|
Post by drevil on Jan 11, 2014 21:50:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Jan 11, 2014 21:41:35 GMT -8
Application of contemporary technology platforms to the old ideas of image creation and repetition? Pretty obvious and/or derivative work IMO. Seems like a more modern application of what Short has been doing. And others too. (Thanks for pointing out Short btw).
Lots of hype and high prices but seems like just another cog in the wheel that will contribute little to art history based on the present output to date.
Would be interested to hear from someone who actually owns his work. I am not that person nor will I ever be.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Jan 10, 2014 16:43:10 GMT -8
This prompted me to join the masses on Instagram. Finally. @drevel50
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 28, 2013 9:08:39 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 22, 2013 14:37:51 GMT -8
IMO, this is Falls having moved to the next level. No longer the 'young and talented' label. Now the 'important' label. I would tend to agree. I've been surprised how much I have enjoyed this succession of four solos at the end of 2013. Only the Paris show was meh for me. Also crazy that (from what I heard) each pre-sold. Not many sub 30 year old artists that could repeat what he has done.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 21, 2013 13:49:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 19, 2013 7:35:31 GMT -8
I agree with you about the author's comment regarding surface. It made me question the validity of everything the author stated as it suggests that the author has only spent a very minimal amount of time on Falls in general.
Certainly the concept of time is central to Falls' practice and would by definition extend beyond a two dimensional surface.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 18, 2013 15:09:12 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 12, 2013 21:59:50 GMT -8
"I was paying $2,700 for a studio with one bedroom." Too funny. Rocket scientist he is not.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 7, 2013 19:34:29 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Dec 1, 2013 13:15:55 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Nov 26, 2013 20:22:16 GMT -8
I swear there were Tauba lots that passed (403 and 405) that are completely missing from the results now. 403 was a fold that passed right after that million dollar fold result too. Hmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Nov 26, 2013 16:09:33 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Nov 21, 2013 12:28:04 GMT -8
I used to think these online charity auctions were great, real, and amazing too. Then I came to my senses when a forum member made me think a bit more objectively.
It takes so so little to create a faceless account and start bidding things to the sky. Then walk away into the ether of the internet and leave behind that fake account as the dust settles.
I wonder what the default rate is on those items that greatly surpass their typical market value? I'm sure paddle8, artsy, etc will never tell. And none of the art on those sites is expensive enough to generate news when the high bidder disappears ala the recent Banksy charity auction.
Take these charity auction results in with a healthy dose of skepticism.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Nov 7, 2013 15:20:05 GMT -8
Love those flowers. I think they look aamzing! Still i don't understand why he has another huge piece at auction in Phillips day sale...while his previous assistant (Lucien Smith) opens the evening sale!! If someone has the answer..? Here is the link www.phillips.com/detail/DAN-COLEN/NY010813/142Because Lucien is the flavor of the day and Dan is soooo 2006?
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Nov 7, 2013 9:05:40 GMT -8
Was told most went to public inst and collections with 4 to the gen public at $3k. Last I heard there were 2 left at the very end of July. Good luck. This was an easy pass for me.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Nov 3, 2013 13:41:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Oct 25, 2013 19:54:16 GMT -8
Thanks for posting. Interesting read. He says "like" too much though. Btw, check out the first lot of the upcoming Phillips evening auction.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Oct 23, 2013 15:04:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Oct 22, 2013 11:13:27 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Oct 22, 2013 11:04:28 GMT -8
A quick (fictional...) example: Assume that the gallery is bidding on this and driving up the price. They donated it so they will get a tax deduction for that initial donation value. They will also get a tax deduction for the difference between the estimate and the final price (which is 10x here already, so not insignificant). Then they win and get the painting back which they can then resell later on and point to this charity auction as a comp if desired. So the gallery gets two tax breaks and the original work itself back with a new price point established for the re-sale of that same exact work. The only downside is that there is no written record of the final result, as has been stated here. However, this message board is overcoming that problem as we speak by talking about the $15k mark; something that is pretty easily found using google. But the biggest upside for the gallery would be that they have now moved the price point up for Lund's work across the board going forward. Profit baby. Congrats to all. The price (like that of any artist at this stage and attention of their career) of Israel Lund's work is carefully considered and executed. They have to weigh the long-term cause and effect of putting the work at any price. They can pretty much ask whatever (to a degree) and still sell out. That's not the point right now. They do not need a high auction price to justify a certain primary price because that result is not relevant to their pricing strategies. He's not someone like MBW (no offense to fans of his work) where they need to strike when the iron is hot because there won't be another time. He's got his entire career ahead of him. Sure sure. But buyers also like to think they are getting a fair deal. This comp will help overcome that mental barrier when they are presented with similar prices by the gallery in the future. You talked about the DiCaprio auction above. What buyer was it that set the world record for Grotjahn in that auction again?
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Oct 22, 2013 10:51:03 GMT -8
A quick (fictional...) example:
Assume that the gallery is bidding on this and driving up the price. They donated it so they will get a tax deduction for that initial donation value. They will also get a tax deduction for the difference between the estimate and the final price (which is 10x here already, so not insignificant). Then they win and get the painting back which they can then resell later on and point to this charity auction as a comp if desired. So the gallery gets two tax breaks and the original work itself back with a new price point established for the re-sale of that same exact work. The only downside is that there is no written record of the final result, as has been stated here. However, this message board is overcoming that problem as we speak by talking about the $15k mark; something that is pretty easily found using google.
But the biggest upside for the gallery would be that they have now moved the price point up for Lund's work across the board going forward. Profit baby.
Congrats to all.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Oct 22, 2013 10:02:05 GMT -8
If you approach this particular auction piece with an ounce of common sense it is pretty clear that this is just market manipulation, not supply and demand (sorry Waltercrunk), much like what has occurred at the primary auction houses for years. Paddle 8 just provides a platform for that manipulation to occur more publicly across the charity auction circuit. Paddle 8 may also be serving as a way for the manipulators to set a psychological floor on the price of a particular artist's work before moving to the primary houses with more substantial work from the same artist. Often these charity auctions have relatively minor pieces such as this one which are estimated at relatively lower prices. They get people thinking that if such a little meh work can justify such a high price, then how much would a bigger, better work bring at a primary house? I found myself doing just this after a small Sam Falls work on paper recently finished on Paddle 8 at $10k against a $4k estimate. Before Paddle 8 that would have been much, much less likely to happen because it is unlikely I would have even been aware of that particular charity auction, let alone that particular Falls work. Paddle 8 is just another tool in the tool bag of someone working to hype a particular artist, but with a (likely) lower upfront cost than would have been required at a primary house in the past. Overall I think Paddle 8 is great as I get to see so much more art (and the respective prices) with little effort on my end jumping through the typical gallery hoops, but you need to keep your wits about you and try to approach it as objectively as possible (which is of course hard to do). I see, and I agree but I also think that those kind of manipulations could be easyer with a standard/classical auction house, where results are public. I don't think it is as well effective in an auction with silent results (like paddle8). How could a silent result influence market? And, also, in a classical auction, in case of manipulations, the seller (a gallery??) can sell a piece at a crazy price, but the money in the end come back to the seller himself. In the paddle8 case, instead, the money will go elsewere (to a charity organization etc.). the manipulator is just loosing 15.000 usd for a silent auction? Who could care about it?? So, even if I agree that price si super high I also think that it could be just reality. To be honest, after Murillo's 400k, I don't think this is so crazy. "How could a silent result influence market?" Look around you at all the talk this is generating even on this relatively insignificant message board. The end result is secondary to the buzz being created right now and the eyes seeing "$15,000" every day in association with Lund's name. I doubt the needle moves much more past $15k, if at all. Why do you think it got there so far before the end of the auction period? Wouldn't you expect a real bidder to put their strongest bid forward at the very end? If I really wanted this piece that is what I would do to better ensure I actually got it. It seems the goal in this particular instance is different.
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Oct 22, 2013 8:14:22 GMT -8
If you approach this particular auction piece with an ounce of common sense it is pretty clear that this is just market manipulation, not supply and demand (sorry Waltercrunk), much like what has occurred at the primary auction houses for years. Paddle 8 just provides a platform for that manipulation to occur more publicly across the charity auction circuit.
Paddle 8 may also be serving as a way for the manipulators to set a psychological floor on the price of a particular artist's work before moving to the primary houses with more substantial work from the same artist. Often these charity auctions have relatively minor pieces such as this one which are estimated at relatively lower prices. They get people thinking that if such a little meh work can justify such a high price, then how much would a bigger, better work bring at a primary house? I found myself doing just this after a small Sam Falls work on paper recently finished on Paddle 8 at $10k against a $4k estimate. Before Paddle 8 that would have been much, much less likely to happen because it is unlikely I would have even been aware of that particular charity auction, let alone that particular Falls work.
Paddle 8 is just another tool in the tool bag of someone working to hype a particular artist, but with a (likely) lower upfront cost than would have been required at a primary house in the past. Overall I think Paddle 8 is great as I get to see so much more art (and the respective prices) with little effort on my end jumping through the typical gallery hoops, but you need to keep your wits about you and try to approach it as objectively as possible (which is of course hard to do).
|
|
|
Post by drevil on Oct 21, 2013 15:56:37 GMT -8
|
|