WOOF
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,464
👍🏻 4,762
March 2014
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by WOOF on Jun 25, 2019 20:08:41 GMT 1, Hey all,
Figured I'd post this here as I now have a better understanding of what has transpired.
I was recently approached by a seller offering a large number of works on wood by Faile. I’m sure many of you received the same offer. As a big collector, I immediately responded and over the next few weeks, looked at a fair number of pieces.
I was about to purchase a piece from the seller, but something wasn’t sitting quite right with me, so I asked more info about the framing of the pieces. That’s when I discovered that the pieces I had been offered were not single original works by faile, but rather pieces from the Faile tower that had been broken apart without the knowledge or consent of the artists, reframed in metal frames to appear as though they were meant to be sold as singular original, and then quietly shopped around the internet.
You’ll notice none of the works on wood being sold by this particular seller are signed, and the metal frames don’t have “FAILE” or “1986” welded onto them.
At that point, I received a message asking if had spoken to anyone at the Faile studio, which made me feel uneasy about the deal, so reached out to my contact at the studio for more info.
This is what they told me:
“Thanks for your inquiry. Yes, this matter has come to our attention. From what we understand this is an unfortunate situation. Whatever is being offered is not considered a piece of Faile artwork. We see that this person is starting to create fake frames as well, in what appears to be an effort to scam people. These works will not be authenticated in anyway and if they are found for sale or in auction they will be treated as counterfeit goods.“
So yeah, if you get approached about purchasing any of these pieces, just know the Patricks and Faile studio consider these works to be counterfeit, and will never authenticate them.
Hey all,
Figured I'd post this here as I now have a better understanding of what has transpired.
I was recently approached by a seller offering a large number of works on wood by Faile. I’m sure many of you received the same offer. As a big collector, I immediately responded and over the next few weeks, looked at a fair number of pieces.
I was about to purchase a piece from the seller, but something wasn’t sitting quite right with me, so I asked more info about the framing of the pieces. That’s when I discovered that the pieces I had been offered were not single original works by faile, but rather pieces from the Faile tower that had been broken apart without the knowledge or consent of the artists, reframed in metal frames to appear as though they were meant to be sold as singular original, and then quietly shopped around the internet.
You’ll notice none of the works on wood being sold by this particular seller are signed, and the metal frames don’t have “FAILE” or “1986” welded onto them.
At that point, I received a message asking if had spoken to anyone at the Faile studio, which made me feel uneasy about the deal, so reached out to my contact at the studio for more info.
This is what they told me:
“Thanks for your inquiry. Yes, this matter has come to our attention. From what we understand this is an unfortunate situation. Whatever is being offered is not considered a piece of Faile artwork. We see that this person is starting to create fake frames as well, in what appears to be an effort to scam people. These works will not be authenticated in anyway and if they are found for sale or in auction they will be treated as counterfeit goods.“
So yeah, if you get approached about purchasing any of these pieces, just know the Patricks and Faile studio consider these works to be counterfeit, and will never authenticate them.
|
|
|
|
lorraballs
New Member
🗨️ 216
👍🏻 198
September 2012
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by lorraballs on Jun 25, 2019 20:49:24 GMT 1,
That piece for sale is posted by Mint. Havethey been asked for comment?
That piece for sale is posted by Mint. Havethey been asked for comment? |
|
|
|
|
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by purpleandred on Jun 25, 2019 21:32:12 GMT 1, Why would you even consider buying one of these without at the very least seeing the welded Faile and 1986 on the steel frame?!??
Dear oh dear reptile...
Why would you even consider buying one of these without at the very least seeing the welded Faile and 1986 on the steel frame?!??
Dear oh dear reptile...
|
|
jluhiex
New Member
🗨️ 402
👍🏻 223
December 2016
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by jluhiex on Jun 25, 2019 21:36:09 GMT 1, Something about that first one looks off...but what would I know.
Something about that first one looks off...but what would I know.
|
|
|
|
ncewnimw
New Member
🗨️ 568
👍🏻 419
November 2011
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by ncewnimw on Jun 25, 2019 21:44:33 GMT 1, I wasn’t approached but have seen them flood eBay about 2-3 month ago. Was tempted at first sight but the shady photographs made me suspicious. And as always, if the deal seem to good to be true, then there’s usually a catch...
Also linked them to the tower and the named seller on here.
I wasn’t approached but have seen them flood eBay about 2-3 month ago. Was tempted at first sight but the shady photographs made me suspicious. And as always, if the deal seem to good to be true, then there’s usually a catch...
Also linked them to the tower and the named seller on here.
|
|
CREAM
New Member
🗨️ 424
👍🏻 513
June 2015
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by CREAM on Jun 25, 2019 21:45:53 GMT 1, So the works are legit in that Faile created them themselves but not legit because they were only intended to be sold as one big piece for the tower? That's a strange situation to say the least. Guess the seller figured he would never get a buyer for the entire tower.
@reptile is def the owner of those two pieces from that ig account. Wonder what he thinks about all this?
So the works are legit in that Faile created them themselves but not legit because they were only intended to be sold as one big piece for the tower? That's a strange situation to say the least. Guess the seller figured he would never get a buyer for the entire tower.
@reptile is def the owner of those two pieces from that ig account. Wonder what he thinks about all this?
|
|
ncewnimw
New Member
🗨️ 568
👍🏻 419
November 2011
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by ncewnimw on Jun 25, 2019 22:02:27 GMT 1, So the works are legit in that Faile created them themselves but not legit because they were only intended to be sold as one big piece for the tower? That's a strange situation to say the least. Guess the seller figured he would never get a buyer for the entire tower. @reptile is def the owner of those two pieces from that ig account. Wonder what he thinks about all this?
Not forget that the current owner/seller also have made new welded frames with the intention to make them seem to have been made that way initially.
So the works are legit in that Faile created them themselves but not legit because they were only intended to be sold as one big piece for the tower? That's a strange situation to say the least. Guess the seller figured he would never get a buyer for the entire tower. @reptile is def the owner of those two pieces from that ig account. Wonder what he thinks about all this? Not forget that the current owner/seller also have made new welded frames with the intention to make them seem to have been made that way initially. |
|
Sundowner
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,227
👍🏻 2,429
September 2008
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by Sundowner on Jun 25, 2019 22:02:48 GMT 1, A similar thing happened on this very forum a good few years back where some enterprising soul sold three individual pieces of a triptych by Jose Parla to three different forumites.
A similar thing happened on this very forum a good few years back where some enterprising soul sold three individual pieces of a triptych by Jose Parla to three different forumites.
|
|
WOOF
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,464
👍🏻 4,762
March 2014
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by WOOF on Jun 25, 2019 22:07:01 GMT 1, Most of them were pretty great.
They really were. I was about to hit send on a payment for one when this all went down...
Most of them were pretty great. They really were. I was about to hit send on a payment for one when this all went down... |
|
pac
New Member
🗨️ 220
👍🏻 235
April 2018
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by pac on Jun 25, 2019 22:34:48 GMT 1, So I'm of two minds here, and yes I bought a couple. They are done by Faile and I'm incredibly happy to have the images on my walls - I could not have afforded them at "offical Faile" prices. For me the artistic beauty is still there and if I ever want to resell them I may have a problem but that was not my intention.
I don't think they were misrepresented in any way. It was clear they had come from the tower and didn't have the weld brand.
I do understand that people may feel taken advantage of in some ways but would happily pay what I paid again for an iconic Faile image.
So I'm of two minds here, and yes I bought a couple. They are done by Faile and I'm incredibly happy to have the images on my walls - I could not have afforded them at "offical Faile" prices. For me the artistic beauty is still there and if I ever want to resell them I may have a problem but that was not my intention.
I don't think they were misrepresented in any way. It was clear they had come from the tower and didn't have the weld brand.
I do understand that people may feel taken advantage of in some ways but would happily pay what I paid again for an iconic Faile image.
|
|
Faile 313
New Member
🗨️ 232
👍🏻 182
January 2017
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by Faile 313 on Jun 25, 2019 22:39:49 GMT 1, Why would you even consider buying one of these without at the very least seeing the welded Faile and 1986 on the steel frame?!?? Dear oh dear reptile...
These were priced quite attractively vs what you'd pay for one with a COA.
Dollars to donuts, if you are going to display them and don't care about a smooth sale later, they were a great value.
Why would you even consider buying one of these without at the very least seeing the welded Faile and 1986 on the steel frame?!?? Dear oh dear reptile... These were priced quite attractively vs what you'd pay for one with a COA. Dollars to donuts, if you are going to display them and don't care about a smooth sale later, they were a great value. |
|
WOOF
Junior Member
🗨️ 4,464
👍🏻 4,762
March 2014
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by WOOF on Jun 25, 2019 23:02:29 GMT 1, So I'm of two minds here, and yes I bought a couple. They are done by Faile and I'm incredibly happy to have the images on my walls - I could not have afforded them at "offical Faile" prices. For me the artistic beauty is still there and if I ever want to resell them I may have a problem but that was not my intention. I don't think they were misrepresented in any way. It was clear they had come from the tower and didn't have the weld brand. I do understand that people may feel taken advantage of in some ways but would happily pay what I paid again for an iconic Faile image.
I hope you don't mind that I posted this, given that you purchased a few pieces. The reality is, you're right, Faile for sure made the pieces. Even if they won't authenticate them. And even if they were never meant to be split up. And I agree with almost everything you say, except the fact that you don't think "they were misrepresented in any way."
The seller told me that the Patrick's oversaw the dismantling and framing of the pieces which was a 100% a lie.
So I'm of two minds here, and yes I bought a couple. They are done by Faile and I'm incredibly happy to have the images on my walls - I could not have afforded them at "offical Faile" prices. For me the artistic beauty is still there and if I ever want to resell them I may have a problem but that was not my intention. I don't think they were misrepresented in any way. It was clear they had come from the tower and didn't have the weld brand. I do understand that people may feel taken advantage of in some ways but would happily pay what I paid again for an iconic Faile image. I hope you don't mind that I posted this, given that you purchased a few pieces. The reality is, you're right, Faile for sure made the pieces. Even if they won't authenticate them. And even if they were never meant to be split up. And I agree with almost everything you say, except the fact that you don't think "they were misrepresented in any way." The seller told me that the Patrick's oversaw the dismantling and framing of the pieces which was a 100% a lie. |
|
|
|
coller
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,384
👍🏻 2,371
April 2015
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by coller on Jun 25, 2019 23:14:02 GMT 1, So I'm of two minds here, and yes I bought a couple. They are done by Faile and I'm incredibly happy to have the images on my walls - I could not have afforded them at "offical Faile" prices. For me the artistic beauty is still there and if I ever want to resell them I may have a problem but that was not my intention. I don't think they were misrepresented in any way. It was clear they had come from the tower and didn't have the weld brand. I do understand that people may feel taken advantage of in some ways but would happily pay what I paid again for an iconic Faile image. I hope you don't mind that I posted this, given that you purchased a few pieces. The reality is, you're right, Faile for sure made the pieces. Even if they won't authenticate them. And even if they were never meant to be split up. And I agree with almost everything you say, except the fact that you don't think "they were misrepresented in any way." The seller told me that the Patrick's oversaw the dismantling and framing of the pieces which was a 100% a lie.
this also seems more like people chipping off/selling invader kits than it does someone selling a triptych in three pieces. it seems like the greater original work itself was for public consumption and never meant to be sold, or maybe i'm missing something.
So I'm of two minds here, and yes I bought a couple. They are done by Faile and I'm incredibly happy to have the images on my walls - I could not have afforded them at "offical Faile" prices. For me the artistic beauty is still there and if I ever want to resell them I may have a problem but that was not my intention. I don't think they were misrepresented in any way. It was clear they had come from the tower and didn't have the weld brand. I do understand that people may feel taken advantage of in some ways but would happily pay what I paid again for an iconic Faile image. I hope you don't mind that I posted this, given that you purchased a few pieces. The reality is, you're right, Faile for sure made the pieces. Even if they won't authenticate them. And even if they were never meant to be split up. And I agree with almost everything you say, except the fact that you don't think "they were misrepresented in any way." The seller told me that the Patrick's oversaw the dismantling and framing of the pieces which was a 100% a lie. seems like anything short of saying "these are not considered authentic faile pieces and have been labelled as 'counterfeit' due to the method in which they were taken from a larger piece/sold without permission" is a misrepresentation. this also seems more like people chipping off/selling invader kits than it does someone selling a triptych in three pieces. it seems like the greater original work itself was for public consumption and never meant to be sold, or maybe i'm missing something. |
|
Faile 313
New Member
🗨️ 232
👍🏻 182
January 2017
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by Faile 313 on Jun 25, 2019 23:15:22 GMT 1, My biggest issue is that the seller used editorial discretion in the composition of the pieces. If he had sold the tower off 1 piece at a time, I don't think anyone could complain. To create block works in the style of Faile and them market them as OGs without further transparency was wrong.
My biggest issue is that the seller used editorial discretion in the composition of the pieces. If he had sold the tower off 1 piece at a time, I don't think anyone could complain. To create block works in the style of Faile and them market them as OGs without further transparency was wrong.
|
|
Faile 313
New Member
🗨️ 232
👍🏻 182
January 2017
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by Faile 313 on Jun 25, 2019 23:18:51 GMT 1, I hope you don't mind that I posted this, given that you purchased a few pieces. The reality is, you're right, Faile for sure made the pieces. Even if they won't authenticate them. And even if they were never meant to be split up. And I agree with almost everything you say, except the fact that you don't think "they were misrepresented in any way." The seller told me that the Patrick's oversaw the dismantling and framing of the pieces which was a 100% a lie. seems like anything short of saying "these are not considered authentic faile pieces and have been labelled as 'counterfeit' due to the method in which they were taken from a larger piece/sold without permission" is a misrepresentation. this also seems more like people chipping off/selling invader kits than it does someone selling a triptych in three pieces. it seems like the greater original work itself was for public consumption and never meant to be sold, or maybe i'm missing something.
The tower was sold in 2010 by Perry Rubenstein Gallery. It was later attempted to be auctioned off in it's entirety but did not find a bidder at it's reserve price. www.artsy.net/artwork/faile-faile-tower
I hope you don't mind that I posted this, given that you purchased a few pieces. The reality is, you're right, Faile for sure made the pieces. Even if they won't authenticate them. And even if they were never meant to be split up. And I agree with almost everything you say, except the fact that you don't think "they were misrepresented in any way." The seller told me that the Patrick's oversaw the dismantling and framing of the pieces which was a 100% a lie. seems like anything short of saying "these are not considered authentic faile pieces and have been labelled as 'counterfeit' due to the method in which they were taken from a larger piece/sold without permission" is a misrepresentation. this also seems more like people chipping off/selling invader kits than it does someone selling a triptych in three pieces. it seems like the greater original work itself was for public consumption and never meant to be sold, or maybe i'm missing something. The tower was sold in 2010 by Perry Rubenstein Gallery. It was later attempted to be auctioned off in it's entirety but did not find a bidder at it's reserve price. www.artsy.net/artwork/faile-faile-tower |
|
coller
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,384
👍🏻 2,371
April 2015
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by coller on Jun 25, 2019 23:28:39 GMT 1, seems like anything short of saying "these are not considered authentic faile pieces and have been labelled as 'counterfeit' due to the method in which they were taken from a larger piece/sold without permission" is a misrepresentation. this also seems more like people chipping off/selling invader kits than it does someone selling a triptych in three pieces. it seems like the greater original work itself was for public consumption and never meant to be sold, or maybe i'm missing something. The tower was sold in 2010 by Perry Rubenstein Gallery. It was later attempted to be auctioned off in it's entirety but did not find a bidder at it's reserve price. www.artsy.net/artwork/faile-faile-tower
i guess this would be somewhat similar to buying a kaws 'blame game' set, then after failing to sell cutting it up like mocad and selling off the pieces as 'kaws screenprints'
seems like anything short of saying "these are not considered authentic faile pieces and have been labelled as 'counterfeit' due to the method in which they were taken from a larger piece/sold without permission" is a misrepresentation. this also seems more like people chipping off/selling invader kits than it does someone selling a triptych in three pieces. it seems like the greater original work itself was for public consumption and never meant to be sold, or maybe i'm missing something. The tower was sold in 2010 by Perry Rubenstein Gallery. It was later attempted to be auctioned off in it's entirety but did not find a bidder at it's reserve price. www.artsy.net/artwork/faile-faile-tower gotchya, that changes my view a little but not much. i guess this would be somewhat similar to buying a kaws 'blame game' set, then after failing to sell cutting it up like mocad and selling off the pieces as 'kaws screenprints' |
|
pac
New Member
🗨️ 220
👍🏻 235
April 2018
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by pac on Jun 25, 2019 23:46:14 GMT 1, It's an interesting question given the sheer mass of the tower. I guess the original buyer should have been aware (required) of a restriction to agree not to resell it piece by piece? Seems like that would have come a hefty discount!!
The tower was sold in 2010 by Perry Rubenstein Gallery. It was later attempted to be auctioned off in it's entirety but did not find a bidder at it's reserve price. www.artsy.net/artwork/faile-faile-tower gotchya, that changes my view a little but not much. i guess this would be somewhat similar to buying a kaws 'blame game' set, then after failing to sell cutting it up like mocad and selling off the pieces as 'kaws screenprints'
It's an interesting question given the sheer mass of the tower. I guess the original buyer should have been aware (required) of a restriction to agree not to resell it piece by piece? Seems like that would have come a hefty discount!! The tower was sold in 2010 by Perry Rubenstein Gallery. It was later attempted to be auctioned off in it's entirety but did not find a bidder at it's reserve price. www.artsy.net/artwork/faile-faile-tower gotchya, that changes my view a little but not much. i guess this would be somewhat similar to buying a kaws 'blame game' set, then after failing to sell cutting it up like mocad and selling off the pieces as 'kaws screenprints' |
|
mint
New Member
🗨️ 611
👍🏻 730
August 2007
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by mint on Jun 26, 2019 18:35:03 GMT 1, Sup guys. I did get some of these in a trade and knew they were fragments of the tower. I thought it was rad as their work has seriously taken a turn in the last few years.
I have been into Faile since 2007 and I consider 09-11 some of the best stuff.
Was hyped to get my hands on pieces from a tower I saw at the show in Venice Beach in 2011.
Never was mislead or anything. The owner of the tower tried to auction it off a few times with no success. If I spent 100k ( not sure the price) on a huge ass tower I would want to recoup some funds too.
I agree the metal frames could be misleading for some... but thats why you ask questions right?
Was only interested in the loose pieces personally.
No doubt these are faile...as they have acknowledged it.
Weird that faile is being kinda lame about these.
Sup guys. I did get some of these in a trade and knew they were fragments of the tower. I thought it was rad as their work has seriously taken a turn in the last few years.
I have been into Faile since 2007 and I consider 09-11 some of the best stuff.
Was hyped to get my hands on pieces from a tower I saw at the show in Venice Beach in 2011.
Never was mislead or anything. The owner of the tower tried to auction it off a few times with no success. If I spent 100k ( not sure the price) on a huge ass tower I would want to recoup some funds too.
I agree the metal frames could be misleading for some... but thats why you ask questions right?
Was only interested in the loose pieces personally.
No doubt these are faile...as they have acknowledged it.
Weird that faile is being kinda lame about these.
|
|
lorraballs
New Member
🗨️ 216
👍🏻 198
September 2012
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by lorraballs on Jun 27, 2019 21:18:44 GMT 1, Sup guys. I did get some of these in a trade and knew they were fragments of the tower. I thought it was rad as their work has seriously taken a turn in the last few years. I have been into Faile since 2007 and I consider 09-11 some of the best stuff. Was hyped to get my hands on pieces from a tower I saw at the show in Venice Beach in 2011. Never was mislead or anything. The owner of the tower tried to auction it off a few times with no success. If I spent 100k ( not sure the price) on a huge ass tower I would want to recoup some funds too. I agree the metal frames could be misleading for some... but thats why you ask questions right? Was only interested in the loose pieces personally. No doubt these are faile...as they have acknowledged it. Weird that faile is being kinda lame about these.
Not really. They created a work of art and sold it. Someone cut it into pieces and tried selling off parts without fully disclosing the background. How is that lame? Honestly, how is that ‘lame’?
Sup guys. I did get some of these in a trade and knew they were fragments of the tower. I thought it was rad as their work has seriously taken a turn in the last few years. I have been into Faile since 2007 and I consider 09-11 some of the best stuff. Was hyped to get my hands on pieces from a tower I saw at the show in Venice Beach in 2011. Never was mislead or anything. The owner of the tower tried to auction it off a few times with no success. If I spent 100k ( not sure the price) on a huge ass tower I would want to recoup some funds too. I agree the metal frames could be misleading for some... but thats why you ask questions right? Was only interested in the loose pieces personally. No doubt these are faile...as they have acknowledged it. Weird that faile is being kinda lame about these. Not really. They created a work of art and sold it. Someone cut it into pieces and tried selling off parts without fully disclosing the background. How is that lame? Honestly, how is that ‘lame’? |
|
|
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by Union Eighteen on Jun 30, 2019 3:51:02 GMT 1, Sup guys. I did get some of these in a trade and knew they were fragments of the tower. I thought it was rad as their work has seriously taken a turn in the last few years. I have been into Faile since 2007 and I consider 09-11 some of the best stuff. Was hyped to get my hands on pieces from a tower I saw at the show in Venice Beach in 2011. Never was mislead or anything. The owner of the tower tried to auction it off a few times with no success. If I spent 100k ( not sure the price) on a huge ass tower I would want to recoup some funds too. I agree the metal frames could be misleading for some... but thats why you ask questions right? Was only interested in the loose pieces personally. No doubt these are faile...as they have acknowledged it. Weird that faile is being kinda lame about these. Not really. They created a work of art and sold it. Someone cut it into pieces and tried selling off parts without fully disclosing the background. How is that lame? Honestly, how is that ‘lame’?
I can definitely understand why Faile would not like this, but I kind of agree with Mint .. seems weird that they would call it ‘counterfeit’ . This guy purchased a piece (from their gallery) that I’m guessing was among the most expensive pieces they’d ever sold and 10 years later breaks it up because he can’t find a buyer for the entire, massive piece. I can’t imagine trying to sell something that monstrous. I wonder if it would have been a different story if he’d gone to them first? It’s not like he ripped installations off the street and tried to sell them, so to say it’s counterfeit and a scam just seems a little harsh.
Sup guys. I did get some of these in a trade and knew they were fragments of the tower. I thought it was rad as their work has seriously taken a turn in the last few years. I have been into Faile since 2007 and I consider 09-11 some of the best stuff. Was hyped to get my hands on pieces from a tower I saw at the show in Venice Beach in 2011. Never was mislead or anything. The owner of the tower tried to auction it off a few times with no success. If I spent 100k ( not sure the price) on a huge ass tower I would want to recoup some funds too. I agree the metal frames could be misleading for some... but thats why you ask questions right? Was only interested in the loose pieces personally. No doubt these are faile...as they have acknowledged it. Weird that faile is being kinda lame about these. Not really. They created a work of art and sold it. Someone cut it into pieces and tried selling off parts without fully disclosing the background. How is that lame? Honestly, how is that ‘lame’? I can definitely understand why Faile would not like this, but I kind of agree with Mint .. seems weird that they would call it ‘counterfeit’ . This guy purchased a piece (from their gallery) that I’m guessing was among the most expensive pieces they’d ever sold and 10 years later breaks it up because he can’t find a buyer for the entire, massive piece. I can’t imagine trying to sell something that monstrous. I wonder if it would have been a different story if he’d gone to them first? It’s not like he ripped installations off the street and tried to sell them, so to say it’s counterfeit and a scam just seems a little harsh. |
|
|
|
rebate
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,050
👍🏻 961
January 2018
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by rebate on Jun 30, 2019 10:17:41 GMT 1, I can see why Faile would do this. They sold a piece of art, someone cut it into pieces (so the piece of Faile art no longer exists), then tried to sell them as individual pieces. So many reasons this is wrong, from destroying a work of art, to the making of faked frames but at the end of the day, this is no longer the single piece of art Faile made, and so is no longer accepted as their work.
As has already been pointed out on the kaws thread, no one would chop up their kaws prints to sell them as pieces like Kaws does, and expect to get away with it, so why is this any different?
Weird to hear the defences of this for sure!
I can see why Faile would do this. They sold a piece of art, someone cut it into pieces (so the piece of Faile art no longer exists), then tried to sell them as individual pieces. So many reasons this is wrong, from destroying a work of art, to the making of faked frames but at the end of the day, this is no longer the single piece of art Faile made, and so is no longer accepted as their work.
As has already been pointed out on the kaws thread, no one would chop up their kaws prints to sell them as pieces like Kaws does, and expect to get away with it, so why is this any different?
Weird to hear the defences of this for sure!
|
|
|
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by Union Eighteen on Jun 30, 2019 11:38:02 GMT 1, I hear you, I definitely understand why Faile would be unhappy. Something they’ve created has been lost and in a way commoditized. But I think if you’re going to compare it to cutting up a Kaws piece, I’d say the comparison is off. As each piece of the tower is an individual work, loosely stacked and can be reconfigured, moved and re-stacked (intended by Faile) a better comparison might be to say this is like breaking up a Kaws set, and selling them as smaller sets, or in mints case, individually - which happens here everyday. Granted the Faile thing feels more extreme. But from what I’m reading he didn’t cut up the work, he grouped them and framed them. The framing part is what everyone feels mislead by.
I hear you, I definitely understand why Faile would be unhappy. Something they’ve created has been lost and in a way commoditized. But I think if you’re going to compare it to cutting up a Kaws piece, I’d say the comparison is off. As each piece of the tower is an individual work, loosely stacked and can be reconfigured, moved and re-stacked (intended by Faile) a better comparison might be to say this is like breaking up a Kaws set, and selling them as smaller sets, or in mints case, individually - which happens here everyday. Granted the Faile thing feels more extreme. But from what I’m reading he didn’t cut up the work, he grouped them and framed them. The framing part is what everyone feels mislead by.
|
|
lorraballs
New Member
🗨️ 216
👍🏻 198
September 2012
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by lorraballs on Jun 30, 2019 16:49:19 GMT 1, I hear you, I definitely understand why Faile would be unhappy. Something they’ve created has been lost and in a way commoditized. But I think if you’re going to compare it to cutting up a Kaws piece, I’d say the comparison is off. As each piece of the tower is an individual work, loosely stacked and can be reconfigured, moved and re-stacked (intended by Faile) a better comparison might be to say this is like breaking up a Kaws set, and selling them as smaller sets, or in mints case, individually - which happens here everyday. Granted the Faile thing feels more extreme. But from what I’m reading he didn’t cut up the work, he grouped them and framed them. The framing part is what everyone feels mislead by.
No. The art is what the creator decides. The observer can interpret it as they wish but that is different. There is no comparison to Kaws. I’m curious why the ‘loss’ of the buyer is even a consideration. Buying art for profit, even the maintenance of value, is a fool’s errand. If you buy a new car, you mainly enjoy and sell at a loss. Art is very similar. This place is really weird. I see so many people ‘selling at cost’. Nearly every piece of art on my walls has cost me money, but enriched my soul. Indeed, when I see people selling ‘at cost’, I think much less of them.
I hear you, I definitely understand why Faile would be unhappy. Something they’ve created has been lost and in a way commoditized. But I think if you’re going to compare it to cutting up a Kaws piece, I’d say the comparison is off. As each piece of the tower is an individual work, loosely stacked and can be reconfigured, moved and re-stacked (intended by Faile) a better comparison might be to say this is like breaking up a Kaws set, and selling them as smaller sets, or in mints case, individually - which happens here everyday. Granted the Faile thing feels more extreme. But from what I’m reading he didn’t cut up the work, he grouped them and framed them. The framing part is what everyone feels mislead by. No. The art is what the creator decides. The observer can interpret it as they wish but that is different. There is no comparison to Kaws. I’m curious why the ‘loss’ of the buyer is even a consideration. Buying art for profit, even the maintenance of value, is a fool’s errand. If you buy a new car, you mainly enjoy and sell at a loss. Art is very similar. This place is really weird. I see so many people ‘selling at cost’. Nearly every piece of art on my walls has cost me money, but enriched my soul. Indeed, when I see people selling ‘at cost’, I think much less of them. |
|
pac
New Member
🗨️ 220
👍🏻 235
April 2018
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by pac on Jun 30, 2019 18:11:51 GMT 1, Why would you think "much less of" people selling "at cost"? People have situations that you can't possibly know about. Don't be such an elitist.
author="lorraballs" source="/post/1838071/thread" timestamp="1561909759"]I hear you, I definitely understand why Faile would be unhappy. Something they’ve created has been lost and in a way commoditized. But I think if you’re going to compare it to cutting up a Kaws piece, I’d say the comparison is off. As each piece of the tower is an individual work, loosely stacked and can be reconfigured, moved and re-stacked (intended by Faile) a better comparison might be to say this is like breaking up a Kaws set, and selling them as smaller sets, or in mints case, individually - which happens here everyday. Granted the Faile thing feels more extreme. But from what I’m reading he didn’t cut up the work, he grouped them and framed them. The framing part is what everyone feels mislead by.
No. The art is what the creator decides. The observer can interpret it as they wish but that is different. There is no comparison to Kaws. I’m curious why the ‘loss’ of the buyer is even a consideration. Buying art for profit, even the maintenance of value, is a fool’s errand. If you buy a new car, you mainly enjoy and sell at a loss. Art is very similar. This place is really weird. I see so many people ‘selling at cost’. Nearly every piece of art on my walls has cost me money, but enriched my soul. Indeed, when I see people selling ‘at cost’, I think much less of them. [/quote]
Why would you think "much less of" people selling "at cost"? People have situations that you can't possibly know about. Don't be such an elitist. author=" lorraballs" source="/post/1838071/thread" timestamp="1561909759"] I hear you, I definitely understand why Faile would be unhappy. Something they’ve created has been lost and in a way commoditized. But I think if you’re going to compare it to cutting up a Kaws piece, I’d say the comparison is off. As each piece of the tower is an individual work, loosely stacked and can be reconfigured, moved and re-stacked (intended by Faile) a better comparison might be to say this is like breaking up a Kaws set, and selling them as smaller sets, or in mints case, individually - which happens here everyday. Granted the Faile thing feels more extreme. But from what I’m reading he didn’t cut up the work, he grouped them and framed them. The framing part is what everyone feels mislead by. No. The art is what the creator decides. The observer can interpret it as they wish but that is different. There is no comparison to Kaws. I’m curious why the ‘loss’ of the buyer is even a consideration. Buying art for profit, even the maintenance of value, is a fool’s errand. If you buy a new car, you mainly enjoy and sell at a loss. Art is very similar. This place is really weird. I see so many people ‘selling at cost’. Nearly every piece of art on my walls has cost me money, but enriched my soul. Indeed, when I see people selling ‘at cost’, I think much less of them. [/quote] |
|
lorraballs
New Member
🗨️ 216
👍🏻 198
September 2012
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by lorraballs on Jun 30, 2019 18:32:41 GMT 1, Why would you think "much less of" people selling "at cost"? People have situations that you can't possibly know about. Don't be such an elitist. author=" lorraballs" source="/post/1838071/thread" timestamp="1561909759"] I hear you, I definitely understand why Faile would be unhappy. Something they’ve created has been lost and in a way commoditized. But I think if you’re going to compare it to cutting up a Kaws piece, I’d say the comparison is off. As each piece of the tower is an individual work, loosely stacked and can be reconfigured, moved and re-stacked (intended by Faile) a better comparison might be to say this is like breaking up a Kaws set, and selling them as smaller sets, or in mints case, individually - which happens here everyday. Granted the Faile thing feels more extreme. But from what I’m reading he didn’t cut up the work, he grouped them and framed them. The framing part is what everyone feels mislead by. No. The art is what the creator decides. The observer can interpret it as they wish but that is different. There is no comparison to Kaws. I’m curious why the ‘loss’ of the buyer is even a consideration. Buying art for profit, even the maintenance of value, is a fool’s errand. If you buy a new car, you mainly enjoy and sell at a loss. Art is very similar. This place is really weird. I see so many people ‘selling at cost’. Nearly every piece of art on my walls has cost me money, but enriched my soul. Indeed, when I see people selling ‘at cost’, I think much less of them.
[/quote]
Crikey! So many assumptions. To paraphrase Andre the Giant as the character Fezzick,
‘Elitist. I do not think that word means what you think it means.’
I think you probably know the answer to the ‘selling at cost’ thing but you obfuscate with your reference to ‘elitism’ and ‘situation’.
Same example. Just cos your situation changed, you’re not going to get cost for your car. Why do you think art is different?
Tell you what, link me to ten posts on here of people selling ‘underpriced’ art due to situation’. People buy, it doesn’t fly, then try to do others an ‘at cost’ favour. Hilarious. Art from exhibitions where work is still available! (You know who you are.) Just be straight, eh? ‘Bought this, hoped to make a killing, misjudged it. Hopefully il do better next time. Eenyhow, anyone give me half to shift it? Cash is king.’ Tickets, buying and selling...
Why would you think "much less of" people selling "at cost"? People have situations that you can't possibly know about. Don't be such an elitist. author=" lorraballs" source="/post/1838071/thread" timestamp="1561909759"] I hear you, I definitely understand why Faile would be unhappy. Something they’ve created has been lost and in a way commoditized. But I think if you’re going to compare it to cutting up a Kaws piece, I’d say the comparison is off. As each piece of the tower is an individual work, loosely stacked and can be reconfigured, moved and re-stacked (intended by Faile) a better comparison might be to say this is like breaking up a Kaws set, and selling them as smaller sets, or in mints case, individually - which happens here everyday. Granted the Faile thing feels more extreme. But from what I’m reading he didn’t cut up the work, he grouped them and framed them. The framing part is what everyone feels mislead by. No. The art is what the creator decides. The observer can interpret it as they wish but that is different. There is no comparison to Kaws. I’m curious why the ‘loss’ of the buyer is even a consideration. Buying art for profit, even the maintenance of value, is a fool’s errand. If you buy a new car, you mainly enjoy and sell at a loss. Art is very similar. This place is really weird. I see so many people ‘selling at cost’. Nearly every piece of art on my walls has cost me money, but enriched my soul. Indeed, when I see people selling ‘at cost’, I think much less of them. [/quote] Crikey! So many assumptions. To paraphrase Andre the Giant as the character Fezzick, ‘Elitist. I do not think that word means what you think it means.’ I think you probably know the answer to the ‘selling at cost’ thing but you obfuscate with your reference to ‘elitism’ and ‘situation’. Same example. Just cos your situation changed, you’re not going to get cost for your car. Why do you think art is different? Tell you what, link me to ten posts on here of people selling ‘underpriced’ art due to situation’. People buy, it doesn’t fly, then try to do others an ‘at cost’ favour. Hilarious. Art from exhibitions where work is still available! (You know who you are.) Just be straight, eh? ‘Bought this, hoped to make a killing, misjudged it. Hopefully il do better next time. Eenyhow, anyone give me half to shift it? Cash is king.’ Tickets, buying and selling... |
|
|
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by Union Eighteen on Jun 30, 2019 18:35:01 GMT 1, I hear you, I definitely understand why Faile would be unhappy. Something they’ve created has been lost and in a way commoditized. But I think if you’re going to compare it to cutting up a Kaws piece, I’d say the comparison is off. As each piece of the tower is an individual work, loosely stacked and can be reconfigured, moved and re-stacked (intended by Faile) a better comparison might be to say this is like breaking up a Kaws set, and selling them as smaller sets, or in mints case, individually - which happens here everyday. Granted the Faile thing feels more extreme. But from what I’m reading he didn’t cut up the work, he grouped them and framed them. The framing part is what everyone feels mislead by. No. The art is what the creator decides. The observer can interpret it as they wish but that is different. There is no comparison to Kaws. I’m curious why the ‘loss’ of the buyer is even a consideration. Buying art for profit, even the maintenance of value, is a fool’s errand. If you buy a new car, you mainly enjoy and sell at a loss. Art is very similar. This place is really weird. I see so many people ‘selling at cost’. Nearly every piece of art on my walls has cost me money, but enriched my soul. Indeed, when I see people selling ‘at cost’, I think much less of them.
I’m not sure how we got into talking about the costs of art. I’m not trying to be argumentative.. I was just trying to say that although I totally understand (and respect) the artists desire to maintain the integrity of the work, I do find it weird that because it’s been dismantled they would now call it counterfeit, or a scam. It seems like an unusually strong stance as there is no denial as to the origin or legitimacy of the artwork itself. To add to that, I’d say it’s one of their most iconic gallery pieces. That’s all.
I hear you, I definitely understand why Faile would be unhappy. Something they’ve created has been lost and in a way commoditized. But I think if you’re going to compare it to cutting up a Kaws piece, I’d say the comparison is off. As each piece of the tower is an individual work, loosely stacked and can be reconfigured, moved and re-stacked (intended by Faile) a better comparison might be to say this is like breaking up a Kaws set, and selling them as smaller sets, or in mints case, individually - which happens here everyday. Granted the Faile thing feels more extreme. But from what I’m reading he didn’t cut up the work, he grouped them and framed them. The framing part is what everyone feels mislead by. No. The art is what the creator decides. The observer can interpret it as they wish but that is different. There is no comparison to Kaws. I’m curious why the ‘loss’ of the buyer is even a consideration. Buying art for profit, even the maintenance of value, is a fool’s errand. If you buy a new car, you mainly enjoy and sell at a loss. Art is very similar. This place is really weird. I see so many people ‘selling at cost’. Nearly every piece of art on my walls has cost me money, but enriched my soul. Indeed, when I see people selling ‘at cost’, I think much less of them. I’m not sure how we got into talking about the costs of art. I’m not trying to be argumentative.. I was just trying to say that although I totally understand (and respect) the artists desire to maintain the integrity of the work, I do find it weird that because it’s been dismantled they would now call it counterfeit, or a scam. It seems like an unusually strong stance as there is no denial as to the origin or legitimacy of the artwork itself. To add to that, I’d say it’s one of their most iconic gallery pieces. That’s all. |
|
lorraballs
New Member
🗨️ 216
👍🏻 198
September 2012
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by lorraballs on Jun 30, 2019 18:37:53 GMT 1, No. The art is what the creator decides. The observer can interpret it as they wish but that is different. There is no comparison to Kaws. I’m curious why the ‘loss’ of the buyer is even a consideration. Buying art for profit, even the maintenance of value, is a fool’s errand. If you buy a new car, you mainly enjoy and sell at a loss. Art is very similar. This place is really weird. I see so many people ‘selling at cost’. Nearly every piece of art on my walls has cost me money, but enriched my soul. Indeed, when I see people selling ‘at cost’, I think much less of them. I’m not sure how we got into talking about the costs of art. I’m not trying to be argumentative.. I was just trying to say that although I totally understand (and respect) the artists desire to maintain the integrity of the work, I do find it weird that because it’s been dismantled they would now call it counterfeit, or a scam. It seems like an unusually strong stance as there is no denial as to the origin or legitimacy of the artwork itself. To add to that, I’d say it’s one of their most iconic gallery pieces. That’s all.
Fair do’s, mate
Try taking down a Banksy wall.
Hope it’s sunny where you are (honest love)
No. The art is what the creator decides. The observer can interpret it as they wish but that is different. There is no comparison to Kaws. I’m curious why the ‘loss’ of the buyer is even a consideration. Buying art for profit, even the maintenance of value, is a fool’s errand. If you buy a new car, you mainly enjoy and sell at a loss. Art is very similar. This place is really weird. I see so many people ‘selling at cost’. Nearly every piece of art on my walls has cost me money, but enriched my soul. Indeed, when I see people selling ‘at cost’, I think much less of them. I’m not sure how we got into talking about the costs of art. I’m not trying to be argumentative.. I was just trying to say that although I totally understand (and respect) the artists desire to maintain the integrity of the work, I do find it weird that because it’s been dismantled they would now call it counterfeit, or a scam. It seems like an unusually strong stance as there is no denial as to the origin or legitimacy of the artwork itself. To add to that, I’d say it’s one of their most iconic gallery pieces. That’s all. Fair do’s, mate Try taking down a Banksy wall. Hope it’s sunny where you are (honest love) |
|
|
|
PSA: Faile Works on Wood from the Faile Tower, by Reptile 072 on Jul 1, 2019 1:47:51 GMT 1, A friend brought this thread to my attention earlier today. As the owner of a couple of these reconfigured "pieces" from the Tower and the fact that my name has been brought up, I figured that now is as good a time as any to weigh in. Go grab some coffee. 
When I saw the first of these pieces pop up on ebay, my first request to the seller was to send me photos from all sides of the piece, knowing full well that Faile has "1986" and "Faile" welded onto the side of their steel framed pieces. When I did not hear back, I tried placing a bid on the item (my rationale was that it was a good price and I had buyer protection in case of fraud), but found that I was blocked by the seller and, as a result, missed out on the piece. Once the auction concluded, I reached out to the seller asking why I was blocked; I mentioned that I would've been willing to pay more. Lo and behold, the seller messaged me back and mentioned that a different ebayer with a similar username as mine was meant to be blocked and that this was an error on the seller's part. I found that a little strange, but proceeded to interact with the seller, asking about what other pieces he had for sale. In subsequent weeks, he shared detailed images with me of the pieces in steel frames. As a long time Faile collector, I knew 100% that these were not reconfigured by Faile, again, as they lacked the "signature" (which in this case would be the 1986 and Faile on the side of the frame). The seller shared with me that he was the original owner of the Faile Tower originally sold by Perry Rubenstein gallery and that he has selling pieces from the Tower. Having seen his various auctions from different parts of the Tower, this made total sense to me.
Given the prices that I paid for the pieces, I was totally fine with this situation. Ideally, I would've preferred if the seller would've been 100% transparent up front, but he did answer all my questions and was quite pleasant to deal with. I can see why/how some folks might have been misled (especially newer collectors or low info buyers). I did my due diligence and studied pieces of the Faile Tower from old photos on the internet as well as the Works on Wood book, which showed that several of the pieces that the buyer was selling indeed matched up well with parts of the Tower.
Long story short, here are my takeaways:
1) These are 100% authentic Faile pieces, but were not reconfigured by Faile themselves, hence they lack a "signature" (i.e. the "1986" and "Faile" welding on the side of the steel frame).
2) Given the price paid, I am satisfied with these, as they are technically genuine items from a piece of historical significance.
3) From the seller's perspective, I can see why he broke the Tower and is selling them off piece by piece. The Tower did not sell at auction, and, logistically speaking, it would be extremely challenging to find the right buyer. Would I do the same in his position, given the amount he paid for the Tower? Probably; but I would've most likely reached out to the Patricks first about this.
4) I reached out to the Faile studio about this after my purchases (in case they'd be willing to provide a COA) and got a similar response to what Woof posted. In my estimation, they are using inaccurate language when they say that these are not "authentic" works. I understand what they are trying to say though - that these were not reconfigured by Faile, even though the individual block pieces themselves may be from the Tower. I emailed them proof, showing images of the original Tower vs the individual pieces that this seller is selling. This, coupled with studying the pieces up close, and consulting with fellow Faile collectors privately gives me 100% confidence that the pieces themselves are genuine, even if the "reconfigured" steel works were not authorized by Faile.
5) I'm sure some people who bought these had no idea what they were getting themselves into. Rest assured that I did my due diligence and am totally fine with my purchases. Given the fact that the Tower was broken down and that these were sold at a fraction of what they could be worth, I can understand why the Patricks have had such a strong reaction to this. At the end of the day, I love the images and the medium, and acquired them at a price that I was comfortable paying (especially given the lack of "backing" from Faile).
We all have varying comfort levels when it comes to these kinds of situations. If I ever decide to part with these pieces, I intend to provide full transparency and context up front. I am sure owners of these pieces would've appreciated that from the seller, but again, in my case, I am satisfied. If these were not genuine (literal) pieces from a Faile work, that would've been a different story.
A friend brought this thread to my attention earlier today. As the owner of a couple of these reconfigured "pieces" from the Tower and the fact that my name has been brought up, I figured that now is as good a time as any to weigh in. Go grab some coffee. When I saw the first of these pieces pop up on ebay, my first request to the seller was to send me photos from all sides of the piece, knowing full well that Faile has "1986" and "Faile" welded onto the side of their steel framed pieces. When I did not hear back, I tried placing a bid on the item (my rationale was that it was a good price and I had buyer protection in case of fraud), but found that I was blocked by the seller and, as a result, missed out on the piece. Once the auction concluded, I reached out to the seller asking why I was blocked; I mentioned that I would've been willing to pay more. Lo and behold, the seller messaged me back and mentioned that a different ebayer with a similar username as mine was meant to be blocked and that this was an error on the seller's part. I found that a little strange, but proceeded to interact with the seller, asking about what other pieces he had for sale. In subsequent weeks, he shared detailed images with me of the pieces in steel frames. As a long time Faile collector, I knew 100% that these were not reconfigured by Faile, again, as they lacked the "signature" (which in this case would be the 1986 and Faile on the side of the frame). The seller shared with me that he was the original owner of the Faile Tower originally sold by Perry Rubenstein gallery and that he has selling pieces from the Tower. Having seen his various auctions from different parts of the Tower, this made total sense to me. Given the prices that I paid for the pieces, I was totally fine with this situation. Ideally, I would've preferred if the seller would've been 100% transparent up front, but he did answer all my questions and was quite pleasant to deal with. I can see why/how some folks might have been misled (especially newer collectors or low info buyers). I did my due diligence and studied pieces of the Faile Tower from old photos on the internet as well as the Works on Wood book, which showed that several of the pieces that the buyer was selling indeed matched up well with parts of the Tower. Long story short, here are my takeaways: 1) These are 100% authentic Faile pieces, but were not reconfigured by Faile themselves, hence they lack a "signature" (i.e. the "1986" and "Faile" welding on the side of the steel frame). 2) Given the price paid, I am satisfied with these, as they are technically genuine items from a piece of historical significance. 3) From the seller's perspective, I can see why he broke the Tower and is selling them off piece by piece. The Tower did not sell at auction, and, logistically speaking, it would be extremely challenging to find the right buyer. Would I do the same in his position, given the amount he paid for the Tower? Probably; but I would've most likely reached out to the Patricks first about this. 4) I reached out to the Faile studio about this after my purchases (in case they'd be willing to provide a COA) and got a similar response to what Woof posted. In my estimation, they are using inaccurate language when they say that these are not "authentic" works. I understand what they are trying to say though - that these were not reconfigured by Faile, even though the individual block pieces themselves may be from the Tower. I emailed them proof, showing images of the original Tower vs the individual pieces that this seller is selling. This, coupled with studying the pieces up close, and consulting with fellow Faile collectors privately gives me 100% confidence that the pieces themselves are genuine, even if the "reconfigured" steel works were not authorized by Faile. 5) I'm sure some people who bought these had no idea what they were getting themselves into. Rest assured that I did my due diligence and am totally fine with my purchases. Given the fact that the Tower was broken down and that these were sold at a fraction of what they could be worth, I can understand why the Patricks have had such a strong reaction to this. At the end of the day, I love the images and the medium, and acquired them at a price that I was comfortable paying (especially given the lack of "backing" from Faile). We all have varying comfort levels when it comes to these kinds of situations. If I ever decide to part with these pieces, I intend to provide full transparency and context up front. I am sure owners of these pieces would've appreciated that from the seller, but again, in my case, I am satisfied. If these were not genuine (literal) pieces from a Faile work, that would've been a different story. |
|
