FEATURES | MUSIC | BOOKS | DRINKS | FORUMS | GAMES | LINKS | ABOUT


advertise on Tiki Central

Celebrating classic and modern Polynesian Pop
  [Edit Profile]  [Edit Preferences]  [Search] [Sign Up]
[Personal Messages]  [Member List]  [Help/FAQ]  [Rules]  [Login]
Tiki Central Forums Collecting Tiki Show us your SHAG
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
Show us your SHAG
kingstiedye
Tiki Socialite

Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Posts: 1309
From: sackatomato
Posted: 2008-10-17 6:39 pm   Permalink

sushiman and the monitors, thank you for your replies to my question. i understand the effort these take now. however, i still think original art is the way to go. if tcers would stop buying shag prints and buy original art from our tc artists, they might become as popular as shag. and you'd have a hand painted unique piece, not a copy done by jeff wasserman.
_________________

bangin' my slit gong drum until the cops come!


 View Profile of kingstiedye Send a personal message to kingstiedye  Goto the website of kingstiedye     Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
Gromit_Fan
Tiki Centralite

Joined: Apr 09, 2007
Posts: 65
From: Portland, OR, USA
Posted: 2008-10-17 9:41 pm   Permalink

kingstiedye,

That you think an original painting by an unknown artist that paints in a tiki
theme is a reason to buy it over limited edition fine art print by an established,
respected, and in-demand, artist shows a complete lack of even a rudimentary understanding of
the art market and collectible fine art prints and what they are to the art world.

Your argument would support that buying an original painting of Marilyn Monroe
by an artist no one has ever heard of is better than buying
one of Warhol's limited edition serigraphs of Marilyn
that sells for upwards of tens of thousands of dollars.

You ignore the fact that:
People may actually like Warhol's style, more than they actually like Marilyn.
There is an established market and demand for Warhol's work.

I like Shag's style. I love Shag's sense of humor (most of the time),
the implied narrative, the mix of tiki and consumerism,
and his use of basic retro figural styles.
I get his work. It makes me smile.

Just because he paints tiki-themed works and some TC artists
paint tiki-themed works does not mean I like their style, too.

Some bottles of wine cost a hundred dollars or more.
Some wine comes in a box and costs a lot less.
Appreciating one does not mean appreciating the other
just because they're both wine.

That you think an original by an unknown artist
is better than buying a serigraph of an established artist
just because both have Tiki elements in there work is completely
absent of understanding how art impacts people and how someone like
Shag can take elements and put them together in a way that is almost
indefinably sublime, and another artist can take similar elements and
make a work lacking completely that appeal,
though we may not even understand why we prefer
one artist's work over another.

Also, many artists consider their prints the final originals,
because they work in woodblock, lithography, and silkscreen.
That you don't find value in prints betrays your ignorance of the subject.

Regarding pricing:
If I ever need to sell as Shag print (heaven forbid),
odds are, if I list it on eBay, I will get more for it than I paid for it.

As noted recently, a Shag print I recently bought for $450 had another one
within the same edition sell for approximately $1450 on eBay.

I may pay $300 for a Shag print,
but I can also resell it for that or more, if I have to.
The same could not be said of an artist unknown outside of TC.

One could say, buying a TC artists work, and then needing to resell it
at some point, would ultimately mean the TC artists works cost more than
the Shag because the resale value is not there for the TC artist.

The ability to recoup the purchase price is not there.

Lastly, assuming a TC artist will become well known and
have their work jump in value, is an assumption that the
post modern art world market data does not support.
The number of emerging artists who get
collected and have the value increase
is very few and far in between.


Quote:

On 2008-10-17 18:39, kingstiedye wrote:
sushiman and the monitors, thank you for your replies to my question. i understand the effort these take now. however, i still think original art is the way to go. if tcers would stop buying shag prints and buy original art from our tc artists, they might become as popular as shag. and you'd have a hand painted unique piece, not a copy done by jeff wasserman.





[ This Message was edited by: Gromit_Fan 2008-10-17 23:04 ]


 
View Profile of Gromit_Fan Send a personal message to Gromit_Fan      Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
Gromit_Fan
Tiki Centralite

Joined: Apr 09, 2007
Posts: 65
From: Portland, OR, USA
Posted: 2008-10-17 9:43 pm   Permalink

The Monitors,

Wow! GREAT PAD! Love your style!

Best,

Gromit

Quote:

On 2008-10-17 11:01, The Monitors wrote:
After listening to the discussion on this post, I do see the beauty of a simple white matting and black frame, so that's what I chose for my recent Shag print, "Blue Seascape".





Did anyone else frame anything lately? I would love to see it.




 
View Profile of Gromit_Fan Send a personal message to Gromit_Fan      Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
kingstiedye
Tiki Socialite

Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Posts: 1309
From: sackatomato
Posted: 2008-10-17 11:06 pm   Permalink

geez gromit, that's quite a personal attack. if you think ken ruzik, miles thompson, tiki tony, crazy al, thorsten hasenkamm, thor and brad parker are unknown hacks, then you're showing your ignorance. you probably think britney spears is better than radiohead cuz she sold more cds. yes, shag is trendy now. i suggest you sell all of your prints now, cuz they'll be worthless in 10-15 years. i'll still have my fine art and you'll have worthless posters.
_________________

bangin' my slit gong drum until the cops come!


 View Profile of kingstiedye Send a personal message to kingstiedye  Goto the website of kingstiedye     Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
kingstiedye
Tiki Socialite

Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Posts: 1309
From: sackatomato
Posted: 2008-10-17 11:10 pm   Permalink

oh yeah, as to the value of my art, i don't give a shit. i buy what i like from people i like. i'm not buying prints hoping i can make a buck someday. the pieces i own are mine only. 200 other people don't have the same thing hanging on their walls.

_________________




[ This Message was edited by: kingstiedye 2008-10-17 23:30 ]


 View Profile of kingstiedye Send a personal message to kingstiedye  Goto the website of kingstiedye     Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
Gromit_Fan
Tiki Centralite

Joined: Apr 09, 2007
Posts: 65
From: Portland, OR, USA
Posted: 2008-10-18 07:19 am   Permalink

Wow, taking me out of context.

I buy what I like, too. It just doesn't happen to be what you like.

I clearly am not buying with hopes of making a buck and if you read
my other posts you'd understand that. I would have already sold that
GL print for three times what I paid for it, if that were true.

If you care about owning an original one of a kind,
("the pieces i own are mine only.")
then I can see why you buy what you buy.
Rarity of a piece is not a factor
for me in my purchasing decisions, and
I actually LIKE that 200 other Shag collectors have the same piece.

I love that sushiman got his "Raft of the Medusa,"
a print I also own, and I want to see how he framed it,
and it is fun to talk about the those things
about the piece in the same manner folks enjoy talking about
a movie they both saw over the weekend.

I could not care less how many other people own it,
which clearly you do.

And my Shag prints will never be "worthless posters" (your words)
to me so long as I enjoy them as they are displayed on my walls,
which has nothing to do with their monetary worth or their edition sizes.

You came in here and degraded Shag's prints,
as overpriced "posters."
("it's a print! it's just a poster! they should cost about $20 each!")

Well, the market value of prints is part of the dialog of collecting
fine art prints, and it can be fun to see a print one owns go up in value.
I think of it as being akin to enjoying the fact that a movie you really
like has a good run at the box office making lots of money.

I know art dealers that sell Warhol serigraphs for $50,000 or more.
But, again, according to you, that should sell for $20 because it
is "just a print!".

Technically, most of Shag's prints are NOT posters. They are graphics.
Yes, there is a difference.

Nearly all are printed on thick archival 100% cotton rag,
using fad-resistant, archival grade pigments,
and the process is very expensive, and then
when one is printing 200 in the edition instead of 2000,
the cost per print to the publisher and artist goes up significantly.

Finally, I don't quite know why someone would come into a
thread of Shag art collectors and then crap on
the price his work, and the fine art of printmaking,
and then expect a warm response.


[quote]
On 2008-10-17 23:10, kingstiedye wrote:
oh yeah, as to the value of my art, i don't give a shit. i buy what i like from people i like. i'm not buying prints hoping i can make a buck someday. the pieces i own are mine only. 200 other people don't have the same thing hanging on their walls.

_________________


[ This Message was edited by: Gromit_Fan 2008-10-18 08:05 ]


 View Profile of Gromit_Fan Send a personal message to Gromit_Fan      Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
kingstiedye
Tiki Socialite

Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Posts: 1309
From: sackatomato
Posted: 2008-10-18 11:58 am   Permalink

Quote:

On 2008-10-18 07:19, Gromit_Fan wrote:

Finally, I don't quite know why someone would come into a
thread of Shag art collectors and then crap on
the price his work, and the fine art of printmaking,
and then expect a warm response.


i didn't expect a warm response. i was looking for an answer which sushiman and the monitors gave without attacking me as ignorant. my apologies to the monitors.
_________________

bangin' my slit gong drum until the cops come!


 View Profile of kingstiedye Send a personal message to kingstiedye  Goto the website of kingstiedye     Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
TikiPug
Tiki Socialite

Joined: May 14, 2003
Posts: 789
From: Den of Sin / Pug's Pair-A-Dice
Posted: 2008-10-18 11:53 pm   Permalink

So let me get this straight...
The Monitors start a thread about TCers showing how they frame and mat their Shags and you turn it into an ugly mess dissing Shag and the quality of his work. If that's your intention, start your own thread and leave this one alone.
_________________
Vegas BABY!


 
View Profile of TikiPug Send a personal message to TikiPug      Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
teaKEY
Tiki Socialite

Joined: Nov 09, 2004
Posts: 3667
From: The thumb !
Posted: 2008-10-19 07:58 am   Permalink

Cause a reproduction of any quality is just as good as the Mona Lisa.

They are posters in the sense that they are a million times beneath an original. I love how people will always bring up all the mindless steps in the process of a silkscreen. Maybe there is a little work involved but there is work involved in the shoveling of dirt I did yesterday. But that's nothing to frame in a gallery, the dirt that is. The time part of silk screening is free and effortless.

Back to Shag than. I have a $100 print and it's cool for what it is. (Actually the frame is more artistic than the print itself. Cost three times more too.) But I will probably never get another one. Too many TC artist making good stuff to what is cheap as far as art prices go. And the artist here on Tiki Central are the top artist in their field.
_________________
20+10 =30yo

 View Profile of teaKEY Send a personal message to teaKEY  Email teaKEY Goto the website of teaKEY     Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
teaKEY
Tiki Socialite

Joined: Nov 09, 2004
Posts: 3667
From: The thumb !
Posted: 2008-10-19 08:03 am   Permalink



[ This Message was edited by: teaKEY 2008-10-19 08:05 ]


 
View Profile of teaKEY Send a personal message to teaKEY  Email teaKEY Goto the website of teaKEY     Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
kingstiedye
Tiki Socialite

Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Posts: 1309
From: sackatomato
Posted: 2008-10-19 10:08 am   Permalink

Quote:

On 2008-10-18 23:53, TikiPug wrote:
So let me get this straight...
The Monitors start a thread about TCers showing how they frame and mat their Shags and you turn it into an ugly mess dissing Shag and the quality of his work. If that's your intention, start your own thread and leave this one alone.


well, i agree with you this time, pug. except i did not dis shag's work, only jeff wasserman's. i regret messing up the monitors thread. i hope they will accept my apology and i do feel like i learned a lesson.

_________________


[ This Message was edited by: kingstiedye 2008-10-19 10:13 ]


 View Profile of kingstiedye Send a personal message to kingstiedye  Goto the website of kingstiedye     Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
Gromit_Fan
Tiki Centralite

Joined: Apr 09, 2007
Posts: 65
From: Portland, OR, USA
Posted: 2008-10-19 10:38 am   Permalink

Quote:

On 2008-10-19 07:58, teaKEY wrote:
Cause a reproduction of any quality is just as good as the Mona Lisa.



The above argument takes the original discussion so
far out of context as to be laughable.

Had DaVinci collaborated on prints of his work,
then those would be VERY valuable works of art now,
both in terms of monetary value and in terms of art itself.

Just look to Rembrandt's etchings,
of which there are multiple copies, as a example of this.
Those etchings ARE THE ORIGINALS.

Quote:
They are posters in the sense that they are a million times beneath an original.



Check out the print collections of any museum.
Try telling those art historians and museum curators
that the prints in their collections are
"million times beneath an original."
Try telling that to Andy Warhol's estate and brokers.
Tell that to Elena Millie at the Library on Congress.

Statements like that would get you laughed out of the gallery or auction house.

And for clarification, a poster is a specific kind of print:
it is a print with advertising on it.
All posters are prints, but not all prints are posters.
Prints absent of any advertising, like most of Shag's, are not posters.
"J is for Jetsetter" and "Music After Midnight" are examples of Shag posters.
"Glorious Lifestyle" and "The Raft of the Medusa"
are examples of Shag prints that are not posters.

You are using the term "poster" for its connotative properties but
not its denotative definition; Most serious art folks do
make a distinction between the two and use the term "poster"
in a denotational fashion.

I do understand what you are saying in terms of cases where there is an original,
like in the case of most of Shag's work, and then there is the serigraph
reproduction. Those are "just" prints, but they are, art wise,
an authentic piece of fine art, and worthy of their place within his oeuvre.

Limited edition fine art prints, made in collaboration with the artist,
signed by the artist, are also the mode of art acquisition
that the average income person can afford, enjoy, and collect.

It also opens up Shag's art to a wider audience, increases awareness
of his work to the larger art world, and further establishes his place
in post modern art history, and the lowbrow movement specifically.

None of the above excludes Shag's prints from being considered real, fine art.

Look at Dali, Picasso, and Liechtenstein: all have prints
that are collected and coveted by museums and galleries.

Quote:
I love how people will always bring up all the mindless steps in the process of a silkscreen. Maybe there is a little work involved but there is work involved in the shoveling of dirt I did yesterday. But that's nothing to frame in a gallery, the dirt that is. The time part of silk screening is free and effortless.



Silk-screening is an art creation process.
The effort it takes is not what makes it art.
The quality of the reproduction and the skills involved
of the specific silk-screener are.

Quote:
kingstiedye's statment: except i did not dis shag's work, only jeff wasserman's.


Again, this is a profoundly ignorant comment.
Wasserman is one of the most respected print makers in the United States.
It is tantamount to saying, "Babe Ruth was a crappy baseball player."
You can post it, but expect anyone who knows anything about baseball
to call the comment "ignorant."

Jeff Wasserman has screened for some pretty significant artists,
and those artists often consider their prints the final, multiples, original,
with the iterations before that just part of the process in getting there.

That is why Jeff Wasserman is considered the premier silk-screener,
and why not all silk-screened images are created equal
and often have varying levels of merit in terms of craftsmanship.

Shag and Douglas Nason specifically sought out Wasserman
when they wanted to increase the quality of the prints they were releasing.
Frankly, some of Wasserman's prints are holding up better over time
than than the originals they are reproducing.

(I get a little worried, personally,
about Shag's use of vinyl paint as a media, but maybe it is
archival grade vinyl. I don't know. I'd also like to see him using
canvas and not board as a more durable, enduring substrate.
There are a lot of artists from the 1970s that we no longer have
good originals for, as they often used media like house paint.)

Something to consider:
Shag also creates his images on his Mac and then reproduces them
on board or whatever substrate he is using at that time.
One could argue THE ORIGINAL is on his Mac's hard drive
and everything else is a second or third generation copy of that.

I know more than few modern art historians that would argue that point.
Some artists have hired others to do the physical labor of creating their
work. It is the concept that is theirs. The actual physical creation
of the art can be done by others and does not mean that it
is not the artist's original art. Look at Rodin as an example of this.

Quote:
Back to Shag than. I have a $100 print and it's cool for what it is. (Actually the frame is more artistic than the print itself. Cost three times more too.) But I will probably never get another one. Too many TC artist making good stuff to what is cheap as far as art prices go. And the artist here on Tiki Central are the top artist in their field.



If the TC artists are what you love, that is great.
You're at the right site, BUT...

...this is the wrong thread to be posting that comment in isn't it?

Let me clear about this:
The instigator of this argument about the merits
of prints vs originals, came in this topic and posted,
"i think tcers should be buying original art from our many talented tc artists."

I think everyone should buy whatever art they want.

I think tc folks should be able to have a thread where
they share their affection for collecting a specific artist's work,
and not have someone come in, crap in the thread,
call the art they are collecting and framing "worthless,"
and post an edict that he thinks we all need to abide by, which is
contrary to the posted topic and intent of the thread itself.

I thought Tiki Central folks were much more
"live and let live" and waaaay cooler than that.

Why not create a "Show us your TC Artist Originals Collection" thread?
Why not start that topic for those who want to express their admiration for
that work in there rather than pollute this thread?

I am sure there would be lots of folks posting positive comments
and fantastic art images in there. And, frankly, I, too,
would love to see a thread of all the great tiki art by TC artists.

However, I wouldn't go in that thread and start posting,
"everyone needs to be buying Shag serigraphs"
and start dissing the artistic merits of the the TC artists.

I would be more courteous than that.

(Heck, I would also love to see a "Derek" thread now, having seen his art,
which is also seems decidedly pretty cool and fun!)

peace out,

Gromit Fan

[ This Message was edited by: Gromit_Fan 2008-10-20 07:42 ]


 
View Profile of Gromit_Fan Send a personal message to Gromit_Fan      Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
sushiman
Tiki Socialite

Joined: Jun 28, 2007
Posts: 313
From: Kumamoto , Japan
Posted: 2008-10-20 07:29 am   Permalink

Gromit ,

I decided - at least for now- to leave the print as is in the seller's 1" black metal frame with approx. 2" black mat. This pic shows the serigraph in the frame , but the whole thing was wrapped in plastic by the framer . At least you will have the general idea of what it looks like . I haven't taken any pics yet .






 
View Profile of sushiman Send a personal message to sushiman      Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
RevBambooBen
Tiki Socialite

Joined: Nov 12, 2002
Posts: 7479
From: Huntikington Beach
Posted: 2008-10-20 08:46 am   Permalink

Here's my SHAG (house) ....



( actually I don't own a Shag, he owns part of me!



_________________


Bamboo Ben
Custom Tropical Decor
I build stuff for you!
Google search me and see!

[ This Message was edited by: revbambooben 2008-10-20 09:38 ]


 
View Profile of RevBambooBen Send a personal message to RevBambooBen  Email RevBambooBen Goto the website of RevBambooBen     Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
The Monitors
Tiki Socialite

Joined: Apr 08, 2003
Posts: 254
From: The ILL streets of Santa Clarita, CA
Posted: 2008-10-20 09:15 am   Permalink

Hey Sushiman,

Dude...sweet. I didn't think black on black would look good, but it does. It just nice to see different executions of framing. Please post again once you hang it and occupies your living space.

Hey Ben,

LOL...I think Shag owns a little piece of all of us.
_________________
The Monitors


 
View Profile of The Monitors Send a personal message to The Monitors  Email The Monitors     Edit/Delete This Post Reply with quote
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
U-Moderate:
  
v1.5

[ About Tiki Central | Contact Tiki Central | Advertise on Tiki Central ]
(c) 2000-2014 Tikiroom.com (tm), Tiki Central (tm)

Credits & copyright infomation