Newbie questions

Questions, Questions, Questions. You got 'em? We'll answer 'em!
User avatar
spagucci1
Giant
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:18 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by spagucci1 »

comiconart wrote:If you consider prints to be fine art, cool. But...then ALL prints are fine art...not just the ones you like the most. This is my point.
Who said I'm favoring prints I like the most? A lot of the prints I like are post 2000. Let agree to disagree and move on.....
User avatar
whyhoo
itsame
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 8:44 am
Location: I put on my robe and wizard hat

Re: Newbie questions

Post by whyhoo »

comiconart wrote:
And...Whyhoo was being sarcastic.

i wasn't, i do think the line in the sand for "fine art" is drawn when the transition was made from shepard producing the art to having it outsourced. and i think that's what a lot of others are saying, albeit with various amounts of extra info/justification thrown in. i was being sarcastic when i asked "what's fine art?" though! clearly you don't consider the screenprint medium to be fine art *ever*, although if it's on collaged paper you do. and that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. just because there's a general consensus doesn't mean that everyone has to agree.
on point like a decimalist?
User avatar
comiconart
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by comiconart »

Here is the difficulty with this conversation:

I am trying to have a discussion as to whether or not prints as a format are "fine art" within the greater art community as a whole. And yet, most of the opposing opinions expressed here have nothing to do with the greater art world, and everything to do with personal biases and preferences relating only to the work of Shepard Fairey. Shepard is not some unique and beautiful snowflake to whom the rules of the art world do not apply. And yet all of the opinions I am reading are insular and apply only to this little corner of the internet known as thegiant.org.

So...if anyone would care to tell me how a print pre-2000 can be fine art while a print 2001-present is not fine art, I would love to hear it. They are, after all, both prints. And, while you may prefer pre-2000 prints because they are positively oozing with Shep's "blood, sweat, and tears", this is of little interest to anyone outside of this forum. To a casual observer (and the greater art world in general), some are dated "00", others are dated "01". That's it.
User avatar
spagucci1
Giant
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:18 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by spagucci1 »

comiconart wrote:

So...if anyone would care to tell me how a print pre-2000 can be fine art while a print 2001-present is not fine art, I would love to hear it. They are, after all, both prints. And, while you may prefer pre-2000 prints because they are positively oozing with Shep's "blood, sweat, and tears", this is of little interest to anyone outside of this forum. To a casual observer (and the greater art world in general), some are dated "00", others are dated "01". That's it.
Please reread this thread and you will find the answers to your questions that was stated by many members over and over and over and over and over.................

Why wont you respond to my Van vs AG comment? Feeling a little dumb after making that comment?
User avatar
djsp
Giant
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:11 am
Location: Sacto, Ca

Re: Newbie questions

Post by djsp »

comiconart wrote:Here is the difficulty with this conversation:

I am trying to have a discussion as to whether or not prints as a format are "fine art" within the greater art community as a whole. And yet, most of the opposing opinions expressed here have nothing to do with the greater art world, and everything to do with personal biases and preferences relating only to the work of Shepard Fairey. Shepard is not some unique and beautiful snowflake to whom the rules of the art world do not apply. And yet all of the opinions I am reading are insular and apply only to this little corner of the internet known as thegiant.org.

So...if anyone would care to tell me how a print pre-2000 can be fine art while a print 2001-present is not fine art, I would love to hear it. They are, after all, both prints. And, while you may prefer pre-2000 prints because they are positively oozing with Shep's "blood, sweat, and tears", this is of little interest to anyone outside of this forum. To a casual observer (and the greater art world in general), some are dated "00", others are dated "01". That's it.
At this point I don't even think you care to hear the other side, you just want us to say you are right. But what the heII, I'll bite.
It does make a difference to the art world who makes the work. Not all of the art world for sure, but definitely a portion of it. Not you of course, you have made that abundantly clear.
Let's go back to Warhol as we usually do with this. Sunday B Morning made, and makes to this day, Warhol Screen prints. The very same medium that Warhol worked in. But they didn't come out of the factory, so they are not as important or regarded. This is not an apples to apples comparison, but it provides context for the argument that those on the other side of the fence have. This is not based on an arbitrary line in the sand, this is based on how the work is produced. You can disagree, but you can't say it is baseless and all prints are fine art because of it.
User avatar
whyhoo
itsame
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 8:44 am
Location: I put on my robe and wizard hat

Re: Newbie questions

Post by whyhoo »

http://www.modernmultiplesinc.com/?cat=4
Beginning in 1978, Duardo established his first fine art print studio,...
the page title across their site even says "Fine Art Serigraph/Silkscreen".

modern multiples considers silkscreens "Fine Art", no?
on point like a decimalist?
User avatar
comiconart
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by comiconart »

spagucci1 wrote:
comiconart wrote:

So...if anyone would care to tell me how a print pre-2000 can be fine art while a print 2001-present is not fine art, I would love to hear it. They are, after all, both prints. And, while you may prefer pre-2000 prints because they are positively oozing with Shep's "blood, sweat, and tears", this is of little interest to anyone outside of this forum. To a casual observer (and the greater art world in general), some are dated "00", others are dated "01". That's it.
Please reread this thread and you will find the answers to your questions that was stated by many members over and over and over and over and over.................

Why wont you respond to my Van vs AG comment? Feeling a little dumb after making that comment?
Did you read the first half of my post...?

As for Van vs OK Soda:

Van is a classic early limited edition Shepard Fairey print that is a fan favorite, and was produced and marketed as an art print. AG Soda was created as a spoof of a marketing campaign, and the AG Soda posters were pasted all over town as a subversive response to this campaign. They were not produced as art prints, they were not marketed for sale, they were not numbered as part of an edition. So...while Shep has signed some of them, they are, more than anything, just posters. In this sense, AG Soda is even LESS fine art than 2001-current prints, which, according to forum consensus, are even LESS fine art than pre-2000 prints.

Not to mention that it is the ugliest POS Shep has ever produced (again, based on forum consensus).

I cringe every time I see one of your posts...primarily because of your avatar.

Any other questions?
User avatar
comiconart
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by comiconart »

djsp wrote:
comiconart wrote:Here is the difficulty with this conversation:

I am trying to have a discussion as to whether or not prints as a format are "fine art" within the greater art community as a whole. And yet, most of the opposing opinions expressed here have nothing to do with the greater art world, and everything to do with personal biases and preferences relating only to the work of Shepard Fairey. Shepard is not some unique and beautiful snowflake to whom the rules of the art world do not apply. And yet all of the opinions I am reading are insular and apply only to this little corner of the internet known as thegiant.org.

So...if anyone would care to tell me how a print pre-2000 can be fine art while a print 2001-present is not fine art, I would love to hear it. They are, after all, both prints. And, while you may prefer pre-2000 prints because they are positively oozing with Shep's "blood, sweat, and tears", this is of little interest to anyone outside of this forum. To a casual observer (and the greater art world in general), some are dated "00", others are dated "01". That's it.
At this point I don't even think you care to hear the other side, you just want us to say you are right. But what the heII, I'll bite.
It does make a difference to the art world who makes the work. Not all of the art world for sure, but definitely a portion of it. Not you of course, you have made that abundantly clear.
Let's go back to Warhol as we usually do with this. Sunday B Morning made, and makes to this day, Warhol Screen prints. The very same medium that Warhol worked in. But they didn't come out of the factory, so they are not as important or regarded. This is not an apples to apples comparison, but it provides context for the argument that those on the other side of the fence have. This is not based on an arbitrary line in the sand, this is based on how the work is produced. You can disagree, but you can't say it is baseless and all prints are fine art because of it.
While I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, I feel your point of comparison is inherently flawed. Sunday B Morning prints are less regarded because they are unauthorized prints. While he was alive, Warhol went so far as to sign some of them by writing, "Not Mine" on them. So...this would actually be the equivalent of you getting your hands on a Van screen, pulling some of your own Van prints, and then marketing them as Shepard Fairey prints.
Last edited by comiconart on Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
spagucci1
Giant
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:18 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by spagucci1 »

comiconart wrote:
spagucci1 wrote:
comiconart wrote:

So...if anyone would care to tell me how a print pre-2000 can be fine art while a print 2001-present is not fine art, I would love to hear it. They are, after all, both prints. And, while you may prefer pre-2000 prints because they are positively oozing with Shep's "blood, sweat, and tears", this is of little interest to anyone outside of this forum. To a casual observer (and the greater art world in general), some are dated "00", others are dated "01". That's it.
Please reread this thread and you will find the answers to your questions that was stated by many members over and over and over and over and over.................

Why wont you respond to my Van vs AG comment? Feeling a little dumb after making that comment?
Did you read the first half of my post...?

As for Van vs OK Soda:

Van is a classic early limited edition Shepard Fairey print that is a fan favorite, and was produced and marketed as an art print. AG Soda was created as a spoof of a marketing campaign, and the AG Soda posters were pasted all over town as a subversive response to this campaign. They were not produced as art prints, they were not marketed for sale, they were not numbered as part of an edition. So...while Shep has signed some of them, they are, more than anything, just posters. In this sense, AG Soda is even LESS fine art than 2001-current prints, which, according to forum consensus, are even LESS fine art than pre-2000 prints.

Not to mention that it is the ugliest POS Shep has ever produced (again, based on forum consensus).

I cringe every time I see one of your posts...primarily because of your avatar.

Any other questions?

Ha ha! You mut be a real comic because your posts are hilarious! Just because Shep did not sign AG prints does not disqualify them as prints. AG is actually one of Shep's first prints but I guess you overlooked that major tidbit. On another note, I'm glad you cringe when you see my avatar. Ugly or not(and Andre Marilyn falls into this category as well), it is still a wanted grail print. You cant deny the fact that when a copy comes up for sale it gets scooped up the instant one is one the market.
User avatar
halopigg
Giant
Posts: 4943
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 3:11 pm
Location: LA!

Re: Newbie questions

Post by halopigg »

Does anyone think this argument will make our newbie friend switch hobbies?
Who's got my old stickers?
User avatar
comiconart
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by comiconart »

spagucci1 wrote:
comiconart wrote:
spagucci1 wrote:
comiconart wrote:

So...if anyone would care to tell me how a print pre-2000 can be fine art while a print 2001-present is not fine art, I would love to hear it. They are, after all, both prints. And, while you may prefer pre-2000 prints because they are positively oozing with Shep's "blood, sweat, and tears", this is of little interest to anyone outside of this forum. To a casual observer (and the greater art world in general), some are dated "00", others are dated "01". That's it.
Please reread this thread and you will find the answers to your questions that was stated by many members over and over and over and over and over.................

Why wont you respond to my Van vs AG comment? Feeling a little dumb after making that comment?
Did you read the first half of my post...?

As for Van vs OK Soda:

Van is a classic early limited edition Shepard Fairey print that is a fan favorite, and was produced and marketed as an art print. AG Soda was created as a spoof of a marketing campaign, and the AG Soda posters were pasted all over town as a subversive response to this campaign. They were not produced as art prints, they were not marketed for sale, they were not numbered as part of an edition. So...while Shep has signed some of them, they are, more than anything, just posters. In this sense, AG Soda is even LESS fine art than 2001-current prints, which, according to forum consensus, are even LESS fine art than pre-2000 prints.

Not to mention that it is the ugliest POS Shep has ever produced (again, based on forum consensus).

I cringe every time I see one of your posts...primarily because of your avatar.

Any other questions?

Ha ha! You mut be a real comic because your posts are hilarious! Just because Shep did not sign AG prints does not disqualify them as prints. AG is actually one of Shep's first prints but I guess you overlooked that major tidbit. On another note, I'm glad you cringe when you see my avatar. Ugly or not(and Andre Marilyn falls into this category as well), it is still a wanted grail print. You cant deny the fact that when a copy comes up for sale it gets scooped up the instant one is one the market.
From eBeans:

Six Month Average $157.14
Average Price $157.14
Lowest Price $99.99
Highest Price $350.00

Wow...really blowing the doors off with those numbers. Impressive prices for a "grail"! So very very rare, and a record sales price that ALMOST competes with the regular and consistent average price of Peace Elephant in an edition of 450. Wow!

And...from Shep's comments discussing AG Soda:

From Supply and Demand, pg. 29:

In 1994, the Coca-Cola Company came out with OK Soda, designed to look like an underground, upstart soda brand. They chose Daniel Clowes and Charles Burns, underground comic book artists, to design graphics for three different cans. I didn't know anything about OK Soda, but one day while I was visiting my parents, my dad said, "Hey, Shep, I saw this article in Time and left it on your bed. It looks kinda like the stuff you're doing. Maybe you should contact this company and do some work for 'em." The article was about this new soda that was riding the "grunge" wave. I was really insulted by OK Soda because it was manipulative: they didn't want people to realize it was Coke. I felt like it was intruding on underground culture, trying to exploit it. I thought there was going to be a national campaign, but it was actually just test-marketed in nine cities, and by coincidence, one of them was Providence and another was Boston. l decided I would make a mockery campaign to sabotage what they were doing, and since the graphics were in Time but the product wasn't out, I figured I could beat them to the punch and totally confuse people. Instead of "OK" I used "AG" and changed the copy from "the more OK you consume, the more OK you feel" to "the more AG you consume, the more AG you feel." l measured the placards in the subway in Boston and made my posters to fit in over the real OK Soda ads. One time when I was out postering in Providence, some guys drove by and asked me what I was putting up. I held up my poster, and they shouted, "OK Soda!" It only confirmed my suspicion that people don't pay very close attention to anything.
User avatar
comiconart
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by comiconart »

halopigg wrote:Does anyone think this argument will make our newbie friend switch hobbies?
Hope not, but...certainly a strong possibility.
User avatar
spagucci1
Giant
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:18 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by spagucci1 »

comiconart wrote:
spagucci1 wrote:
comiconart wrote:
spagucci1 wrote:
comiconart wrote:

So...if anyone would care to tell me how a print pre-2000 can be fine art while a print 2001-present is not fine art, I would love to hear it. They are, after all, both prints. And, while you may prefer pre-2000 prints because they are positively oozing with Shep's "blood, sweat, and tears", this is of little interest to anyone outside of this forum. To a casual observer (and the greater art world in general), some are dated "00", others are dated "01". That's it.
Please reread this thread and you will find the answers to your questions that was stated by many members over and over and over and over and over.................

Why wont you respond to my Van vs AG comment? Feeling a little dumb after making that comment?
Did you read the first half of my post...?

As for Van vs OK Soda:

Van is a classic early limited edition Shepard Fairey print that is a fan favorite, and was produced and marketed as an art print. AG Soda was created as a spoof of a marketing campaign, and the AG Soda posters were pasted all over town as a subversive response to this campaign. They were not produced as art prints, they were not marketed for sale, they were not numbered as part of an edition. So...while Shep has signed some of them, they are, more than anything, just posters. In this sense, AG Soda is even LESS fine art than 2001-current prints, which, according to forum consensus, are even LESS fine art than pre-2000 prints.

Not to mention that it is the ugliest POS Shep has ever produced (again, based on forum consensus).

I cringe every time I see one of your posts...primarily because of your avatar.

Any other questions?

Ha ha! You mut be a real comic because your posts are hilarious! Just because Shep did not sign AG prints does not disqualify them as prints. AG is actually one of Shep's first prints but I guess you overlooked that major tidbit. On another note, I'm glad you cringe when you see my avatar. Ugly or not(and Andre Marilyn falls into this category as well), it is still a wanted grail print. You cant deny the fact that when a copy comes up for sale it gets scooped up the instant one is one the market.
From eBeans:

Six Month Average $157.14
Average Price $157.14
Lowest Price $99.99
Highest Price $350.00

Wow...really blowing the doors off with those numbers. Impressive prices for a "grail"! So very very rare, and a record sales price that ALMOST competes with the regular and consistent average price of Peace Elephant in an edition of 450. Wow!

And...from Shep's comments discussing AG Soda:

From Supply and Demand, pg. 29:

In 1994, the Coca-Cola Company came out with OK Soda, designed to look like an underground, upstart soda brand. They chose Daniel Clowes and Charles Burns, underground comic book artists, to design graphics for three different cans. I didn't know anything about OK Soda, but one day while I was visiting my parents, my dad said, "Hey, Shep, I saw this article in Time and left it on your bed. It looks kinda like the stuff you're doing. Maybe you should contact this company and do some work for 'em." The article was about this new soda that was riding the "grunge" wave. I was really insulted by OK Soda because it was manipulative: they didn't want people to realize it was Coke. I felt like it was intruding on underground culture, trying to exploit it. I thought there was going to be a national campaign, but it was actually just test-marketed in nine cities, and by coincidence, one of them was Providence and another was Boston. l decided I would make a mockery campaign to sabotage what they were doing, and since the graphics were in Time but the product wasn't out, I figured I could beat them to the punch and totally confuse people. Instead of "OK" I used "AG" and changed the copy from "the more OK you consume, the more OK you feel" to "the more AG you consume, the more AG you feel." l measured the placards in the subway in Boston and made my posters to fit in over the real OK Soda ads. One time when I was out postering in Providence, some guys drove by and asked me what I was putting up. I held up my poster, and they shouted, "OK Soda!" It only confirmed my suspicion that people don't pay very close attention to anything.
Enough with your nonsense. Are you seriously going to try to use EB for the value of a rare print like AG? I guess you are choosing to ignore the sales through thegiant.org? But I guess that those sales dont count right? Show me somebody willing to sell an AG for for EB price and I will surely eat crow. Just to clarify, the last two known sales of AG were here on the forum and one went for $1700+ and the other was very similar in price. You are the type of person that when told the sky is blue, you state something stupid like, "its you mind telling you its blue, how do you know know its red?" And as far as your comment about AG being a poster, that is absurd as well. It was created like any other print Shep made up until 2000. Sorry bud, but I think you are never going to understand the history of Fairey's work.
Last edited by spagucci1 on Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
djsp
Giant
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:11 am
Location: Sacto, Ca

Re: Newbie questions

Post by djsp »

comiconart wrote:
While I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, I feel your point of comparison is inherently flawed. Sunday B Morning prints are less regarded because they are unauthorized prints. While he was alive, Warhol went so far as to sign some of them by writing, "Not Mine" on them. So...this would actually be the equivalent of you getting your hands on a Van screen, pulling some of your own Van prints, and then marketing them as Shepard Fairey prints.

Not really the topic of conversation at hand, to be sure.
I love that dismissive last line. Effing classic.
Anyway...
Like I said not apples to apples, but thank you for pointing out the flaw.
As I understand the story, these were sanctioned initially, and 250 were signed. Then Warhol had an issue with the publisher and stopped backing them. So what then? Did they become un-fine arted right then and there? But I digress.
I was just using an off the cuff though to clarify a point of view which you deny over and over.
It is fine that we do not share your point of view, however, I have no idea why you go out of your way to incessantly trivialize the opinions of others on this board because they don't agree with you. That's your MO, and that is fine.
So to sum up your point of view:
You don't see prints as fine art unless it is on paper torn up by interns and then screen printed. I think I got it now.
User avatar
comiconart
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by comiconart »

djsp wrote:
comiconart wrote:
While I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, I feel your point of comparison is inherently flawed. Sunday B Morning prints are less regarded because they are unauthorized prints. While he was alive, Warhol went so far as to sign some of them by writing, "Not Mine" on them. So...this would actually be the equivalent of you getting your hands on a Van screen, pulling some of your own Van prints, and then marketing them as Shepard Fairey prints.

Not really the topic of conversation at hand, to be sure.
I love that dismissive last line. Effing classic.
Anyway...
Like I said not apples to apples, but thank you for pointing out the flaw.
As I understand the story, these were sanctioned initially, and 250 were signed. Then Warhol had an issue with the publisher and stopped backing them. So what then? Did they become un-fine arted right then and there? But I digress.
I was just using an off the cuff though to clarify a point of view which you deny over and over.
It is fine that we do not share your point of view, however, I have no idea why you go out of your way to incessantly trivialize the opinions of others on this board because they don't agree with you. That's your MO, and that is fine.
So to sum up your point of view:
You don't see prints as fine art unless it is on paper torn up by interns and then screen printed. I think I got it now.
I apologize, I was not trying to be dismissive, but I can see how it was interpreted as such. My bad.

I am fine with the opinion that prints are fine art. I really have no issue with it, as this is merely personal opinion. What I have issue with is how some prints can be deemed fine art based on the amount that Shep has touched the paper, and others can be dismissed as prints simply because the actual printing itself is outsourced. Some of Warhol's own fine art was outsourced, let alone his prints. And yet there is no discernible distinction made here regarding status/value.

It is fine to label them how you like, and prefer one era to another, and on and on. I just don't think these personal biases/preferences should determine whether or not you label them as "fine art" or not.

But that's all I've really got to say about it, and again everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Just trying to make a point...not start a holy war.
User avatar
comiconart
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by comiconart »

comiconart wrote: You don't see prints as fine art unless it is on paper torn up by interns and then screen printed. I think I got it now.
Precisely! But then for me, it's all about the interns' blood, sweat and tears. :lol:
User avatar
spagucci1
Giant
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:18 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by spagucci1 »

comiconart wrote:[I am fine with the opinion that prints are fine art. I really have no issue with it, as this is merely personal opinion. What I have issue with is how some prints can be deemed fine art based on the amount that Shep has touched the paper, and others can be dismissed as prints simply because the actual printing itself is outsourced. Some of Warhol's own fine art was outsourced, let alone his prints. And yet there is no discernible distinction made here regarding status/value.
Once again you choose to ignore the statments made over and over by many in this thread. Pre 2000 prints are considered fine art because that is the only work Shep was producing. After 2000 when Shep started outsourcing the printing of his prints, he also started to work in other mediums. Because Shep took that next step, the new mediums (metals) were considered the fine art and prints were secondary. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend this?
User avatar
comiconart
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by comiconart »

spagucci1 wrote: Enough with your nonsense. Are you seriously going to try to use EB for the value of a rare print like AG? I guess you are choosing to ignore the sales through thegiant.org? But I guess that those sales dont count right? Show me somebody willing to sell an AG for for EB price and I will surely eat crow. Just to clarify, the last two known sales of AG were here on the forum and one went for $1700+ and the other was very similar in price.
Are you asking me if I would rather go with documented eBay sales over forum heresay and conjecture...? Yep, sure would. I could tell you that I heard from a guy that a 30" x 44" Shep canvas recently changed hands privately for $250,000...but that doesn't mean you have to take MY word for it. So unless and until there is an actual documented sale of an AG Soda poster at $350+ (and preferably more than one), then I don't think it's reasonable to say it's worth more than that because you heard a rumored sale through the grapevine.
spagucci wrote: And as far as your comment about AG being a poster, that is absurd as well. It was created like any other print Shep made up until 2000. Sorry bud, but I think you are never going to understand the history of Fairey's work.
Are you calling Shep a LIAR...?!?

From earlier in the thread:
spagucci1 wrote:If Shep calls it fine art, then I'm going to go with that.
Using this logic, if Shep calls it a poster, then can we go with that? What if he calls it a poster three times in one paragraph...?
User avatar
spagucci1
Giant
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:18 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by spagucci1 »

comiconart wrote:
spagucci1 wrote: Enough with your nonsense. Are you seriously going to try to use EB for the value of a rare print like AG? I guess you are choosing to ignore the sales through thegiant.org? But I guess that those sales dont count right? Show me somebody willing to sell an AG for for EB price and I will surely eat crow. Just to clarify, the last two known sales of AG were here on the forum and one went for $1700+ and the other was very similar in price.
Are you asking me if I would rather go with documented eBay sales over forum heresay and conjecture...? Yep, sure would. I could tell you that I heard from a guy that a 30" x 44" Shep canvas recently changed hands privately for $250,000...but that doesn't mean you have to take MY word for it. So unless and until there is an actual documented sale of an AG Soda poster at $350+ (and preferably more than one), then I don't think it's reasonable to say it's worth more than that because you heard a rumored sale through the grapevine.
spagucci wrote: And as far as your comment about AG being a poster, that is absurd as well. It was created like any other print Shep made up until 2000. Sorry bud, but I think you are never going to understand the history of Fairey's work.
Are you calling Shep a LIAR...?!?

From earlier in the thread:
spagucci1 wrote:If Shep calls it fine art, then I'm going to go with that.
Using this logic, if Shep calls it a poster, then can we go with that? What if he calls it a poster three times in one paragraph...?
Just stop with your crazy garbage. The two sales were confirmed. Just because they did not take place on ebay does not mean they did not happen. I thought that you as a collector of Fairey fine art pieces would understand from expierience that a good amount of the time fine art pieces are offered here on the form to other collectors before they hit ebay. As far as the AG prints I spoke with all parties that took part in these sales. One of the buyers is a very well respected member here. I am not going to out him because that is not my MO. Obvously your opinion differs from a good 95% of Fairey collectors, so that should speak for itself. Have a nice day!!! 8)
User avatar
easycraig
Giant
Posts: 5949
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:27 am
Location: Hot Girl Giant !

Re: Newbie questions

Post by easycraig »

-

i agree with comiconart.... lol... i don't care if the screen print was made in 1996 or 2006, it still is exactly what it is... - a screen print -. < that should not be a mind boggling concept to get past. Just because Shepard pulled many of them prior to 2000, -does not make them fine art..... -it makes them screen prints that were designed, pulled, and signed by Shepard Fairey... as opposed to a screen print designed and signed from 2006. If it makes you feel better.... you can call them "fine art prints"..... but in the end, they are exactly what they are...... prints.


- I think woods/metals fall into the category of fine art because that is where Shepard wants them to fall. A. - they are on a different medium. B. - something is added or omitted from the paper screen print. C. very limted -minuscule run . D. Kinda hard to charge a collector 50x the amount of a screen print and call it a screen print! lol! :lol:

-just my 2 cents.... take it as you like... -lets keep it civil, but feel free to express your opinions. ec.

ps... Halloween is only 2 months away!!!!!!!

-also... a shout out to all the members on the east coast... i hope you are doing ok!!!
A New Hot Girl Joins the Giant.org every minute!
User avatar
JErikR
Giant
Posts: 1788
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:41 pm
Location: Jet City

Re: Newbie questions

Post by JErikR »

I think it's time for a formal poll on this. I bet the board is somewhat split on this as indicated by previous posts. The answer to the poll isn't going to solve world peace, but it might show that most agree with one side or the other or maybe it's truly split down the middle. And at that point we should just call Shepard or ask O to weigh in.
JErikR
User avatar
bdavenport
punk
Posts: 2451
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Conjunction Junction

Re: Newbie questions

Post by bdavenport »

I'm sorry, Newbie, what was the question again?
toobs wrote:FCUK U JOBUUUUU!!!
User avatar
spagucci1
Giant
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:18 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by spagucci1 »

JErikR wrote:I think it's time for a formal poll on this. I bet the board is somewhat split on this as indicated by previous posts. The answer to the poll isn't going to solve world peace, but it might show that most agree with one side or the other or maybe it's truly split down the middle. And at that point we should just call Shepard or ask O to weigh in.
I agree! Lets poll it up! BTW, this issue has been brought to Kyle's thread
http://forum.thegiant.org/viewtopic.php ... start=3425
User avatar
comiconart
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Newbie questions

Post by comiconart »

spagucci1 wrote:
comiconart wrote:[I am fine with the opinion that prints are fine art. I really have no issue with it, as this is merely personal opinion. What I have issue with is how some prints can be deemed fine art based on the amount that Shep has touched the paper, and others can be dismissed as prints simply because the actual printing itself is outsourced. Some of Warhol's own fine art was outsourced, let alone his prints. And yet there is no discernible distinction made here regarding status/value.
Once again you choose to ignore the statments made over and over by many in this thread. Pre 2000 prints are considered fine art because that is the only work Shep was producing. After 2000 when Shep started outsourcing the printing of his prints, he also started to work in other mediums. Because Shep took that next step, the new mediums (metals) were considered the fine art and prints were secondary. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend this?
I am talking about a definition as it relates to the art world in general. Shepard is not the only artist in the world, and yet you seem content to define "prints" and "fine art" based SOLELY on the body of work produced by Shepard Fairey.

So, if pre-2000 prints are fine art, and 2001-present prints are not, it would stand to reason that Warhol prints are fine art, but Faile prints are not. Correct?
Last edited by comiconart on Tue Aug 30, 2011 5:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
djsp
Giant
Posts: 2615
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:11 am
Location: Sacto, Ca

Re: Newbie questions

Post by djsp »

comiconart wrote:
comiconart wrote: You don't see prints as fine art unless it is on paper torn up by interns and then screen printed. I think I got it now.
Precisely! But then for me, it's all about the interns' blood, sweat and tears. :lol:
:wink:
Post Reply