Does anyone else think that the next signed Banksy will be £1000? With the prices they are going for on the bay approx 4G.
POW and banksy himself might think F##k this why not!!!!!
Why should POW only make £££ when sellers on e-bay are making £3000 profit?

Its alrite mate i did figure it out! cheers

No, couldnt get down their, i would love to go down to these galleries on a regular bases, (i missed found too) but because i live in the midlands im looking at a 4-5 hour round trip plus my viewing and queeing time!!! weekends i would be fine but all these thursday releases dont do me any favours!!

I was desperate for someone to pick me something up as a favour, but no luck! I could have made it worth theor while too! nevermind! Next show i fancy im going to have to book some time off work but getting 15 days a year really sucks!

Pass Pez - there were a couple of groups there, man, woman and two kids all with the money for the 3 prints

So adding it all up its £761,250 for 9 photographs of paintings printed via inkjet 675 times and signed

And the even more crazy fact is that they sell for about double on ebay, so that's £1,522,500 worth then. it's all a little mad IMO.

I am off to POW next week to pick something up, I'll give Wednesday afternoon a miss then, or maybe I should go and watch the 'puters melt! ;D
Thanks for jbob posting that there were still Neate prints available this afternoon. I popped over after work and got Queen and Come on. Best show I've been to in a while and that's saying something.

But the art has already been created on the original surely?

Yep, that's my point, the work was already done and will sell in it's own right.

So all you need to do to make an extra three quarters of a million pounds has just been described. So that's easy money, right?

You're right it is easy money, but that's a criticism you can level at most of the prints discussed on this board. There are obviously plenty of complaints about giclees, but I just don't think you'd be able to recreate Neate's works half as well by other more traditional printing methods. Adam's mixed media works have a lot of texture, detail and include real 3D objects. You'd have serious difficulties trying to capture this level of detail in a screen print. Take BRP's version of Kennard's Haywain as an example. It's an absolutely stunning screen print - the registration is mind blowing - but it simply cannot capture the texture or brushwork of the original Haywain as well as a giclee would. That said, I'd be interested to see the screenprints of Hirst's Diamond skull in the flesh. Maybe they'll change my opinion on what can be achieved screenprinting.

Like you I'm a little astounded at Adam's success on these boards and how his prints have flown. It's not that I don't think he deserves the success. He absolutely does - the exhibition is simply mesmeric! But more that Adam has managed to drag a whole legion of Street Art collectors/fans, who were buying affordable art, into the world of contemporary fine art. Adam may leave works on the streets, but for me he really is a contemporary fine artist. His work shares far more similarities with Francis Bacon and Picasso than it does with Banksy or any of the other stencil/Graff based street artists discussed on this board. Now I'm not saying Adam is necessarily the next Bacon or Picasso, it's more that we're now talking a whole different field of art.

the whole giclee argument is boring
they look amazing and the people who buy them will love them on their walls (fuck the filppers)
i am not gonna ignore them coz they are 'inkjets', i dont give a shit

+ 1 Right on. ;D

Spot on ABC

Nicely put speebe, with you 100%