My New Brodie + any other street photographers?, by cpo on Jan 3, 2008 12:07:11 GMT 1,

bonesy said:

jamesreeve5 said:

Bonesy, you should make it clear that the gallery you purchased this from was NOT M+B. Nor is the image you purchased one of his polaroids (I'm stating the obvious for clarity's sake here). But even on all of his polaroids, the signature varies. Some are signed, dated and titled, some are not (it is however impossible to make an exact physical replica of a polaroid so they have that going for them).

I am a bit disappointed with his new direction as well, but he can't get the polaroid film anymore. He is an interesting character, even though corresponding with him is difficult sometimes (he plays dumb, but is in fact really shrewd).

No negs for your opinion though, I can see how you feel...

You're correct. It was not a Polaroid (it was some Fuji paper, unnumbered print) and it was not M&B Gallery. I actually had good communication with M&B regarding his work, I was just hesitant to drop so much money on my first photography purchase. It put me off very much to not even get a response from Mike, my email was well composed and took some time to write:

Hi Mike, I actually spoke with you (via email) about 6 months ago about how much I enjoy your work. I enjoy the photo very much and am not basing how much I like it based on the signature. I was just very surprised that it did not have the signature I have seen before in the kin book (which I was under the impression was released in October '06). I was also very surprised at the response I got from the snotty CA gallery owner as I'm used to dealing with pleasant people for the most part in this hobby.

I collect mostly street art (congrats on the Swoon & Chris Stain show; I'm a huge Chris Stain fan) and though I've admired your work for hours on the computer I was hesitant to drop hundreds of dollars on a photograph (I'm young and not rich). When I did finally decide to spend $300 on a photo it was because I enjoy the imagery greatly, but also wanted to have a signed piece of yours for my collection. A signature proves provenance (to use a British term) and without it anybody can download an image and have it printed at the local photo developer onto Fuji film for $10. So really a large part of where that $300 was being spent was in the fact that I thought I was buying something that was "a real deal" Mike Brodie photo. The "signature" on the photo can easily be duplicated by anybody. The reason a signature is a form of proof is because it is unique; there is nothing unique about this 3-line doodle.

I really don’t mean to be rude but when someone spends $300 on a photograph that is advertised as "signed" the bottom-line is they should get what they are expecting. When the word "signed" is used it is quite obvious what the buyer is expecting to receive, this is not what anyone would expect. I do not want a refund but will never purchase from that gallery again. I do not think my email to the gallery was uncalled for and the fact that he responded to me in such a negative way speaks highly of how much he appreciates people that are willing to spend money at his gallery. I do not think negative of you at all. I think the photos should be advertised differently and more respect and care should be given to making sure customers are happy.

Mountains of Props,
XXXXXX

if Brodie really does go by 'Bonsey' no wonder you gave him a mountain of props! ;D

I thought your letter was very well thought out, polite and more importantly spot on. What was the Gallery's name again?

+1 to you, -1 to the gallery.

bonesy said:

jamesreeve5 said:

Bonesy, you should make it clear that the gallery you purchased this from was NOT M+B. Nor is the image you purchased one of his polaroids (I'm stating the obvious for clarity's sake here). But even on all of his polaroids, the signature varies. Some are signed, dated and titled, some are not (it is however impossible to make an exact physical replica of a polaroid so they have that going for them).

I am a bit disappointed with his new direction as well, but he can't get the polaroid film anymore. He is an interesting character, even though corresponding with him is difficult sometimes (he plays dumb, but is in fact really shrewd).

No negs for your opinion though, I can see how you feel...

You're correct. It was not a Polaroid (it was some Fuji paper, unnumbered print) and it was not M&B Gallery. I actually had good communication with M&B regarding his work, I was just hesitant to drop so much money on my first photography purchase. It put me off very much to not even get a response from Mike, my email was well composed and took some time to write:

Hi Mike, I actually spoke with you (via email) about 6 months ago about how much I enjoy your work. I enjoy the photo very much and am not basing how much I like it based on the signature. I was just very surprised that it did not have the signature I have seen before in the kin book (which I was under the impression was released in October '06). I was also very surprised at the response I got from the snotty CA gallery owner as I'm used to dealing with pleasant people for the most part in this hobby.

I collect mostly street art (congrats on the Swoon & Chris Stain show; I'm a huge Chris Stain fan) and though I've admired your work for hours on the computer I was hesitant to drop hundreds of dollars on a photograph (I'm young and not rich). When I did finally decide to spend $300 on a photo it was because I enjoy the imagery greatly, but also wanted to have a signed piece of yours for my collection. A signature proves provenance (to use a British term) and without it anybody can download an image and have it printed at the local photo developer onto Fuji film for $10. So really a large part of where that $300 was being spent was in the fact that I thought I was buying something that was "a real deal" Mike Brodie photo. The "signature" on the photo can easily be duplicated by anybody. The reason a signature is a form of proof is because it is unique; there is nothing unique about this 3-line doodle.

I really don’t mean to be rude but when someone spends $300 on a photograph that is advertised as "signed" the bottom-line is they should get what they are expecting. When the word "signed" is used it is quite obvious what the buyer is expecting to receive, this is not what anyone would expect. I do not want a refund but will never purchase from that gallery again. I do not think my email to the gallery was uncalled for and the fact that he responded to me in such a negative way speaks highly of how much he appreciates people that are willing to spend money at his gallery. I do not think negative of you at all. I think the photos should be advertised differently and more respect and care should be given to making sure customers are happy.

Mountains of Props,
XXXXXX

if Brodie really does go by 'Bonsey' no wonder you gave him a mountain of props! ;D

I thought your letter was very well thought out, polite and more importantly spot on. What was the Gallery's name again?

+1 to you, -1 to the gallery.