docean
New Member
🗨️ 905
👍🏻 764
November 2015
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by docean on Jun 22, 2020 18:06:01 GMT 1, Whether we like to discuss the financial component of art or not (I know it can get a bit taboo here...) it is a very present force in the art world so I wanted to post some thoughts here and hear what everyone thinks.
and a quick note: none of this is criticism of the artistic merits of these artists, simply the investment potential of them. I always buy what I like, but I wouldn't have much on my walls if I at least didn't consider the investment potential too.
The last couple of years I've seen a couple of artists really gain quite a bit of popularity (and as such, their prices have skyrocketed). 2 of them that come to mind first are Javier Calleja and Erik Parker
These 2 have one major thing in common, they both apprenticed under some very blue chip art names
Erik Parker was a student of Peter Saul
Javier Calleja apprenticed under Yoshitomo Nara
When the markets of the more established artists began to take off, the younger guys seemed to be off to the races too. Perhaps people thought they were getting a bargain.
A few years ago before even Mary Boone was talking about Parker, his pieces were cheap and easy to find. Saul had some strong auction results and a museum show announced, and now Parker has been very in demand.
Callejas used to be sold on this forum very cheap, and then Nara started smashing auction records, and Javier's market also began to sky rocket.
but... this is all too familiar to me, from a road I've seen traveled before.... Kaws and Sam Friedman (Sam was an assistant to Kaws and worked with him for 4 years)
Kaws is one of the most in-demand artists in the world right now...yet... where has Friedman's market gone? We certainly saw a spike a few years ago when Kaws was getting very popular...but that seems to have sizzled out and there's less interest these days. (Again, not criticizing his work, I happen to like it, just pointing out some observations)
So with Friedman, Calleja, and Parker all lacking some truly blue chip gallery representation, should the latter 2 really be commanding the prices they do? or are they being overhyped due to names they're attached to?
Can anyone think of any other examples? perhaps Cleon Peterson and Shepard Fairey?
Whether we like to discuss the financial component of art or not (I know it can get a bit taboo here...) it is a very present force in the art world so I wanted to post some thoughts here and hear what everyone thinks.
and a quick note: none of this is criticism of the artistic merits of these artists, simply the investment potential of them. I always buy what I like, but I wouldn't have much on my walls if I at least didn't consider the investment potential too.
The last couple of years I've seen a couple of artists really gain quite a bit of popularity (and as such, their prices have skyrocketed). 2 of them that come to mind first are Javier Calleja and Erik Parker
These 2 have one major thing in common, they both apprenticed under some very blue chip art names
Erik Parker was a student of Peter Saul
Javier Calleja apprenticed under Yoshitomo Nara
When the markets of the more established artists began to take off, the younger guys seemed to be off to the races too. Perhaps people thought they were getting a bargain.
A few years ago before even Mary Boone was talking about Parker, his pieces were cheap and easy to find. Saul had some strong auction results and a museum show announced, and now Parker has been very in demand.
Callejas used to be sold on this forum very cheap, and then Nara started smashing auction records, and Javier's market also began to sky rocket.
but... this is all too familiar to me, from a road I've seen traveled before.... Kaws and Sam Friedman (Sam was an assistant to Kaws and worked with him for 4 years)
Kaws is one of the most in-demand artists in the world right now...yet... where has Friedman's market gone? We certainly saw a spike a few years ago when Kaws was getting very popular...but that seems to have sizzled out and there's less interest these days. (Again, not criticizing his work, I happen to like it, just pointing out some observations)
So with Friedman, Calleja, and Parker all lacking some truly blue chip gallery representation, should the latter 2 really be commanding the prices they do? or are they being overhyped due to names they're attached to?
Can anyone think of any other examples? perhaps Cleon Peterson and Shepard Fairey?
|
|
nobokov
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,948
👍🏻 6,901
February 2016
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by nobokov on Jun 22, 2020 19:27:57 GMT 1, Whether we like to discuss the financial component of art or not (I know it can get a bit taboo here...) it is a very present force in the art world so I wanted to post some thoughts here and hear what everyone thinks. and a quick note: none of this is criticism of the artistic merits of these artists, simply the investment potential of them. I always buy what I like, but I wouldn't have much on my walls if I at least didn't consider the investment potential too. The last couple of years I've seen a couple of artists really gain quite a bit of popularity (and as such, their prices have skyrocketed). 2 of them that come to mind first are Javier Calleja and Erik Parker These 2 have one major thing in common, they both apprenticed under some very blue chip art names Erik Parker was a student of Peter SaulJavier Calleja apprenticed under Yoshitomo NaraWhen the markets of the more established artists began to take off, the younger guys seemed to be off to the races too. Perhaps people thought they were getting a bargain. A few years ago before even Mary Boone was talking about Parker, his pieces were cheap and easy to find. Saul had some strong auction results and a museum show announced, and now Parker has been very in demand. Callejas used to be sold on this forum very cheap, and then Nara started smashing auction records, and Javier's market also began to sky rocket. but... this is all too familiar to me, from a road I've seen traveled before.... Kaws and Sam Friedman (Sam was an assistant to Kaws and worked with him for 4 years) Kaws is one of the most in-demand artists in the world right now...yet... where has Friedman's market gone? We certainly saw a spike a few years ago when Kaws was getting very popular...but that seems to have sizzled out and there's less interest these days. (Again, not criticizing his work, I happen to like it, just pointing out some observations) So with Friedman, Calleja, and Parker all lacking some truly blue chip gallery representation, should the latter 2 really be commanding the prices they do? or are they being overhyped due to names they're attached to? Can anyone think of any other examples? perhaps Cleon Peterson and Shepard Fairey?
Whether we like to discuss the financial component of art or not (I know it can get a bit taboo here...) it is a very present force in the art world so I wanted to post some thoughts here and hear what everyone thinks. and a quick note: none of this is criticism of the artistic merits of these artists, simply the investment potential of them. I always buy what I like, but I wouldn't have much on my walls if I at least didn't consider the investment potential too. The last couple of years I've seen a couple of artists really gain quite a bit of popularity (and as such, their prices have skyrocketed). 2 of them that come to mind first are Javier Calleja and Erik Parker These 2 have one major thing in common, they both apprenticed under some very blue chip art names Erik Parker was a student of Peter SaulJavier Calleja apprenticed under Yoshitomo NaraWhen the markets of the more established artists began to take off, the younger guys seemed to be off to the races too. Perhaps people thought they were getting a bargain. A few years ago before even Mary Boone was talking about Parker, his pieces were cheap and easy to find. Saul had some strong auction results and a museum show announced, and now Parker has been very in demand. Callejas used to be sold on this forum very cheap, and then Nara started smashing auction records, and Javier's market also began to sky rocket. but... this is all too familiar to me, from a road I've seen traveled before.... Kaws and Sam Friedman (Sam was an assistant to Kaws and worked with him for 4 years) Kaws is one of the most in-demand artists in the world right now...yet... where has Friedman's market gone? We certainly saw a spike a few years ago when Kaws was getting very popular...but that seems to have sizzled out and there's less interest these days. (Again, not criticizing his work, I happen to like it, just pointing out some observations) So with Friedman, Calleja, and Parker all lacking some truly blue chip gallery representation, should the latter 2 really be commanding the prices they do? or are they being overhyped due to names they're attached to? Can anyone think of any other examples? perhaps Cleon Peterson and Shepard Fairey? Seems like all of these names are overhyped. I feel like they aren't very talented painters and rely on fluorescent paint to appeal to interior decorators and flippers. Is there still a market for flipping? If not, will their artworks stand the test of time without serious backing? Rather doubtful. |
|
|
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by ErickBalman on Jun 22, 2020 19:36:45 GMT 1, great post and topic, I think some of the large differences between why Friedman didn't take off like Javier and Erik is because the collector base Friedman has gotten doesn't seem to compare to that of the ones of the other mentioned artists. there is a specific group of collectors I have in mind and im sure any familiar with the collector instagram community know who I am talking about that have been heavily pushing both Javier and Erik, I think Javier even more. is it because they have already quite a stock of both the others work and not Sams? im not sure but I don't think it equates to Kaws market as much has it equates to those collectors who seem to have invested in the other 2 more than in Sam.
also to throw another set of names in the bunch would be Spencer Russel lewis who used to work under Mark Grotjahn and makes very similar work. his market doesn't compare to Erik or Javiers but he does seem to have gotten some looks early on thanks to his work experience and budget Grotjahn aesthetic
great post and topic, I think some of the large differences between why Friedman didn't take off like Javier and Erik is because the collector base Friedman has gotten doesn't seem to compare to that of the ones of the other mentioned artists. there is a specific group of collectors I have in mind and im sure any familiar with the collector instagram community know who I am talking about that have been heavily pushing both Javier and Erik, I think Javier even more. is it because they have already quite a stock of both the others work and not Sams? im not sure but I don't think it equates to Kaws market as much has it equates to those collectors who seem to have invested in the other 2 more than in Sam.
also to throw another set of names in the bunch would be Spencer Russel lewis who used to work under Mark Grotjahn and makes very similar work. his market doesn't compare to Erik or Javiers but he does seem to have gotten some looks early on thanks to his work experience and budget Grotjahn aesthetic
|
|
WOOF
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,464
👍🏻 4,762
March 2014
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by WOOF on Jun 22, 2020 20:27:33 GMT 1, Buddy of mine was classmates with Dana Schutz in art school. Learned a lot about how bullshit the art world is, and how her rise to fame was, as they all are, supported gallerists and rich collectors that get to just "decide" who gets to be famous.
Buddy of mine was classmates with Dana Schutz in art school. Learned a lot about how bullshit the art world is, and how her rise to fame was, as they all are, supported gallerists and rich collectors that get to just "decide" who gets to be famous.
|
|
docean
New Member
🗨️ 905
👍🏻 764
November 2015
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by docean on Jun 22, 2020 20:34:47 GMT 1, Buddy of mine was classmates with Dana Schutz in art school. Learned a lot about how bullshit the art world is, and how her rise to fame was, as they all are, supported gallerists and rich collectors that get to just "decide" who gets to be famous.
Yeah often times it's not very organic at all. From an investment standpoint I'm fairly bearish on the prospects of these very hyped artists with no large backing (aka: no elite to decide they will be successful)
Buddy of mine was classmates with Dana Schutz in art school. Learned a lot about how bullshit the art world is, and how her rise to fame was, as they all are, supported gallerists and rich collectors that get to just "decide" who gets to be famous. Yeah often times it's not very organic at all. From an investment standpoint I'm fairly bearish on the prospects of these very hyped artists with no large backing (aka: no elite to decide they will be successful) |
|
drip
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,420
👍🏻 5,065
February 2015
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by drip on Jun 22, 2020 22:42:17 GMT 1, Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you.
The artist would mumble something about their latest series, and they would just go on and bloody on, insisting they show you the red thing, and the blue thing, and the green thing, telling you how they've really suffered this time for the art. You'd nod in agreement, as you now also knew a bit about suffering for art. From nowhere, someone appears and refills your glass, and the artist continues talking, something, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest.
And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances.
But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection.
It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey.
I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good.
Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you.
The artist would mumble something about their latest series, and they would just go on and bloody on, insisting they show you the red thing, and the blue thing, and the green thing, telling you how they've really suffered this time for the art. You'd nod in agreement, as you now also knew a bit about suffering for art. From nowhere, someone appears and refills your glass, and the artist continues talking, something, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest.
And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances.
But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection.
It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey.
I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by Terry Fuckwitt on Jun 22, 2020 22:53:51 GMT 1, Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would tell you a bit about their latest series, how, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good.
I still feel sorry for Johnny Marr. He must feel like one of those wrongly convicted murderers that have spent 20 years in prison and just been released after dna tests prove his innocence ..but the opposite way round. If that makes sense.
Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would tell you a bit about their latest series, how, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good. I still feel sorry for Johnny Marr. He must feel like one of those wrongly convicted murderers that have spent 20 years in prison and just been released after dna tests prove his innocence ..but the opposite way round. If that makes sense. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by Deleted on Jun 22, 2020 22:54:05 GMT 1, Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would tell you a bit about their latest series, how, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good.
`Interesting, I do miss those barn dances
Will artists still be using paper to print on in 5o years do you think
or will they print or use paint or charcoal
where is it all going?
Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would tell you a bit about their latest series, how, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good. `Interesting, I do miss those barn dances Will artists still be using paper to print on in 5o years do you think or will they print or use paint or charcoal where is it all going? |
|
sfnyc
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,119
👍🏻 1,132
August 2017
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by sfnyc on Jun 22, 2020 23:15:08 GMT 1, Only a fraction of "apprentices" make it big in the market - so shouldn't be generalized. Few ever heard of Steve Kaufman who actually printed / painted many works signed by Warhol...
Only a fraction of "apprentices" make it big in the market - so shouldn't be generalized. Few ever heard of Steve Kaufman who actually printed / painted many works signed by Warhol...
|
|
nobokov
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,948
👍🏻 6,901
February 2016
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by nobokov on Jun 22, 2020 23:22:48 GMT 1, Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would mumble something about their latest series, and they would just go on and bloody on, insisting they show you the red thing, and the blue thing, and the green thing, telling you how they've really suffered this time for the art. You'd nod in agreement, as you now also knew a bit about suffering for art. From nowhere, someone appears and refills your glass, and the artist continues talking, something, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good. 
Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would mumble something about their latest series, and they would just go on and bloody on, insisting they show you the red thing, and the blue thing, and the green thing, telling you how they've really suffered this time for the art. You'd nod in agreement, as you now also knew a bit about suffering for art. From nowhere, someone appears and refills your glass, and the artist continues talking, something, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good. You got my vote for best post of the year |
|
nobokov
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,948
👍🏻 6,901
February 2016
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by nobokov on Jun 22, 2020 23:25:07 GMT 1, Only a fraction of "apprentices" make it big in the market - so shouldn't be generalized. Few ever heard of Steve Kaufman who actually printed / painted many works signed by Warhol...
Only a fraction of "apprentices" make it big in the market - so shouldn't be generalized. Few ever heard of Steve Kaufman who actually printed / painted many works signed by Warhol... It just so happens that my walls are full of Kaufmans. |
|
|
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by Terry Fuckwitt on Jun 22, 2020 23:37:18 GMT 1, Only a fraction of "apprentices" make it big in the market - so shouldn't be generalized. Few ever heard of Steve Kaufman who actually printed / painted many works signed by Warhol...
He's not related to Andy Kaufman is he?
Only a fraction of "apprentices" make it big in the market - so shouldn't be generalized. Few ever heard of Steve Kaufman who actually printed / painted many works signed by Warhol... He's not related to Andy Kaufman is he? |
|
JockoLad
New Member
🗨️ 745
👍🏻 1,035
February 2007
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by JockoLad on Jun 22, 2020 23:38:59 GMT 1, Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would mumble something about their latest series, and they would just go on and bloody on, insisting they show you the red thing, and the blue thing, and the green thing, telling you how they've really suffered this time for the art. You'd nod in agreement, as you now also knew a bit about suffering for art. From nowhere, someone appears and refills your glass, and the artist continues talking, something, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good.
Sounds like you are potentially referencing Nick Walker and his recent social media posts? I really like a good amount of his work but recently had to stop following him when he, as you have just alluded to, started posting UFO, David Icke, and Covid-19 conspiracies. It has put me right off him to the point I would be more than happy to get rid of work by him that only months ago I would have never have wanted to part with.
Equally, the opposite can be true. I follow Euan Roberts via his social media channel and find his commentary a delight. He seems like a lovely bloke and I love his art.
Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would mumble something about their latest series, and they would just go on and bloody on, insisting they show you the red thing, and the blue thing, and the green thing, telling you how they've really suffered this time for the art. You'd nod in agreement, as you now also knew a bit about suffering for art. From nowhere, someone appears and refills your glass, and the artist continues talking, something, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good. Sounds like you are potentially referencing Nick Walker and his recent social media posts? I really like a good amount of his work but recently had to stop following him when he, as you have just alluded to, started posting UFO, David Icke, and Covid-19 conspiracies. It has put me right off him to the point I would be more than happy to get rid of work by him that only months ago I would have never have wanted to part with. Equally, the opposite can be true. I follow Euan Roberts via his social media channel and find his commentary a delight. He seems like a lovely bloke and I love his art. |
|
drip
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,420
👍🏻 5,065
February 2015
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by drip on Jun 22, 2020 23:47:52 GMT 1, Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would mumble something about their latest series, and they would just go on and bloody on, insisting they show you the red thing, and the blue thing, and the green thing, telling you how they've really suffered this time for the art. You'd nod in agreement, as you now also knew a bit about suffering for art. From nowhere, someone appears and refills your glass, and the artist continues talking, something, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good. Sounds like you are potentially referencing Nick Walker and his recent social media posts? I really like a good amount of his work but recently had to stop following him when he, as you have just alluded to, started posting UFO, David Icke, and Covid-19 conspiracies. It has put me right off him to the point I would be more than happy to get rid of work by him that only months ago I would have never have wanted to part with. Equally, the opposite can be true. I follow Euan Roberts via his social media channel and find his commentary a delight. He seems like a lovely bloke and I love his art.
Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would mumble something about their latest series, and they would just go on and bloody on, insisting they show you the red thing, and the blue thing, and the green thing, telling you how they've really suffered this time for the art. You'd nod in agreement, as you now also knew a bit about suffering for art. From nowhere, someone appears and refills your glass, and the artist continues talking, something, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good. Sounds like you are potentially referencing Nick Walker and his recent social media posts? I really like a good amount of his work but recently had to stop following him when he, as you have just alluded to, started posting UFO, David Icke, and Covid-19 conspiracies. It has put me right off him to the point I would be more than happy to get rid of work by him that only months ago I would have never have wanted to part with. Equally, the opposite can be true. I follow Euan Roberts via his social media channel and find his commentary a delight. He seems like a lovely bloke and I love his art. Oh gosh, Euan Roberts is an absolute delight. I could eat him with a spoon. |
|
|
|
k2
New Member
🗨️ 528
👍🏻 972
November 2016
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by k2 on Jun 22, 2020 23:55:27 GMT 1, Sounds like you are potentially referencing Nick Walker and his recent social media posts? I really like a good amount of his work but recently had to stop following him when he, as you have just alluded to, started posting UFO, David Icke, and Covid-19 conspiracies. It has put me right off him to the point I would be more than happy to get rid of work by him that only months ago I would have never have wanted to part with. Equally, the opposite can be true. I follow Euan Roberts via his social media channel and find his commentary a delight. He seems like a lovely bloke and I love his art. Oh gosh, Euan Roberts is an absolute delight. I could eat him with a spoon.
The problem with following him on Instagram is that he’s constantly exercising and eating healthy food. I have never felt older and fatter.
Sounds like you are potentially referencing Nick Walker and his recent social media posts? I really like a good amount of his work but recently had to stop following him when he, as you have just alluded to, started posting UFO, David Icke, and Covid-19 conspiracies. It has put me right off him to the point I would be more than happy to get rid of work by him that only months ago I would have never have wanted to part with. Equally, the opposite can be true. I follow Euan Roberts via his social media channel and find his commentary a delight. He seems like a lovely bloke and I love his art. Oh gosh, Euan Roberts is an absolute delight. I could eat him with a spoon. The problem with following him on Instagram is that he’s constantly exercising and eating healthy food. I have never felt older and fatter. |
|
mose
New Member
🗨️ 410
👍🏻 424
May 2017
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by mose on Jun 23, 2020 0:07:58 GMT 1, Only a fraction of "apprentices" make it big in the market - so shouldn't be generalized. Few ever heard of Steve Kaufman who actually printed / painted many works signed by Warhol...
On that topic: www.artspace.com/magazine/art_101/art_market/artist-assistant-genealogy-52154
One of my personal favorite family trees is Dan Graham to R.H. Quaytman to Cameron Rowland. I also have work from Charles Harlan, who is from Carol Bove's lineage.
Only a fraction of "apprentices" make it big in the market - so shouldn't be generalized. Few ever heard of Steve Kaufman who actually printed / painted many works signed by Warhol... On that topic: www.artspace.com/magazine/art_101/art_market/artist-assistant-genealogy-52154One of my personal favorite family trees is Dan Graham to R.H. Quaytman to Cameron Rowland. I also have work from Charles Harlan, who is from Carol Bove's lineage. |
|
pellets
New Member
🗨️ 758
👍🏻 751
October 2018
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by pellets on Jun 23, 2020 8:23:40 GMT 1, Felipe Pantone studied under Carlos Cruz-Diez and there is clearly a strong Op Art influence in Pantone’s work.
In this discussion how do we separate the value of studying under a master and the skills learned vs having access to that master’s network?
It may also be a case of survivorship bias. To test your hypothesis you would need to select a few masters and then examine the fates of all of their apprentices, possibly using the timing of the master’s successful auction results and major exhibitions as expected catalyst moments for the apprentices careers.
Felipe Pantone studied under Carlos Cruz-Diez and there is clearly a strong Op Art influence in Pantone’s work.
In this discussion how do we separate the value of studying under a master and the skills learned vs having access to that master’s network?
It may also be a case of survivorship bias. To test your hypothesis you would need to select a few masters and then examine the fates of all of their apprentices, possibly using the timing of the master’s successful auction results and major exhibitions as expected catalyst moments for the apprentices careers.
|
|
drip
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,420
👍🏻 5,065
February 2015
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by drip on Jun 23, 2020 12:36:46 GMT 1, Sounds like you are potentially referencing Nick Walker and his recent social media posts? I really like a good amount of his work but recently had to stop following him when he, as you have just alluded to, started posting UFO, David Icke, and Covid-19 conspiracies. It has put me right off him to the point I would be more than happy to get rid of work by him that only months ago I would have never have wanted to part with. Equally, the opposite can be true. I follow Euan Roberts via his social media channel and find his commentary a delight. He seems like a lovely bloke and I love his art. You've brought up an interesting point. Do you collect an artist because you like their art? Or do you collect an artist because you like the artist as a person? Of course, it's nice when the two coincide but what if they don't? I personally can't look at a Ben Eine without thinking "woman-beater" so I would never buy his art because I couldn't enjoy it properly. And on the other side of the fence, I love Yayoi Kusama but I have to admit, I like her life story and history more than her art. I collect her art primarily because I like her as a person. I find it interesting that it's always more than just the image or the paint on the canvas that you are buying.
Having said all that, history is full of morally and behaviourally iffy artists, and people give them a pass because it's the work that matters most to them. Plus, how much are you expected to really know about a person? It's complicated and we'll all have our own moral compass to guide us (or spin wildly while screeching in the corner, smoke billowing from it).
Sounds like you are potentially referencing Nick Walker and his recent social media posts? I really like a good amount of his work but recently had to stop following him when he, as you have just alluded to, started posting UFO, David Icke, and Covid-19 conspiracies. It has put me right off him to the point I would be more than happy to get rid of work by him that only months ago I would have never have wanted to part with. Equally, the opposite can be true. I follow Euan Roberts via his social media channel and find his commentary a delight. He seems like a lovely bloke and I love his art. You've brought up an interesting point. Do you collect an artist because you like their art? Or do you collect an artist because you like the artist as a person? Of course, it's nice when the two coincide but what if they don't? I personally can't look at a Ben Eine without thinking "woman-beater" so I would never buy his art because I couldn't enjoy it properly. And on the other side of the fence, I love Yayoi Kusama but I have to admit, I like her life story and history more than her art. I collect her art primarily because I like her as a person. I find it interesting that it's always more than just the image or the paint on the canvas that you are buying. Yeah, I think if I know absolutely nothing about the artist (which is rare these days, what with google and cheap private detectives), I can enjoy something for what it is, but once I know more about the maker, it can tip me one way or the other on their work. I mean, I can still admire something and say it's a good piece of art, but I might not necessarily want to put money their way, or encourage their more troublesome philosophies. Similarly, like you said, I might also choose to seek out work by someone who I admire for reasons other than art. For me, the artist and their art will always be intertwined. Having said all that, history is full of morally and behaviourally iffy artists, and people give them a pass because it's the work that matters most to them. Plus, how much are you expected to really know about a person? It's complicated and we'll all have our own moral compass to guide us (or spin wildly while screeching in the corner, smoke billowing from it). |
|
docean
New Member
🗨️ 905
👍🏻 764
November 2015
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by docean on Jun 23, 2020 13:55:14 GMT 1, Felipe Pantone studied under Carlos Cruz-Diez and there is clearly a strong Op Art influence in Pantone’s work. In this discussion how do we separate the value of studying under a master and the skills learned vs having access to that master’s network? It may also be a case of survivorship bias. To test your hypothesis you would need to select a few masters and then examine the fates of all of their apprentices, possibly using the timing of the master’s successful auction results and major exhibitions as expected catalyst moments for the apprentices careers.
Yeah it would be very hard to separate the two. And agreed, it would be interesting to pick a few today and follow them for a few years to determine if there's any correlations.
Felipe Pantone studied under Carlos Cruz-Diez and there is clearly a strong Op Art influence in Pantone’s work. In this discussion how do we separate the value of studying under a master and the skills learned vs having access to that master’s network? It may also be a case of survivorship bias. To test your hypothesis you would need to select a few masters and then examine the fates of all of their apprentices, possibly using the timing of the master’s successful auction results and major exhibitions as expected catalyst moments for the apprentices careers. Yeah it would be very hard to separate the two. And agreed, it would be interesting to pick a few today and follow them for a few years to determine if there's any correlations. |
|
docean
New Member
🗨️ 905
👍🏻 764
November 2015
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by docean on Jun 23, 2020 13:58:30 GMT 1, Sounds like you are potentially referencing Nick Walker and his recent social media posts? I really like a good amount of his work but recently had to stop following him when he, as you have just alluded to, started posting UFO, David Icke, and Covid-19 conspiracies. It has put me right off him to the point I would be more than happy to get rid of work by him that only months ago I would have never have wanted to part with. Equally, the opposite can be true. I follow Euan Roberts via his social media channel and find his commentary a delight. He seems like a lovely bloke and I love his art. You've brought up an interesting point. Do you collect an artist because you like their art? Or do you collect an artist because you like the artist as a person? Of course, it's nice when the two coincide but what if they don't? I personally can't look at a Ben Eine without thinking "woman-beater" so I would never buy his art because I couldn't enjoy it properly. And on the other side of the fence, I love Yayoi Kusama but I have to admit, I like her life story and history more than her art. I collect her art primarily because I like her as a person. I find it interesting that it's always more than just the image or the paint on the canvas that you are buying.
Sounds like you are potentially referencing Nick Walker and his recent social media posts? I really like a good amount of his work but recently had to stop following him when he, as you have just alluded to, started posting UFO, David Icke, and Covid-19 conspiracies. It has put me right off him to the point I would be more than happy to get rid of work by him that only months ago I would have never have wanted to part with. Equally, the opposite can be true. I follow Euan Roberts via his social media channel and find his commentary a delight. He seems like a lovely bloke and I love his art. You've brought up an interesting point. Do you collect an artist because you like their art? Or do you collect an artist because you like the artist as a person? Of course, it's nice when the two coincide but what if they don't? I personally can't look at a Ben Eine without thinking "woman-beater" so I would never buy his art because I couldn't enjoy it properly. And on the other side of the fence, I love Yayoi Kusama but I have to admit, I like her life story and history more than her art. I collect her art primarily because I like her as a person. I find it interesting that it's always more than just the image or the paint on the canvas that you are buying. similarly to Eine, I feel the same way about Retna. The imagery is great but I cant in good conscience support a guy who beats women and treats everyone around him like trash. |
|
artylang
New Member
🗨️ 887
👍🏻 338
December 2010
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by artylang on Jun 23, 2020 17:40:29 GMT 1, market wise, none of this matters, who you worked for, what museums youve shown in, etc. It can help you get to a certain level of notoriety, sure. When it comes to big time dollars, there is a very small group of people who actually move the art market.
market wise, none of this matters, who you worked for, what museums youve shown in, etc. It can help you get to a certain level of notoriety, sure. When it comes to big time dollars, there is a very small group of people who actually move the art market.
|
|
|
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by sandinista on Jun 23, 2020 18:21:26 GMT 1, Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would mumble something about their latest series, and they would just go on and bloody on, insisting they show you the red thing, and the blue thing, and the green thing, telling you how they've really suffered this time for the art. You'd nod in agreement, as you now also knew a bit about suffering for art. From nowhere, someone appears and refills your glass, and the artist continues talking, something, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good.
Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would mumble something about their latest series, and they would just go on and bloody on, insisting they show you the red thing, and the blue thing, and the green thing, telling you how they've really suffered this time for the art. You'd nod in agreement, as you now also knew a bit about suffering for art. From nowhere, someone appears and refills your glass, and the artist continues talking, something, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good. It wasn't all bad wine. I used to look forward to black rat shows. Free Asahi beer and meeting people like Blek. Now we have to sit at home watching grayson perry talking to artists via the inter web. |
|
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by Deleted on Jun 23, 2020 18:50:22 GMT 1, Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would mumble something about their latest series, and they would just go on and bloody on, insisting they show you the red thing, and the blue thing, and the green thing, telling you how they've really suffered this time for the art. You'd nod in agreement, as you now also knew a bit about suffering for art. From nowhere, someone appears and refills your glass, and the artist continues talking, something, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good. It wasn't all bad wine. I used to look forward to black rat shows. Free Asahi beer and meeting people like Blek. Now we have to sit at home watching grayson perry talking to artists via the inter web.
I liked leonard Street, Had to stop as I kept falling asleep on the train home which wasn't very clever
Social media's an interesting thing when it comes to artists, eh? In the olden days, you'd trot along to a gallery show, tie-up your horse (if he was into that), pop inside the gallery, enjoy some awful cheese and terrible wine, then someone would say, "You must meet the artist!" and then suddenly an awkward and uncomfortable person is introduced to you. The artist would mumble something about their latest series, and they would just go on and bloody on, insisting they show you the red thing, and the blue thing, and the green thing, telling you how they've really suffered this time for the art. You'd nod in agreement, as you now also knew a bit about suffering for art. From nowhere, someone appears and refills your glass, and the artist continues talking, something, something, something, something, juxtaposition, something. Eventually, in an effort to make it stop, you agree to purchase the cheapest piece that hasn't already sold. If all the cheap stuff has gone, you make up some story about how you'll have to run any art purchase past your partner first, but you're definitely interested, honest. And you based what you knew (and felt) about an artist, almost entirely on those kinds of encounters. That and magazine interviews, and also salacious rumours exchanged in bathrooms and drug-fuelled barn dances. But nowadays, you've got a whole deluge of social media to pick through. Unless they have a decent handler, the artist shares more than ever before. You learn their politics, as well as their thoughts on all manner of topics, and, in some cases, whether they're batsh*t mental. Talented artists, but also batsh*t mental. And it's interesting to like an artist and their work, and then all of a sudden they start posting David Icke videos, their creative and dangerous thoughts on vaccinations, or perhaps images of their extensive and worryingly large German tank collection. It's so weird to like an artist, and then have them just out themselves to be a bit....Morrissey. I'm not sure if this falls under the thread of "some thoughts on the art market" but I didn't want to create a whole new thread just to get this off my chest. Feels good. It wasn't all bad wine. I used to look forward to black rat shows. Free Asahi beer and meeting people like Blek. Now we have to sit at home watching grayson perry talking to artists via the inter web. I liked leonard Street, Had to stop as I kept falling asleep on the train home which wasn't very clever |
|
flatcolor
New Member
🗨️ 204
👍🏻 392
April 2020
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by flatcolor on Jun 23, 2020 18:57:02 GMT 1, Whether we like to discuss the financial component of art or not (I know it can get a bit taboo here...) it is a very present force in the art world so I wanted to post some thoughts here and hear what everyone thinks. and a quick note: none of this is criticism of the artistic merits of these artists, simply the investment potential of them. I always buy what I like, but I wouldn't have much on my walls if I at least didn't consider the investment potential too. The last couple of years I've seen a couple of artists really gain quite a bit of popularity (and as such, their prices have skyrocketed). 2 of them that come to mind first are Javier Calleja and Erik Parker These 2 have one major thing in common, they both apprenticed under some very blue chip art names Erik Parker was a student of Peter SaulJavier Calleja apprenticed under Yoshitomo NaraWhen the markets of the more established artists began to take off, the younger guys seemed to be off to the races too. Perhaps people thought they were getting a bargain. A few years ago before even Mary Boone was talking about Parker, his pieces were cheap and easy to find. Saul had some strong auction results and a museum show announced, and now Parker has been very in demand. Callejas used to be sold on this forum very cheap, and then Nara started smashing auction records, and Javier's market also began to sky rocket. but... this is all too familiar to me, from a road I've seen traveled before.... Kaws and Sam Friedman (Sam was an assistant to Kaws and worked with him for 4 years) Kaws is one of the most in-demand artists in the world right now...yet... where has Friedman's market gone? We certainly saw a spike a few years ago when Kaws was getting very popular...but that seems to have sizzled out and there's less interest these days. (Again, not criticizing his work, I happen to like it, just pointing out some observations) So with Friedman, Calleja, and Parker all lacking some truly blue chip gallery representation, should the latter 2 really be commanding the prices they do? or are they being overhyped due to names they're attached to? Can anyone think of any other examples? perhaps Cleon Peterson and Shepard Fairey? Seems like all of these names are overhyped. I feel like they aren't very talented painters and rely on fluorescent paint to appeal to interior decorators and flippers. Is there still a market for flipping? If not, will their artworks stand the test of time without serious backing? Rather doubtful.
Whether we like to discuss the financial component of art or not (I know it can get a bit taboo here...) it is a very present force in the art world so I wanted to post some thoughts here and hear what everyone thinks. and a quick note: none of this is criticism of the artistic merits of these artists, simply the investment potential of them. I always buy what I like, but I wouldn't have much on my walls if I at least didn't consider the investment potential too. The last couple of years I've seen a couple of artists really gain quite a bit of popularity (and as such, their prices have skyrocketed). 2 of them that come to mind first are Javier Calleja and Erik Parker These 2 have one major thing in common, they both apprenticed under some very blue chip art names Erik Parker was a student of Peter SaulJavier Calleja apprenticed under Yoshitomo NaraWhen the markets of the more established artists began to take off, the younger guys seemed to be off to the races too. Perhaps people thought they were getting a bargain. A few years ago before even Mary Boone was talking about Parker, his pieces were cheap and easy to find. Saul had some strong auction results and a museum show announced, and now Parker has been very in demand. Callejas used to be sold on this forum very cheap, and then Nara started smashing auction records, and Javier's market also began to sky rocket. but... this is all too familiar to me, from a road I've seen traveled before.... Kaws and Sam Friedman (Sam was an assistant to Kaws and worked with him for 4 years) Kaws is one of the most in-demand artists in the world right now...yet... where has Friedman's market gone? We certainly saw a spike a few years ago when Kaws was getting very popular...but that seems to have sizzled out and there's less interest these days. (Again, not criticizing his work, I happen to like it, just pointing out some observations) So with Friedman, Calleja, and Parker all lacking some truly blue chip gallery representation, should the latter 2 really be commanding the prices they do? or are they being overhyped due to names they're attached to? Can anyone think of any other examples? perhaps Cleon Peterson and Shepard Fairey? Seems like all of these names are overhyped. I feel like they aren't very talented painters and rely on fluorescent paint to appeal to interior decorators and flippers. Is there still a market for flipping? If not, will their artworks stand the test of time without serious backing? Rather doubtful. Dalek worked for Murakami, and he certainly isn't blue chip, though he's a really talented painter. |
|
nobokov
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,948
👍🏻 6,901
February 2016
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by nobokov on Jun 23, 2020 21:19:28 GMT 1, Seems like all of these names are overhyped. I feel like they aren't very talented painters and rely on fluorescent paint to appeal to interior decorators and flippers. Is there still a market for flipping? If not, will their artworks stand the test of time without serious backing? Rather doubtful. Dalek worked for Murakami, and he certainly isn't blue chip, though he's a really talented painter.
He is?
Seems like all of these names are overhyped. I feel like they aren't very talented painters and rely on fluorescent paint to appeal to interior decorators and flippers. Is there still a market for flipping? If not, will their artworks stand the test of time without serious backing? Rather doubtful. Dalek worked for Murakami, and he certainly isn't blue chip, though he's a really talented painter. He is? |
|
|
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by Coach on Jun 23, 2020 21:49:42 GMT 1, It wasn't all bad wine. I used to look forward to black rat shows. Free Asahi beer and meeting people like Blek. Now we have to sit at home watching grayson perry talking to artists via the inter web. I liked leonard Street, Had to stop as I kept falling asleep on the train home which wasn't very clever
Me too. Had some cracking opening nights there, usually with scavos
It wasn't all bad wine. I used to look forward to black rat shows. Free Asahi beer and meeting people like Blek. Now we have to sit at home watching grayson perry talking to artists via the inter web. I liked leonard Street, Had to stop as I kept falling asleep on the train home which wasn't very clever Me too. Had some cracking opening nights there, usually with scavos |
|
pellets
New Member
🗨️ 758
👍🏻 751
October 2018
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by pellets on Jun 23, 2020 22:50:33 GMT 1, Felipe Pantone studied under Carlos Cruz-Diez and there is clearly a strong Op Art influence in Pantone’s work. In this discussion how do we separate the value of studying under a master and the skills learned vs having access to that master’s network? It may also be a case of survivorship bias. To test your hypothesis you would need to select a few masters and then examine the fates of all of their apprentices, possibly using the timing of the master’s successful auction results and major exhibitions as expected catalyst moments for the apprentices careers. Yeah it would be very hard to separate the two. And agreed, it would be interesting to pick a few today and follow them for a few years to determine if there's any correlations.
Sounds like a promising PhD topic for an art history or possibly an economics student
Felipe Pantone studied under Carlos Cruz-Diez and there is clearly a strong Op Art influence in Pantone’s work. In this discussion how do we separate the value of studying under a master and the skills learned vs having access to that master’s network? It may also be a case of survivorship bias. To test your hypothesis you would need to select a few masters and then examine the fates of all of their apprentices, possibly using the timing of the master’s successful auction results and major exhibitions as expected catalyst moments for the apprentices careers. Yeah it would be very hard to separate the two. And agreed, it would be interesting to pick a few today and follow them for a few years to determine if there's any correlations. Sounds like a promising PhD topic for an art history or possibly an economics student |
|
|
|
Some thoughts on the art market..., by fonebone45 on Jun 28, 2020 17:28:23 GMT 1, You've brought up an interesting point. Do you collect an artist because you like their art? Or do you collect an artist because you like the artist as a person? Of course, it's nice when the two coincide but what if they don't? I personally can't look at a Ben Eine without thinking "woman-beater" so I would never buy his art because I couldn't enjoy it properly. And on the other side of the fence, I love Yayoi Kusama but I have to admit, I like her life story and history more than her art. I collect her art primarily because I like her as a person. I find it interesting that it's always more than just the image or the paint on the canvas that you are buying. similarly to Eine, I feel the same way about Retna. The imagery is great but I cant in good conscience support a guy who beats women and treats everyone around him like trash.
On the flip side, loving the artwork and finding out they're really nice, like with Tim Biskup, Kevin Ledo, Yoshi47, is even better
You've brought up an interesting point. Do you collect an artist because you like their art? Or do you collect an artist because you like the artist as a person? Of course, it's nice when the two coincide but what if they don't? I personally can't look at a Ben Eine without thinking "woman-beater" so I would never buy his art because I couldn't enjoy it properly. And on the other side of the fence, I love Yayoi Kusama but I have to admit, I like her life story and history more than her art. I collect her art primarily because I like her as a person. I find it interesting that it's always more than just the image or the paint on the canvas that you are buying. similarly to Eine, I feel the same way about Retna. The imagery is great but I cant in good conscience support a guy who beats women and treats everyone around him like trash. I hate being really into an artist's work, then meeting them or finding out they're actually kind of an asshole. Definitely makes the connection to the work itself different. On the flip side, loving the artwork and finding out they're really nice, like with Tim Biskup, Kevin Ledo, Yoshi47, is even better |
|
