my unsigned arrived this morning £250 was ok for a unsigned shouldnt go to far wrong for that sort of money "not that im selling mine trying to make a quick buck "

Yeah, post some pics! You're the first one to report receiving it - plenty of us are very anxious! Lucky you!!

Post the pic in this thread though:
banksyforum.proboards82.com/index.cgi?board=powlaz&action=display&thread=1176324000&page=2

I think we wil see a few appearing on ebay today - looks like a few forum memners have taken delivery today so those of us that were'nt as lucky can maybe ship one in from the fleecers.

My guess is that there'll be 15 by the end of the day

I'll take a cheap signed one please !!!!!!!

hi there - spotted that - one has raised his BIN from £925 to £ 950 the rude sod !

think they are just planning to take advantage of the first " must have print " buyers

did you mean 'must have Morons today' morons

"Although many people bought the print to sell" I call them £$%"%^%$^s, But then again If I miss out then thats the only avenue I have I suppose.

I agree Bomberhugger, nearly pissed myself when I saw that BIN at £950, some mug will buy one though, they always do. As you say certain prints are now selling at around £500-£600 so why would you pay 900? Dont get it, I will pay £450 if anyone wants to avoid getting banned by POW and bought it to sell.

£70 for a sticker..... thats fucking insane!!!!

I think it's the whole irony of the Morons print that will make it a classic. A sticker going for £70 says it all........it typifies the moment.

I think it captures 'The Banksy Effect' quite poignantly.

thwaites,

I can only assume that you didn't really read or understand the post you are responding to. First, let me draw your attention to the use of the word 'ugly' as it appears in my post: It is in response to a post immediately prior by finsburyparkranger where he/she uses the word in describing sepia Morons. The entire context of my post acknowledges the very subjective nature of what people perceive to be as 'ugly.'

Second, you might want to brush up on your Greek history, particularly your art history before you start vehemently correcting people. If you are to look at the historical record of the ancient Greeks, you'll notice two distinct and very different epochs--the period which chronicles the 'rise,' and the period which chronicles the 'fall.' Pretty ordinary stuff. During the 'rise' the Greeks were arguably the most vital--this is when they developed their complex language, had the most vibrant thought, and produced art that focused on murder, blood sacrifice, slaughter, disgusting chimeras, and mutant demi-god characters such as Medusa and the hydra in their full wrath. This is where you find many visual depictions of priestesses dancing with handfuls of snakes, with people lounging and eating while in their midst a man's innards are being carved out with a knife. I think it is safe to say that, at least in subject matter, murder, blood sacrifice, etc could safely be considered ugly--its not really a matter of taste, now is it? You'll also note that I did give this period their props "arguably the most aesthetically talented" or something along those lines. If you can make murder look good, the Greeks certainly knew how. But is murder ever really beautiful?

Most people have very little exposure to this art, as it offended the sensibilities of western culture during the time it was discovered. It still doesn't get much coverage in schools, because the art history curriculum throughout most of Europe and the Americas has been largely cannonized. Mother and Father don't want their children seeing anything too objectionable, now do they?!

The art you refer to is that produced during the latter period; during the 'fall' or the 'decline.' The themes of Greek art became homogenized and standardized around a few central themes, most of them related to superficial 'beauty.' And at the same time, you see the Greek culture beginning to lose its power, lose its vibrance, and generally start to fall apart as decadence permeates. In the study I was referencing, it claims they were rotting from the inside, and therefore wanted to see something "Beautiful." And since they had lost their vitality and connection with life (or Dionysis, as the study claims), they could only resort to the most base definition of beauty--that of simple physical beauty (the Apollonian notion of beauty).

The point of my post was not to claim one bit of art was ugly or not (except Dan Baldwin. Hint: Its a playful jab, as I am aware many people like Dan's work), but to give a little bit of background regarding WHY certain periods seem to produce certain types of art. That's all. And frankly, I think that is an interesting aspect of art that had not been previously discussed on this forum. All in all, I do appreciate the neg though. I'll try not post anything that might be a little bit challenging again, and instead stick with the strict regimen of whining about POW, about flippers, and about how expensive this or that Banksy is. Frankly I just thought other people might want to have a different conversation for a change. There are some bright folks on this board, and it seemed they might appreciate the change of pace, and perhaps to encounter a new idea related to art.

i have a first class degree in art history, so i dont really think i need to "brush up" on that particular area, but thanks for the suggestion. i have also studied a great deal of the art and culture of ancient greece and although i dont claim to be an authority on the subject, I do know some stuff as im sure you do. I was simply stating my opinion on the matter, and in no way was I "vehemently correcting people". Apologies If i didnt understand your post, i must be too thick to comprehend your wise words, I just thought I'd add my thoughts on the subject. And thanks for assuming that I gave you a negative, I actually did not as I am not quite that immature. Correct me if im wrong but were you not the person who posted a picture of a disabled person and then had a good laugh about it? That i might give a negative for.

Please refrain from formulating an argument or rebuttal with any blatant offense, sarcasm, or personal attacks

Perhaps contrary to popular belief, this forum *does* welcome healthy debates and/or discussions, but I'm sure you all understand how this can get ugly if things start getting personal and catty.

Please play nice! ;D