easelspace.com

4 Comments

• 

  by Kev Moore 1 year ago

  Well firstly, I will say that prints can and do appreciate in value. Particularly signed, limited editions. It's all very well for those awash with money to look down their noses, clutching their 2mmx2mm genuine picasso scribble, but for us mere mortals, buying a print is the next best thing. It used to mean buying something that was clearly a reproduction, but I have to tell you, since my introduction to giclee prints, I have come to think a print is an even more satisfactory substitute than ever before. I was stunned when I held my first ever giclee - a print of Miki's "Celebration of Life". The quality was superb, and you could see the texture. Framed, behind glass, it looks simply stunning. And surely, that's what great art is all about, isn't it? To look upon something visually pleasing? Or is it to pose, like women do with their Louis Vuitton handbags? I'd take a print of Miki's anyday, and wouldn't give you tuppence for Tracey Emin's original unmade bed!
• 

  by Jean 1 year ago

  Hi , interesting topic, just got me thinking that maybe this is one reason the art world has never accepted Jack Vettriano as a "serious" artist, his print is the largest selling print ever (so i read somwhere) you can get them on the internet for about £24.00 ! i know cos i got the singing butler ! and i love it, its MY favourite thing i own ! only yesterday i was in a shop where they were selling jack;s The singing butler, but they had kinda cut the maid off ! so it just showed the dancers and butler...framed in glass ...£3.99 !!! i couldent believe it ...the thing was on seeing it i actually said outloud "flippin eck £3.99 for a vettriano print " !and there was a young shop assistant who said " whos he then" so went on to tell him all i knew about Vettriano....the interesting thing was he really interested asked loads of quistions and told me he allways liked art but thought art and the apprieciation of art was for in his words "posh" people ! so i guess what i am trying to say is ,prints enable everybody to own art they love. by the way Kev i got a fake Louis Vuitton handbag ! and i wouldent give tuppence for the unmade bed either lol!
• 

  by Kev Moore 1 year ago

  I used to collect posters by Roger Dean and Rodney Matthews - being a rock chick Jean, you probably know who I'm referring to :-) and I wish I had them now. I wouldn't be surprised if it cost a fortune to get hold of one. Luckily I have two of Dean's books featuring most of his work. I was actually sidetracked from Art as a child because of exactly the art critic mentality - people standing in front of a work, all 'oo-ing ' and 'ah-ing' kidding themselves. It was the Emperor's new clothes syndrome.The bricks at the Tate and the advent of Damien Hirst just confirmed my suspicions. I felt as though real artists were being sidelined by these glory-seeking con-merchants who were laughing all the way to the bank. As Johnny Rotten once said: "ever feel like you've been 'ad?" By the way, I usually buy "Fauxklys" - fake Oakleys, cos I'm always either losing them, dropping them, or sitting on them! ;-)
• 

  by Kev Moore 1 year ago

  I thought I might illustrate my argument about limited edition prints with a personal analogy from the music industry. I released an album with my band in 1994. It had a limited release. It sold for around £10 back then. A signed copy is now going on the internet for nearly $150. Even unsigned ones are commanding good prices. So, by extension, a signed, limited edition Giclee print is likely to behave in the same manner. Check it out here: http://mooremusic.biz/2010/07/05/valuable-in-hindsight/