It is very interesting to see that price of an art piece is always a topic of "controversy." Some people think it is reasonable that a piece is worth such while others believe it is unwarrented. I can't remember who said it but art is all about acceptance. If collectors accept a set of prices by an artist, who am I to say that is excessive. Am I going to pay 10K for Scorch? Probably not. But I also would not pay 10K for a Hirst. Art is in the eye of the beholder. A cliche, but true in my opion.

thanks. I wasn't trying to start problems by listing these pieces. I know some people like Keyes and figured they may want to take advantage of some opportunities. That is all.

In regards to people talking about flipping that is fine. I don't consider selling art that has appreciated and making a profit flipping when the intention behind it is to use the money for something of higher priority. That is like someone buying a house 10 years ago and selling at the top of the bubble and saying they are doing something wrong. Are they supposed to say "i am not going to sell this for more"? This is common sense.

Anyway, I am trying to get rid of these last few pieces because I have some other priorities. If anyone is interested, I will negotiate some things out.

bump for best offer options added to the small pieces and Totem I being dropped from 10>9k starting. Please PM if interested in anything.

I would also accept any trades involving Shep, KAWS, or McGee. Thanks.

Why say "pm"d" Linky?.

>>>I just find it amazing that still, some of these urban artists with short careers are vastly overpriced in comparison to their contemporary art peers. Is it naivety, hype or an underappreciation? <<<

I know very little about Keyes myself so pardon my ignorance, but how does one group him among the "urban/street/graffiti" genre?

>>>Is it naivety, hype or an underappreciation?<<<

In my case, though I'm not a collector of Keyes, it is naivety. I certainly don't get upset by the price tag associated with any artist. I'll admit that I wish Pollock were cheaper but there's more than enough great art to go around than for me to worry about whether or not someone is overpriced relative to a group of peers. You vote with your wallet but it's obvious given some of the venom in these threads that many do get quite angry. Perhaps passionate to the point of heated/defensive is a better way of putting it.

This hobby has helped me create my own sanctuary that I share with my family and friends which is not to suggest that one can't critique the merit or price tag of art/artists. But, let's be honest here, the VAST majority of art has a price tag sub 10k so it's not like this is all that rare.

Further, if (as I'm told) galleries are easily selling out of his work at 5 or 6k - it's not exactly a quantum leap to think that they might reach 10k soon or for others to speculate as such. You don't have to follow art very long to see that pattern play itself out ad nauseam. I've seen far more instances over the past 5 years of artists that I've never heard of (which is admittedly most artists) and galleries that I enjoy asking 20 to 50k for their wares and, gulp, many of those shows sell out. To me, this pales by comparison.

Lastly, this artist is creating compositions around a theme that provokes a passionate response to many people around the globe. He's doing so in a way that looks fresh to my eyes while also paying homage to artists (in certain compositions) that have come before him. I rarely see anything of the sort with a price tag sub 10k. Damn, after writing that I'm realizing I probably should have ponied up the extra dough, oh well.

>>> Everyone here had to have one the second they found out they couldn't<<<

That's probably a nice combination of good marketing and great talent though I didn't know that was the case. There is one image of his that I had to own and that's not possible now so there is no rush from my vantage point as the others don't tug on my soul like that one.

>>>I can give you a laundry list of artists who have accomplishments like inclusion in the whitney biennial, permanent collection of the MoMA etc whose work of sim size goes for less/equal to Keyes aftermarket prices.<<<

And if I bought primarily because of what others thought of my collection as opposed to me, than this might carry more weight with me. To be honest, I'm glad my wife and I don't collect that way. I wanted an image and really didn't care who the artist was in this case (not to downplay Keyes' talents and accomplishments at all) as it resonated with me/us. That particular image gives me the kind of response I want on my walls and it wouldn't bother me at all to know I could have gotten "more for my money" if I looked at what other curators were buying instead.

I think these may well be aftermarket. Tree of knowledge sold on ebay a couple of months ago, and watcher #5 was owned by someone i know until recently.

And since when is he an urban artist?

Fine point Lee, I certainly agree with you about Banksy, but I don't know if I agree as a whole. And I don't know if I'd agree with you that its speculation any more than it is naivety. I think the YBAs have also made a serious impact on the art world since pop as well as the conceptual art movement (although less commercially) has really redefined the concept of what is art, plus I think their work is far more solid and intellectually stronger. The urban/alternative art genre going on right now, I just don't think it's as smart as this and I don't find it as groundbreaking as pop. But I can't see in to the future so who knows how history will be written.

And fair enough if he got em aftermarket, but I do know of a number of people that own 5+ works by Keyes, particularly because they have a relationship or inside connection with some galleries. Fair enough but it exacerbates the aftermarket problem.

But anyway, so he's not a part of this scene?