|
Post by drevil on May 6, 2013 14:23:28 GMT -8
I dunno, we're creating images, shouldn't they be able to stand on their own? if a picture's worth a thousand words, it shouldn't need a thousand words alongside it. if it does, maybe you did it wrong. I also think art, whatever kind, should be open to interpretation, so I'm fine with it in my own work. But wouldn't you rather have some degree of control and try to guide or drive the conversation? If art is speaking for itself then it is probably nothing more than a pretty picture. Which is fine. But I personally find that boring.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on May 5, 2013 6:20:00 GMT -8
I hope they displayed the monkey scribble and story with the canvas shown above that resulted from it. That is the more important piece of the art here. To remove that piece guts the whole.
Also I'm not sure that it is directly comparable to photorealists. The starting photos are art. The monkey scribble was not.
I wish a blurb from the artist or some other knowledgeable person accompanied artworks in most gallery and museum settings. Context. Can. Be. Important.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on May 3, 2013 21:41:20 GMT -8
Loving your Mariah. What are the dimensions on that?
I'm hoping to make it to NY sometime during the next six months or so to see her work in the new MoMA show opening next week.
Congrats.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Apr 26, 2013 20:58:00 GMT -8
me too. wish i could get multiples - would love to get all 6 - but just one given price constraints. key for me is (1) original work (not reproduction of other work); (2) visually compelling; (3) interesting process & (4) fits with Tauba's most desirable works (e.g., folds, crumples, creases). plus, i trust Tauba's instincts, having followed her work for 5+ years, and expect that these will be even better in person. in terms of the pricing, her other prints are all now $5k-$11k and mostly sold out. her most desirable paintings now seem to go for $290k for smaller work (e.g., small fold sold at auction). so the price, while higher than before, seems reasonable, particularly for an artist with such demonstrated demand. this is the closest many of us will get to owning/living with a fold painting. at the same time, these are not fold junior reproductions - mesh/moire is its own investigation, an independent series that will function by its own rules (with image at distance collapsing on approach into textured pattern is my best guess), have its own fans. ultimately, i trust retail with Tauba (and all artists i would buy work from). i am not in this for a quick profit and view all art acquisitions as long term bets - in the 5-20 year time frame - recognizing that some will mature and be sold for living expenses as the need arises and opportunity presents, and others i will just continue to live with and enjoy. I disagree. Moire is an old concept and she has not really added anything to the old ideas or images here. I'm not sure why these should be considered as being in the same league as some of her more original ideas. These may look pretty but I don't see much that is interesting or novel here. Decorative art. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Apr 25, 2013 5:50:31 GMT -8
Flippers are going to have a hard time flipping these. Seems priced at about a reasonable market price already. Even without the coming price bump(s). Pass.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Apr 19, 2013 19:13:11 GMT -8
Who is this important "aryz" artist?
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Apr 18, 2013 10:27:51 GMT -8
I hate it when people say things like I said above without saying “whyâ€, so here are some more thoughts. I must say that I don’t particularly care for these latest hose works much. I just can’t get into either the process or the image. When I was talking to his NYC dealer about some of the earlier works in this series last November he said that Falls’ process begins with un-dyed fabric and the process dyes it - dye is put inside a hose a different points and then water is sent down the hose from each end. That just seems blah to me on its own. While you could say he is exploring time, diffusion, and saturation among other natural phenomena; I think that is merely me projecting my own thoughts onto his process. I have no idea what Falls was thinking or what motivated him to make these. Which leads to a tangent: Why do so many artists not say something (anything!) more about their thoughts, motivations, vision, etc.? It seems so easy today to self-publish, tweet, blog, or make short videos to place in the public domain. I am (slowly) reading a great book right now on minimalism art and polemics in the sixties. One message that I have taken away is that the artists that spent the time and effort on the polemics side tended to be the more well-regarded and imitated of that group (see, e.g., Donald Judd). With regard to the image, I suppose you could say they are more gestural than his earlier minimal hose work (see fades) and that they have a combination of both abstract and representational aspects to them. But I just can’t get past the hose image in my own mind, nor could I ever hang one on my wall as a result. I am just unable to leave behind the representation of the hose and I have no interest in having a picture of a hose hanging around. I don’t know what I have against hoses. Oh well. Regardless, they seem to represent a move away from photography for Falls as they are some of the only works I have seen from him that don’t incorporate light at all (river rock pieces being the other). Water is the activator here, not light. To me these are solidly in the painting arena of art. It will interesting to see if this is just a temporary departure for him or something more permanent.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Apr 17, 2013 15:03:09 GMT -8
I'm getting tired of the hose art. Why not pick a different object?
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Apr 12, 2013 6:22:17 GMT -8
Well. Just re-read the responses. Rizza is the only one who even attempted to address the main question of why not produce more unique work. Well? In fact all I really saw was a bunch of pissing and moaning about personal life issues. Pauly hit it head on.
I work hard to earn the money to buy art with some of that money. Artists need to work hard to earn that money and take it out of my pocket in exchange for their work. That is how it works. I don't really care if you have sacrificed or worked long days. I have too in a different profession.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Apr 12, 2013 5:19:20 GMT -8
Whoa, whoa. Chill out people. They were open ended questions and I asked because I don't know the answers. Glad to have provoked some responses though on this typically slow moving and dull forum. More later.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Apr 11, 2013 20:46:16 GMT -8
My issue has more to do with most photographers in general and is alluded to by afroken above.
Why so many prints of the same exact image? It does seem like a money grab relative to other art areas such as painting. Someone above said the Ed of 3 is 8k. Then you have a smaller size available in a larger edition number for 5k. So it doesn't take long and a single image can net over 50k. That is a pretty large sum of money (in aggregate) for a single image for an artist at the stage Eaton is at.
There are some photographers that seem to be largely breaking from this model (Beshty, Robertson, McCaw, Deschenes, Falls, Brandt) but most seem to still be grabbing for the cash.
Why not work harder and make more unique 1/1 images? Is it quality control? Money? Laziness?
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Apr 9, 2013 16:28:48 GMT -8
The last three are tops to me. Your collection seems to also be heading in a photographic direction as well. Depending on how fundamental you think light is to a photograph. Congrats.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Mar 24, 2013 19:33:52 GMT -8
It looks like the posters building this thing up are primarily the ones who have already bought it. So there is that conflict of interest to consider.
Then you need to ask yourself: What am I going to do with this thing post purchase? Probably not set it up and leave it out. Probably going under the bed or in the closet.
So it primarily becomes an investment piece (to me at least) because it spends greater than 99% of its time in storage. I can think of better investments than this. With 1100 of these things in existence it will never be that hard to come across even after it finally sells out at primary. This high supply will keep prices pretty low on a permanent basis, IMO.
Buy it because you think it's awesome and want to support Tauba. Otherwise I would consider passing.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Mar 19, 2013 17:49:42 GMT -8
Good transaction with kchay (buyer).
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Mar 17, 2013 9:17:16 GMT -8
All sold.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Mar 10, 2013 18:34:06 GMT -8
Well, I admittedly don't know a ton about art or the art market.
But when an "important" artist dies I generally notice many of the same things written about in the news articles that follow. These are:
What gallery or galleries represented the artist.
Solo museum shows.
Biennials.
Group museum shows.
Museum collections (sometimes).
Those tend to be the five big things people talk about when looking back on a career. And these things tend to be a pretty good yardstick to measure the impact an artist had or has, IMO.
When I look at Tauba I don't see much of these things yet her prices are dramatically higher than artists who do have these things.
Maybe she ultimately checks all these boxes and becomes the best thing since sliced bread. But what happens if she doesn't?
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Mar 9, 2013 19:18:23 GMT -8
I just don't understand why her work commands the prices it does at this point in her career. Supply, demand and hype I guess.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Mar 6, 2013 11:39:56 GMT -8
Seems like mostly a big waste of time to bid as the final bidding is at a live auction rather than online.
Or am I missing something here?
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Feb 18, 2013 16:59:01 GMT -8
Somebody put that man on suicide watch.
Would be interesting to hear the other side of the story.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Feb 17, 2013 14:10:23 GMT -8
+1
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Feb 16, 2013 16:25:57 GMT -8
Interesting article indeed. So who are the "critically and curatorially proven artists who have not yet had their day in the marketplace?" I interpreted that statement to be established artists who have not had the hype, crazy auction results and price jumps out of nowhere that we have been seeing with some recent stuff. I'm sure he had a select group of names in mind, but I took it as his view on where "collecting" trends may be moving going forward. My take as well. My question was meant as more of an open one to the forum I guess. Lindemann certainly didn't cite any names.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Feb 16, 2013 14:09:59 GMT -8
Interesting article indeed.
So who are the "critically and curatorially proven artists who have not yet had their day in the marketplace?"
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Feb 15, 2013 12:48:51 GMT -8
My two pennies from a recent offline conversation with mose about a different artist below. Similar analysis.
I can see why galleries might do this 'pricing of work higher than auction pricing schtick'. It basically builds in an inherent penalty on the buyer to selling the work too quickly on the secondary market. Buying the work from the gallery and then selling before the artist's general market moves quite a bit higher means the buyer takes a bath financially on the original art purchase. People like to avoid losses (generally speaking), so most buyers will sit tight until secondary market prices reach a point that they are no longer taking a monetary loss on the primary market purchase. I have no idea if this is reality at all or just my rambling theory.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Feb 14, 2013 21:36:27 GMT -8
Flopper = exactly. Parla should be bought on the secondary market. Primary is for idiots.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Feb 13, 2013 15:32:08 GMT -8
Pretty poor transaction experience (that ultimately fell apart) with zbubble. Sellers should beware of this guy.
|
|