I'd imagine it's hard not to smell when it's all over your face.

On a personal level I don't dislike her work, but it's just not for me and my aesthetic.

I 100% agree with JP that the evolve thing is overused here on the forum. Artists develop a style and on a general level they stick with it. It's been the same for as long as you care to go back in art history.

Yes there are a few exceptions, artists that continually reinvent themselves, but they are that the exception.

Your English isn't as bad as you pretend. But it would help if you read what I wrote rather than misstating everything I said.

I never said I don't like her or that I don't like her work. I bought one of her first prints and like it for what it is. It's a cool image, but I don't buy into the marketing. I don't believe there's any deeper meaning to it beyond what's on the surface.

Her "cages" series began as Marion Bolognesi clones. I wasn't aware of this when I bought one of her prints.

I first became aware of the similarities when Sandra posted one of them on her Facebook page. I mentioned that it looked like Marion Bolognesi and she said something to the effect of, "This is old. I did it two years ago." The implication being that she did it before Marion Bolognesi.

I pointed out that Marion Bolognesi had been doing her thing for at least five years that I know of. After that, she deleted the post. This never sat right with me. I felt like she had something to hide.

I mentioned this to you later in a thread on here. You said you were the first to point out the similarities to her and that's why she changed to the comic book look. So best case scenario, the similarities were coincidental. If she had been more forthcoming on Facebook, I'd have an easier time giving her the benefit of the doubt.

Given that she said the comic book element was an accident, saying now that they represent society's unrealistic expectations of female beauty feels like a contrivance to me. As someone else pointed out, the fact that she uses beautiful, photoshopped models in all of her images seems to contradict that. You could argue she's in fact perpetuating and reinforcing unrealistic standards of beauty.

I also never said her work needs to evolve. I question the back story of what it evolved from.

I realize you have a vested interest in defending her image. But to suggest that any criticism of her work is sexist is dishonest and cowardly.

What?... She doesn't send you free shit?

I would say 90% of the artists in your list have created and sustained something authentic for years if not decades so the evolve comparison doesnt really hold weight against these names, 90% have paid dues created a genuine voice for themselves. Not saying sandra hasnt just saying your argument referencing these artists doesnt hold much weight. If you chose artists that have established a style in the last 2-3 years and gained fast recognition and a relevant rise in price point then you could compare. I could name artists you could make a list from but not sure it would make a difference either way.

The point is her work is enticing aesthetically and as FR points out has some deeper meaning which is great, it might not be her intent at first to be some deep series of work but I am sure she is ok with the interpretation. What randomname i think is saying is that the artist has a record of copying which most emerging artists do, and that this series might not be so intentionally deep as FR states. I can see both sides, but I think everyone that buys the piece realizes is that the paintings are aesthetic first and great images that they are attracted to, the deeper meaning seems to be more of a reason to explain or give reason to her rise. I dont think a deeper meaning is necessary as in our genre of art, great aesthetic work is ok, only in the contemporary world is it seen to be such a bad trait. Contemporary artists are all about social power, feminism etc. etc. yet they lack the aesthetics at times of a painting such as Sandra's. Its two different worlds really and people like the image that is great just try not to fluff it with some conceptual nonsense unless you want to start to compare it to real contemporary art and enter that genre where its a whole other world.

I also think inferring that people are hating on her work cause she is a women is just a copout. If you really believe this then make a more powerful statement backed up with some facts otherwise its negligent to use this excuse and accuse people of this.

In closing just let play out, believe me time has a way of correcting these things or verifying her work to be what people are saying as great. Either way lets all just relax.

This thread is tiresome.

JP, youre fully correct, these artists find their voice and choose to represent it. It doesnt have to have an underlying meaning, even though hers does, it just has to work, and evoke emotion.

What kind of emotional charge do you get from a Carl Cashman? Should he evolve to doing circles now?

Everybody feels their a pro, and 3/4 of the people in here havent seen an original piece in person. Youre judging a persons entire career from either a jpg, or a reproduction.

Its seriously tiresome. Go back to work.

This.

as far as im concerned, the people who are saying things like this just have sour grapes.

I don't mean to derail the thread, but feel that this aside should be challenged.

I don't agree that Banksy has not evolved as an artist. In order to see the evolution, however, I think you need to look beyond the individual artworks and technical improvements.

For example, while some of the pieces created for Better Out Than In were not that great (while others were fantastic), the show as a whole pushed the boundaries of audience involvement. It had people running around New York City to discover and experience the artworks.

BOTI also had people sharing the artworks - and their personal experiences - online in a way that I have never seen before. Rather than simply creating social commentary (which Banksy also did e.g. with the Central Park stall and the beaver stencil in East New York), this project actually constituted an interactive social experience.

So I would certainly say that Banksy continues to evolve as an artist.

Agreed. That is a strange opinion that Banksy hasn't evolved. Oscar nominated film, sculptures, animaltronics etc etc. Anyway back to your comics boys.

Any chance we can get back to the point of this thread? I was enjoying seeing lots of pieces I've not seen before.

Bad lighting but this is hanging in my lounge....

I was simply providing information most people probably were not aware of. A question was raised regarding this series prior to the comic book iteration. I happened to know that it was originally nearly identical to Marion Bolognesi's work and that Sandra was evasive when asked about that.

Then the question was raised regarding the meaning behind the work. One member essentially stated that anyone who thought they were just torn up comics combined with pretty girls' faces was an idiot. Then proceeded to state they meant something completely different than what the artist has said.

My own personal opinion is they are just comics added to pretty girls' faces. Sandra said as much when she said it happened by accident when her IKEA dresser broke and she didn't have anything else to do with the comics she'd been gluing to them. In my opinion, if you have to give meaning to the work after it's already created, that's not really what it meant at all. It's a bit of a contrivance.

By my nature, I like to know everything I can about any given subject. I'm not the type to ignore or get upset by information that doesn't fit a given narrative, no matter how much I enjoy that narrative.

Sandra's work is an interesting juxtaposition between fine art and comic book art and I enjoy it on that level. If others want to believe her work is rooted in an important social commentary, that's fine. But when all facts are considered, that doesn't really ring true.