Robert Bateman in the AGO
kimb...@my-deja.com
painting in the Art Gallery of Ontario. This is
an art gallery paid for by the taxpayers of
Ontario and I feel that it should represent what
the taxpayer really wants to see. Based on sales
of his prints, I feel that that is wildlife art,
particularly by a proud Canadian such as Bateman.
I realize that some art lovers feel that a nude
moose does not represent art while a nude woman or
a bowl of fruit does. That is their opinion and I
appreciate that. However for those that do love
the art of Robert Bateman (or wildlife art) and do
feel that he deserves at least a single painting
in the Art Gallery hours away from where he taught
school, please e-mail the Art Gallery of Ontario
(Chief_...@ago.net) and express your support.
Thank you for your time and have a great day!
Kim
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
bx...@torfree.net
mdeli
>I am attempting to get a Robert Bateman original
>painting in the Art Gallery of Ontario. This is
>an art gallery paid for by the taxpayers of
>Ontario and I feel that it should represent what
>the taxpayer really wants to see.
The Modern Academic Art museum is run by goons whose job it is to keep
out anything they label as Kitsch or commercial.
> Based on sales
>of his prints, I feel that that is wildlife art,
>particularly by a proud Canadian such as Bateman.
Based on the visually attractiveness of Bateman it is completely
necessary to keep such works away from the incompetent abstract idiocy
that inhabits the place. If viewers get an opportunity to compare
Bateman to the curators favorite academic crap they might just laugh
him out of a job.
Eventually the likes of Bateman will be admitted to museums. For now
its Artzy fartzy turf.
>I realize that some art lovers feel that a nude
>moose does not represent art while a nude woman or
>a bowl of fruit does. That is their opinion and I
>appreciate that. However for those that do love
>the art of Robert Bateman (or wildlife art) and do
>feel that he deserves at least a single painting
>in the Art Gallery hours away from where he taught
>school, please e-mail the Art Gallery of Ontario
>(Chief_...@ago.net) and express your support.
>Thank you for your time and have a great day!
>Kim
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
tin...@home.com
You mean to say that people bought his work for
something other than an investment. His photo
reproductions of photo realist paintings were
ruinous for the real art print market.
I know a number of people who bought Bateman's and
all are disappointed that they are not worth the
paper they are printed on. I don't feel sorry for
them they should have known better but greed got
the best of them.
Is your objective to put one of his paintings in
the AGO to increase the value of those photo
reproductions he calls prints? Are you and your
friends stuck with a pile of them and find this a
good way to increase their value? It would make a
number of Bateman repro holders that I know happy!
This is a real taxpayers vote against Bateman in
the AGO.
______________tinman end______________
kimb...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I am attempting to get a Robert Bateman original
> painting in the Art Gallery of Ontario. This is
> an art gallery paid for by the taxpayers of
> Ontario and I feel that it should represent what
> the taxpayer really wants to see. Based on sales
> of his prints, I feel that that is wildlife art,
> particularly by a proud Canadian such as Bateman.
> I realize that some art lovers feel that a nude
> moose does not represent art while a nude woman or
> a bowl of fruit does. That is their opinion and I
> appreciate that. However for those that do love
> the art of Robert Bateman (or wildlife art) and do
> feel that he deserves at least a single painting
> in the Art Gallery hours away from where he taught
> school, please e-mail the Art Gallery of Ontario
> (Chief_...@ago.net) and express your support.
> Thank you for your time and have a great day!
> Kim
>
mdeli
>Bateman comes to the Empress Hotel here in Victoria
>and signs 30,000 photocopies of his copies of nature.
-and pisses Marilyn off no end.
>So intimate!
Are you intimate?
>His painted fur-bearing animals look like they are
>covered in spaghettini.
>Yech!
With your sensitive eye I can imagine what your paintings are covered
with.
>The animals are having their revenge, he has got river
>otters nesting under his massive home-studio on Salt Spring
>Island.
Terrible isn't it?
>
>But you see, "artists" like Bateman spur the irony and
>ridicule of Artists like Andy Warhol.
Never heard a peep about Bateman from Wartball.
>Three cheers for AGO!
And one razzberry.
Marilyn Welch
After skimming 2 weeks of raf, yours is the second best
post! First was the dialogue between Andrew Werby & Arianne.
But who can top "Beauty" as a subject.
Bateman comes to the Empress Hotel here in Victoria
and signs 30,000 photocopies of his copies of nature.
So intimate!
His painted fur-bearing animals look like they are
covered in spaghettini.
Yech!
The animals are having their revenge, he has got river
otters nesting under his massive home-studio on Salt Spring
Island.
But you see, "artists" like Bateman spur the irony and
ridicule of Artists like Andy Warhol.
Three cheers for AGO!
Marilyn
kimb...@my-deja.com
I also agree that buying prints (or any art) for financial reasons is
often a mistake and the wrong reason for buying (if you want to buy
assets for financial reasons, stick to GIC's or mutual funds). Although
I understand why other people enjoy prints, I prefer to buy originals
when possible. I do not own a single Robert Bateman print and as a
result, I do not really have a financial stake in this. Although the
prints are enjoyed by many, I also question that displaying the
originals will indeed increase the value of the prints. I have seen
originals by Bateman and would never be satisfied with less than an
original in my home. I feel that many people would feel the same way
(it is like comparing a photo of a sunset to the real thing). However,
I do not have the finances to purchase a Bateman original. It would
give me great pleasure to have the opportunity to view an original
Bateman while supporting the AGO.
Thanks for responding!
Kim
P.S. Do you not feel that is expected by tourists and indeed a little
embarrassing that we do not have a painting by the world renown artist
in the art gallery?
Jennifer Eiserman
have heaps of money by now) so they can put in a new gallery or two,
then they would have to show some of his paintings. Better yet, he could
establish a public art gallery in BC and give some younger artists a
break.
Cheers, Terry
mcshane
I deal in art and would just as quickly sell a Riopelle as a Bateman.
But would I want the AGO to spend money on a Bateman - no. The wildlife
market took off during the 1980's and people flocked like lemmings to
buy limited edition prints. You were laughing all the way to the bank if
you could draw a wolf or a loon. Bateman and other artists made lots of
money from huge editions and I was happy because I made money too. I was
able to sell a Bateman photo reproduction with his signature ( don't you
wonder how he signs 30,000 pieces and still finds time to paint) for
$7500 due to what was basically a marketing phenomenon.
In other words, wildlife art was, in North America, an important
economical factor for art (as others have pointed out it had a negative
effect on the real print market - lithographs,serigraphs,etchings,ect.)
but it is of no real importance in the development of art. Nice pictures
but nothing new. I would suggest that ,since you are interested in
wildlife art, you push for the AGO to purchase works by people like
Audubon or some of the other pioneers in this area.
Stephen
Dan Fox
>
> You mean to say that people bought his work for
> something other than an investment. His photo
> reproductions of photo realist paintings were
> ruinous for the real art print market.
True. I used the email address provided to ask the gallery NOT to place
Bateman's work.
>
> I know a number of people who bought Bateman's and
> all are disappointed that they are not worth the
> paper they are printed on. I don't feel sorry for
> them they should have known better but greed got
> the best of them.
One problem is that, regardless of the artistic value of a work, most
people don't know the difference between a photomechanical reproduction
(poster) and a print. What is criminal
is that unscrupulous dealers sell posters to the public as prints. Many are
limited, numbered, and signed, so why would the average person suspect
anything? (The 'limited' part is a laugh. What does he do, destroy the
painting after the posters are printed?)
> Is your objective to put one of his paintings in
> the AGO to increase the value of those photo
> reproductions he calls prints? Are you and your
> friends stuck with a pile of them and find this a
> good way to increase their value? It would make a
> number of Bateman repro holders that I know happy!
>
> This is a real taxpayers vote against Bateman in
> the AGO.
--
Dan
*The road to excess leads to the palace of wisdom.* - Blake
Dan Fox
<snip>
>I was
> able to sell a Bateman photo reproduction with his signature ( don't you
> wonder how he signs 30,000 pieces and still finds time to paint) for
> $7500 due to what was basically a marketing phenomenon.
>
Maybe he took lessons from Dali. Never one to quibble about legal or
ethical issues, Dali is estimated to have signed over 300,000 *blank*
sheets in his later years. These sheets were then used to make
photomechanical reproductions that were sold as expensive limited editions.
Here's how he did it: He used two additional people, a 'pusher' and a
'puller.' Dali sat between the two. The pusher placed each sheet in front
of him, Dali signed it, and the puller pulled it away as the pusher was
feeding a new sheet. 'I like to make $20,000 before breakfast,' Dali is
quoted as saying.
>
>
> Stephen
Glenn Geist
Giclee print. Somehow I don't think Pablo ever used a computer or saw
an Iris printer. They are of course repros of his paintings -
"authorized" by someone licensed to authorize, but they are copies.
What's worse these can be done on "texturized" canvas and can be hard
to tell from the real thing - as least to a novice.
I have nothing against ink jet printing, but I do have something
against deceptive marketing.
Glenn
dan...@erols.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
Larry Seiler
> necessary to keep such works away from the incompetent abstract idiocy
> that inhabits the place. If viewers get an opportunity to compare
> Bateman to the curators favorite academic crap they might just laugh
> him out of a job.
Well.....I hate to damper the party here...but, as a wildlife artist myself
for 20 years...familiar with a number of Bateman's peers, and having been
honored to show with a number of them myself...I might inform interested
readers here that Bateman would be one of the last to engage any
discussions that would berate and degrade abstract painters. Those that
know Robert Bateman know that prior to his beginnings in the wildlife art
world, Mr. Bateman was an abstract painter, and was so for some time.
He also would inform those wanting to paint realistically that one reason
his realistic paintings stand out as a standard of excellence is that which
separates his work from many other jump-on-the-bandwagon wildlife artists
and that is his sense of dynamics in composition and design. His use of
asymmetrical balance and manipulation of the viewer's eye...can be much
attributed to that which he gained understanding of during his
experimentive explorative abstract painting days.
In fact.....somewhat following Bateman myself in my more formative years,
it was his connection to abstract painting that threw water upon my own
heated fires of resentment toward the abstract. In essence.....any mark
upon a support is an abstract form of the real. A realistic painting is
simply less noticeably abstract.
Yours truly.....
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man." George Bernard Shaw
Erik A. Mattila
few months back when Bateman came up on the thread. Years back I purchased a
book (Van Gelder, Patricia. Wildlife artists at work /, by Patricia Van
Gelder. New York : Watson-Guptill, 1982. 175 p.) where Bateman discusses his
background, and he emphasised strongly the importance of any artist studying
Art (with a capital A) seriously. He also emphasized strongly that he left
the Art with a capital A market altogether because he wanted to make some
money. It the view of many, I think, this makes him an 'art traitor' but in
my own view I say more power to him.
Personally, I don't see why so many artists are concerned about the
photomechanical reproduction issue. I would say the existance of editions of
2500 signed/numbered offset lithographic prints somehow enhances the value of
an edition of 15 drypoint etchings (keep in mind that the feathery line of the
drypoint 'flattens' after about 15 impressions and the technique loses it's
virtue). Any printmaker knows how difficult hand-made prints are -- a very
arduous process, but one which yields qualities that are not reporducible by
mass-printing. Therefore, the 'print' that is hand-made by the artist (until
he can afford Tamarind, of course) will stand above the rest in the fine art
marketplace, and probably hold its value -- and I'm just talking about that
part of 'value' which impinges on the physical history of the work, and the
discussion of the artist's signature and standing is another matter entirely.
At any rate, I don't think that the large edition photomechanical print takes
away from the hand made print at all.
Of course these issues are exactly what Benjaman was talking about in his
famous essay.
Erik Mattila
------------------------
Jennifer Eiserman
Terry
Jennifer Eiserman
The dealers who peddle "limited edition prints" CAPITALIZE on the authority that people ascribe to terms such as "limited edition". The dealer hopes that such words will make the poster appear more valuable, more desirable in the eyes of the consumer. Are the posters worth it? I don't think so, but others could disagree. Would people pay as much for the posters if dealers did not cash in on the reputation of traditionally made prints? I would say NO! Such works have an artificially inflated value that they do not deserve. The term "limited edition" could still be applied to these works, but it should be linked to the term "fine art poster". To link the term "limited edition" with the word "print", which carries with it the legitimacy and authority earned over many years by printmakers like Francisco Goya, Emil Nolde, David Blackwood, Jean Millet, is blatantly misleading and perhaps even criminal! I would wager a smart lawyer could win a suit against a dealer for fraud or product misrepresentation when owners of these posters start trying to sell them for a price anywhere near the price they paid for them.A few artists like Robert Bateman prosper, but the great majority of artists suffer when a potential art buyer compares prices and decides that the traditionally made prints are too expensive and, instead, chooses to buy a poster. Artists can make as many posters as they want, but they should take them to Walmart and put them in the home furnishings department, or fill up the bulk poster bins. At least that would be honest.
Cheers, Terry
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
Jennifer Eiserman wrote:
But...a photomechanical reproduction of a work that was originally conceived and then executed in an entirely different medium (oil painting) is a big problem for a lot of genuine printmakers. The resulting "print" (I prefer the word poster) is devoid of any sense that the artist worked through the limitations of the printmaking medium to arrive at a product that is heavy with the hand of the artist. The reproduced image even loses the lushness of its original oil medium! And all for what? Money, money, money!!!
Terry
Well, yes, making money is the point, after all. Why else would an artist reproduce a work in an edition of 2500, sign them and sell them at 200 dollars apiece? My point is that this does not devalue the hand made print that is, as you say, the 'original' inteself. In fact, marketwise, it may add to its value. Even printmakers often are drawn to hand print making because they can develop an edition of 75 etchings, sell each for a hundred bucks, and end up with 7.5 thousand dollar earnings, instead of having to try to sell a painting for that much.
The unimpeachable fact is that there is a market for what you want to call a 'poster.' That market may well be discrete (seperate from the market of hand-made prints). At any rate, I'm just suggesting that the two art activities may not be antithetical. I would say, however, that unethical practices of dealers is another issue - to wit, the flood of Dali phonies back in the seventies. At any rate, I think it is ok for an artist to reject this sort of strategy for earning a living -- but at the same time I don't see much propriety of being antagonistic towards those who do elect to take this course. I suppose in the end it is a matter of the consummers who do pay 200 bucks for a Bateman or Peter Max print -- they really don't care if it's an edition of 5000 or not. Why should they? 5m is nothing in terms of marketing.
I once worked as a pressman for an artist in San Francisco, Eric Satie, who basically 'hired' our shop for a weekend in order to produce several hundred offset lithographs. He came armed with a bunch of negatives of various subjects -- much of it was old graplhic elements from the days of etching and engraving, and from there we would make plates, at his direction, put them on a 36" press, and clhange ink colors, and prints several hundred impressions. Satie would mix and match different pliles of paper, so that after two days of this he ended up with about 5M sheets with a large range of combined impressions and colors. I'm sure that he trashed many of the images, and ended up with several 'originals' in that there was no real 'original' in the first place. Some of the images were quite nice, in my opinion.
Of course the appearance of the Iris prints are affecting these issues. Many artists have jumped on this technology, since it offers solutions to production cost problems as well as aesthetic qualities (Iris reproduces water colors remarkably well, for example -- much better in my opinion than offset lithography).
The only place I can see any legitimacy to the argument against mass production and marketing is in the arena of 'authenticity' which is another issue delt with in Benjamin's milestone essay. "Authenticity" has a cult value, of course, and the idea of the 'original' has gone through a great cultural revamping since the advent of printing technology. My prediction is that aesthetic concepts which surround the concept of authenticity will contine to exist in the arts -- perhaps becoming 'more valuable' by constasting with the mass produced. "Cult value" of course is simply a term which points to how art is evaluated in the first place on the social level -- those things that define 'value' that are both etherial and contingent on social consensus.
Erik Mattila
Erik A. Mattila
Jennifer Eiserman wrote:
But...a photomechanical reproduction of a work that was originally conceived and then executed in an entirely different medium (oil painting) is a big problem for a lot of genuine printmakers. The resulting "print" (I prefer the word poster) is devoid of any sense that the artist worked through the limitations of the printmaking medium to arrive at a product that is heavy with the hand of the artist. The reproduced image even loses the lushness of its original oil medium! And all for what? Money, money, money!!!
Terry
Well, yes, making money is the point, after all. Why else would an artist reproduce a work in an edition of 2500, sign them and sell them at 200 dollars apiece? My point is that this does not devalue the hand made print that is, as you say, the 'original' inteself. In fact, marketwise, it may add to its value. Even printmakers often are drawn to hand print making because they can develop an edition of 75 etchings, sell each for a hundred bucks, and end up with 7.5 thousand dollar earnings, instead of having to try to sell a painting for that much.
Larry Seiler
> What's worse these can be done on "texturized" canvas and can be hard
> to tell from the real thing - as least to a novice.
>
> I have nothing against ink jet printing, but I do have something
> against deceptive marketing.
>
> Glenn
There is a phenomenally big named vogue serendipitous cottage and garden
painter, currently billed as a "painter of light", whom many of these
giclee prints are being made...with adhesive backing, and then applied to
canvas. This artist's works are in many major mall galleries everywhere.
The inks of these prints are only known to have about 3-25 years archival
stability before fading.
After these are printed....a number of assistants take paint and make dabs
of paint in various places on top of the print to give it that much more of
an original appearance. They sell for roughly $1200 to $2400 each. There
were a special limited edition in one series of 20 such canvas
prints....where this artist himself alone made the dabs of paint. I am
aware of this, because a gallery owner whom has about a half dozen of my
originals was pointing it all out to me. Even this gallery owner couldn't
believe it. Well...these limited canvas giclees were being marketed for
$20,000 each!
I myself have a very big problem with this...and after perhaps a decade
goes by and ink colors begin their fading....I have a feeling a few other
people aren't going to be too happy either!
*shaking head*
Many simply feel it doesn't matter.....and glad to see some artist making
it big while they are yet living.
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
music review-
http://www.tollbooth.org/reviews/lseiler.html
Erik A. Mattila
Jennifer Eiserman wrote:
All that you say is true. Artists deserve to make money and earn a living like everyone else. As an artist, I have no problem with this. Technology has given us the tools to do certain things faster and more efficient than ever before, so why not take advantage of that? However, there is a good reason to speak out against this practice (just a minute while I move my soap box a little closer to the computer):
The dealers who peddle "limited edition prints" CAPITALIZE on the authority that people ascribe to terms such as "limited edition". The dealer hopes that such words will make the poster appear more valuable, more desirable in the eyes of the consumer.
And it is true that the 'limited edition' is more valuable than an open edition. What is being marketed is the idea of limitation, and that ties intimately into the concept of rarity, authenticity and other ephemeral values that we attach to the work of art.
Your use of the term 'poster' is a bit transparent -- I mean that it is pretty obvious you are using it as a dimuitive -- i.e. a 'poster' is less valuable that a 'print.' Unfortunately its not a legitimate use of the term, in that a "poster" is a thing in graphic arts and antiquities that is not a 'print' regardless of the press run of the print. Basically, a poster is an advertising instrument -- announcing a product, event, service, etc. A Bateman edition of 2500 is not that, is it? It's either a piece designed to be a print, or a reproduction of a painting or drawing.
"Posters" are of course collectible, and even appear in art galleries as 'art' even though it is clearly understood that art historically this is a 'poster.' If you had a good collection of Carter (The Magician) posters, you could retire. But originally these posters were published in editions in the thousands. Even a comprehensive collection of Fillmore Psychodelic Posters would point you towards early retirement, in terms of their market value today. Since many of the artists who designed the Fillmore posters, and the Carter posters did in fact have fine art degrees and formal training in printmaking, as part of their curriculum, there was no mystery about what they were making, i.e. posters.
Are the posters worth it? I don't think so, but others could disagree. Would people pay as much for the posters if dealers did not cash in on the reputation of traditionally made prints? I would say NO! Such works have an artificially inflated value that they do not deserve.
How do you arrive at a concept of what a piece of work 'deserves' in terms of cost? Are not these things in the handbasket of market economies and such? When Jasper Johns sold a painting sold for eight million, he was asked if this validated his standing as an artist, and heis answer was that it had nothing to do with his standing as an artist, but it had everything to do with economics and collecting and capital. Is a Carter poster worth $17,000? It obviously is if someone will pay that much to own it.
So PIcasso once felt hypocritical about his standing as the highest paid living artist and his Marxist ideologies. He was catering to economic elites, and his solution was to build a pottery studio on his estate in So. France, and hire a full time technicial to make blanks for cups and saucers, which he would come in and glaze on and scrbble his sig -- so that even the working class stiff could own an original Picasso. It didn't work, because like most of us, Picasso could not conceive of the numbers involved in an international art market, and galleries all over were able to successfully sell every teacup he could paint for fifteen hundred dollars. (1500 hundred in 1955 is equivalent to about twenty grand today, to get some perspective.) What that means is that the market, of this scale, exists.
I think you are categorically incorrect in stating that dealers are 'cashing in' on the reputation of 'traditionally' made prints. Why should they bother to do this when they don't have to? The pieces can be successfully marketed on their own merits, i.e. the signature, the size of the edition, the popularity of the artist etc. When has a Bateman been held against a Rembrandt etching. It's a pretty fluffy idea, in my opinion. Personally, I would criticize art dealers if they were 'cashing in' on the idea that the art they are selling will increase in value and that it is a sound investment. I think that's a bit tacky.
The term "limited edition" could still be applied to these works, but it should be linked to the term "fine art poster". To link the term "limited edition" with the word "print", which carries with it the legitimacy and authority earned over many years by printmakers like Francisco Goya, Emil Nolde, David Blackwood, Jean Millet, is blatantly misleading and perhaps even criminal! I would wager a smart lawyer could win a suit against a dealer for fraud or product misrepresentation when owners of these posters start trying to sell them for a price anywhere near the price they paid for them.
Well, most people who are willing to shell out $350.00 for a framed and matted Glecee or offset print can count. (at least to 350 plus tax). If an investment is their consideration (which is seldom the case in this market) they know that one of an edition of 25 is potentially more valuable than one in a edition of 5000.
I'd be glad to take you up on your wager. There's nothing criminal about calling a print a print. If you call an offset lithograph a stone lithograph, that is fraud. But to imagine a lawsuit wherin the claim is calling a poster a print (especially since the difference could be legally defined) is a complete paper tiger, in that associating the word 'print' with antiquarian 'authority' won't get you anywhere with 'the finders of fact'. It wouldn't make it to court, and you would take an awful risk at being countersued for malicious prosecution. The problem is that you cannot make a good argument, legal or art historical, that will say the difference between a 'print' and a 'poster' is a matter of numbers and method of production.
The other thing I would like to mention concerns an individual artist's earning ability. An artist who cannot sell a drypoint etching, 1 of 15, for $2,500 would also not be able to sell a reproduced water color or oil, 1 out of 1000, for $200. Following that thought, I think if Bateman did a drypoint (an perhaps he has) it would sell for much more than one of his signed photo-offset prints.
But I really do agree with you about the value of hand-made prints. They are very nice, and many collectors simply would not buy into large editions. I'm only disagreeing about terminology - the 'poster' thing. In its place, I think it is more sensible to talk about serigraphs, drypoints, silver points, etchings, engravings, plate and stone lithographs, collegraphs, woodblocks, Glecees, photo-offsets and so on -- all these as categories of fine art prints.
What if you sold me something as a 'poster' and aftwards I went to the library and discovered it wasn't a 'poster' at all, but rather a large edition print. Could I sue you for fraud, then? I think maybe I could.
A few artists like Robert Bateman prosper, but the great majority of artists suffer when a potential art buyer compares prices and decides that the traditionally made prints are too expensive and, instead, chooses to buy a poster. Artists can make as many posters as they want, but they should take them to Walmart and put them in the home furnishings department, or fill up the bulk poster bins. At least that would be honest.
Cheers, Terry
Oh, come on. You can actually buy very nice posters, in the legimate sense of the term, in a Beverly Hills Gallery, and pay dearly for it (a perfume advertisement, for example). You really need to study the numbers associated with the art market. Bateman's success doesn't destroy the chances for other artists. It only strengthens the art market generally since more people can get into buying art -- either for decorating their house or because they love an image. People who want to buy hand-made art will seek it out. People who have no interest in the hand-made, for whatever reason, will purchase images they can afford. If it has a Bateman, Picasso, or Rembrant mystique about it, so much the better for the buyer, in terms of the value and meaning of their purchase.
I suppose you could have made the same claim about the automobile in 1915. That H. Ford, the scoundrel, is mass producing cars, and robbing opportunity from the purists who hand build cars. Well, it didn't quite work out that way, as history will testify to.
Erik Mattila
Jennifer Eiserman
And it is true that the 'limited edition' is more valuable than an open edition. What is being marketed is the idea of limitation, and that ties intimately into the concept of rarity, authenticity and other ephemeral values that we attach to the work of art.Your use of the term 'poster' is a bit transparent -- I mean that it is pretty obvious you are using it as a dimuitive -- i.e. a 'poster' is less valuable that a 'print.' Unfortunately its not a legitimate use of the term, in that a "poster" is a thing in graphic arts and antiquities that is not a 'print' regardless of the press run of the print. Basically, a poster is an advertising instrument -- announcing a product, event, service, etc. A Bateman edition of 2500 is not that, is it? It's either a piece designed to be a print, or a reproduction of a painting or drawing.
"Posters" are of course collectible, and even appear in art galleries as 'art' even though it is clearly understood that art historically this is a 'poster.' If you had a good collection of Carter (The Magician) posters, you could retire. But originally these posters were published in editions in the thousands. Even a comprehensive collection of Fillmore Psychodelic Posters would point you towards early retirement, in terms of their market value today. Since many of the artists who designed the Fillmore posters, and the Carter posters did in fact have fine art degrees and formal training in printmaking, as part of their curriculum, there was no mystery about what they were making, i.e. posters.
How do you arrive at a concept of what a piece of work 'deserves' in terms of cost? Are not these things in the handbasket of market economies and such? When Jasper Johns sold a painting sold for eight million, he was asked if this validated his standing as an artist, and heis answer was that it had nothing to do with his standing as an artist, but it had everything to do with economics and collecting and capital. Is a Carter poster worth $17,000? It obviously is if someone will pay that much to own it.
So PIcasso once felt hypocritical about his standing as the highest paid living artist and his Marxist ideologies. He was catering to economic elites, and his solution was to build a pottery studio on his estate in So. France, and hire a full time technicial to make blanks for cups and saucers, which he would come in and glaze on and scrbble his sig -- so that even the working class stiff could own an original Picasso. It didn't work, because like most of us, Picasso could not conceive of the numbers involved in an international art market, and galleries all over were able to successfully sell every teacup he could paint for fifteen hundred dollars. (1500 hundred in 1955 is equivalent to about twenty grand today, to get some perspective.) What that means is that the market, of this scale, exists.I think you are categorically incorrect in stating that dealers are 'cashing in' on the reputation of 'traditionally' made prints. Why should they bother to do this when they don't have to? The pieces can be successfully marketed on their own merits, i.e. the signature, the size of the edition, the popularity of the artist etc. When has a Bateman been held against a Rembrandt etching. It's a pretty fluffy idea, in my opinion. Personally, I would criticize art dealers if they were 'cashing in' on the idea that the art they are selling will increase in value and that it is a sound investment. I think that's a bit tacky.
Well, most people who are willing to shell out $350.00 for a framed and matted Glecee or offset print can count. (at least to 350 plus tax). If an investment is their consideration (which is seldom the case in this market) they know that one of an edition of 25 is potentially more valuable than one in a edition of 5000.I'd be glad to take you up on your wager. There's nothing criminal about calling a print a print. If you call an offset lithograph a stone lithograph, that is fraud. But to imagine a lawsuit wherin the claim is calling a poster a print (especially since the difference could be legally defined) is a complete paper tiger, in that associating the word 'print' with antiquarian 'authority' won't get you anywhere with 'the finders of fact'. It wouldn't make it to court, and you would take an awful risk at being countersued for malicious prosecution. The problem is that you cannot make a good argument, legal or art historical, that will say the difference between a 'print' and a 'poster' is a matter of numbers and method of production.
The other thing I would like to mention concerns an individual artist's earning ability. An artist who cannot sell a drypoint etching, 1 of 15, for $2,500 would also not be able to sell a reproduced water color or oil, 1 out of 1000, for $200. Following that thought, I think if Bateman did a drypoint (an perhaps he has) it would sell for much more than one of his signed photo-offset prints.
But I really do agree with you about the value of hand-made prints. They are very nice, and many collectors simply would not buy into large editions. I'm only disagreeing about terminology - the 'poster' thing. In its place, I think it is more sensible to talk about serigraphs, drypoints, silver points, etchings, engravings, plate and stone lithographs, collegraphs, woodblocks, Glecees, photo-offsets and so on -- all these as categories of fine art prints.What if you sold me something as a 'poster' and aftwards I went to the library and discovered it wasn't a 'poster' at all, but rather a large edition print. Could I sue you for fraud, then? I think maybe I could.
Oh, come on. You can actually buy very nice posters, in the legimate sense of the term, in a Beverly Hills Gallery, and pay dearly for it (a perfume advertisement, for example). You really need to study the numbers associated with the art market. Bateman's success doesn't destroy the chances for other artists. It only strengthens the art market generally since more people can get into buying art -- either for decorating their house or because they love an image. People who want to buy hand-made art will seek it out. People who have no interest in the hand-made, for whatever reason, will purchase images they can afford. If it has a Bateman, Picasso, or Rembrant mystique about it, so much the better for the buyer, in terms of the value and meaning of their purchase.
I suppose you could have made the same claim about the automobile in 1915. That H. Ford, the scoundrel, is mass producing cars, and robbing opportunity from the purists who hand build cars. Well, it didn't quite work out that way, as history will testify to.Erik Mattila
Terry Reynoldson
Alison A Raimes
<lse...@execpc.com> writes
>
>There is a phenomenally big named vogue serendipitous cottage and garden
>painter, currently billed as a "painter of light", whom many of these
>giclee prints are being made...with adhesive backing, and then applied to
>canvas. This artist's works are in many major mall galleries everywhere.
>The inks of these prints are only known to have about 3-25 years archival
>stability before fading.
>
>After these are printed....a number of assistants take paint and make dabs
>of paint in various places on top of the print to give it that much more of
>an original appearance. They sell for roughly $1200 to $2400 each. There
>were a special limited edition in one series of 20 such canvas
>prints....where this artist himself alone made the dabs of paint. I am
>aware of this, because a gallery owner whom has about a half dozen of my
>originals was pointing it all out to me. Even this gallery owner couldn't
>believe it. Well...these limited canvas giclees were being marketed for
>$20,000 each!
Larry: no one seems to have a problem with the Andy Warhol factories
either - there were twelve prints that had just been shipped over and
were being framed here last week ... hot off the press. Damien Hirst has
jumped on the bandwagon with his *spot* paintings - he sells them in
*kit* form now - for around 20,000 dollars - complete with instructions
and adhesive for the wall. How can anyone blame him - the world is full
of suckers who think art is about the price on the name not the work.
Best regards,
Alison.
Jillian
>At any rate, I don't think that the large edition photomechanical print takes
>away from the hand made print at all.
I would disagree in the sense that the 'average'
buyer of such prints does not have the knowledge
of their production and cannot therefore make
distinctions between them. It's this confusion that
is contributed to by the unlimited editioning.
mcshane
to do with the originality , uniqueness or resale value of a piece but
is rather what the piece would bring in an open market transaction
between a willing buyer and a willing seller , acting independently of
each other and each having full knowledge of the facts.
What establishes value is not what anyone thinks a piece of art is
worth but what it sells for. To me the world of limited editions is
completely removed from the world of original art. It is much more akin
to the market for sports memorabilia where a $5 baseball sells for $3
million because it was hit by McGuire and established a new record. In
limited editions , purchasers are buying a high quality poster with a
number on it and a signature but it has a market value because people
will pay $100's or even $1000's for it. The assertion that a purchaser
could sue a dealer because they couldn't resell a piece for what they
had purchased it for is absurd if the purchase was based on the "fair
market value" as mentioned above. If fraud was involved in terms of the
piece being misrepresented as having some originality (as a lithograph,
serigraph,etching ect. or much higher market value, then legal action
would be justifiable but otherwise the piece is worth what the buyer
paid.
The limited edition mentality is that people feel safe buying the same
piece that George and Martha ,down the street ,have on their wall. They
feel that they are making an investment because they look at the
published value guide and see that their Robert Bateman is now listed as
having a value of $500 and they only paid $200. These people will
generally never buy a piece of art (and I use this term loosely) on a
purely emotional level. They will like the piece but they will want to
know that tha artist has a track record for appreciating value.t
As a dealer who also arranges auctions, I often get frustrated with the
fact that I can get $500 for a limited edition but I could offer a good
original for $50 and not get a bid.
In the end, I don't loose sleep over this issue. The term "print" is no
longer a preserve of original work. Auction houses such as Sotheby's now
sell offset's by artists such as Oldenberg in their "Print" sales. I
think it is much more fitting now to describe a piece by its method of
production and this ends any confusion.
Stephen
burnin...@my-deja.com
kimb...@my-deja.com wrote:
Mr. Bateman has technical ability and people buy his
work. The odds of him being recognized as you suggest
anytime soon is approximately zero.
Particularly in the People's Republic of Canada.
burnin...@my-deja.com
mcshane <mcs...@home.com> wrote:
> I would like to advance the view that "fair market value" has nothing
> to do with the originality , uniqueness or resale value of a piece but
> is rather what the piece would bring in an open market transaction
> between a willing buyer and a willing seller , acting independently of
> each other and each having full knowledge of the facts.
True.
>
> What establishes value is not what anyone thinks a piece of art is
> worth but what it sells for
Not true. Without a perception of "value," it wouldn't sell.
The above sentence is irrational.
> To me the world of limited editions is
> completely removed from the world of original art. It is much more
akin
> to the market for sports memorabilia where a $5 baseball sells for $3
> million because it was hit by McGuire and established a
Opinion. Irrelevant.
> In
> limited editions , purchasers are buying a high quality poster with a
> number on it and a signature but it has a market value because people
> will pay $100's or even $1000's for it.
Again, irrational.
People won't pay "$100's or even $1000's for it," unless they believe
it has value first. That is, they liked it.
Additionally, you contradict yourself in your post lower.
> The assertion that a purchaser
> could sue a dealer because they couldn't resell a piece for what they
> had purchased it for is absurd if the purchase was based on the "fair
> market value" as mentioned above.
Some people buy tulips bulbs as investments also. You can file a
suit against someone for almost anything.
> If fraud was involved in terms of the
> piece being misrepresented as having some originality (as a
lithograph,
> serigraph,etching ect. or much higher market value, then legal action
> would be justifiable but otherwise the piece is worth what the buyer
> paid.
All anything is "worth" is what the next person will pay for it.
>
> The limited edition mentality is that people feel safe buying the
same
> piece that George and Martha ,down the street ,have on their wall.
Some probably do. Many people I know buy them because they liked
the image and wanted the artist's signature.
> They
> feel that they are making an investment because they look at the
> published value guide and see that their Robert Bateman is now listed
as
> having a value of $500 and they only paid $200.
This is true. I have prints I paid $150 for and will now resell
for over 3000.
> These people will
> generally never buy a piece of art (and I use this term loosely) on a
> purely emotional level.
Opinion. Irrelevant.
> They will like the piece but they will want to
> know that tha artist has a track record for appreciating value.
Reasonable question.
t
>
> As a dealer who also arranges auctions, I often get frustrated with
the
> fact that I can get $500 for a limited edition but I could offer a
good
> original for $50 and not get a bid.
Examples? I find it difficult to believe that anyone whose prints
would go for $500 couldn't sell a (decent) original for $50.
>
> In the end, I don't loose sleep over this issue. The term "print" is
no
> longer a preserve of original work. Auction houses such as Sotheby's
now
> sell offset's by artists such as Oldenberg in their "Print" sales. I
> think it is much more fitting now to describe a piece by its method of
> production and this ends any confusion.
>
> Stephen
Erik A. Mattila
Jillian wrote:
Well, I really disagree with this, but how can one possibly determine what the
'average buyer' knows about prints and the art market? I can only say that I've
known several artists who produce hand made and machine made prints and buyers of
these over the years, and it is my impression that these buyers are very aware of
the differences we are talking about here.
But we can look at mass media itself for some sense of what an 'average' buyer
knows. The famous fraud associated with the Dali reproductions was well covered,
meaning, for example, that millions of Americans are aware of this practice -- I
think there were specials on "60 Minutes" etc on this topic. Millions also
watched programs about the capricious nature of art investment, and on several
occassions I have seen TV personalities offer caveates about this promise for a
quiack buck. And the list goes on and on.
Along with this is the popularity of collecting as a hobby, which many people are
very gleefully engaged in. Why not, it's fun, in the last analysis. With
popularity, companies like Franklin Mint have cropped up, which manufacture
'collectibles' (which is somehow bizarre, to me.) Most customers of Franklin
Mint have made very poor investiments - purchasing series of coins, for example,
that are barely worth their silver ten years later. But who knows, in a hundred
and fifty years from now, it may be quite different, and the collection may
become very valuable (as an artifact of consummer entertainment of the late 20th
C.)
The very popular "Antique Road Show" on PBS regularly unveils a long tradition of
commercial manufacturers making clones of everything from vases to chest of
drawers, Ming Ivory to Central African Nail Fetishes. And why is the show so
popular? I think it's because of the appraiser revealing the estimated value of
the 'find' from the flea market.
One very important topic that has been left out of this discussion altogether is
the "Fine Art Print" which is the older form of an artist's controlled large or
open edition. Many companies have manufatured these prints, as well as many
Museum Shops etc. It's a pretty old commercial practice.
A bit of nostalgia. Before I was born, my mother purchased a print of Diego
Rivera's "The Flower Vendors" (the original is in the collection of SFMOMA.
Among her circle of friends, a popular 'craft' practice was invented to make the
print look like an "original" which was to shellac the print, embed cheesecloth
in the wet shellac, and pull the cheesecloth out just before the shellac sets.
Viola, a pretty neat Rivera 'painting' hanging on the wall. So many people were
able to enjoy Rivera who otherwise could not afford to.
My basic position in this discussion is that artists should not bemoan the
existance of commercial practices, just as a 'why bite the hand that feeds you'
sort of thing. I'm not an economist, but it seems reasonable to assume that the
more active a market is, the greater the opportunity for new artists to
participate in that market. "Affordability' is certainly an important factor.
In this sense I do not believe that artists who elect to mass produce
reproductions are invading a market niche which may be responsive to artists who
elect to produce hand-mades. A buyer, who purchases one or several large edition
prints, in the long run, is likely to want to add something rarer to the
collection, once engaged in collecting. It seems a natural course.
The idea of 'collecting' and 'collectibles' seems to be under scrutiny, also, in
this discussion. I think it is wise to recognize that 'collecting' is at the
historical heart of our modern 'art museum' and by extension the art industry
itself. The first 'art museum', the 'wunderkammern' was a hodgepodge of curios
gathered from around the globe during the European age of discovery and
colonialism (aka "the Renaissance"). Very wealthy people found great pleasure in
collecting everything from two headed dehydrated toads to dayglow insects impaled
on needles. Thus the natural history museum and the art museum grew out of this
practice, as well as the modern day art market.
Anyway, I think we should give our patrons some credit. I've seen quite a few
framed and matted prints of large editions that look quite lovely hanging on the
walls in the home of a very happy camper.
Erik Mattila
Larry Seiler
> What establishes value is not what anyone thinks a piece of art is
> worth but what it sells for.
I've read one artist/thinker (Jean Baudrillard) whom said, "It is not that
the rich get to buy great art, but rather, what the wealthy own is by
definition good."
Maybe there is something to this. We as artists see what the wealthy are
buying. We then ask questions like, "hmmm...how come that is preferred
over my work?" Then, wanting a piece of the pie for ourselves we endeavor
to understand that difference....work to adjust our skills accordingly, and
then scheme to reveal to the affluent that we also exist and are "worthy",
or else we assume the position to be greatly upset, and righteously so and
take issue with it.
That is.....if making money is really what artists are making art for.
On the other hand...there are those artists whom determine to stay a course
or direction for themselves and after many good years pass achieve a great
level of ability. They live pretty much in obscurity until all of a sudden
their genre and subject become vogue. There will still be their
contemporaries whom will take issue...and assume the artist was making art
simply to rip people off.
I figure...yeah..I'd like to put some food on the table. I'm also an
artist that tries to maintain my own integrity. So...I've starved for many
years, and my family has done without. Artists would admire my stand and
steadfastness, others would scorn my being a lousy provider. I've come to
the conclusion we are at all times a hero to some...and the object of much
disgust to others.
I figure....I'll just go paint, and let everyone else go ahead and figure
it all out! ....peace,
Larry Seiler
> of suckers who think art is about the price on the name not the work.
> Best regards,
> Alison.
you know...to me it is so very ironic.
After nearly 20 some years of painting professionally...I have the
experience of people assuming I'm making decent money. They just think it
must be so when they see my work. I live in Green Bay Packer/beer country
though, and the road...while having been an interesting one, has never been
easy. I can't even arise above figuring out how to keep the phone from
getting shut off, yet I have the respect regionally of being professional
in the eyes and company of professionals!
It amazes me at times how people will drop so much money on a piece of art
because the market assures a measure of prestige will come of it. These
folks in their 1-2 million dollar homes standing around drinking expensive
wines with other 1-2 million dollar homeowner buds checking out each
other's stuff and giving an accounting one to another why they bought this
or that.
I definitely need income...and find myself at times envious, yet something
also curdles in my gut to think that after all my years of work and effort,
eyes belonging to the buyer would possess no mind of aesthetics behind them
to understand anything of the love and passion that went into it. When no
mind understands anything of that which we have a passion for, it has to be
enough all by itself for us to enjoy, for in the sight of the world we may
as well be dead already.
crazy...
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
Larry Seiler
> Bateman did a drypoint (an perhaps he has) it would sell for much more
> than one of his signed photo-offset prints.
His paintings were going for five and six figure digits. Don't know what
they go for now. He is considered the Eric Clapton of wildlife art,
FWIW... that is, a founder among a genre of many peer wannabe's.
Jillian
>Anyway, I think we should give our patrons some credit. I've seen quite a few
>framed and matted prints of large editions that look quite lovely hanging on the
>walls in the home of a very happy camper.
>
>Erik Mattila
I agree with your basic assumptions about 'collectors'
in that some things that were originally thought of
as 'common detritus' will, over the years, be eagerly
sought by some collector as 'memorabilia' or antigue
or whatever drives the minds of such collectors.
But the conversation about 'fine art prints' is one
that won't be resolved by talking about it or by
educating the public. It's already too late for that.
The term 'fine art print' and many of the other art
marketing terms have obliterated what a 'fine art print'
SHOULD mean -- IE: a print produced entirely by the
hand of the artist, from beginning to end.
When you begin using narrow definitions you immediately
get more problems. IE: should a 'fine art print' only
define a print made by someone who is a printmaker?
Or can an artist 'create' the print with the assistance
of a printmaker, the artist having the final say in the
production? And on and on... NO GOOD ANSWERS to this
dilemma, that I can see.
Larry Seiler
> result, I do not really have a financial stake in this. Although the
> prints are enjoyed by many, I also question that displaying the
> originals will indeed increase the value of the prints.
First many people simply love Bateman's work.....and a print is the closest
they will have to it. By your own admission you don't have the money to
buy an original....thus, other than paging through a magazine and seeing an
add of a print of his, you don't get to enjoy something of his work.
> I have seen
> originals by Bateman and would never be satisfied with less than an
> original in my home.
I can certainly understand that. As an artist....I am well aware of my
frustrations and many other artists that cannot be satisfied with any
pigment other than that which best touches the intensity of a color in
atmospheric light. Of course....being that no color can do such, if we
followed the above line of reasoning we would prefer then to simply not
paint. Yet...we are driven to find close enough approximation and
imitation/limitation to continue on.
For those that have a passion for work they cannot afford, a print is
admittedly a "poor" substitute, yet it is the best thing and closest thing
that appeases their interest.
I desired when I was a young artist to learn something of Frans Hals work
and Rembrandts. Printed images in library books are by no means even
close...yet, enough was there for me to admire. I copied and painted
because my dadaist professors would teach me nothing. I wanted to paint
bad enough that I used "poor by comparison" prints.
If people have desire....they learn to accept second best.
btw.....a few years after copying such prints, I saw the "Officer" for the
first time at the Chicago Art Institute. The suspending of pigments in
many many layers of glazing Rembrandt did, the rich velvety darks..none had
received any justice in those library books. I had learned enough from
copying those images just the same that it led to my development, yet also
just enough to admire the real thing, and I wept for about 20 minutes in
front of that painting. A scene my wife still remembers, as she was quite
embarrassed at the time. I don't regret having copied the prints...only
that I did not have the real things to work from.
> I feel that many people would feel the same way
> (it is like comparing a photo of a sunset to the real thing).
Yes.....but again.....if artists responded in like logic to their
applications, none of us would paint. Pigment does no justice to nature.
Many art 'isms and theories exist because of our frustration with that
reality.
If we did not change our fantasies of what we thought love should be with
in fact whom we marry....we would never have grown and allowed some of the
changes our spouses bring into our own lives that in years prove to be good
things, but would divorce ourselves from such opportunities.
That artists work through this frustration to imitate with second best
materials is a credit to them. That some patrons relent to purchase an
image second best to the original is honest appraisal of that which affords
them opportunity. They love the work enough to find joy with that which
imitates.
However,
> I do not have the finances to purchase a Bateman original. It would
> give me great pleasure to have the opportunity to view an original
> Bateman while supporting the AGO.
you know...if I could have a quarter for every person that has admired my
work but couldn't afford it, maybe I'd have some income to pay bills.
My options in lieu of such are.....spend my self and energies on a job that
brings income, such that nothing is left of me to patiently endure for that
which such work as mine requires. 2) Lower my own personal standards for
excellence, limiting exactly how much time I'm willing to put into work so
that I can afford to pump out mediocre garbage and make it available at a
price aesthetically blind people are willing to buy. 3) Find a way to make
available to the public a copy that rewards my time in my originals that no
one can afford to buy, yet gives them something they perceive to bring
aesthetically more pleasure than mediocre lesser time affordable art.
It is these issues that an artist when offered an opportunity to have
prints made and someone market them considers.
Bateman made the wonderful originals he did because the print industry
afforded him the luxury to put time into them. Now....he is so huge in the
culture that those than can afford to buy his originals do so. The
originals went up in value because of the prints. The prints symbolize
that many people that would have preferred the original, and it gives that
much more value to the original.
There are very few artists that do their work with absolutely no hope or
dream of being able to spend all their waking moments doing what they love.
Some are bitter because the culture inclines itself for whatever reasons
toward certain artists and subjects. They try to create guilt among those
that should know better, for what reasons? Perhaps laws can be passed that
money be made available to force purchases for that which no one really
wants.
The buyer seeing a Bateman original or any other artist for that matter,
not being able to afford it....finds pleasure in a print...then, what's the
big deal?
I personally draw the line when marketing hype suggests the paper and ink
is worth literally $2400 on up....good grief. That is more an industry
that has gotten out of control....all the middle people, etc., than the
artist whom agreed contractually to be represented. Of course...once in
the position of experiencing a good ride, many artists would need a unique
trait in their personality/character to say, "wait a minute guys....I'm
making way too much money here!"
My work is available for sale. I've been told it's pretty good. My being
invited as a peer to shows similar to Bateman's suggests the same.
However, I was not fortunate enough to find representation earlier on, and
was always on the coat tail so-to-speak. As a result, the perception is
that my work is not as good. Prints....demand for such, admittedly creates
a larger than life presence. People with money are looking for
justification for their purchases as well. They want a piece of somebody
everybody else wants a piece of.
Again....the quote, "It is not that the rich get to buy great art, but
rather, what the wealthy own is by definition good." Jean Baudrillard
peace,
Alison A Raimes
<lse...@execpc.com> writes
>I've read one artist/thinker (Jean Baudrillard) whom said, "It is not that
>the rich get to buy great art, but rather, what the wealthy own is by
>definition good."
Larry: Baudrillard would be clapping his hands with glee if he knew you
were calling him an artist. In 1991 he was approached by a New York Art
gallery who asked him to show his work ... he explained that he was a
philosopher ... that didn't deter them. Consequently, seeing the
opportunity to *prove a point* he bought himself a 35mm camera and took
off to take photographs of *junk*, picked out half a dozen *interesting*
ones (like piles of cars waiting to be scrapped) and had them blown up
and framed. That was his show. Laughing all the way to the bank he was.
(From the man's mouth: Slade School of Art 1992)
Regards,
Alison.
Erik A. Mattila
Jillian wrote:
> In article <3755ABEA...@tomatoweb.com>, emat...@tomatoweb.com says...
>
> >Anyway, I think we should give our patrons some credit. I've seen quite a few
> >framed and matted prints of large editions that look quite lovely hanging on the
> >walls in the home of a very happy camper.
> >
> >Erik Mattila
>
> I agree with your basic assumptions about 'collectors'
> in that some things that were originally thought of
> as 'common detritus' will, over the years, be eagerly
> sought by some collector as 'memorabilia' or antigue
> or whatever drives the minds of such collectors.
>
> But the conversation about 'fine art prints' is one
> that won't be resolved by talking about it or by
> educating the public. It's already too late for that.
> The term 'fine art print' and many of the other art
> marketing terms have obliterated what a 'fine art print'
> SHOULD mean -- IE: a print produced entirely by the
> hand of the artist, from beginning to end.
What fascinates me about this discussion it that this is exactly what Benjamin was
talking about in his "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." which,
as I recall, was written in the '30s. Basically Benjamin's claim was that our
definitions of these thing wouild inevitably change due to the impact of mass media.
What Benjamin didn't discuss, however, was the survival ability of the older 'art'
instutions such as the hand made print. (or Artist made, if you prefer.)
Personally, I think it is very high -- I see this practice surviving and even
becoming more economically viable for an artist. My position in this discussion has
been that the proliferation of large and open manufactured reproductions works hand
in hand with thee strengthening of this artistic 'cottage' industry (no denigration
meant by that), as opposed to the idea that it would impinge on the market for 'real
art.'
The only problem I have with your criteria 'entirely made by the hand of the artist'
is that many successful artists are able to produce legitimate hand made prints by
having the maestros at places like Tamarind make the print. The would put the
Tamarind prints in the same category as the photo-offset prints, which I don't think
really works. And of course there's the historical background of printmaking,
which often involved 'the artist's hand' a small degree.Very skillful carpenters
carved Durer's woodblocks, and very skilled plrinters operated the presses in his
shop -- and of course this was a common practice.
> When you begin using narrow definitions you immediately
> get more problems. IE: should a 'fine art print' only
> define a print made by someone who is a printmaker?
> Or can an artist 'create' the print with the assistance
> of a printmaker, the artist having the final say in the
> production? And on and on... NO GOOD ANSWERS to this
> dilemma, that I can see.
Sure, there's good answers. Call a spade a spade. An itaglio is an intaglio is an
intaglio. A PMR (photomechanical repro) is a PMR is a PMR. The problem is that we
want a general term to cover all the bases - our linguistical indolence. Probably
not, I think.
Cherrios,
Erik
mcshane
1) People can think a piece is worth X $'s but their opinion is only a
matter of conjecture until it is offered to an open market and sells.
2) There has been reference in this Bateman thread to people buying
worthless posters
(limited editions) but my point is that the pieces actually have a
"Market Value" because they are purchased for $100's or $1,000's. It's
the old "Money talks - Bullshit walks". Yes we know they are cheaply
produced photo reproductions but when someone puts down the cash for the
piece then the value is established whether you like it or not.
3) Yes as burningchrome has pointed out you can sue for almost anything
but the point is - will you be successful?. I don't know any dealer who
guarantees that you can get your money back on a piece by selling it on
the open market. This or outright fraud, as I pointed out, would be the
only basis for a successful case.
4) I have encountered a situation where someone has been willing to pay
$1100 for a limited edition by an artist (A.J. Casson) but not $300 for
an original pencil drawing by the same artist.
Finally, perhaps I didn't "waste" enough time clarifying my points but I
find it odd that burningchrome criticizes my use of personal opinion as
irrelevant and then proceeds to provide anecdotal evidence to support
his/her points. And here I thought that this was a forum for opinion.
Well , I'll just have to go watch some Perry Masson reruns and brush up
on my legal skills.
burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <375541CA...@home.com>,
> mcshane <mcs...@home.com> wrote:
> > I would like to advance the view that "fair market value" has nothing
> > to do with the originality , uniqueness or resale value of a piece but
> > is rather what the piece would bring in an open market transaction
> > between a willing buyer and a willing seller , acting independently of
> > each other and each having full knowledge of the facts.
>
> True.
>
> >
> > What establishes value is not what anyone thinks a piece of art is
> > worth but what it sells for
>
> Not true. Without a perception of "value," it wouldn't sell.
> The above sentence is irrational.
>
> > To me the world of limited editions is
> > completely removed from the world of original art. It is much more
> akin
> > to the market for sports memorabilia where a $5 baseball sells for $3
> > million because it was hit by McGuire and established a
>
> Opinion. Irrelevant.
>
> > In
> > limited editions , purchasers are buying a high quality poster with a
> > number on it and a signature but it has a market value because people
> > will pay $100's or even $1000's for it.
>
> Again, irrational.
>
> People won't pay "$100's or even $1000's for it," unless they believe
> it has value first. That is, they liked it.
>
> Additionally, you contradict yourself in your post lower.
>
> > The assertion that a purchaser
> > could sue a dealer because they couldn't resell a piece for what they
> > had purchased it for is absurd if the purchase was based on the "fair
> > market value" as mentioned above.
>
> Some people buy tulips bulbs as investments also. You can file a
> suit against someone for almost anything.
>
> > If fraud was involved in terms of the
> > piece being misrepresented as having some originality (as a
> lithograph,
> > serigraph,etching ect. or much higher market value, then legal action
> > would be justifiable but otherwise the piece is worth what the buyer
> > paid.
>
> All anything is "worth" is what the next person will pay for it.
>
> >
> > The limited edition mentality is that people feel safe buying the
> same
> > piece that George and Martha ,down the street ,have on their wall.
>
> Some probably do. Many people I know buy them because they liked
> the image and wanted the artist's signature.
>
> > They
> > feel that they are making an investment because they look at the
> > published value guide and see that their Robert Bateman is now listed
> as
> > having a value of $500 and they only paid $200.
>
> This is true. I have prints I paid $150 for and will now resell
> for over 3000.
>
> > These people will
> > generally never buy a piece of art (and I use this term loosely) on a
> > purely emotional level.
>
> Opinion. Irrelevant.
>
> > They will like the piece but they will want to
> > know that tha artist has a track record for appreciating value.
>
> Reasonable question.
>
> t
> >
> > As a dealer who also arranges auctions, I often get frustrated with
> the
> > fact that I can get $500 for a limited edition but I could offer a
> good
> > original for $50 and not get a bid.
>
> Examples? I find it difficult to believe that anyone whose prints
> would go for $500 couldn't sell a (decent) original for $50.
>
> >
> > In the end, I don't loose sleep over this issue. The term "print" is
> no
> > longer a preserve of original work. Auction houses such as Sotheby's
> now
> > sell offset's by artists such as Oldenberg in their "Print" sales. I
> > think it is much more fitting now to describe a piece by its method of
> > production and this ends any confusion.
> >
> > Stephen
>
mdeli
>First many people simply love Bateman's work.....and a print is the closest
>they will have to it.
snip
That fact irritates purist artzy fartzies no end. Especially the great
mass of failures who can't figure out why no one is in the least bit
interested in their work.
>The buyer seeing a Bateman original or any other artist for that matter,
>not being able to afford it....finds pleasure in a print...then, what's the
>big deal?
I often wonder why Bateman turns the artzies into sputtering crabs
while they tolerate Rothko's million dollar horse blankets and
Warhol's expensive schmiered over signed photo-silkscreens.
My view is make all the money you can by doing fine work or by giving
the idiots what they want. I admire any artist who cleans up from
Picasso onward. For cleaning up that is, not necessarily because he
produced good artwork.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
~Artist~
Mattison
More sigs less life.
~Artist~
Mattison
Larry Seiler
> (From the man's mouth: Slade School of Art 1992)
> Regards,
> Alison.
proved his point he did!
If the wealthy buy it....it must be good stuff.
Larry
burnin...@my-deja.com
mcshane <mcs...@home.com> wrote:
> Some clarification to my post :
>
> 1) People can think a piece is worth X $'s but their opinion is only a
> matter of conjecture until it is offered to an open market and sells.
Agreed. This, however, contradicts some of your original post.
Further elucidation not required.
>
> 2) There has been reference in this Bateman thread to people buying
> worthless posters
> (limited editions) but my point is that the pieces actually have a
> "Market Value" because they are purchased for $100's or $1,000's.
Agreed. Once they are "purchased," they are worth what was paid for
them, obviously.
> It's
> the old "Money talks - Bullshit walks". Yes we know they are cheaply
> produced photo reproductions but when someone puts down the cash for
the
> piece then the value is established whether you like it or not.
There are different ranges of photo reproductions. Some are not
so "cheap". Just a change in the paper used can easily result in
a delta of a thousand dollars in printing costs.
>
> 3) Yes as burningchrome has pointed out you can sue for almost
anything
> but the point is - will you be successful?. I don't know any dealer
who
> guarantees that you can get your money back on a piece by selling it
on
> the open market. This or outright fraud, as I pointed out, would be
the
> only basis for a successful case.
Many stress the resale value when pushing paper. It isn't fraud to
do so -- providing it's accurate.
The same is done with cars, comic books, paintings, etc. It's a
*common* sales practice.
>
> 4) I have encountered a situation where someone has been willing to
pay
> $1100 for a limited edition by an artist (A.J. Casson) but not $300
for
> an original pencil drawing by the same artist.
So? If you said the person was unwilling to pay $300 for the original
of the limited edition, you'd have a point. Prices of originals vary
with the quality of the work. No big surprise there.
>
> Finally, perhaps I didn't "waste" enough time clarifying my points but
I
> find it odd that burningchrome criticizes my use of personal opinion
as
> irrelevant and then proceeds to provide anecdotal evidence to support
> his/her points.
LOL :P
Not really odd. You're the one whining about the logic of someone
unwilling to pay $300 for an original they didn't like but willing
to pay more for a reproduction. You're looking at as purely an
investment and fail to realize the person might actually like or
dislike the image and, therefore, assign more "value" to it.
Why don't you try selling cars instead? I think you'd feel more
at home there.
> And here I thought that this was a forum for opinion.
Oh, you're entitled to an opinion. You're not entitled to have
people take it seriously.
> Well , I'll just have to go watch some Perry Masson reruns and brush
up
> on my legal skills.
Have fun.
Larry Seiler
> of a printmaker, the artist having the final say in the
> production? And on and on... NO GOOD ANSWERS to this
> dilemma, that I can see.
One gallery I'm involved with is real big on these multiple screen
duplicated prints. That is..about 150 screens are made..serigraphs, and
each color of the original painting is duplicated, cut..and then printed
layer upon layer upon layer.
The final result is a canvas what? The galleries are hesitant to call it a
print, because it is built from many layers...so they almost see it as an
original made from the original. These generally retail over $2,000...and
the textures of the process is quite obvious. They nearly look like a
painting, and the colors are bold and intense.
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
Jillian
>The final result is a canvas what? The galleries are hesitant to call it a
>print, because it is built from many layers...
I don't know if what you're talking about is the same
as I've seen in decorator stores. These are 'paintings'
that have been reproduced to look and feel like paintings
but are NOT originals and are not sold as originals.
I'm sure the company(s) that reproduce these imitations
have some name for their processes but I've not seen
them referred to as 'prints,' although screen printing
may well be the method by which they are produced.
Incidentally -- are screen-printed tee shirts called 'prints?'
Screen printing (serigraphy) is widely used in the
printing of whatever is found on Tees.
Larry Seiler
> Screen printing (serigraphy) is widely used in the
> printing of whatever is found on Tees.
hey....now watch it!..... ;^)
I have done illustrations for several companies in the past....and one
company decided to donate about 300 shirts to a school to raise money for
one of their causes....for which I sat one night and signed nearly all of
them with a Sharpie pen. Guess that made such shirts...dare I say,
"limited signed editions!" Many students and faculty still wear them and
let me know about it. *shrug*
take care,
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
music review-
http://www.tollbooth.org/reviews/lseiler.html
Jillian
>
>> Incidentally -- are screen-printed tee shirts called 'prints?'
>> Screen printing (serigraphy) is widely used in the
>> printing of whatever is found on Tees.
>
>hey....now watch it!..... ;^)
Funny... yesterday I bought a silk-screened Tee shirt as
a graduation gift for a young friend who has just
gotten over the high school hurdle.
Larry Seiler
> Funny... yesterday I bought a silk-screened Tee shirt as
> a graduation gift for a young friend who has just
> gotten over the high school hurdle.
perhaps serving people/humanity and bringing them joy is a higher "art" and
more important than serving "art".....
peace,
Larry
sara
over-priced poster. A print is an edition of art works done through a
process like silk screen and wood etching.
I hate to hear color reproductions hailed as prints! "one of 40, 000"
wow it's a limited edition! whatever! criminals!
Jillian wrote:
>
> In article <7j8ocv$b...@newsops.execpc.com>, lse...@execpc.com says...
>
> >The final result is a canvas what? The galleries are hesitant to call it a
> >print, because it is built from many layers...
>
> I don't know if what you're talking about is the same
> as I've seen in decorator stores. These are 'paintings'
> that have been reproduced to look and feel like paintings
> but are NOT originals and are not sold as originals.
> I'm sure the company(s) that reproduce these imitations
> have some name for their processes but I've not seen
> them referred to as 'prints,' although screen printing
> may well be the method by which they are produced.
>
sara
a print' I come to my favorite topic. Robert Bateman. I have heard it
argued here that because someone is willing to part with 1000$, that
makes something valuable. Indeed you could look at it that way.
However, Bateman and many like him who make money from color
reproductions "posters" , often do so in a misleading way. I would
hazard a guess that most people who pay for these things are not aware
of their worthlessness. That perhaps even they think they are an
investment. It has come to seem that way. I have have spent time
talking with several owners of Bateman, who had NO IDEA what they
bought, and had no idea what a print was. And infect thought they had
an investment.
The major point is they sell posters. They mislead people by a)
calling them "prints" and b) signing and numbering their color
reproductions like a print. misleading, and genius marketing. I am not
sure whether to be disgusted or in awe of economic genius. One thing is
for sure, people who are not willing to spend money on a drawing because
they would rather have "print" by bateman, probably deserve one :)
burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <375705DE...@home.com>,
> mcshane <mcs...@home.com> wrote:
> > Some clarification to my post :
> >
> > 1) People can think a piece is worth X $'s but their opinion is only a
> > matter of conjecture until it is offered to an open market and sells.
>
> Agreed. This, however, contradicts some of your original post.
> Further elucidation not required.
>
> >
> > 2) There has been reference in this Bateman thread to people buying
> > worthless posters
> > (limited editions) but my point is that the pieces actually have a
> > "Market Value" because they are purchased for $100's or $1,000's.
>
> Agreed. Once they are "purchased," they are worth what was paid for
> them, obviously.
>
> > It's
> > the old "Money talks - Bullshit walks". Yes we know they are cheaply
> > produced photo reproductions but when someone puts down the cash for
> the
> > piece then the value is established whether you like it or not.
>
> There are different ranges of photo reproductions. Some are not
> so "cheap". Just a change in the paper used can easily result in
> a delta of a thousand dollars in printing costs.
>
> >
> > 3) Yes as burningchrome has pointed out you can sue for almost
> anything
> > but the point is - will you be successful?. I don't know any dealer
> who
> > guarantees that you can get your money back on a piece by selling it
> on
> > the open market. This or outright fraud, as I pointed out, would be
> the
> > only basis for a successful case.
>
> Many stress the resale value when pushing paper. It isn't fraud to
> do so -- providing it's accurate.
>
> The same is done with cars, comic books, paintings, etc. It's a
> *common* sales practice.
>
> >
> > 4) I have encountered a situation where someone has been willing to
> pay
> > $1100 for a limited edition by an artist (A.J. Casson) but not $300
> for
> > an original pencil drawing by the same artist.
>
> So? If you said the person was unwilling to pay $300 for the original
> of the limited edition, you'd have a point. Prices of originals vary
> with the quality of the work. No big surprise there.
>
> >
> > Finally, perhaps I didn't "waste" enough time clarifying my points but
> I
> > find it odd that burningchrome criticizes my use of personal opinion
> as
> > irrelevant and then proceeds to provide anecdotal evidence to support
> > his/her points.
>
> LOL :P
>
> Not really odd. You're the one whining about the logic of someone
> unwilling to pay $300 for an original they didn't like but willing
> to pay more for a reproduction. You're looking at as purely an
> investment and fail to realize the person might actually like or
> dislike the image and, therefore, assign more "value" to it.
>
> Why don't you try selling cars instead? I think you'd feel more
> at home there.
>
> > And here I thought that this was a forum for opinion.
>
> Oh, you're entitled to an opinion. You're not entitled to have
> people take it seriously.
>
> > Well , I'll just have to go watch some Perry Masson reruns and brush
> up
> > on my legal skills.
>
> Have fun.
Larry Seiler
> Anything that is a reproduction of "art" is nothing more than an
> over-priced poster.
well...actually, there are two levels of the so-called limited edition
print. Those that are just run off cheap, and those publishers that insist
the artist be present, inspect the proofs and keep working with the
technician until the color is just right. The artist learns how colors
will change in the printing process and it often affects some of the
original as he/she is painting.
Higher quality prints are printed on heavier paper....acid free. But
yes..there are the many cheapo companies that rode on the coat tails of the
hyped up market. It will cost an artist about $3,000-$5,000 to have 750
prints made of a 7" x 10" image say for a trout stamp design or waterfowl.
I'd say that is quite a bit different than the cheapo's...and the quality
is very noticeably different. Edges are not blurred, no obvious resolution
noticeable, etc; roll a cheap print up and it crackles or creases.....etc;
> A print is an edition of art works done through a
> process like silk screen and wood etching.
I have all the respect in the world for your dislike of "prints" which
probably is responding to more of the hype, etc; and having done a number
of intaglio's as well as teach art myself..yes, there is a difference
between an artist pulling a print one painstakingly at a time, and a press
that can print 450 images in 6 minutes.
Its an issue of utilitarian purpose. Obviously there is a difference
between an oil portrait....and getting a 16" x 20" photo portrait at the
Sears photo lab.....yet, they are both correctly portraits.
Any paper that goes through a process of receiving inks from a plate
whether by a machine under a technicians control, or one at a time is still
technically a "print"....so....be more specific with what bugs you as long
as you are seeking to make a point. I think you are touching on a
philosophical point that I would encourage you to contemplate upon and go
with. Your gut feeling....
> I hate to hear color reproductions hailed as prints! "one of 40, 000"
> wow it's a limited edition! whatever! criminals!
Here is your bug, right?....that large editions allegedly have value. As
an artist with several works in print but without the advantage of good
marketing to sell them, I would say I have a philosophical problem with
such large numbers, and the intention to fool the public that a value
exists that doesn't. We have gone far from people learning what aesthetics
is.....seeing art instead as having "investment" value only, rather than
wanting the print because they love the image but can't afford the
original.. or the original is sold.
On the other hand....what many non-print artists might not be aware of is
that more and more patrons are interested in originals and willing to pay
more for originals BECAUSE of what the print industry did. When 450 people
paid $125 for a print....that said that this image was successful. That
that many people would have liked the original, but could not afford it and
went for a close approximation of the original in an affordable format
meant that that many were interested enough in an original to buy its
print; that drives the value of the original up. There are a number of my
peers getting five and six figure digits for originals that would never
have come to that place without the print market.
As a result....that a patron that has turned their interests to art....and
has worked through any problems paying big money for an original is now not
going to blink or sputter nearly so much when they look at your original or
another artist's work for they have been enculturated to expect that "good"
art that is in demand is going to cost more.
Many have a problem with what wealthy people are willing to pay. It is not
that the wealthy are able to buy "good" art....but that we...the peons of
society are willing to restructure our thinking to believe that if the
wealthy buy it, it "must" be good.
Many are bugged that the wealthy have been willing to pay so much for paper
with inks on it while hard working artists with originals don't get so much
as a token consideration. I understand that. I have some of the same
frustrations.
I think anger is better channeled at our failures to educate society and
for monies not going to tenure and keep good art educators that in time
potential buyers might have an eye for the language of art...and learn to
find pleasure that isn't measured in degree of the promise of immediate
gratification.
peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's site- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page- (shorter and quicker loading)
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
Erik A. Mattila
7 / 8 color serigraphs, reproductions of paintings, most of this century. I
would be silly to refer to these as 'posters.' Many other company's have been
doing the same thing. While you may enjoy using the term 'poster' to denigrate
these types of serigraphs and lithographs, you are nevertheless misusing the
term. By the way, I would certainly like to own a few Talouse Lautrec Posters,
or even some 1st editions Muchas or Klimpts. How would you classify Gustave
Dore? His engravings were used as book illustrations, and now even torn out
pages are very expensive. Or Aubrey Beardsly, Rockwell Kent etc. The truth of
the matter is that hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, have taken
great pleasure of owning prints of fine art pieces for most of this century.
Today many artists are taking advantage of this market, and even upping the price
for a signature -- since people will gladly pay the price for the prestiege of a
signed piece. Why do you think this is 'criminal?' Jasper Johns sold a painting
for EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS. Is that criminal? Marlon Brando was paid THREE
MILLION DOLLARS for appearing for 10 minutes in Superman. Is that criminal? How
much does Mick Jaggers earn, or Magic Johnson. How much money will Lucas make on
his new film?
Anyway, its a good thing for a lot of artists that your opinion is absolutely
meaningless. And by the way, if you really think it is criminal, you are
obligated under US law to report the crime to the proper authorities, unless you
yourself want to be charged with aiding and abetting a criminal act. Get you to
the Attorney General's office, for your own good.
Erik Mattila
sara wrote:
> Anything that is a reproduction of "art" is nothing more than an
> over-priced poster. A print is an edition of art works done through a
> process like silk screen and wood etching.
> I hate to hear color reproductions hailed as prints! "one of 40, 000"
> wow it's a limited edition! whatever! criminals!
>
Erik A. Mattila
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/Intro.html
"poster - An advertisement, generally printed on a large piece of paper, which is
posted on a wall in a public place. A poster may or may not be intentionally
produced to become an art commodity as well as an advertisement. A printed
reproduction of a two-dimensional work of art should not be called a poster unless
it's intended to be an advertisement. "
or Websters:
Poster \Post"er\, n. 1. A large bill or placard intended to be posted in public
places. 2. One who posts bills; a billposter.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
Poster \Post"er\, n. 1. One who posts, or travels expeditiously; a courier.
``Posters of the sea and land.'' --Shak. 2. A post horse. ``Posters at full
gallop.'' --C. Lever.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
But then there's no law against calling something anything one chooses. Such acts
are regarded as 'functional illiteracy.'
E
burnin...@my-deja.com
sar...@mailexcite.com wrote:
> I have to get in on this one. as a conclusion to my answer to 'what
is
> a print' I come to my favorite topic. Robert Bateman. I have heard
it
> argued here that because someone is willing to part with 1000$, that
> makes something valuable. Indeed you could look at it that way.
LOL :P
The sound of sour grapes churning in another idiot's stomach.
Curious: do you have all successful artists or is it only realists?
Jillian
> One thing is
>for sure, people who are not willing to spend money on a drawing because
>they would rather have "print" by bateman, probably deserve one :)
I've had to think twice about even bothering to
respond to such opinionated misrepresentation of
facts.
Luckily for those people who CAN'T afford an original
Robert Bateman, there are prints of his works available.
LUCKILY for MANY people there are prints of fine art
works available and affordable!!!
Larry Seiler
> a print' I come to my favorite topic. Robert Bateman. I have heard it
> argued here that because someone is willing to part with 1000$, that
> makes something valuable. Indeed you could look at it that way.
Sara....man oh man....why the bitterness?
You speak as though with authority, and as though some conspiracy existed
on their parts. I have several works in print and though not as popular as
Bateman am considered a peer. So..let's make it more personal since
Bateman is not here to defend himself, and why not direct your vehemence
toward me a bit since I'm feeling it anyway.
There are some things I will agree with you.
For one thing. Have you ever gone to a show such as the Western and
Wildlife Heritage show held in Minneapolis? Usually a fancy reception at
the Hyatt Regency Center.
People arrive for the most part in suits...costs $6 just to enter.
It costs the artists/exhibitors big money to get in...about $600 for a
booth, and $300 to stay at the motel for the weekend. Those that have few
prints, such as myself stand to experience a loss because people can't
afford for the most part originals.
The featured artists are set up at a table with complimentary prints that
people line up for and get signed. The artists work all day each day
meeting and signing these prints.
Now...a framer is going to get these small prints and make money on frames.
That keeps them in business, and long enough that other nonprint artists
might find a place to market their originals.
People come in droves. Many people that would have sat home to watch the
Vikings lose to the Packers......(tell I'm from Wisconsin? heehee). These
people bring their kids. They walk around in awe of all the artists and
their work. Wood carvings with hundreds and hundreds of hours in them.
Bronze sculptures, original paintings and yes...those those prints!
These are people being exposed to the arts....and doing so with interest,
sensing the good fortune to have chosen to come. They are having their
opinions of artists elevated.....raised, and finding themselves often for
the first time interested in the arts.
Several artists are working on originals for their next print, and they are
huge canvas pieces. You can nearly walk into them for their size and
beauty.
It is obvious that a lifetime of learning and attention to composition and
detail is there right in front of you....and again, the sense of awe.
All the while the sense of value of what art is worth is raising.
Here are men and women traveling all over the world, studying in Africa, on
the horsebacks in British Columbia, etc;
These individuals are becoming eyes to see the harm of that which is being
done to the environment on wildlife in their travels. Like pro athletes,
they have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars from their prints to
acquire habitat, pay for management and education.
I have literally given away thousands of dollars of prints and originals to
such causes myself over the years. One of the joys of arriving at a place
where you have something of value is that position to give to causes.
Bateman is a leader among those that have given to World Wildlife Fund, and
other conservation causes.
While you see prints as worthless, perhaps another way of looking at the
investment as having value is the exposure to art it brings many people
that wouldn't bother with other styles of art to begin with....and for the
good sales bring to conservation environmental causes.
Few of us have that good fortune to claim being able to have given away a
million dollars to save wetlands or the rain forest for example.
All this works to the artists favor in making him/her bigger than life
also. And the more people that admire an individual, the more unique they
would be to the prestige of owning an original. That drives up the
original value even more.
We have never seen an age where people have been willing to pay for art or
even "copies" or "posters" of art while the artist is yet living.
> However, Bateman and many like him who make money from color
> reproductions "posters" , often do so in a misleading way.
if there is a misleading....it is between the salesman's answers to
questions about value. There I would agree. Had there been no gazillion
other "wildlife" artists that wanted a piece of the pie and put out
mediocre offerings with fly-by-night print publishers wanting some of the
same, the principles of supply and demand would have been such that prints
would have represented value.
For the first 15 years of the wildlife art print industry, prints indeed
did increase in value. As the edition sold out....galleries were
scrambling to find them. A $125 print in 1981 became worth $450 in
1986...and indeed there was a legitimate measurable investment aspect
taking place. What could not be seen is the effect of over supply and the
eventual disinterest of the buying market, and thus it was not anticipated
that value would decline.
To accuse Bateman of dishonesty for such is to say that all artists should
at the same time be experts in economy. I too saw the value of my works
rise. There was a pendulum effect, and it was real.
For what it is worth.....I faced foreclosure two months ago, my rep bought
my house and I will be moving out in the next 1-2 months as they seek to
make some money on the fair market value of my home selling it. I don't
know where and how I will pay for much of anything, and at 44 years of age
don't know what I'll be when I get bigger. I didn't have a huge house made
from print sales, but just the opposite. I did well in national
competition and people seeing my work think I must be raking in the money.
That means they have at least come to recognize quality aesthetically and
see it in my work. At least the print market educated or brought attention
to good work. Unfortunately, the same opportunities exist for mediocrity
and it all basically died.
I can't afford to go into print....and can't afford to give my paintings
away. I'm too stubborn to paint less than I am capable to "crank 'em out"
so-to-speak and sell for next to nothing at art fairs. So my poor wife
suffers having married an artist.
Art seems to be about experiencing some peaks....but mostly valleys, and is
humbling for us all.
> That perhaps even they think they are an
> investment. It has come to seem that way.
FWIW- being that I am a "big shot" wildlife artist having gone landscapes
here in Wisconsin....let me tell you that you can breathe a little easier.
The time to be angry is coming to be a past thing...for the print market
has slowed down. Publishers are not taking on for the most part any new
artists in wildlife. The gravy train has died. The supply and demand is
no longer there. Many big named wildlife artists are fulfilling their
contracts almost begrudgingly to their publishers while moonlighting in
other new directions.
also....people that have learned to like art through this ordeal are
looking with a more broader vision and learning to like many subjects and
more styles. Thank God for that! Personally....painting landscapes and
plein airs has been like finding new life. No....I'm not selling a
ton....not hardly enough to put food on the table, but as an artist the new
focus has been welcome on my part.
I have have spent time
> talking with several owners of Bateman, who had NO IDEA what they
> bought, and had no idea what a print was. And infect thought they had
> an investment.
but....you straightened them out! That's good. Now perhaps they'll be
suspect of all art and all artists. Maybe they'll start buying Nascar
posters and watch more cable television.
Originally...when the print thing got going...it was about the art, the
artist, and even good causes such as proceeds going to conservation
concerns. As professionals came in to step up the industry, marketing
began to push it. Greed took over.
All the evidence for a time pointed to the idea that it was indeed an
investment.
Actually.....there is a redeeming value that people found out or are
finding out that a print is worth at the most its purchase price, and that
is that people became more selective. They are beginning to buy art for
the right reasons, and that because they like the work. They are
envisioning how it will look in their home, and in this day of immediate
gratification....are anticipating the joy of looking at it as time passes.
Still...you are misinformed to think all prints worthless. There are cheap
companies....using cheap papers...and poor inks. Then there are heavy acid
free stock papers....with great integrity of reproduction and the best inks
that can be found.
Framed properly, and hung where UV sunlight will not cause fading....these
prints should last a very long time.
People invest $900 easily in a lazyboy recliner that has no guarantee of
lasting more than perhaps a decade before it is disgarded. If a nicely
framed print brings a person that could afford it some joy for a period of
time...what is the big deal?
Separate your anger between the hype and misinformation of "investment" of
a print for which I will agree there has been much lack of integrity, from
what a print is and means for the buyer.
A CD is not the artist and their band. Yet listening to it brings
pleasure. Buying a CD is the closest thing you and I can afford to
bringing that band into our living room. It is a copy of the real thing,
though promises only some of the joy of seeing the real thing.
So...big deal. A print is the nearest thing to bringing Robert Bateman
into their living room.
Exposure is exposure....and in some small measure the likes of Bateman, Van
Gilder, Coleach, Smith....etc., have reached a segment of society that was
completely disinterested in the offerings of other art. Now perhaps they
have matured more and are looking at other art.
> The major point is they sell posters. They mislead people by
They? You really think it is a conspiracy don't you?
I resent being accused of going out to mislead people. In fact, one reason
I rode on the coat tails is that I saw that the industry was beginning to
demand too much control over the artists, and I am too stubborn and
independent to comply.
> calling them "prints" and b) signing and numbering their color
> reproductions like a print. misleading, and genius marketing.
the idea of signing connects a very important element in this regard. For
example, I had a rep that stole an original from me and made 5,000 prints
without my permission. We did not have money to go after the guy. Then, I
hear he is selling them at sports shows for as low as $15 each. He rips me
off and then is really angry that they are worth hardly anything. Turns
out that the reason they were not worth anything was that I did not sign
and number each and every print.
That protected me in one way...or at least from this guy making money off
me.
The signing demonstrates the artist is part of the equation. It put a face
and a human being behind the image. It helped to elevate and raise the
estimation people had of artists.
I mean...there are other ways of looking at this and seeing some good if
you will lower the flags of war long enough to consider.
> sure whether to be disgusted or in awe of economic genius.
I am a real person....here on this newsgroup with a face. If you must,
direct your disgust to me.
For me....I hold respect and awe of Bateman and others.
There is only one Eric Clapton, one Hendrix, one Buddy Guy, one Stevie Ray
Vaughn...etc., and many others that imitate and become juke-box heroes.
Bateman enjoyed a success most of us will not enjoy. My dreams experienced
reality and my life looks like a mess in the eyes of the world. If you are
looking for some pleasure that someone suffered because of all this
deception, take heart and be encouraged..for I have.
> for sure, people who are not willing to spend money on a drawing because
> they would rather have "print" by bateman, probably deserve one :)
Because people bought prints.....they have had their appreciation for
originals raised...and now it will be your burden to bear to become good
enough that your work will stand out amongst the crowd of mediocrity. My
work doesn't sell either, and there are other factors for that.....either
it is not good enough, or perhaps location.....or perhaps many many artists
existing.
Personally....there are some prints I wouldn't mind owning over poor
drawings.
Not knowing your work....this is not a cut on you. Perhaps I'd prefer one
of your drawings. Just hang in there Sara. Keep believing one day it will
pay off. I just wish we could all be less angry, and be more productive and
encouraging.
There are always other sides to a story, and other things to consider.
Larry Seiler
> obligated under US law to report the crime to the proper authorities,
unless you
> yourself want to be charged with aiding and abetting a criminal act. Get
you to
> the Attorney General's office, for your own good.
>
> Erik Mattila
AAAaahhhhhhh......this is good....you have a sense of humor Eric!
peace,
Larry
sara
petty way to disagree though :)
burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <375DC08...@mailexcite.com>,
> sar...@mailexcite.com wrote:
> > I have to get in on this one. as a conclusion to my answer to 'what
> is
> > a print' I come to my favorite topic. Robert Bateman. I have heard
> it
> > argued here that because someone is willing to part with 1000$, that
> > makes something valuable. Indeed you could look at it that way.
>
> LOL :P
>
> The sound of sour grapes churning in another idiot's stomach.
>
> Curious: do you have all successful artists or is it only realists?
>
sara
probably just a defense mechanism. Understood.
Jillian wrote:
>
> In article <375DC08...@mailexcite.com>, sar...@mailexcite.com says...
>
> > One thing is
> >for sure, people who are not willing to spend money on a drawing because
> >they would rather have "print" by bateman, probably deserve one :)
>
sara
Erik A. Mattila
of which I don't like that much. I've seen so many 'schemes' being played out
by artists over the years, aimed at a simple thing like earning a living, that
the current 'print' phenomena is nothing by comparison. (A friend once started
mass producing abstracts, hoping to sell these to Archetectural Decoration
firms at wholesale prices -- quite a project, he leared to paint very fast and
without hesitation). In the final analysis I'm just defending an artist's
option pursue her/his goals as she/he sees fit.
I am in total agreement with your thesis concerning the presence of 'prints'
stimulating art market growth which ultimately enhances the artist's ability
to sell one-off originals. I think the reason that this is difficult to see
is simply a matter of numbers. It is very difficult to imagine the volume of
art sales internationally, but it is, collectively, a huge market. I wonder
what a Harvard MBA would say about this. Any out there?
Erik
Larry Seiler
> probably just a defense mechanism. Understood.
*shaking head* defense mechanism? facts?
facts are statements bearing weight of authority....and the source of yours
are?
confuzzled.....
Larry
burnin...@my-deja.com
LOL :P
Actually, no. What I meant is that you are full of shit.
I apologize for not making it clear to you.
A disagreement is where I have an opinion, you have an
opinion, and they differ. In this case, you're simply taking
out of your ass.
There is no basis in reality for your concept a "print."
I do have a request, though. If you manage to convice some
more dumbshits that their Bateman prints are worthless, could
you send them my direction? I'd like to pick them up for a
song-and-dance for re-sale purposes :>)
> That's fine. Quite a
> petty way to disagree though :)
You seemed like a very petty person so I thought it appropriate.
Instead of bitching and moaning about Mr. Bateman's success,
consider being happy that someone spent money on his prints rather
than dumping it into internet stocks.
>
> burnin...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <375DC08...@mailexcite.com>,
> > sar...@mailexcite.com wrote:
> > > I have to get in on this one. as a conclusion to my answer to
'what
> > is
> > > a print' I come to my favorite topic. Robert Bateman. I have
heard
> > it
> > > argued here that because someone is willing to part with 1000$,
that
> > > makes something valuable. Indeed you could look at it that way.
> >
> > LOL :P
> >
> > The sound of sour grapes churning in another idiot's stomach.
> >
> > Curious: do you have all successful artists or is it only realists?
> >
Jillian
>
> I wonder
>what a Harvard MBA would say about this. Any out there?
I don't know if my former broker had an MBA or not
but he once confided to me that he managed brokerage
accounts for two area artists who were multi-millionares
by his reckoning. They both got that way by mass-marketing
their art work via print reproductions. One
artist even formed his own printing
company and commercially prints for anyone who wants
full-color reproductions for any purpose. The other artist
has his own galleries in Austin, Houston, Santa Fe, L.A. and NYC
where he markets his prints. Both artists have managed
to keep at the forefront of consumer demand for this
sort of art work.
burnin...@my-deja.com
Careful now, Larry. You're working my neck of the woods. :>)
>
> confuzzled.....
> Larry
~Artist~
Mattison