you are probably talking about Idem. Seth released his print through print them all.

Interesting nuart do you consider any of the artists you represent and sell real artists then?

Hey bud, hope you're well.  Your point is taken but worth noting that Monet was a very wealthy man in his lifetime.  His art sold well, he was an adept stock investor and his home and gardens about an hour outside of Paris are quite special.  He even micromanaged the small army of gardeners to set up each parcel for his paintings.  Quite something to see if you ever have the opportunity. 

I like your comment about the view through economics.  It's makes you think but even for the diehard art lovers (and i count myself among them), it gets really tough to ignore that phenomenon.  Take the enormous untitled Basquiat that sold last week for ~$54 million and yes this is an extreme example but it's one that has taken place during many of our lifetimes.

It previously sold just a dozen years ago for ~$4.5 million and consider further that it sold in '82 for almost certainly less than $10k (probably less than 5) and the artist received a fraction of that at the time.  That means that Adam Lindemann who stuck his neck out 12 years ago to overpay for that painting to the laugher of then skeptics made exponentially more holding that painting than the artist did in his entire career.  Their is risk/reward to seemingly everything these days but facts like that jump out at any observer and in many cases can be as shocking to some as the art itself.  You certainly didn't need to be rich to buy it 40 years ago, but you do now.  Because of stories like that I hold no animosity towards any artist/(s) trying to maximize their share on the front end.  But we also have a voice in that purchasing decision too which is obvious given the length of this thread. 

Congrats to those that picked up the print. 

you're right of course, Monet did make a living from his work but not until quite late in his career if I remember.. interestingly it was said the work was overpriced at the first Impressionist show.

"The total attendance is estimated at 3500, and some works did sell, though some exhibitors had placed their prices too high. Pissarro was asking 1000 francs for The Orchard and Monet the same for Impression: Sunrise, neither of which sold. Renoir failed to obtain the 500 francs he was asking for La Loge, but later sold it for 450 francs to Père Martin, dealer and supporter of the group"

But yeah, my point was really that the artists I know rarely if ever consider the monetary value of the art they make. It just isn't part of the process and would be weaker for it or perhaps not exist at all if they did. Sure they want to eat, drink and live from their work and many struggle to do so. But it simply isn't part of the process. Maybe later in life it becomes more important.

I think if you live and work at a level you're comfortable with, then these multi million dollar sales just become abstract, 54 million, 100 million, a billion. Meaningless really.

I'm looking at originals right now from Choe, Bast, Parla, Blu and Banksy. And it's only the Banksy that generates any real thought of monetary value.. presumably because of the ten years we've inhabited this forum, actually, it makes me think of you  as much as the money;-)

Hope you're good.

The twins

If you have to explain it not a very good joke. Blinky eye fish, now that was a joke!

Googly eyed fish print was a good print.

Actually, it wasn't.  And as it has shown up in an Os Gemeos thread obviously an invasive species.

Our opinions will clearly differ. I have two of these prints at my home waiting to be framed and it is a good print... In my opinion. It would appear I'm not alone in this thinking as the edition sold out.

You imported it into the country Hairbland, well you and someone else with a humour labotomy. Dont then make out your annoyed its been brought up! Weird

there is a listing in the german bay...
bidding - its now by 33 bids / 3k. Maybe a good chance to get it for a "near" release price ?!
its not my listing !

This happens with all art.  If you follow the auctions sometimes the Impressionists have fallen out of favor as a group, sometimes there are specific artists from certain time periods (not just the last 20-30 years) that have seen their star and desirability fade.  Will Munch's "The Scream" maintain its $120 million auction price from 2012, go up or go down?  Sotheby's posted a huge quarterly loss based on items going for less than their guarantees.  I think this OG print could quickly be resold for an easy twice the price if not more (as long as there is a buyer there is a sale), but that if one held on to it the price might come down to 50% over original (still a profit, just less).  That seems to be the case with their previous print, hovering at 50% over original, with fluctuations no doubt based on availability, demand and most importantly desire. The Yellow Spongebob by KAWS seems to be going for under $3,000 currently but got up to $5,000 and had an original price of $800.

I would imagine trying to game the art market much like trying to game the stock market, with the latter having no aesthetic value.  So while $7,000 for a print may seem expensive, in the real world of art collecting it is not, and I'd think one should buy it more for its aesthetic value and how/what OG makes one feel.

I'm quite partial to a Big Mac and McFlurry too.

Reminds me of Gollum in the lava at the end of The Lord of the Rings.