Eelus in 2006 on a bad day... and that's being kind.

Yeh that Grafter is crap !! But because I'm a nice guy, I'll take Eskimo Child off someones hands at cost ... you know you want to

... he's doing what he enjoys and people like his work and put it on his walls ...

does every artist have to be remembered/become legendary to be good enough to buy/put on your walls?

... tbh I am a bit tired of the current 'wave of discussion' about artists on here and their longevity based on peoples perception on 'how good' they are ... you do not need to be a genius to know that there are prob a dozen or so artists from each movememt that stand the test of time

GL to Grafter and carry on what you are doing

*I understood what mr t was saying that's why I said it was a poor analogy

NOW ... I will not comment further as the thread needs to get back to discussing Grafter's work (and saying you do not like it is fine ... the rest of the guff is what I am tired of)

... poor analogy ... you do not need to buy spare parts to fix a piece of art as it gets older ... you could say that because grafter does not produce a lot of work (& stops?) it creates more value ...

This thread is taking a more interesting turn than I'd originally anticipated.

I enjoyed reading your thoughts and feelings about the painting you bought. It was a breath of fresh air because I find critical thought (or at least the public expression of critical thought) to be generally lacking on the forum.

Too often, positive comments about artwork are restricted to single words like "stunning" or "lovely". They're pleasant expressions of approval, but they do nothing to assist others in understanding the reasons behind such approval.

We probably share similar views about how crucial it is for collectors to question, to question everything, and to actually think. 

Unless happy being spoon-fed, being easily led, and therefore vulnerable to manipulation by those with vested financial interests, everyone has a self-obligation to ask themselves different questions when considering the purchase of artwork priced above a certain level: Why do I like it? What's good about it? Is it well-executed? Is it interesting? Are the ideas, relatively speaking, original? Or do they at least present a fresh take on familiar theme?

Not everyone will be able to pin down why exactly they're drawn to a piece. But just the process of asking these types of questions is useful. To shield against the temptation of simply accepting without challenge the information provided by figures of authority or influence — dealers, press officers, PR reps, auction house personnel, fellow collectors, etc. It's a safeguard against herd mentality.

By way of illustration, it's very easy to get caught up in the excitement of a limited edition print release, to be influenced by the anticipation and enthusiasm of other people, even if that enthusiasm is blind. These factors potentially cloud one's judgement and can result in purchases later viewed with bemusement and perhaps slight embarrassment.

When I'm in a tube station walking towards a train, and others around me start running in that direction, I instinctively pick up my pace — at least briefly, before then asking myself one of the key questions in life, "What the fúck am I doing?"

---------------

Like you, I dislike and usually avoid discussions focused on financial values. They're crass, reductive, and all too often they discourage proper thought and analysis. People begin associating price tags with artistic worth. A high price leads many just to assume they're in the presence of high-quality work. Perversely, that high price will even be used at times as evidence or "proof" the work is high-quality.

Some collectors may nod obediently (as they might when being spoken to by a stranger in a policeman's uniform or white lab coat), not even bothering to ask themselves some of the basic questions mentioned above. And then we're back to the herd mentality scenario. Back to the sheep.

Talking about prices is important however to make comparisons with other artwork that can be purchased for similar amounts. It immediately puts things into perspective.

Example: "Do I spend £2,500 on a canvas called Urban Expressionism (edition of 3) by the emerging artist Martin Whatson, who lacks both originality and talent? Or shall I instead go to an auction house and spend £1,260 on a lithograph by Alexander Calder? £2,050 on a lithograph by Barbara Kruger? Perhaps dig a little deeper and spend £3,000 for a print on fabric with embroidered initials by Louise Bourgeois? Or choose other editioned works in these price ranges by Cy Twombly, Sol LeWitt, Frank Stella, Ed Rucha, Cindy Sherman, Robert Rauschenberg or John Baldessari?"

This is the kind of thinking to be encouraged among collectors. As previously alluded to, it's a protective measure against the influences of pure marketing, business interests and hype without substance.

Although .dappy isn't a fan, for similar reasons I believe exchanges are important regarding the possible career longevity of different artists. Even when entirely speculative, these discussions get people's brains working and push them to ask more questions.

Which reminds me — There's a £40, open edition, Anthony Burrill print I need to buy.

... thanks for the tag met ... could someone tell me how to do it? ...

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I have found it tiresome that a lot of threads recently have all been about the'longevity' of the artist and if they would be worth bothering with; and then 'pick' something wrong with the style/production/particular aspect and call it sh1t as justification of why 'they will never be remembered'.

Banksy can't draw hands - discuss.

Well actually that would be a good title to a new thread to discuss the real topic that you describe - not a Grafter/Whatson (insert any artist name) thread.

Gee, you guys.

I think this one was my favourite; "Eelus in 2006 on a bad day... and that's being kind. "

BRILLIANT...

I have this hanging in my dining room and it gets a lot of comments from people -