his work more fully.
But mostly with Prince all I hear is words to the effect of:
"his work is worth $millions"
"he is the hottest artist of the moment"
"auction prices for him have rocketed"
Etc etc. Frankly none of that interests me nor, IMHO, gives the work much if any validation if I personally don't understand what all the fuss is about.
There are plenty of big name artists I do get and I do like. The aforementioned Richter is one and there are plenty of others. I'm just not really into Prince (nor Koons for that matter but we probably shouldn't get started on that  )
I'm not talking for an internet forum Snausages I am talking for myself alone. I'd very happily listen to what you or anyone else has to say about Prince that may persuade me that I have been wrong about him and that there is more depth to his work than meets the eye. I have had my mind totally changed about artists in the past as people have discussed and explained his work more fully. But mostly with Prince all I hear is words to the effect of: "his work is worth $millions" "he is the hottest artist of the moment" "auction prices for him have rocketed" Etc etc. Frankly none of that interests me nor, IMHO, gives the work much if any validation if I personally don't understand what all the fuss is about. There are plenty of big name artists I do get and I do like. The aforementioned Richter is one and there are plenty of others. I'm just not really into Prince (nor Koons for that matter but we probably shouldn't get started on that ) |
|
taxidermot
New Member
Posts • 88
Likes • 0
June 2008
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by taxidermot on May 31, 2010 20:52:38 GMT 1, richard prince without the "his work is worth $millions..he is the hottest artist of the moment..auction prices for him have rocketed" - www.vbs.tv/watch/art-talk/richard-prince
|
|
|
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by snausages on May 31, 2010 20:55:38 GMT 1, Like I said, not fussed if you like him or not, art is a fickle thing, I just don't understand your criticism of him. There is a lot to think about what he has done, why he did it and how he did it. Not trying to convince you of anything and if you want to understand just pick up the guggenheim retrospective book and read it. Maybe you'll like it more, maybe not, but an artist for the twitter generation just doesn't make any sense to me. And your three quotes above could easily be leveled against Banksy as well.
Like I said, not fussed if you like him or not, art is a fickle thing, I just don't understand your criticism of him. There is a lot to think about what he has done, why he did it and how he did it. Not trying to convince you of anything and if you want to understand just pick up the guggenheim retrospective book and read it. Maybe you'll like it more, maybe not, but an artist for the twitter generation just doesn't make any sense to me. And your three quotes above could easily be leveled against Banksy as well.
|
|
nah
New Member
Posts • 822
Likes • 34
April 2009
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by nah on May 31, 2010 21:04:01 GMT 1, honestly the first time i came across the nurse pieces i was shocked... just reminded me of the stuff the 'edgy kids' made when i was doing a-level art. theres got to be something im missing
honestly the first time i came across the nurse pieces i was shocked... just reminded me of the stuff the 'edgy kids' made when i was doing a-level art. theres got to be something im missing
|
|
nah
New Member
Posts • 822
Likes • 34
April 2009
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by nah on May 31, 2010 21:09:06 GMT 1, actually if anyone knows of any decent articles about his work i would love a link. my above comment was probably a bit ignorant given how little i know about him
actually if anyone knows of any decent articles about his work i would love a link. my above comment was probably a bit ignorant given how little i know about him
|
|
pezlow
Junior Member
Posts • 5,388
Likes • 254
January 2007
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by pezlow on May 31, 2010 21:18:00 GMT 1, Like I said, not fussed if you like him or not, art is a fickle thing, I just don't understand your criticism of him. There is a lot to think about what he has done, why he did it and how he did it. Not trying to convince you of anything and if you want to understand just pick up the guggenheim retrospective book and read it. Maybe you'll like it more, maybe not, but an artist for the twitter generation just doesn't make any sense to me. And your three quotes above could easily be leveled against Banksy as well.
Cheers I might well do. You are right about the quotes. I appreciate that once artists get to the top value and prices are all some people talk about.
Like I said, not fussed if you like him or not, art is a fickle thing, I just don't understand your criticism of him. There is a lot to think about what he has done, why he did it and how he did it. Not trying to convince you of anything and if you want to understand just pick up the guggenheim retrospective book and read it. Maybe you'll like it more, maybe not, but an artist for the twitter generation just doesn't make any sense to me. And your three quotes above could easily be leveled against Banksy as well. Cheers I might well do. You are right about the quotes. I appreciate that once artists get to the top value and prices are all some people talk about. |
|
lee3
New Member
Posts • 832
Likes • 1,289
November 2009
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by lee3 on May 31, 2010 21:34:20 GMT 1, >>>theres got to be something im missing<<<
I think the principle thing you are missing is the same thing most of us are missing with respect to the nurse paintings. Our last names are not Broad, Gagosian or Gladstone.
>>>no mention of his photographs? why do you choose to ignore the marlboro man and brooke shields and girlfriends, etc.?<<
Personally, photography does very little for me. Everyone does it (including myself) and it rarely moves me in any meaningful way to consider hanging one on my wall. I like to look at them online or in person but would never pay for one. FWIW, i also laugh to myself every time I see a result for an out of focus/soft bokeh Ruff nude that brings in big money. I don't get it; more room for others to dance. I prefer the national geographic and underwater photographers personally to the Sherman's and handful of household name artists that make a rich living from their artistic clicks.
>>>theres got to be something im missing<<<
I think the principle thing you are missing is the same thing most of us are missing with respect to the nurse paintings. Our last names are not Broad, Gagosian or Gladstone.
>>>no mention of his photographs? why do you choose to ignore the marlboro man and brooke shields and girlfriends, etc.?<<
Personally, photography does very little for me. Everyone does it (including myself) and it rarely moves me in any meaningful way to consider hanging one on my wall. I like to look at them online or in person but would never pay for one. FWIW, i also laugh to myself every time I see a result for an out of focus/soft bokeh Ruff nude that brings in big money. I don't get it; more room for others to dance. I prefer the national geographic and underwater photographers personally to the Sherman's and handful of household name artists that make a rich living from their artistic clicks.
|
|
Francis
Junior Member
Posts • 2,571
Likes • 137
September 2007
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by Francis on May 31, 2010 22:30:33 GMT 1, >>>theres got to be something im missing<<< I think the principle thing you are missing is the same thing most of us are missing with respect to the nurse paintings. Our last names are not Broad, Gagosian or Gladstone. >>>no mention of his photographs? why do you choose to ignore the marlboro man and brooke shields and girlfriends, etc.?<< Personally, photography does very little for me. Everyone does it (including myself) and it rarely moves me in any meaningful way to consider hanging one on my wall. I like to look at them online or in person but would never pay for one. FWIW, i also laugh to myself every time I see a result for an out of focus/soft bokeh Ruff nude that brings in big money. I don't get it; more room for others to dance. I prefer the national geographic and underwater photographers personally to the Sherman's and handful of household name artists that make a rich living from their artistic clicks.
like with any artist and their work, you can not look at the nurse paintings in isolation and ask why they are worth what they are based purely on their superficial aesthetics. they are worth what they are worth in the context of Prince's career and overall themes.
his photographs are not just pictures of things, but has an idea and concept behind them that is infinitely more important than what is depicted in the photograph. to say it's simply a click is to totally not understand a big part of what art is about.
>>>theres got to be something im missing<<< I think the principle thing you are missing is the same thing most of us are missing with respect to the nurse paintings. Our last names are not Broad, Gagosian or Gladstone. >>>no mention of his photographs? why do you choose to ignore the marlboro man and brooke shields and girlfriends, etc.?<< Personally, photography does very little for me. Everyone does it (including myself) and it rarely moves me in any meaningful way to consider hanging one on my wall. I like to look at them online or in person but would never pay for one. FWIW, i also laugh to myself every time I see a result for an out of focus/soft bokeh Ruff nude that brings in big money. I don't get it; more room for others to dance. I prefer the national geographic and underwater photographers personally to the Sherman's and handful of household name artists that make a rich living from their artistic clicks. like with any artist and their work, you can not look at the nurse paintings in isolation and ask why they are worth what they are based purely on their superficial aesthetics. they are worth what they are worth in the context of Prince's career and overall themes. his photographs are not just pictures of things, but has an idea and concept behind them that is infinitely more important than what is depicted in the photograph. to say it's simply a click is to totally not understand a big part of what art is about. |
|
|
|
Harveyn
Forum Guardian
Full Member
Posts • 7,685
Likes • 4,839
July 2007
Staff Member
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by Harveyn on May 31, 2010 23:06:28 GMT 1, [/quote] like with any artist and their work, you can not look at the nurse paintings in isolation and ask why they are worth what they are based purely on their superficial aesthetics. they are worth what they are worth in the context of Prince's career and overall themes[/quote]
100% agree with this statement. A bad Warhol is still a Warhol and cannot possibly be divorced from his lifetime's achievements.
[/quote] like with any artist and their work, you can not look at the nurse paintings in isolation and ask why they are worth what they are based purely on their superficial aesthetics. they are worth what they are worth in the context of Prince's career and overall themes[/quote]
100% agree with this statement. A bad Warhol is still a Warhol and cannot possibly be divorced from his lifetime's achievements.
|
|
|
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by snausages on May 31, 2010 23:19:15 GMT 1, As far as Prince's photos go, it has nothing to do with a "click." It's all about appropriation, in contrast to Warhol appropriating a product and brand as in Campbells/Brillo and idolizing it, Prince took advertisements and totally wiped out all traces of the logo and branding from their advertisements and left just the photo/image. They're now surreal, conceptual images with questions about consumption and identity. Think of them as "ad disruptions" on a more austere / conceptual level.
As far as Prince's photos go, it has nothing to do with a "click." It's all about appropriation, in contrast to Warhol appropriating a product and brand as in Campbells/Brillo and idolizing it, Prince took advertisements and totally wiped out all traces of the logo and branding from their advertisements and left just the photo/image. They're now surreal, conceptual images with questions about consumption and identity. Think of them as "ad disruptions" on a more austere / conceptual level.
|
|
lee3
New Member
Posts • 832
Likes • 1,289
November 2009
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by lee3 on May 31, 2010 23:25:28 GMT 1, >>>like with any artist and their work, you can not look at the nurse paintings in isolation and ask why they are worth what they are based purely on their superficial aesthetics. they are worth what they are worth in the context of Prince's career and overall themes. <<<
Prince said, "The problem with art is, it's not like the game of golf, where you put the ball in the hole or you don't put the ball in the hole. There's no umpire. There's no judge. There are no rules. It's one of the problems, but it's also one of the great things about art: it becomes a question of what lasts." My point bringing up the nurse paintings previously is that I simply do not believe the price they command will last especially on a relative basis compared with every Ruscha painted to date. In other words, I believe they have been manipulated to an overvalued level that will not last long term.
>>>to say it's simply a click is to totally not understand a big part of what art is about.<<
That's your interpretation but not necessarily what was stated.
>>>like with any artist and their work, you can not look at the nurse paintings in isolation and ask why they are worth what they are based purely on their superficial aesthetics. they are worth what they are worth in the context of Prince's career and overall themes. <<<
Prince said, "The problem with art is, it's not like the game of golf, where you put the ball in the hole or you don't put the ball in the hole. There's no umpire. There's no judge. There are no rules. It's one of the problems, but it's also one of the great things about art: it becomes a question of what lasts." My point bringing up the nurse paintings previously is that I simply do not believe the price they command will last especially on a relative basis compared with every Ruscha painted to date. In other words, I believe they have been manipulated to an overvalued level that will not last long term.
>>>to say it's simply a click is to totally not understand a big part of what art is about.<<
That's your interpretation but not necessarily what was stated.
|
|
Francis
Junior Member
Posts • 2,571
Likes • 137
September 2007
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by Francis on May 31, 2010 23:31:32 GMT 1, why are we confounding the art discussion with price questions? are we talking about the art or are we talking about the prices?
why are we confounding the art discussion with price questions? are we talking about the art or are we talking about the prices?
|
|
lee3
New Member
Posts • 832
Likes • 1,289
November 2009
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by lee3 on May 31, 2010 23:38:41 GMT 1, why are we confounding the art discussion with price questions? are we talking about the art or are we talking about the prices?
I suspect the answer to the former is because we have focused on the nurse paintings. As for the latter, the price of those works over the past 3 years is THE most impressive part of the series artistically to many whether some live in a price free bubble or not.
why are we confounding the art discussion with price questions? are we talking about the art or are we talking about the prices? I suspect the answer to the former is because we have focused on the nurse paintings. As for the latter, the price of those works over the past 3 years is THE most impressive part of the series artistically to many whether some live in a price free bubble or not. |
|
Francis
Junior Member
Posts • 2,571
Likes • 137
September 2007
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by Francis on May 31, 2010 23:44:08 GMT 1, why are we confounding the art discussion with price questions? are we talking about the art or are we talking about the prices? I suspect the answer to the former is because we have focused on the nurse paintings. As for the latter, the price of those works over the past 3 years is THE most impressive part of the series artistically to many whether some live in a price free bubble or not.
i suspect another reason is that we are all very horny. same reason why lisa yuskavage is able to garner the prices she commands. same with paul mccarthy. ditto diane arbus.
there are many out there with nurse fetishes and having a huge painting of one can sublimate that desire.
why are we confounding the art discussion with price questions? are we talking about the art or are we talking about the prices? I suspect the answer to the former is because we have focused on the nurse paintings. As for the latter, the price of those works over the past 3 years is THE most impressive part of the series artistically to many whether some live in a price free bubble or not. i suspect another reason is that we are all very horny. same reason why lisa yuskavage is able to garner the prices she commands. same with paul mccarthy. ditto diane arbus. there are many out there with nurse fetishes and having a huge painting of one can sublimate that desire. |
|
jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
Posts • 0
Likes • 0
September 2012
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by jamesreeve5 on Jun 1, 2010 4:19:29 GMT 1, Wow... I go out to a Memorial Day BBQ and look at what I've come back to! This has easily turned into the most interesting thread I've read / participated in this year. While it's too much to quote everything I want to right now, here's my input towards each individual member's overall postings:
pez: I do rely on a broad range of trusted peoples opinions coupled my own discretion when deciding what art is good or bad. Over the years, I've learned to appreciate an artist's contributions to the larger art community while being able to divorce my subjective, personal opinions about the art's aesthetic worth. Ultimately though, personal aesthetics guides my art purchasing habits. The "art purchase" is the one moment that I alone control what I aesthetically consume. But, I likely have a much different range of personal aesthetics as a result of being so open to others' suggestion in my initial ideas of what art is good and bad.
Take the time to read about Prince, and look at his artistic contributions within the context of his time, and maybe you will begin to understand why he is held in such high regard.
Lee: Although I'm sounding a bit repetitive here, if you think Prince's photography is just photography then you do not understand the work.
As for the question of why the nurse paintings are so valuable, it's because they represent a synthesis of the artist's entire body of work up until that point. His photos represented the appropriation, but lacked the artistic hand. The joke paintings contained the artistic hand, but somewhat lacked appropriation in the truest sense. By scanning images of book covers directly onto the canvas and then abstractly painting over them he managed to synthesize highbrow abstract painting with lowbrow pulp art, total appropriation with complete artistic hand. Furthermore he touches on Freudian ideas of the carnal gesture (the foundation of the abstract expressionists) on top of American ideas of classic femininity.
Furthermore, as someone who solicits themselves as somewhat of a Warhol aficionado, I can't understand why you are unable to see the similarities between Warhol's and Prince's careers on a macro social level. I remember listening to a panel discussion at Sotheby's about the art market, and the basic conclusion the panelists came to is that Warhol's immense price popularity has quite a bit to do with the baby-boomer generation. The increase in Warhol's prices over time, they said, correlates with the amount of spending power gained by the baby-boomers. Why do they seek out Warhol in particular? Because he is the most recognizable artist of the time when they were all young. It's nostalgia buying: he was "cool" when they couldn't afford it, and they hope to regain some of that "coolness" now that they can. Prince is generation X's equivalent of Warhol (Sonic Youth anyone?). His work began increasing in value as generation X started accumulating wealth. Obviously, the hedgefunders skewed the graph a bit in an effort to "beat the crowds" so to speak, but that's what they do for a living anyways right? But on a larger scale, I think you'll continue to see Prince's prices increase as the overall body of wealth transfers from the boomers to the next generation.
Francis and Snausages:
Good posts. Not much else to say... ;D
I think Mark Flood would love this thread.
Wow... I go out to a Memorial Day BBQ and look at what I've come back to! This has easily turned into the most interesting thread I've read / participated in this year. While it's too much to quote everything I want to right now, here's my input towards each individual member's overall postings:
pez: I do rely on a broad range of trusted peoples opinions coupled my own discretion when deciding what art is good or bad. Over the years, I've learned to appreciate an artist's contributions to the larger art community while being able to divorce my subjective, personal opinions about the art's aesthetic worth. Ultimately though, personal aesthetics guides my art purchasing habits. The "art purchase" is the one moment that I alone control what I aesthetically consume. But, I likely have a much different range of personal aesthetics as a result of being so open to others' suggestion in my initial ideas of what art is good and bad.
Take the time to read about Prince, and look at his artistic contributions within the context of his time, and maybe you will begin to understand why he is held in such high regard.
Lee: Although I'm sounding a bit repetitive here, if you think Prince's photography is just photography then you do not understand the work.
As for the question of why the nurse paintings are so valuable, it's because they represent a synthesis of the artist's entire body of work up until that point. His photos represented the appropriation, but lacked the artistic hand. The joke paintings contained the artistic hand, but somewhat lacked appropriation in the truest sense. By scanning images of book covers directly onto the canvas and then abstractly painting over them he managed to synthesize highbrow abstract painting with lowbrow pulp art, total appropriation with complete artistic hand. Furthermore he touches on Freudian ideas of the carnal gesture (the foundation of the abstract expressionists) on top of American ideas of classic femininity.
Furthermore, as someone who solicits themselves as somewhat of a Warhol aficionado, I can't understand why you are unable to see the similarities between Warhol's and Prince's careers on a macro social level. I remember listening to a panel discussion at Sotheby's about the art market, and the basic conclusion the panelists came to is that Warhol's immense price popularity has quite a bit to do with the baby-boomer generation. The increase in Warhol's prices over time, they said, correlates with the amount of spending power gained by the baby-boomers. Why do they seek out Warhol in particular? Because he is the most recognizable artist of the time when they were all young. It's nostalgia buying: he was "cool" when they couldn't afford it, and they hope to regain some of that "coolness" now that they can. Prince is generation X's equivalent of Warhol (Sonic Youth anyone?). His work began increasing in value as generation X started accumulating wealth. Obviously, the hedgefunders skewed the graph a bit in an effort to "beat the crowds" so to speak, but that's what they do for a living anyways right? But on a larger scale, I think you'll continue to see Prince's prices increase as the overall body of wealth transfers from the boomers to the next generation.
Francis and Snausages:
Good posts. Not much else to say... ;D
I think Mark Flood would love this thread.
|
|
taxidermot
New Member
Posts • 88
Likes • 0
June 2008
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by taxidermot on Jun 1, 2010 9:36:31 GMT 1, Will Banksy be the Net Generation's equivalent?
Or will it be Mr Brainwash....
Will Banksy be the Net Generation's equivalent?
Or will it be Mr Brainwash....
|
|
|
|
jamesreeve5
Blank Rank
Posts • 0
Likes • 0
September 2012
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by jamesreeve5 on Jun 1, 2010 13:16:31 GMT 1, Bansky could be... MBW won't be.
Looking at my long post above, I noticed it is filled with grammatical mistakes. I chalk it up to too much fun in the CA sun that day. Please excuse them.
Bansky could be... MBW won't be.
Looking at my long post above, I noticed it is filled with grammatical mistakes. I chalk it up to too much fun in the CA sun that day. Please excuse them.
|
|
lee3
New Member
Posts • 832
Likes • 1,289
November 2009
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by lee3 on Jun 1, 2010 16:49:14 GMT 1, >>>if you think Prince's photography is just photography then you do not understand the work<<<
To be clear here, artistic photography rarely, if ever, moves *me*. I can well appreciate the influences, thought process and framing of the composition but the medium itself has always left *me* wanting something more no matter who the artist is. That's just me and there is plenty of wonderful art to go around but I've never had my soul tugged by photography (other than the aforementioned nature photographers) with an artistic focus. At the very least, one can consider me prejudiced or firm in my preferences.
>>>As for the question of why the nurse paintings are so valuable, it's because they represent a synthesis of the artist's entire body of work up until that point.<<<
I respectfully disagree; they are so valuable because a handful of living billionaires and their dealers want them to be so valuable. They may be the pinnacle of the Prince output but your reasoning sounds like what those handful of folks want us all to believe imo.
>>>I can't understand why you are unable to see the similarities between Warhol's and Prince's careers on a macro social level<<<
?? I see parallels but my prejudice with Prince simply points to the conclusion that he's overvalued on a relative basis compared with other artists that I believe history will judge as far more important.
>>>the panelists came to is that Warhol's immense price popularity has quite a bit to do with the baby-boomer generation. The increase in Warhol's prices over time, they said, correlates with the amount of spending power gained by the baby-boomers.<<
I believe this is true of many asset classes and yes Warhol was at the right place at the right time with the right ideas.
>>>Why do they seek out Warhol in particular? Because he is the most recognizable artist of the time when they were all young. It's nostalgia buying: he was "cool" when they couldn't afford it, and they hope to regain some of that "coolness" now that they can.<<<
To be fair here, those collectors could have bought Warhol from the 60s through 90s for a few hundred dollars in most cases and iconic stuff by todays measure for as little as $5k up through his death. I believe the difference here is that Warhol was knocked by many as overproduced (by volume) decorative art with little thought and that it didn't have staying power. He was never priced like the greats during his time like a Picasso or Johns or now a Prince, Koons and even Doig (ridiculous). That in essence is the crutch of my position. Since price is the measurement we can easily point to at that level, I believe history will judge otherwise (when the handful of billionaire buyers pass on) that each one of the Prince nurse paintings are worth more than anything Ruscha ever did. It's an aberration that will not last long term imo.
Just as Warhol needed history and time to weigh in on the equation, so does Ruscha. And yet Koons, Prince and now Doig do not. Yes, there is manipulation at all levels in the art pyramid which has certainly become a twisted version of itself from just 30 years ago. I could well be wrong and perhaps all of the nurse paintings, ceramic Michael Jackson and Bubbles sculptures, and Doig's blurry painting of a white canoe in 50 years time could well be the defining images in art of this time period. However, I don't believe that is the case. In Doig's case, you've got someone born after Ruscha painted Large Trademark. It can't last.
>> I think you'll continue to see Prince's prices increase as the overall body of wealth transfers from the boomers to the next generation.<<
I agree wholeheartedly given the pace at which governments around the globe are running their printing presses. And like a broken record (which means it's time for me to bow out as I can only articulate my position in so many ways) my point is that it will not appreciate anywhere near the pace of a handful of more important movers and shakers that are priced for a fraction of him today. That's my guess but I've been wrong more times than I can count.
edit: James if there is one simple conclusion from this thread it's that the CA sun leads to long posts from us both. My apologies to all for the length.
>>>if you think Prince's photography is just photography then you do not understand the work<<<
To be clear here, artistic photography rarely, if ever, moves *me*. I can well appreciate the influences, thought process and framing of the composition but the medium itself has always left *me* wanting something more no matter who the artist is. That's just me and there is plenty of wonderful art to go around but I've never had my soul tugged by photography (other than the aforementioned nature photographers) with an artistic focus. At the very least, one can consider me prejudiced or firm in my preferences.
>>>As for the question of why the nurse paintings are so valuable, it's because they represent a synthesis of the artist's entire body of work up until that point.<<<
I respectfully disagree; they are so valuable because a handful of living billionaires and their dealers want them to be so valuable. They may be the pinnacle of the Prince output but your reasoning sounds like what those handful of folks want us all to believe imo.
>>>I can't understand why you are unable to see the similarities between Warhol's and Prince's careers on a macro social level<<<
?? I see parallels but my prejudice with Prince simply points to the conclusion that he's overvalued on a relative basis compared with other artists that I believe history will judge as far more important.
>>>the panelists came to is that Warhol's immense price popularity has quite a bit to do with the baby-boomer generation. The increase in Warhol's prices over time, they said, correlates with the amount of spending power gained by the baby-boomers.<<
I believe this is true of many asset classes and yes Warhol was at the right place at the right time with the right ideas.
>>>Why do they seek out Warhol in particular? Because he is the most recognizable artist of the time when they were all young. It's nostalgia buying: he was "cool" when they couldn't afford it, and they hope to regain some of that "coolness" now that they can.<<<
To be fair here, those collectors could have bought Warhol from the 60s through 90s for a few hundred dollars in most cases and iconic stuff by todays measure for as little as $5k up through his death. I believe the difference here is that Warhol was knocked by many as overproduced (by volume) decorative art with little thought and that it didn't have staying power. He was never priced like the greats during his time like a Picasso or Johns or now a Prince, Koons and even Doig (ridiculous). That in essence is the crutch of my position. Since price is the measurement we can easily point to at that level, I believe history will judge otherwise (when the handful of billionaire buyers pass on) that each one of the Prince nurse paintings are worth more than anything Ruscha ever did. It's an aberration that will not last long term imo.
Just as Warhol needed history and time to weigh in on the equation, so does Ruscha. And yet Koons, Prince and now Doig do not. Yes, there is manipulation at all levels in the art pyramid which has certainly become a twisted version of itself from just 30 years ago. I could well be wrong and perhaps all of the nurse paintings, ceramic Michael Jackson and Bubbles sculptures, and Doig's blurry painting of a white canoe in 50 years time could well be the defining images in art of this time period. However, I don't believe that is the case. In Doig's case, you've got someone born after Ruscha painted Large Trademark. It can't last.
>> I think you'll continue to see Prince's prices increase as the overall body of wealth transfers from the boomers to the next generation.<<
I agree wholeheartedly given the pace at which governments around the globe are running their printing presses. And like a broken record (which means it's time for me to bow out as I can only articulate my position in so many ways) my point is that it will not appreciate anywhere near the pace of a handful of more important movers and shakers that are priced for a fraction of him today. That's my guess but I've been wrong more times than I can count.
edit: James if there is one simple conclusion from this thread it's that the CA sun leads to long posts from us both. My apologies to all for the length.
|
|
Francis
Junior Member
Posts • 2,571
Likes • 137
September 2007
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by Francis on Jun 1, 2010 19:03:26 GMT 1, you do know that Michael Jackson and Bubbles IS already a defining piece of its time and one would easily achieve $100 million plus in the open market today, right?
you do know that Michael Jackson and Bubbles IS already a defining piece of its time and one would easily achieve $100 million plus in the open market today, right?
|
|
lee3
New Member
Posts • 832
Likes • 1,289
November 2009
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by lee3 on Jun 1, 2010 19:30:59 GMT 1, >>>you do know that Michael Jackson and Bubbles IS already a defining piece of its time and one would easily achieve $100 million plus in the open market today, right?<<<
Francis, I beg to differ with your price estimate but chances are we won't find out anytime soon as there are 3 and the highest one sold for was $5.6MM in '01. I have the "pleasure" of viewing one of the three far too often at the SF Moma. Thank goodness they got the Fisher collection to raise the bar for that museum considerably. What makes you think that is a $100MM work of art? If I had to pick one from the SF Moma collection (not part of the Fisher contribution) that would break that price barrier first it would be the enormous (and much more satisfying for my tastes) Rothko # 14 and I still don't believe it would be near that threshold even today.
Edit: Although it's worth noting that Castelli's son recently sold the Jasper Johns flag that was on loan to the SF Moma to Steven Cohen for $120MM. I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to think of any other works in that collection that would break that barrier and one never knows with Pollock but my hunch is the Rothko would be the most valuable. I recall 12+ years ago when the museum's decision to purchase it (for ~$11MM if memory serves) caused a HUGE uproar locally as a considerable mistake/overpayment.
>>>you do know that Michael Jackson and Bubbles IS already a defining piece of its time and one would easily achieve $100 million plus in the open market today, right?<<<
Francis, I beg to differ with your price estimate but chances are we won't find out anytime soon as there are 3 and the highest one sold for was $5.6MM in '01. I have the "pleasure" of viewing one of the three far too often at the SF Moma. Thank goodness they got the Fisher collection to raise the bar for that museum considerably. What makes you think that is a $100MM work of art? If I had to pick one from the SF Moma collection (not part of the Fisher contribution) that would break that price barrier first it would be the enormous (and much more satisfying for my tastes) Rothko # 14 and I still don't believe it would be near that threshold even today.
Edit: Although it's worth noting that Castelli's son recently sold the Jasper Johns flag that was on loan to the SF Moma to Steven Cohen for $120MM. I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to think of any other works in that collection that would break that barrier and one never knows with Pollock but my hunch is the Rothko would be the most valuable. I recall 12+ years ago when the museum's decision to purchase it (for ~$11MM if memory serves) caused a HUGE uproar locally as a considerable mistake/overpayment.
|
|
Francis
Junior Member
Posts • 2,571
Likes • 137
September 2007
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by Francis on Jun 1, 2010 19:41:50 GMT 1, You yourself may not like the piece, but that will not affect it's value.
There are MANY reasons it would go $100mil+, but these are the top:
-Koons is the top artist to emerge from the post-boom, post-Warhol era
-Michael Jackson and Bubbles is his masterpiece and best work
-Masterpieces rarely go to sale in the open market
-The richest art collectors in the world would want it and pay what it takes to get it
You yourself may not like the piece, but that will not affect it's value.
There are MANY reasons it would go $100mil+, but these are the top:
-Koons is the top artist to emerge from the post-boom, post-Warhol era
-Michael Jackson and Bubbles is his masterpiece and best work
-Masterpieces rarely go to sale in the open market
-The richest art collectors in the world would want it and pay what it takes to get it
|
|
Francis
Junior Member
Posts • 2,571
Likes • 137
September 2007
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by Francis on Jun 1, 2010 19:49:02 GMT 1, -The richest art collectors in the world would want it and pay what it takes to get it
this, I think is the most important reason. we all know of the 2 huge collectors who have one. say the third or fourth owner (AP etc) sells.... you are a wealthy Mexican communications baron or a Middle East oil baron or Hong Kong investor or your last name is Cohen. you want to be recognized and immortalized as a collector, you open your wallet wide enough until that piece is yours.
-The richest art collectors in the world would want it and pay what it takes to get it this, I think is the most important reason. we all know of the 2 huge collectors who have one. say the third or fourth owner (AP etc) sells.... you are a wealthy Mexican communications baron or a Middle East oil baron or Hong Kong investor or your last name is Cohen. you want to be recognized and immortalized as a collector, you open your wallet wide enough until that piece is yours. |
|
lee3
New Member
Posts • 832
Likes • 1,289
November 2009
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by lee3 on Jun 1, 2010 19:51:33 GMT 1, >>>There are MANY reasons it would go $100mil+, but these are the top:<<<
Those are your suppositions but they differ from mine. I disagree that it is his masterpiece as well and suspect a large blue balloon dog is what would break the bank thanks to Broad. It's a quantum leap to suggest that the highest priced Koons would jump from $25MM to $100MM in this environment given the Chrichton estate Johns flag brought in "just" $30MM. Regardless, those kinds of numbers are so far out of my relm of understanding it boggles the mind. Still, Turqoise Marilyn didn't command $100MM and thus my position that any 1 of the 3 Michael and Bubbles would struggle to see 30 today which is no small accomplishment.
>>>There are MANY reasons it would go $100mil+, but these are the top:<<<
Those are your suppositions but they differ from mine. I disagree that it is his masterpiece as well and suspect a large blue balloon dog is what would break the bank thanks to Broad. It's a quantum leap to suggest that the highest priced Koons would jump from $25MM to $100MM in this environment given the Chrichton estate Johns flag brought in "just" $30MM. Regardless, those kinds of numbers are so far out of my relm of understanding it boggles the mind. Still, Turqoise Marilyn didn't command $100MM and thus my position that any 1 of the 3 Michael and Bubbles would struggle to see 30 today which is no small accomplishment.
|
|
Francis
Junior Member
Posts • 2,571
Likes • 137
September 2007
|
seven-emerging-artists-new-york-art-scene, by Francis on Jun 1, 2010 20:06:47 GMT 1, the Johns flag that was just sold really wasn't a true Johns flag. if it was, it would have destroyed that $30m number. look at the size and the media used.
you have to remember that auction numbers are not the only value indicators for an artist. they are the only public and recorded numbers, but most 9 figure works are sold privately. that koons record number at auction means caca. no one in their right minds would consider the johns auction record anywhere indicative of what a johns masterpiece is capable of.
i think you are taking into consideration your feelings on the mj&bubbles piece too much on its value. i'm sure if you survey the world's leading curators, auction experts, leading art collectors, you'd get an estimate for it somewhere in the 9 figure range.
the Johns flag that was just sold really wasn't a true Johns flag. if it was, it would have destroyed that $30m number. look at the size and the media used.
you have to remember that auction numbers are not the only value indicators for an artist. they are the only public and recorded numbers, but most 9 figure works are sold privately. that koons record number at auction means caca. no one in their right minds would consider the johns auction record anywhere indicative of what a johns masterpiece is capable of.
i think you are taking into consideration your feelings on the mj&bubbles piece too much on its value. i'm sure if you survey the world's leading curators, auction experts, leading art collectors, you'd get an estimate for it somewhere in the 9 figure range.
|
|
)
