I bought one of her first prints. I thought it worked fine as a cheap piece of pop art. The appropriation of comic book art is not what bothers me about her art. It's the general sense of dishonesty I get from her and her representation.

After I bought the print, I started following her on Facebook. A few months later, she posted one of her first "cage" canvasses for sale.

I pointed out the similarity to Marion Bolognesi's work. Her response was something to the effect of, "lol, I did this a couple years ago." The implication being that she did it before Marion.

After which, I pointed out that Marion had been doing it since at least 2007 and that she had her art in galleries around the world well before Sandra painted her version. Her response was to delete the post and remove the canvas for sale with no explanation. That left me with the impression she had something to hide.

Fast forward a few months and I brought up the Marion Bolognesi connection on here. JP responded that he told her that her work was too close to Marion Bolognesi and that she needed to do something different. For me, that cemented in my mind that Sandra was not being forthcoming. Why would she imply she was the one who created the look when she had already been told by her representation that it looked like someone else's art?

The other issue that bothers me to a lesser extent is the marketing. In one instance, she gives us some pretentious cliche about how her art represents society's unrealistic expectations of female beauty. And in the next, she reveals the true origins of her work. Her IKEA dresser broke. So she took the comic books she intended to cover it with and slapped them over a canvas that resembled another artist's work.

The lack of artistic integrity leaves a large gap between reality and hype for me. That might bother some collectors. It might not be an issue for others. But it is worth considering before you support someone's art.

 I just thought it weird. Its no skin off my back what you think about SC. I too was just enjoying the convo. I typically dont discuss art..

Yes.
carry on

I remember when my dummy got taken away as well.
really cried alot.
then i snapped out if it when i realised i was 26.

La-Cage-menott_e-par-la-haine-11X14-2013-784x1024 by customcourage, on Flickr

La-Cage-et-la-fragilit_-de-l_me-humaine-30X40-2013-760x1024 by customcourage, on Flickr

La-Cage-quand-m_me-les-h_ros-sont-fragiles-780x1024 by customcourage, on Flickr

Dear SC - FTFY



nuart and FR its really hard to take you guys seriously when you have a vested financial interest.
like ive said before, nuart your emotional dissection of the work is rock soup.  who gives a shit if consumers with money enough to buy the work buy it.  its approachable and digestible.  those same collectors would likely throw a Francis Bacon work in the trash.  Im not going to judge the artistic validity of someone based on if an uninformed buyer, buys it.  People who are buying for that reason are buying for personal connection and most likely decorative reasons.  (this will look so good in the hallway).  thats not the type of collector I am.

id much rather place a challenging work by an artists seeking to translate their experience, that half the people who come to the house recoil from, or scratch their head about, than own something 90 percent of the people that come to the house like.  if its not generally polarizing its likely not honest and is instead seeking too pander too much to general visual appeal. 

'"In one instance, she gives us some pretentious cliche about how her art represents society's unrealistic expectations of female beauty. And in the next, she reveals the true origins of her work. Her IKEA dresser broke."

So you refute that people can add feelings to something (whether art, an event, as person) ex post facto? I accept that as a human trait that is common to all of us.

Hey man, we all have ideas and motivations.  Mine is to build a collection of important works by artists that I think are producing honest work and standout from the easily digestable work that is found everywhere in urban contemporary.  Work that doesn't hide from the ugly, or the beautiful, art that seeks to communicate a bit of themselves.  You may buy work because you like it visually.  There are plenty of people that dont like this Ekundayo piece I own.  I personally find Ekundayo's contorted and twisted translation of life to be honest, raw, and if you follow ekundayo you can see how this lens is built off his own experience. 

it needs to be filtered through your self interest.  im a huge fan of elbow toe and own some significant pieces and for that reason if I tell you how great it is you should question my motivation.  inspect my input, ensure that its not too heavily influenced by my situational bias.

Well, in a really roundabout way you are trying to silence those who own the art.
Would like to see this raised on a banksy thread, then see how far you get.
It is a quite self centered statement there.

@ Sin I have no problem with that. I am laughing because you think that just because I visually like a piece and put it up on my wall, I care at all what other people think. Its you that is hanging art on your wall to get a reaction (or at least enjoying the reaction you get), whatever reaction. I hang stuff that I either like visually, or that which affects me in visceral fashion. Those two can be mutually exclusive or overlapping...

I dont pander to other peoples reactions nor want them (its a joke). i buy works important to me. You act is if your are curating a museum. I admire it but its not for me (although tastes change over time).

I've not tried to silence anyone.  I'm just rebuffing your assertions. 
Not sure why you are deflecting this to a banksy conversation?  really lost you there.

That's a terrific painting.
Like you, I love art that challenges. So many people dislike much of what I own. I like my art to make me stop and think. Probably explains why Jenny Saville is my favorite artist.

Its not Just Sandra really, its this whole new genre of New Contemporary which is quoted to be "put quite simply the New Contemporary Art Movement is art for the people.". This new genre of what some call decorative/aesthetic does speak to the people because it is usually digestible. I agree with your stance I like my work to have more substance than shine and my idea of art for the people is different then theirs. I think Public art/graffiti/street art is art for the people not because its easier digested but because its placed in public for the people and yes some of it is aesthetic but that alone doesnt define it.

Many artists have deeper meanings behind their work but the work usually speaks for itself.

im not making that assertion about you.  im sorry i can see i wasnt clear.
i think you brought it because you liked it.  i think the artist made it because they thought more people would like it.  there is nothing wrong with a pop song.  but some pop songs are so vapid, so manufactured, that they remove all the art out of it.  when artists start creating based on visual appeal i think the soul is out of the equation.