[nighthawk]

I don't have time to write a dissertation here, but I don't see any similarities to Kelly or Herrera's works. Having seen his work in person, I find his use of geometric patterns refreshing, original and very well executed!

[Riotcops]

I'm not getting any response, is there a pre-sale link that can be shared? Or is it specific to each person?

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2019 23:13:10 GMT 1 Riotcops said:

I'm not getting any response, is there a pre-sale link that can be shared? Or is it specific to each person?

Only available to big ballers

[Riotcops]

Jan 29, 2019 23:21:41 GMT 1 @icollectart1980 said:

Jan 29, 2019 23:13:10 GMT 1 Riotcops said:

I'm not getting any response, is there a pre-sale link that can be shared? Or is it specific to each person?

Only available to big ballers

So...like, how do I show I'm big ballin'? Dick pic?

[Deleted]

Jan 29, 2019 23:30:13 GMT 1 Riotcops said:

Jan 29, 2019 23:21:41 GMT 1 @icollectart1980 said:

Only available to big ballers

So...like, how do I show I'm big ballin'? Dick pic?

Big baller!! It’s obviously about the big wheels! Not the cannon

[Wisconinla]

I like the blue rectangles but too pricey for me

[viz]

I ilke the compositions, they look great, but as others highlighted I agree the influence of some artists as Ellsworth Kelly and Carmen Herrera (but also Soto, Vasarely and OptArt in general in other of his works) is a bit too evident. Too pricey also in my opinion.

[maxamaxa2]

Jan 29, 2019 23:30:13 GMT 1 Riotcops said:

So...like, how do I show I'm big ballin'? Dick pic?

They have hinted about these on their instagram for months and when the presale was sent the allocated stock went fast, not sure how many was allocated and how many is left.
But anyway, you do not have to be a big baller, just on the list before its sold out

Managed to nabb that top one and I am nothing more than a krill in this pond. I hope you manage to get one at the release tomorrow, otherwise they are releasing amazing prints at a steady pace!

Think the top one was a lower edition and 47x35 inch btw

Best

[purpleandred]

Funny. Some of the "art" tat that gets lauded and revered on these boards is beyond belief, now some on here are all discerning art critics and offering critiques on minimalism, all these artists working within this genre overlap due to the very nature of it. This is good stuff by Johnny and clearly has its own defined style which is easily discerned from others in this field. definitely not urban art... definitely not a soupcan poster or Peckham rock postcard which apparently nobody on here could live without.. I don't think $400 dollars is pricey for prints of this size. Like I say, this clearly isn't urban art so I understand it isn't everyone's cup of tea but to bleat about pricing (nothing new I guess) and the fact that it has references from his contemporaries is a weak synopsis/critique.

[blerd]

Jan 30, 2019 9:07:51 GMT 1 viz said:

I ilke the compositions, they look great, but as others highlighted I agree the influence of some artists as Ellsworth Kelly and Carmen Herrera (but also Soto, Vasarely and OptArt in general in other of his works) is a bit too evident. Too pricey also in my opinion.

With respect the same can be said about every good Artist. Picasso's influence on Condo springs immediately to mind. That's what Art is. Very few things in Art are truly original. IMO Abrahams has used these influences to inspire his on narrative which involves texture, his limited palette and wax. I also see a three dimensional quality to some of his works. 

[viz]

Jan 30, 2019 9:35:37 GMT 1 blerd said:

Very few things in Art are truly original.

I agree but that's what usually makes great Art, the one that is then written down in books.

Obviously all artists (whatever their art) have been influenced by someone who came before, and usually they all begin imitating someone else...some keep imitating, some find their own way inside some art movement, a little less manage to develop a very personal and recognisable style, just a few become masters with a following.

I'm no art critic I was just saying what I think (and it seems I'm not the only one), that is I don't find his works to be very personal and they remind ME a bit too much of other artists.

That said I like them and if they would have been priced less I think I had tried to buy one. but they are too pricey for me (I wrote "too pricey in my opinion" which is not correct, even if, generally speaking, I believe most of new prints are too pricey, but that's the market...).

[blerd]

Jan 30, 2019 10:05:43 GMT 1 viz said:

Jan 30, 2019 9:35:37 GMT 1 blerd said:

Very few things in Art are truly original.

I agree but that's what usually makes great Art, the one that is then written down in books.

Obviously all artists (whatever their art) have been influenced by someone who came before, and usually they all begin imitating someone else...some keep imitating, some find their own way inside some art movement, a little less manage to develop a very personal and recognisable style, just a few become masters with a following.

I'm no art critic I was just saying what I think (and it seems I'm not the only one), that is I don't find his works to be very personal and they remind ME a bit too much of other artists.

That said I like them and if they would have been priced less I think I had tried to buy one. but they are too pricey for me (I wrote "too pricey in my opinion" which is not correct, even if, generally speaking, I strongly believe most of new prints are far too pricey).

"I'm not the only one" is not a great position on this forum as people on here will spit their dummies out over a £3.99 postcard. IMO the comparison of other minimalist artists is a bit lazy. As for value, to me Art has no intrinsic value. £600 for a poster seems pricey to me, but 200k for a Tomoo Gokita canvas seems a reasonable. Abrahams large canvases sellout at 20k, £400 to £500 for a giant print makes sense to me. Ps. I noted you said to pricey for you which is fair enough. 

[viz]

Jan 30, 2019 10:15:32 GMT 1 blerd said:

Jan 30, 2019 10:05:43 GMT 1 viz said:

I agree but that's what usually makes great Art, the one that is then written down in books.

Obviously all artists (whatever their art) have been influenced by someone who came before, and usually they all begin imitating someone else...some keep imitating, some find their own way inside some art movement, a little less manage to develop a very personal and recognisable style, just a few become masters with a following.

I'm no art critic I was just saying what I think (and it seems I'm not the only one), that is I don't find his works to be very personal and they remind ME a bit too much of other artists.

That said I like them and if they would have been priced less I think I had tried to buy one. but they are too pricey for me (I wrote "too pricey in my opinion" which is not correct, even if, generally speaking, I strongly believe most of new prints are far too pricey).

"I'm not the only one" is not a great position on this forum as people on here will spit their dummies out over a £3.99 postcard. IMO the comparison of other minimalist artists is a bit lazy. As for value, to me Art has no intrinsic value. £600 for a poster seems pricey to me, but 200k for a Tomoo Gokita canvas seems a reasonable. Ps. I noted you said to pricey for you which is fair enough. 

When I wrote "I'm not the only one" was actually thinking about I'm not the only one to whom his works reminded a lot the works of other artists (not contemporay to him) but I wrote something else, you're right.  Still I think I'm entitled to my own opinion ...that is the only position I can mantain.

Comparison is the only way to go to put things into context, otherwise it's just "I like it", "I don't like it"...which, by the way, is perfectly fine.

Price is dictated by the market. Often I'm just surprised by how the works of new artists cost as much as the ones of some masters of the past.

[blerd]

Jan 30, 2019 10:37:57 GMT 1 viz said:

Jan 30, 2019 10:15:32 GMT 1 blerd said:

"I'm not the only one" is not a great position on this forum as people on here will spit their dummies out over a £3.99 postcard. IMO the comparison of other minimalist artists is a bit lazy. As for value, to me Art has no intrinsic value. £600 for a poster seems pricey to me, but 200k for a Tomoo Gokita canvas seems a reasonable. Ps. I noted you said to pricey for you which is fair enough. 

When I wrote "I'm not the only one" was actually thinking about I'm not the only one to whom his works reminded a lot the works of other artists (not contemporay to him) but I wrote something else, you're right.  Still I think I'm entitled to my own opinion ...that is the only position I can mantain.

Comparison is the only way to go to put things into context, otherwise it's just "I like it", "I don't like it"...which, by the way, is perfectly fine.

Price is dictated by the market. Often I'm just surprised by how the works of new artists cost as much as the ones of some masters of the past.

Hahaha! I know you meant that. I thought you wrote it too. Tbh its nice to have a debate about Art, even if value is involved. 

"Still I think I'm entitled to my own opinion ...that is the only position I can mantain" couldn't agree more. I live by it!

[nobokov]

Jan 30, 2019 10:15:32 GMT 1 blerd said:

Jan 30, 2019 10:05:43 GMT 1 viz said:

I agree but that's what usually makes great Art, the one that is then written down in books.

Obviously all artists (whatever their art) have been influenced by someone who came before, and usually they all begin imitating someone else...some keep imitating, some find their own way inside some art movement, a little less manage to develop a very personal and recognisable style, just a few become masters with a following.

I'm no art critic I was just saying what I think (and it seems I'm not the only one), that is I don't find his works to be very personal and they remind ME a bit too much of other artists.

That said I like them and if they would have been priced less I think I had tried to buy one. but they are too pricey for me (I wrote "too pricey in my opinion" which is not correct, even if, generally speaking, I strongly believe most of new prints are far too pricey).

"I'm not the only one" is not a great position on this forum as people on here will spit their dummies out over a £3.99 postcard. IMO the comparison of other minimalist artists is a bit lazy. As for value, to me Art has no intrinsic value. £600 for a poster seems pricey to me, but 200k for a Tomoo Gokita canvas seems a reasonable. Abrahams large canvases sellout at 20k, £400 to £500 for a giant print makes sense to me. Ps. I noted you said to pricey for you which is fair enough. 

I wonder what type of critique qualifies as rigorous? Is there a point to this work beyond magnifying his earlier works to "investigate the delicate interactions between shapes?"

It's not so much that his work reminds me of some predecessors, it reminds me of every self proclaimed artist that advertises on Instagram and Pinterest today. Most of all, it reminds of his own work, each painting looks like the next, indiscernible from the last. Move one block here, flip this shape and magnify. I'm just trying to understand what the point is and why it's suddenly being touted here.

You mentioned that he sells out at $20k but is it true? A quick search seems to show a number of paintings available.


$550 plus shipping and at least $300 framing is pricey in my mind. And if not immediately framing, it might be difficult to store. But if you really love it, I can see how it would look pleasant in a home and louis buhl is a fine establishment. Just trying to understand the froth

[purpleandred]

Does the same hold true for Harland Miller: A book cover with a "witty" one liner...
Does the same hold true for Invader: Pool tiles and pixelated video game iconography...

[nobokov]

Jan 30, 2019 13:59:06 GMT 1 purpleandred said:

Does the same hold true for Harland Miller: A book cover with a "witty" one liner...
Does the same hold true for Invader: Pool tiles and pixelated video game iconography...

Yes two more overhyped artists on this forum.

[hiya]

This is the beauty about work of this ilk, minimalism and abstraction isn't to everyones taste, what makes an Herrera more desirable than the countless others working within similiar "simplistic" confines?

The negative shapes within Johnnys work is what I see and what speaks to me, I have an instant reaction to what he paints and to the arrangement of his forms. It's the nuances in texture within these seemingly solid colours and the tension of the white sharp negatives and the language this creates that I'm drawn to. I think Johnny's work has loads of room for progression and I'm excited to see where he goes from here.

[blerd]

Jan 30, 2019 13:48:46 GMT 1 nobokov said:

Jan 30, 2019 10:15:32 GMT 1 blerd said:

"I'm not the only one" is not a great position on this forum as people on here will spit their dummies out over a £3.99 postcard. IMO the comparison of other minimalist artists is a bit lazy. As for value, to me Art has no intrinsic value. £600 for a poster seems pricey to me, but 200k for a Tomoo Gokita canvas seems a reasonable. Abrahams large canvases sellout at 20k, £400 to £500 for a giant print makes sense to me. Ps. I noted you said to pricey for you which is fair enough. 

I wonder what type of critique qualifies as rigorous? Is there a point to this work beyond magnifying his earlier works to "investigate the delicate interactions between shapes?"

It's not so much that his work reminds me of some predecessors, it reminds me of every self proclaimed artist that advertises on Instagram and Pinterest today. Most of all, it reminds of his own work, each painting looks like the next, indiscernible from the last. Move one block here, flip this shape and magnify. I'm just trying to understand what the point is and why it's suddenly being touted here.

You mentioned that he sells out at $20k but is it true? A quick search seems to show a number of paintings available.


$550 plus shipping and at least $300 framing is pricey in my mind. And if not immediately framing, it might be difficult to store. But if you really love it, I can see how it would look pleasant in a home and louis buhl is a fine establishment. Just trying to understand the froth

I'm not his agent LOL! but a quick search of Artsy shows 7 works available and a considerable amount more sold.

Going on "Move one block here, flip this shape and magnify" I'd say Minimalism maybe isn't the medium for you, and thats fine.

I'm not sure if you mean to, but you're coming across as "Jackson Pollock is just splatters of paint, anyone can do that". Apologies if i've misread your tone.

One thing for sure his works have sparked a debate and got under peoples skins. Which in my mind is what "good" Art should do.

[nighthawk]

Jan 30, 2019 14:17:00 GMT 1 hiya said:

This is the beauty about work of this ilk, minimalism and abstraction isn't to everyones taste, what makes an Herrera more desirable than the countless others working within similiar "simplistic" confines?

The negative shapes within Johnnys work is what I see and what speaks to me, I have an instant reaction to what he paints and to the arrangement of his forms. It's the nuances in texture within these seemingly solid colours and the tension of the white sharp negatives and the language this creates that I'm drawn to. I think Johnny's work has loads of room for progression and I'm excited to see where he goes from here.

That's well said!

[hiya]

blerd re: the Pollock comment. No offence to Nobokov but i got the same impression that his analysis was a little dismissive, a quick search on my end confirmed the same findings in terms of paintings available versus paintings sold. Polarising views are a good thing as it creates discourse.

[blerd]

Jan 30, 2019 14:29:39 GMT 1 hiya said:

blerd re: the Pollock comment. No offence to Nobokov but i got the same impression that his analysis was a little dismissive, a quick search on my end confirmed the same findings in terms of paintings available versus paintings sold. Polarising views are a good thing as it creates discourse.

Agreed. As in life people love to shout about what they hate rather that what they love. Having said that I'm always up for a debate with a rational mind.

[nobokov]

Jan 30, 2019 14:20:21 GMT 1 blerd said:

Jan 30, 2019 13:48:46 GMT 1 nobokov said:

I wonder what type of critique qualifies as rigorous? Is there a point to this work beyond magnifying his earlier works to "investigate the delicate interactions between shapes?"

It's not so much that his work reminds me of some predecessors, it reminds me of every self proclaimed artist that advertises on Instagram and Pinterest today. Most of all, it reminds of his own work, each painting looks like the next, indiscernible from the last. Move one block here, flip this shape and magnify. I'm just trying to understand what the point is and why it's suddenly being touted here.

You mentioned that he sells out at $20k but is it true? A quick search seems to show a number of paintings available.


$550 plus shipping and at least $300 framing is pricey in my mind. And if not immediately framing, it might be difficult to store. But if you really love it, I can see how it would look pleasant in a home and louis buhl is a fine establishment. Just trying to understand the froth

I'm not his agent LOL! but a quick search of Artsy shows 7 works available and a considerable amount more sold.

Going on "Move one block here, flip this shape and magnify" I'd say Minimalism maybe isn't the medium for you, and thats fine.

I'm not sure if you mean to, but you're coming across as "Jackson Pollock is just splatters of paint, anyone can do that". Apologies if i've misread your tone.

One thing for sure his works have sparked a debate and got under peoples skins. Which in my mind is what "good" Art should do.

I guess 7 works available doesn't qualify in my mind as selling out.

Definitely, minimalism isn't my favorite movement and I'll be honest that I don't entirely get the point of it in this day and age. There definitely is an ' anyone can pollock' tone - because lets be honest, anyone can do it. Pollock was, I'm assuming, the first person to splatter paint expressively and be recognized for it, but 70 years later, if you're splattering paint expressively, is it still original and "good art"

I'm still not quite sure you've explained why you feel it's "good" art? Did you attend his show at The Hole last year?

Here are a number of his works in the photos above. Can you differentiate between them and does the quality differ between each piece? Is Untitled 2017 a stronger work than Untitled 2018?

To me, I don't see this work being any different than the stuff offered on West Elm here

It's decor not good art.

[blerd]

Jan 30, 2019 15:55:07 GMT 1 nobokov said:

Jan 30, 2019 14:20:21 GMT 1 blerd said:

I'm not his agent LOL! but a quick search of Artsy shows 7 works available and a considerable amount more sold.

Going on "Move one block here, flip this shape and magnify" I'd say Minimalism maybe isn't the medium for you, and thats fine.

I'm not sure if you mean to, but you're coming across as "Jackson Pollock is just splatters of paint, anyone can do that". Apologies if i've misread your tone.

One thing for sure his works have sparked a debate and got under peoples skins. Which in my mind is what "good" Art should do.

I guess 7 works available doesn't qualify in my mind as selling out.

Definitely, minimalism isn't my favorite movement and I'll be honest that I don't entirely get the point of it in this day and age. There definitely is an ' anyone can pollock' tone - because lets be honest, anyone can do it. Pollock was, I'm assuming, the first person to splatter paint expressively and be recognized for it, but 70 years later, if you're splattering paint expressively, is it still original and "good art"

I'm still not quite sure you've explained why you feel it's "good" art? Did you attend his show at The Hole last year?

Here are a number of his works in the photos above. Can you differentiate between them and does the quality differ between each piece? Is Untitled 2017 a stronger work than Untitled 2018?

To me, I don't see this work being any different than the stuff offered on West Elm here

It's decor not good art.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder i guess. If you line up those Hirst spots up you won't notice much difference. Unless you want to.

[viz]

Hopefully nobody here really thinks he can put Pollock, Kelly, Soto, Vasarely, Herrera, Invader, Miller and Johnny in the same pot.

Art history is something quite different from our personal taste.

Making a cut in a canvas today does not make you Fontana and making a cut in a canvas in the XVth century didn't make anybody Fontana.
Fontana, just as an example, was a breakpoint the art history because of his discussion about the medium, which came out as a critique to the existing tradition and the need to go over certain limits (in his case the ones posed by the medium "canvas" that many artits thought had been investigated in all possible ways); after Fontana, visual (?) art was no longer the same. The same, for different reasons, goes with Pollock.

Obviously it's not just a matter of newness, this "newness" must be relevant to the historic period in which it was conceived as it always comes as a consequence to the intellectual discussion being or as a reaction to some status quo or the exhaustion of some previous artistic form.

I think Invader is a good representative of an important artistic movement (maybe the only real artistic movement in the last 30 years) and with respect to other artists of the street art developed a personal style. Personally I don't find his work particularly appealing or interesting (and just for your information, unfortunately, I don't own any) and agree that is quite over hyped but he is relevant to the art world in this historic period.

Going back to our artist, making minimal art or color field painting or optical art in 2019 and making it in the '60s/'70s is quite different... just to say one could also paint great cubist paintings today from a purely aesthetic point of view, but that wouldn't make him a great painter (not even a great "cubist" painter actually), maybe it would make him a great craftman and the painting would be a "great painting in the cubist style", it wouldn't be a cubist painting because there cannot be cubist paintings in 2019.

Liking or not is just something else.

static1.squarespace.com/static/56403b1ce4b04f0e6f001625/56403ba9e4b0385f73f9a5aa/564a68c9e4b082c51d80f1d5/1545883791072/x+of+y+%281+of+1%29.jpg

www.kunzt.gallery/public/uploads/artworkpic/Victor-VASARELY-HOLLD-Acrylic-sculpture-available-for-sale-on-www1538053597_173x200.jpg

www.farsettiarte.it/photos/auctions/xlarge/64595.jpg

static.picassomio.com/images/art/f3/32/2a/jesus-raphael-soto-artwork-large-57838.jpg

static1.squarespace.com/static/56403b1ce4b04f0e6f001625/56403ba9e4b0385f73f9a5aa/574b97ba4d088e3b762833f4/1545883791058/DSC_0048-2.jpg

imgprivate2.artprice.com/get/classifieds/2649/9857/49b5/f877/bbf0/596e/697d/a9ac/ad15/0b42/300/300/Jesus-Rafael-SOTO-Sotomagie-I-1512044578.jpg

static1.squarespace.com/static/56403b1ce4b04f0e6f001625/56403ba9e4b0385f73f9a5aa/58f55db9197aea3fe454c25a/1545883791702/DSC_0301-2.jpg

imgprivate2.artprice.com/get/classifieds/c46c/836f/752a/ac6f/a0f7/939f/8228/348e/0783/300/300/aeda-1435659264.jpg

www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll00022lldQQCGFgPNECfDrCWvaHBOcvaM/ellsworth-kelly-red-orange-white-(rogue).jpg

static1.squarespace.com/static/56403b1ce4b04f0e6f001625/56403ba9e4b0385f73f9a5aa/59235c3e2e69cf32fd8a014e/1545883790849/DSC_0343.jpg

[blerd]

Jan 30, 2019 16:09:12 GMT 1 viz said:

Hopefully nobody here really thinks he can put Pollock, Kelly, Soto, Vasarely, Herrera, Invader, Miller and Johnny in the same pot.

Art history is something quite different from our personal taste.

Making a cut in a canvas today does not make you Fontana and making a cut in a canvas in the XVth century didn't make anybody Fontana.
Fontana, just as an example, was a breakpoint the art history because of his discussion about the medium, which came out as a critique to the existing tradition and the need to go over certain limits (in his case the ones posed by the medium "canvas" that many artits thought had been investigated in all possible ways); after Fontana, visual (?) art was no longer the same. The same, for different reasons, goes with Pollock.

Obviously it's not just a matter of newness, this "newness" must be relevant to the historic period in which it was conceived as it always comes as a consequence to the intellectual discussion being or as a reaction to some status quo or the exhaustion of some previous artistic form.

I think Invader is a good representative of an important artistic movement (maybe the only real artistic movement in the last 30 years) and with respect to other artists of the street art developed a personal style. Personally I don't find his work particularly appealing or interesting (and just for your information, unfortunately, I don't own any) and agree that is quite over hyped but he is relevant to the art world in this historic period.

Going back to our artist, making minimal art or color field painting or optical art in 2019 and making it in the '60s/'70s is quite different... just to say one could also paint great cubist paintings today from a purely aesthetic point of view, but that wouldn't make him a great painter (not even a great "cubist" painter actually), maybe it would make him a great craftman and the painting would be a "great painting in the cubist style", it wouldn't be a cubist painting because there cannot be cubist paintings in 2019.

Liking or not is just something else.

static1.squarespace.com/static/56403b1ce4b04f0e6f001625/56403ba9e4b0385f73f9a5aa/574b97ba4d088e3b762833f4/1545883791058/DSC_0048-2.jpg?format=750w

www.kunzt.gallery/public/uploads/artworkpic/Victor-VASARELY-HOLLD-Acrylic-sculpture-available-for-sale-on-www1538053597_173x200.jpg

www.farsettiarte.it/photos/auctions/xlarge/64595.jpg

static.picassomio.com/images/art/f3/32/2a/jesus-raphael-soto-artwork-large-57838.jpg

static1.squarespace.com/static/56403b1ce4b04f0e6f001625/56403ba9e4b0385f73f9a5aa/564a68c9e4b082c51d80f1d5/1545883791072/x+of+y+%281+of+1%29.jpg?format=750w

imgprivate2.artprice.com/get/classifieds/2649/9857/49b5/f877/bbf0/596e/697d/a9ac/ad15/0b42/300/300/Jesus-Rafael-SOTO-Sotomagie-I-1512044578.jpg

static1.squarespace.com/static/56403b1ce4b04f0e6f001625/56403ba9e4b0385f73f9a5aa/58f55db9197aea3fe454c25a/1545883791702/DSC_0301-2.jpg?format=750w

www.artnet.com/WebServices/images/ll00022lldQQCGFgPNECfDrCWvaHBOcvaM/ellsworth-kelly-red-orange-white-(rogue).jpg

static1.squarespace.com/static/56403b1ce4b04f0e6f001625/56403ba9e4b0385f73f9a5aa/59235c3e2e69cf32fd8a014e/1545883790849/DSC_0343.jpg?format=750w

Correct they aren't! Its the "its easy, anyone can do it" and "Its just the shapes" that i disagree with. Thats why i pointed to Hirsts spots etc. Having said that i appreciate your point of view. Some of the best and mostly constructive back and forth i've seen on here for a while. Kudos

[hiya]

nobokov

You're assuming that in 70 years time Johhnys work wouldn't have evolved beyond this point... to call this "decor" is incredibly narrow minded, you may as well brand all artists working in the minimal sphere as "decor" artists! At least you've admitted to not being entirely enthused with minimalism which adds context to your views. Each to their own...

What are your views on Hirst?

[Deleted]

Reminds me a lot of Paul Kremer

[Pawel]

That's quite a discussion about artist never before mentioned here

[blerd]

Jan 30, 2019 16:30:19 GMT 1 Pawel said:

That's quite a discussion about artist never before mentioned here

yeah, I'm surprised. He must be onto something. The next Pejac perhaps.