|
Post by devours on Oct 19, 2012 22:10:38 GMT -8
Jem has all sold out and half of Ashley's pieces have gone. VIP price list went out several days ago and the VIP party was tonight in the gallery. So excited for both of them, but I favor the carnal depth of Ashley's paintings.
|
|
|
Post by saL on Oct 20, 2012 2:51:08 GMT -8
some Insta shots of Jeremy's Levine show in situ:
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Oct 22, 2012 9:45:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by svenman on Oct 22, 2012 13:46:14 GMT -8
Some nice looking work. Anyone know what the prices were at his last showing a couple of years back?? Was it in Hong Kong? I can't remember them being anywhere like this price point.... Just wondering if this sort of jump is seen as being 'ok' by others here.
|
|
|
Post by rhythmgtr5 on Oct 22, 2012 14:39:14 GMT -8
The price jump is pretty depressing for me. "Adrift" was still relatively affordable IMO but the prices for most of the pieces were out of my reach at this show. That said, his demand way exceeds the supply - so they can charge anything they want i guess.
|
|
|
Post by greenhorn1 on Oct 22, 2012 15:22:34 GMT -8
If it really took him 6 months of 12 hour days to paint Acedia I certainly think he deserves every bit of the $25k or whatever he gets from the sale. Plus, since the show sold out before the general public even had a chance at the pieces I don't think you can say they were priced too high. Personally I think geddes is about the closest we have to a living master BUT I also think he's got a hell of a lot of hype behind him right now with all the print flippers out there so good for him on cashing in while he can.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne13 on Oct 22, 2012 15:52:11 GMT -8
On one hand, it is unfortunate that his pricing exceeds my means, on the other hand, the take home after taxes and gallery cost barely start compensation for the years and years he has put in. So few artists make it to this level, I never begrudge them for their pricing when they do.
|
|
jak1
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by jak1 on Oct 22, 2012 17:03:44 GMT -8
demand was so high.. he could have easily charged more and sold every piece. .. not many current artists carry this lucky problem.. josh keyes and KAWS come to mind.. .
|
|
|
Post by rizza79 on Oct 22, 2012 20:19:29 GMT -8
Some nice looking work. Anyone know what the prices were at his last showing a couple of years back?? Was it in Hong Kong? I can't remember them being anywhere like this price point.... Just wondering if this sort of jump is seen as being 'ok' by others here. agree that the work is "nice" looking and rather detailed, but for me personally it is not much more than that. the terrible frames don't do it much justice either. I am by no means a Geddes expert or really big fan, but I can't help but laugh and be perplexed by pricing. Could someone please enlighten me why the prices are like this aside from Levine realizing people are dumb enough to pay them at least this one time? No real CV, no institutional shows, etc. I'm either dumb or just overly confused. The only viable argument, which I personally find pointless and hilarious, is that they took him a long time to paint. That sounds like his problem, not the collectors. This is crazy to me. Jak1 mentioned KAWS. Look at KAWS CV, his track record, his ability to work in all mediums, do product, collaborations with global brands, etc, etc. Geddes is priced higher than him at Jonathan Levine Gallery. More power to Levine and more power to Geddes. Just couldn't help but put my 0.02 out there. Please feel free to enlighten me or PM with what I am missing. I am certainly interested to know.
|
|
|
Post by solar77 on Oct 23, 2012 4:53:58 GMT -8
+1 rizza
It's not a question of his hourly wage, if he 'deserves' the money, or even if he could have sold the show 3x over at these prices. We see this time and again with artists who are hyped to death on the internet. When you start your primary prices higher than the majority of established, big name artists in similar niches of the art world, there's nowhere to go but down.
I actually really, really enjoy Geddes' work and think he's technically amazing, but I do think this show was a step in the wrong direction for his career in the long run.
|
|
jak1
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by jak1 on Oct 23, 2012 5:49:49 GMT -8
rizza79,
I respectfully disagree with many of your points..KAWS works are priced higher both in prints and originals. I suppose you could dispute this for some larger pieces if you calculated on an inch by $ ratio although that is not appropriate for all works..
and as for the Levine pricing, I do not think it is so high as too hurt the future of Geddes. I have seen harmful prices increases before such as Lori Early moving to Opera gallery. When prices move up too fast in too short a time and it is not justified by consumer demand it makes it difficult for the artist to sell works in the future. This is because the collectors with the largest amounts of capital that buy works don't like too stockpile inventory of new artists and the also do not like to buy something and then the same size work for sale from the same artist at another gallery at a lower price. Moreover, this wrecks the galleries' relationships as they advise the customers on pricing and selection and there is some trust there..
I do think that Geddes has a bright future and a momentum of hype behind him that can propel him in the near future for the next few years at least..
and I do not think the amount of time it takes to make a piece has a super high correlation to the cost of the piece.. look at banksy or Hirst.. these guys do not spend months on a piece.. and look at the sale prices they fetch.. which is why i say the most important thing in the end is simply supply and demand and I really think Levine gets this piece of the business right..
|
|
|
Post by rizza79 on Oct 23, 2012 7:59:54 GMT -8
rizza79, I respectfully disagree with many of your points..KAWS works are priced higher both in prints and originals. I suppose you could dispute this for some larger pieces if you calculated on an inch by $ ratio although that is not appropriate for all works.. and as for the Levine pricing, I do not think it is so high as too hurt the future of Geddes. I have seen harmful prices increases before such as Lori Early moving to Opera gallery. When prices move up too fast in too short a time and it is not justified by consumer demand it makes it difficult for the artist to sell works in the future. This is because the collectors with the largest amounts of capital that buy works don't like too stockpile inventory of new artists and the also do not like to buy something and then the same size work for sale from the same artist at another gallery at a lower price. Moreover, this wrecks the galleries' relationships as they advise the customers on pricing and selection and there is some trust there.. I do think that Geddes has a bright future and a momentum of hype behind him that can propel him in the near future for the next few years at least.. and I do not think the amount of time it takes to make a piece has a super high correlation to the cost of the piece.. look at banksy or Hirst.. these guys do not spend months on a piece.. and look at the sale prices they fetch.. which is why i say the most important thing in the end is simply supply and demand and I really think Levine gets this piece of the business right.. actually Geddes is priced pretty close to KAWS probably a smidge higher, but I was simply using KAWS as an example because you did. I don't think the print thing can even be discussed because they are not the same sort of prints. Obviously its like comparing apples and oranges, but art for the most part is priced on size. I could provide another laundry list of very established artists that are priced less or around what these recent Geddes works were. I don't think that's necessary as its not a question of whose right and wrong. I was just curious as to why his work demands this sort of pricing. Hype and momentum doesn't warrant a 30x45 painting to be 45k when the artist doesn't even have a CV or exhibition history on his website. I don't even know if you can say the prices were raised too much. It seems like this is the starting point. As far as collectors with lots of capital stockpiling new artists, I would beg to differ. I think its pretty common for collectors to buy numerous works from new artists, but that is when the prices are affordable. I don't think amount of time should mean anything either. I was more referring to what I was told when I spoke with a few other people and asked about the price. As far as Levine getting supply and demand right, kudos to him. The real question, which will be seen in time, is who is going to be buying this stuff when he has another show in 2 years and the prices are 60k. And if the stuff doesn't sell, where does the artist go then? Who does he show with? What does he price his work at? As Solar77 said, this happens so much. For the dealers its not big deal. They just find the next best thing and juice that until it crashes, etc, etc. For the artist...well, maybe their profession becomes making prints and selling them from their website. That sure wouldn't be the first time we saw that in the small little genre we discuss on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by simococo on Oct 23, 2012 8:08:56 GMT -8
Adam Neate
|
|
|
Post by Weezy on Oct 23, 2012 22:14:41 GMT -8
Technically great, and I like the work a bunch, but as a gallerist here in LA educated me, $40K is a lot of money even for the most established artists where there's real history and consensus on value. Photorealism requires mad skill, and not to be dismissive but that seems learnable to me. I think of "true art" as that je ne sais quoi expression of a talent that you're born with, the surprise you weren't expecting from a collection of executory decisions of a person that might be meaningless on their own, but in context, create something magic that you experience each time you engage with the piece. The artist, in that context, extremely important for the contribution of a rare talent that literally nobody else could replicate, not authentically at least.
In short, of this work an emphatic bravo! But IMHO, I'd rather reward others' talent with $40K of hard earned money (or factoring in sales and income taxes, probably closer to $80K for the person who has that kind of money to blow on art, with one's own talent to make that kind of scratch and many 12 hour days needing to be taken into account). At a more reasonable price my expectations would probably be more aligned. I think collectors pursuing prints are by far the smarter ones here in that regard. Assuming you can easily afford it, enjoy the talent and the image without being sucked dry financially.
BTW, if Kaws is your comparator... I dunno...
Am I kicking a hornets' nest on this?
Weezy
|
|
|
Post by afroken on Oct 24, 2012 3:58:03 GMT -8
Interesting debate. Supply & demand is a bit of a red herring in my opinion as low supply artificially inflates demand and you don't get a sense of the size of the artist's market. A safe bet is when an artist is prolific and manages to maintain a consistent price point as it suggests that the pool of collectors is large and therefore demand is healthy. Of course you'd have to be cold hearted to only collect safe bets but I certainly wouldn't spend $45,000 (even with a huge discount) on a small piece by an artist with no real history as there's every chance that, 3 or 4 years down the line, the work will be worth a fraction of that, regardless of how good they are.
|
|
jak1
New Member
Posts: 28
|
Post by jak1 on Oct 24, 2012 6:46:35 GMT -8
You have some good points rizza..
as for KAWS, I was just comparing supply and demand of works as his style and everything about him is so much different than geddes...
as for consistently supplying work at a constant pricing point and selling all the time and always producing quality - Ron English comes to mind..
but, people like this are the exception and not the rule.. and it take about 10 years or more in the industry to observe this..
btw, anyone see the BAST prices at the last Opera show. whoooa.. .
|
|
|
Post by devours on Oct 24, 2012 8:27:36 GMT -8
Geddes and Wood are truly adored by their fans. A small percentage of those can drop $15k on a painting and in both cases pricing was quite reasonable. Majority were under $12k and fans were waiting two years for this event. During that time there were a few smaller art shows hosted by Ashley who tends to look after his friends. Opens doors and educates the public by bringing other artists works to light. On other forums where the majority of fans are, I see most quite comfortable with the pricing, the belief on the investment and future of both artists. The first five prints of Geddes sell easily for $2k and the hunger for those have long passed. These are a few years old by now. Ashley just started in March this year and every print/small original/Polaroid he sells on his gallery store sells in seconds. Again based on his fan base. He is certainly more proven with an extensive career in comics, a hit Toy company, a movie in the works and his own 'Fine Art' talent.
I love that both of them had a wonderful show but just because most of the art world is just discovering them, it should not discount the enormous fan base that has been underground for the most part. Based on their past four years, I am extremely confident their next four years will be eventful and satisfying. This show being a success was really a no brainer for those that followed them closely.
|
|
|
Post by sleepboy on Oct 24, 2012 9:38:32 GMT -8
|
|
x43x
Junior Member
Posts: 91
|
Post by x43x on Oct 25, 2012 8:30:45 GMT -8
We had a blast in NY for the show. Everyone at the gallery was super nice and accommodating. Great conversations with Ash and Jeremy, seeing old friends, and making new ones. Had a wonderful dinner on Sunday with Jeremy and Sophie. But felt extremely bad because we skipped desert to get some at another place, which was supposed to be amazingly good. Took a train and walked several blocks only to see they "Had an equipment problem and were closed for the day". Damn it!
|
|