Art - any collectors out there?

[Block 5]

I collect a bit of art, mainly pieces and prints that could be described as 'urban', contemporary or 'street'.

 

By artists such as Eelus, James Cauty, Jamie Reid, Billy Childish etc.

 

Any other collectors out there?

 

Cue tumbleweed.

[Scudamore]

I'm a big fan of Kid Acne and Candykiller...can't say i've gone as far as buying a print yet though...let alone an original!

 

Tumbleweed averted.

[Hatch]

I help 'manage' my boss collection.

 

He has 3 original Banksy's.

[Mmm Donuts]

We've just bought something by Caroline Shotton, as it makes us both laugh.... there is a long boring story but it involves an ex wife.

Really liked the Bob Dylan collection only as an investment though, do you think I'd make money over a 5-10 year period?

[Block 5]

I'm a big fan of Kid Acne and Candykiller...can't say i've gone as far as buying a print yet though...let alone an original!

 

Tumbleweed averted.

 

I thought this thread would be a non-starter..... clearly not.

 

Candykiller's work is very distinctive, like cartoons gone bad.

I quite like it, and I reckon a few would look good together, framed up on the wall.

 

Kid Acne's work is excellent.

 

I found these two similar pieces at the POW website.

 

http://www.picturesonwalls.com/Art_Artists.asp?Artist=Kid%20Acne&Offset=0&PageNo=1

 

They're signed and numbered and finished with metallic ink and varnish.

Either would look great in a nice frame.

£90 is a pretty good price but I have no idea about Kid Acne's resale value.

Personally, I try not to think of that when buying pieces.

I buy what I like, not what I think will make money.

[Block 5]

I help 'manage' my boss collection.

 

He has 3 original Banksy's.

 

Wow!

 

Which one's?

Can you post pics of them here?

[Block 5]

We've just bought something by Caroline Shotton, as it makes us both laugh.... there is a long boring story but it involves an ex wife.

Really liked the Bob Dylan collection only as an investment though, do you think I'd make money over a 5-10 year period?

 

The first prints I bought were by James Cauty and they made me laugh - I reckon that's got to be the best possible reason to buy art, whether it is an original or a print.

(Is your ex a bit of a cow )

 

As for Bob Dylan prints...... I think lots of people have done the same.

A quick glance at ebay shows that people are selling his prints at 2 or 3 times the original cost price from the gallery.

 

But are people buying at that price at the moment???

I think a 5 - 10 year investment would be pretty sure to return a healthy profit. And as Dylan advances in years and the inevitable approaches, his work will increase in value even more.

 

But I would urge caution when investing that kind of money and ONLY buy from the gallery representing him.

Ebay is a hunting ground for dodgy dealers looking to make a fast buck selling something that isn't the genuine article. If you do go down that route, provenance is an absolute MUST when you're talking that kind of money.

All his prints have sold out so perhaps it would be sensible to wait until some more appear.

[Block 5]

I recently bought this print by Eelus (for a pretty good price ).

Mine is a khaki / olive green colour.

Signed and numbered edition of 200 of each colorway.

 

It's called 'Shat-At' and it makes me smile whenever I look at it.

 

[Scudamore]

I recently bought this print by Eelus (for a pretty good price ).

Mine is a khaki / olive green colour.

Signed and numbered edition of 200 of each colorway.

 

It's called 'Shat-At' and it makes me smile whenever I look at it.

 

 

You'll probably like this then...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqKdl0k-8fc

[Block 5]

You'll probably like this then...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqKdl0k-8fc

 

Classic!

[Hatch]

Wow!

 

Which one's?

Can you post pics of them here?

 

|This one

 

 

 

and this one..

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/entertainment_enl_1170868478/html/1.stm

[Ponty]

I thought Banksy was supposed to be an "Urban Artist". It's hardly urban art if you can buy it and walk off with it, is it?

[Wiltshire Saint]

I thought Banksy was supposed to be an "Urban Artist". It's hardly urban art if you can buy it and walk off with it, is it?

 

Don't be so ignorant Ponty. If you bought a piece of Banksy art from a village shop then I could see your point, but if you buy it in a town or city then that's fine.

[Ponty]

Don't be so ignorant Ponty. If you bought a piece of Banksy art from a village shop then I could see your point, but if you buy it in a town or city then that's fine.

I never thought of it that way...

[Block 5]

|This one

 

 

 

and this one..

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/entertainment_enl_1170868478/html/1.stm

 

Your boss owns this piece and paid £102,000 for it???

Any jobs going Hatch?

[Block 5]

I thought Banksy was supposed to be an "Urban Artist". It's hardly urban art if you can buy it and walk off with it, is it?

 

Urban / street / graff art is BIG business these days Ponty.

 

£100k plus for original Banksy pieces.

 

£450 plus for signed Blek Le Rat prints.

[Ponty]

Commercial success rather flies in the face of Banksy's approach to art, does it not? What a sell-out.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Hmmm ....... modern art . The 16th century is where the real action is man . I'm saving my pennies up for this modest little number .

 

[Block 5]

Commercial success rather flies in the face of Banksy's approach to art, does it not? What a sell-out.

 

Difficult one.

 

Just say you were in his position, painting walls round Brizzle, and one day a fella tells you he'll give you £100,000 to do a piece in his house.

 

Do you:

 

a) Say no thanks mate. I'm an artist and commercial success is not compatible with my street art,

 

or

 

b) Say "I'll do you 2 pieces for £150,000"

 

 

I know what I'd say.

 

I take your point but Banksy has made graff art both accessible and acceptable to a new audience and in so doing has given an opportunity to thousands of kids who have a talent but who had no way of making a living from that talent before Banksy.

 

There are good points and bad points.

 

When you pop into your local art gallery and see the insipid watercolour views of the New Forest that are the standard fare of these dross galleries and then compare them to the overtly political, comical and thought provoking pieces by Banksy, D*Face etc which is more appealing?

 

 

This piece of shyte:

 

 

Or this piece of genius:

 

[Julian H. Cope]

 

I've got that in the hallway.

 

 

 

This is in the lounge.

[Block 5]

Hmmm ....... modern art . The 16th century is where the real action is man . I'm saving my pennies up for this modest little number .

 

I'm glad you raised that point.

 

What is modern art?

 

What is old art?

 

Old art is for the rich.

Nearly all paintings up until the birth of the modern art movements were created for either the Church (and depicted religious scenes) or were commissioned by obscenely wealthy people (and depicted themselves or ugly looking members of their inbred families.)

 

Talk about inaccessible.

 

The average man or woman never saw a painting in their life and if they did, they certainly didn't identify with it on any level.

 

Modern art changed that.

Artists began painting whores and street scenes.

They began creating images that would provoke a reaction from anyone, no matter their class background.

 

Street art takes art full circle. But rather than making it accessible purely for 'street' people (like the early graffiti and tags) it can now be embraced by anyone, regardless of class.

[Block 5]

 

I've got that in the hallway.

 

 

 

This is in the lounge.

 

I'm sure that Lord Yatesbury has much better taste.

[Kadeem Hardison]

I'm glad you raised that point.

 

What is modern art?

 

What is old art?

 

Old art is for the rich.

Nearly all paintings up until the birth of the modern art movements were created for either the Church (and depicted religious scenes) or were commissioned by obscenely wealthy people (and depicted themselves or ugly looking members of their inbred families.)

 

Talk about inaccessible.

 

The average man or woman never saw a painting in their life and if they did, they certainly didn't identify with it on any level.

 

Modern art changed that.

Artists began painting whores and street scenes.

They began creating images that would provoke a reaction from anyone, no matter their class background.

 

Street art takes art full circle. But rather than making it accessible purely for 'street' people (like the early graffiti and tags) it can now be embraced by anyone, regardless of class.

 

You do appear to be seeing art only as a commodity though (which is elitist in itself). The fact it is visual makes it very accessible. And you should check your reverse snobbery about classical art, unless you see art as something that you should close yourself off to and pen yourself in with. Your belief that everything before modern art is ecclesiastical or elitist is way off the mark, but even so some of the most breathtaking and challenging pieces I have witnessed are religious in theme. An open mind is everything in art.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I'm glad you raised that point.

 

What is modern art?

 

What is old art?

 

Old art is for the rich.

Nearly all paintings up until the birth of the modern art movements were created for either the Church (and depicted religious scenes) or were commissioned by obscenely wealthy people (and depicted themselves or ugly looking members of their inbred families.)

 

Talk about inaccessible.

 

The average man or woman never saw a painting in their life and if they did, they certainly didn't identify with it on any level.

 

Modern art changed that.

Artists began painting whores and street scenes.

They began creating images that would provoke a reaction from anyone, no matter their class background.

 

Street art takes art full circle. But rather than making it accessible purely for 'street' people (like the early graffiti and tags) it can now be embraced by anyone, regardless of class.

 

What you say about 'old art' (I'd argue that all great art is timeless) may well have been true in the past but today it's all there for the people to appreciate regardless of class or education even . My beautiful Holbein masterpiece for instance can be seen at the National Gallery in London free of charge - not very far from the 'street' as it happens .

 

You rate this Banksy chap as a 'genius' - I'm not convinced the use of that term is really justified . The image of two Policemen kissing for example I find trite and not at all original or provocative (it reminds me of a Monty Python sketch from the 70's) and while I'm more than happy to accept that art is truly 'in the eye of the beholder' I'll let history judge if much of today's 'modern art' is of any real and lasting value .

[Block 5]

You do appear to be seeing art only as a commodity though (which is elitist in itself). The fact it is visual makes it very accessible. And you should check your reverse snobbery about classical art, unless you see art as something that you should close yourself off to and pen yourself in with. Your belief that everything before modern art is ecclesiastical or elitist is way off the mark, but even so some of the most breathtaking and challenging pieces I have witnessed are religious in theme. An open mind is everything in art.

 

What you say about 'old art' (I'd argue that all great art is timeless) may well have been true in the past but today it's all there for the people to appreciate regardless of class or education even . My beautiful Holbein masterpiece for instance can be seen at the National Gallery in London free of charge - not very far from the 'street' as it happens .

 

You rate this Banksy chap as a 'genius' - I'm not convinced the use of that term is really justified . The image of two Policemen kissing for example I find trite and not at all original or provocative (it reminds me of a Monty Python sketch from the 70's) and while I'm more than happy to accept that art is truly 'in the eye of the beholder' I'll let history judge if much of today's 'modern art' is of any real and lasting value .

 

This thread has turned into a pretty good debate about the nature of art, which I hoped it would.

 

Kadeem and Charlie, I agree with both of you.

 

I have not said that old art (I don't like that term either) is less valid because it was primarily commissioned by the wealthy, just that it was less accessible at the time of it's commissioning.

 

All art is subjective, and arguments about what actually constitutes art have been rolling on for years.

 

Kadeem, I am not a reverse snob when it comes to classical art.

I have spent many happy hours in the National Gallery, enjoying our Nation's greatest treasures. My personal favourites are 'The Execution of Lady Jane Grey' by Delaroche (which is one of the most emotive paintings I have ever seen) and Monet's breathtaking 'The Water-Lily Pond' (this is devastating - every photograph of this painting in every coffee table art book should be destroyed - this work should only be seen 'in the flesh'.)

 

The National wasn't opened until the 19th century. Before that time, the idea that the poor could 'appreciate' art wasn't widely held.

Thankfully we live in more enlightened times.

 

As for my own personal opinions. I think that art, like music, reached it's zenith in the 17th, 18th and to a certain extent, 19th centuries.

I feel that the great composers of that time will NEVER be bettered.

 

In the same vein, the work of the great artists of that time (my own personal favourite being Velazquez) represent the pinnacle of artistic achievement.

 

That said, art should always represent the NOW. It should be evocative.

 

We wander the National and it evokes the past; we see the past through the eyes of the artist. All art can be a doorway to the time that it was created; Constable's Haywain, for example, evokes pastoral scenes from our rural past.

 

Which brings me on to Charlie's point about today's modern art having no real value. In my opinion, you are way off the mark.

 

In 200 years time, our descendants will wander the rooms of the Tate or the National and will view our world through the eyes of Francis Bacon, Andy Warhol, Grayson Perry, the Chapman brothers and yes.... even Banksy!

 

Art is all about the now!

 

(All in my humble opinion, of course).

[Kadeem Hardison]

I disagree. I think that Banksy is ephemeral. Most of it is not universal. Whereas plenty of older works of art are enduring and continue to represent "the NOW", centuries after they have been painted.

 

Anyway, I'll thank you to not engage me in serious discussion again. I don't want to become a SWF head mental. I have a reputation to maintain.

[Block 5]

I disagree. I think that Banksy is ephemeral. Most of it is not universal. Whereas plenty of older works of art are enduring and continue to represent "the NOW", centuries after they have been painted.

 

Anyway, I'll thank you to not engage me in serious discussion again. I don't want to become a SWF head mental. I have a reputation to maintain.

 

As Charlie said...... we'll have to let history decide. It's not our call to make.

That decision will be made by current and future directors of major art galleries and private collectors around the globe (who are buying pieces by Banksy, not just Hirst, Perry et al).

 

 

 

You say that plenty of older works continue to represent 'the now', that is certainly true on some levels.

However, from a stylistic and technical viewpoint, they are rooted firmly in the past.

 

Sorry for engaging you in serious discussion; I'll try not to make the same mistake twice.

 

By the way, what is a head mental?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

You know what really irks me about much of modern art ? - its the notion that to create great art little or no real talent or craft is required from the artist anymore , all you need now is a novel (preferably shocking) idea such as Tracy Ermin's chaotic bed for instance and suddenly a modern masterpiece is born . No longer art critics assure me does a failure to master the problems of form , light and perspective mean the creative process need be constrained - a bewilderingly abstract 'Video Installation' of some Policemen doing nothing is of equal worth to say an achingly beautiful Rembrandt self portrait .

 

I can (and frequently have) produced an untidy bed myself , if I wish to see inactive coppers I need only pay a visit to the local station . A vital part of what I look for in art is something that raises me above the mundane everyday world , I want to see something so perfectly sublime in both concept and execution that its creation is totally out of the reach of my own modest artistic talents and imagination . In an age where western religious faith may be in terminal decline many ordinary people still feel the need to behold something that is manifestly greater than ourselves . I feel many just don't see that in much of modern art .

 

As I type this I look up at the wall and see my much loved old print of Montague Dawson's 'Thermopylae' Leaving Foochow and I know that because it's an unfashionably skillful and not-at-all abstract oil painting the art establishment would sneer at it and some would even deny that it is proper 'art' at all but rather a mere illustration in their sophisticated view . To me this attitude illustrates exactly what is wrong with modern art (a clumsy term , it's not all the same) it has become so mired in the need to shock rather than inspire that far from being accessible to all it has in many ways never been further away from the common people .