[met]

Nov 6, 2014 21:26:14 GMT 1 sgolby said:

Nov 6, 2014 20:55:35 GMT 1 met said:

I would argue that Grafter's work is grossly overrated.

There's a twee naffness and consumer-driven, Athena-poster-like mindset to it which encapsulates many of the things I find repulsive in the commercial art world.

Question met ... How can someone be over rated that gets ZERO airplay anywhere?   Just curious?  

Either way, to each their own... 

S

I would have to disagree with your premise that Grafter's work is never discussed. The artist himself is a member here and occasionally, albeit rarely, provides updates on his current projects. Others sometimes mention him as well. Granted, this is often in sale posts, but it's not like there's a complete blackout regarding his work.

From my perspective, Grafter's market is thankfully much healthier now than it was six years ago. Remember when Tibetan Boy was being sold at Urban Angel for £1,000, in an edition of 4? There were also at least three colourways of Splash as small canvases (around 50 cm x 40 cm), each colourway an edition of 10, and each costing something like £400. This was on top of the unknown number of "unique" versions produced of Splash, along with (if recollection serves) the different editions and variants in print format.

Back then, of course, people were spending not-insignificant sums on the likes of Hutch, Ripper1331, SPQR, Prefab77 and Static. Hopefully, the relevant buyers remain happy with their purchases, though at the time I must admit wincing on more than one occasion.

My feelings are actually the same today whenever I see Martin Whatson's work and the prices at which it's being sold. I place it in the same category as the art produced by Bambi and Mr Brainwash: relatively unskilled, highly derivative and, worst of all, uninteresting. In short, godawful. And coming from an atheist, that's saying quite a lot. For what it's worth, out of the three, given his very unique circumstances, I believe Mr Brainwash is the only one with a chance of salvaging some form of medium-term, art-related career.

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2014 2:22:15 GMT 1 met said:

Nov 6, 2014 21:24:46 GMT 1 @federationofideas said:

what's an Athena-poster?

Sorry. That was unintentionally both a cultural reference and a generational one.

Athena (now defunct) was a British retail chain that specialised in selling framed and unframed, open edition, poster reproductions of art, illustration and photographs. I don't know if the company had a presence in the US but, like The Body Shop and Benetton, it could typically be found in Canadian shopping malls.

There wasn't any curation as such in these shops. What Athena offered was determined purely by what would sell. As with the majority of businesses, it focused on profit. The purpose was not to challenge customers, let alone to educate them about photography and art or to nurture any artistic careers, but rather to shift as much product as possible, as quickly as possible. 

Here are a couple of Athena's most well-known images:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Enfant_(poster)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennis_Girl

Of course, what sold reflected what was popular with the general public. Now, some do say popularity is a reasonable basis for determining what constitutes good art. Others may refer rather dismissively to "lowest common denominator". Ultimately, it may come down to each person's opinion about home decor images of beautiful landscapes, cuddly animals doing funny things, cute kids, sexy men and women, etc.

ah gotcha.  I get what you're saying.  Yes, maybe Grafter's work doesn't work on any deeper levels, but I still maintain there is a place for art that exists solely to be aesthetically pleasing.  It's art that can be passively enjoyed on the wall, rather than a piece meant to provoke thought.  I prefer the latter, but don't mind having both in my collection  In fact, my Grafter sits right next to a Ben Shan piece - worlds apart thematically, but I enjoy them both

and I think it's priced as such - most pieces around £120 or so - priced more as decoration than "art"

[thomasmer]

Because he's not a career artist, just a part time Harry.

Would you buy a car if you knew the car factory was just about to close down.

[Black Apple Art]

Nov 7, 2014 4:03:03 GMT 1 thomasmer said:

Because he's not a career artist, just a part time Harry.

Would you buy a car if you knew the car factory was just about to close down.

If I was going to display the car on my wall and I thought it looked amazing... yes. 

[.dappy]

Nov 7, 2014 4:03:03 GMT 1 thomasmer said:

Because he's not a career artist, just a part time Harry.

Would you buy a car if you knew the car factory was just about to close down.

... poor analogy ... you do not need to buy spare parts to fix a piece of art as it gets older ... you could say that because grafter does not produce a lot of work (& stops?) it creates more value ...

[I like pictures]

If anyone wants to sell their splash at cost or below pm me.

[Happy Shopper]

Nov 7, 2014 8:30:22 GMT 1 .dappy said:

Nov 7, 2014 4:03:03 GMT 1 thomasmer said:

Because he's not a career artist, just a part time Harry.

Would you buy a car if you knew the car factory was just about to close down.

... poor analogy ... you do not need to buy spare parts to fix a piece of art as it gets older ... you could say that because grafter does not produce a lot of work (& stops?) it creates more value ...

If he stops releasing things and people stop talking about him then he'll be forgotten... I think is the point being made.

I doubt he'll be remembered as a great artist of this scene once he stops.

[.dappy]

... he's doing what he enjoys and people like his work and put it on his walls ...

does every artist have to be remembered/become legendary to be good enough to buy/put on your walls?

... tbh I am a bit tired of the current 'wave of discussion' about artists on here and their longevity based on peoples perception on 'how good' they are ... you do not need to be a genius to know that there are prob a dozen or so artists from each movememt that stand the test of time

GL to Grafter and carry on what you are doing

*I understood what mr t was saying that's why I said it was a poor analogy

NOW ... I will not comment further as the thread needs to get back to discussing Grafter's work (and saying you do not like it is fine ... the rest of the guff is what I am tired of)

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2014 10:08:55 GMT 1 .dappy said:

... he's doing what he enjoys and people like his work and put it on his walls ...

does every artist have to be remembered/become legendary to be good enough to buy/put on your walls?

... tbh I am a bit tired of the current 'wave of discussion' about artists on here and their longevity based on peoples perception on 'how good' they are ... you do not need to be a genius to know that there are prob a dozen or so artists from each movememt that stand the test of time

GL to Grafter and carry on what you are doing

*I understood what mr t was saying that's why I said it was a poor analogy

NOW ... I will not comment further as the thread needs to get back to discussing Grafter's work (and saying you do not like it is fine ... the rest of the guff is what I am tired of)

Good post dappy

[overend]

Love the Eskimo piece which I first saw at the Cans Festival. Think unlike most stencil artists nearly all his editions are hand sprayed not prints. Good guy to deal with.

[Grafter]

Gee, you guys.

I think this one was my favourite; "Eelus in 2006 on a bad day... and that's being kind. "

BRILLIANT...

[Deleted]

LOL.

[kel]

Nov 7, 2014 4:03:03 GMT 1 thomasmer said:

Because he's not a career artist, just a part time Harry.

Would you buy a car if you knew the car factory was just about to close down.

Absolutely no idea what you mean one of the most bizarre comments of the week.

[natstan]

Nov 6, 2014 21:19:48 GMT 1 Happy Shopper said:

Eelus in 2006 on a bad day... and that's being kind.

Got into this scene much later than 2006. Just wondering what exactly happened on Eelus's bad days in 2006, haha!

[gatecrasher]

Yeh that Grafter is crap !! But because I'm a nice guy, I'll take Eskimo Child off someones hands at cost ... you know you want to

[Happy Go Lucky Chap]

Nov 7, 2014 12:18:27 GMT 1 gatecrasher said:

Yeh that Grafter is crap !! But because I'm a nice guy, I'll take Eskimo Child off someones hands at cost ... you know you want to

His work is absolutely awful, much worse than anything by Eelus, he's not even in the same league as Hutch.

Anyone got a multicoloured Splashback for sale?

[Deleted]

Anything new in the pipeline G or have your retired???

[sgolby]

Nov 7, 2014 10:08:55 GMT 1 .dappy said:

... he's doing what he enjoys and people like his work and put it on his walls ...

does every artist have to be remembered/become legendary to be good enough to buy/put on your walls?

... tbh I am a bit tired of the current 'wave of discussion' about artists on here and their longevity based on peoples perception on 'how good' they are ... you do not need to be a genius to know that there are prob a dozen or so artists from each movememt that stand the test of time

GL to Grafter and carry on what you are doing

*I understood what mr t was saying that's why I said it was a poor analogy

NOW ... I will not comment further as the thread needs to get back to discussing Grafter's work (and saying you do not like it is fine ... the rest of the guff is what I am tired of)

Agreed!!!  Too many on here, I fear, are in search of the next Banksy... they treat this forum a bit like a craps table. 

Would be nice if we could discuss art for it's beauty and meaning, and not always end up having 90% of the posts being about future values, etc...etc...

When I bought my Grafter I bought it because I LOVED the image.  I believe in community, and support within communities, I feel as thought the world is coming apart because we, in our rush to globalize have become more tribal and thus the world is turning to shit because we ware no longer connected to each other.  To me this piece embodied that philosophy in a manner which I found beautiful.  So I bought it, hung it, and smile every time I look at it. 

I do not believe I have bought any piece with the thought that it would be worth a few K in the future.  In fact the opposite is likely true.  I probably overpaid for some items because I loved the work, and will end up losing money in the end.  The fact is with art, those dollars lost are made up by the joy you gain from viewing the pieces...

Just my thoughts. 

[fattyramone]

I've always liked my Grafter canvas of "where the flippergibbet is Sid when you need him"

[thomasmer]

Nov 7, 2014 8:30:22 GMT 1 .dappy said:

Nov 7, 2014 4:03:03 GMT 1 thomasmer said:

Because he's not a career artist, just a part time Harry.

Would you buy a car if you knew the car factory was just about to close down.

... poor analogy ... you do not need to buy spare parts to fix a piece of art as it gets older ... you could say that because grafter does not produce a lot of work (& stops?) it creates more value ...

This was once true, maybe 50 years ago before the celebrity artist, now people need a constant face and reminder to create hype and value.

[.dappy]

... Errrr No! ... just look at some auctions and see names that (I bet) you will never have heard of that are selling for £10ks of thousands of pounds ...

All the Best to Grafter ... keep on painting (even if I do not own a single piece of yours )

[Deleted]

Artists do what they do, just like musicians.

I like Robert Plant but I would not care to hear him sing in a Puccini gig.

[Deleted]

Your right about the size of that daisy print.
Too big to frame & too big to store.
I resorted to bulldog clips & drawing pins as I do for all my cheap prints.

[shortcut]

I love my ELECTRIC PINK(!) Splash that Bill did for me back in my gallery days.

A top man to work with too

[met]

Nov 7, 2014 15:09:50 GMT 1 sgolby said:

Nov 7, 2014 10:08:55 GMT 1 .dappy said:

... he's doing what he enjoys and people like his work and put it on his walls ...

does every artist have to be remembered/become legendary to be good enough to buy/put on your walls?

... tbh I am a bit tired of the current 'wave of discussion' about artists on here and their longevity based on peoples perception on 'how good' they are ... you do not need to be a genius to know that there are prob a dozen or so artists from each movememt that stand the test of time

GL to Grafter and carry on what you are doing

*I understood what mr t was saying that's why I said it was a poor analogy

NOW ... I will not comment further as the thread needs to get back to discussing Grafter's work (and saying you do not like it is fine ... the rest of the guff is what I am tired of)

Agreed!!!  Too many on here, I fear, are in search of the next Banksy... they treat this forum a bit like a craps table. 

Would be nice if we could discuss art for it's beauty and meaning, and not always end up having 90% of the posts being about future values, etc...etc...

When I bought my Grafter I bought it because I LOVED the image.  I believe in community, and support within communities, I feel as thought the world is coming apart because we, in our rush to globalize have become more tribal and thus the world is turning to s**t because we ware no longer connected to each other.  To me this piece embodied that philosophy in a manner which I found beautiful.  So I bought it, hung it, and smile every time I look at it. 

I do not believe I have bought any piece with the thought that it would be worth a few K in the future.  In fact the opposite is likely true.  I probably overpaid for some items because I loved the work, and will end up losing money in the end.  The fact is with art, those dollars lost are made up by the joy you gain from viewing the pieces...

Just my thoughts. 

This thread is taking a more interesting turn than I'd originally anticipated.

I enjoyed reading your thoughts and feelings about the painting you bought. It was a breath of fresh air because I find critical thought (or at least the public expression of critical thought) to be generally lacking on the forum.

Too often, positive comments about artwork are restricted to single words like "stunning" or "lovely". They're pleasant expressions of approval, but they do nothing to assist others in understanding the reasons behind such approval.

We probably share similar views about how crucial it is for collectors to question, to question everything, and to actually think.

Unless happy being spoon-fed, being easily led, and therefore vulnerable to manipulation by those with vested financial interests, everyone has a self-obligation to ask themselves different questions when considering the purchase of artwork priced above a certain level: Why do I like it? What's good about it? Is it well-executed? Is it interesting? Are the ideas, relatively speaking, original? Or do they at least present a fresh take on familiar theme?

Not everyone will be able to pin down why exactly they're drawn to a piece. But just the process of asking these types of questions is useful. To shield against the temptation of simply accepting without challenge the information provided by figures of authority or influence — dealers, press officers, PR reps, auction house personnel, fellow collectors, etc. It's a safeguard against herd mentality.

By way of illustration, it's very easy to get caught up in the excitement of a limited edition print release, to be influenced by the anticipation and enthusiasm of other people, even if that enthusiasm is blind. These factors potentially cloud one's judgement and can result in purchases later viewed with bemusement and perhaps slight embarrassment.

When I'm in a tube station walking towards a train, and others around me start running in that direction, I instinctively pick up my pace — at least briefly, before then asking myself one of the key questions in life, "What the fúck am I doing?"

---------------

Like you, I dislike and usually avoid discussions focused on financial values. They're crass, reductive, and all too often they discourage proper thought and analysis. People begin associating price tags with artistic worth. A high price leads many just to assume they're in the presence of high-quality work. Perversely, that high price will even be used at times as evidence or "proof" the work is high-quality.

Some collectors may nod obediently (as they might when being spoken to by a stranger in a policeman's uniform or white lab coat), not even bothering to ask themselves some of the basic questions mentioned above. And then we're back to the herd mentality scenario. Back to the sheep.

Talking about prices is important however to make comparisons with other artwork that can be purchased for similar amounts. It immediately puts things into perspective.

Example: "Do I spend £2,500 on a canvas called Urban Expressionism (edition of 3) by the emerging artist Martin Whatson, who lacks both originality and talent? Or shall I instead go to an auction house and spend £1,260 on a lithograph by Alexander Calder? £2,050 on a lithograph by Barbara Kruger? Perhaps dig a little deeper and spend £3,000 for a print on fabric with embroidered initials by Louise Bourgeois? Or choose other editioned works in these price ranges by Cy Twombly, Sol LeWitt, Frank Stella, Ed Rucha, Cindy Sherman, Robert Rauschenberg or John Baldessari?"

This is the kind of thinking to be encouraged among collectors. As previously alluded to, it's a protective measure against the influences of pure marketing, business interests and hype without substance.

Although .dappy isn't a fan, for similar reasons I believe exchanges are important regarding the possible career longevity of different artists. Even when entirely speculative, these discussions get people's brains working and push them to ask more questions.

Which reminds me — There's a £40, open edition, Anthony Burrill print I need to buy.

[Deleted]

Nov 8, 2014 0:32:35 GMT 1 met said:

Nov 7, 2014 15:09:50 GMT 1 sgolby said:

Agreed!!!  Too many on here, I fear, are in search of the next Banksy... they treat this forum a bit like a craps table. 

Would be nice if we could discuss art for it's beauty and meaning, and not always end up having 90% of the posts being about future values, etc...etc...

When I bought my Grafter I bought it because I LOVED the image.  I believe in community, and support within communities, I feel as thought the world is coming apart because we, in our rush to globalize have become more tribal and thus the world is turning to s**t because we ware no longer connected to each other.  To me this piece embodied that philosophy in a manner which I found beautiful.  So I bought it, hung it, and smile every time I look at it. 

I do not believe I have bought any piece with the thought that it would be worth a few K in the future.  In fact the opposite is likely true.  I probably overpaid for some items because I loved the work, and will end up losing money in the end.  The fact is with art, those dollars lost are made up by the joy you gain from viewing the pieces...

Just my thoughts. 

This thread is taking a more interesting turn than I'd originally anticipated.

I enjoyed reading your thoughts and feelings about the painting you bought. It was a breath of fresh air because I find critical thought (or at least the public expression of critical thought) to be generally lacking on the forum.

Too often, positive comments about artwork are restricted to single words like "stunning" or "lovely". They're pleasant expressions of approval, but they do nothing to assist others in understanding the reasons behind such approval.

We probably share similar views about how crucial it is for collectors to question, to question everything, and to actually think. 

Unless happy being spoon-fed, being easily led, and therefore vulnerable to manipulation by those with vested financial interests, everyone has a self-obligation to ask themselves different questions when considering the purchase of artwork priced above a certain level: Why do I like it? What's good about it? Is it well-executed? Is it interesting? Are the ideas, relatively speaking, original? Or do they at least present a fresh take on familiar theme?

Not everyone will be able to pin down why exactly they're drawn to a piece. But just the process of asking these types of questions is useful. To shield against the temptation of simply accepting without challenge the information provided by figures of authority or influence — dealers, press officers, PR reps, auction house personnel, fellow collectors, etc. It's a safeguard against herd mentality.

By way of illustration, it's very easy to get caught up in the excitement of a limited edition print release, to be influenced by the anticipation and enthusiasm of other people, even if that enthusiasm is blind. These factors potentially cloud one's judgement and can result in purchases later viewed with bemusement and perhaps slight embarrassment.

When I'm in a tube station walking towards a train, and others around me start running in that direction, I instinctively pick up my pace — at least briefly, before then asking myself one of the key questions in life, "What the fúck am I doing?"

---------------

Like you, I dislike and usually avoid discussions focused on financial values. They're crass, reductive, and all too often they discourage proper thought and analysis. People begin associating price tags with artistic worth. A high price leads many just to assume they're in the presence of high-quality work. Perversely, that high price will even be used at times as evidence or "proof" the work is high-quality.

Some collectors may nod obediently (as they might when being spoken to by a stranger in a policeman's uniform or white lab coat), not even bothering to ask themselves some of the basic questions mentioned above. And then we're back to the herd mentality scenario. Back to the sheep.

Talking about prices is important however to make comparisons with other artwork that can be purchased for similar amounts. It immediately puts things into perspective.

Example: "Do I spend £2,500 on a canvas called Urban Expressionism (edition of 3) by the emerging artist Martin Whatson, who lacks both originality and talent? Or shall I instead go to an auction house and spend £1,260 on a lithograph by Alexander Calder? £2,050 on a lithograph by Barbara Kruger? Perhaps dig a little deeper and spend £3,000 for a print on fabric with embroidered initials by Louise Bourgeois? Or choose other editioned works in these price ranges by Cy Twombly, Sol LeWitt, Frank Stella, Ed Rucha, Cindy Sherman, Robert Rauschenberg or John Baldessari?"

This is the kind of thinking to be encouraged among collectors. As previously alluded to, it's a protective measure against the influences of pure marketing, business interests and hype without substance.

Although .dappy isn't a fan, for similar reasons I believe exchanges are important regarding the possible career longevity of different artists. Even when entirely speculative, these discussions get people's brains working and push them to ask more questions.

Which reminds me — There's a £40, open edition, Anthony Burrill print I need to buy.

I love your posts... very much needed informed content and respecting other members' opinions, even if you disagree.  

[.dappy]

... thanks for the tag met ... could someone tell me how to do it? ...

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I have found it tiresome that a lot of threads recently have all been about the'longevity' of the artist and if they would be worth bothering with; and then 'pick' something wrong with the style/production/particular aspect and call it sh1t as justification of why 'they will never be remembered'.

Banksy can't draw hands - discuss.

Well actually that would be a good title to a new thread to discuss the real topic that you describe - not a Grafter/Whatson (insert any artist name) thread.

[virus]

Thanks for starting this thread Fed. Didn't know this artist.

I like 'splash', bet it looks good on canvas.

[Feral Things]

Nov 8, 2014 18:49:38 GMT 1 virus said:

I like 'splash', bet it looks good on canvas.

Here's a street piece on Grey Eagle Street from around 2008.  It doesn't really do anything for me but it'd be boring if we all liked the same stuff:

Nov 8, 2014 0:54:48 GMT 1 .dappy said:

... thanks for the tag met ... could someone tell me how to do it? ...

To tag someone you just write their user name with an @ sign in front i.e. @ d a p p y (but without the spaces obviously!

[met]

Nov 8, 2014 0:54:48 GMT 1 .dappy said:

... thanks for the tag met ... could someone tell me how to do it? ...

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I have found it tiresome that a lot of threads recently have all been about the'longevity' of the artist and if they would be worth bothering with; and then 'pick' something wrong with the style/production/particular aspect and call it sh1t as justification of why 'they will never be remembered'.

Banksy can't draw hands - discuss.

Well actually that would be a good title to a new thread to discuss the real topic that you describe - not a Grafter/Whatson (insert any artist name) thread.

If you allow your cursor to hover over the relevant member's username, you'll see the "@" symbol along with their original username (in lower case) when they first registered.

This is what you type into your post.

When I tagged you, it was by writing "@" together with "dappy", with no space in between.