met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Banksy Radar Rat • Dirty Funker 12", by met on May 4, 2024 3:11:51 GMT 1, Loads of us on the board bought these at the time... I've got a couple kicking around somewhere. Similar with the Benjamin Zephaniah CD with a ban ksy booklet, was that official?
Many probably bought the Dirty Funker records because they were lied to by Paul Glancy.
Or perhaps because they simply assumed the Banksy imagery was authorised rather than stolen, without spending the time to think things through.
__________
The CD booklet artwork for Naked is official, used with the artist's permission**.
This won't be a surprise to fans of the late Benjamin Zephaniah.
Never did he come across as anything less than principled and honourable.
Loads of us on the board bought these at the time... I've got a couple kicking around somewhere. Similar with the Benjamin Zephaniah CD with a ban ksy booklet, was that official? Many probably bought the Dirty Funker records because they were lied to by Paul Glancy. Or perhaps because they simply assumed the Ban ksy imagery was authorised rather than stolen, without spending the time to think things through. __________ The CD booklet artwork for Naked is official, used with the artist's permission **. This won't be a surprise to fans of the late Benjamin Zephaniah. Never did he come across as anything less than principled and honourable.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Banksy Radar Rat • Dirty Funker 12", by met on May 4, 2024 2:53:33 GMT 1, There will always be demand for fakes - cause most people can't afford real. no different than $5000 purses
In the present context, this would be a strawman, largely beside the point. And a misleading comparison.
Clarifications below.
Courtesy heads‑up
Especially for those accessing the forum by phone, what follows is a wall of text. Even I find it a tad overwhelming.
The simplest option, therefore, is to ignore the post and scroll to the next one.
For any masochists who insist on ploughing through regardless, I'd advise they grab a drink beforehand.
____________________
1. a strawman, largely beside the point
Nobody would dispute there will always be demand for fakes. That is axiomatic.
The issues here are distinct.
1.1 The fact there will always be demand for fakes doesn't make the accompanying thieving more acceptable
[Exaggerated Gimme Shelter‑inspired analogy in support of the same argument:
There will always be rape and murder. However, this reality neither justifies nor lessens the heinousness of rape and murder.]
A first principle mentioned in an earlier post*, and the foundation for a number of comments I've previously made:
Stealing from artists is wrong
Of course, this could easily be broadened, to say that stealing from anyone is wrong.
Boring, as far as I'm concerned. A platitude.
But are there forum members who view it as controversial?
__________
Thought experiment
Imagine me posting the following:
Hello everyone,
Over the weekend, associates of mine broke into the home of my mate, sean1397. And I've since come into indirect possession of some sale items. I do really like the chap. Have known and supported him for years. But given how well his career is going, relieving him of a few cherished belongings doesn't feel like a big deal.
So what I have on offer is very nice stereo equipment, first‑edition books, framed prints, and photo albums filled with family photos and keepsakes (which could perhaps be used by somebody else for an arts-and-crafts project).
Competitive prices. DM me for pics.
No scumbag lowballers, please.
Cheers, y'all.
Now, query whether there exists any real difference in principle between trading in goods:
(a) stolen from somebody's home (in this case, valued assets belonging to sean1397); and
(b) resulting from an artist's most valuable asset (their intellectual property) being stolen.
1.2 The fact there will always be demand for fakes doesn't make it okay to sell fakes here
Yes, there will always be demand for low‑cost items. And for some consumers, even if those items were filched.
Nevertheless, do we really want the Urban Art Association to be used as a platform for the sale of stolen goods?
Or goods derived from the theft of, once again for emphasis, the most valuable asset an artist owns — their intellectual property?
__________
To members who are fine with IP theft, fine with artists (whom we respect and champion) being slapped in the face and ripped off, at what stage might it become uncomfortable to see the sale of knockoffs and fakes on this message board?
Take for example the Dirty Funker records with stolen Radar Rat images, or DJDM records with stolen Laugh Now and Keep It Real images.
They are tainted in the same manner as thousands of other cases of IP theft: canvases, t‑shirts, keyrings, etc. featuring unauthorised Banksy artwork, ubiquitous on eBay and elsewhere.
So if we allow the trade of fake Banksy records on the forum, then presumably we should also embrace sale threads by, say, Explosive Arts, willy‑wong‑clothing and Moody Motorz UK. Or Andrew Gallagher of Full Colour Black.
For the sake of consistency.
And if not, then why not? On what basis would they not be welcome to sell their unofficial, unauthorised tat here as well?
I ask, because their fake Banksys are no less legitimate than those released by Dirty Funker:
Explosive Arts*
willy‑wong‑clothing*
Moody Motorz UK*
It can even be argued that Explosive Arts et al. have greater legitimacy, since they're not expressly lying and claiming to sell authorised merchandise — unlike the Dirty Funker releases with stickers stating "Limited Edition Sleeve By Banksy".
2. a misleading comparison
In the specific context of record sleeves featuring Banksy artwork, a reference to $5,000 purses seems ill‑suited.
First, the dividing line we're discussing isn't Original Banksy paintings vs Fake Banksy records. That would be absurd.
Our focus is simply on commercially-printed (≠ hand‑sprayed) record‑sleeve art, and recognising Legitimate vs Stolen Banksy images.
Second, a Luxury purse vs Fake purse analogy on its own doesn't factor in market ignorance regarding the knockoff status of so many Banksy images used on record sleeves.
As mentioned previously*, misinformed, oblivious or deluded collectors continue to buy Dirty Funker and DJDM records, for sums of money that are sometimes comparable to what releases with authorised Banksy images go for, like the We Love You or Badmeaningood series.
That appears to be a complete failure by collectors to distinguish authorised from unauthorised.
__________
We could still apply a luxury purse analogy; it just needs to be expressed differently:
In this scenario, fashionistas, who covet and absolutely can afford a Birkin 35, are spending the requisite five figures.
Yet what they sadly don't realise is that, despite seller assurances and appearances (engraved logos, serial number, stamp with year of production, etc.), the bags they're paying $12,700 for aren't actually made by Hermès.
Instead, they come from an opportunistic leather‑goods manufacturer based in Wenzhou.
As already stressed above, a similar situation has long existed in the marketplace for Banksy records, where fakes released by Dirty Funker and DJDM are also traded.
The ignorance of collectors is such that, price‑wise, there is often little to separate a shoddy knockoff from the real McCoy.
____________________
Being a natural optimist, my hope is that posts like this one might help to raise awareness among fellow enthusiasts of genuine (non‑fake) Banksy ephemera:
Informed collectors > Uninformed collectors
END. Congratulations if you made it.
There will always be demand for fakes - cause most people can't afford real. no different than $5000 purses In the present context, this would be a strawman, largely beside the point. And a misleading comparison. Clarifications below. Courtesy heads‑upEspecially for those accessing the fo rum by phone, what follows is a wall of text. Even I find it a tad overwhelming. The simplest option, therefore, is to ignore the post and scroll to the next one. For any masochists who insist on ploughing through regardless, I'd advise they grab a drink beforehand. ____________________ 1. a strawman, largely beside the pointNobody would dispute there will always be demand for fakes. That is axiomatic. The issues here are distinct. 1.1 The fact there will always be demand for fakes doesn't make the accompanying thieving more acceptable[Exaggerated Gimme Shelter‑inspired analogy in support of the same argument:
There will always be rape and murder. However, this reality neither justifies nor lessens the heinousness of rape and murder.]A first principle mentioned in an earlier post *, and the foundation for a number of comments I've previously made: Stealing from artists is wrongOf course, this could easily be broadened, to say that stealing from anyone is wrong. Boring, as far as I'm concerned. A platitude. But are there fo rum members who view it as controversial? __________ Thought experimentImagine me posting the following: Hello everyone,
Over the weekend, associates of mine broke into the home of my mate, sean1397. And I've since come into indirect possession of some sale items. I do really like the chap. Have known and supported him for years. But given how well his career is going, relieving him of a few cherished belongings doesn't feel like a big deal.
So what I have on offer is very nice stereo equipment, first‑edition books, framed prints, and photo albums filled with family photos and keepsakes (which could perhaps be used by somebody else for an arts-and-crafts project).
Competitive prices. DM me for pics.
No scumbag lowballers, please.
Cheers, y'all.Now, query whether there exists any real difference in principle between trading in goods: (a) stolen from somebody's home (in this case, valued assets belonging to sean1397); and (b) resulting from an artist's most valuable asset (their intellectual property) being stolen. 1.2 The fact there will always be demand for fakes doesn't make it okay to sell fakes hereYes, there will always be demand for low‑cost items. And for some consumers, even if those items were filched. Nevertheless, do we really want the Ur ban Art Association to be used as a platform for the sale of stolen goods? Or goods derived from the theft of, once again for emphasis, the most valuable asset an artist owns — their intellectual property? __________ To members who are fine with IP theft, fine with artists (whom we respect and champion) being slapped in the fa ce and ripped off, at what stage might it become uncomfortable to see the sale of knockoffs and fakes on this message board? Take for example the Dirty Funker records with stolen Radar Rat images, or DJDM records with stolen Laugh Now and Keep It Real images. They are tainted in the same manner as thousands of other cases of IP theft: canvases, t‑shirts, keyrings, etc. featuring unauthorised Ban ksy artwork, ubiquitous on eB ay and elsewhere. So if we allow the trade of fake Ban ksy records on the fo rum, then presumably we should also embrace sale threads by, say, Explosive Arts, willy‑wong‑clothing and Moody Motorz UK. Or Andrew Gallagher of Full Colour Black. For the sake of consistency. And if not, then why not? On what basis would they not be welcome to sell their unofficial, unauthorised tat here as well? I ask, because their fake Ban ksys are no less legitimate than those released by Dirty Funker: Explosive Arts*willy‑wong‑clothing*Moody Motorz UK*It can even be argued that Explosive Arts et al. have greater legitimacy, since they're not expressly lying and claiming to sell authorised merchandise — unlike the Dirty Funker releases with stickers stating "Limited Edition Sleeve By Banksy". 2. a misleading comparisonIn the specific context of record sleeves featuring Ban ksy artwork, a reference to $5,000 purses seems ill‑suited. First, the dividing line we're discussing isn't Original Banksy paintings vs Fake Banksy records. That would be absurd. Our focus is simply on commercially-printed (≠ hand‑sprayed) record‑sleeve art, and recognising Legitimate vs Stolen Banksy images. Second, a Luxury purse vs Fake purse analogy on its own doesn't factor in market ignorance regarding the knockoff status of so many Ban ksy images used on record sleeves. As mentioned previously *, misinformed, oblivious or deluded collectors continue to buy Dirty Funker and DJDM records, for sums of money that are sometimes comparable to what releases with authorised Banksy images go for, like the We Love You or Badmeaningood series. That appears to be a complete failure by collectors to distinguish authorised from unauthorised. __________ We could still apply a luxury purse analogy; it just needs to be expressed differently: In this scenario, fashionistas, who covet and absolutely can afford a Birkin 35, are spending the requisite five figures. Yet what they sadly don't realise is that, despite seller assurances and appearances (engraved logos, serial number, stamp with year of production, etc.), the bags they're paying $12,700 for aren't actually made by Hermès. Instead, they come from an opportunistic leather‑goods manufacturer based in Wenzhou. As already stressed above, a similar situation has long existed in the marketplace for Ban ksy records, where fakes released by Dirty Funker and DJDM are also traded. The ignorance of collectors is such that, price‑wise, there is often little to separate a shoddy knockoff from the real McCoy. ____________________ Being a natural optimist, my hope is that posts like this one might help to raise awareness among fellow enthusiasts of genuine (non‑fake) Ban ksy ephemera: Informed collectors > Uninformed collectors END. Congratulations if you made it.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
MachOne 🇬🇧 Graffiti Artist • Graphic Designer • Manchester, by met on May 1, 2024 21:54:39 GMT 1, The first of the Sublimated ‘Revelation’ editions off to a new home! 630mm x 500mm Sublimated Alu panel Black Alu floater frame COA card. £400 machoneoriginals.com
It was a research quagmire of a process, but I finally found your source image for this edition:
The first of the Sublimated ‘Revelation’ editions off to a new home! 630mm x 500mm Sublimated Alu panel Black Alu floater frame COA card. £400 machoneoriginals.com It was a research quagmire of a process, but I finally found your source image for this edition:
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Ed Ruscha - New Avant Arte print release - SPAM, by met on Apr 30, 2024 0:57:09 GMT 1, Avant Arte seems to be turning the art world into a poster shop. huge edition, huge prices.. I don’t know why respectful artists choose to work with such. These days everyone and everything seems to be about money. There is no passion anymore. Interesting comment. Where are the huge prices? Should the money be in the hands of the artist/those they work with, or the collectors who sell the works on down the road? Is passion about creating opportunities for a large number fans to collect a work having the artist's imprimatur, or is passion about inducing scarcity to drive up demand and prices?
You may have been working off a false premise:
That the above member was posting good‑faith, real comments — as opposed to hypocritical and disingenuous ones, mainly intended for the purpose of misdirection.
I recall his four random posts* in rapid succession on 17 April:
My immediate thought then was, "Here we go. He's back, looking to mislead and throw the forum off his stench again. Within a week, we'll get some faux‑naive post about a new Stowe Gallery release."
____________________
Side note
STP and Acme Thunderer already called out the dodginess earlier this year in the Clown print thread*:
Don’t normally like Clown stuff but loving the grey one. Would look great with a matching frame. At £250 why not Hi Jamie!
Don’t normally like Clown stuff but loving the grey one. Would look great with a matching frame. At £250 why not I was talking about bad smells earlier in this thread and up pops Timmyup who only posts anything to do with St owe. Games up sucker - anything you post actually has a negative effect on sales rather than helping!
____________________
On this occasion, however, there was a miscalculation by me. I messed up a bit.
A later "Hey guys, anyone heard of this [artwork/artist] from Stowe Gallery?"-post did indeed come.
But not within the week, as expected. It took a week and a half to arrive, an extra four days, in the thread for the frankly-godawful MissMe*:
Jamie Marchant of Stowe Gallery might actually be incapable of integrity. With at least half-a-dozen usernames on this message board, perhaps he just has conman DNA.
The fake Banksys he was previously selling also come to mind. Hat‑tip to dogstar* and Prescription Art* for their invaluable screenshot evidence.
Yet in fairness to Marchant, those extra four days mentioned above also mean he's 57% more patient than I previously gave him credit for. And patience is apparently a virtue.
So, apologies and congratulations to shady Jamie!
While his dishonesty is entirely predictable, his timing sometimes isn't.
Avant Arte seems to be turning the art world into a poster shop. huge edition, huge prices.. I don’t know why respectful artists choose to work with such. These days everyone and everything seems to be about money. There is no passion anymore. Interesting comment. Where are the huge prices? Should the money be in the hands of the artist/those they work with, or the collectors who sell the works on down the road? Is passion about creating opportunities for a large number fans to collect a work having the artist's imprimatur, or is passion about inducing scarcity to drive up demand and prices? You may have been working off a false premise: That the above member was posting good‑faith, real comments — as opposed to hypocritical and disingenuous ones, mainly intended for the purpose of misdirection. I recall his four random posts * in rapid succession on 17 April: My immediate thought then was, "Here we go. He's back, looking to mislead and throw the forum off his stench again. Within a week, we'll get some faux‑naive post about a new Stowe Gallery release."____________________ Side noteSTP and Acme Thunderer already called out the dodginess earlier this year in the Clown print thread *: Don’t normally like Clown stuff but loving the grey one. Would look great with a matching frame. At £250 why not Hi Jamie! Don’t normally like Clown stuff but loving the grey one. Would look great with a matching frame. At £250 why not I was talking about bad smells earlier in this thread and up pops Timmyup who only posts anything to do with St owe. Games up sucker - anything you post actually has a negative effect on sales rather than helping! ____________________ On this occasion, however, there was a miscalculation by me. I messed up a bit. A later "Hey guys, anyone heard of this [artwork/artist] from Stowe Gallery?"-post did indeed come. But not within the week, as expected. It took a week and a half to arrive, an extra four days, in the thread for the frankly-godawful Mi ssMe *: Jamie Marchant of Stowe Gallery might actually be incapable of integrity. With at least half-a-dozen usernames on this message board, perhaps he just has conman DNA. The fake Ban ksys he was previously selling also come to mind. Hat‑tip to dogstar* and Prescription Art* for their invaluable screenshot evidence. Yet in fairness to Marchant, those extra four days mentioned above also mean he's 57% more patient than I previously gave him credit for. And patience is apparently a virtue. So, apologies and congratulations to shady Jamie! While his dishonesty is entirely predictable, his timing sometimes isn't.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Keith Haring 1987 Axis Rug set (Hand Made) set of 3 , by met on Apr 29, 2024 18:52:59 GMT 1, I have a set of 3 Keith ha ring rugs I would like to list for sale or get an appraisal for, just had them professionally cleaned too. these were produced 3 years before his deathif anyone is interested for the set please message me or reply to thread this link is one sold for around £8000 (this one was framed): www.1stdibs.com/fr/art/technique-mixte/keith-haring-décorations/id-a_8470322/Thanks JAYDEN BAINS
My guesstimate valuation would be £300‑£600 apiece, depending on condition.
Condition should be emphasised because the blue background of the orange and blue Twins looks badly faded in your photo — possibly a result of the tapestry having been cleaned. However, this might simply be a flash/lighting issue.
Separately, the assertion that the rugs were made three years before the artist's death sounds like a possible material falsehood. These are more likely to be 'After Keith Haring' pieces, produced after his death.
REFERENCES
1. 1stDibs sale
English version of the French link you posted above:
www.1stdibs.com/art/mixed-media/keith-haring-twins-tapestry/id-a_8470322/
I've never used 1stDibs, but suspect the strikethrough original price means the same as it does for completed sales on eBay: a lower sale price was agreed between the seller and buyer.
In my view, only a fool would consider paying any amount in the ballpark of £8,000. It is especially for their benefit that stewardesses and stewards explain before every flight how to put on and take off a seatbelt.
Note as well that the 1stDibs listing mentions "1987" as the year of release, when the image of the tapestry label clearly refers to, "© Estate of Keith Haring". The two references are of course incompatible.
2. Unsuccessful eBay sale for €1,190
Zero bids for the auction starting price of €1,190 (approx. £1,015):
picclick.fr/Keith-Haring-Radiant-Child-Carpet-184664711962.html
3. 2023 auction sale for €600
2023 sale for €600 (approx. £512):
www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/keith-haring-radiant-baby-589-c-58e4e34b4d
4. 2020 auction sale of a much larger rug for £910
This rug was apparently also made of wool, rather than acrylic.
And at 149 x 149 cm, it measured about four times the size of each of yours:
www.roseberys.co.uk/a0445-lot-484345
I have a set of 3 Keith ha ring rugs I would like to list for sale or get an appraisal for, just had them professionally cleaned too. these were produced 3 years before his deathif anyone is interested for the set please message me or reply to thread this link is one sold for around £8000 (this one was framed): www.1stdibs.com/fr/art/technique-mixte/keith-haring-décorations/id-a_8470322/Thanks JAYDEN BAINS My guesstimate valuation would be £300‑£600 apiece, depending on condition. Condition should be emphasised because the blue background of the orange and blue Twins looks badly faded in your photo — possibly a result of the tapestry having been cleaned. However, this might simply be a flash/lighting issue. Separately, the assertion that the rugs were made three years before the artist's death sounds like a possible material falsehood. These are more likely to be 'After Keith Haring' pieces, produced after his death. REFERENCES1. 1stDibs saleEnglish version of the French link you posted above: www.1stdibs.com/art/mixed-media/keith-haring-twins-tapestry/id-a_8470322/I've never used 1stDibs, but suspect the strikethrough original price means the same as it does for completed sales on eB ay: a lower sale price was agreed between the seller and buyer. In my view, only a fool would consider paying any amount in the ballpark of £8,000. It is especially for their benefit that stewardesses and stewards explain before every flight how to put on and take off a seatbelt. Note as well that the 1stDibs listing mentions "1987" as the year of release, when the image of the tapestry label clearly refers to, "© Estate of Keith Haring". The two references are of course incompatible. 2. Unsuccessful eBay sale for €1,190Zero bids for the auction starting price of €1,190 (approx. £1,015): picclick.fr/Keith-Haring-Radiant-Child-Carpet-184664711962.html3. 2023 auction sale for €6002023 sale for €600 (approx. £512): www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/keith-haring-radiant-baby-589-c-58e4e34b4d4. 2020 auction sale of a much larger rug for £910This rug was apparently also made of wool, rather than acrylic. And at 149 x 149 cm, it measured about four times the size of each of yours: www.roseberys.co.uk/a0445-lot-484345
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
ANGEL 'LAII' ORTIZ: NEW COLLABORATIVE EXHIBITION + WORKS, by met on Apr 28, 2024 1:59:48 GMT 1, Looking forward to this show! 🙌
To whet your appetite, below are some recent snapshots of paintings by LA II.
The show organisers and curator did a good job, given what they had to work with. Together, they made a real effort.
Didn't take any context photos, sadly, but I do remember the overall display was well executed:
Paintings were hung onto different surface types (including plasterboard and wood veneer panels) for contrasting background tones/textures. No hanging rails, which is always a pleasure to experience. And not a hanging wire in sight.
|
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
ANGEL 'LAII' ORTIZ: NEW COLLABORATIVE EXHIBITION + WORKS, by met on Apr 27, 2024 22:43:09 GMT 1, I really like met contribution to the fo rum the past 15 years and find their comments insightful and well articulated. I will respectfully disagree with their public opinion that LA2 lacks talent and that his recent paintings are not well executed. I hope met and other critics of LA2 can check out the show at D'Stassi in person and see with their own eyes that LA2 definitely has talent and that his recent works are actually just as good and or better that his older ones. Have a great weekend - Wear
Along with the well‑crafted piss-taking and witty one‑liners, it is the calm and considered exchanges of opposing viewpoints that I find most engaging on this forum.
Disagreements are good. They challenge us. Provided we avoid becoming defensive or hysterical, and are willing to listen to alternative perspectives, disagreements can push us to rethink our own positions — sometimes helping to nuance them, or change them altogether.
Pride is often a stumbling block to this kind of open‑mindedness, especially when we conflate our opinions with our own identities. Or if we see changing our minds as being a sign of weakness.
Related cognitive biases and fallacies also enter the equation, like consistency bias and escalation of commitment (similar to the sunk‑cost fallacy). They derive from our tenacious need to remain consistent with our previous actions, decisions and expressed viewpoints. This, sometimes despite new, contradicting information we might be presented with.
I am conscious and wary of the above risks. When taking any stance, my approach is to embrace what Julia Galef* refers to as the scout mindset, as opposed to the soldier mindset. And being a fallible human, I try to remain open to the possibility of more persuasive, competing evidence later coming my way.
__________
Regarding Angel Ortiz / LA II, I am familiar enough with his work and background to consider myself reasonably informed. Otherwise, I'd hesitate about commenting without qualifying my thoughts accordingly.
The view I've taken on the calibre of Ortiz as an artist is mostly based on paintings he has exhibited over the past decade.
Excluded from this assessment are a number of side issues that are distinct from the art. For example:
(i) Ortiz perhaps being a very nice chap, one for whom most of us would wish the best;
(ii) the wistful or nostalgic narrative appeal of the artist's history, given his part in what is often deemed a golden age in graffiti;
(iii) market considerations, like whatever demand might exist for the artist's work, or the prices at which his paintings are currently selling;
(iv) Ortiz's status as an artist, especially due to his ties with Keith Haring, i.e. often more of a reflected fame by association, than a standalone fame from individual achievement; or
(v) the fact that, 40 years ago, Ortiz hung out and worked with a handful of now‑dead, art superstars — art superstars whose own original pieces will forever be out of reach to most collectors.
My focus has thus been on the actual paintings created by Ortiz. The artwork itself.
And what I see is that, despite his decades of experience, LA II lacks a good eye for composition, and is wanting in technical skill.
More damningly, his ideas are banal. It feels to me like a case of arrested development: A middle‑aged man stuck in his teens, having (from what I can tell) not really moved forward as an artist or done anything truly innovative since the 1980s.
Some of his recent paintings even have pastiche elements of Haring iconography, like the serpents and the Three Eyed Monster, suggesting this is an artist who still needs a crutch. And who is looking backwards instead of forwards.
CONCLUSION
LA II is okay when playing second fiddle.
But as a solo artist, his work just isn't strong enough, either technically or conceptually, to merit more than a passing glance.
The dearth of serious institutional interest in LA II therefore doesn't come as a surprise to me. It seems not so much that his post-Haring-collaboration paintings have been overlooked, but more a case of the work having been considered, and then largely dismissed.
____________________
Although our views differ on the talent level of LA II, that isn't a big deal.
Either way, there will still be common ground between us. I suspect where we are in agreement is that, more broadly and as a rule of thumb, collectors are best advised to "Buy with your eyes, not with your ears."
Keeping in mind this maxim lowers our likelihood of:
(a) being unduly swayed by people with vested interests;
(b) attributing excessive weight to articles that read like gallery press releases (cut-and-pasted or paraphrased by hack journalists);
(c) caving in to the fear of missing out, or to a false sense of urgency often cultivated by unscrupulous sellers; or
(d) being sheep‑like in our buying behaviour ("I want what they want!").
__________
In a couple of past posts**, I've mentioned some of the basic questions collectors should ask themselves when considering art, and especially when weighing up a possible purchase:
(i) Why exactly do I like this piece?
Or, if the reasons are different, Why do I want to own this piece?
(ii) What are the artwork's strengths, and what are its weaknesses?
(iii) Is the art / artist actually any good?
(iv) Am I perhaps buying with my ears rather than my eyes, and therefore behaving like a lemming? To what extent is my desire to acquire this piece being influenced by what other people are buying, or appearing to buy?
The art world rarely inflicts harm upon us when we pause for a moment. When we take a bit of time out. To use our eyes. To actually think.
Is [x] painting, print or poster really so compelling — inspired and inspiring (as opposed to, say, clichéd or inane), or at least interesting enough to retain our attention for a few years to come?
If not, then query the instinct to automatically click the BUY button, like some puppet or a dog conditioned by Pavlov.
In such cases, life might be more productive, even more fulfilling, if we resist temptation and instead just carry on with our Swedish Death Cleaning.
I really like met contribution to the fo rum the past 15 years and find their comments insightful and well articulated. I will respectfully disagree with their public opinion that LA2 lacks talent and that his recent paintings are not well executed. I hope met and other critics of LA2 can check out the show at D'Stassi in person and see with their own eyes that LA2 definitely has talent and that his recent works are actually just as good and or better that his older ones. Have a great weekend - Wear Along with the well‑crafted piss-taking and witty one‑liners, it is the calm and considered exchanges of opposing viewpoints that I find most engaging on this fo rum. Disagreements are good. They challenge us. Provided we avoid becoming defensive or hysterical, and are willing to listen to alternative perspectives, disagreements can push us to rethink our own positions — sometimes helping to nuance them, or change them altogether. Pride is often a stumbling block to this kind of open‑mindedness, especially when we conflate our opinions with our own identities. Or if we see changing our minds as being a sign of weakness. Related cognitive biases and fallacies also enter the equation, like consistency bias and escalation of commitment (similar to the sunk‑cost fallacy). They derive from our tenacious need to remain consistent with our previous actions, decisions and expressed viewpoints. This, sometimes despite new, contradicting information we might be presented with. I am conscious and wary of the above risks. When taking any stance, my approach is to embrace what Julia Galef* refers to as the scout mindset, as opposed to the soldier mindset. And being a fallible human, I try to remain open to the possibility of more persuasive, competing evidence later coming my way. __________ Regarding Angel Ortiz / LA II, I am familiar enough with his work and background to consider myself reasonably informed. Otherwise, I'd hesitate about commenting without qualifying my thoughts accordingly. The view I've taken on the calibre of Ortiz as an artist is mostly based on paintings he has exhibited over the past decade. Excluded from this assessment are a number of side issues that are distinct from the art. For example: (i) Ortiz perhaps being a very nice chap, one for whom most of us would wish the best; (ii) the wistful or nostalgic narrative appeal of the artist's history, given his part in what is often deemed a golden age in gra ffiti; (iii) market considerations, like whatever demand might exist for the artist's work, or the prices at which his paintings are currently selling; (iv) Ortiz's status as an artist, especially due to his ties with Keith Ha ring, i.e. often more of a reflected fame by association, than a standalone fame from individual achievement; or (v) the fact that, 40 years ago, Ortiz hung out and worked with a handful of now‑dead, art superstars — art superstars whose own original pieces will forever be out of reach to most collectors. My focus has thus been on the actual paintings created by Ortiz. The artwork itself. And what I see is that, despite his decades of experience, LA II lacks a good eye for composition, and is wanting in technical skill. More damningly, his ideas are banal. It feels to me like a case of arrested development: A middle‑aged man stuck in his teens, having (from what I can tell) not really moved forward as an artist or done anything truly innovative since the 1980s. Some of his recent paintings even have pastiche elements of Ha ring iconography, like the serpents and the Three Eyed Monster, suggesting this is an artist who still needs a crutch. And who is looking backwards instead of forwards. CONCLUSIONLA II is okay when playing second fiddle. But as a solo artist, his work just isn't strong enough, either technically or conceptually, to merit more than a passing glance. The dearth of serious institutional interest in LA II therefore doesn't come as a surprise to me. It seems not so much that his post-Ha ring-collaboration paintings have been overlooked, but more a case of the work having been considered, and then largely dismissed. ____________________ Although our views differ on the talent level of LA II, that isn't a big deal. Either way, there will still be common ground between us. I suspect where we are in agreement is that, more broadly and as a rule of thumb, collectors are best advised to "Buy with your eyes, not with your ears."Keeping in mind this maxim lowers our likelihood of: (a) being unduly swayed by people with vested interests; (b) attributing excessive weight to articles that read like gallery press releases (cut-and-pasted or paraphrased by hack journalists); (c) caving in to the fear of missing out, or to a false sense of urgency often cultivated by unscrupulous sellers; or (d) being sheep‑like in our buying behaviour ( "I want what they want!"). __________ In a couple of past posts **, I've mentioned some of the basic questions collectors should ask themselves when considering art, and especially when weighing up a possible purchase: (i) Why exactly do I like this piece?Or, if the reasons are different, Why do I want to own this piece?(ii) What are the artwork's strengths, and what are its weaknesses?(iii) Is the art / artist actually any good?(iv) Am I perhaps buying with my ears rather than my eyes, and therefore behaving like a lemming? To what extent is my desire to acquire this piece being influenced by what other people are buying, or appearing to buy?The art world rarely inflicts harm upon us when we pause for a moment. When we take a bit of time out. To use our eyes. To actually think. Is [x] painting, print or poster really so compelling — inspired and inspiring (as opposed to, say, clichéd or inane), or at least interesting enough to retain our attention for a few years to come? If not, then query the instinct to automatically click the BUY button, like some puppet or a dog conditioned by Pavlov. In such cases, life might be more productive, even more fulfilling, if we resist temptation and instead just carry on with our Swedish Death Cleaning.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Large Blek Le Rat Christ Canvas For Sale, by met on Apr 24, 2024 15:11:23 GMT 1,
Thank you for this.
I remember the link having previously been posted last year by @bulldog (who's no longer with us, at least under that username) in a thread covering a Blek le Rat print release.
urbanartassociation.com/thread/184357/new-blek-rat-print-king
The next hype.A lot of for 1000 Euro with offer by eB ay unsold, 1 print sold ? I think its a ugly print but only my opinion, for 500 Euro ok, but not for 1000 Euro. The hype machine is running, put the name of his new galerist from UK Mr. Steven Sully in Google, amazing Story's about this guy.You find some articles like this www.gripeo.com/steven-sulley/
Maybe it's all a hype machine by the galerist, some little trolls from him. His gallery owner is a scammer and Bl ek is maybe not the most honest either, yesterday they took the sound out of the video, maybe the sound will come back miraculously. He says in the video that he doesn't necessarily want to say that Ban ksy is manipulating the market and doesn't know how to do it, but he now has his gallerist (the gallery owner is the guy doing the interview lol) who knows how to do it. Always take a closer look before all the shepherds start running. The Video have 18 Likes and the guy have 10.5k fake Follwers, it's very interesting to look a little bit closer. Pay attention to the body language of both of them, anyone who can read people knows what scratching means. Info about the galerist www.gripeo.com/steven-sulley/and here the video www.instagram.com/reel/CqHypkHualP/?igshid=ZGY5ODdmOGM=
Reminders about individuals like Steven Sulley are helpful. After all, "The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour."
It can be easy to overlook, especially since good con artists are always master manipulators. They persuade and switch on the charm with ease.
If I myself am going to get scammed, it will not be by anyone visibly sketchy, when my guard is already up. The person who scams me will be knowledgeable, entertaining, charismatic. They will be likeable. Somebody with whom I'd happily go to the pub for a drink. And who will know exactly what I want to hear.
Our perception can also be skewed if we focus solely on a gallery name or it's upmarket location. "Woodbury House" admittedly sounds credible, even reputable. The name evokes stability, tradition, an established business — rather than a recent upstart looking to come across as established.
[This calls to mind the intensive agriculture industries using fictional-farm branding on food packaging:
"We are Willow Farms. Look at the beautiful tree on our label. You know, healthy living, nature!" sounds a whole lot better than, "We are an industrial-livestock-production facility, otherwise known as factory farming."]
Sulley's modus operandi feels offputtingly similar to that of the disgraced art dealer, Andy Valmorbida.
No doubt the two of them spent plenty of time flocking together while discussing marketing and selling tactics for works by Richard Hambleton.
Fascinating website, thanks for sharing. Its blocked by my employer!!
A copy-and-paste below (although without the hyperlinks):
www.gripeo.com/steven-sulley/
*Scam* Consumer Reviews
Is Steven Sulley a carbon Credit Scammer of Woodbury House? (Update 2024)
December 2, 2023
Steven Sulley is the founder of Woodbury House and hosts the Steven Sulley Study podcast.
He founded Woodbury House in 2014 and has been running it since. Apart from that, he has been a part of the Tungsten Management Group and Minboso.
On paper, Steven Sulley seems like a reliable entrepreneur with an amazing track record. However, he has plenty of skeletons in his closet.
Steven Sulley avoids mentioning one of his biggest ventures anywhere, Pure Carbon Limited. Why? Because the company was a scam.
Yes, Steven Sulley has a history of scamming people. The following review will explain how he scammed innocent investors out of millions:
Carbon Green Capital and Pure Carbon Limited: How Sulley Made His Millions:
Carbon Green Capital was a carbon trading company which promised its investors threefold returns on their investments. The High Court closed down the company in 2014 when the investigators from the Government-run Insolvency Service found its exaggerated claims.
One judge called this company fraudulent. Note that Carbon Green Capital had attracted around £1 million from investors. Sulley had set up this company in 2012.
However, when the Court shut his fraudulent company down, he moved onto another scam, Pure Carbon Ltd.
With his new venture, Steven Sulley raked in over £3 million from gullible investors. In 2016, the High Court ordered this firm into liquidation as well.
However, the liquidators’ own enquiries were delayed because the company’s records were under the possession of the police.
Then, Sulley threatened The Mail to take down their report saying it was libellous. He said the article is defamatory to him suggesting he is a ‘career conman’ which couldn’t be further from the truth. Steven even claimed that The Mail’s report violated the Defamation Act 2013.
Luckily, The Mail declined.
Now, he has started marketing himself as an art dealer. He uses the name of the Woodbury House art gallery in Soho, London for his own company, Woodbury House to make himself seem more credible.
His firm describes itself as a ‘specialist art investment consultancy’.
More on Steven Sulley’s Carbon Credit Scam:
The High Court had shut down Pure Carbon Limited on 3rd February, 2016. It did so after the investigation by the Insolvency Service.
Pure Carbon Ltd wasn’t the only company shut down, it was shut down with 89 other firms.
Steven Sulley was the sole director of Pure Carbon Ltd. According to a REDD report, the company sold over 500,000 carbon credits to retain investors between February 2012 and February 2013 for £3,191,054.
Beware of Steven Sulley of The Steven Sulley Study:
Sulley is a serial scammer. He has stolen millions from investors through his carbon credit companies. Now, he has rebranded himself through his podcast.
However, there’s no denying that he is still a scammer. The proof is his latest venture, Woodbury House, which has used the name of a renowned art museum to borrow credibility.
He is a charlatan who even threatened The Mail UK so they would take down their report on him.
Certainly, he is a dangerous guy who you should avoid at all costs. Steven isn’t the only “guru” who tries to deceive people so they wouldn’t learn about his crooked past.
Another such guru is Justin Goodbread.
Hence, you should avoid dealing with Steven Sulley and Woodbury House at all costs.
Thank you for this. I remember the link having previously been posted last year by @ bulldog (who's no longer with us, at least under that username) in a thread covering a Blek le Rat print release. urbanartassociation.com/thread/184357/new-blek-rat-print-kingThe next hype.A lot of for 1000 Euro with offer by eB ay unsold, 1 print sold ? I think its a ugly print but only my opinion, for 500 Euro ok, but not for 1000 Euro. The hype machine is running, put the name of his new galerist from UK Mr. Steven Sully in Google, amazing Story's about this guy.You find some articles like this www.gripeo.com/steven-sulley/Maybe it's all a hype machine by the galerist, some little trolls from him. His gallery owner is a scammer and Bl ek is maybe not the most honest either, yesterday they took the sound out of the video, maybe the sound will come back miraculously. He says in the video that he doesn't necessarily want to say that Ban ksy is manipulating the market and doesn't know how to do it, but he now has his gallerist (the gallery owner is the guy doing the interview lol) who knows how to do it. Always take a closer look before all the shepherds start running. The Video have 18 Likes and the guy have 10.5k fake Follwers, it's very interesting to look a little bit closer. Pay attention to the body language of both of them, anyone who can read people knows what scratching means. Info about the galerist www.gripeo.com/steven-sulley/and here the video www.instagram.com/reel/CqHypkHualP/?igshid=ZGY5ODdmOGM=Reminders about individuals like Steven Sulley are helpful. After all, "The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour." It can be easy to overlook, especially since good con artists are always master manipulators. They persuade and switch on the charm with ease. If I myself am going to get scammed, it will not be by anyone visibly sketchy, when my guard is already up. The person who scams me will be knowledgeable, entertaining, charismatic. They will be likeable. Somebody with whom I'd happily go to the pub for a drink. And who will know exactly what I want to hear. Our perception can also be skewed if we focus solely on a gallery name or it's upmarket location. " Woodbury House" admittedly sounds credible, even reputable. The name evokes stability, tradition, an established business — rather than a recent upstart looking to come across as established. [This calls to mind the intensive agriculture industries using fictional-farm branding on food packaging:"We are Willow Farms. Look at the beautiful tree on our label. You know, healthy living, nature!" sounds a whole lot better than, "We are an industrial-livestock-production facility, otherwise known as factory farming."]Sulley's modus operandi feels offputtingly similar to that of the disgraced art dealer, Andy Valmorbida. No doubt the two of them spent plenty of time flocking together while discussing marketing and selling tactics for works by Richard Hambleton. Fascinating website, thanks for sharing. Its blocked by my employer!! A copy-and-paste below (although without the hyperlinks): www.gripeo.com/steven-sulley/*Scam* Consumer Reviews
Is Steven Sulley a carbon Credit Scammer of Woodbury House? (Update 2024)
December 2, 2023
Steven Sulley is the founder of Woodbury House and hosts the Steven Sulley Study podcast.
He founded Woodbury House in 2014 and has been running it since. Apart from that, he has been a part of the Tungsten Management Group and Minboso.
On paper, Steven Sulley seems like a reliable entrepreneur with an amazing track record. However, he has plenty of skeletons in his closet.
Steven Sulley avoids mentioning one of his biggest ventures anywhere, Pure Carbon Limited. Why? Because the company was a scam.
Yes, Steven Sulley has a history of scamming people. The following review will explain how he scammed innocent investors out of millions:
Carbon Green Capital and Pure Carbon Limited: How Sulley Made His Millions:
Carbon Green Capital was a carbon trading company which promised its investors threefold returns on their investments. The High Court closed down the company in 2014 when the investigators from the Government-run Insolvency Service found its exaggerated claims.
One judge called this company fraudulent. Note that Carbon Green Capital had attracted around £1 million from investors. Sulley had set up this company in 2012.
However, when the Court shut his fraudulent company down, he moved onto another scam, Pure Carbon Ltd.
With his new venture, Steven Sulley raked in over £3 million from gullible investors. In 2016, the High Court ordered this firm into liquidation as well.
However, the liquidators’ own enquiries were delayed because the company’s records were under the possession of the police.
Then, Sulley threatened The Mail to take down their report saying it was libellous. He said the article is defamatory to him suggesting he is a ‘career conman’ which couldn’t be further from the truth. Steven even claimed that The Mail’s report violated the Defamation Act 2013.
Luckily, The Mail declined.
Now, he has started marketing himself as an art dealer. He uses the name of the Woodbury House art gallery in Soho, London for his own company, Woodbury House to make himself seem more credible.
His firm describes itself as a ‘specialist art investment consultancy’.
More on Steven Sulley’s Carbon Credit Scam:
The High Court had shut down Pure Carbon Limited on 3rd February, 2016. It did so after the investigation by the Insolvency Service.
Pure Carbon Ltd wasn’t the only company shut down, it was shut down with 89 other firms.
Steven Sulley was the sole director of Pure Carbon Ltd. According to a REDD report, the company sold over 500,000 carbon credits to retain investors between February 2012 and February 2013 for £3,191,054.
Beware of Steven Sulley of The Steven Sulley Study:
Sulley is a serial scammer. He has stolen millions from investors through his carbon credit companies. Now, he has rebranded himself through his podcast.
However, there’s no denying that he is still a scammer. The proof is his latest venture, Woodbury House, which has used the name of a renowned art museum to borrow credibility.
He is a charlatan who even threatened The Mail UK so they would take down their report on him.
Certainly, he is a dangerous guy who you should avoid at all costs. Steven isn’t the only “guru” who tries to deceive people so they wouldn’t learn about his crooked past.
Another such guru is Justin Goodbread.
Hence, you should avoid dealing with Steven Sulley and Woodbury House at all costs.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Mounting and Hinging Tape (DIY Framing), by met on Apr 24, 2024 12:01:54 GMT 1, Can you recommend any non-permanent adhesive? if they even exists....
If experimenting on your own, it may be worth doing a deep dive.
1. Google search "reversible hinging", combined with other potential search terms like "Washi paper" and "rice starch" or "wheat starch".
2. For a wealth of knowledge and experience, check out the recommended forum for framers, The Grumble:
www.thegrumble.com/
3. But for an easy life (albeit a somewhat-compromised one), there does exist pre‑made products described as reversible, like Hayaku Japanese hinging paper by Lineco.
The latter quick-and-dirty item looks straightforward and easy to use, though it apparently contains some preservatives — meaning the starch paste is not pure, which may affect the quality of the bond and its stability over time.
www.preservationequipment.com/Catalogue/Conservation-Materials/Labels-Tapes/Hayaku-Japanese-Hinging-Paper-533-0752
Can you recommend any non-permanent adhesive? if they even exists.... If experimenting on your own, it may be worth doing a deep dive. 1. Google search "reversible hinging", combined with other potential search terms like "Washi paper" and "rice starch" or "wheat starch". 2. For a wealth of knowledge and experience, check out the recommended forum for framers, The Grumble: www.thegrumble.com/3. But for an easy life (albeit a somewhat-compromised one), there does exist pre‑made products described as reversible, like Hayaku Japanese hinging paper by Lineco. The latter quick-and-dirty item looks straightforward and easy to use, though it apparently contains some preservatives — meaning the starch paste is not pure, which may affect the quality of the bond and its stability over time. www.preservationequipment.com/Catalogue/Conservation-Materials/Labels-Tapes/Hayaku-Japanese-Hinging-Paper-533-0752
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Jordy Kerwick 🇭🇲 Painting • New Release • Art For Sale, by met on Apr 22, 2024 0:23:27 GMT 1,
We don't know whether the painting sold on 9 March 2023, only that the "Price Realised" was £189,000 (hammer price of £150,000 plus 26% buyer's premium).
The stated provenance for the Christie's 2024 listing seems to imply the 2023 sale never actually completed. If this is correct, it's presumably because the winning bidder failed to pay.
While speculative on my part, it would not surprise me if the painting had been shilled in 2023 by individuals looking to shift public perception. The so‑called pump.
Aggressive shilling would give the outward appearance of a heightened demand for works by Jordy Kerwick. Defaulting afterwards would then allow such an artifice to be achieved without the need for any financial output.
The 12 March 2024 result (with the low estimate of £15,000 having not been reached) might suggest we are now in a post‑dump period for Kerwick paintings — market manipulators perhaps having already offloaded and pulled out, leaving others behind to hold their empty sacks.
We don't know whether the painting sold on 9 March 2023, only that the "Price Realised" was £189,000 (hammer price of £150,000 plus 26% buyer's premium). The stated provenance for the Chr istie's 2024 listing seems to imply the 2023 sale never actually completed. If this is correct, it's presumably because the winning bidder failed to pay. While speculative on my part, it would not surprise me if the painting had been shilled in 2023 by individuals looking to shift public perception. The so‑called pump. Aggressive shilling would give the outward appearance of a heightened demand for works by Jordy Kerwick. Defaulting afterwards would then allow such an artifice to be achieved without the need for any financial output. The 12 March 2024 result (with the low estimate of £15,000 having not been reached) might suggest we are now in a post‑dump period for Ker wick paintings — market manipulators perhaps having already offloaded and pulled out, leaving others behind to hold their empty sacks.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Albert willem prices?, by met on Apr 21, 2024 15:05:20 GMT 1,
Nicely done, compound.
It may be helpful to spell things out a little more fully.
Thread excerpt below, but the entire thread could be viewed as a parable.
And almost a parody, because it's such a cliché:
Fika, willem, ismail Don’t get caught up in the shills. Buy up cheap artists, shill them to high heaven and dump. Same bidders over and over again You can always rely on reading the same old negative drivel on here when an artist’s market takes off. His auction results have been extremely strong..it happens! Let’s review this in 2 years shall we? Also, keep an eye on Emerging Artist auctions and play guess the shilled
Your cautionary heads-up was perhaps less interesting than the damage-limitation effort to shut it down.
On the one side, the critical thinker, the independent who, seeing cause for concern, chooses to step up by ringing the alarm bell (thereby knowingly also exposing themselves as a potential target for attack):
"Hey, he's not wearing any clothes!"
On the other side, those who already bought in, now holding stock they're looking to offload onto other forum members for a nice profit. And goddamnit, they'll protect their interests by whatever tactics necessary:
"Hush, silly boy, with your negative drivel. Always the same with the likes of you. You know not of what you speak. His new clothes are magnificent!"
__________
Query if the informed and rational whistleblowers should be listened to (the UAA Frances Haugens or Erika Cheungs among us).
Or should they instead be disparaged, to discourage both them and others from posting inconvenient comments that might harm the financial value of artworks we're looking to dump in the near or distant future?
__________
When deciding upon the weight to attribute to different viewpoints expressed on this message board, it's worth considering the previous form and apparent motives of each author.
Those motives may even be transparent, e.g. altruistic in nature, or to hype/safeguard the author's own investments.
The simple question to ask is, Who benefits?
Separately, if any member wants a reasonably-good shorthand way of judging somebody's character, pay attention to how they react to criticism.
Whether it's criticism against them, or against the things they might have a vested interest in.
Nicely done, compound. It may be helpful to spell things out a little more fully. Thread excerpt below, but the entire thread could be viewed as a parable. And almost a parody, because it's such a cliché: Fika, willem, ismail Don’t get caught up in the shills. Buy up cheap artists, shill them to high heaven and dump. Same bidders over and over again You can always rely on reading the same old negative drivel on here when an artist’s market takes off. His auction results have been extremely strong..it happens! Let’s review this in 2 years shall we? Also, keep an eye on Emerging Artist auctions and play guess the shilled Your cautionary heads-up was perhaps less interesting than the damage-limitation effort to shut it down. On the one side, the critical thinker, the independent who, seeing cause for concern, chooses to step up by ringing the alarm bell (thereby knowingly also exposing themselves as a potential target for attack): "Hey, he's not wearing any clothes!"On the other side, those who already bought in, now holding stock they're looking to offload onto other fo rum members for a nice profit. And goddamnit, they'll protect their interests by whatever tactics necessary: "Hush, silly boy, with your negative drivel. Always the same with the likes of you. You know not of what you speak. His new clothes are magnificent!"__________ Query if the informed and rational whistleblowers should be listened to (the UAA Frances Haugens or Erika Cheungs among us). Or should they instead be disparaged, to discourage both them and others from posting inconvenient comments that might harm the financial value of artworks we're looking to dump in the near or distant future? __________ When deciding upon the weight to attribute to different viewpoints expressed on this message board, it's worth considering the previous form and apparent motives of each author. Those motives may even be transparent, e.g. altruistic in nature, or to hype/safeguard the author's own investments. The simple question to ask is, Who benefits?Separately, if any member wants a reasonably-good shorthand way of judging somebody's character, pay attention to how they react to criticism. Whether it's criticism against them, or against the things they might have a vested interest in.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Visit LONDON 🏴 Street Art, Galleries, Events, by met on Apr 21, 2024 13:52:39 GMT 1, Gormley is closed, Capturing the Moment at Tate is a must-see, and Synchronicity at 180 Studios is recommended. The Kruger at Serpentine seems interesting based on what I’ve seen on social media, but I have yet to go.
Capturing the Moment at Tate Modern in London was extended until Sunday, 28 April 2024.
www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/capturing-the-moment
This exhibition was also mentioned by its all about me in a separate thread* in January.
In case a further nudge might encourage anyone to visit over the seven remaining days, they are recommended to do so. It's the strongest show I've been to since the excellent (now‑closed) retrospective for Philip Guston*.
The number of impressive works on display is a treat. I was especially pleased to see once again notable images by Gursky, and to view for the first time in person a Sugimoto seascape in large scale.
My main criticism is relatively trivial: There is no audioguide. This could have provided additional background on specific artists and pieces. And unified the exhibition more effectively, around its theme of the relationship between painting and photography, and how modern‑era painters and photographers captured moments in time.
Semi-doppelgänger of one member of this forum:
Pauline Boty, Portrait of Derek Marlowe with Unknown Ladies (1962–1963)
Gormley is closed, Capturing the Moment at Tate is a must-see, and Synchronicity at 180 Studios is recommended. The Kruger at Serpentine seems interesting based on what I’ve seen on social media, but I have yet to go. Capturing the Moment at Tate Modern in Lon don was extended until Sunday, 28 April 2024. www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/capturing-the-momentThis exhibition was also mentioned by its all about me in a separate thread * in January. In case a further nudge might encourage anyone to visit over the seven remaining days, they are recommended to do so. It's the strongest show I've been to since the excellent (now‑closed) retrospective for Philip Guston*. The number of impressive works on display is a treat. I was especially pleased to see once again notable images by Gursky, and to view for the first time in person a Sugimoto seascape in large scale. My main criticism is relatively trivial: There is no audioguide. This could have provided additional background on specific artists and pieces. And unified the exhibition more effectively, around its theme of the relationship between painting and photography, and how modern‑era painters and photographers captured moments in time. Semi-doppelgänger of one member of this fo rum: Pauline Boty, Portrait of Derek Marlowe with Unknown Ladies (1962–1963)
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
ANGEL 'LAII' ORTIZ: NEW COLLABORATIVE EXHIBITION + WORKS, by met on Apr 19, 2024 16:58:27 GMT 1, Rumors of a print are definitely out there - but I am not at liberty to comment at this time: I can confirm that there will be over 20 original collabo's and solo paintings by LA2 on display at the show: Richard "Shadowman" Hambleton X Angel "LA2" Ortiz Shepard"Ob ey" Fairey" X Angel "LA2" Ortiz Mr Doodle X Angel "LA2" Ortiz ST IK X Angel "LA2" Ortiz Mark Kostabi X Angel "LA2" Ortiz There will be original solo works by Angel "LA2" Ortiz as well. It is going to be an epic show - it is the first time ever that Ob ey X LA2 have publicly displayed their collaborations for everyone to enjoy.
Can some kind soul please remind me what tag/pseudonym Angel Ortiz uses?
Sorry, can't remember the tag used by Ortiz.
However, one of his aliases seems to be, "Lacks genuine talent and his recent paintings are terrible but, if we emphasise those Haring collaborations he did as a teenager in the eighties, people will still buy the crap, right?"
Or something to that effect.
Rumors of a print are definitely out there - but I am not at liberty to comment at this time: I can confirm that there will be over 20 original collabo's and solo paintings by LA2 on display at the show: Richard "Shadowman" Hambleton X Angel "LA2" Ortiz Shepard"Ob ey" Fairey" X Angel "LA2" Ortiz Mr Doodle X Angel "LA2" Ortiz ST IK X Angel "LA2" Ortiz Mark Kostabi X Angel "LA2" Ortiz There will be original solo works by Angel "LA2" Ortiz as well. It is going to be an epic show - it is the first time ever that Ob ey X LA2 have publicly displayed their collaborations for everyone to enjoy.
Can some kind soul please remind me what tag/pseudonym Angel Ortiz uses?
Sorry, can't remember the tag used by Ortiz. However, one of his aliases seems to be, "Lacks genuine talent and his recent paintings are terrible but, if we emphasise those Haring collaborations he did as a teenager in the eighties, people will still buy the crap, right?"Or something to that effect.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
10FOOT 🇬🇧 Print Release • London Graffiti • Street Art , by met on Apr 18, 2024 11:23:16 GMT 1, Mine arrived today as well....mmm...wayyy too sober for my liking! people actually think these look good???
There is a nostalgic appeal here, one I can fully relate to.
The graphic design skills call to mind a preferred style of my late neighbours.
Every month, Gladys and Ethel would host a bake sale. And many of the promo posters they'd hang on the bulletin board at our local community centre were similiar in layout and colour palette to this Wight Trash poster.
Gladys and Ethel, you are sorely missed. Your bake sales were ace.
Mine arrived today as well....mmm...wayyy too sober for my liking! people actually think these look good??? There is a nostalgic appeal here, one I can fully relate to. The graphic design skills call to mind a preferred style of my late neighbours. Every month, Gladys and Ethel would host a bake sale. And many of the promo posters they'd hang on the bulletin board at our local community centre were similiar in layout and colour palette to this Wight Trash poster. Gladys and Ethel, you are sorely missed. Your bake sales were ace.
|
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Graffiti Prints Archive Vaults TODAY, by met on Apr 18, 2024 11:00:54 GMT 1, But aren't we all art critics? To the extent anyone here isn't, I would suggest they're either not thinking enough, or they're in the wrong place. I was being kind - i always enjoy what you write and think you write very well - well thought out.
Thank you. That's nice of you to say.
And I in turn was being playful. So if my words came across as defensive, then apologies; it wasn't the intention.
But aren't we all art critics? To the extent anyone here isn't, I would suggest they're either not thinking enough, or they're in the wrong place. I was being kind - i always enjoy what you write and think you write very well - well thought out. Thank you. That's nice of you to say. And I in turn was being playful. So if my words came across as defensive, then apologies; it wasn't the intention.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Graffiti Prints Archive Vaults TODAY, by met on Apr 18, 2024 10:29:25 GMT 1, Always felt like GP vault sales were part of the reason that their artists never were able to get representation outside of this gallery. First of all, cheers for the assist. Your reference to "part of the reason", for the limited representation beyond Graffiti Prints, may indeed be correct. Artists can become tainted by the reputations of their dealers, especially if the latter indulge in selling tactics that are widely seen to be deceptive, shady or grabby. At the same time, I would suggest the primary cause for this limited representation is simply down to the low calibre of most of the artists themselves. Martin Whatson, for example, would be mediocrity personified: Technically unskilled, vapid, derivative. His middle-of-the-road work hanging on the wall of a collector's home is the art equivalent of listening to Africa by Toto. On repeat. Every. Single. Day. You should be an art critic!
But aren't we all art critics?
To the extent anyone here isn't, I would suggest they're either not thinking enough, or they're in the wrong place.
Always felt like GP vault sales were part of the reason that their artists never were able to get representation outside of this gallery. First of all, cheers for the assist. Your reference to "part of the reason", for the limited representation beyond Graffiti Prints, may indeed be correct. Artists can become tainted by the reputations of their dealers, especially if the latter indulge in selling tactics that are widely seen to be deceptive, shady or grabby. At the same time, I would suggest the primary cause for this limited representation is simply down to the low calibre of most of the artists themselves. Martin Whatson, for example, would be mediocrity personified: Technically unskilled, vapid, derivative. His middle-of-the-road work hanging on the wall of a collector's home is the art equivalent of listening to Africa by Toto. On repeat. Every. Single. Day. You should be an art critic! But aren't we all art critics? To the extent anyone here isn't, I would suggest they're either not thinking enough, or they're in the wrong place.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Graffiti Prints Archive Vaults TODAY, by met on Apr 18, 2024 10:12:39 GMT 1, Always felt like GP vault sales were part of the reason that their artists never were able to get representation outside of this gallery.
First of all, cheers for the assist.
Your reference to "part of the reason", for the limited representation beyond Graffiti Prints, may indeed be correct.
Artists can become tainted by the reputations of their dealers, especially if the latter indulge in selling tactics that are widely seen to be deceptive, shady or grabby.
At the same time, I would suggest the primary cause for this limited representation is simply down to the low calibre of most of the artists themselves.
Martin Whatson, for example, would be mediocrity personified: Technically unskilled, vapid, derivative.
His middle-of-the-road work hanging on the wall of a collector's home is the art equivalent of listening to Africa by Toto. On repeat. Every. Single. Day.
Always felt like GP vault sales were part of the reason that their artists never were able to get representation outside of this gallery. First of all, cheers for the assist. Your reference to "part of the reason", for the limited representation beyond Graffiti Prints, may indeed be correct. Artists can become tainted by the reputations of their dealers, especially if the latter indulge in selling tactics that are widely seen to be deceptive, shady or grabby. At the same time, I would suggest the primary cause for this limited representation is simply down to the low calibre of most of the artists themselves. Martin Whatson, for example, would be mediocrity personified: Technically unskilled, vapid, derivative. His middle-of-the-road work hanging on the wall of a collector's home is the art equivalent of listening to Africa by Toto. On repeat. Every. Single. Day.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Invader • 4000 Book Release , by met on Apr 15, 2024 17:50:15 GMT 1, For those who were wondering how to get a perfectly framed version of the signed book cover edition. 3 months lead time to do it from my (well known in this forum) frame shop here in Lon don. Dry mounted, box frame / floated, white birch. Looks MUCH better in the flesh Looks amazing! For me, framing is exactly as I would like. Question: could you describe what dry mount means? Can the cover be separated from the backing if desired at a later date? I'm in LA, not sure my framer would know this technique?
Your framer will know the technique.
Drymounting a piece means glueing it to a mount.
[Fancier terms might be used instead of "glue" or "glueing", like "adhesive" or "bonding", but they mean the same thing.]
Drymounting can offer presentational advantages, especially if the relevant piece is a work on paper that has been creased or folded.
But for anything of significant value and deemed fine art, you'd be best advised to avoid this technique. Many, myself included, see it as sacrilegious.
It is basically irreversible. And the general rule in the art world is as follows:
Ensure the preservation of your artwork's original condition. Do nothing that will permanently/irreversibly alter that condition.
Collectors can of course ignore this rule. However, they'd be doing so at their financial peril if the time ever came when they needed to resell.
As an experiment, trying having an in-person chat with a specialist at Christie's, Sotheby's or Phillips. Let them know you're looking to sell three or four signed Banksy screenprints.
Then see the dramatic change in their facial expression when you tell them you recently had the prints drymounted.
For those who were wondering how to get a perfectly framed version of the signed book cover edition. 3 months lead time to do it from my (well known in this forum) frame shop here in Lon don. Dry mounted, box frame / floated, white birch. Looks MUCH better in the flesh Looks amazing! For me, framing is exactly as I would like. Question: could you describe what dry mount means? Can the cover be separated from the backing if desired at a later date? I'm in LA, not sure my framer would know this technique? Your framer will know the technique. Drymounting a piece means glueing it to a mount. [Fancier terms might be used instead of "glue" or "glueing", like "adhesive" or "bonding", but they mean the same thing.]Drymounting can offer presentational advantages, especially if the relevant piece is a work on paper that has been creased or folded. But for anything of significant value and deemed fine art, you'd be best advised to avoid this technique. Many, myself included, see it as sacrilegious. It is basically irreversible. And the general rule in the art world is as follows: Ensure the preservation of your artwork's original condition. Do nothing that will permanently/irreversibly alter that condition.Collectors can of course ignore this rule. However, they'd be doing so at their financial peril if the time ever came when they needed to resell. As an experiment, trying having an in-person chat with a specialist at Ch ristie's, So theby's or Ph illips. Let them know you're looking to sell three or four signed Ban ksy screenprints. Then see the dramatic change in their facial expression when you tell them you recently had the prints drymounted.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Banksy Radar Rat • Dirty Funker 12", by met on Apr 15, 2024 6:38:22 GMT 1, Because that 2008 release was dishonest and cynical: Calculated to give the impression of legitimacy — in order to fill certain trouser pockets with cash, by selling hundreds of records which would otherwise have languished on store shelves or in a warehouse. I'm going to respectfully disagree with this. - but at no point were the DF releases marketed or sold as being official Ban ksy releases, as far as I'm aware. Notice that sticker on the covers? It says “limited edition sleeve by Ban ksy” on it. They even used the Ban ksy logo/tag!
Embarrassingly, I had completely forgotten about and overlooked those stickers.
So thank you for the very helpful reminder.
That is properly messed up, isn't it?
My previous posts were drafted on the basis that Paul Glancy / Dirty Funker's dishonesty and cynicism broadly came down to:
(a) being knowingly misleading through his conduct; and
(b) lying by omission.
But the stickers do take things to another level. They amount to an express falsehood and deceit. An overt fraud.
Glancy was in effect saying to all of us:
"I view you, the Banksy fans and collectors, with such contempt that I'm going to lie straight to your faces about the legitimacy of the images on my Dirty Funker record sleeves. And you are so naive, so gullible, that you're actually going to believe me, buy multiple copies of my records, and top up my bank balance in the process.
God bless you, fools."
Admittedly hyperbolic, but if anyone feels this characterisation is too unfair, I'd be interested to hear their thoughts.
Because that 2008 release was dishonest and cynical: Calculated to give the impression of legitimacy — in order to fill certain trouser pockets with cash, by selling hundreds of records which would otherwise have languished on store shelves or in a warehouse. I'm going to respectfully disagree with this. - but at no point were the DF releases marketed or sold as being official Ban ksy releases, as far as I'm aware. Notice that sticker on the covers? It says “limited edition sleeve by Ban ksy” on it. They even used the Ban ksy logo/tag! Embarrassingly, I had completely forgotten about and overlooked those stickers. So thank you for the very helpful reminder. That is properly messed up, isn't it? My previous posts were drafted on the basis that Paul Glancy / Dirty Funker's dishonesty and cynicism broadly came down to: (a) being knowingly misleading through his conduct; and (b) lying by omission. But the stickers do take things to another level. They amount to an express falsehood and deceit. An overt fraud. Glancy was in effect saying to all of us: "I view you, the Banksy fans and collectors, with such contempt that I'm going to lie straight to your faces about the legitimacy of the images on my Dirty Funker record sleeves. And you are so naive, so gullible, that you're actually going to believe me, buy multiple copies of my records, and top up my bank balance in the process.
God bless you, fools."Admittedly hyperbolic, but if anyone feels this characterisation is too unfair, I'd be interested to hear their thoughts.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Banksy Radar Rat • Dirty Funker 12", by met on Apr 14, 2024 12:54:29 GMT 1, Because that 2008 release was dishonest and cynical: Calculated to give the impression of legitimacy — in order to fill certain trouser pockets with cash, by selling hundreds of records which would otherwise have languished on store shelves or in a warehouse. I'm going to respectfully disagree with this. PCO Please do not use Banksy's images for any commercial purpose, including launching a range of merchandise or tricking people into thinking something is made or endorsed by the artist when it isn't . I see the point you're making, underlined - but at no point were the DF releases marketed or sold as being official Ban ksy releases, as far as I'm aware. If they had been, they've have been priced much higher accordingly at time of release - whereas they were £6.99. There's a 25+year history of bootlegging and cheeky samples of music via the various labels he set up over the years, and some releases were hastily pulled as a result of some major label, but there was no attempt by Dirty Funker, nor the label, to claim these releases were legit Ban ksy covers. Looking at the Discogs edit history for a couple of these releases (I've not got time nor inclination to check every one!) the submissions weren't made by the same people, nor by the label/artist themselves - some credit 'Sleeve: Ban ksy' others 'Robert Banks'. Discogs - similarly to wikipedia - is user-controlled content, so I think some vinyl dealers / sellers tried to claim these as legitimate in order to manipulate the market.
You stepping up and voicing disagreement is appreciated; it's what the marketplace of ideas is all about.
With luck, exchanges like this might even assist one or two other members in establishing their own positions, or in nuancing their existing opinions on the subject.
__________
Initial side comments on your reference to "cheeky samples of music":
The music analogy is excellent, and I've no issue with sampling per se. My assessment of these things generally comes down to factors such as:
(i) degree of copying;
(ii) innovativeness of usage (including how, or the extent to which, the source material is reworked); and
(iii) actual or presumed intent of the sampler.
Taking snippets from myriad sources to create something fresh and transformative isn't a problem.
Andrew Weatherall's production work on Screamadelica immediately comes to mind. It was truly inspired.
But contrast the above with Paul Glancy pretty much reproducing wholesale entire images by a famous artist, and slapping them onto record sleeves.
The latter seems transparently exploitative. A cheap (albeit highly effective) effort to receive unmerited attention and sell crate‑loads of extra Dirty Funker records.
Moreover, this was Glancy forcing an association with somebody who was far more successful. It looks like he was seeking to elevate himself by basking in reflected glory. But how many sidebusters have ever commanded respect, as opposed to disdain?
__________
You make an important distinction, between:
(a) the marketing speak of Paul Glancy / Dirty Funker and his label; and
(b) whatever resellers of the records might say in their own sales listings.
For the avoidance of doubt, my focus was solely on the actions of Glancy and the original releases of his Dirty Funker records. Descriptions or misdescriptions by resellers were not taken into account by me.
__________
We share further common ground in that I'd be comfortable accepting on faith that the Dirty Funker records were not expressly marketed or sold as being official Banksy releases.
There may however be a divergence between us on the constituents of guilt.
In my view, no untrue statement was necessary for a line to have been crossed.
Paul Glancy was fully conscious of what he was doing, and what could be achieved commercially simply by appropriating and reproducing Banksy's art without consent.
Calculations that Glancy will likely have made:
1. Banksy's images would be the main selling point for a majority of buyers, not the fact the records were by Dirty Funker.
2. The images would conveniently also serve as a false endorsement, misleading consumers by suggesting Banksy actually supported Dirty Funker's music.
3. There was zero need to lie about the stolen status of the artwork, e.g. by falsely claiming it to be official. Because the releases alone, featuring immediately-recognisable images on their sleeves, would be sufficient to dupe many Banksy fans into believing the image use was legitimate.
4. Even among the more cautious and astute Banksy fans who wouldn't be completely fooled, some would nevertheless remain uncertain enough to buy the records anyway, just in case they might possibly be official.
5. Keeping schtum about the status of the images (i.e. whether they were authorised or unauthorised by Banksy) could in itself become a buzz‑marketing tactic — with the resulting chatter and speculation possibly leading to increased sales, especially among the large contingent of consumers who fear the possibility of missing out on a good deal or investment opportunity.
The above conduct and mindset is what I was referring to when I previously mentioned the cynicism of the Dirty Funker release. Likewise with the dishonesty, which included a dishonesty by silence or omission.
As a more secondary point, the original retail pricing of Dirty Funker releases wouldn't in itself offer a compelling rebuttal, given that past releases featuring authorised Banksy images (on labels such as Wall of Sound or Parlophone) were never priced differently at source than any other vinyl or CDs.
__________
Although it shouldn't make a difference to its persuasiveness, I'll add that my stance here is generally consistent with English case law on the tort of passing off (something the Dirty Funker releases could arguably be accused of).
Passing off requires there be a misrepresentation, but this doesn't have to be a falsehood or exaggeration. The misrepresentation can be an express statement or just implied, including from the defendant’s actions.
Similarly, passing off need not be deliberate; it may occur regardless of the defendant having acted intentionally or unintentionally. What a judge will instead consider is conduct, and whether the relevant goods or services were offered in a way that deceived the public.
As for the number of people affected, a claim can be initiated and passing off can still be established even if most people were not actually deceived or misled.
__________
Lastly, it is worth touching upon the cumulative impact of releases such as those by Dirty Funker and DJDM.
The confusion they've sown over their status and legitimacy should not be underestimated.
How else would there be so many misinformed, oblivious or deluded collectors around?
Plenty continue to buy Dirty Funker and DJDM records, for sums of money that are sometimes comparable to what releases featuring authorised Banksy images go for, like the We Love You or Badmeaningood series.
That's the level of market ignorance and stupidity we are currently facing.
It is a disheartening reality.
Because that 2008 release was dishonest and cynical: Calculated to give the impression of legitimacy — in order to fill certain trouser pockets with cash, by selling hundreds of records which would otherwise have languished on store shelves or in a warehouse. I'm going to respectfully disagree with this. PCO Please do not use Banksy's images for any commercial purpose, including launching a range of merchandise or tricking people into thinking something is made or endorsed by the artist when it isn't . I see the point you're making, underlined - but at no point were the DF releases marketed or sold as being official Ban ksy releases, as far as I'm aware. If they had been, they've have been priced much higher accordingly at time of release - whereas they were £6.99. There's a 25+year history of bootlegging and cheeky samples of music via the various labels he set up over the years, and some releases were hastily pulled as a result of some major label, but there was no attempt by Dirty Funker, nor the label, to claim these releases were legit Ban ksy covers. Looking at the Discogs edit history for a couple of these releases (I've not got time nor inclination to check every one!) the submissions weren't made by the same people, nor by the label/artist themselves - some credit 'Sleeve: Ban ksy' others 'Robert Banks'. Discogs - similarly to wikipedia - is user-controlled content, so I think some vinyl dealers / sellers tried to claim these as legitimate in order to manipulate the market. You stepping up and voicing disagreement is appreciated; it's what the marketplace of ideas is all about. With luck, exchanges like this might even assist one or two other members in establishing their own positions, or in nuancing their existing opinions on the subject. __________ Initial side comments on your reference to "cheeky samples of music": The music analogy is excellent, and I've no issue with sampling per se. My assessment of these things generally comes down to factors such as: (i) degree of copying; (ii) innovativeness of usage (including how, or the extent to which, the source material is reworked); and (iii) actual or presumed intent of the sampler. Taking snippets from myriad sources to create something fresh and transformative isn't a problem. Andrew Weatherall's production work on Screamadelica immediately comes to mind. It was truly inspired. But contrast the above with Paul Glancy pretty much reproducing wholesale entire images by a famous artist, and slapping them onto record sleeves. The latter seems transparently exploitative. A cheap (albeit highly effective) effort to receive unmerited attention and sell crate‑loads of extra Dirty Funker records. Moreover, this was Glancy forcing an association with somebody who was far more successful. It looks like he was seeking to elevate himself by basking in reflected glory. But how many sidebusters have ever commanded respect, as opposed to disdain? __________ You make an important distinction, between: (a) the marketing speak of Paul Glancy / Dirty Funker and his label; and (b) whatever resellers of the records might say in their own sales listings. For the avoidance of doubt, my focus was solely on the actions of Glancy and the original releases of his Dirty Funker records. Descriptions or misdescriptions by resellers were not taken into account by me. __________ We share further common ground in that I'd be comfortable accepting on faith that the Dirty Funker records were not expressly marketed or sold as being official Ban ksy releases. There may however be a divergence between us on the constituents of guilt. In my view, no untrue statement was necessary for a line to have been crossed. Paul Glancy was fully conscious of what he was doing, and what could be achieved commercially simply by appropriating and reproducing Ban ksy's art without consent. Calculations that Glancy will likely have made:1. Ban ksy's images would be the main selling point for a majority of buyers, not the fact the records were by Dirty Funker. 2. The images would conveniently also serve as a false endorsement, misleading consumers by suggesting Ban ksy actually supported Dirty Funker's music. 3. There was zero need to lie about the stolen status of the artwork, e.g. by falsely claiming it to be official. Because the releases alone, featuring immediately-recognisable images on their sleeves, would be sufficient to dupe many Banksy fans into believing the image use was legitimate. 4. Even among the more cautious and astute Ban ksy fans who wouldn't be completely fooled, some would nevertheless remain uncertain enough to buy the records anyway, just in case they might possibly be official. 5. Keeping schtum about the status of the images (i.e. whether they were authorised or unauthorised by Ban ksy) could in itself become a buzz‑marketing tactic — with the resulting chatter and speculation possibly leading to increased sales, especially among the large contingent of consumers who fear the possibility of missing out on a good deal or investment opportunity. The above conduct and mindset is what I was referring to when I previously mentioned the cynicism of the Dirty Funker release. Likewise with the dishonesty, which included a dishonesty by silence or omission. As a more secondary point, the original retail pricing of Dirty Funker releases wouldn't in itself offer a compelling rebuttal, given that past releases featuring authorised Ban ksy images (on labels such as Wall of Sound or Parlophone) were never priced differently at source than any other vinyl or CDs. __________ Although it shouldn't make a difference to its persuasiveness, I'll add that my stance here is generally consistent with English case law on the tort of passing off (something the Dirty Funker releases could arguably be accused of). Passing off requires there be a misrepresentation, but this doesn't have to be a falsehood or exaggeration. The misrepresentation can be an express statement or just implied, including from the defendant’s actions. Similarly, passing off need not be deliberate; it may occur regardless of the defendant having acted intentionally or unintentionally. What a judge will instead consider is conduct, and whether the relevant goods or services were offered in a way that deceived the public. As for the number of people affected, a claim can be initiated and passing off can still be established even if most people were not actually deceived or misled. __________ Lastly, it is worth touching upon the cumulative impact of releases such as those by Dirty Funker and DJDM. The confusion they've sown over their status and legitimacy should not be underestimated. How else would there be so many misinformed, oblivious or deluded collectors around? Plenty continue to buy Dirty Funker and DJDM records, for sums of money that are sometimes comparable to what releases featuring authorised Banksy images go for, like the We Love You or Badmeaningood series. That's the level of market ignorance and stupidity we are currently facing. It is a disheartening reality.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Banksy Radar Rat • Dirty Funker 12", by met on Apr 14, 2024 11:29:26 GMT 1, Talking about ignorant and education and getting the first principles totally wrong It is not a fake no a knockoff as per definition. A fake or knockoff is a product that is an exact copy or imitation of an authentic item and I don't recall Ban ksy releasing these. It is a bootleg, that is a product sold illegally without any authorisation. Also, Ban ksy always said that he is fine people using his image as long as it is not sold as Ban ksy art; he is actually the main reason why he lost his court case against that company doing postal cards (aside not commercialising his products/images). For sure, copying is wrong but when the artist itself says a) he doesn't care and b) fails to create a company to sell merchandising and crap (to protect his image under the IP law, which is more or less based on competition in market); then anyone is free to use the image and no, it is not stolen images (it was not at that time, it is now for anyone thinking of doing another printing since Ban ksy has a duly registered company now).
Thank you for the post.
1. Terminology
Words sometimes have a multitude of broadly-accepted definitions.
This might include minor variations of meaning (e.g. a restricted meaning as well as a more generic one), where each still relates to the same notion. There may also be geographical or generational differences in the commonly-understood meaning of certain terms. Or subtle differences of definition, depending on whether a word is serving as a noun or an adjective.
I was using the terms "fake" and "knockoff" in their broadest sense, just equating them to "not genuine" or "an unsanctioned copy".
Your own narrower definitions would actually be comparable to the meanings I attribute to other words, like "counterfeit" and "forgery".
At the risk of labouring the point, note as well how misunderstandings can arise due to different assumptions about which aspects specifically are being referred to.
For example, when I describe as fake a Dirty Funker record with a Banksy image on its sleeve, it could easily be inferred that I'm saying, "That's a fake Banksy record" or "That's a fake Dirty Funker record". Whereas my intended meaning is closer to "That's a fake Banksy" — the emphasis being on the image, rather than the overall product.
Most important, however, is the fact there seems to be no substantive confusion between us regarding what we're discussing.
2. Banksy's position on others using his imagery
Your reference to the artist having "always said that he is fine people using his image as long as it is not sold as Banksy art" is misleading.
Via his website, Pest Control Office, and comments to the press, he has long made a straightforward distinction:
A. Non‑commercial use and personal amusement
Example: You or me printing an image from Banksy.co.uk and sticking it on our fridge.
[Advance consent provided by the artist = Okay]
versus
B. Unauthorised commercial use
Example: Paul Glancy stealing Radar Rat, Kate and Happy Choppers imagery, and using it on the sleeves of Dirty Funker releases — piggybacking on Banksy's popularity to sell records that most collectors would otherwise have no interest in.
[Theft from the artist = Not okay]
__________
Set out below is a handful of the many comments Banksy has posted on his website over the years, regarding the use by others of his images.
Both the letter and spirit of his words seem consistent and clear:
This shop is intended for personal amusement only, not for mass producing product. Thanks.
Please note: This shop is for personal amusement only. Please don't use it to start a business. Thanks.
Banksy does not produce greeting cards or print photo-canvases or paint commissions or sell freshly baked bagels. Please take anything from this site and make your own (non‑commercial use only thanks).
You're welcome to download whatever you wish from this site for personal use. However, making your own art or merchandise and passing it off as ‘official’ or authentic Banksy artwork is bad and very wrong.
3. EUIPO cases
Regarding the European Union Intellectual Property Office cases in recent years between Pest Control Office and Full Colour Black, some conclusions you've drawn are incorrect.
However, this would only be a collateral issue, because the cases relate to legislative and regulatory concerns, especially trademark registration requirements, which are distinct from the principles‑based arguments I was focusing on.
[My wariness of forum posts on the EUIPO cases is that they're frequently muddled or littered with inaccuracies.
Authors of such posts rarely give the impression of understanding this specialist area, even when they seem fully at ease about commenting. Perhaps they rely solely on superficial press coverage of the cases, without (a) also reading the source materials like the EUIPO decisions themselves, or (b) first trying to get a basic grasp of intellectual property law, including the crucial differences between copyright and trademark.
For want of time and inclination, I try to avoid engaging in these instances, bearing in mind Brandolini's law and the technical nature of the subject matter.]
__________
There may be issues we still disagree on, but I hope the above helps to clarify my stance.
Talking about ignorant and education and getting the first principles totally wrong It is not a fake no a knockoff as per definition. A fake or knockoff is a product that is an exact copy or imitation of an authentic item and I don't recall Ban ksy releasing these. It is a bootleg, that is a product sold illegally without any authorisation. Also, Ban ksy always said that he is fine people using his image as long as it is not sold as Ban ksy art; he is actually the main reason why he lost his court case against that company doing postal cards (aside not commercialising his products/images). For sure, copying is wrong but when the artist itself says a) he doesn't care and b) fails to create a company to sell merchandising and crap (to protect his image under the IP law, which is more or less based on competition in market); then anyone is free to use the image and no, it is not stolen images (it was not at that time, it is now for anyone thinking of doing another printing since Ban ksy has a duly registered company now). He said it's ok to use as long as not for commercial purposes, he's not ok with it being used to make money, is the gist of it
This is the kind of conciseness I am constantly aspiring to, but almost always fail to achieve. Thank you.
who did Panda with handguns?
Julien Fanton D'Andon*, a French director who specialises in advertising commercials for beauty and luxury brands.
It was in 2005, shortly after graduating from Penninghen in Paris (an institution that teaches art direction, communication and interior architecture), that D'Andon designed his panda with handguns for the French youth-clothing brand, Kulte.
A few years later, in 2009, the panda was taken on as a logo by the then‑new record label, Bad Panda Records.
Presumably due to its aesthetic and sensibility, the image is regularly misattributed to Banksy.
And as is often the case with falsehoods, in a seemingly-never-ending cycle, they are perpetuated by consumers of information — who accept what they read at face value and then further disseminate it without bothering to fact‑check beforehand.
Having done a quick search on this message board, a hat‑tip seems well‑deserved:
ilmambo looks to have been the first forum member to mention D'Andon, way back in March 2012*.
Talking about ignorant and education and getting the first principles totally wrong It is not a fake no a knockoff as per definition. A fake or knockoff is a product that is an exact copy or imitation of an authentic item and I don't recall Ban ksy releasing these. It is a bootleg, that is a product sold illegally without any authorisation. Also, Ban ksy always said that he is fine people using his image as long as it is not sold as Ban ksy art; he is actually the main reason why he lost his court case against that company doing postal cards (aside not commercialising his products/images). For sure, copying is wrong but when the artist itself says a) he doesn't care and b) fails to create a company to sell merchandising and crap (to protect his image under the IP law, which is more or less based on competition in market); then anyone is free to use the image and no, it is not stolen images (it was not at that time, it is now for anyone thinking of doing another printing since Ban ksy has a duly registered company now). Thank you for the post. 1. TerminologyWords sometimes have a multitude of broadly-accepted definitions. This might include minor variations of meaning (e.g. a restricted meaning as well as a more generic one), where each still relates to the same notion. There may also be geographical or generational differences in the commonly-understood meaning of certain terms. Or subtle differences of definition, depending on whether a word is serving as a noun or an adjective. I was using the terms "fake" and "knockoff" in their broadest sense, just equating them to "not genuine" or "an unsanctioned copy". Your own narrower definitions would actually be comparable to the meanings I attribute to other words, like "counterfeit" and "forgery". At the risk of labouring the point, note as well how misunderstandings can arise due to different assumptions about which aspects specifically are being referred to. For example, when I describe as fake a Dirty Funker record with a Ban ksy image on its sleeve, it could easily be inferred that I'm saying, "That's a fake Banksy record" or "That's a fake Dirty Funker record". Whereas my intended meaning is closer to "That's a fake Banksy" — the emphasis being on the image, rather than the overall product. Most important, however, is the fact there seems to be no substantive confusion between us regarding what we're discussing. 2. Banksy's position on others using his imageryYour reference to the artist having "always said that he is fine people using his image as long as it is not sold as Banksy art" is misleading. Via his website, Pest Control Office, and comments to the press, he has long made a straightforward distinction: A. Non‑commercial use and personal amusementExample: You or me printing an image from Ban ksy.co.uk and sticking it on our fridge. [Advance consent provided by the artist = Okay] versusB. Unauthorised commercial useExample: Paul Glancy stealing Radar Rat, Kate and Happy Choppers imagery, and using it on the sleeves of Dirty Funker releases — piggybacking on Ban ksy's popularity to sell records that most collectors would otherwise have no interest in. [Theft from the artist = Not okay] __________ Set out below is a handful of the many comments Banksy has posted on his website over the years, regarding the use by others of his images. Both the letter and spirit of his words seem consistent and clear: This shop is intended for personal amusement only, not for mass producing product. Thanks.Please note: This shop is for personal amusement only. Please don't use it to start a business. Thanks.Banksy does not produce greeting cards or print photo-canvases or paint commissions or sell freshly baked bagels. Please take anything from this site and make your own (non‑commercial use only thanks).You're welcome to download whatever you wish from this site for personal use. However, making your own art or merchandise and passing it off as ‘official’ or authentic Banksy artwork is bad and very wrong.3. EUIPO casesRegarding the European Union Intellectual Property Office cases in recent years between Pest Control Office and Full Colour Black, some conclusions you've drawn are incorrect. However, this would only be a collateral issue, because the cases relate to legislative and regulatory concerns, especially trademark registration requirements, which are distinct from the principles‑based arguments I was focusing on. [My wariness of forum posts on the EUIPO cases is that they're frequently muddled or littered with inaccuracies.
Authors of such posts rarely give the impression of understanding this specialist area, even when they seem fully at ease about commenting. Perhaps they rely solely on superficial press coverage of the cases, without (a) also reading the source materials like the EUIPO decisions themselves, or (b) first trying to get a basic grasp of intellectual property law, including the crucial differences between copyright and trademark.
For want of time and inclination, I try to avoid engaging in these instances, bearing in mind Brandolini's law and the technical nature of the subject matter.]__________ There may be issues we still disagree on, but I hope the above helps to clarify my stance. Talking about ignorant and education and getting the first principles totally wrong It is not a fake no a knockoff as per definition. A fake or knockoff is a product that is an exact copy or imitation of an authentic item and I don't recall Ban ksy releasing these. It is a bootleg, that is a product sold illegally without any authorisation. Also, Ban ksy always said that he is fine people using his image as long as it is not sold as Ban ksy art; he is actually the main reason why he lost his court case against that company doing postal cards (aside not commercialising his products/images). For sure, copying is wrong but when the artist itself says a) he doesn't care and b) fails to create a company to sell merchandising and crap (to protect his image under the IP law, which is more or less based on competition in market); then anyone is free to use the image and no, it is not stolen images (it was not at that time, it is now for anyone thinking of doing another printing since Ban ksy has a duly registered company now). He said it's ok to use as long as not for commercial purposes, he's not ok with it being used to make money, is the gist of it This is the kind of conciseness I am constantly aspiring to, but almost always fail to achieve. Thank you. who did Panda with handguns? Julien Fanton D'Andon*, a French director who specialises in advertising commercials for beauty and luxury brands. It was in 2005, shortly after graduating from Penninghen in Pa ris (an institution that teaches art direction, communication and interior architecture), that D'Andon designed his panda with handguns for the French youth-clothing brand, Kulte. A few years later, in 2009, the panda was taken on as a logo by the then‑new record label, Bad Panda Records. Presumably due to its aesthetic and sensibility, the image is regularly misattributed to Ban ksy. And as is often the case with falsehoods, in a seemingly-never-ending cycle, they are perpetuated by consumers of information — who accept what they read at fa ce value and then further disseminate it without bothering to fact‑check beforehand. Having done a quick search on this message board, a hat‑tip seems well‑deserved: ilmambo looks to have been the first fo rum member to mention D'Andon, way back in March 2012 *.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Damien Hirst Secret Garden Painting Print release, by met on Apr 10, 2024 13:55:35 GMT 1, £55k for a complete set works out at £7k each. A nice 2x as predicted based on current comparables. Even when you remove the complete set premium, will still see a 1.25x-1.5x multiplier. Great job for those that managed to purchase a piece.
This kind of post is appreciated, because sound reasoning is often just so boring.
Pretty much any random individual can open a seller's account on Artsy. And it's probably even easier if they call themselves a gallery. They can then pick whatever asking prices they want for their wares.
So if I have time next week, I'll try to list a complete set of these Hirsts for £800,000. Or maybe £5,000,000.
The artwork might still be cringeworthy. But holy moly, my multipliers are going to kick some serious ass.
£55k for a complete set works out at £7k each. A nice 2x as predicted based on current comparables. Even when you remove the complete set premium, will still see a 1.25x-1.5x multiplier. Great job for those that managed to purchase a piece. This kind of post is appreciated, because sound reasoning is often just so boring. Pretty much any random individual can open a seller's account on Artsy. And it's probably even easier if they call themselves a gallery. They can then pick whatever asking prices they want for their wares. So if I have time next week, I'll try to list a complete set of these Hir sts for £800,000. Or maybe £5,000,000. The artwork might still be cringeworthy. But holy moly, my multipliers are going to kick some serious a ss.
|
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Edgar plans liited edition, by met on Apr 10, 2024 3:57:51 GMT 1, ART SCULPTURE LIMITED EDITION (200 UNITS PER COLOR) DESIGNED BY EDGAR PLANS 2300 usd each Sculpture size: 20 x 15 x 13(d)cm Package size: 34 x 26 x 15(d)cm
After Scamming and Rug Pulling the NFT project, I am not sure he'll have an easy path ahead... Tried Googling to find out what actually happened? Is there a thread? Can't see much.. Feel free to inbox, don't want to de-rail the sellers thread... Apologies and thank you 👍
The short version is that it was a scam involving millions of dollars and a few people made money and a lot of people lost money. It was so bad, I’m surprised none of the names below (in an image I made at the height of the scam) has been prosecuted. Edgar Plans was fully complicit in this and there is no defence for being a moron. I’m sorry to the OP as they are trying to sell, but anything related to Edgar Plans will forever be tainted. You will have better luck selling Rolf Harris paintings.
Bump for the seller. It's a lovely thing and GLWTS. Edgar Plans said last week in an instagram reply; "...I don’t manage the lil heroes project. Is a company. I hope start to do good things around NFTs." Which, if true, is absolutely insane and I wouldn't touch it with yours. He needs to take accountability. The project totally ruined his credibility. Hack.
The loss of credibility by Edgar Plans arguably occurred much earlier.
As was also the case with the derivative and truly insipid Javier Calleja, for me it happened the very moment I first discovered the Saturday-morning-cartoon-style illustrations by Plans.
This does perhaps raise broader societal issues.
When large numbers of primary schoolchildren can afford to spend $20+ on art, then I would suggest there may be a problem.
Parents who dish out excessively-generous weekly allowances are doing their kids absolutely no favours in the long run.
ART SCULPTURE LIMITED EDITION (200 UNITS PER COLOR) DESIGNED BY EDGAR PLANS 2300 usd each Sculpture size: 20 x 15 x 13(d)cm Package size: 34 x 26 x 15(d)cm After Scamming and Rug Pulling the NFT project, I am not sure he'll have an easy path ahead... Tried Googling to find out what actually happened? Is there a thread? Can't see much.. Feel free to inbox, don't want to de-rail the sellers thread... Apologies and thank you 👍 The short version is that it was a scam involving millions of dollars and a few people made money and a lot of people lost money. It was so bad, I’m surprised none of the names below (in an image I made at the height of the scam) has been prosecuted. Edgar Plans was fully complicit in this and there is no defence for being a moron. I’m sorry to the OP as they are trying to sell, but anything related to Edgar Plans will forever be tainted. You will have better luck selling Rolf Harris paintings. Bump for the seller. It's a lovely thing and GLWTS. Edgar Plans said last week in an instagram reply; "...I don’t manage the lil heroes project. Is a company. I hope start to do good things around NFTs." Which, if true, is absolutely insane and I wouldn't touch it with yours. He needs to take accountability. The project totally ruined his credibility. Hack. The loss of credibility by Edgar Plans arguably occurred much earlier. As was also the case with the derivative and truly insipid Javier Calleja, for me it happened the very moment I first discovered the Saturday-morning-cartoon-style illustrations by Plans. This does perhaps raise broader societal issues. When large numbers of primary schoolchildren can afford to spend $20+ on art, then I would suggest there may be a problem. Parents who dish out excessively-generous weekly allowances are doing their kids absolutely no favours in the long run.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
STIK “THANKS FROM STIK” - Original on card, by met on Apr 10, 2024 3:09:04 GMT 1, Unframed £3,999.98
Diversity of viewpoint is always an asset for a message board.
You refer to the above piece as being a "STIK Original on card".
Whereas I myself would call it a "Thank-you note with a doodle".
And (assuming genuineness) would value it in the low three figures, rather than £4K.
Unframed £3,999.98 Diversity of viewpoint is always an asset for a message board. You refer to the above piece as being a "STIK Original on card". Whereas I myself would call it a "Thank-you note with a doodle". And (assuming genuineness) would value it in the low three figures, rather than £4K.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Banksy Radar Rat • Dirty Funker 12", by met on Apr 8, 2024 11:32:15 GMT 1, Maybe a bit of self-reflection is required. Perhaps all round.
Not sure if I understand what you mean here.
But for what it's worth, my initial post was based on a couple of first principles.
They served as the foundation and underlying motivation for that post (as well as for plenty of others I've written):
A. Stealing from artists is wrong
B. Informed collectors > Uninformed collectors
Neither of these seems extreme to me. Or even controversial, for that matter.
__________
If your own position is different, it would be interesting to hear. Because we could then identify a substantive disagreement of principle between us. One that might even lead to insightful exchanges of contrasting views.
But if your own position on the above first principles is actually similar to mine, this too would be good to hear. It would mean there was no substantive disagreement of principle between you and me.
What might then still separate us would likely be relatively trivial — whether down to differences in preferred approach, in emphasis or degree of militancy, or just in our personality types.
And as far as I'm concerned, those are the kinds of differences to be celebrated here. They, especially, are the ones that enrich this forum.
Maybe a bit of self-reflection is required. Perhaps all round. Not sure if I understand what you mean here. But for what it's worth, my initial post was based on a couple of first principles. They served as the foundation and underlying motivation for that post (as well as for plenty of others I've written): A. Stealing from artists is wrong
B. Informed collectors > Uninformed collectorsNeither of these seems extreme to me. Or even controversial, for that matter. __________ If your own position is different, it would be interesting to hear. Because we could then identify a substantive disagreement of principle between us. One that might even lead to insightful exchanges of contrasting views. But if your own position on the above first principles is actually similar to mine, this too would be good to hear. It would mean there was no substantive disagreement of principle between you and me. What might then still separate us would likely be relatively trivial — whether down to differences in preferred approach, in emphasis or degree of militancy, or just in our personality types. And as far as I'm concerned, those are the kinds of differences to be celebrated here. They, especially, are the ones that enrich this fo rum.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Banksy Radar Rat • Dirty Funker 12", by met on Apr 8, 2024 9:17:46 GMT 1, Sure there are plenty of interested buyers out there, as these have been sold via these messageboards before, and will be again, despite what the pompous self-appointed fun police say. Welcone to the boards, and good luck with the sale.👍
If the text I've highlighted in red was partly or wholly directed at me, my thoughts are as follows:
1. "pompous"
A fair comment, or at least not unfair, albeit one that mainly appears to be about the tone of my post.
Tone is an aspect I do try to keep in mind when drafting (I normally aim for "robotic") — especially when there's a risk it can detract from the substance of my posts, thereby making them less effective.
Happy to take this criticism on the chin.
2. "self-appointed"
This feels weak.
Because literally anybody who steps up, sticks their head above the parapet, and voices their thoughts/experiences or debates a position, can be described as self‑appointed.
That's been the case with you, just as it has with me, and with pretty much all of our fellow members who are active participants on the forum.
But query also what the alternatives are:
Indifference? Members biting their tongues, for fear of possibly rocking the boat or causing upset?
If we're advocating for apathy or cowardice, or for people to just shut up and stop expressing their views, then I would argue that defeats the very purpose (and potential benefits) of a public message board.
3. "fun police"
Here is where it gets interesting, where there's a proper criticism that seemingly relates to the substance of my post.
Now, if anyone feels that members who share opinions and factual information, or who give others a heads‑up about marketplace perils, are "policing" the forum and ruining the "fun", then so be it. It's their call to make.
Though I would suggest this may be a distortion of both definitions. The latter one in particular, since I don't consider it "fun" when people end up paying over the odds as a result of not knowing what they were really buying.
That said, I do accept the overpaying could be great fun, at least for sellers who might have no qualms about exploiting information asymmetries they are the beneficiaries of.
When expensive Banksy tat is offloaded onto ignorant buyers (those quite often under a misapprehension regarding the status of such tat and its actual connection to the artist), there may well be full‑on belly laughs afterwards from some of the sellers involved.
And maybe even more so when those sellers sense they can count on rarely being challenged — perhaps having previously received free passes from knowing onlookers who chose to remain silent.
Sure there are plenty of interested buyers out there, as these have been sold via these messageboards before, and will be again, despite what the pompous self-appointed fun police say. Welcone to the boards, and good luck with the sale.👍 If the text I've highlighted in red was partly or wholly directed at me, my thoughts are as follows: 1. "pompous"A fair comment, or at least not unfair, albeit one that mainly appears to be about the tone of my post. Tone is an aspect I do try to keep in mind when drafting (I normally aim for "robotic") — especially when there's a risk it can detract from the substance of my posts, thereby making them less effective. Happy to take this criticism on the chin. 2. "self-appointed"This feels weak. Because literally anybody who steps up, sticks their head above the parapet, and voices their thoughts/experiences or debates a position, can be described as self‑appointed. That's been the case with you, just as it has with me, and with pretty much all of our fellow members who are active participants on the fo rum. But query also what the alternatives are: Indifference? Members biting their tongues, for fear of possibly rocking the boat or causing upset? If we're advocating for apathy or cowardice, or for people to just shut up and stop expressing their views, then I would argue that defeats the very purpose (and potential benefits) of a public message board. 3. "fun police"Here is where it gets interesting, where there's a proper criticism that seemingly relates to the substance of my post. Now, if anyone feels that members who share opinions and factual information, or who give others a heads‑up about marketplace perils, are "policing" the fo rum and ruining the "fun", then so be it. It's their call to make. Though I would suggest this may be a distortion of both definitions. The latter one in particular, since I don't consider it "fun" when people end up paying over the odds as a result of not knowing what they were really buying. That said, I do accept the overpaying could be great fun, at least for sellers who might have no qualms about exploiting information asymmetries they are the beneficiaries of. When expensive Ban ksy tat is offloaded onto ignorant buyers (those quite often under a misapprehension regarding the status of such tat and its actual connection to the artist), there may well be full‑on belly laughs afterwards from some of the sellers involved. And maybe even more so when those sellers sense they can count on rarely being challenged — perhaps having previously received free passes from knowing onlookers who chose to remain silent.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Banksy Radar Rat • Dirty Funker 12", by met on Apr 8, 2024 8:10:07 GMT 1, Hi met, thanks for enlightening me about the history of the record covers. I see now why they may be referred to as ‘fake’, even if they are not ‘fakes’. I purchased these in 2008 under the impression they were legit associated with Ban ksy. So, in this case I was the ignorant buyer then and the ignorant seller now! In any case, I am selling them for what they are then, as collectors are interested in them, which I can also understand. I agree, it is important that people know exactly what they are buying (and selling), so thank you for adding this information to the post.
No worries. Happy to help.
And I appreciate your courtesy reply. Especially its non‑defensiveness, which is most refreshing.
__________
As for you initially believing the Dirty Funker records were officially connected to Banksy, this is unsurprising.
Plenty of other collectors have been in the same boat. And many, many more continue to be.
Because that 2008 release was dishonest and cynical: Calculated to give the impression of legitimacy — in order to fill certain trouser pockets with cash, by selling hundreds of records which would otherwise have languished on store shelves or in a warehouse.
__________
Paul Glancy (a.k.a. Dirty Funker) can, without unfairness, be described as a parasite.
He has been consistent with his thieving.
Every Banksy image on his record sleeves (whether Radar Rat, Kate or Happy Choppers) was appropriated. Used unofficially, without consent from the artist.
Of course, Glancy is far from being the only person who has leeched off Banksy in this manner.
But it's his Dirty Funker records in particular which seem to have duped the most collectors into wrongly believing they're genuine Banksy items.
Similar accusations can be made against the DJDM (≠ Danger Mouse) releases from 2008, featuring stolen Laugh Now and Keep It Real imagery.
__________
Among enthusiasts of Banksy's artwork, your previous self was probably in the majority. A majority that is in large part oblivious or misinformed.
This has helped to establish an arguably dominant culture, where:
(i) falsehoods are perpetuated in a seemingly-never-ending cycle of nonsense; and
(ii) countless fans are repeatedly getting misled and ripped off.
No wonder we keep witnessing ridiculous or disheartening situations like:
(a) Still Sane (Elizabeth II as Aladdin Sane, by the Bristol artist IncWel) being prominently displayed at one of the unofficial "Banksy" exhibitions that have toured around the world charging elevated entrance fees;
(b) people on Instagram showing off their new tattoos of a panda with handguns, accompanied by the hashtags #banksy and #banksytattoo; and
(c) Dirty Funker and DJDM records actually being sold for three‑figure sums.
It's the blind leading the blind.
Plus, every now and then, it is also the knowledgeable-yet-unscrupulous manipulating and shafting the blind.
__________
Welcome, and thanks for crossing over to the side of the better‑informed minority.
In terms of our numbers, there isn't yet a critical mass — one that could lead to a tipping point, based on increased awareness within the marketplace for Banksy ephemera.
Hopefully, we'll get there eventually.
And if such a tipping point is ever reached, the demand for fake Banksy records might then suddenly take a long‑overdue nosedive.
Hi met, thanks for enlightening me about the history of the record covers. I see now why they may be referred to as ‘fake’, even if they are not ‘fakes’. I purchased these in 2008 under the impression they were legit associated with Ban ksy. So, in this case I was the ignorant buyer then and the ignorant seller now! In any case, I am selling them for what they are then, as collectors are interested in them, which I can also understand. I agree, it is important that people know exactly what they are buying (and selling), so thank you for adding this information to the post. No worries. Happy to help. And I appreciate your courtesy reply. Especially its non‑defensiveness, which is most refreshing. __________ As for you initially believing the Dirty Funker records were officially connected to Ban ksy, this is unsurprising. Plenty of other collectors have been in the same boat. And many, many more continue to be. Because that 2008 release was dishonest and cynical: Calculated to give the impression of legitimacy — in order to fill certain trouser pockets with cash, by selling hundreds of records which would otherwise have languished on store shelves or in a warehouse. __________ Paul Glancy (a.k.a. Dirty Funker) can, without unfairness, be described as a parasite. He has been consistent with his thieving. Every Ban ksy image on his record sleeves (whether Radar Rat, Kate or Happy Choppers) was appropriated. Used unofficially, without consent from the artist. Of course, Glancy is far from being the only person who has leeched off Ban ksy in this manner. But it's his Dirty Funker records in particular which seem to have duped the most collectors into wrongly believing they're genuine Ban ksy items. Similar accusations can be made against the DJDM (≠ Danger Mouse) releases from 2008, featuring stolen Laugh Now and Keep It Real imagery. __________ Among enthusiasts of Ban ksy's artwork, your previous self was probably in the majority. A majority that is in large part oblivious or misinformed. This has helped to establish an arguably dominant culture, where: (i) falsehoods are perpetuated in a seemingly-never-ending cycle of nonsense; and (ii) countless fans are repeatedly getting misled and ripped off. No wonder we keep witnessing ridiculous or disheartening situations like: (a) Still Sane (Elizabeth II as Aladdin Sane, by the Bristol artist IncWel) being prominently displayed at one of the unofficial "Ban ksy" exhibitions that have toured around the world charging elevated entrance fees; (b) people on Inst agram showing off their new tattoos of a panda with handguns, accompanied by the hashtags #banksy and #banksytattoo; and (c) Dirty Funker and DJDM records actually being sold for three‑figure sums. It's the blind leading the blind. Plus, every now and then, it is also the knowledgeable-yet-unscrupulous manipulating and shafting the blind. __________ Welcome, and thanks for crossing over to the side of the better‑informed minority. In terms of our numbers, there isn't yet a critical mass — one that could lead to a tipping point, based on increased awareness within the marketplace for Ban ksy ephemera. Hopefully, we'll get there eventually. And if such a tipping point is ever reached, the demand for fake Ban ksy records might then suddenly take a long‑overdue nosedive.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Banksy Radar Rat • Dirty Funker 12", by met on Apr 5, 2024 3:14:01 GMT 1, Hi, I am looking to sell the below Radar Rat album covers, all with original LPs. Price - Open to offers Location - Lon don I am looking to sell and am open to all (reasonable!) offers. Thanks
🚩 *Fake Copies of Ban ksy - Album Covers (with LPs) for sale
Wow, maybe I'm new to this forum, but I am a bit taken aback by your comment there. By what basis are you claiming they are fake? Happy for any *serious* buyer to assess them for themselves.
They mean fake as in these were mass-produced with unauthorised license of the image. They're genuine DF records, no doubt.
These would seem to be Dirty Funker records.
And just like all other Dirty Funker records featuring images by Banksy, the use of that imagery was unauthorised.
It was appropriated and exploited by third parties, without the consent of the artist himself.
As referred to above by mandem, what you are therefore offering can simultaneously be described as:
(a) authentic Dirty Funker records; and
(b) Banksy knockoffs, or Banksy fakes.
[My sole qualification is that I don't believe there exists a licence. This was more likely a case of straight theft, without any accompanying paperwork.]
But by a long stretch, the main selling point of the records is the stolen Banksy imagery on their sleeves. As opposed to the actual music — which at best will be of secondary concern to most owners.
Hence "Fake Copies" being a fair description by soupy, even if broad‑brush.
__________
I myself would actively discourage anyone from buying both these particular records and others like them.
They have no legitimate place on this platform, or in the Banksy market proper.
And so, at least in my view, posts (including repetitive ones) that inform or remind others of the true status of these records are beneficial to the wider community of collectors.
Whenever possible, it's important that we acquire items in a fully‑informed manner, with open eyes.
A marketplace filled with too many ignorant or deluded buyers is never healthy. It can only benefit the more predatory sellers among us, who are happy to take advantage of every dupe they encounter.
Hi, I am looking to sell the below Radar Rat album covers, all with original LPs. Price - Open to offers Location - Lon don I am looking to sell and am open to all (reasonable!) offers. Thanks 🚩 *Fake Copies of Ban ksy - Album Covers (with LPs) for sale Wow, maybe I'm new to this forum, but I am a bit taken aback by your comment there. By what basis are you claiming they are fake? Happy for any *serious* buyer to assess them for themselves. They mean fake as in these were mass-produced with unauthorised license of the image. They're genuine DF records, no doubt. These would seem to be Dirty Funker records. And just like all other Dirty Funker records featuring images by Ban ksy, the use of that imagery was unauthorised. It was appropriated and exploited by third parties, without the consent of the artist himself. As referred to above by mandem, what you are therefore offering can simultaneously be described as: (a) authentic Dirty Funker records; and (b) Ban ksy knockoffs, or Ban ksy fakes. [My sole qualification is that I don't believe there exists a licence. This was more likely a case of straight theft, without any accompanying paperwork.]But by a long stretch, the main selling point of the records is the stolen Banksy imagery on their sleeves. As opposed to the actual music — which at best will be of secondary concern to most owners. Hence "Fake Copies" being a fair description by soupy, even if broad‑brush. __________ I myself would actively discourage anyone from buying both these particular records and others like them. They have no legitimate place on this platform, or in the Ban ksy market proper. And so, at least in my view, posts (including repetitive ones) that inform or remind others of the true status of these records are beneficial to the wider community of collectors. Whenever possible, it's important that we acquire items in a fully‑informed manner, with open eyes. A marketplace filled with too many ignorant or deluded buyers is never healthy. It can only benefit the more predatory sellers among us, who are happy to take advantage of every dupe they encounter.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Leo Boyd 🇬🇧 Print Release • Show News • Art For Sale, by met on Apr 2, 2024 3:35:46 GMT 1, Ah this is amazing news. I have just found out that my work (and my studio) are being featured in the art edition of Unicode Magazine! And I’m on the front cover too! Head on over to Unicode to read the full feature or pop down to your local Newsagents to pick up the latest copy.
Congratulations on what seems like a fun feature.
Some feedback and comments regarding the above photos and text, whether to be taken on board or dismissed:
1. There is a risk of unintentionally coming across as a bit narcissistic, given the number of self‑portraits in your studio.
2. Minor typo corrections:
(i) Scott (not "Scot") McCloud; and
(ii) query whether the McCloud book referred to should instead be, Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art (1993).
3. Along with other notable figures including Art Spiegelman and Matt Groening, Susan Kare has also paid tribute to McCloud.
If interested, check out this 2018 talk by Kare at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., especially from 10:49–12:45:
Ah this is amazing news. I have just found out that my work (and my studio) are being featured in the art edition of Unicode Magazine! And I’m on the front cover too! Head on over to Unicode to read the full feature or pop down to your local Newsagents to pick up the latest copy. Congratulations on what seems like a fun feature. Some feedback and comments regarding the above photos and text, whether to be taken on board or dismissed: 1. There is a risk of unintentionally coming across as a bit narcissistic, given the number of self‑portraits in your studio. 2. Minor typo corrections: (i) Scott (not "Scot") McCloud; and (ii) query whether the McCloud book referred to should instead be, Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art (1993). 3. Along with other notable figures including Art Spiegelman and Matt Groening, Susan Kare has also paid tribute to McCloud. If interested, check out this 2018 talk by Kare at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., especially from 10:49–12:45:
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,687
Likes • 6,310
June 2009
|
Banksy Christ With Shopping Print, by met on Apr 2, 2024 2:33:51 GMT 1, Hi, I am looking to sell the below signed Ban ksy with COA from PC I am also open to swaps for works by Ban ksy / Hirst / Hockney / Riley Ban ksy - Christ with Shopping Price - £47,000 Location - Lon don Unframed. Great condition. Small fade around edges from previous framing. Have had this sold a few times and sales have fell through for various reasons.
A lot of people say it’s not wall friendly but for some reason, I do like it! (And WANT it!) 😩
Possibly because our mothers always warned us not to accept anything from strangers.
So when a stranger actually does appear bearing gifts, we instinctively recoil.
Especially if they're some kind of unkempt hipster, semi‑naked and wearing a nappy.
That guy really isn't the kind of person I'd be happy sitting next to on the bus or the train.
Hi, I am looking to sell the below signed Ban ksy with COA from PC I am also open to swaps for works by Ban ksy / Hirst / Hockney / Riley Ban ksy - Christ with Shopping Price - £47,000 Location - Lon don Unframed. Great condition. Small fade around edges from previous framing. Have had this sold a few times and sales have fell through for various reasons. A lot of people say it’s not wall friendly but for some reason, I do like it! (And WANT it!) 😩 Possibly because our mothers always warned us not to accept anything from strangers. So when a stranger actually does appear bearing gifts, we instinctively recoil. Especially if they're some kind of unkempt hipster, semi‑naked and wearing a nappy. That guy really isn't the kind of person I'd be happy sitting next to on the bus or the train.
|
|