Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Deleted on Apr 2, 2014 18:46:39 GMT 1, What has made it hard for artists to stand out today is all the cgi in cinema and advertising which can be visually stunning and people are used to seing thes etype of images every day so now an artist has to do something which stops people in their tracks.
What has made it hard for artists to stand out today is all the cgi in cinema and advertising which can be visually stunning and people are used to seing thes etype of images every day so now an artist has to do something which stops people in their tracks.
|
|
sin
New Member
Posts โข 614
Likes โข 737
February 2013
|
Who is the next big thing?, by sin on Apr 2, 2014 19:18:42 GMT 1, What has made it hard for artists to stand out today is all the cgi in cinema and advertising which can be visually stunning and people are used to seing thes etype of images every day so now an artist has to do something which stops people in their tracks. I think thats only in the case of being easily consumable, or what i would call "cool" images. WOW! Thats cool!
its for this reason that I think urban art has risk. What is cool, changes, its rarely timeless.
What is art, what is the vision, how is that vision communicated and and how does that vision translate to the viewer?
To use two artists in my collection to illustrate the point.
The intertwining, detailed narratives in how & nosm's work relates to some universal challenges of progress vs humanity, their vision is often connected to these realities of the human experience, realities that have been part of our experience since the feudal period and realities that will be true long after I am dead. Their communications, or execution, is extremely detailed, perceivable from afar and up close, constantly revealing themselves and evolving with the viewer. Like a good book or timeless music, you can find yourself connected to a new piece of over time. Last, how does that translate? Meaning can I see the artists and myself in the work. This to me is subjective because the themes can be exceptionally personal. However, if people largely have a similar experience, being able to connect to a single piece or to multiple pieces then I think the goal of communication is achieved.
Peeta, looks cool. There is no greater communication to me. No statement, or narrative, or universal exploration of the image, the subject, our shared human experience, an exploration of what art is, or what life is. The execution is unique, Peeta masters the 3'd lettering, it takes on an abstract quality and makes to connect to the form over the word, but you are aware the word is clearly there. The only connection I think you can gather from this is esthetically. You either think the image is cool, or you don't.
Based on historic value, I think that How & Nosm is doing something that should be preserved and studied. It transcends street, the street is only a different canvas. Where as the Peeta pieces are not timeless, they may be tightly connected to a late 20th century early 21st century execution and prime examples of that type of work. While there is value to that, there is also value to mid century to late 20th century soul music, but only one Nina Simone, and while you can listen to old soul songs and reminisce, you can play damn near any Nina Simone song today and connect to it immediately as if its with you right now.
What has made it hard for artists to stand out today is all the cgi in cinema and advertising which can be visually stunning and people are used to seing thes etype of images every day so now an artist has to do something which stops people in their tracks. I think thats only in the case of being easily consumable, or what i would call "cool" images. WOW! Thats cool! its for this reason that I think urban art has risk. What is cool, changes, its rarely timeless. What is art, what is the vision, how is that vision communicated and and how does that vision translate to the viewer? To use two artists in my collection to illustrate the point. The intertwining, detailed narratives in how & nosm's work relates to some universal challenges of progress vs humanity, their vision is often connected to these realities of the human experience, realities that have been part of our experience since the feudal period and realities that will be true long after I am dead. Their communications, or execution, is extremely detailed, perceivable from afar and up close, constantly revealing themselves and evolving with the viewer. Like a good book or timeless music, you can find yourself connected to a new piece of over time. Last, how does that translate? Meaning can I see the artists and myself in the work. This to me is subjective because the themes can be exceptionally personal. However, if people largely have a similar experience, being able to connect to a single piece or to multiple pieces then I think the goal of communication is achieved. Peeta, looks cool. There is no greater communication to me. No statement, or narrative, or universal exploration of the image, the subject, our shared human experience, an exploration of what art is, or what life is. The execution is unique, Peeta masters the 3'd lettering, it takes on an abstract quality and makes to connect to the form over the word, but you are aware the word is clearly there. The only connection I think you can gather from this is esthetically. You either think the image is cool, or you don't. Based on historic value, I think that How & Nosm is doing something that should be preserved and studied. It transcends street, the street is only a different canvas. Where as the Peeta pieces are not timeless, they may be tightly connected to a late 20th century early 21st century execution and prime examples of that type of work. While there is value to that, there is also value to mid century to late 20th century soul music, but only one Nina Simone, and while you can listen to old soul songs and reminisce, you can play damn near any Nina Simone song today and connect to it immediately as if its with you right now.
|
|
Gard
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,604
Likes โข 1,246
June 2012
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Gard on Apr 2, 2014 19:35:35 GMT 1, I bought some paintings today, and I'm fully aware that they are just cool and I have no expectations to the artists other than that I like it. How far can you reach if your pieces is only seen as cool?
I bought some paintings today, and I'm fully aware that they are just cool and I have no expectations to the artists other than that I like it. How far can you reach if your pieces is only seen as cool?
|
|
fbg
New Member
Posts โข 22
Likes โข 5
March 2014
|
Who is the next big thing?, by fbg on Apr 2, 2014 22:46:23 GMT 1, Im really loving Dot Dot Dot Recently recieved a canvas from . . . and i have never enjoyed looking at a piece of art in all my life everytime i look at it i find myself loving it more everytime Think the detail that this guy delivers is exceptional and imense And hes a top man with a big heart so for me . . . = winner winner For me hes my favouite artist and i believe he has a Massive future Pics please!!
Im really loving Dot Dot Dot Recently recieved a canvas from . . . and i have never enjoyed looking at a piece of art in all my life everytime i look at it i find myself loving it more everytime Think the detail that this guy delivers is exceptional and imense And hes a top man with a big heart so for me . . . = winner winner For me hes my favouite artist and i believe he has a Massive future Pics please!!
|
|
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Jeezuz Jones Snr on Apr 2, 2014 23:35:33 GMT 1, >>>Picasso and other artists prices rose steadily and slowly over the years and soared after their death.<<< One cannot dismiss the meteoric price rise of Picasso's work during his lifetime. He was the rare recognized talent celebrated the world over in his day. His work cost thousands even back in the 30s and the standout works were commanding 10s of thousands in the late 40s/early 50s with a few at 100k+ towards the end of that decade. He became wealthier during his life than any artist before him. Certainly not by today's standards but he did pave the way. I'm not so sure that rich men and women are to blame for speculating on the arts and bastardizing a pursuit that those among us aged 60+ would argue was far more pure just 20 years ago. In my eyes, that blame rests with all of us and our willingness to go along with elected officials and central banks who are printing cash faster than ever. The wealth divide grows as a result and we blame the rich who are benefiting from those policies (while influencing them too) and turning seemingly every pursuit into one of a chase of money. The banks simply didn't operate like that during Picasso's lifetime or he too would have amassed far more in hindsight. The games at auction, all of the other crap we lament are going to get worse as there is no end in site to aforementioned policies. I wonder if we're living in the so-called good old days right now and laugh when I consider what this means for the artists of tomorrow. I can picture the old story of a 23 year old Lucien Smith seeming tame in 10 years time to the prices of a then 12 year old artist that's the next big thing. Good post Lee and yes Central Banks worldwide are just printing money, and the rich are just flipping their million dollar paintings amongst each other - the same as people on here are flipping their CYW's amongst each other, how long can it continue? the world is in a massive debt spiral.
There aren't many countries left with surplus money apart form say Norway (a very well run country) and a few others. Once China joins the party/starts slowing down (their debt has already surpassed any in the history of Economics and how are they going to pay?) there could be a bigger world wide depression. They may surprise and get out of the situation they are in we'll see. But if it happens it will affect ART as Art is a market like housing, shares, gold, silver etc. The high end will take a pounding and it may filter down. Since the GFC more hedge funds are investing in art as not much faith in Companies/Shares.
Only the strong renowned artists will survive a crash, same as houses in sort after areas survive a crash etc. Once there is a whiff of a big downturn everyone starts off loading their assets then prices fall. This thread should be called 'Who's the next artist we could make $$ from"? Perhaps its not a good idea buying an expensive piece just because you think he/she is the next big thing and you'll get a return? Buy something because you like it and will enjoy it.
>>>Picasso and other artists prices rose steadily and slowly over the years and soared after their death.<<< One cannot dismiss the meteoric price rise of Picasso's work during his lifetime. He was the rare recognized talent celebrated the world over in his day. His work cost thousands even back in the 30s and the standout works were commanding 10s of thousands in the late 40s/early 50s with a few at 100k+ towards the end of that decade. He became wealthier during his life than any artist before him. Certainly not by today's standards but he did pave the way. I'm not so sure that rich men and women are to blame for speculating on the arts and bastardizing a pursuit that those among us aged 60+ would argue was far more pure just 20 years ago. In my eyes, that blame rests with all of us and our willingness to go along with elected officials and central banks who are printing cash faster than ever. The wealth divide grows as a result and we blame the rich who are benefiting from those policies (while influencing them too) and turning seemingly every pursuit into one of a chase of money. The banks simply didn't operate like that during Picasso's lifetime or he too would have amassed far more in hindsight. The games at auction, all of the other crap we lament are going to get worse as there is no end in site to aforementioned policies. I wonder if we're living in the so-called good old days right now and laugh when I consider what this means for the artists of tomorrow. I can picture the old story of a 23 year old Lucien Smith seeming tame in 10 years time to the prices of a then 12 year old artist that's the next big thing. Good post Lee and yes Central Banks worldwide are just printing money, and the rich are just flipping their million dollar paintings amongst each other - the same as people on here are flipping their CYW's amongst each other, how long can it continue? the world is in a massive debt spiral.
There aren't many countries left with surplus money apart form say Norway (a very well run country) and a few others. Once China joins the party/starts slowing down (their debt has already surpassed any in the history of Economics and how are they going to pay?) there could be a bigger world wide depression. They may surprise and get out of the situation they are in we'll see. But if it happens it will affect ART as Art is a market like housing, shares, gold, silver etc. The high end will take a pounding and it may filter down. Since the GFC more hedge funds are investing in art as not much faith in Companies/Shares.
Only the strong renowned artists will survive a crash, same as houses in sort after areas survive a crash etc. Once there is a whiff of a big downturn everyone starts off loading their assets then prices fall. This thread should be called 'Who's the next artist we could make $$ from"? Perhaps its not a good idea buying an expensive piece just because you think he/she is the next big thing and you'll get a return? Buy something because you like it and will enjoy it.
|
|
artmanic1234
New Member
Posts โข 675
Likes โข 188
March 2012
|
Who is the next big thing?, by artmanic1234 on Apr 2, 2014 23:39:09 GMT 1, Im really loving Dot Dot Dot Recently recieved a canvas from . . . and i have never enjoyed looking at a piece of art in all my life everytime i look at it i find myself loving it more everytime Think the detail that this guy delivers is exceptional and imense And hes a top man with a big heart so for me . . . = winner winner For me hes my favouite artist and i believe he has a Massive future Pics please!! There on the show us your latest buy thread page 675 mate
Im really loving Dot Dot Dot Recently recieved a canvas from . . . and i have never enjoyed looking at a piece of art in all my life everytime i look at it i find myself loving it more everytime Think the detail that this guy delivers is exceptional and imense And hes a top man with a big heart so for me . . . = winner winner For me hes my favouite artist and i believe he has a Massive future Pics please!! There on the show us your latest buy thread page 675 mate
|
|
|
sin
New Member
Posts โข 614
Likes โข 737
February 2013
|
Who is the next big thing?, by sin on Apr 2, 2014 23:53:44 GMT 1, >>>Picasso and other artists prices rose steadily and slowly over the years and soared after their death.<<< One cannot dismiss the meteoric price rise of Picasso's work during his lifetime. He was the rare recognized talent celebrated the world over in his day. His work cost thousands even back in the 30s and the standout works were commanding 10s of thousands in the late 40s/early 50s with a few at 100k+ towards the end of that decade. He became wealthier during his life than any artist before him. Certainly not by today's standards but he did pave the way. I'm not so sure that rich men and women are to blame for speculating on the arts and bastardizing a pursuit that those among us aged 60+ would argue was far more pure just 20 years ago. In my eyes, that blame rests with all of us and our willingness to go along with elected officials and central banks who are printing cash faster than ever. The wealth divide grows as a result and we blame the rich who are benefiting from those policies (while influencing them too) and turning seemingly every pursuit into one of a chase of money. The banks simply didn't operate like that during Picasso's lifetime or he too would have amassed far more in hindsight. The games at auction, all of the other crap we lament are going to get worse as there is no end in site to aforementioned policies. I wonder if we're living in the so-called good old days right now and laugh when I consider what this means for the artists of tomorrow. I can picture the old story of a 23 year old Lucien Smith seeming tame in 10 years time to the prices of a then 12 year old artist that's the next big thing. Good post Lee and yes Central Banks worldwide are just printing money, and the rich are just flipping their million dollar paintings amongst each other - the same as people on here are flipping their CYW's amongst each other, how long can it continue? the world is in a massive debt spiral.
There aren't many countries left with surplus money apart form say Norway (a very well run country) and a few others. Once China joins the party/starts slowing down (their debt has already surpassed any in the history of Economics and how are they going to pay?) there could be a bigger world wide depression. They may surprise and get out of the situation they are in we'll see. But if it happens it will affect ART as Art is a market like housing, shares, gold, silver etc. The high end will take a pounding and it may filter down. Since the GFC more hedge funds are investing in art as not much faith in Companies/Shares.
Only the strong renowned artists will survive a crash, same as houses in sort after areas survive a crash etc. Once there is a whiff of a big downturn everyone starts off loading their assets then prices fall. This thread should be called 'Who's the next artist we could make $$ from"? Perhaps its not a good idea buying an expensive piece just because you think he/she is the next big thing and you'll get a return? Buy something because you like it and will enjoy it.
Just because the topic of money comes up doesn't mean its about money. I didn't buy any of the work in the collection because I thought about if they were a good investment. I make money investing it things that I can control. I bought the work because I loved the work and thought based on the number of days I expect to live, the cost was worth it. Secondarily, I hope to be able to share the work with others over time and preserve the work for that purpose.
When you are talking about who is the next big thing, value is a way of keeping score. An artists whose price is increasing, passing certain thresholds is considering to be breaking out, getting wider acceptance. Money is a side effect of success and demand. I dont buy based on it, but I cant say it doesnt make me happy to see that something I believe is worth noticing is getting notice.
>>>Picasso and other artists prices rose steadily and slowly over the years and soared after their death.<<< One cannot dismiss the meteoric price rise of Picasso's work during his lifetime. He was the rare recognized talent celebrated the world over in his day. His work cost thousands even back in the 30s and the standout works were commanding 10s of thousands in the late 40s/early 50s with a few at 100k+ towards the end of that decade. He became wealthier during his life than any artist before him. Certainly not by today's standards but he did pave the way. I'm not so sure that rich men and women are to blame for speculating on the arts and bastardizing a pursuit that those among us aged 60+ would argue was far more pure just 20 years ago. In my eyes, that blame rests with all of us and our willingness to go along with elected officials and central banks who are printing cash faster than ever. The wealth divide grows as a result and we blame the rich who are benefiting from those policies (while influencing them too) and turning seemingly every pursuit into one of a chase of money. The banks simply didn't operate like that during Picasso's lifetime or he too would have amassed far more in hindsight. The games at auction, all of the other crap we lament are going to get worse as there is no end in site to aforementioned policies. I wonder if we're living in the so-called good old days right now and laugh when I consider what this means for the artists of tomorrow. I can picture the old story of a 23 year old Lucien Smith seeming tame in 10 years time to the prices of a then 12 year old artist that's the next big thing. Good post Lee and yes Central Banks worldwide are just printing money, and the rich are just flipping their million dollar paintings amongst each other - the same as people on here are flipping their CYW's amongst each other, how long can it continue? the world is in a massive debt spiral.
There aren't many countries left with surplus money apart form say Norway (a very well run country) and a few others. Once China joins the party/starts slowing down (their debt has already surpassed any in the history of Economics and how are they going to pay?) there could be a bigger world wide depression. They may surprise and get out of the situation they are in we'll see. But if it happens it will affect ART as Art is a market like housing, shares, gold, silver etc. The high end will take a pounding and it may filter down. Since the GFC more hedge funds are investing in art as not much faith in Companies/Shares.
Only the strong renowned artists will survive a crash, same as houses in sort after areas survive a crash etc. Once there is a whiff of a big downturn everyone starts off loading their assets then prices fall. This thread should be called 'Who's the next artist we could make $$ from"? Perhaps its not a good idea buying an expensive piece just because you think he/she is the next big thing and you'll get a return? Buy something because you like it and will enjoy it.
Just because the topic of money comes up doesn't mean its about money. I didn't buy any of the work in the collection because I thought about if they were a good investment. I make money investing it things that I can control. I bought the work because I loved the work and thought based on the number of days I expect to live, the cost was worth it. Secondarily, I hope to be able to share the work with others over time and preserve the work for that purpose. When you are talking about who is the next big thing, value is a way of keeping score. An artists whose price is increasing, passing certain thresholds is considering to be breaking out, getting wider acceptance. Money is a side effect of success and demand. I dont buy based on it, but I cant say it doesnt make me happy to see that something I believe is worth noticing is getting notice.
|
|
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Jeezuz Jones Snr on Apr 3, 2014 0:24:27 GMT 1, Good post Lee and yes Central Banks worldwide are just printing money, and the rich are just flipping their million dollar paintings amongst each other - the same as people on here are flipping their CYW's amongst each other, how long can it continue? the world is in a massive debt spiral.
There aren't many countries left with surplus money apart form say Norway (a very well run country) and a few others. Once China joins the party/starts slowing down (their debt has already surpassed any in the history of Economics and how are they going to pay?) there could be a bigger world wide depression. They may surprise and get out of the situation they are in we'll see. But if it happens it will affect ART as Art is a market like housing, shares, gold, silver etc. The high end will take a pounding and it may filter down. Since the GFC more hedge funds are investing in art as not much faith in Companies/Shares.
Only the strong renowned artists will survive a crash, same as houses in sort after areas survive a crash etc. Once there is a whiff of a big downturn everyone starts off loading their assets then prices fall. This thread should be called 'Who's the next artist we could make $$ from"? Perhaps its not a good idea buying an expensive piece just because you think he/she is the next big thing and you'll get a return? Buy something because you like it and will enjoy it.
Just because the topic of money comes up doesn't mean its about money. I didn't buy any of the work in the collection because I thought about if they were a good investment. I make money investing it things that I can control. I bought the work because I loved the work and thought based on the number of days I expect to live, the cost was worth it. Secondarily, I hope to be able to share the work with others over time and preserve the work for that purpose. When you are talking about who is the next big thing, value is a way of keeping score. An artists whose price is increasing, passing certain thresholds is considering to be breaking out, getting wider acceptance. Money is a side effect of success and demand. I dont buy based on it, but I cant say it doesnt make me happy to see that something I believe is worth noticing is getting notice. Good post and yes there lots who don't buy for investment like yourself Sin, but there are more who buy purely with profit in mind. I am saying there are so many artists out there & spending thousands on piece as an investment is a huge risk if/when things start slowing down..
Good post Lee and yes Central Banks worldwide are just printing money, and the rich are just flipping their million dollar paintings amongst each other - the same as people on here are flipping their CYW's amongst each other, how long can it continue? the world is in a massive debt spiral.
There aren't many countries left with surplus money apart form say Norway (a very well run country) and a few others. Once China joins the party/starts slowing down (their debt has already surpassed any in the history of Economics and how are they going to pay?) there could be a bigger world wide depression. They may surprise and get out of the situation they are in we'll see. But if it happens it will affect ART as Art is a market like housing, shares, gold, silver etc. The high end will take a pounding and it may filter down. Since the GFC more hedge funds are investing in art as not much faith in Companies/Shares.
Only the strong renowned artists will survive a crash, same as houses in sort after areas survive a crash etc. Once there is a whiff of a big downturn everyone starts off loading their assets then prices fall. This thread should be called 'Who's the next artist we could make $$ from"? Perhaps its not a good idea buying an expensive piece just because you think he/she is the next big thing and you'll get a return? Buy something because you like it and will enjoy it.
Just because the topic of money comes up doesn't mean its about money. I didn't buy any of the work in the collection because I thought about if they were a good investment. I make money investing it things that I can control. I bought the work because I loved the work and thought based on the number of days I expect to live, the cost was worth it. Secondarily, I hope to be able to share the work with others over time and preserve the work for that purpose. When you are talking about who is the next big thing, value is a way of keeping score. An artists whose price is increasing, passing certain thresholds is considering to be breaking out, getting wider acceptance. Money is a side effect of success and demand. I dont buy based on it, but I cant say it doesnt make me happy to see that something I believe is worth noticing is getting notice. Good post and yes there lots who don't buy for investment like yourself Sin, but there are more who buy purely with profit in mind. I am saying there are so many artists out there & spending thousands on piece as an investment is a huge risk if/when things start slowing down..
|
|
nrgball
Junior Member
Posts โข 1,225
Likes โข 648
January 2011
|
Who is the next big thing?, by nrgball on Apr 3, 2014 0:31:56 GMT 1, Thanks for the indepth response Sin. Always good to get a picture of the person behind the posts. We can agree to differ. Apologies for being long winded, its been a lifelong cross to bear. You have me at a disadvantage though, you know my philosophy but I dont clearly know yours. ย Im genuinely curious, as I am a big fan of ideas over beliefs and find other peoples perspectives inspiring. If I understand a bit, I believe your coming from the position that urban art has created such a paradigm shift that the documentation, preservation and study of it has been democratized. ย This is to mean that the community can act as a patron, removing the need for large patrons to serve this role, removing the market / gallery and traditional institution model from their tradition roles and instead achieving those ends through new mechanisms?
I think it is important to consider and to differentiate two separate forces at work here. One is the boom of Urban Art with the rise of outdoor art and the other the new found ability of artists to reach an audience and build a fan base without the use of representation. Banksy is, of course, a master at exploiting media to do his will. I feel like he was involved with the initial movement to an online presence. The internet has forever changed the way that artist communicate with a fan base.
It's obvious that old school collectors still rely heavily on auction houses and the gallery system. But it seems like forums like this one, rely on an exchange of information on an international level in real time. And where one used to have to live in the same town as an artist or be connected to their gallery, it is no longer necessary in order to build relationships with artists. Forums like this one actually give us direct contact with some artists and individual websites give us access to others.
When you look at an artist like Phlegm, he has built a career around painting walls around the globe, having them shared via a website and a series of blogs then selling his art directly to fans. No middle men at all. And though it requires a tremendous amount of work and stress. It is certainly possible. So this age is quite different than others.
Online auctions houses like art.net have essentially paved the way for a new level of communication and the mainstream established auction houses have had to adapt immediately. I think this contributes to the current art bubble. That and hyped up artists like Koons and Hirst and the lets get hip/rich together train. The combination of these events has shook the art community to its knees. I think folks are still scrambling to understand it all.
Back to Urban Art. I see this form as the voice of Cobain in the 90's. A few authentic voices are shining through and there are many others riding coat tails and likewise many galleries/collectors trying to remain a step ahead and scoring "the next big thing". All in all, there are important statements to be made by the urban art bloom. Urban art presents a rebellious platform to be heard and taken seriously. I see Banksy as a solid voice not because his work commands six figures but because he isn't concerned with value. He's concerned with building and using a platform in order to reveal current hypocrisies. He like to flash a sense of humor at the same time. Through this vehicle, I see him cementing his place in art history. And he's still young with much to say.
So I see an artist like Faith 47 rising steadily in coming years because of her talent, technique and commentary. She speaks with the voice of many and she communicates through any mediums. I see her as becoming very big, even bigger than Dal (and I love Dal). IMHO
Really refreshing thread. Thanks guys
Thanks for the indepth response Sin. Always good to get a picture of the person behind the posts. We can agree to differ. Apologies for being long winded, its been a lifelong cross to bear. You have me at a disadvantage though, you know my philosophy but I dont clearly know yours. ย Im genuinely curious, as I am a big fan of ideas over beliefs and find other peoples perspectives inspiring. If I understand a bit, I believe your coming from the position that urban art has created such a paradigm shift that the documentation, preservation and study of it has been democratized. ย This is to mean that the community can act as a patron, removing the need for large patrons to serve this role, removing the market / gallery and traditional institution model from their tradition roles and instead achieving those ends through new mechanisms? I think it is important to consider and to differentiate two separate forces at work here. One is the boom of Urban Art with the rise of outdoor art and the other the new found ability of artists to reach an audience and build a fan base without the use of representation. Banksy is, of course, a master at exploiting media to do his will. I feel like he was involved with the initial movement to an online presence. The internet has forever changed the way that artist communicate with a fan base. It's obvious that old school collectors still rely heavily on auction houses and the gallery system. But it seems like forums like this one, rely on an exchange of information on an international level in real time. And where one used to have to live in the same town as an artist or be connected to their gallery, it is no longer necessary in order to build relationships with artists. Forums like this one actually give us direct contact with some artists and individual websites give us access to others. When you look at an artist like Phlegm, he has built a career around painting walls around the globe, having them shared via a website and a series of blogs then selling his art directly to fans. No middle men at all. And though it requires a tremendous amount of work and stress. It is certainly possible. So this age is quite different than others. Online auctions houses like art.net have essentially paved the way for a new level of communication and the mainstream established auction houses have had to adapt immediately. I think this contributes to the current art bubble. That and hyped up artists like Koons and Hirst and the lets get hip/rich together train. The combination of these events has shook the art community to its knees. I think folks are still scrambling to understand it all. Back to Urban Art. I see this form as the voice of Cobain in the 90's. A few authentic voices are shining through and there are many others riding coat tails and likewise many galleries/collectors trying to remain a step ahead and scoring "the next big thing". All in all, there are important statements to be made by the urban art bloom. Urban art presents a rebellious platform to be heard and taken seriously. I see Banksy as a solid voice not because his work commands six figures but because he isn't concerned with value. He's concerned with building and using a platform in order to reveal current hypocrisies. He like to flash a sense of humor at the same time. Through this vehicle, I see him cementing his place in art history. And he's still young with much to say. So I see an artist like Faith 47 rising steadily in coming years because of her talent, technique and commentary. She speaks with the voice of many and she communicates through any mediums. I see her as becoming very big, even bigger than Dal (and I love Dal). IMHO Really refreshing thread. Thanks guys
|
|
Poster Bob
Junior Member
Posts โข 5,872
Likes โข 5,484
September 2013
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Poster Bob on Apr 3, 2014 7:24:09 GMT 1, I would have said Jason Seife earlier in the week, but now having seen the pdf it just seems like conor harrington, poesia, jeremy geddes and a hint of borf. Sad in my opinion as I was planning on purchasing the 004|400 piece but having seen the astronauts and remembering him getting called out by poesia in an earlier thread I decided to pass.
I would have said Jason Seife earlier in the week, but now having seen the pdf it just seems like conor harrington, poesia, jeremy geddes and a hint of borf. Sad in my opinion as I was planning on purchasing the 004|400 piece but having seen the astronauts and remembering him getting called out by poesia in an earlier thread I decided to pass.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Deleted on Apr 3, 2014 7:45:25 GMT 1, Just because the topic of money comes up doesn't mean its about money. I didn't buy any of the work in the collection because I thought about if they were a good investment. I make money investing it things that I can control. I bought the work because I loved the work and thought based on the number of days I expect to live, the cost was worth it. Secondarily, I hope to be able to share the work with others over time and preserve the work for that purpose. When you are talking about who is the next big thing, value is a way of keeping score. An artists whose price is increasing, passing certain thresholds is considering to be breaking out, getting wider acceptance. Money is a side effect of success and demand. I dont buy based on it, but I cant say it doesnt make me happy to see that something I believe is worth noticing is getting notice. Good post and yes there lots who don't buy for investment like yourself Sin, but there are more who buy purely with profit in mind. I am saying there are so many artists out there & spending thousands on piece as an investment is a huge risk if/when things start slowing down.. Africa is the next big thing !!! Just because this market is unexplored and new, so you can buy original for few hundred bucks... but then Nigeria and Kenya are going strong thanks to establishment of entrepreneurs consortium which partner with big names (Bonhams, Tate, etc.) to do what they do best, create a bubble thanks to press article, auctions, etc... and slowly we are seeing companies and banks buying tons of African artworks at cheap price which are then reassessed after auctions and recorded as financial assets (you know how it works ?); while consortium and shady art specialists are working as PR by writing exciting press articles about art investment in Africa (sure, since their friends own all the stock). Same happened with China and India, so expect in few years time to see all major players in art investment buying African art.
Just because the topic of money comes up doesn't mean its about money. I didn't buy any of the work in the collection because I thought about if they were a good investment. I make money investing it things that I can control. I bought the work because I loved the work and thought based on the number of days I expect to live, the cost was worth it. Secondarily, I hope to be able to share the work with others over time and preserve the work for that purpose. When you are talking about who is the next big thing, value is a way of keeping score. An artists whose price is increasing, passing certain thresholds is considering to be breaking out, getting wider acceptance. Money is a side effect of success and demand. I dont buy based on it, but I cant say it doesnt make me happy to see that something I believe is worth noticing is getting notice. Good post and yes there lots who don't buy for investment like yourself Sin, but there are more who buy purely with profit in mind. I am saying there are so many artists out there & spending thousands on piece as an investment is a huge risk if/when things start slowing down.. Africa is the next big thing !!! Just because this market is unexplored and new, so you can buy original for few hundred bucks... but then Nigeria and Kenya are going strong thanks to establishment of entrepreneurs consortium which partner with big names (Bonhams, Tate, etc.) to do what they do best, create a bubble thanks to press article, auctions, etc... and slowly we are seeing companies and banks buying tons of African artworks at cheap price which are then reassessed after auctions and recorded as financial assets (you know how it works ?); while consortium and shady art specialists are working as PR by writing exciting press articles about art investment in Africa (sure, since their friends own all the stock). Same happened with China and India, so expect in few years time to see all major players in art investment buying African art.
|
|
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Jeezuz Jones Snr on Apr 3, 2014 7:58:11 GMT 1, Africa is the next big thing !!! Just because this market is unexplored and new, so you can buy original for few hundred bucks... but then Nigeria and Kenya are going strong thanks to establishment of entrepreneurs consortium which partner with big names (Bonhams, Tate, etc.) to do what they do best, create a bubble thanks to press article, auctions, etc... and slowly we are seeing companies and banks buying tons of African artworks at cheap price which are then reassessed after auctions and recorded as financial assets (you know how it works ?); while consortium and shady art specialist are working as PR by writing existing press article about art investment in Africa (sure, since their friend own all the stock).ย Same happened with China and India, so expect in few years time to see all major players in art investment buying African art.
Spot on..., it's happening right now with Norway... Only kidding!!
Africa is the next big thing !!! Just because this market is unexplored and new, so you can buy original for few hundred bucks... but then Nigeria and Kenya are going strong thanks to establishment of entrepreneurs consortium which partner with big names (Bonhams, Tate, etc.) to do what they do best, create a bubble thanks to press article, auctions, etc... and slowly we are seeing companies and banks buying tons of African artworks at cheap price which are then reassessed after auctions and recorded as financial assets (you know how it works ?); while consortium and shady art specialist are working as PR by writing existing press article about art investment in Africa (sure, since their friend own all the stock).ย Same happened with China and India, so expect in few years time to see all major players in art investment buying African art. Spot on..., it's happening right now with Norway... Only kidding!!
|
|
Winter
Junior Member
Posts โข 7,153
Likes โข 4,455
March 2007
|
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Deleted on Apr 3, 2014 16:31:56 GMT 1, Art & Money. The Great Divide. Writer, Dealer, Curator on flippable art. Interesting article that covers some og the topics discussed on this thread.
galleristny.com/2014/04/art-money-the-great-divide/
|
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Deleted on Apr 3, 2014 16:35:04 GMT 1, Smug
Smug
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Deleted on Apr 3, 2014 21:48:23 GMT 1, >>>Picasso and other artists prices rose steadily and slowly over the years and soared after their death.<<< One cannot dismiss the meteoric price rise of Picasso's work during his lifetime. He was the rare recognized talent celebrated the world over in his day. His work cost thousands even back in the 30s and the standout works were commanding 10s of thousands in the late 40s/early 50s with a few at 100k+ towards the end of that decade. He became wealthier during his life than any artist before him. Certainly not by today's standards but he did pave the way. I'm not so sure that rich men and women are to blame for speculating on the arts and bastardizing a pursuit that those among us aged 60+ would argue was far more pure just 20 years ago. In my eyes, that blame rests with all of us and our willingness to go along with elected officials and central banks who are printing cash faster than ever. The wealth divide grows as a result and we blame the rich who are benefiting from those policies (while influencing them too) and turning seemingly every pursuit into one of a chase of money. The banks simply didn't operate like that during Picasso's lifetime or he too would have amassed far more in hindsight. The games at auction, all of the other crap we lament are going to get worse as there is no end in site to aforementioned policies. I wonder if we're living in the so-called good old days right now and laugh when I consider what this means for the artists of tomorrow. I can picture the old story of a 23 year old Lucien Smith seeming tame in 10 years time to the prices of a then 12 year old artist that's the next big thing. one for you Lee
>>>Picasso and other artists prices rose steadily and slowly over the years and soared after their death.<<< One cannot dismiss the meteoric price rise of Picasso's work during his lifetime. He was the rare recognized talent celebrated the world over in his day. His work cost thousands even back in the 30s and the standout works were commanding 10s of thousands in the late 40s/early 50s with a few at 100k+ towards the end of that decade. He became wealthier during his life than any artist before him. Certainly not by today's standards but he did pave the way. I'm not so sure that rich men and women are to blame for speculating on the arts and bastardizing a pursuit that those among us aged 60+ would argue was far more pure just 20 years ago. In my eyes, that blame rests with all of us and our willingness to go along with elected officials and central banks who are printing cash faster than ever. The wealth divide grows as a result and we blame the rich who are benefiting from those policies (while influencing them too) and turning seemingly every pursuit into one of a chase of money. The banks simply didn't operate like that during Picasso's lifetime or he too would have amassed far more in hindsight. The games at auction, all of the other crap we lament are going to get worse as there is no end in site to aforementioned policies. I wonder if we're living in the so-called good old days right now and laugh when I consider what this means for the artists of tomorrow. I can picture the old story of a 23 year old Lucien Smith seeming tame in 10 years time to the prices of a then 12 year old artist that's the next big thing. one for you Lee
|
|
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Jeezuz Jones Snr on Apr 3, 2014 22:12:50 GMT 1,
Nice read thanks..
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 1:23:48 GMT 1, From www.cnbc.com/id/101552278
"Art is a bubble:
"Art is a socially acceptable form of conspicuous consumption," Chanos said.
Chanos said that the current art bubble is different from previous art booms because the big price gains are largely in living artistsโso their paintings will keep coming onto the market."
"Art is the worst performing collectible" www.cnbc.com/id/101472216
From www.cnbc.com/id/101552278"Art is a bubble: "Art is a socially acceptable form of conspicuous consumption," Chanos said. Chanos said that the current art bubble is different from previous art booms because the big price gains are largely in living artistsโso their paintings will keep coming onto the market." "Art is the worst performing collectible" www.cnbc.com/id/101472216
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 13:14:26 GMT 1, I would have said Jason Seife earlier in the week, but now having seen the pdf it just seems like conor harrington, poesia, jeremy geddes and a hint of borf. Sad in my opinion as I was planning on purchasing the 004|400 piece but having seen the astronauts and remembering him getting called out by poesia in an earlier thread I decided to pass. Borf? You don't mean Rothko do you?
I would have said Jason Seife earlier in the week, but now having seen the pdf it just seems like conor harrington, poesia, jeremy geddes and a hint of borf. Sad in my opinion as I was planning on purchasing the 004|400 piece but having seen the astronauts and remembering him getting called out by poesia in an earlier thread I decided to pass. Borf? You don't mean Rothko do you?
|
|
graffuturism
New Member
Posts โข 754
Likes โข 771
March 2010
|
Who is the next big thing?, by graffuturism on Apr 4, 2014 13:19:09 GMT 1, I would have said Jason Seife earlier in the week, but now having seen the pdf it just seems like conor harrington, poesia, jeremy geddes and a hint of borf. Sad in my opinion as I was planning on purchasing the 004|400 piece but having seen the astronauts and remembering him getting called out by poesia in an earlier thread I decided to pass. Borf? You don't mean Rothko do you? I think what he was saying is Borf another contemporary artist who uses Rothko's aesthetics and appropriates them into his work. When a 2nd artist in similar circles does the same appropriation we usually in the graffiti world call it biting, in the artworld I guess re-appropriating the appropriation maybe? And if you were being sarcastic then I read the comment wrong, haha.
I would have said Jason Seife earlier in the week, but now having seen the pdf it just seems like conor harrington, poesia, jeremy geddes and a hint of borf. Sad in my opinion as I was planning on purchasing the 004|400 piece but having seen the astronauts and remembering him getting called out by poesia in an earlier thread I decided to pass. Borf? You don't mean Rothko do you? I think what he was saying is Borf another contemporary artist who uses Rothko's aesthetics and appropriates them into his work. When a 2nd artist in similar circles does the same appropriation we usually in the graffiti world call it biting, in the artworld I guess re-appropriating the appropriation maybe? And if you were being sarcastic then I read the comment wrong, haha.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 13:27:49 GMT 1, Borf? You don't mean Rothko do you? I think what he was saying is Borf another contemporary artist who uses Rothko's aesthetics and appropriates them into his work. When a 2nd artist in similar circles does the same appropriation we usually in the graffiti world call it biting, in the artworld I guess re-appropriating the appropriation maybe? And if you were being sarcastic then I read the comment wrong, haha.
Cheers for explanation!! The op makes a more sense now if that's the way it was intended to be read. Sarcastic? Isn't sarcasm the lowest form of wit!?
Borf? You don't mean Rothko do you? I think what he was saying is Borf another contemporary artist who uses Rothko's aesthetics and appropriates them into his work. When a 2nd artist in similar circles does the same appropriation we usually in the graffiti world call it biting, in the artworld I guess re-appropriating the appropriation maybe? And if you were being sarcastic then I read the comment wrong, haha. Cheers for explanation!! The op makes a more sense now if that's the way it was intended to be read. Sarcastic? Isn't sarcasm the lowest form of wit!?
|
|
Poster Bob
Junior Member
Posts โข 5,872
Likes โข 5,484
September 2013
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Poster Bob on Apr 4, 2014 13:44:54 GMT 1, I was referring to Borf's Rothko style pieces. I think two or three of his pieces had elements of them as opposed to a solely Rothko influence. Keep in mind I have limited exposure to both artists. Jason has replied to me in the thread on his new show. I am a little disappointed in it. I am on my phone so a proper, well worded reply is not possible but I will leave it as it is and not question him anymore publicly. I am not in any way trying to stir up trouble and as I said in the other thread only meant to encourage a constructive conversation and he isn't interested and that's fine.
I was referring to Borf's Rothko style pieces. I think two or three of his pieces had elements of them as opposed to a solely Rothko influence. Keep in mind I have limited exposure to both artists. Jason has replied to me in the thread on his new show. I am a little disappointed in it. I am on my phone so a proper, well worded reply is not possible but I will leave it as it is and not question him anymore publicly. I am not in any way trying to stir up trouble and as I said in the other thread only meant to encourage a constructive conversation and he isn't interested and that's fine.
|
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Deleted on Apr 4, 2014 15:08:41 GMT 1, Borf? You don't mean Rothko do you? I think what he was saying is Borf another contemporary artist who uses Rothko's aesthetics and appropriates them into his work. When a 2nd artist in similar circles does the same appropriation we usually in the graffiti world call it biting, in the artworld I guess re-appropriating the appropriation maybe? And if you were being sarcastic then I read the comment wrong, haha. and Rothko probably appropriated from some art he had seen before.
It's nothing new.
Parodying or creating a Rothko type artwork for example can make a statement or a point.
I'm not sure if Borf was first considering Rothko has been imitated since he first did those paintings.
Here are pages of Rothko influenced paintings and art by various artists.
www.saatchiart.com/buy-art/for-sale?query=rothko
Borf? You don't mean Rothko do you? I think what he was saying is Borf another contemporary artist who uses Rothko's aesthetics and appropriates them into his work. When a 2nd artist in similar circles does the same appropriation we usually in the graffiti world call it biting, in the artworld I guess re-appropriating the appropriation maybe? And if you were being sarcastic then I read the comment wrong, haha. and Rothko probably appropriated from some art he had seen before.
It's nothing new.
Parodying or creating a Rothko type artwork for example can make a statement or a point.
I'm not sure if Borf was first considering Rothko has been imitated since he first did those paintings.
Here are pages of Rothko influenced paintings and art by various artists.
www.saatchiart.com/buy-art/for-sale?query=rothko
|
|
sin
New Member
Posts โข 614
Likes โข 737
February 2013
|
Who is the next big thing?, by sin on Apr 4, 2014 20:03:09 GMT 1, I think stating Rothko appropriated is a stretch. His color field works in his later career were distinctly his and its for this reason that I believe he is remembered. He was a standout in the movement, a bit over idolized but I think that comes with the territory. Borf distinctly reimagined Rothko in relation to the modern reality of "the buff" and that to me was a unique modern reimagining of something. HOWEVER, Borf pieces arent, IMHO meant to be viewed in the same way as Rothko and therefore not the same meteoric leap that Rothko was. Rothko required you to reconsider what viewing art meant, as did much of the abstract expressionist movement.
I think stating Rothko appropriated is a stretch. His color field works in his later career were distinctly his and its for this reason that I believe he is remembered. He was a standout in the movement, a bit over idolized but I think that comes with the territory. Borf distinctly reimagined Rothko in relation to the modern reality of "the buff" and that to me was a unique modern reimagining of something. HOWEVER, Borf pieces arent, IMHO meant to be viewed in the same way as Rothko and therefore not the same meteoric leap that Rothko was. Rothko required you to reconsider what viewing art meant, as did much of the abstract expressionist movement.
|
|
dazarino
New Member
Posts โข 854
Likes โข 508
October 2012
|
Who is the next big thing?, by dazarino on Apr 5, 2014 0:09:47 GMT 1, lets face it, who is the most collectable artist on here apart from banksy? who is the artist who we all collect the most? as in more than one piece?
Street art only (banksy excluded)
on this forum its clearly faile and dolk, we are a small community and everyone has there next big thing opinion. we can all spout out names, and one of us maybe, might get it right but odds are, the most popular will continue to be the most collectable
dolk,faile,walker,dal east,roa,bugs,rae,bast.
lets face it, who is the most collectable artist on here apart from banksy? who is the artist who we all collect the most? as in more than one piece? Street art only (banksy excluded) on this forum its clearly faile and dolk, we are a small community and everyone has there next big thing opinion. we can all spout out names, and one of us maybe, might get it right but odds are, the most popular will continue to be the most collectable dolk,faile,walker,dal east,roa,bugs,rae,bast.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 21:00:36 GMT 1, Next big things, IMHO:
1. Ernest Zacharevic. Really incredible stuff; a lot of mixed-media and great outdoor work. Not typical derivative Mr Brainwash "add an anarchy sign to a flower" nonsense. You can tell people actually like him since his first print release not only immediately sold out at 200euro/print, but there were very few resellers. People holding onto the art --> people like the artist --> no art on the market yet people like the artist --> next big thing.
2. Etam Cru. They just make great stuff; maybe not the next big thing price-wise, but you'll keep hearing their name. Their images are too eye-catching and stunning. Sainer is inarguably the better of the two (sorry Bezt), but the things they're doing are great; much better when they collaborate.
3. RAE. Has an extremely distinctive style that is not derivative, and is beginning to evolve (I know it's a bit Basquiat, but come on). This sounds terrible, but he is the kind of artist where if he died, then his work would be worth hundreds of thousands.
Next big things, IMHO:
1. Ernest Zacharevic. Really incredible stuff; a lot of mixed-media and great outdoor work. Not typical derivative Mr Brainwash "add an anarchy sign to a flower" nonsense. You can tell people actually like him since his first print release not only immediately sold out at 200euro/print, but there were very few resellers. People holding onto the art --> people like the artist --> no art on the market yet people like the artist --> next big thing.
2. Etam Cru. They just make great stuff; maybe not the next big thing price-wise, but you'll keep hearing their name. Their images are too eye-catching and stunning. Sainer is inarguably the better of the two (sorry Bezt), but the things they're doing are great; much better when they collaborate.
3. RAE. Has an extremely distinctive style that is not derivative, and is beginning to evolve (I know it's a bit Basquiat, but come on). This sounds terrible, but he is the kind of artist where if he died, then his work would be worth hundreds of thousands.
|
|
Damien
Junior Member
Posts โข 3,324
Likes โข 284
July 2008
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Damien on Apr 13, 2014 21:30:19 GMT 1, what happened with bambi lol?
borondo is best i've seen lately thats not that well known
what happened with bambi lol?
borondo is best i've seen lately thats not that well known
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Deleted on Apr 13, 2014 23:28:26 GMT 1, The next big thing is anyone who has the money and the PR machine behind them with contacts in the media and auction houses to hype up their art or so called art in some cases.
Dead shark, shitty bed, some guy who paints chorizo on scribbles on canvas being hyped up.
It's all fucking bollocks.
The next big thing is anyone who has the money and the PR machine behind them with contacts in the media and auction houses to hype up their art or so called art in some cases.
Dead shark, shitty bed, some guy who paints chorizo on scribbles on canvas being hyped up.
It's all fucking bollocks.
|
|
Deleted
Posts โข 0
Likes โข
January 1970
|
Who is the next big thing?, by Deleted on Apr 14, 2014 2:29:55 GMT 1, Next big things, IMHO: 1. Ernest Zacharevic. Really incredible stuff; a lot of mixed-media and great outdoor work. Not typical derivative Mr Brainwash "add an anarchy sign to a flower" nonsense. You can tell people actually like him since his first print release not only immediately sold out at 200euro/print, but there were very few resellers. People holding onto the art --> people like the artist --> no art on the market yet people like the artist --> next big thing. 2. Etam Cru. They just make great stuff; maybe not the next big thing price-wise, but you'll keep hearing their name. Their images are too eye-catching and stunning. Sainer is inarguably the better of the two (sorry Bezt), but the things they're doing are great; much better when they collaborate. 3. RAE. Has an extremely distinctive style that is not derivative, and is beginning to evolve (I know it's a bit Basquiat, but come on). This sounds terrible, but he is the kind of artist where if he died, then his work would be worth hundreds of thousands. You're absolutely right, it's not typical derivative MBW, it's derivative Dran "Add some childlike crayons to an image of some more children" nonsense. Doesn't make much sense to judge an artist's entire career based on how he chose to hand finish his first print release (or just based on that piece itself, if that's what you're referring to).
And comparing Zach to Dran in terms of style is pretty far-off.
Next big things, IMHO: 1. Ernest Zacharevic. Really incredible stuff; a lot of mixed-media and great outdoor work. Not typical derivative Mr Brainwash "add an anarchy sign to a flower" nonsense. You can tell people actually like him since his first print release not only immediately sold out at 200euro/print, but there were very few resellers. People holding onto the art --> people like the artist --> no art on the market yet people like the artist --> next big thing. 2. Etam Cru. They just make great stuff; maybe not the next big thing price-wise, but you'll keep hearing their name. Their images are too eye-catching and stunning. Sainer is inarguably the better of the two (sorry Bezt), but the things they're doing are great; much better when they collaborate. 3. RAE. Has an extremely distinctive style that is not derivative, and is beginning to evolve (I know it's a bit Basquiat, but come on). This sounds terrible, but he is the kind of artist where if he died, then his work would be worth hundreds of thousands. You're absolutely right, it's not typical derivative MBW, it's derivative Dran "Add some childlike crayons to an image of some more children" nonsense. Doesn't make much sense to judge an artist's entire career based on how he chose to hand finish his first print release (or just based on that piece itself, if that's what you're referring to). And comparing Zach to Dran in terms of style is pretty far-off.
|
|
kittysaz
New Member
Posts โข 389
Likes โข 271
February 2014
|
Who is the next big thing?, by kittysaz on Apr 14, 2014 9:39:43 GMT 1, Me, if I keep eating all this cake
Me, if I keep eating all this cake
|
|