£700 as bate 4 Mantis Ineed AP FT newspaper print, by Strange Al on Apr 30, 2007 18:59:06 GMT 1, I think we’re all pretty much in agreement that both Mantis’ Ineed and Beejoir’s LV Child are powerful street pieces, which are well executed, thought provoking and convey messages we can and should connect with.

I think we also all agree that in the current market, which is crazy, these pieces are “worth” the large sums of money that are being paid for them. After all, it’s the market that determines the monetary value of a piece of art.

IMO it’s also easy to justify the first sale of these works by SOS and the respective artists, given the low prices SOS charged and the fact that they donated a large proportion of the profits to charity. I bought both prints from SOS and both have a place on my walls. And as others have said, they’re often the pieces that generate most discussion when friends come round.

I agree with Nu that taking the images from the street and putting them in a home filled with unnecessary material belongings recontextualises them. Though rather than robbing these particular images of their power, I actually think the new context almost adds to it. Every time you look at them they force you to reflect on the “irrelevant excesses in your life” and question your wants and needs. I like the fact people come into my house and point out the paradox in the images hanging there. It forces me to question my own beliefs and values and makes me more inclined to change my behaviour.

Though I do think the act of having this image on the wall is separate from the act of spending hundreds of pounds to have the image on the wall. As Nu has said, conceptually there is simply no difference between spending £1000 on a piece of art or a £1000 on a LV bag. Both are wants and not needs. In fact, it’s almost easier to justify the expense of the bag – at least it’s a utilitarian object (albeit an overpriced one).

Perhaps my original question should not have been how much can you spend on these images before they lose their power, but rather how much can you spend on these images before you lose your connection with them? It’s a question I’ve been battling with, because I too want an I Need on the FT and LV Child Canvas. But do “I Need” them? No!

According to Oxfam’s website, £1000 would feed an orphaned child in Malawi for over 10 years. Or could put that same child through school, thereby giving him the education he needs to support himself for life. Where’s my money better spent? It's a no brainer, but stupidly I'm still struggling with this question.

Meanwhile – I’m working on my image of an African child chewing on a pile of poster tubes, wrapped in a blanket of limited edition prints.

I think we’re all pretty much in agreement that both Mantis’ Ineed and Beejoir’s LV Child are powerful street pieces, which are well executed, thought provoking and convey messages we can and should connect with.

I think we also all agree that in the current market, which is crazy, these pieces are “worth” the large sums of money that are being paid for them. After all, it’s the market that determines the monetary value of a piece of art.

IMO it’s also easy to justify the first sale of these works by SOS and the respective artists, given the low prices SOS charged and the fact that they donated a large proportion of the profits to charity. I bought both prints from SOS and both have a place on my walls. And as others have said, they’re often the pieces that generate most discussion when friends come round.

I agree with Nu that taking the images from the street and putting them in a home filled with unnecessary material belongings recontextualises them. Though rather than robbing these particular images of their power, I actually think the new context almost adds to it. Every time you look at them they force you to reflect on the “irrelevant excesses in your life” and question your wants and needs. I like the fact people come into my house and point out the paradox in the images hanging there. It forces me to question my own beliefs and values and makes me more inclined to change my behaviour.

Though I do think the act of having this image on the wall is separate from the act of spending hundreds of pounds to have the image on the wall. As Nu has said, conceptually there is simply no difference between spending £1000 on a piece of art or a £1000 on a LV bag. Both are wants and not needs. In fact, it’s almost easier to justify the expense of the bag – at least it’s a utilitarian object (albeit an overpriced one).

Perhaps my original question should not have been how much can you spend on these images before they lose their power, but rather how much can you spend on these images before you lose your connection with them? It’s a question I’ve been battling with, because I too want an I Need on the FT and LV Child Canvas. But do “I Need” them? No!

According to Oxfam’s website, £1000 would feed an orphaned child in Malawi for over 10 years. Or could put that same child through school, thereby giving him the education he needs to support himself for life. Where’s my money better spent? It's a no brainer, but stupidly I'm still struggling with this question.

Meanwhile – I’m working on my image of an African child chewing on a pile of poster tubes, wrapped in a blanket of limited edition prints.