Hyper inflated art prices?!?!?!
Jacques De Molay
What could you do with that?
Home entertainment system (Well.. most of one)?
A custom tailored suit?
A holiday?
A Bike?
I mean, I'm all for allowing peoples a certain amount of freedom
(perhaps even a large amount), but $576 on a "yiffy" commission from a
"furry" artists?
Let's be honest. I have yet to see a "yiffy" picture from a furry
artists that could REALLY be worth $576.
I just can't understand why people would spend that much on Yiffy
"art".
Perhaps if it was a really fine pince of aclyrics with a nice frame
that complemented it well, But "yiff" pictures are not art.
They're illlustration and embaressing illustration at that.
Would you dare hang a "yiffy" illustration, for all to see?
Nay, lest ye be accused of such things as are best not mentioned here.
It seems to me that a bubble is building up in the furry fandom.
How long can these ridiculous prices be sustained?!?!
Soon the bubble will burst and doom shall plague the land!
DOOM! DOOM! DOOM!
---
In the beginning we lived as thieves,
stealing fur and fang of beasts for survival.
steve gallacci
Nah. I'm assuming it was a piece that got bid up at an art show? If so,
it is simply a matter of a buyer with more dollars than sense. At
auctions, people can go crazy and bid up items to ridiculous highs that
they would never pay had it been the original asking price.
On the other hand, if that was the asking price, it may have been simply
a matter of a particular buyer that REALLY liked the piece for whatever
reason.
It is hardly a new thing and not restricted to furry fandom/subjects.
And ultimately, so what?
Jacques De Molay
great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against him.
>Nah. I'm assuming it was a piece that got bid up at an art show? If so,
Twas on Furbid.
>it is simply a matter of a buyer with more dollars than sense. At
>auctions, people can go crazy and bid up items to ridiculous highs that
>they would never pay had it been the original asking price.
>
>On the other hand, if that was the asking price, it may have been simply
>a matter of a particular buyer that REALLY liked the piece for whatever
>reason.
>It is hardly a new thing and not restricted to furry fandom/subjects.
>And ultimately, so what?
yea, You speak Sense, Tempering the reckless unheeding horse of youth,
with the Bit and Leather thingy of (not nesecerily) age related
wisdom.
I remember there was something to do over some guy pretending to be an
american indian spiritual person, and then chargeing rich white people
huge amounts of money to go on these courses or something like that.
And there people said: If thee be stupid enough to pay for that, let
it be so.
The Saprophyte
>
> I just can't understand why people would spend that much on Yiffy
> "art".
>
> Perhaps if it was a really fine pince of aclyrics with a nice frame
> that complemented it well, But "yiff" pictures are not art.
> They're illlustration and embaressing illustration at that.
Illustration _is_ art. Whether or not it's _good_ art is an entirely
separate argument, and quite relative to an individual piece. Said
argument has, however, been hashed and rehashed quite adequately in the
past, therefore one would perhaps be better served to avail oneself of
the appropriate resources in regards to the matter.
--
The Saprophyte
--
Darkmatter Studio
>I mean, I'm all for allowing peoples a certain amount of freedom
>(perhaps even a large amount), but $576 on a "yiffy" commission from a
>"furry" artists?
Sure, why not?
I mean, hell...."normal" people have been known to buy a 10-foot tall canvas
with nothing on it but a shitload of paint blobbed, scattered and smeared
around for THOUSANDS.
Beauty (and art) is in the eye of the beholder. Its their money, let em blow it
as they see fit.
____________________________________________________________
Furotica: Breakfast of champions. Make sure to get your daily dose at
http://www.RomusZ.com
Scarlet Otter
news:3f2ad18c...@news.cis.dfn.de:
> $576...
>
> What could you do with that?
>
For me... 1 month's rent with $226 left over for just general day-to-day
living expenses for the month. For someone else, apparently a yiffy art
commission. If he's happy with his purchase, then more power to him.
Bravo-Foxtrot-Delta. :p
-- Otter
(Spamfoil in place. Lift MYTAILFEATHERS to reply via email.)
Chris Baird
> it is simply a matter of a buyer with more dollars than sense.
It was at an earlier AC that a Terrie Smith piece (with anatomy,
colouring, etc. mistakes galore) got up to US$1000?
Cultdom going even more insane.. :/
--
Chris,,
Dale Farmer
Scarlet Otter wrote:
> dsa...@yahoo.co.uk (Jacques De Molay) wrote in
> news:3f2ad18c...@news.cis.dfn.de:
>
> > $576...
> >
> > What could you do with that?
> >
>
> For me... 1 month's rent with $226 left over for just general day-to-day
> living expenses for the month. For someone else, apparently a yiffy art
> commission. If he's happy with his purchase, then more power to him.
> Bravo-Foxtrot-Delta. :p
When I was working sales at the most recent Anthrocon art show, I saw
one piece that went for 1200 and another for 1500 bucks. I wasn't at the
voice auction though, so I don't know if they were the highest. They both
were nice paintings though.
At other SF convention art shows I've seen pieces sell in the
neighborhood of 25K. One was a Jim Gurney dinotopia painting.
--Dale
Richard de Wylfin
Chris Baird <ab...@brushtail.apana.org.au> wrote:
Care to elaborate on that? I generally like Terrie Smith's work,
but as a very prolific artist, her stuff can vary considerably.
Really, you should be more specific about what the problems were with
that piece. Sometimes I'm pretty appalled at the lousy perspective &
anatomy that's tolerated in furry fandom. Mightn't it help if someone
pointed it out once in a while (without having to flame anyone)?
New alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe products on Cafeshops:
http://www.cafeshops.com/jotandcomma
David Cooksey
others went over $2000 and another half dozen (at least) pieces that went
for over $1000. I think only a couple of those over $1000 pieces were adult
in nature.
David Cooksey
"Dale Farmer" <Da...@cybercom.net> wrote in message
news:3F2D4019...@cybercom.net...
BR
> Yeppers, at FC2002, one piece went for $6000 by Goldenwolf, a couple of
> others went over $2000 and another half dozen (at least) pieces that
> went for over $1000. I think only a couple of those over $1000 pieces
> were adult in nature.
>
> David Cooksey
Yikes! I'm apparently in the wrong business.
--
-T. H. Huxley
If a little knowledge is dangerous, were is the man who has
so much as to be out of danger?
Chris Baird
> Care to elaborate on that? I generally like Terrie Smith's work,
> but as a very prolific artist, her stuff can vary considerably.
I can't find an on-line link to the image now, but the 'character' in
the work was a young female skunk named "Pepper".
(The picture I have in my old archives is a heavily-munged copy that I
challenged myself in trying to fix the problems with GIMP-- using layers
to widen the torso and arms (stick-arms! I hate them!), smoothing out
the shoddy marker colouring, etc. The broken-looking neck was too
out-there to fix, though.)
> Really, you should be more specific about what the problems were
> with that piece. Sometimes I'm pretty appalled at the lousy
> perspective & anatomy that's tolerated in furry fandom.
...and what's the point? Do Artists or their Fans ever listen? As you
referred to, furry-cult-infatuated people are prone to being blinded
by the bioluminescent backsides of 'name artists'. :/
--
Chris,,
RHJunior
"Richard de Wylfin" <thetal...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:thetalkingfox-44E...@velox.critter.net...
> In article <ufn0eqn...@brushtail.apana.org.au>,
> Chris Baird <ab...@brushtail.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> > > I'm assuming it was a piece that got bid up at an art show? If so,
> > > it is simply a matter of a buyer with more dollars than sense.
> >
> > It was at an earlier AC that a Terrie Smith piece (with anatomy,
> > colouring, etc. mistakes galore) got up to US$1000?
> >
> > Cultdom going even more insane.. :/
One THOUSAND DOLLARS?
*hork*
*fallsover*
*dies*
Obvious Fake. Do Not Harvest.
Well, yes. That is part of why I made my comments about "branding" a few weeks
back.
Still, as others have pointed out, if the picture is worth more to the buyer
than the cash itself -- including the potential for other purchases in the
future -- then it's a fair trade, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
********************************************************
If you want me to see your response, please post.
http://www.towerofbabel.com/antispam
http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html
********************************************************
RHJunior
>
> Still, as others have pointed out, if the picture is worth more to the
buyer
> than the cash itself -- including the potential for other purchases in the
> future -- then it's a fair trade, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
Yes, yes, I'm all for that---
NOW WHERE THE HELL DO I FIND THESE PEOPLE WHEN **I** HAVE ART FOR SALE??
--
RHJunior
"What was that sound?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
-Dilbert
http://home.ntelos.net/~blue27a
http://nipandtuck.keenspace.com
http://UTLT.keenspace.com
http://NPC.keenspace.com
Obvious Fake. Do Not Harvest.
>Yes, yes, I'm all for that---
>NOW WHERE THE HELL DO I FIND THESE PEOPLE WHEN **I** HAVE ART FOR SALE??
Heck if I know. Maybe they rent them at the "Fans R Us" big-box store or
something. :D
Matt Harpold
>
> >
> > Still, as others have pointed out, if the picture is worth more to the
> buyer
> > than the cash itself -- including the potential for other purchases in
the
> > future -- then it's a fair trade, regardless of what anyone else thinks.
>
>
> Yes, yes, I'm all for that---
> NOW WHERE THE HELL DO I FIND THESE PEOPLE WHEN **I** HAVE ART FOR SALE??
It's all about being a name. And to be a name, you have to bring a lot of
art to EVERY con, every year, for years and years, and do a lot of work, and
get it out there. This is not mysterious. It's simple hard work. Talent is
no substitute for hard work and marketing savvy. The person who puts their
work out there year after year will get the rewards, because people are
emotionally invested in their work.
-Matt/Turbine
Ken Pick
to four zeroes to the end and you'll get what the current
piss-on-a-crucifix-and-call-it-Art crowd gets for their trendoid
mutual masturbations.
As Salvador Dali said when he dropped his pants, took a dump in
public, and pointed at the fresh turd, "This is ART because *I* say It
Is Art." (I think he sold the turd for big $$$ as a Salvador Dali
Original...)
Ken Pick
> > I'm assuming it was a piece that got bid up at an art show? If so,
> > it is simply a matter of a buyer with more dollars than sense.
>
> It was at an earlier AC that a Terrie Smith piece (with anatomy,
> colouring, etc. mistakes galore) got up to US$1000?
Probably paying for the Fame of the Name. Was it a Chester piece?
Chris Baird
> $576 is nothing compared to the mainstream Fine Art market. Add two
> to four zeroes to the end and you'll get what the current
> piss-on-a-crucifix-and-call-it-Art crowd gets for their trendoid
> mutual masturbations.
Oooh... I sight someone with a bit of an inferiority complex.
In the Northern country New South Wales area of Australia were I used
to live, there's a well-established regular Artist scene, and the
monthly street markets in Armidale was a popular gig for them. You
could buy good paintings, w/ frame, for AU$80-$300, and the real
quality stuff for ~$500+. An ex-girlfriend bought a painting of a
ringtail possum on a ceramic tile for my birthday, and that was
$25. (I preferred the potter, who made /excellent/ glazed bowls that
you could use day-to-day for $10-20. Nearly everyone we knew got
glazed bowls as presents for a few years. :)
The fauna-artist scene in Brisbane routinely sells pencils and
watercolours in the AU$1000+ range, but we're talking about people
with a talent for details that just about surpasses the cumulative
skill of this entire fandom, and makes Terrie Smith look like a pre-
schooler.
--
Chris,,
Matt Harpold
"Ken Pick" <cath...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:9efdce3a.03080...@posting.google.com...
> $576 is nothing compared to the mainstream Fine Art market. Add two
> to four zeroes to the end and you'll get what the current
> piss-on-a-crucifix-and-call-it-Art crowd gets for their trendoid
> mutual masturbations.
Bagging on Andres Serrano is soooo 1993, man. There are avant garde artists
with just as much talent as anyone.
-Matt/Turbine
BR
> The fauna-artist scene in Brisbane routinely sells pencils and
> watercolours in the AU$1000+ range, but we're talking about people with
> a talent for details that just about surpasses the cumulative skill of
> this entire fandom, and makes Terrie Smith look like a pre- schooler.
Testimonial:"Hi I'm a better artist than you, so there, pffft" Seriously
Chris, do you think your being objective here? I doubt you'd be a big fan
of someone saying "All people named Chris, are weenies", so why should
such generalities as you painted above, be any better?
Chris Baird
> Testimonial:"Hi I'm a better artist than you, so there, pffft"
> Seriously Chris, do you think your being objective here? I doubt
> you'd be a big fan of someone saying "All people named Chris, are
> weenies", so why should such generalities as you painted above, be
> any better?
Follow...?
Dr. Cat
: Yeppers, at FC2002, one piece went for $6000 by Goldenwolf, a couple of
: others went over $2000 and another half dozen (at least) pieces that went
: for over $1000. I think only a couple of those over $1000 pieces were adult
: in nature.
Goldenwolf does some beautiful art. If she can sell an original for $6000,
more power to her, and I hope the purchaser gets a lot of enjoyment out of
the art. I imagine they'll probably hang it in a prominent place in their
home after paying that much for it! Her work's on the web:
http://www.goldenwolfen.com/portfolio/echo.htm for instance.
As for "yiffy" art selling for $576... I guess if I saw the particular
piece the original poster was griping about, I could say whether I agree
or disagree that it was a ridiculously high price for THAT particular piece.
Saying no yiffy art could ever be worth that is going a bit far. I've seen
some erotic sculptures by Rodin (the same guy who created the famous piece
"The Thinker"), and I think they're all precious art treasures that belong
in a museum or the collection of some snobbish wealthy art collector, just
like his other works. If he had taken his sculpture "The Kiss" and done it
with animal heads and tails on the two nekkid people kissing, I'm sure it
would still be worth well over $576 (I know I'd gladly pay $576 for it).
Certainly no current artists of furry erotica are producing work as good as
a Rodin or a Michaelangelo. But I certainly wouldn't say that none of them
have produced, do produce, or are capable of producing high quality works of
art, which have appeal not just because of the presence of nudity, genitalia
or sexual acts in the image, but also because of style, technique, concept,
mood, evocative power, and general artisticness and quality, nor would I say
that no such works are worth the kind of money that quality artworks that are
non-furry or non-sexual or both command at auction, and neither would I say
that this sentence isn't a run-on sentence or that it it at all short, rather
I'd say that it's quite long as compared to most other sentences (though by
no means qualified to be the world-record holder in that regard!)
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
Dr. Cat / Dragon's Eye Productions || Free alpha test:
*-------------------------------------------** http://www.furcadia.com
Furcadia - a graphic mud for PCs! || Let your imagination soar!
*-------------------------------------------**-----------------------------*
(Disclaimer: Of course if someone wants to pay a bunch of money for crappy
yiff art sometimes too, well, that's between them and the artist, ain't it?)
Brian Henderson
<thetal...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>In article <ufn0eqn...@brushtail.apana.org.au>,
> Chris Baird <ab...@brushtail.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
>> > I'm assuming it was a piece that got bid up at an art show? If so,
>> > it is simply a matter of a buyer with more dollars than sense.
>>
>> It was at an earlier AC that a Terrie Smith piece (with anatomy,
>> colouring, etc. mistakes galore) got up to US$1000?
>>
>> Cultdom going even more insane.. :/
>
>Care to elaborate on that? I generally like Terrie Smith's work,
>but as a very prolific artist, her stuff can vary considerably.
>Really, you should be more specific about what the problems were with
>that piece. Sometimes I'm pretty appalled at the lousy perspective &
>anatomy that's tolerated in furry fandom. Mightn't it help if someone
>pointed it out once in a while (without having to flame anyone)?
Nah, you suggest that maybe furry artists aren't the best thing in the
world and you get flamed, especially if you start discussing the
content of the majority of the work.
Now generally, I like Terrie Smith's art, but you're right, it has
plenty of technical problems. A lot of that can be chalked up to the
speed at which she works though, so I can't really blame her for that.
Same can be said for Mercedes Lackey. Same can be said of a lot of
prolific creators.
However, beyond a very small core of artists who produce more or less
good art, there are a *LOT* of people who do utter crap, have no
talent whatsoever, and still insist on putting their garbage up on
websites and advertising for commissions.
And unfortunately, I'm sure they get some!