Jerkface 🇺🇸 New York Artist • New Release • Art For Sale

[Chrisp]

Souled Out Studios are spot on, good quality and realistic pricing, great ethics all round.

[Cutkillavince]

Sept 19, 2017 5:20:54 GMT 1 Chrisp said:

I like some of his stuff quite appeals to me, this one not so much. Im quite into bright colours and the repetitive/pattern type of thing though. What im not into though is the pricing of prints, i cant afford to buy most of these prints nowadays they all see too expensive.

Fully agree, I have a lot of Jerkface's prints, but I passed on this one, not my favorite tbh. I also prefer the repetitive/pattern style. Regarding the pricing, I was looking at it recently and 2 years ago, his prints were selling at $100 (regular editions) and $125-$150 (variant editions), then about a year and half ago, prices started to increase, they first doubled and then reached the $300-350 few months ago (for the regular editions), variants are now between $500-$1000.

[lecastor]

ohhhh man,.. gonna chime in on this.

While he starts with well know imagery,..His work is clearly transformative. I would parallel Warhol. If you look at his work and think it's just a "copy" of a care bear, . . . you're crackers. Combining the Wu-Tang Clan Symbol , . . an iconic hiphop logo with a care bear, . . is both hilarious and brilliant.

From the technical perspective, his is clearly very talented. Great use of colour, space, and scale. Just because something is "easy" or "quick" to produce does not diminish the artist value. . . i.e.: Picasso Dove, . . .basically all works by Keith Harring, etc.

[cmc]

[phischa]

As a huge Wu-Tang fan, I was waiting for the drop since I've seen the mural in NY. From my point of view the size of the print is too big, I'd never put such an image this size in my living room. If it was a smaller size with a more reasonable price this would habe been a no brainer. Giclee or not.

[Hairbland]

Sept 19, 2017 6:52:36 GMT 1 lecastor said:

ohhhh man,.. gonna chime in on this.

While he starts with well know imagery,..His work is clearly transformative. I would parallel Warhol. If you look at his work and think it's just a "copy" of a care bear, . . . you're crackers. Combining the Wu-Tang Clan Symbol , . . an iconic hiphop logo with a care bear, . . is both hilarious and brilliant.

From the technical perspective, his is clearly very talented. Great use of colour, space, and scale. Just because something is "easy" or "quick" to produce does not diminish the artist value. . . i.e.: Picasso Dove, . . .basically all works by Keith Harring, etc.

Too early in his "career" to reference Warhol, Picasso and Haring.

If one likes this piece on its own merit that's cool. To each his/her own. However I see very little "brilliance" here, personally.

[jayTown]

I actually quite like the print, brown variant in particular. He seems to be really big in the states, they seem to have the same affinity for him that we did (in the UK) for Stik. Sometimes, I think you've just got to see it on a wall to get it.

[Art Fan 2011]

The American's went mad for this one, pretty swift sell out!!

[Hairbland]

Sept 19, 2017 13:35:15 GMT 1 jayTown said:

I actually quite like the print, brown variant in particular. He seems to be really big in the states, they seem to have the same affinity for him that we did (in the UK) for Stik. Sometimes, I think you've just got to see it on a wall to get it.

Nah, he ain't big in the states. Stop blaming us. He had cheap prints of cartoon images through some little Brooklyn gallery that closed. He's a modern day sign painter.

Now Katie Merz, currently painting a huge mural on Flatbush near Schemerhorn, that's impressive. Not far from the KAWS and McGee street pieces.

[Acidburn]

Sept 19, 2017 13:55:50 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

Sept 19, 2017 13:35:15 GMT 1 jayTown said:

I actually quite like the print, brown variant in particular. He seems to be really big in the states, they seem to have the same affinity for him that we did (in the UK) for Stik. Sometimes, I think you've just got to see it on a wall to get it.

Nah, he ain't big in the states. Stop blaming us. He had cheap prints of cartoon images through some little Brooklyn gallery that closed. He's a modern day sign painter.

Now Katie Merz, currently painting a huge mural on Flatbush near Schemerhorn, that's impressive. Not far from the KAWS and McGee street pieces.

Lol we didn't close just more did a tiny merge. The idea wasn't working

[Hairbland]

Sept 19, 2017 14:44:33 GMT 1 Acidburn said:

Sept 19, 2017 13:55:50 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

Nah, he ain't big in the states. Stop blaming us. He had cheap prints of cartoon images through some little Brooklyn gallery that closed. He's a modern day sign painter.

Now Katie Merz, currently painting a huge mural on Flatbush near Schemerhorn, that's impressive. Not far from the KAWS and McGee street pieces.

Lol we didn't close just more did a tiny merge. The idea wasn't working

minutiae

[Acidburn]

Sept 19, 2017 14:50:25 GMT 1 Hairbland said:

Sept 19, 2017 14:44:33 GMT 1 Acidburn said:

Lol we didn't close just more did a tiny merge. The idea wasn't working

minutiae

Haha just saying.

Just like any artist, he knows his audience and that's all that really matters in the end. Wu Bear was def one of his most popular and requested images.

[chevyav53]

I actually liked these, passed as giclee and some were very expensive.

[dreadnatty]

Sept 19, 2017 13:35:15 GMT 1 jayTown said:

I actually quite like the print, brown variant in particular. He seems to be really big in the states, they seem to have the same affinity for him that we did (in the UK) for Stik. Sometimes, I think you've just got to see it on a wall to get it.

Hes also quite popular in Asia - his last show was in Hong Kong and I believe hes repped by Over the Influence

[met]

Sept 18, 2017 16:56:12 GMT 1 Coach said:

Sept 18, 2017 16:43:15 GMT 1 Henry Gale Was Here said:

Who keeps buying this s**t? Really.

I wouldn't necessarily put it that way, but I do struggle to find this work aesthetically pleasing. It looks a little like the wrapping paper one might use to wrap a child's birthday present. Lots of basic repeated images in bright colours. Each to their own I suppose. I am very happy to listen to a constructive discussion as to the merits of this work.

The actual merits will be determined by each viewer, but here's an extract of an exchange I had with Jerkface last year, during which his work was discussed:


If you were on a plane having a nice chat with a fellow passenger, how would you respond if during the conversation they asked, “What kind of art do you do exactly?”

Well, first, I’d say I paint cartoon characters. And if I had to describe the style without being able to show them… I’d explain that facial features are sometimes removed, so the viewer isn’t focused on that aspect and instead pays more attention to the composition. And there’s the multiplication of the characters, which creates a sense of motion.

There’s another thing about the work, which I only realised at a later stage. Many artists seem to struggle with the background for their pieces. It’s like, “Okay, I have a focal point. What am I going to put around it?” They don’t start off by looking at the overall composition.

What is special about my paintings is that there’s never such a dilemma. The foreground and background are made interchangeable.

That’s right, because they’re basically the same subjects.

In hindsight, it’s an obvious solution. And I think that is the strongest concept for the work. The idea feels fresh and it’s very effective. Everything else is a result of that—like the hyper-focus and the figures being magnified, seeming bigger than they are.

Why use cartoon characters to begin with?

Painting them reminds me of my childhood. And remembering your childhood—remembering cartoons especially—takes you back, not only to an innocent time but also a time of no responsibility. You know, hanging out, getting to watch TV, with nothing to worry about. Just a great feeling of youth. Good positive memories.

And I’m having so much fun with it. I also believe anything that makes somebody smile has a healing benefit. So there’s a lot of satisfaction for me there as well.

It’s a very happy subject matter, isn’t it? You could call it escapist.

At this point I’ve received every type of criticism around. One is that my work is very poppy, that I’m avoiding “the real things in life”. But why would I want to dwell on the negative? Look at a newspaper. Probably the only cheerful thing in there is the comics section. I prefer focusing on the positive. And I’d certainly rather project that into this world.

Do you have any of your own characters?

I do have a few of my own, but I’m not using them right now. It just seems like a different direction. And I’m very content with the one I’m already headed in.

Here’s an example to help explain: If I want to communicate with somebody, I’m going to use the language that we both understand, right?

Right…

So in a sense I have the whole world’s language of cartoons to play with. I have an endless source of imagery I can twist to create a new slang of that language. Being able to utilise everything from the past and present, it’s unlimited.

But at the same time, in all creative fields—fine art, design, music or whatever—there’s a real premium placed on originality. Are you hitting any resistance due to the source imagery, the fact your paintings are based on famous cartoon figures?

Yeah, that’s unquestionably my weak spot. And I kind of appreciate having that weak spot…

Why’s that?

As long as I’m doing this, the criticism will be there. Someone will always say, “You’re just ripping off other people.” So, I like the fact it keeps me grounded. There’s a percentage of hackiness in the work, it’s undeniable. But I don’t really have a problem about that, especially with the positivity I get from people.

Everything else is solid. The technical skills are present, they’re refined. There’s the whole concept of the repeating imagery. And the compositions created—I never put out a weak one. Nobody can knock me for any of that.

And are you comfortable that your work is sufficiently your own?

Obviously, it’s not the characters that are original, because I didn’t create them. It’s what I’m doing with them. That’s the distinction, where the originality comes in.

It’s very interesting as well though to simply use what already exists and rework it. Like, how do you create a recognisable style when none of the imagery is yours?

And how do you?

I don’t know how it happens. But it’s clear that there is uniqueness. If I do a painting of Mickey Mouse, someone will see it and say, “Oh, that’s a Jerkface piece.” The fact my work is recognisable says it all.

It’s proof that something is there besides just the character.

Right. The defence can rest.

[coller]

Surprised so many people were into this image - seems really niche.

I like his Simpsons stuff; I feel like I'd really need to love the cartoon referenced in order to like/hang the print and that keeps me from wanting a lot of his work. Loved the eye-less Simpsons police image.

Tell him to make a Rick and Morty/Archer/Bob's Burgers piece and then I'll queue up

[Hairbland]

Good read, interesting how describing his work ended up on his terms being a defense of it.

[Guaanie]

Sept 19, 2017 15:34:18 GMT 1 met said:

Sept 18, 2017 16:56:12 GMT 1 Coach said:

I wouldn't necessarily put it that way, but I do struggle to find this work aesthetically pleasing. It looks a little like the wrapping paper one might use to wrap a child's birthday present. Lots of basic repeated images in bright colours. Each to their own I suppose. I am very happy to listen to a constructive discussion as to the merits of this work.

The actual merits will be determined by each viewer, but here's an extract of an exchange I had with Jerkface last year, during which his work was discussed:


If you were on a plane having a nice chat with a fellow passenger, how would you respond if during the conversation they asked, “What kind of art do you do exactly?”

Well, first, I’d say I paint cartoon characters. And if I had to describe the style without being able to show them… I’d explain that facial features are sometimes removed, so the viewer isn’t focused on that aspect and instead pays more attention to the composition. And there’s the multiplication of the characters, which creates a sense of motion.

There’s another thing about the work, which I only realised at a later stage. Many artists seem to struggle with the background for their pieces. It’s like, “Okay, I have a focal point. What am I going to put around it?” They don’t start off by looking at the overall composition.

What is special about my paintings is that there’s never such a dilemma. The foreground and background are made interchangeable.

That’s right, because they’re basically the same subjects.

In hindsight, it’s an obvious solution. And I think that is the strongest concept for the work. The idea feels fresh and it’s very effective. Everything else is a result of that—like the hyper-focus and the figures being magnified, seeming bigger than they are.

Why use cartoon characters to begin with?

Painting them reminds me of my childhood. And remembering your childhood—remembering cartoons especially—takes you back, not only to an innocent time but also a time of no responsibility. You know, hanging out, getting to watch TV, with nothing to worry about. Just a great feeling of youth. Good positive memories.

And I’m having so much fun with it. I also believe anything that makes somebody smile has a healing benefit. So there’s a lot of satisfaction for me there as well.

It’s a very happy subject matter, isn’t it? You could call it escapist.

At this point I’ve received every type of criticism around. One is that my work is very poppy, that I’m avoiding “the real things in life”. But why would I want to dwell on the negative? Look at a newspaper. Probably the only cheerful thing in there is the comics section. I prefer focusing on the positive. And I’d certainly rather project that into this world.

Do you have any of your own characters?

I do have a few of my own, but I’m not using them right now. It just seems like a different direction. And I’m very content with the one I’m already headed in.

Here’s an example to help explain: If I want to communicate with somebody, I’m going to use the language that we both understand, right?

Right…

So in a sense I have the whole world’s language of cartoons to play with. I have an endless source of imagery I can twist to create a new slang of that language. Being able to utilise everything from the past and present, it’s unlimited.

But at the same time, in all creative fields—fine art, design, music or whatever—there’s a real premium placed on originality. Are you hitting any resistance due to the source imagery, the fact your paintings are based on famous cartoon figures?

Yeah, that’s unquestionably my weak spot. And I kind of appreciate having that weak spot…

Why’s that?

As long as I’m doing this, the criticism will be there. Someone will always say, “You’re just ripping off other people.” So, I like the fact it keeps me grounded. There’s a percentage of hackiness in the work, it’s undeniable. But I don’t really have a problem about that, especially with the positivity I get from people.

Everything else is solid. The technical skills are present, they’re refined. There’s the whole concept of the repeating imagery. And the compositions created—I never put out a weak one. Nobody can knock me for any of that.

And are you comfortable that your work is sufficiently your own?

Obviously, it’s not the characters that are original, because I didn’t create them. It’s what I’m doing with them. That’s the distinction, where the originality comes in.

It’s very interesting as well though to simply use what already exists and rework it. Like, how do you create a recognisable style when none of the imagery is yours?

And how do you?

I don’t know how it happens. But it’s clear that there is uniqueness. If I do a painting of Mickey Mouse, someone will see it and say, “Oh, that’s a Jerkface piece.” The fact my work is recognisable says it all.

It’s proof that something is there besides just the character.

Right. The defence can rest.

Met, your posts never fail to provide huge amounts of insight and interest. It's posts like these that keep me coming back to the forum.

[Buff Monster Fan]

met - fantastic share, thank you so much.

To be honest, Jerkface's seemingly humble responses ("that’s unquestionably my weak spot"), self perspective ("how do you create a recognizable style when none of the imagery is yours?") and positivity ("Just a great feeling of youth. Good positive memories") in his work are endearing to me.

I was not initially a fan of Jerkface when I started collecting, but after seeing some of his street pieces in NYC and also recognizing how much my kids love him, I purchased my first piece - a Snoopy w/Woodstock AP. The quality is excellent, the composition looks great on the wall and the colors are bright (and as a Buff Monster fan, I'm a fan of bright colors )

This release doesn't speak to me as much as a handful of others, but just adding some perspective as to why Jerkface might be appealing for some folks.

P.S. his book, Saturday Morning, is a great coffee table topper and is almost always the first one guests at my house reach for

[Happy Shopper]

Sept 19, 2017 19:18:02 GMT 1 derivitive said:

Sept 19, 2017 6:52:36 GMT 1 lecastor said:

ohhhh man,.. gonna chime in on this.

While he starts with well know imagery,..His work is clearly transformative. I would parallel Warhol. If you look at his work and think it's just a "copy" of a care bear, . . . you're crackers. Combining the Wu-Tang Clan Symbol , . . an iconic hiphop logo with a care bear, . . is both hilarious and brilliant.

From the technical perspective, his is clearly very talented. Great use of colour, space, and scale. Just because something is "easy" or "quick" to produce does not diminish the artist value. . . i.e.: Picasso Dove, . . .basically all works by Keith Harring, etc.

I hope this is sarcasm, but if you think this is the first time an artist has done a piss take with a care bear you are simply uninformed. 

Denial


Ben Eine

Subverting cartoon characters isn't new, but the point being made is that what he's doing is more original, and is quite unique to him.
Any artist could have made those examples, but jerkface's pieces are recognisable as him.
In my opinion the same goes for Kaws.

[Chrisp]

Needs to do a Gumball

[phischa]

No matter what option - it's nice to see some art discussion here again!

[aml]

Recognizable as his? Sure, but that doesn't make it any good.

Perhaps I'll start painting murals of famous cartoon characters with nice big c**ks. I'll be top of the urban art game in no time.

[Hairbland]

Sept 19, 2017 20:23:36 GMT 1 aml said:

Recognizable as his? Sure, but that doesn't make it any good.

Perhaps I'll start painting murals of famous cartoon characters with nice big c**ks. I'll be top of the urban art game in no time.

Maybe the next American Vandal episode.

[Happy Shopper]

Sept 19, 2017 20:23:36 GMT 1 aml said:

Recognizable as his? Sure, but that doesn't make it any good.

Perhaps I'll start painting murals of famous cartoon characters with nice big c**ks. I'll be top of the urban art game in no time.

[

The "good" part is subjective.

Cartoons with big cocks? Bast already did that with smurfs. Just shows how hard it is to be original!

[Coach]

Sept 19, 2017 15:34:18 GMT 1 met said:

Sept 18, 2017 16:56:12 GMT 1 Coach said:

I wouldn't necessarily put it that way, but I do struggle to find this work aesthetically pleasing. It looks a little like the wrapping paper one might use to wrap a child's birthday present. Lots of basic repeated images in bright colours. Each to their own I suppose. I am very happy to listen to a constructive discussion as to the merits of this work.

The actual merits will be determined by each viewer, but here's an extract of an exchange I had with Jerkface last year, during which his work was discussed:


If you were on a plane having a nice chat with a fellow passenger, how would you respond if during the conversation they asked, “What kind of art do you do exactly?”

Well, first, I’d say I paint cartoon characters. And if I had to describe the style without being able to show them… I’d explain that facial features are sometimes removed, so the viewer isn’t focused on that aspect and instead pays more attention to the composition. And there’s the multiplication of the characters, which creates a sense of motion.

There’s another thing about the work, which I only realised at a later stage. Many artists seem to struggle with the background for their pieces. It’s like, “Okay, I have a focal point. What am I going to put around it?” They don’t start off by looking at the overall composition.

What is special about my paintings is that there’s never such a dilemma. The foreground and background are made interchangeable.

That’s right, because they’re basically the same subjects.

In hindsight, it’s an obvious solution. And I think that is the strongest concept for the work. The idea feels fresh and it’s very effective. Everything else is a result of that—like the hyper-focus and the figures being magnified, seeming bigger than they are.

Why use cartoon characters to begin with?

Painting them reminds me of my childhood. And remembering your childhood—remembering cartoons especially—takes you back, not only to an innocent time but also a time of no responsibility. You know, hanging out, getting to watch TV, with nothing to worry about. Just a great feeling of youth. Good positive memories.

And I’m having so much fun with it. I also believe anything that makes somebody smile has a healing benefit. So there’s a lot of satisfaction for me there as well.

It’s a very happy subject matter, isn’t it? You could call it escapist.

At this point I’ve received every type of criticism around. One is that my work is very poppy, that I’m avoiding “the real things in life”. But why would I want to dwell on the negative? Look at a newspaper. Probably the only cheerful thing in there is the comics section. I prefer focusing on the positive. And I’d certainly rather project that into this world.

Do you have any of your own characters?

I do have a few of my own, but I’m not using them right now. It just seems like a different direction. And I’m very content with the one I’m already headed in.

Here’s an example to help explain: If I want to communicate with somebody, I’m going to use the language that we both understand, right?

Right…

So in a sense I have the whole world’s language of cartoons to play with. I have an endless source of imagery I can twist to create a new slang of that language. Being able to utilise everything from the past and present, it’s unlimited.

But at the same time, in all creative fields—fine art, design, music or whatever—there’s a real premium placed on originality. Are you hitting any resistance due to the source imagery, the fact your paintings are based on famous cartoon figures?

Yeah, that’s unquestionably my weak spot. And I kind of appreciate having that weak spot…

Why’s that?

As long as I’m doing this, the criticism will be there. Someone will always say, “You’re just ripping off other people.” So, I like the fact it keeps me grounded. There’s a percentage of hackiness in the work, it’s undeniable. But I don’t really have a problem about that, especially with the positivity I get from people.

Everything else is solid. The technical skills are present, they’re refined. There’s the whole concept of the repeating imagery. And the compositions created—I never put out a weak one. Nobody can knock me for any of that.

And are you comfortable that your work is sufficiently your own?

Obviously, it’s not the characters that are original, because I didn’t create them. It’s what I’m doing with them. That’s the distinction, where the originality comes in.

It’s very interesting as well though to simply use what already exists and rework it. Like, how do you create a recognisable style when none of the imagery is yours?

And how do you?

I don’t know how it happens. But it’s clear that there is uniqueness. If I do a painting of Mickey Mouse, someone will see it and say, “Oh, that’s a Jerkface piece.” The fact my work is recognisable says it all.

It’s proof that something is there besides just the character.

Right. The defence can rest.

Met, thank you for taking the time to post this.
It was an interesting read.
I do not doubt that the artist executes his work to a high standard.
I also accept that there is a creative element to his work (repeating the images, use of colour, and distorting them in some way).
I also have no difficulty with others living the work, it making them happy, and the artist deriving pleasure from that.
However I simply cannot get away from the fact that I simply do not like it. I wouldn't buy it, or adorn my walls with it.
It looks marginally better large scale painted on a wall. But remains far from my favourite street art.
I wish the artist, who seems like an amiable chap, lots of success. But it simply isn't to my taste.
Thanks again.

[lecastor]

. . . and in the end we have three pages of discussion on his work.

[Coach]

Sept 21, 2017 18:54:49 GMT 1 lecastor said:

. . . and in the end we have three pages of discussion on his work.

I don't follow

[themister]

Yes you do. A lot of tráfico means a lot of interest.

[Winks]

Better ones here

apportfolio.shoplineapp.com/products/batman-main-edition