jimmyjam
New Member
🗨️ 578
👍🏻 546
October 2019
|
|
|
jimmyjam
New Member
🗨️ 578
👍🏻 546
October 2019
|
Banksy - New York Times, by jimmyjam on Feb 5, 2020 12:58:20 GMT 1, “The artist does not communicate directly with journalists, but only through a single press spokeswoman, Joanna Brooks, who declined to answer questions for this article. Ms. Brooks said that Banksy would respond if publication were delayed until March, when the artist would make a significant announcement.“
Next month Banksy makes announcement. Retirement? Jk
“The artist does not communicate directly with journalists, but only through a single press spokeswoman, Joanna Brooks, who declined to answer questions for this article. Ms. Brooks said that Banksy would respond if publication were delayed until March, when the artist would make a significant announcement.“
Next month Banksy makes announcement. Retirement? Jk
|
|
dannubs
New Member
🗨️ 499
👍🏻 527
January 2019
|
Banksy - New York Times, by dannubs on Feb 5, 2020 14:30:25 GMT 1, Yeah, very interesting line in that it's almost unknown for there to be a 'pre-announcement' of anything he's involved with. If it's truly "significant", what else could it be apart from retirement (which I doubt). Unveiling his identity (equally unlikely) or killing his own market by giving everything away/selling off unlimited copies perhaps. Hopefully it's a new project rather than any of these
Capitalism is Sick - Banksy (2020)
Yeah, very interesting line in that it's almost unknown for there to be a 'pre-announcement' of anything he's involved with. If it's truly "significant", what else could it be apart from retirement (which I doubt). Unveiling his identity (equally unlikely) or killing his own market by giving everything away/selling off unlimited copies perhaps. Hopefully it's a new project rather than any of these Big announcement: everyone who asked for a GDP gets one, but they've all been infected with the coronavirus Capitalism is Sick - Banksy (2020) |
|
Inknart
Junior Member
🗨️ 3,490
👍🏻 3,288
April 2015
|
Banksy - New York Times, by Inknart on Feb 5, 2020 16:14:33 GMT 1, Yeah, very interesting line in that it's almost unknown for there to be a 'pre-announcement' of anything he's involved with. If it's truly "significant", what else could it be apart from retirement (which I doubt). Unveiling his identity (equally unlikely) or killing his own market by giving everything away/selling off unlimited copies perhaps. Hopefully it's a new project rather than any of these
If he was planning on tanking his market, i doubt bbay would be a thing
GDP Second Round? Maybe another pop up, but this time in the US?
Doubting a retirement, as he has plenty to give and uses his work to push topics and donate to good causes.
Don't think an identity reveal as he has said before that being anonymous is like having a super power.
Yeah, very interesting line in that it's almost unknown for there to be a 'pre-announcement' of anything he's involved with. If it's truly "significant", what else could it be apart from retirement (which I doubt). Unveiling his identity (equally unlikely) or killing his own market by giving everything away/selling off unlimited copies perhaps. Hopefully it's a new project rather than any of these If he was planning on tanking his market, i doubt bbay would be a thing GDP Second Round? Maybe another pop up, but this time in the US? Doubting a retirement, as he has plenty to give and uses his work to push topics and donate to good causes. Don't think an identity reveal as he has said before that being anonymous is like having a super power. |
|
|
|
Banksy - New York Times, by pfffffffffft on Feb 5, 2020 16:22:43 GMT 1, Yeah, very interesting line in that it's almost unknown for there to be a 'pre-announcement' of anything he's involved with. If it's truly "significant", what else could it be apart from retirement (which I doubt). Unveiling his identity (equally unlikely) or killing his own market by giving everything away/selling off unlimited copies perhaps. Hopefully it's a new project rather than any of these
I mean yeah, so what is 'significant'? Is a new show announcement (GDP 2) significant?
They are just launching BBay so I doubt he's retiring. Maybe Bbay is the announcement? He would be the first artist going to such measures to create an authenticated marketplace.
I think there is possibility he may reveal his identity. He may have to based on these trademark cases but I don't think that happens unless and until he has a TM ruling against him so probably not March.
May also be a possibility of open editions. Not to kill his market but to make his art more accessible. He doesn't comment much besides social causes (immigrants/environment), the one exception are his comments on the rank silliness of the art world.
http://instagr.am/p/B3KvQsEnUl8
Yeah, very interesting line in that it's almost unknown for there to be a 'pre-announcement' of anything he's involved with. If it's truly "significant", what else could it be apart from retirement (which I doubt). Unveiling his identity (equally unlikely) or killing his own market by giving everything away/selling off unlimited copies perhaps. Hopefully it's a new project rather than any of these I mean yeah, so what is 'significant'? Is a new show announcement (GDP 2) significant? They are just launching BBay so I doubt he's retiring. Maybe Bbay is the announcement? He would be the first artist going to such measures to create an authenticated marketplace. I think there is possibility he may reveal his identity. He may have to based on these trademark cases but I don't think that happens unless and until he has a TM ruling against him so probably not March. May also be a possibility of open editions. Not to kill his market but to make his art more accessible. He doesn't comment much besides social causes (immigrants/environment), the one exception are his comments on the rank silliness of the art world. http://instagr.am/p/B3KvQsEnUl8 |
|
|
|
Banksy - New York Times, by Fast Eddie on Feb 5, 2020 16:42:42 GMT 1, Thank you for posting this link.
I read it with great interest & with supreme irritation.
Curator and critic Francesco Bonami would be better employed shoving coal.
The high-powered imbecility of all this "there are still no Banksys in the permanent collections of Tate Modern in London or the Museum of Modern Art in New York" made my day.
Overall, I love this (very NYT) idea that because common citizens are attracted to an artistic expression, that must reveal some form of transient, irrational fad. They don't get it, you know.
Thank you for posting this link.
I read it with great interest & with supreme irritation.
Curator and critic Francesco Bonami would be better employed shoving coal.
The high-powered imbecility of all this "there are still no Banksys in the permanent collections of Tate Modern in London or the Museum of Modern Art in New York" made my day.
Overall, I love this (very NYT) idea that because common citizens are attracted to an artistic expression, that must reveal some form of transient, irrational fad. They don't get it, you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banksy - New York Times, by pfffffffffft on Feb 5, 2020 16:58:46 GMT 1, Thank you for posting this link. I read it with great interest & with supreme irritation. Curator and critic Francesco Bonami would be better employed shoving coal. The high-powered imbecility of all this "there are still no Banksys in the permanent collections of Tate Modern in London or the Museum of Modern Art in New York" made my day. Overall, I love this (very NYT) idea that because common citizens are attracted to an artistic expression, that must reveal some form of transient, irrational fad. They don't get it, you know.
That last sentence was really brilliantly put. It's always been hard to articulate a thought around that concept and you summed it up succinctly!
Thank you for posting this link. I read it with great interest & with supreme irritation. Curator and critic Francesco Bonami would be better employed shoving coal. The high-powered imbecility of all this "there are still no Banksys in the permanent collections of Tate Modern in London or the Museum of Modern Art in New York" made my day. Overall, I love this (very NYT) idea that because common citizens are attracted to an artistic expression, that must reveal some form of transient, irrational fad. They don't get it, you know. That last sentence was really brilliantly put. It's always been hard to articulate a thought around that concept and you summed it up succinctly! |
|
|
|
Banksy - New York Times, by Fast Eddie on Feb 5, 2020 17:04:47 GMT 1, Thank you. I distrust people who distrust people.
Thank you. I distrust people who distrust people.
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy - New York Times, by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 17:12:03 GMT 1, His identity was revealed so I doubt confirmation would make a big difference. Unless he's revealing that he he's been producing art for years as someone else and your £50 print is now worth £5k
His identity was revealed so I doubt confirmation would make a big difference. Unless he's revealing that he he's been producing art for years as someone else and your £50 print is now worth £5k
|
|
|
|
Banksy - New York Times, by Adam The Collector on Feb 5, 2020 17:35:43 GMT 1, The article doesn't say much but it is nice to see him in the media. Whether we see the transition or not to rarified museums I think is a no brainer. The more years it takes for him to make that transition the better opportunity I will have to same up some coin and buy some more prints!
The article doesn't say much but it is nice to see him in the media. Whether we see the transition or not to rarified museums I think is a no brainer. The more years it takes for him to make that transition the better opportunity I will have to same up some coin and buy some more prints!
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy - New York Times, by Deleted on Feb 5, 2020 18:21:29 GMT 1, Article seems to be a plug for the book. Has all the images which i would assume were permissioned.
Article seems to be a plug for the book. Has all the images which i would assume were permissioned.
|
|
|
|
Banksy - New York Times, by pfffffffffft on Feb 5, 2020 19:25:56 GMT 1, His identity was revealed so I doubt confirmation would make a big difference. Unless he's revealing that he he's been producing art for years as someone else and your £50 print is now worth £5k
Whether his identity has been revealed or not by some publication they haven't acknowledged or confirmed it. If they had they'd be asserting copyright law instead of trademark law in these lawsuits which is a much easier bar to win on.
His identity was revealed so I doubt confirmation would make a big difference. Unless he's revealing that he he's been producing art for years as someone else and your £50 print is now worth £5k Whether his identity has been revealed or not by some publication they haven't acknowledged or confirmed it. If they had they'd be asserting copyright law instead of trademark law in these lawsuits which is a much easier bar to win on. |
|
disturbart
New Member
🗨️ 753
👍🏻 302
September 2014
|
Banksy - New York Times, by disturbart on Feb 5, 2020 20:03:04 GMT 1, Maybe he will confirm that he is indeed mr brainwash 😂
Maybe he will confirm that he is indeed mr brainwash 😂
|
|
|
|
Banksy - New York Times, by Jeezuz Jones Snr on Feb 5, 2020 21:15:43 GMT 1, Could be a book or a movie? but you’d think that he’s flat out sorting out GDP and sending out all the orders. Then shortly after maybe the statement will be that BBay goes live?
Amazing to read those attendances rising also just for one of his pieces, I don’t think the large museums matter, he certainly will be up there in the history books.
Could be a book or a movie? but you’d think that he’s flat out sorting out GDP and sending out all the orders. Then shortly after maybe the statement will be that BBay goes live?
Amazing to read those attendances rising also just for one of his pieces, I don’t think the large museums matter, he certainly will be up there in the history books.
|
|
|
|
jimmyjam
New Member
🗨️ 578
👍🏻 546
October 2019
|
|
|
|
|
Banksy - New York Times, by pfffffffffft on Feb 6, 2020 5:15:12 GMT 1,
I have a theory on this.
The curators don't like to not be first. They're behind.
They like to be sucked up to. Banksy doesn't suck up to the art establishment, he mocks them.
Museums have become disgustingly transactional. It's not just about hanging an artists work any more, they extract from the artist over and over again which is why you see things like KAWS Christmas Cards at MoMA. I don't get the sense that Banksy has a ton of interest in playing that game.
I think it's a real shame honestly, I had no idea that MoMA didn't own anything by Banksy. I'm really astonished by that and honestly quite disappointed.
I have a theory on this. The curators don't like to not be first. They're behind. They like to be sucked up to. Banksy doesn't suck up to the art establishment, he mocks them. Museums have become disgustingly transactional. It's not just about hanging an artists work any more, they extract from the artist over and over again which is why you see things like KAWS Christmas Cards at MoMA. I don't get the sense that Banksy has a ton of interest in playing that game. I think it's a real shame honestly, I had no idea that MoMA didn't own anything by Banksy. I'm really astonished by that and honestly quite disappointed. |
|
jimmyjam
New Member
🗨️ 578
👍🏻 546
October 2019
|
Banksy - New York Times, by jimmyjam on Feb 6, 2020 5:48:03 GMT 1, My opinion does matter, obviously, but I believe the “fine art” world and Museums already have their Banksy/pranksters in their collections... his name is Maurizio Cattelan.
My opinion does matter, obviously, but I believe the “fine art” world and Museums already have their Banksy/pranksters in their collections... his name is Maurizio Cattelan.
|
|
tab1
Full Member
🗨️ 8,519
👍🏻 3,679
September 2011
|
Banksy - New York Times, by tab1 on Feb 6, 2020 5:50:46 GMT 1, “The artist does not communicate directly with journalists, but only through a single press spokeswoman, Joanna Brooks, who declined to answer questions for this article. Ms. Brooks said that Banksy would respond if publication were delayed until March, when the artist would make a significant announcement.“ Next month Banksy makes announcement wants to be known as gender fluid and filing for bankruptcy GDP out of time for chargeback / section 75
“The artist does not communicate directly with journalists, but only through a single press spokeswoman, Joanna Brooks, who declined to answer questions for this article. Ms. Brooks said that Banksy would respond if publication were delayed until March, when the artist would make a significant announcement.“ Next month Banksy makes announcement wants to be known as gender fluid and filing for bankruptcy GDP out of time for chargeback / section 75 |
|
mose
New Member
🗨️ 410
👍🏻 424
May 2017
|
Banksy - New York Times, by mose on Feb 6, 2020 11:47:41 GMT 1, I think it's a real shame honestly, I had no idea that MoMA didn't own anything by Banksy. I'm really astonished by that and honestly quite disappointed.
You probably shouldn't be. It is not MoMA's style, at all, to be jumping on something like Banksy, Kaws, etc. Never really has been, unless you go back to the 40's NYC abstract expressionist scene when they, fortunately, jumped on the current work. Hell, they were very late and limited on Basquiat. To this day, they only have about a dozen pieces of JMB's work, mostly prints.
And about things like merch/Christmas cards, etc., MoMA does have a long history of working with artists on those things, be they well-known or lesser-known.
I think it's a real shame honestly, I had no idea that MoMA didn't own anything by Banksy. I'm really astonished by that and honestly quite disappointed. You probably shouldn't be. It is not MoMA's style, at all, to be jumping on something like Banksy, Kaws, etc. Never really has been, unless you go back to the 40's NYC abstract expressionist scene when they, fortunately, jumped on the current work. Hell, they were very late and limited on Basquiat. To this day, they only have about a dozen pieces of JMB's work, mostly prints. And about things like merch/Christmas cards, etc., MoMA does have a long history of working with artists on those things, be they well-known or lesser-known. |
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Banksy - New York Times, by moron on Feb 6, 2020 12:22:37 GMT 1, A friend of mine has been invited to exhibit her paintings in a city museum. She is unknown compared to mega known Banksy and Banksy can't get a museum gig invite.
Maybe he should climb down off his high horse and stop touting himself as available for only the big museums, cos that's where the big artists go.
Anyway, I thought Banksy hated putting art in museums.
A friend of mine has been invited to exhibit her paintings in a city museum. She is unknown compared to mega known Banksy and Banksy can't get a museum gig invite.
Maybe he should climb down off his high horse and stop touting himself as available for only the big museums, cos that's where the big artists go.
Anyway, I thought Banksy hated putting art in museums.
|
|
|
|
Banksy - New York Times, by pfffffffffft on Feb 6, 2020 12:26:13 GMT 1, I think it's a real shame honestly, I had no idea that MoMA didn't own anything by Banksy. I'm really astonished by that and honestly quite disappointed. You probably shouldn't be. It is not MoMA's style, at all, to be jumping on something like Banksy, Kaws, etc. Never really has been, unless you go back to the 40's NYC abstract expressionist scene when they, fortunately, jumped on the current work. Hell, they were very late and limited on Basquiat. To this day, they only have about a dozen pieces of JMB's work, mostly prints. And about things like merch/Christmas cards, etc., MoMA does have a long history of working with artists on those things, be they well-known or lesser-known.
Yes, you're quite right of course. MoMA hasn't lead on art and artists for quite some time. I just would like to believe that museums have more sense.
As for merch, all contemporary museums are doing this, not just MoMA and I think it's a slippery slope. If you land in a museum it should be because your art lands you there. Part of the calculation shouldn't be how much they can extract out of you (and your art) at the gift shop as an additional revenue scheme beyond tickets. That's obviously becoming part of the criteria. I have a hard time believing that Yayoi Kusama decided that a pumpkin clutch or keychain is representative of her body of work as an artist independent of needing to satisfy museum gift shops. I could be wrong but the whole thing just seems transactional in a way that exploits an artists professional need to have recognition on an institutional level.
I think it's a real shame honestly, I had no idea that MoMA didn't own anything by Banksy. I'm really astonished by that and honestly quite disappointed. You probably shouldn't be. It is not MoMA's style, at all, to be jumping on something like Banksy, Kaws, etc. Never really has been, unless you go back to the 40's NYC abstract expressionist scene when they, fortunately, jumped on the current work. Hell, they were very late and limited on Basquiat. To this day, they only have about a dozen pieces of JMB's work, mostly prints. And about things like merch/Christmas cards, etc., MoMA does have a long history of working with artists on those things, be they well-known or lesser-known. Yes, you're quite right of course. MoMA hasn't lead on art and artists for quite some time. I just would like to believe that museums have more sense. As for merch, all contemporary museums are doing this, not just MoMA and I think it's a slippery slope. If you land in a museum it should be because your art lands you there. Part of the calculation shouldn't be how much they can extract out of you (and your art) at the gift shop as an additional revenue scheme beyond tickets. That's obviously becoming part of the criteria. I have a hard time believing that Yayoi Kusama decided that a pumpkin clutch or keychain is representative of her body of work as an artist independent of needing to satisfy museum gift shops. I could be wrong but the whole thing just seems transactional in a way that exploits an artists professional need to have recognition on an institutional level. |
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Banksy - New York Times, by moron on Feb 6, 2020 14:02:08 GMT 1, A friend of mine has been invited to exhibit her paintings in a city museum. She is unknown compared to mega known Banksy and Banksy can't get a museum gig invite. Maybe he should climb down off his high horse and stop touting himself as available for only the big museums, cos that's where the big artists go. Anyway, I thought Banksy hated putting art in museums. You have a friend? Wonders never cease.
A friend of mine has been invited to exhibit her paintings in a city museum. She is unknown compared to mega known Banksy and Banksy can't get a museum gig invite. Maybe he should climb down off his high horse and stop touting himself as available for only the big museums, cos that's where the big artists go. Anyway, I thought Banksy hated putting art in museums. You have a friend? Wonders never cease. Yes |
|
|
|
lv90210
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,030
👍🏻 1,926
January 2018
|
Banksy - New York Times, by lv90210 on Feb 6, 2020 14:05:03 GMT 1, A friend of mine has been invited to exhibit her paintings in a city museum. She is unknown compared to mega known Banksy and Banksy can't get a museum gig invite. Maybe he should climb down off his high horse and stop touting himself as available for only the big museums, cos that's where the big artists go. Anyway, I thought Banksy hated putting art in museums.
A friend of mine has been invited to exhibit her paintings in a city museum. She is unknown compared to mega known Banksy and Banksy can't get a museum gig invite. Maybe he should climb down off his high horse and stop touting himself as available for only the big museums, cos that's where the big artists go. Anyway, I thought Banksy hated putting art in museums. Is this a long story..... |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Banksy - New York Times, by Deleted on Feb 6, 2020 14:18:22 GMT 1, A friend of mine has been invited to exhibit her paintings in a city museum. She is unknown compared to mega known Banksy and Banksy can't get a museum gig invite. Maybe he should climb down off his high horse and stop touting himself as available for only the big museums, cos that's where the big artists go. Anyway, I thought Banksy hated putting art in museums.
Cool
Maybe send him an email.
He'll be gutted to hear this
A friend of mine has been invited to exhibit her paintings in a city museum. She is unknown compared to mega known Banksy and Banksy can't get a museum gig invite. Maybe he should climb down off his high horse and stop touting himself as available for only the big museums, cos that's where the big artists go. Anyway, I thought Banksy hated putting art in museums. Cool Maybe send him an email. He'll be gutted to hear this |
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Banksy - New York Times, by moron on Feb 6, 2020 14:26:18 GMT 1, A friend of mine has been invited to exhibit her paintings in a city museum. She is unknown compared to mega known Banksy and Banksy can't get a museum gig invite. Maybe he should climb down off his high horse and stop touting himself as available for only the big museums, cos that's where the big artists go. Anyway, I thought Banksy hated putting art in museums. Is this a long story.....
A friend of mine has been invited to exhibit her paintings in a city museum. She is unknown compared to mega known Banksy and Banksy can't get a museum gig invite. Maybe he should climb down off his high horse and stop touting himself as available for only the big museums, cos that's where the big artists go. Anyway, I thought Banksy hated putting art in museums. Is this a long story..... Depends if you are a quick reader or not. |
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Banksy - New York Times, by moron on Feb 6, 2020 14:27:37 GMT 1, The NYT article is good in that it indicates that Banksy means different things to different people depending on which side of the tracks they are viewing from.
The NYT article is good in that it indicates that Banksy means different things to different people depending on which side of the tracks they are viewing from.
|
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Banksy - New York Times, by moron on Feb 6, 2020 14:36:59 GMT 1, A friend of mine has been invited to exhibit her paintings in a city museum. She is unknown compared to mega known Banksy and Banksy can't get a museum gig invite. Maybe he should climb down off his high horse and stop touting himself as available for only the big museums, cos that's where the big artists go. Anyway, I thought Banksy hated putting art in museums. Cool Maybe send him an email. He'll be gutted to hear this
A friend of mine has been invited to exhibit her paintings in a city museum. She is unknown compared to mega known Banksy and Banksy can't get a museum gig invite. Maybe he should climb down off his high horse and stop touting himself as available for only the big museums, cos that's where the big artists go. Anyway, I thought Banksy hated putting art in museums. Cool Maybe send him an email. He'll be gutted to hear this Well, considering some on here are moaning that museums are not interasted in adding a Banksy to their collections and Banksy saying he don't like his art in museums. It seems like some want their slice of the Banksy cake and to eat it too. |
|
|
|
Banksy - New York Times, by Monsieur2T on Feb 6, 2020 14:54:05 GMT 1, “What’s more important?” Mr. Snelle asked. “Doing something that might save people’s actual lives, or something in some rarefied museum?”
...
“What’s more important?” Mr. Snelle asked. “Doing something that might save people’s actual lives, or something in some rarefied museum?”
...
|
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Banksy - New York Times, by moron on Feb 6, 2020 14:56:42 GMT 1, This comment by someone called Mike from the NYT article is interesting.
"
Mike
NFeb. 5
If Banksy was for everyone why does Pest Control, official Banksy authentication office, only sell to rich and charge $20-30k for a print that used to be $50.
Banksy said during his newest store Gross Domestic Product he would only sell to fans and yet a ton of gallery owners and auction house were sold prints at retail prices. On Instagram the person who runs Paddle8 posted he won a Banksy print at retail and so did many other art dealers. As well as a well established home decoration company winning a prized piece at retail? This is a well oiled machine selling to the 1% now.
Steve Lazarides is also now selling Banksy notes for a profit with his own COAs. Seems to me Banksy says and portrays one thing but acts just like any other blue chip artist.
If you are rich Banksy and pest control will sell you a print. If not wait every 10 years for him to do a pop up and register for a lottery to possibly purchase new items at affordable prices, and find out 1/3 of the items went to galleries and auctions house to be resold in a few years once Pest Control releases COAs.
Shepard Fairey sells items every week for affordable prices. If Banksy “was for the people” and not for 1% he would do the same. Unfortunately Shepard’s market isn’t nearly where Banksy is and I’m sure Banksy likes being with in the blue chip and 1% art buyers at Sotheby’s as well."
www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/arts/design/banksy-legacy.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer
This comment by someone called Mike from the NYT article is interesting.
"
Mike
NFeb. 5
If Banksy was for everyone why does Pest Control, official Banksy authentication office, only sell to rich and charge $20-30k for a print that used to be $50.
Banksy said during his newest store Gross Domestic Product he would only sell to fans and yet a ton of gallery owners and auction house were sold prints at retail prices. On Instagram the person who runs Paddle8 posted he won a Banksy print at retail and so did many other art dealers. As well as a well established home decoration company winning a prized piece at retail? This is a well oiled machine selling to the 1% now.
Steve Lazarides is also now selling Banksy notes for a profit with his own COAs. Seems to me Banksy says and portrays one thing but acts just like any other blue chip artist.
If you are rich Banksy and pest control will sell you a print. If not wait every 10 years for him to do a pop up and register for a lottery to possibly purchase new items at affordable prices, and find out 1/3 of the items went to galleries and auctions house to be resold in a few years once Pest Control releases COAs.
Shepard Fairey sells items every week for affordable prices. If Banksy “was for the people” and not for 1% he would do the same. Unfortunately Shepard’s market isn’t nearly where Banksy is and I’m sure Banksy likes being with in the blue chip and 1% art buyers at Sotheby’s as well."www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/arts/design/banksy-legacy.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer |
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Banksy - New York Times, by moron on Feb 6, 2020 15:15:40 GMT 1, This comment by someone called Mike from the NYT article is interesting.
"
Mike
NFeb. 5
If Banksy was for everyone why does Pest Control, official Banksy authentication office, only sell to rich and charge $20-30k for a print that used to be $50.
Banksy said during his newest store Gross Domestic Product he would only sell to fans and yet a ton of gallery owners and auction house were sold prints at retail prices. On Instagram the person who runs Paddle8 posted he won a Banksy print at retail and so did many other art dealers. As well as a well established home decoration company winning a prized piece at retail? This is a well oiled machine selling to the 1% now.
Steve Lazarides is also now selling Banksy notes for a profit with his own COAs. Seems to me Banksy says and portrays one thing but acts just like any other blue chip artist.
If you are rich Banksy and pest control will sell you a print. If not wait every 10 years for him to do a pop up and register for a lottery to possibly purchase new items at affordable prices, and find out 1/3 of the items went to galleries and auctions house to be resold in a few years once Pest Control releases COAs.
Shepard Fairey sells items every week for affordable prices. If Banksy “was for the people” and not for 1% he would do the same. Unfortunately Shepard’s market isn’t nearly where Banksy is and I’m sure Banksy likes being with in the blue chip and 1% art buyers at Sotheby’s as well."www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/arts/design/banksy-legacy.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer Mike sounds a bigger cretin than you ! so maybe that's why you find him interesting ?
Or don't elaborate. I notice the people who take offence on here are usually the ones sitting on some form of Banksy stock a print or similar and have an interest in keeping the Banksy hype going or are involved with team Banksy in one way or another.
This comment by someone called Mike from the NYT article is interesting.
"
Mike
NFeb. 5
If Banksy was for everyone why does Pest Control, official Banksy authentication office, only sell to rich and charge $20-30k for a print that used to be $50.
Banksy said during his newest store Gross Domestic Product he would only sell to fans and yet a ton of gallery owners and auction house were sold prints at retail prices. On Instagram the person who runs Paddle8 posted he won a Banksy print at retail and so did many other art dealers. As well as a well established home decoration company winning a prized piece at retail? This is a well oiled machine selling to the 1% now.
Steve Lazarides is also now selling Banksy notes for a profit with his own COAs. Seems to me Banksy says and portrays one thing but acts just like any other blue chip artist.
If you are rich Banksy and pest control will sell you a print. If not wait every 10 years for him to do a pop up and register for a lottery to possibly purchase new items at affordable prices, and find out 1/3 of the items went to galleries and auctions house to be resold in a few years once Pest Control releases COAs.
Shepard Fairey sells items every week for affordable prices. If Banksy “was for the people” and not for 1% he would do the same. Unfortunately Shepard’s market isn’t nearly where Banksy is and I’m sure Banksy likes being with in the blue chip and 1% art buyers at Sotheby’s as well."www.nytimes.com/2020/02/05/arts/design/banksy-legacy.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage#commentsContainer Mike sounds a bigger cretin than you ! so maybe that's why you find him interesting ? elaborate, Or don't elaborate. I notice the people who take offence on here are usually the ones sitting on some form of Banksy stock a print or similar and have an interest in keeping the Banksy hype going or are involved with team Banksy in one way or another. |
|
