zelah
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by zelah on Jan 12, 2015 23:37:38 GMT -8
Dug his work with Still House, the Duck Test series didn't quite do it for me but was very impressed with the current Manhattan Beach show at Malborough Chelsea. Evocative, full and transportive. Reminds me of Alex Katz in a wistful way.
|
|
|
Post by ricosg11 on Jan 13, 2015 11:43:20 GMT -8
I heard he outsources all of his production. Anyone know?
|
|
zelah
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by zelah on Jan 13, 2015 20:55:40 GMT -8
I heard he outsources all of his production. Anyone know? Like Hirst, Koons and Flood? Seriously though, how so? Assistants doing more than assisting? I'm curious as there does seem to be a throughline between the swings and these, technically and thematically.
|
|
|
Post by wimbledongreen on Jan 24, 2015 14:17:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by collector on Feb 26, 2015 23:54:45 GMT -8
I love the duck test paintings. Any idea how much they are secondary?
|
|
zelah
New Member
Posts: 35
|
Post by zelah on Feb 27, 2015 8:18:10 GMT -8
I love the duck test paintings. Any idea how much they are secondary? I believe $30k give or take
|
|
|
Post by collector on Mar 1, 2015 2:13:38 GMT -8
I love the duck test paintings. Any idea how much they are secondary? I believe $30k give or take Thanks. That´s quite reasonable. But they seem hard to get.
|
|
|
Post by queequeg on Mar 2, 2015 7:51:27 GMT -8
Reasonable? I guess in todays hyper inflated climate it is. You used to be able to buy a Joe Bradley shaped canvas for roughly 1/2 that at this point in his career. But then again I suppose the days of reasonably priced art is mostly over.
|
|
jacki
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by jacki on Mar 2, 2015 8:22:14 GMT -8
Reasonable? 30k for what?! No guys, something, more than something, too much does not work in the art system.
|
|
|
Post by collector on Mar 3, 2015 4:01:41 GMT -8
Reasonable? I guess in todays hyper inflated climate it is. You used to be able to buy a Joe Bradley shaped canvas for roughly 1/2 that at this point in his career. But then again I suppose the days of reasonably priced art is mostly over. Maybe Bradley´s robots were cheaper back in the days, but it was always hard to get a hold of them. And the art world is a different place now. Look at the secondary market prices of artists like Israel Lund, Christian Rosa, Lucien Smith, David Ostrowski, Alex Israel and all the other hyped young painters. Most of them only have one attractive body of works so far and not even a great representation. It is mad.
|
|
|
Post by queequeg on Mar 3, 2015 8:21:59 GMT -8
True those Bradley paintings weren't easy to get a hold of either. But now you have many many dozens of artists at least as hard to get and fetching sums double what Bradley fetched at this point in his career and and most of them won't ever really reach the heights he has. I don't really dislike Grear's work but the swing paintings are weak, the shaped canvas thing is ok but gimmicky and way overdone right now...
|
|
|
Post by wimbledongreen on Mar 3, 2015 11:41:16 GMT -8
The swing paintings are my favorite works of his to date. That's why there are so many different kinds of artists we'll see at the fairs this week.
I think for anyone who has been watching or collecting emerging art for more than five years it's hard to adjust to the new landscape of collecting. With the internet, instagram, and online auctions/bidding the art buying audience has expanded tremendously. There are many more people within the U.S. and globally who are now able to participate and buy emerging art. Galleries sell so much through an email versus someone walking in the door. There are more buyers but the number of artists/galleries hasn't increased at the same pace. The number of galleries seem to be shrinking. To me this says we are in the new normal now.
30K is way too much for me so while I can't say it's "reasonable" to someone else it is. So it goes. For those not looking to spend 30K we just have to look earlier at an artist. What was Grear Patterson (or whomever: Lund, Bradley, Israel etc) doing before the swing paintings? Or before that? I'm sure at some point someone on a lower budget could have gotten a work. But who has the eye and who's willing to take the risk on a completely unknown artist?
@aollector mentioned a few artists not having "great representation" as an indication those artists' prices were "mad" but more galleries seem to be willing to show artists without representing them. Some gallerists have suggested that will be the new gallery model in the future as expenses keep rising. Plus with the internet artists are able to gain exposure on their own. As a collector do you prefer the system of just having certain galleries represent and sell an artist's work in order to justify secondary prices? Do we need a Gagosian/Zwirner stamp to approve rising secondary prices? And going back to the paragraph above, is that why it's hard to buy an artist when they are completely unknown? We need the gallery validation? What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by queequeg on Mar 3, 2015 12:50:29 GMT -8
I would say that the number of artists and galleries has greatly increased over the last 10 years, it's a much larger world now. And I don't need a gagosian stamp of approval but I do need more than an artrank stamp of approval. Very few (if any) of the very young hotshots (like Grear, Lucien, Lund, Eisner) have stunned me with their talent.
|
|
|
Post by collector on Mar 4, 2015 13:24:25 GMT -8
Dear Wimbledongreen, thank you for your interesting comments.
I share your view on the swing paintings. They are simple and naive, but that´s what I like about them. They are narrative. They are about the first kiss, careless moments back in the days. Pop art minimalism. I am not sure how easy it is to get a hold of them, but I think the gallery price for these pieces is between 7 to 14 k depending on the size.
About young hyped artist and their gallery representation: I don´t need the stamp of a certain gallery. But I think the representation of better galleries increases the chances that the artist is not hot today and forgotten tomorrow. That´s all. I think most of the artists who don´t have good galleries and who are nevertheless subject of speculations these days won´t have have a bright future.
|
|
|
Post by wimbledongreen on Mar 4, 2015 14:51:28 GMT -8
Thanks for your thoughts, collector. Wonderful description of the swing paintings. Pop art minimalism should be a new category (maybe it already is).
If I'm buying a work under 5K I will buy it even if the the artist has no significant gallery shows or dealer behind them. But over that, I need some stamp of approval, even a little one such as the work is in a gallery I like, or dealer/collector recommendation.
I agree with your comments on representation. The more established the better. It's definitely a challenge for some of the young high-flying artists to avoid getting caught in a pump & dump operation by certain collectors and dealers potentially cutting their careers short.
|
|
|
Post by mose on Mar 4, 2015 16:16:15 GMT -8
Thanks for your thoughts, collector. Wonderful description of the swing paintings. Pop art minimalism should be a new category (maybe it already is). If I'm buying a work under 5K I will buy it even if the the artist has no significant gallery shows or dealer behind them. But over that, I need some stamp of approval, even a little one such as the work is in a gallery I like, or dealer/collector recommendation. I agree with your comments on representation. The more established the better. It's definitely a challenge for some of the young high-flying artists to avoid getting caught in a pump & dump operation by certain collectors and dealers potentially cutting their careers short. You bring up a very good point that I've had long discussions with several friends about. What is the 'decorative level'? By this I mean, what price level does art go from purely decorative to something that is expected to be a store of value? I've heard several different price points. I've heard $5k. Several friends are $10k. Hell, I know collectors that consider sub-$100k a 'decorative' piece as under that price they view that art can not be viewed as a reasonable store of value.
|
|
|
Post by queequeg on Mar 5, 2015 12:27:45 GMT -8
Dear Wimbledongreen, They are simple and naive, but that´s what I like about them. I guess my problem is that there is so much stuff in this vein at the moment that I have started to think of most of it as not simple and naive but apathetic and lazy.
|
|
|
Post by wimbledongreen on Mar 5, 2015 15:57:36 GMT -8
Thanks for your thoughts, collector. Wonderful description of the swing paintings. Pop art minimalism should be a new category (maybe it already is). If I'm buying a work under 5K I will buy it even if the the artist has no significant gallery shows or dealer behind them. But over that, I need some stamp of approval, even a little one such as the work is in a gallery I like, or dealer/collector recommendation. I agree with your comments on representation. The more established the better. It's definitely a challenge for some of the young high-flying artists to avoid getting caught in a pump & dump operation by certain collectors and dealers potentially cutting their careers short. You bring up a very good point that I've had long discussions with several friends about. What is the 'decorative level'? By this I mean, what price level does art go from purely decorative to something that is expected to be a store of value? I've heard several different price points. I've heard $5k. Several friends are $10k. Hell, I know collectors that consider sub-$100k a 'decorative' piece as under that price they view that art can not be viewed as a reasonable store of value. One hair split is that I'm wiling to buy highbrow work $5k and under without caring if it has any store of value, but wouldn't consider the work decorative. I am also willing to buy purely decorative art for $5k or more (lowbrow art, illustration art, etc). I think as you've illustrated with the $5k, $10k and $100k collectors, part of the 'decorative level' threshold for each person is dependent on one's art budget. The other part is the appearance and-or one's perception of the artist's secondary market.
|
|
|
Post by confused on Mar 8, 2015 0:37:33 GMT -8
I believe $30k give or take Thanks. That´s quite reasonable. But they seem hard to get. You must be very rich to think that much money for a simple painting by a young artist that no one has heard of, is reasonable. You can buy a good car for that money.
|
|
|
Post by confused on Mar 8, 2015 0:39:35 GMT -8
Thanks for your thoughts, collector. Wonderful description of the swing paintings. Pop art minimalism should be a new category (maybe it already is). If I'm buying a work under 5K I will buy it even if the the artist has no significant gallery shows or dealer behind them. But over that, I need some stamp of approval, even a little one such as the work is in a gallery I like, or dealer/collector recommendation. I agree with your comments on representation. The more established the better. It's definitely a challenge for some of the young high-flying artists to avoid getting caught in a pump & dump operation by certain collectors and dealers potentially cutting their careers short. What if a gallery gives the "stamp of approval" to lousy art?
|
|
|
Post by queequeg on Sept 30, 2015 8:44:17 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by collector on Sept 30, 2015 10:20:25 GMT -8
Dear qeequeg, I don´t think anyone here paid 30 k. There were only one or two auction results in that area - and these were probably just manipulation. But I think that´s why the art market is called market. It has ups and downs, it is no one way street. Prices rise and prices fall. And a the moment the prices for emerging art are down. All the speculators are leaving. Look at the next auctions in London. Just a few works by emerging artists, even Phillips turns to midcareer artists. The art flippers have to find a new hobby, at least for now. But this will be just a phase. The market will recover for the interesting young artists. And the moment Patterson will find a good gallery (if he will) his prices will rise again.
|
|
|
Post by collector on Oct 4, 2015 12:45:14 GMT -8
I totally agree. It is interesting that the market for so many young hot artists collapsed. You could name dozens of artists under 30, that are pretty much unsellable at the moment. I wonder why their gallerists or the big speculators don´t even try to support the market of their darlings. I guess the bubble has burst, the party is over. The italians have left the building. And I wonder what all the former hot artists will do now? Some of them will prevail. I think Patterson has potential for example. But I can imagine that a lot of them will just stop producing their serial abstraction and do something else. Maybe change their profession and start working as an art director or so.
|
|
|
Post by ricosg11 on Oct 5, 2015 8:59:16 GMT -8
theres a duck test on paddle8 for 10k buy it now...
|
|
|
Post by collector on Oct 5, 2015 23:39:31 GMT -8
That´s still around 30 % over the former gallery price, I guess. So the prices have came down but there is obviously still a secondary market for him.
|
|