[tadghostal]

Found the link as posted on the Obey/Giant boards:


www.artbusiness.com/osoqfairbank.html


Here's a great summary posted by one of the members.

"Shepard's career has followed the traditional process of regular, orderly $ increases. His market is stable and established at many price points.

Banksy has blown up in dramatic fashion, but is the support actually there for the long run or is it fickle and prone to abandoning him? It appears Banksy is a market that has spun out of control with limited foundation."


Similar topics are always discussed here, but the article makes some very cogent arguments that I'd never encountred before. I'd love to hear the take by other Banksy fans.

[Ågentßacardi]

tadghostal said:

Found the link as posted on the Obey/Giant boards:


www.artbusiness.com/osoqfairbank.html


Here's a great summary posted by one of the members.

"Shepard's career has followed the traditional process of regular, orderly $ increases. His market is stable and established at many price points.

Banksy has blown up in dramatic fashion, but is the support actually there for the long run or is it fickle and prone to abandoning him? It appears Banksy is a market that has spun out of control with limited foundation."


Similar topics are always discussed here, but the article makes some very cogent arguments that I'd never encountred before. I'd love to hear the take by other Banksy fans.

I think one major difference that we need to take into account is the difference in rates by which Obey and Banksy release prints. Obey churns a new out out every week, while Banksy's are pretty much sporadic at best. Given the same time frame in which the most recent street art craze blossomed as a whole, it's impossible to see the same gradual increase in Banksy's artwork as in Obey's, for the simple reason that there's a lot less data points (if you think about it graphically). Instead of going progressively from (as an arbitrary example) 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 in the case of Obey, we have only 1,3,7,10 for Banksy within the same time frame, creating the illusion of Banksy's work booming insanely 'out of control' relative to Obey's at first glance.

I think what this also shows is that it's the recent art craze that's driving the demand (and hence prices) up, not necessarily just the artists in question. Sure, some artists are perceived as being 'hotter' than others, but I believe that the prime driving force is the demand for street/contemporary/urban art in general.

As for the sustainability of Banksy's work in the future, I think it'll again depend on the general demand for street/contemporary/urban art. If it falls, the demand for all individual artists will also show the same general declining trend. But that's not to say that they'll all fall to the same lows; this is where the perceived 'hotness' of the artists come into play in keeping them afloat. Speaking for Banksy only, I think he will forever be viewed as a legend and (arguably) the most prominent poster child of this recent street/contemporary/urban art boom, and even for that reason alone, his demand (and hence prices) will never drop too drastically.

Just my humble opinion I'm no economist nor art critic/analyst though, so I'm by no means an expert!

[slowmo]

Having read the article, it seems to back up what I have been thinking for a while about the art world. Street art is now about 30-40 years old. What we are seeing is the first generation of art buyers who were brought up tagging and doodling graffiti into their text books at school, then gave it up and got a career, but still admiree those who bomb the streets.

We value artists such as Banksy and Shepard Fairey in a way that is alien to the 'serious stalwart art collector' world. Its the classic Dad is too old to dig what his kids are into.

The article talks of patronage to serious blue chip artists, at a guess I would think they are talking of the type of artist like Bacon, Hirst, Terry Frost, Chuck Close etc. The big difference here is that that sort of collector would look at a Banksy and Shep and say 'I wish these people would learn how to paint' (ok maybe a lot of them would say the same to Hirst and Terry Frost).

I agree with his price rise being staggering, but there are people with cash (he allures to them as having more money than sense) who are going crazy for banksy as they grew up with street art and appreciate it in the same way as the art stalwarts he talks of in the item. They like the fact they can have a piece of street art history to admire on their wall and are willing to pay for it.

I could be wrong, but I just wonder if its a case of a new school of artist and buyer that is driving this, confusing the old art establishment and baffling them into making conclusions that this art cannot be as important as the established artists circuit. The person who paid £102,000 for Bomb Middle England clearly disagreed.

[pezlow]

I agree with much of what you say Slowmo. The people who are collecting the works of Banksy, Shep, Faile etc are in a totally different place to those collecting abstract artists such as Terry Frost (although very few of either would suggest that Frost can't paint!). I would wager that a lot are real art lovers but have never been really able to afford to buy art before.

People criticise Shep for churning out prints but you can't say he hasn't stuck to his original goals of creating a global (underground) brand and making it accessible to all. His prints are still $35 each, still all signed by him, the guy is incredible.

The same can be said, to a lesser extent, with Banksy. We can all for the time being just afford a banksy print (unsigned). Which is not necessarily true of nearly any established artist you can think of in the UK. Even smaller artists can be out of our price range. I really love Ray Richardson's work for example (especially the cinematic stuff). But his prints are expensive!

The is another reason why I love the RCA Secret show. It gives me an opportunity to buy work by artists I like (if I can spot them) for a sum I can afford.

Gradually I think the art world is changing. Banksy, Shep and all are at the vanguard of it. Who knows where we will all be in a few years time.

[Viva Hate]

Another article here. This I like:

supertouchblog.com/?p=3592

[tadghostal]

coventry said:

Another article here. This I like:

supertouchblog.com/?p=3592

;D

Its the exact same article as cited above. This link is a blogger that has posted the original article to their blog (with attributions).

In any case, it seems another example that great minds think alike.


So, Viva Hate, why not weigh in on the reasons for which you like the article? Some good opinions above, and as they sometimes say, the more the merrier!

[nombei]

a friend of mine linked me to this article, so i wasn't surprised to see it on here already. i agree with many of the points in the article and i too wonder how Banksy has reached the level of interest he has -- the 100,000GBP sale just seems nuts to me.

fortunately, i'm not buying anyone's art at that price level and whether or not the "Banksy market" continues to rise doesn't matter much to me since i'm not buying prints as an "investment". and even if i were to look at it in those terms, my "total investment" in all the prints i own is less than what one signed Banksy goes for on eBay these days, so it's not like i'm "out" much money should the Banksy market crash.

back to the article, i did find it interesting that Sheperd Fairey was used as the opposite side of the equation. i respect what Fairey has done over the years, but Obey seems to be a business more than an artist. in other words....

Sheperd Fairey is the Thomas Kinkade of Streetart.

i guess if the author of the article thinks that is the proper way to go about becoming an "established artist", then i will gladly take 100 more "un-established" Banksy type artists.

[tomhills1]

read it this afternoon. slowmo your spot on IMO, my art history starts from Seen and Mad, forget the rest. for me, you cannot quantify banksy as there is no comparible. his kind of observationalism and humour is more akin to the sketch writers in the newspapers who parody the news of the day.

i don't pretend to have an extensive knowledge of art but he has no peers. no-one has pulled off the same stunts, tried to turn the market to his way of thinking and generally stuck two fingers up to the traditionalists. what's the brian sewell quote? genius. only warhol compares in his mantra of trying to take art to the masses but that's where the story ends.

you really have to rip the rule-book up and start again on this one, no amount of second guessing will predict the future of the market. my opinion is, the people that are investing in bansy are doing so because they absolutely love him, mostly. this is unprecedented in the art world. most invest because they like someone and want to support them further. they also want to protect their investment. from city boys and premiership footballers, to civil servants, medics, teachers, students and even roofers we buy a banksy to hang on our walls and look at everyday.

has any other artist on the planet, or in it's history, had such a large and loyal demographic?

unless he symltaniously (sic) manages to alienate us, one and all, then i think the future banksy market will be pretty secure.

(cue egg on face)

[Viva Hate]

tadghostal said:

coventry said:

Another article here. This I like:

supertouchblog.com/?p=3592

;D

Its the exact same article as cited above. This link is a blogger that has posted the original article to their blog (with attributions).

In any case, it seems another example that great minds think alike.


So, Viva Hate, why not weigh in on the reasons for which you like the article? Some good opinions above, and as they sometimes say, the more the merrier!

I would offer my opinions, but the doctor said to take it easy on the fingers due to F5 syndrome