[jamesreeve5]

Mike Brodie
2005
Monica Canilao II


Any other street artist photographers out there?

[jamesreeve5]

wow... I take it as a "no" then

[bombshelter]

jamesreeve5 said:

wow... I take it as a "no" then

;D ;D ;D Looks that way +for trying mate

[carl]

I like this...

[jamesreeve5]

Artist Carl?

[carl]

Jenny Matthews. She is the first photographer to work with Amilas. We will be selling an edition of this photo. She is amazing.
Do you like it?

[finsburyparkranger]

Really cool, love that Carl, I really must come and see some more of kennards work in person, when you're next showing, give me a shout.

[bombshelter]

I like it ...But i like the getto blaster more
;D

[carl]

The photo was taken in a street market somewhere in Afghanistan, I cant remember right now as I am in trauma after seeing Legend. It scared the shit out of me.

[carl]

bombshelter said:

I like it ...But i like the getto blaster more
;D

I will let you know where in Afghanistan so maybe you could go pick it up!

[finsburyparkranger]

carl said:

The photo was taken in a street market somewhere in Afghanistan, I cant remember right now as I am in trauma after seeing Legend. It scared the s**t out of me.

Whats 'legend', new film?

[mammal2]

The one with Tom Cruise scared the shit out of me. Utter pap!

[carl]

Hoodini...

[jamesreeve5]

ianfrancis said:

Did you get that at M+B, mazn?

yep...

[carl]

[jfury]

carl said:

I like this...

literally a 3 deck wizard....nice

[jfury]

surely i didnt get a neg for that

[jamesreeve5]

Carl, I like the looks of that boombox picture... +1

[jamesreeve5]

jfury, someone ripped a point off me as well! no love for the photog thread i guess!

[jfury]

i though the carl cox connotation was funny,,,,hey ho...must be the stellas + 1 to you anyway james

[carl]

It cant be this thread yor getting negged for??! Really?

[jamesreeve5]

Good point Carl, I'm usually not this positive! Must be one of my other surly posts floating around somewhere else...

[jamesreeve5]

Ed Templeton is another good example of a quality street photographer, I forgot about him earlier...

[bonesy]

(negative post ahead)
Ive been a fan of Mike Brodie's work for awhile but was apprehensive about dropping hundreds on a photo. I picked up a small book which was signed and then finally grabbed this photo which was also advertised as signed on the back.

The photo sig was a 3-line drawing of a pair of eye-glasses. I expressed my disappointment about the photo's signature to the gallery stating that I know he has a "real" signature. They responded in a snobby manner stating that it was his "new"sig. He then personally responded saying I should enjoy the imagery and not the signature. I responded by saying I could have downloaded the image and printed it myself on the same Fugi photo paper for alot less than $400 if it was only the image I was after. He never responded. Im done buying photos. Thanks Mike.

[Francis]

Yeah, that's my thing with photos...they can so easily be reproduced.

Also, I hate it when artists, galleries, etc. respond to concerns in a snobbish, arrogant, or canned manner.

[jamesreeve5]

Bonesy, you should make it clear that the gallery you purchased this from was NOT M+B. Nor is the image you purchased one of his polaroids (I'm stating the obvious for clarity's sake here). But even on all of his polaroids, the signature varies. Some are signed, dated and titled, some are not (it is however impossible to make an exact physical replica of a polaroid so they have that going for them).

I am a bit disappointed with his new direction as well, but he can't get the polaroid film anymore. He is an interesting character, even though corresponding with him is difficult sometimes (he plays dumb, but is in fact really shrewd).

No negs for your opinion though, I can see how you feel...

[BlackRatPress]

mike brodie is a legend - really honest and more than a little crazy and very funny. He has to be persuaded to exhibit at all and just likes taking photos and in my opinion captures something really amazing. and he gave me a dead arm once

[bonesy]

jamesreeve5 said:

Bonesy, you should make it clear that the gallery you purchased this from was NOT M+B. Nor is the image you purchased one of his polaroids (I'm stating the obvious for clarity's sake here). But even on all of his polaroids, the signature varies. Some are signed, dated and titled, some are not (it is however impossible to make an exact physical replica of a polaroid so they have that going for them).

I am a bit disappointed with his new direction as well, but he can't get the polaroid film anymore. He is an interesting character, even though corresponding with him is difficult sometimes (he plays dumb, but is in fact really shrewd).

No negs for your opinion though, I can see how you feel...

You're correct. It was not a Polaroid (it was some Fuji paper, unnumbered print) and it was not M&B Gallery. I actually had good communication with M&B regarding his work, I was just hesitant to drop so much money on my first photography purchase. It put me off very much to not even get a response from Mike, my email was well composed and took some time to write:

Hi Mike, I actually spoke with you (via email) about 6 months ago about how much I enjoy your work. I enjoy the photo very much and am not basing how much I like it based on the signature. I was just very surprised that it did not have the signature I have seen before in the kin book (which I was under the impression was released in October '06). I was also very surprised at the response I got from the snotty CA gallery owner as I'm used to dealing with pleasant people for the most part in this hobby.

I collect mostly street art (congrats on the Swoon & Chris Stain show; I'm a huge Chris Stain fan) and though I've admired your work for hours on the computer I was hesitant to drop hundreds of dollars on a photograph (I'm young and not rich). When I did finally decide to spend $300 on a photo it was because I enjoy the imagery greatly, but also wanted to have a signed piece of yours for my collection. A signature proves provenance (to use a British term) and without it anybody can download an image and have it printed at the local photo developer onto Fuji film for $10. So really a large part of where that $300 was being spent was in the fact that I thought I was buying something that was "a real deal" Mike Brodie photo. The "signature" on the photo can easily be duplicated by anybody. The reason a signature is a form of proof is because it is unique; there is nothing unique about this 3-line doodle.

I really don’t mean to be rude but when someone spends $300 on a photograph that is advertised as "signed" the bottom-line is they should get what they are expecting. When the word "signed" is used it is quite obvious what the buyer is expecting to receive, this is not what anyone would expect. I do not want a refund but will never purchase from that gallery again. I do not think my email to the gallery was uncalled for and the fact that he responded to me in such a negative way speaks highly of how much he appreciates people that are willing to spend money at his gallery. I do not think negative of you at all. I think the photos should be advertised differently and more respect and care should be given to making sure customers are happy.

Mountains of Props,
XXXXXX

[saltandiron]

jamesreeve5 said:

I am a bit disappointed with his new direction as well, but he can't get the polaroid film anymore. He is an interesting character, even though corresponding with him is difficult sometimes (he plays dumb, but is in fact really shrewd).

Hi, might seem like a really geeky question but do you know which pola film he shot these with?

[cpo]

bonesy said:

jamesreeve5 said:

Bonesy, you should make it clear that the gallery you purchased this from was NOT M+B. Nor is the image you purchased one of his polaroids (I'm stating the obvious for clarity's sake here). But even on all of his polaroids, the signature varies. Some are signed, dated and titled, some are not (it is however impossible to make an exact physical replica of a polaroid so they have that going for them).

I am a bit disappointed with his new direction as well, but he can't get the polaroid film anymore. He is an interesting character, even though corresponding with him is difficult sometimes (he plays dumb, but is in fact really shrewd).

No negs for your opinion though, I can see how you feel...

You're correct. It was not a Polaroid (it was some Fuji paper, unnumbered print) and it was not M&B Gallery. I actually had good communication with M&B regarding his work, I was just hesitant to drop so much money on my first photography purchase. It put me off very much to not even get a response from Mike, my email was well composed and took some time to write:

Hi Mike, I actually spoke with you (via email) about 6 months ago about how much I enjoy your work. I enjoy the photo very much and am not basing how much I like it based on the signature. I was just very surprised that it did not have the signature I have seen before in the kin book (which I was under the impression was released in October '06). I was also very surprised at the response I got from the snotty CA gallery owner as I'm used to dealing with pleasant people for the most part in this hobby.

I collect mostly street art (congrats on the Swoon & Chris Stain show; I'm a huge Chris Stain fan) and though I've admired your work for hours on the computer I was hesitant to drop hundreds of dollars on a photograph (I'm young and not rich). When I did finally decide to spend $300 on a photo it was because I enjoy the imagery greatly, but also wanted to have a signed piece of yours for my collection. A signature proves provenance (to use a British term) and without it anybody can download an image and have it printed at the local photo developer onto Fuji film for $10. So really a large part of where that $300 was being spent was in the fact that I thought I was buying something that was "a real deal" Mike Brodie photo. The "signature" on the photo can easily be duplicated by anybody. The reason a signature is a form of proof is because it is unique; there is nothing unique about this 3-line doodle.

I really don’t mean to be rude but when someone spends $300 on a photograph that is advertised as "signed" the bottom-line is they should get what they are expecting. When the word "signed" is used it is quite obvious what the buyer is expecting to receive, this is not what anyone would expect. I do not want a refund but will never purchase from that gallery again. I do not think my email to the gallery was uncalled for and the fact that he responded to me in such a negative way speaks highly of how much he appreciates people that are willing to spend money at his gallery. I do not think negative of you at all. I think the photos should be advertised differently and more respect and care should be given to making sure customers are happy.

Mountains of Props,
XXXXXX

if Brodie really does go by 'Bonsey' no wonder you gave him a mountain of props! ;D

I thought your letter was very well thought out, polite and more importantly spot on. What was the Gallery's name again?

+1 to you, -1 to the gallery.