or at least they should after this Alex Rawls post…
JAZZ FEST POSTER—THE NEW BIG MAC?
Now, to me, the posters never had much value anyway. The entire numbered print / poster approach to art is a huge racket generated by the artists and the dealers to get the most revenue out of a single image. Don’t ever buy one.
As for Jazzfest posters, look at the huge prices they are demanding on Craigslist…
Then there is Ebay… Lots of Buy It Now on there. Lots of 0 bids. Lots of people selling Jazzfest posters.
If you can’t smell or feel or gaze upon the acrylics or oils of your art, don’t buy it. If your piece is one out of 500, that means 500 other people have that exact same shit. If it’s signed by the artist or the subject, that means at some point that person was near your piece. That’s it.
But what’s great about Rawls’ post is that he isn’t even commenting on all that. He’s technically questioning the value of the original art. He makes some very valid critiques too. It’s not just his 1-in-6,500,000,000 opinion. I am thinking after reading Rawls’ post that perhaps Garland Robinette took a photo of a young Buffet and painted it and then put a French Quarter behind him? He may have been better off staging the scene in the Quarter and then just painting Buffet’s face on the model.
Rawls adeptly sums it all up here and I agree…
In the end, this year’s Jazz Fest poster is like so many Jazz Fest posters; it represents the depressing decision to aim low. Each year, it acknowledges people’s love of New Orleans and the festival, then sells them the equivalent of a Bourbon Street T-shirt.
I take exception to the idea that prints are inherently a ripoff; there’s an art and craft to true printmaking, with a long history. And prints can be a way to wade into the art world inexpensively (for collectors).
But I have no argument with the assessment of those Jazz Fest posters. God, I hate shit like that.
The long history thing, that’s a go-to for printmakers. They always cite it. Basket weaving and prostitution have a long history. History alone doesn’t justify its value. Even in their historical sense they were used to duplicate and reproduce art for more people, thus diminishing its originality. I like screen printing, wood blocks and hand-pulled serigraphs as much as the next guy. But they have their place and should never command real money. I don’t see the value in them. The validity of this being the multiplicity of them. People think the numbers represent more value but they merely indicate how common they are. There’s a scene in “Exit Through The Gift Shop” where Mr. Brainwash tries to generate interest in his opening by promising original prints to the first hundred or so attendees. To make them original, he sits on a skateboard next to the spread out posters and flops paint on each of them. So, where is the artistic value in that? It’s all generated by the artist and the buyer (who both have investment in the prints).
Wade into the art world at any of the many openings that happen in town every month. Don’t think it will work? Just as these guys… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_and_Dorothy_Vogel
What are your thoughts on Giclees?they have some real paint on them, and often a real signature, but are still a print.
They are the same thing, They are essentially an artist recognizing their image has received a reaction from folks and instead of trying to explore that reaction further they are stopping there.
I thought immediately of this sketch. But couldn’t find any video so you’ll have to do with the soundbite.
http://www.hark.com/clips/jsqmxtcfpq-im-picasso