Obey Fine Art Question
Obey Fine Art Question
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.
- lepublicnme
- Giant
- Posts: 1820
- Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:19 am
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
there is missing a choise as " it is not as simple as yes or no"
XXXX
XXXX
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
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.
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
Well it looks like the masses have spoken and most do not consider pre-2000 prints as fine art.
- comiconart
- Propaganda Engineer
- Posts: 860
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
QFT.spagucci1 wrote:Well it looks like the masses have spoken and most do not consider pre-2000 prints as fine art.
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
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.
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.
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
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.
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
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.
- 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
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".
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?
- comiconart
- Propaganda Engineer
- Posts: 860
- Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:40 pm
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
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.
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.
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
That should have been clear to all from my posts of the exchange with Sotheby's, though some may have chosen to ignore it.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.
And then I specifically commented about how their financial interests may color their view:jak88 wrote:Sotheby's: [We] evaluate everything on a case by case basis and there are rarely blanket answers to questions like this.
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.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.
- superfly snuka
- Propaganda Engineer
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:26 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
Wait 20 years to revive this thread. K? Thanks.
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
I was thinking the same thing.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.
I was also wondering why some my other questioning went unanswered. Anyone care to enlighten me?
circa77 wrote: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.robotoil wrote:+1,000,000jak88 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?
Wanted: Obey prints on Postal Paper
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
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
Year 2008 : Canvas
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.
And now a print after 2000. Edition of 400.
hahahaha.
- 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
the above is from the smokey robinson thread.Stone Age wrote:Then how come they aren't included with the red?spagucci1 wrote:the COA's are given becuase of Smokey's auto.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
i guess we know what obey thinks of at least some of their screenprints!
on point like a decimalist?
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
Whyhoo, that was totally uncalled for... Going for the triple dog dare before a double dog dare is a breach of protocol!
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
So there goes the "only pre-2000 screen prints are fine art" argument.whyhoo wrote:the above is from the smokey robinson thread.Stone Age wrote:Then how come they aren't included with the red?spagucci1 wrote:the COA's are given becuase of Smokey's auto.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
i guess we know what obey thinks of at least some of their screenprints!
Wanted: Obey prints on Postal Paper
- 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
As well as the 'screenprints aren't fine art' argument!circa77 wrote:So there goes the "only pre-2000 screen prints are fine art" argument.whyhoo wrote:the above is from the smokey robinson thread.Stone Age wrote:Then how come they aren't included with the red?spagucci1 wrote:the COA's are given becuase of Smokey's auto.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
i guess we know what obey thinks of at least some of their screenprints!
on point like a decimalist?
- bdavenport
- punk
- Posts: 2451
- Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:01 pm
- Location: Conjunction Junction
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
robotoil wrote:Whyhoo, that was totally uncalled for... Going for the triple dog dare before a double dog dare is a breach of protocol!
toobs wrote:FCUK U JOBUUUUU!!!
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
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.
"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
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
I guess one thread wasn't enough for this conversation?
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
jak88 wrote:I guess one thread wasn't enough for this conversation?
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
That's what I'm talking about. Word to the mother!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.
Re: Obey Fine Art Question
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.whyhoo wrote:As well as the 'screenprints aren't fine art' argument!circa77 wrote:So there goes the "only pre-2000 screen prints are fine art" argument.whyhoo wrote:the above is from the smokey robinson thread.Stone Age wrote:Then how come they aren't included with the red?spagucci1 wrote:the COA's are given becuase of Smokey's auto.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
i guess we know what obey thinks of at least some of their screenprints!
Wanted: Obey prints on Postal Paper
- 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
^ i think you may have confused my recounting the current sides of the argument with my personal feelings. of which i have none! 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?