I think I must have got everything wrong, because for me art is all about emotion and what an artist and his work engenders, not about long term trend ,which I'm afraid, with even the most highly educated and learned amongst us, is still a best guess, who have oft times got it wrong, as many experts in the financial world can testify to at great cost also.
As for "this genre will crumble" I think that is rather a sweeping statement which I'm sure must have been said many times about the different periods in art, cubism, impressionism etc,so I think in one form or another it will live on, you seem to forget it is still in it's infancy as a recognised art form.

Emotion is A#1 why I keep a piece of art, although it is not always A#1 why I purchase a piece of art. I am far from above identifying a hot piece and making some coin off of it in order to further my goals. I am a teacher in the inner-city and thus my financial resources tend to be on the more scarce side.

But on the emotion side, one of the greatest times of my life is coming home from work. I pick up my 8-month-old daughter from her grandparents' house and drive home. Once there, we go in to the dining room and I sit there, holding my daughter, and gazing at both her and a Parla. Regardless of how bad a day I've had, that routine makes everything right as rain.

But the reality of the situation is, for many of the 'collectors' on these forums, advice like 'buy what you like' is absolutely, positively ruinous. That is the most base, the most unstudied, and, in the long run, what will be the least satisfying way to collect. To crib from some popular books, 'buy what you like' is the opposite of true connoisseurship, which should be the goal of any collector.

You can see it here every single day, 'buy what you like' results in things like the for-sale ads listing 50 rather poor prints that were rash and now regretted purchases. This highlights a rather complete and utter lack of discipline, which I feel is endemic of the urban art genre and results from A. the nebulous standards of quality mentioned in a prior post and B. a weak academic/intellectual basis of the genre.

How I see it, the danger to the genre and why I feel it will crumble(as mentioned previously) is an emptiness at its core. At this point, it is still far closer to Beanie Babies, Pogs, Baseball Cards, Magic the Gathering Cards, Furbies, Pokemon than it is to neo-expressionism, pop, minimalism, abstract expressionism, new realism, etc. And what disturbs me is that I don't see much movement toward the latter.

What needs to emerge is a wholesale conversion of a large percentage of urban art fans into actual art collectors, because right now we are still very much in a fad. Without the conversion, there will be no one carrying the torch for the genre and it will go both cold and dusty. A true collector base will also stimulate scholarship, an important underpinning of any artistic genre.

More reading, more studying, less indiscriminate buying.

Sometimes, like music, you just want something funky. Admitidely, I do not have your age or knowledge, but I buy what I like and it keeps me happy. I would far rather have a Bast on my wall saying 's**thead' than a Parla filled with emotion that I don't understand yet, but thats just me - young, juvenile, simple. It makes me smile. It fits my lifestyle. I think this is why street art is great, as it is accessible to the masses, you don't need a degree to enjoy it and you certainly don't need to be a connoisseur to hang it on your wall.

Saying that though, the street artists who do put meaning into their pieces are the greats who will last the long term - but for me I can enjoy all types of artists for different reasons, it's not just emotion that makes something special, it can be the little things, like a picture of a p***s.

Anyway, I'm no Brain Sewell and am by no means a serious collector, I just buy what I like to brighten my walls and look pretty. There's the difference!

I understand what you are saying mose, but I suppose being a bit of a dreamer/realist/ pessimist (if it's a glass of good chablis, the glass is half empty) all rolled into one, still think that the urban art genre will survive, maybe not in the guise we know it now, but perhaps with a few leading lights leading the way, I'm sure 98% of the "artists" around at the moment will have dissapeared into the oblivion from whence they came, who knows who is around the corner. Micallef, I'm sure will be one of the 2%, although I wouldnt buy any of his work, and own none, I appreciate he is or could be and outstanding artist.
I have been collecting art for a number of years and not solely urban/graff, but across the board from pop to abstract geometric, Auguste Herbin being one of my favourites, and still think that, there is room for this genre (urban/graff) because it seems to me it is off the minute and reflects what is happening at that particular time, a bit like a painted history, if that makes any sense.
To answer Felix, I still say buying what you like and makes you smile is the best way to buy art, irrespective of investment, unless like Saatchi you buy, to stash away and hope one of the artists you have bought into hits the big time, that is a different league. But I will not be suprised if in a few years time you look at something hanging on your wall, and think, why the hell did I buy that! tastes do change as you get older, I look at some of the art I have bought in the past and think the same thing, then I answer my own question, I bought it for the same reason I bought something a week ago, because I liked it ,,,at the time,
Doubt if much of this makes much sense, but I have given it a go, lol, take care you crazy kids!!!

Went down to the opening last Thrusday... The Micallef pieces are AMAZING in the flesh.

;D

What Pezlow said 100000000 times over.

Again, I tend to disagree with that a bit. Buying art should be 100% about educating yourself, especially as it is largely evident that many do not know what they actually like, what they actually want to live with, partially resulting in the incessant churn you see on these forums.

The question for me is, why would you want to democratise art ownership? To me that doesn't quite make sense. Again, to crib some popular books, there are only a small, miniscule percentage of people who can make great art, therefore only a small, miniscule percentage will be able to own it.

To democratise art is to push it down toward the lowest common denominator, that being the average man.

This scene being 'democratised' with what seems like 1000's of average artists issuing 1000's of average prints to 1000's of average Joe's 'buying what they like' is not going to result in long-term health and viability for the genre.

Does this genre want greatness? Do we as collectors demand less, covering our lack of standards with the 'buy what you like' phrase? Because if if this genre aspires to greatness, average is a horrible thing.

Is it hugely pompous to want more?

I believe art pieces to be Veblen goods. Continued 'democratisation' of art will result in lower prices and lower demand.

Veblen goods violate the general rules of supply and demand. Other examples would be high-end fashion, diamonds and various classes of non-staple luxury goods. The more supply, the lower the price, the less people want them as they no longer have status and for most of us the price=quality equation is too powerful to overcome.


edit: Found a quote I remembered loving that supports viewing art as Veblen goods. The Mugrabi family owns over 800 Warhols(according to newspaper reports). Alberto Mugrabi stated, “Nobody liked Warhol at $300,000. But they love him at $3 million.”

Regarding the 'scene' dying if people buy what you consider substandard work... surely it will die on its arse more if the only things people buy are the artists that have by consensus become the ones people think will sell for s**tloads at auction in 6 months / 10 years (Which by this week's reckoning is Faile, Parla, Banksy, Neate is it?)

First of all there's no guarantee that these are the artists that will stand the test of time.

Secondly every great artist has to start somewhere. I'm sure you would have derided Neate's work as crap if you'd only seen his street pieces. It took a long time to mature to the stage he's at now. If no-one had supported him before then you wouldn't now be appreciating the great work he's now producing.

Personally I think a lot of stuff being offered for sale isn't very good, but the revolutionary concept of street art is that anyone can stick a stencil on a wall, and if they wish they can subsequently try to make a living by selling a few canvases. This is our own movement, and we shouldn't be begging for acceptance by the auction houses & snobby galleries.

The mistakes i've made buying in the past is when i've bought things because everyone else is telling me they're excellent, and the ones who are going to 'make it'. This is when i've invariably bought turkeys that I never really loved anyway.

When I've bought originals because i like the work & I consider them good value, they've invariably served me well as investments as well as providing much pleasure on the walls (Cyclops, Matt Small, Judith Supine, Word to Mother, Elbow Toe, Greg Gossel).

The truth is that there should be a balance between buying 'what you like' and 'what you think might make a fortune'. If you're spending a lot of money (which let's face it is anything over £300 as far as i'm concerned, which is a week's work for most people), you need to like the piece & you need to believe in the rest of the artist's work and the direction he's moving in.


I don't think it's necessary to spend a lot of money to have a great collection, but most importantly it should definitely reflect your own tastes rather than what you're told is good.

I agree, a very interesting read, not totally sure which side i'm on, a more complicated issue that I thought...I like what you say Mose, hard to argue with. I shall have to do some reading and come back.

Edit: Although I do believe that at it's core street art is an art form for the masses, as echoed by previous posters, anyone can do it, and can have access to the creative and theraputic effects art can provoke.

Also, am I right in saying that Micallef isn't even a street artist? Wasn't there a link to an article saying that he wasn't even a fan/involved in the movement, someone please correct me here if i'm wrong. So in many respects, maybe we shouldn't really be talking about and relating Micallef and the general sphere of street art.

That is a hugely pompous thing to say, what do you define as an 'average joe' ? I take it you do not include yourself in this category and you see yourself as some kind of super human know everything collector.

Wouldn't it be appropriate to ask what I define as an 'average joe' and to clarify if I include myself in that category prior to calling that 'a hugely pompous thing to say'? Figured you would want to clarify before crucify.

'Average joe' is pretty much everyone here. The middle 50 in life. I don't believe I've ever known anywhere else. Maybe back in 2000 when I was so poor that I'd walk to the supermarket to eat samples 3 times a day as my only meals. I was definitely below the 25th percentile then.

As far as what I know, I know enough to recognize that I know very little and that I need to educate myself. I also know enough to recognize that this little island of urban art, and most of we fans, have little to no comprehension, or appreciation, of the greater art world and are much poorer and deluded for it. More of us should be talking about books to read, journals to subscribe to, and discussing art criticism and museum retrospectives rather than the 'oh my god, what a hot new print by brand artist xyz, I'll buy it because I like it and list it, unframed, for face value or a bit less, in 3-6 months time along with the requisite sob story'.