Obey Fine Art Question

Questions, Questions, Questions. You got 'em? We'll answer 'em!

Do you consider pre-2000 prints fine art?

Yes
37
47%
No
41
53%
 
Total votes: 78

User avatar
spagucci1
Giant
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:18 pm

Obey Fine Art Question

Post by spagucci1 »

There is a debate to whether pre-2000 Shepard Fairey prints are considered fine art or not. Lets see where forum members stand on this issue.
User avatar
lepublicnme
Giant
Posts: 1820
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:19 am
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by lepublicnme »

there is missing a choise as " it is not as simple as yes or no"

XXXX
User avatar
843
Giant
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Charleston SC

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by 843 »

i also always wonder how people feel about large format prints...they come with a COA calling them "fine art"...i dont consider them that at all.
User avatar
spagucci1
Giant
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:18 pm

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by spagucci1 »

Well it looks like the masses have spoken and most do not consider pre-2000 prints as fine art. :(
User avatar
comiconart
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by comiconart »

spagucci1 wrote:Well it looks like the masses have spoken and most do not consider pre-2000 prints as fine art. :(
QFT.
User avatar
robotoil
Giant
Posts: 6306
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by robotoil »

Well, "most" as in 7 more people at the time of your post out of 49 votes.

I would add that your poll started before a noted authority weighed in. Start it again and post this:

"For the hell of it and out of curiosity, I took this tortured issue outside for one expert opinion ... I asked a VP in Sotheby's Prints Dept the following: Are signed edition screenprints considered "fine art"? Her answer in full ...

"Yes. Andy Warhol utilized the screenprint technique on canvas (these are referred to as his 'paintings') and on paper (prints). Other important contemporary artists such as Josef Albers, Chuck Close, Keith Haring, Jasper Johns, Ellsworth Kelly and Roy Lichtenstein (to name a few) have worked in this medium as well. We consider screenprints done in small editions to be Fine Art. However it should be noted that the screenprint process is also used in making commercial edition posters in which case, it would be considered more ephemera than Fine Art."

I think that statement pretty much sums up what the world outside our little group feels. I'd be curious to see what the results are then. Not that I really expect you to start another poll. I wouldn't bother either.
User avatar
spagucci1
Giant
Posts: 5234
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:18 pm

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by spagucci1 »

I wonder how many voted no beacause they just started collecting Fairey within the last 3 years? I would bet that it is probably a good chuck of the 28 voting no.

robotoil wrote:Well, "most" as in 7 more people at the time of your post out of 49 votes.

I would add that your poll started before a noted authority weighed in. Start it again and post this:

"For the hell of it and out of curiosity, I took this tortured issue outside for one expert opinion ... I asked a VP in Sotheby's Prints Dept the following: Are signed edition screenprints considered "fine art"? Her answer in full ...

"Yes. Andy Warhol utilized the screenprint technique on canvas (these are referred to as his 'paintings') and on paper (prints). Other important contemporary artists such as Josef Albers, Chuck Close, Keith Haring, Jasper Johns, Ellsworth Kelly and Roy Lichtenstein (to name a few) have worked in this medium as well. We consider screenprints done in small editions to be Fine Art. However it should be noted that the screenprint process is also used in making commercial edition posters in which case, it would be considered more ephemera than Fine Art."

I think that statement pretty much sums up what the world outside our little group feels. I'd be curious to see what the results are then. Not that I really expect you to start another poll. I wouldn't bother either.
User avatar
robotoil
Giant
Posts: 6306
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by robotoil »

QFT
spagucci1 wrote:I wonder how many voted no beacause they just started collecting Fairey within the last 3 years? I would bet that it is probably a good chuck of the 28 voting no.

robotoil wrote:Well, "most" as in 7 more people at the time of your post out of 49 votes.

I would add that your poll started before a noted authority weighed in. Start it again and post this:

"For the hell of it and out of curiosity, I took this tortured issue outside for one expert opinion ... I asked a VP in Sotheby's Prints Dept the following: Are signed edition screenprints considered "fine art"? Her answer in full ...

"Yes. Andy Warhol utilized the screenprint technique on canvas (these are referred to as his 'paintings') and on paper (prints). Other important contemporary artists such as Josef Albers, Chuck Close, Keith Haring, Jasper Johns, Ellsworth Kelly and Roy Lichtenstein (to name a few) have worked in this medium as well. We consider screenprints done in small editions to be Fine Art. However it should be noted that the screenprint process is also used in making commercial edition posters in which case, it would be considered more ephemera than Fine Art."

I think that statement pretty much sums up what the world outside our little group feels. I'd be curious to see what the results are then. Not that I really expect you to start another poll. I wouldn't bother either.
User avatar
whyhoo
itsame
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 8:44 am
Location: I put on my robe and wizard hat

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by whyhoo »

yeah 42% to 58% is not really much a difference in a sample size as small as ours.

i mentioned in the other thread modern multiples who have right in the title of their webpage "fine art serigraph/silkscreen". clearly they consider their bread and butter to be "fine art".
on point like a decimalist?
User avatar
comiconart
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by comiconart »

I find it interesting that both examples that you still cling to are businesses that make more money when the label "fine art" is applied....in much the same way that the price increases exponentially when old clothes are sold as "vintage" rather than "used". So...on one hand, we have Modern Multiples, who can charge a lot more if they make "fine art" as opposed to "prints", and on the other hand, you have one of the premier auction houses, who ONLY deals in "fine art". So...if a Lichtenstein print can be sold for $50,000, they will label it as fine art. No one has mentioned the fact that this whole conversation with Sotheby's was held as a generality, and she did not know the name of the artist in question. As such, it's fair to assume that she would consider the question within the context of the work that they sell in their auctions. I would bet that if you took a pre-2000 Fairey print to her and asked her to include it in their Contemporary Art Auction, she would laugh at the very idea. It would be hard enough to get a choice museum quality canvas into a Sotheby's auction...let alone a print.

And...the argument that those voting against prints as fine art must be newbies is rather amusing as well. So now, not only do prints have to be pre-2000 in order to count as fine art, Shep collectors must ALSO be pre-2008 in order to have their opinion counted...? That is absurd, especially when taking into account that it is the NEW collectors that have joined since '08 that has affected so much change in Fairey's market. If the collector base were exactly the same as it were pre-2008, then how could there be growth in the market?

I hate to break it to you, but 10 years from now, the vast majority of Shepard Fairey fans will NOT be pre-2008 fans (and this may already be the case). So...if you are saying that the opinion is bred by a lack of collector awareness and/or appreciation from those new to the scene, then it would stand to reason that this will only INCREASE the number of people that do not count prints as fine art as the collector base continues to grow. If this is true, that does not bode well for future demand or future value of said prints.

Anyway, it is amusing that the very people that claim a "forum consensus" and decide to hold a poll to prove said consensus are the same people that now work so hard to invalidate their own findings. Don't worry, there will always be an excuse to hide behind. :wink:
User avatar
jak88
Giant
Posts: 1756
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:11 am
Location: The Other Left Coast

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by jak88 »

comiconart wrote:No one has mentioned the fact that this whole conversation with Sotheby's was held as a generality, and she did not know the name of the artist in question. As such, it's fair to assume that she would consider the question within the context of the work that they sell in their auctions.
That should have been clear to all from my posts of the exchange with Sotheby's, though some may have chosen to ignore it.:roll:
jak88 wrote:Sotheby's: [We] evaluate everything on a case by case basis and there are rarely blanket answers to questions like this.
And then I specifically commented about how their financial interests may color their view:
jak88 wrote:Obviously Sotheby's has an interest in positioning prints as fine art, since that would likely command higher prices and fees for the auction house.
They did not render an opinion about Shep specifically (I did not ask), but made clear that their determination of prints as fine art "depends on the artist." And, as Comiconart says, that is considered in the context of their auctions and how the broader market views it.
User avatar
superfly snuka
Propaganda Engineer
Posts: 989
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by superfly snuka »

Wait 20 years to revive this thread. K? Thanks. :lol:
User avatar
circa77
Giant
Posts: 4158
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: California

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by circa77 »

comiconart wrote: Anyway, it is amusing that the very people that claim a "forum consensus" and decide to hold a poll to prove said consensus are the same people that now work so hard to invalidate their own findings. Don't worry, there will always be an excuse to hide behind. :wink:
I was thinking the same thing.

I was also wondering why some my other questioning went unanswered. Anyone care to enlighten me?
circa77 wrote:
robotoil wrote:
jak88 wrote:For the hell of it and out of curiosity, I took this tortured issue outside for one expert opinion ... I asked a VP in Sotheby's Prints Dept the following: Are signed edition screenprints considered "fine art"? Her answer in full ...

"Yes. Andy Warhol utilized the screenprint technique on canvas (these are referred to as his 'paintings') and on paper (prints). Other important contemporary artists such as Josef Albers, Chuck Close, Keith Haring, Jasper Johns, Ellsworth Kelly and Roy Lichtenstein (to name a few) have worked in this medium as well. We consider screenprints done in small editions to be Fine Art. However it should be noted that the screenprint process is also used in making commercial edition posters in which case, it would be considered more ephemera than Fine Art."

So, for Sotheby's at least, prints on paper are viewed as "fine art" provided they are "small" editions and not created as "commercial edition posters."

Now, how small constitutes a small edition?
+1,000,000
Why would you agree with this? It is my understanding that by this person's definition either all prints are "fine art" or none (because the edition size is too large). I thought your whole point was only prints prior to a certain time period were considered fine art. This expert makes no such distinction.
Wanted: Obey prints on Postal Paper
User avatar
robotoil
Giant
Posts: 6306
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by robotoil »

comiconart wrote:I find it interesting that both examples that you still cling to are businesses that make more money when the label "fine art" is applied...


You're leaving out the artist and the gallery too. I have yet to find a definition of fine art that says there must be a certain value on it to be considered "fine art."
comiconart wrote:And...the argument that those voting against prints as fine art must be newbies is rather amusing as well.


Your "might makes right" argument is an intellectually vacant premise.

Pre-2000 prints are 99.999% of the art produced in this time period. They are the final product of the artist's vision. Generally speaking, prints after 2000 are reproductions of other final products. It's just the progression that Shepard took. The later prints became copies of the original art. -- The Baby Jesus

Screen print first
Year 1997

ImageImage

Year 2008 : Canvas

Image

Let's take a closer look at a print from 1998. If you haven't seen these early prints in person, when you do you're in for a treat.

Image

Image

Image

Image

And now a print after 2000. Edition of 400.

Image

hahahaha.
User avatar
whyhoo
itsame
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 8:44 am
Location: I put on my robe and wizard hat

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by whyhoo »

Stone Age wrote:
spagucci1 wrote:
muggy wrote:got #38, why did it come with COA and others dont? Just curious.
innerturmoil wrote:Gold just showed up, gorgeous. Came with Obey Fine Arts COA. # 24
the COA's are given becuase of Smokey's auto.
Then how come they aren't included with the red?
the above is from the smokey robinson thread.

i guess we know what obey thinks of at least some of their screenprints!
on point like a decimalist?
User avatar
robotoil
Giant
Posts: 6306
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by robotoil »

Whyhoo, that was totally uncalled for... Going for the triple dog dare before a double dog dare is a breach of protocol!
User avatar
circa77
Giant
Posts: 4158
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: California

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by circa77 »

whyhoo wrote:
Stone Age wrote:
spagucci1 wrote:
muggy wrote:got #38, why did it come with COA and others dont? Just curious.
innerturmoil wrote:Gold just showed up, gorgeous. Came with Obey Fine Arts COA. # 24
the COA's are given becuase of Smokey's auto.
Then how come they aren't included with the red?
the above is from the smokey robinson thread.

i guess we know what obey thinks of at least some of their screenprints!
So there goes the "only pre-2000 screen prints are fine art" argument.
Wanted: Obey prints on Postal Paper
User avatar
whyhoo
itsame
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 8:44 am
Location: I put on my robe and wizard hat

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by whyhoo »

circa77 wrote:
whyhoo wrote:
Stone Age wrote:
spagucci1 wrote:
muggy wrote:got #38, why did it come with COA and others dont? Just curious.
innerturmoil wrote:Gold just showed up, gorgeous. Came with Obey Fine Arts COA. # 24
the COA's are given becuase of Smokey's auto.
Then how come they aren't included with the red?
the above is from the smokey robinson thread.

i guess we know what obey thinks of at least some of their screenprints!
So there goes the "only pre-2000 screen prints are fine art" argument.
As well as the 'screenprints aren't fine art' argument!
on point like a decimalist?
User avatar
bdavenport
punk
Posts: 2451
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: Conjunction Junction

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by bdavenport »

robotoil wrote:Whyhoo, that was totally uncalled for... Going for the triple dog dare before a double dog dare is a breach of protocol!
:lol: :lol:
toobs wrote:FCUK U JOBUUUUU!!!
User avatar
mr Revs
Giant
Posts: 1491
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:38 pm

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by mr Revs »

Once you've had the chance to spend time with the prints from 97-99 and more contemporary (not hand screened prints), you will gain a much greater appreciation for the earlier Shepard Fairey screen print work. Is it "fine art"? Does it matter what we call it? In the end, I have no doubt that the earlier images will be worth a pretty penny, sold at Sotheby's and considered "fine art" by the masses.

"It would be hard enough to get a choice museum quality (Shepard Fairey) canvas into a Sotheby's auction." Give me a break. I am sure they would love to have your flag canvases in one of their Contemporary Art auctions. Have you seen the FAILE works they put into their auctions? I love and own a ton of FAILE, but Shepard is an art legend and FAILE maybe just a footnote.

We will see Shepard's prints in a Sotheby's contemporary art auction within 3 years and I think there's a pretty good chance in will be some post-2000 print. Time will tell.
Check out my T-shirt quilts
User avatar
jak88
Giant
Posts: 1756
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:11 am
Location: The Other Left Coast

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by jak88 »

I guess one thread wasn't enough for this conversation? :lol: :D
User avatar
robotoil
Giant
Posts: 6306
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by robotoil »

jak88 wrote:I guess one thread wasn't enough for this conversation? :lol: :D
Image
User avatar
robotoil
Giant
Posts: 6306
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:57 pm

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by robotoil »

mr Revs wrote:Once you've had the chance to spend time with the prints from 97-99 and more contemporary (not hand screened prints), you will gain a much greater appreciation for the earlier Shepard Fairey screen print work. Is it "fine art"? Does it matter what we call it? In the end, I have no doubt that the earlier images will be worth a pretty penny, sold at Sotheby's and considered "fine art" by the masses.

"It would be hard enough to get a choice museum quality (Shepard Fairey) canvas into a Sotheby's auction." Give me a break. I am sure they would love to have your flag canvases in one of their Contemporary Art auctions. Have you seen the FAILE works they put into their auctions? I love and own a ton of FAILE, but Shepard is an art legend and FAILE maybe just a footnote.

We will see Shepard's prints in a Sotheby's contemporary art auction within 3 years and I think there's a pretty good chance in will be some post-2000 print. Time will tell.
That's what I'm talking about. Word to the mother!
User avatar
circa77
Giant
Posts: 4158
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: California

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by circa77 »

whyhoo wrote:
circa77 wrote:
whyhoo wrote:
Stone Age wrote:
spagucci1 wrote:
muggy wrote:got #38, why did it come with COA and others dont? Just curious.
innerturmoil wrote:Gold just showed up, gorgeous. Came with Obey Fine Arts COA. # 24
the COA's are given becuase of Smokey's auto.
Then how come they aren't included with the red?
the above is from the smokey robinson thread.

i guess we know what obey thinks of at least some of their screenprints!
So there goes the "only pre-2000 screen prints are fine art" argument.
As well as the 'screenprints aren't fine art' argument!
I can understand the idea of all screen prints being considered fine art. No problem, just don't tell me that a screen print from 12 years ago is fine art and one from 11 1/2 years ago is not. I see no reasoning there.
Wanted: Obey prints on Postal Paper
User avatar
whyhoo
itsame
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 8:44 am
Location: I put on my robe and wizard hat

Re: Obey Fine Art Question

Post by whyhoo »

^ i think you may have confused my recounting the current sides of the argument with my personal feelings. of which i have none! :lol: :lol: :lol: art is art is art is art and if you call it art, it's art. "fine" is just a pretty adjective to put in front of something that one thinks is worth more than plain old "art" IMHO.
on point like a decimalist?
Post Reply