Newbie questions

[comiconart]

My opinion has not changed (and not once in this thread did I ever express a personal opinion that prints on metal or wood are "fine art"). In fact, I never mentioned prints on wood or metal AT ALL prior to my last post. I DID, however, state that it is the common nomenclature on this forum to refer to prints on wood and metal as "fine art". And this should be fairly obvious. Just take a look at the Post Your Obey Fine Art Pieces Here thread. How often do people post prints on wood and metal in this thread? And, on the other hand, how often do you see pre-2000 prints included in this thread?

How many times this weekend alone has someone posted in the Sand City thread to refer to purchasing a print on metal as their first "fine art" purchase?

So...I can see the gray area in regards to prints on metal and wood, in that they are always exhibited in fine art galleries, while 18 x 24 prints on paper are not. I do not personally consider prints on wood or metal to be fine art, but I do not have a problem with those who do. And this conversation from the very beginning centered on a discussion of pre-2000 prints on paper, so I do not know why you are trying to muddy the waters by tossing in so many other tangents at this point in an effort to change the topic at hand.

It is so exhausting to try and have an intelligent conversation with someone that can't simply comprehend the written word without twisting it around and making assumptions and drawing conclusions that are not there.

I just can't figure out if you are honestly this daft, or if you are going out of your way to be intentionally obstinate and dim.

[robotoil]

My opinion has not changed (and not once in this thread did I ever express a personal opinion that prints on metal or wood are "fine art"). In fact, I never mentioned prints on wood or metal AT ALL prior to my last post. I DID, however, state that it is the common nomenclature on this forum to refer to prints on wood and metal as "fine art". And this should be fairly obvious. Just take a look at the Post Your Obey Fine Art Pieces Here thread. How often do people post prints on wood and metal in this thread? And, on the other hand, how often do you see pre-2000 prints included in this thread?

How many times this weekend alone has someone posted in the Sand City thread to refer to purchasing a print on metal as their first "fine art" purchase?

So...I can see the gray area in regards to prints on metal and wood, in that they are always exhibited in fine art galleries, while 18 x 24 prints on paper are not. I do not personally consider prints on wood or metal to be fine art, but I do not have a problem with those who do. And this conversation from the very beginning centered on a discussion of pre-2000 prints on paper, so I do not know why you are trying to muddy the waters by tossing in so many other tangents at this point in an effort to change the topic at hand.

It is so exhausting to try and have an intelligent conversation with someone that can't simply comprehend the written word without twisting it around and making assumptions and drawing conclusions that are not there.

I just can't figure out if you are honestly this daft, or if you are going out of your way to be intentionally obstinate and dim.

Amazing how easily your definitions bend depending on the latest post on someone's latest pick up.

Gallery show pre-2000 before Shepard was creating fine are in any other medium than screen prints.


or Museum. Take your pick.


These are all 18x24 screen prints. Your memory is short. I can not help you there. So, use that grey area in between your shoulders to include screen prints in the definition of what the world outside of Shepard Fairey considers "fine art" and you should be just fine.

[comiconart]

OK, it's pretty clear that you are honestly just that dim.

Sticking prints up with thumbtacks in some basement somewhere and having an "art show" does not make them fine art. If anything, it makes them closer to posters. In the early days, his prints were much more likely to be seen tacked to a wall in a skate shop than in a "real" art gallery. And displaying them in the CIA exhibit as part of his body of work also does not make it "fine art". I already mentioned earlier in this thread that I have seen exhibits solely of prints in museums before...as a show of PRINTS. You must have been selectively reading that sentence, and somehow misinterpreted it to be my stance on the fine art status of prints on wood and metal...since I said nothing of the sort.

Shep's shoes were in the CIA exhibit, too. Are those fine art as well? And his bootleg concert t-shirts and stickers and such...? And prints used to promote movies or gallery shows or parties (essentially, advertising)? How about postcards? Or flyers? Where do you draw the line? Do you know HOW to draw a line?

[robotoil]

OK, it's pretty clear that you are honestly just that dim.

Sticking prints up with thumbtacks in some basement somewhere and having an "art show" does not make them fine art. If anything, it makes them closer to posters. In the early days, his prints were much more likely to be seen tacked to a wall in a skate shop than in a "real" art gallery. And displaying them in the CIA exhibit as part of his body of work also does not make it "fine art". I already mentioned earlier in this thread that I have seen exhibits solely of prints in museums before...as a show of PRINTS. You must have been selectively reading that sentence, and somehow misinterpreted it to be my stance on the fine art status of prints on wood and metal...since I said nothing of the sort.

Shep's shoes were in the CIA exhibit, too. Are those fine art as well? And his bootleg concert t-shirts and stickers and such...? And prints used to promote movies or gallery shows or parties (essentially, advertising)? How about postcards? Or flyers? Where do you draw the line? Do you know HOW to draw a line?

Hahahaha. Thumb tacks.

That is a gallery show. Do some homework. Shepard is one of the hardest working artists I have ever seen. Artists don't magically show up at Deitch and have a show. It doesn't work that way. You have to work your way up the ladder. Every gallery show Shepard had before 2000 the prints were hung that way. But, I guess you wouldn't be caught dead in a "basement" like that. Are you saying that before Shepard had a gallery show in a venue where you could sip some fine wine and talk snobbishly about the art world that you would not go to see his work (prints)? Sad. Are you saying that all the effort and hard work of working his way through the smaller galleries where his work was hung with clips was not a gallery show? Sad. Are you saying that artists that work primarily in screen prints don't make "fine art?" Sad.

I don't have selective reading, you said there are prints and everything else is fine art. Everything else would include metal would it not. If you didn't mean that, then don't say it. And, certainly, don't attack me for reading what you say and giving you the doubt of meaning what you say.

There is a show going on right now.

The Artwork of Shepard Fairey
An Exhibition of Selected Fine Art Prints

August 27 – September 30, 2011
Private Reception: Friday, August 26, 7-10PM
Public Reception: Saturday, August 27, 5-10PM

[comiconart]

Are you saying that before Shepard had a gallery show in a venue where you could sip some fine wine and talk snobbishly about the art world that you would not go to see his work (prints)?

No, that's not what I am saying.

Are you saying that all the effort and hard work of working his way through the smaller galleries where his work was hung with clips was not a gallery show?

Nope, not saying that either.

Are you saying that artists that work primarily in screen prints don't make "fine art?"

Strike three. Clearly I am of the opinion that Shepard makes fine art.

I don't have selective reading, you said there are prints and everything else is fine art. Everything else would include metal would it not. If you didn't mean that, then don't say it.

Umm...yeah. I didn't say that, either. What I DID say is this:

By and large, everyone on this forum uses the term "print" for silkscreen on paper...and "fine art" for everything else.

And...I backed this up with a staggering number of examples from this very forum.

So...now that we have covered what I did NOT say, how about if we discuss what I DID say? I DID say the following:

In my opinion, prints on paper are not fine art.

In my opinion, prints on metal and wood are not fine art.

In my opinion, HPM prints on wood ARE fine art.

You are free to call your prints whatever you like...that does not change the fact that they are PRINTS.

A bicycle is not an automobile.

You are dim.

There is a show going on right now.

The Artwork of Shepard Fairey
An Exhibition of Selected Fine Art Prints

August 27 – September 30, 2011
Private Reception: Friday, August 26, 7-10PM
Public Reception: Saturday, August 27, 5-10PM

Interesting. Where, exactly, are the 18x24 prints on paper in this show? Or are you trying to make my point for me?

[robotoil]

Are you saying that before Shepard had a gallery show in a venue where you could sip some fine wine and talk snobbishly about the art world that you would not go to see his work (prints)?

No, that's not what I am saying.

Are you saying that all the effort and hard work of working his way through the smaller galleries where his work was hung with clips was not a gallery show?

Nope, not saying that either.

Are you saying that artists that work primarily in screen prints don't make "fine art?"

Strike three. Clearly I am of the opinion that Shepard makes fine art.

I don't have selective reading, you said there are prints and everything else is fine art. Everything else would include metal would it not. If you didn't mean that, then don't say it.

Umm...yeah. I didn't say that, either. What I DID say is this:

By and large, everyone on this forum uses the term "print" for silkscreen on paper...and "fine art" for everything else.

And...I backed this up with a staggering number of examples from this very forum.

So...now that we have covered what I did NOT say, how about if we discuss what I DID say? I DID say the following:

In my opinion, prints on paper are not fine art.

In my opinion, prints on metal and wood are not fine art.

In my opinion, HPM prints on wood ARE fine art.

You are free to call your prints whatever you like...that does not change the fact that they are PRINTS.

A bicycle is not an automobile.

You are dim.

There is a show going on right now.

The Artwork of Shepard Fairey
An Exhibition of Selected Fine Art Prints

August 27 – September 30, 2011
Private Reception: Friday, August 26, 7-10PM
Public Reception: Saturday, August 27, 5-10PM

Interesting. Where, exactly, are the 18x24 prints on paper in this show? Or are you trying to make my point for me?

hahaha. You are so funny. Now your criteria for what makes a print fine art is that it needs to be a format other than 18x24.

BTW, your analogies are amusing but off. Let me help you there. Pre-2000, Shepard's main transportation was a bicycle. On very rare occasion, he would rent a car. After 2000, Shepard's main transportation was a car. Though, he still liked to ride a bicycle as well.

[comiconart]

hahaha. You are so funny. Now your criteria for what makes a print fine art is that it needs to be a format other than 18x24.

Seldom right and wrong again. I mention 18x24 because there has been some debate on this thread as to whether or not large format prints count as fine art. Before you decide to try to tell me what I think again, let me say that, (a) I have NOT said anything about large format prints up to this point, and (b) no, I do not consider them to be fine art. As a general rule: Any screenprinted artwork that is ONLY screenprinted (this excludes HPMs) is not, in my opinion, fine art.

But let's not forget that the original debate was ONLY about pre-2000 prints...none of which were large format, and none of which were on metal or wood. So, for the sake of the pre-2000 print conversation, these formats should be irrelevant. Regardless of this fact, you cite them incessantly as some sort of support for your argument. My stance was, is, and always shall be that pre-2000 prints are not fine art. And I do not understand the relevance of citing the Sand City show as evidence to the contrary.

[robotoil]

hahaha. You are so funny. Now your criteria for what makes a print fine art is that it needs to be a format other than 18x24.

Seldom right and wrong again. I mention 18x24 because there has been some debate on this thread as to whether or not large format prints count as fine art. Before you decide to try to tell me what I think again, let me say that, (a) I have NOT said anything about large format prints up to this point, and (b) no, I do not consider them to be fine art. As a general rule: Any screenprinted artwork that is ONLY screenprinted (this excludes HPMs) is not, in my opinion, fine art.

But let's not forget that the original debate was ONLY about pre-2000 prints...none of which were large format, and none of which were on metal or wood. So, for the sake of the pre-2000 print conversation, these formats should be irrelevant. Regardless of this fact, you cite them incessantly as some sort of support for your argument. My stance was, is, and always shall be that pre-2000 prints are not fine art. And I do not understand the relevance of citing the Sand City show as evidence to the contrary.

Again, do your homework. Some image formats before, primarily 1996, were larger than 18x24. Which doesn't matter in the least, but you cite size to say, "I'm proving your point." And, since your entire premise is that screen prints are not fine art, before or after 2000, makes the size/edition irrelevant. You are entitled to your opinion, but thank the Baby Jesus, you are not the final arbiter of what constitutes fine art. These two fine upstanding individuals, who have collected and hosted Shepard's art shows in the past took some thought in the title of their present show:

Toyroom & Outeredge Present

The Artwork of Shepard Fairey
An Exhibition of Selected Fine Art Prints

And with that, schools out.

[comiconart]

hahaha. You are so funny. Now your criteria for what makes a print fine art is that it needs to be a format other than 18x24.

Seldom right and wrong again. I mention 18x24 because there has been some debate on this thread as to whether or not large format prints count as fine art. Before you decide to try to tell me what I think again, let me say that, (a) I have NOT said anything about large format prints up to this point, and (b) no, I do not consider them to be fine art. As a general rule: Any screenprinted artwork that is ONLY screenprinted (this excludes HPMs) is not, in my opinion, fine art.

But let's not forget that the original debate was ONLY about pre-2000 prints...none of which were large format, and none of which were on metal or wood. So, for the sake of the pre-2000 print conversation, these formats should be irrelevant. Regardless of this fact, you cite them incessantly as some sort of support for your argument. My stance was, is, and always shall be that pre-2000 prints are not fine art. And I do not understand the relevance of citing the Sand City show as evidence to the contrary.

Again, do your homework. Some image formats before, primarily 1996, were larger than 18x24. Which doesn't matter in the least, but you cite size to say, "I'm proving your point." And, since your entire premise is that screen prints are not fine art, before or after 2000, makes the size/edition irrelevant. You are entitled to your opinion, but thank the Baby Jesus, you are not the final arbiter of what constitutes fine art. These two fine upstanding individuals, who have collected and hosted Shepard's art shows in the past took some thought in the title of their present show:

Toyroom & Outeredge Present

The Artwork of Shepard Fairey
An Exhibition of Selected Fine Art Prints

And with that, schools out.

Ha! I should know better than to continue to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. It is clear that school has ALWAYS been out for you.

And, once again, absolutely nothing you say has any relevance to the actual topic at hand: pre-2000 prints. In fact, I point out that the Sand City show has absolutely nothing to do with pre-2000 prints...and you cite it as reference again. Go figure.

[whyhoo]

you guys are feeling saucy today ey?

i'm confused... what's fine art?

[comiconart]

you guys are feeling saucy today ey?

i'm confused... what's fine art?

This is up for debate, though there is no question that pre-2000 prints are fine art (as long as they are pre-2000. They are the "fine art of the time", though after that there was REAL fine art, so that no longer applies to prints post-2000). Posters and stickers and doodles on napkins are also fine art. Also the remnants of the sandwich wrapper that Shep so artfully balled up in his fist earlier today. And anything else that might be on robotoil's wall.

And the bicycle was an automobile from 1861-1885.

[admonkey]

Easy on the personal attacks. (And I don't care who started what and blah, blah, blah.)

Questions of what is or is not fine art are a matter of opinion and conjecture.

Questions regarding a person's intelligence are easily answered with an aptitude test.

We don't settle either question in this forum. We talk things through, sometimes reaching consensus.

Sometimes not.

Carry on. But be reasonably civil about it.

[Solar]

None of Shepard's art is 'fine art'. It's glorified illustration that he $hits out of various Adobe programs to generate a never ending revenue stream from you douchey 'American Hipsters'. Poor hipsters go into debt buying $45 screenprints every week. Rich hipsters buy big $45K canvas versions of the same Illustrator slop. Some poor hipsters flip the $45 prints until they're almost rich hipsters, but then they feed it all back into the machine by buying one of the $45K canvases and guess who laughs all the way to the bank - Shepard fukin' Fairey.

There's an excellent article out there called 'Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey' by the renowned artist Mark Vallen. You guys should really give that a read - you'll realize quickly how pointless this discussion is!

:trollface:

[robotoil]

None of Shepard's art is 'fine art'. It's glorified illustration that he $hits out of various Adobe programs to generate a never ending revenue stream from you douchey 'American Hipsters'. Poor hipsters go into debt buying $45 screenprints every week. Rich hipsters buy big $45K canvas versions of the same Illustrator slop. Some poor hipsters flip the $45 prints until they're almost rich hipsters, but then they feed it all back into the machine by buying one of the $45K canvases and guess who laughs all the way to the bank - Shepard fukin' Fairey.

There's an excellent article out there called 'Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey' by the renowned artist Mark Vallen. You guys should really give that a read - you'll realize quickly how pointless this discussion is!

:trollface:

But not the pre-2000 stuff.

[bdavenport]

Ok, That ^^ was funny.

On another note, if this goes on much longer, it seems that Giant vs. Giant might be the place to take it.

On another, another note, it just occured to me that Giant v. Giant would be a sweet court case name, especially if it set a legal precident, then you could quote it in papers and stuff. "According the verdict in Giant v. Giant (1989), the courts have ruled that..."

[penfold]

None of Shepard's art is 'fine art'. It's glorified illustration that he $hits out of various Adobe programs to generate a never ending revenue stream from you douchey 'American Hipsters'. Poor hipsters go into debt buying $45 screenprints every week. Rich hipsters buy big $45K canvas versions of the same Illustrator slop. Some poor hipsters flip the $45 prints until they're almost rich hipsters, but then they feed it all back into the machine by buying one of the $45K canvases and guess who laughs all the way to the bank - Shepard fukin' Fairey.

There's an excellent article out there called 'Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey' by the renowned artist Mark Vallen. You guys should really give that a read - you'll realize quickly how pointless this discussion is!

:trollface:

Is this a commonly held view on this forum? Seems odd that it would be. (I've read the article).

[bdavenport]

None of Shepard's art is 'fine art'. It's glorified illustration that he $hits out of various Adobe programs to generate a never ending revenue stream from you douchey 'American Hipsters'. Poor hipsters go into debt buying $45 screenprints every week. Rich hipsters buy big $45K canvas versions of the same Illustrator slop. Some poor hipsters flip the $45 prints until they're almost rich hipsters, but then they feed it all back into the machine by buying one of the $45K canvases and guess who laughs all the way to the bank - Shepard fukin' Fairey.

There's an excellent article out there called 'Obey Plagiarist Shepard Fairey' by the renowned artist Mark Vallen. You guys should really give that a read - you'll realize quickly how pointless this discussion is!

:trollface:

Is this a commonly held view on this forum? Seems odd that it would be. (I've read the article).

No. I believe solar was being sarcastic.

[whyhoo]

:trollface:

ask and ye shall receive!!!

[spagucci1]

If Shep calls it fine art, then I'm going to go with that. With that said, here is what should I consider Obey fine art:

Pre-2000 prints
Large format prints
(1 offs such as the BKLK covers)
HPM Album Covers
Stencil Album Covers
Prints on Metal
Prints on Wood
HPM on Wood
HPM on Paper
HPM/Stencil on paper
HPM/Stencil Canvass

Am I missing anything?

[Cookie Head]

Am I missing anything?

Rubyliths?

[comiconart]

Just curious...

For those of you willing to consider pre-2000 prints as "fine art"...why are you excluding 2001-present prints?

In other words...are we discussing inclusion of an entire art format, or ONLY if Shepard sneezed on the paper himself and pulled the screens by hand...? To me, this is a distinction that matters little to anyone but the most ardent forum members.

In all honesty, how many popular printmakers pull their own prints? And does this even factor in to popularity/value for big name artists such as Murakami, Warhol, Hirst, Ryden, etc?

Warhol and Hirst rarely if ever even touched their originals prior to signing them, and this has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the value/status of these works...so how can you make a distinction and draw a line in the sand based on what you do or do not consider to be Shep's own personal involvement in the work? If you want to define your own collection this way, have at it, but you cannot define what is or is not fine art based solely on these parameters when the greater fine art community makes no such distinction.

And no, for the record, and once again, just to be clear...I do not consider prints to be fine art.

[penfold]

What does HPM mean?

[comiconart]

What does HPM mean?

Hand Painted Multiple.

This is when the primary image is screenprinted, but the background is collaged by hand, and there can also be a layer of hand-applied stencils/paint/etc on top of the screenprinted imagery.

Duality of Humanity 1 on paper from the Sand city show is one such example. The background is collaged by hand, but the main image is printed.

[Shonquan]

Am I missing anything?

retired stencils?

[lepublicnme]

Highly Prolific Methods


XXXX