We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Are they worth anything now given the circumstances? And what were they worth before his conviction?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 64
|
By:
swop u a Jimmy saville (s)hell suit
|
|
By:
Try Four Rooms, might still be worth a pony.
|
|
By:
do you know what it is yet?
 |
|
By:
[ This image is no longer available. ]
|
|
By:
[ This image is no longer available. ]
|
|
By:
He's at an ideal time to make a runner, every barman or barrista in civilisation is now a beardie bugger!
And none of them every played for Grand Funk Railroad. Depressing. |
|
By:
This question came up on Antiques Roadshow. The answer was something like: worthless now but if you wait long enough things might or might not change. Before his conviction they were also, aiui, worth nothing for most of his life until he painted the Queen which turned him into a respectable (is that the right word?) artist.
|
|
By:
....recognisable....?
|
|
By:
Hitler's paintings get good prices.
|
|
By:
As do the Krays
|
|
By:
Just goes to show that the pretentious art world base value not of merit but on demand, like any other commodity.
The paintings havnt changed. |
|
By:
His portraits were okay but the rest were poor.
|
|
By:
once saw a programme were some woman had paid 29k for a rolf harris.....prob worthless now
|
|
By:
what happened to his portrait of the Queen her Majesty spent hours sitting for that
 |
|
By:
Aka, Lizzie wasn't best pleased with hers.
 Which skip do you think that one ended up in? |
|
By:
Just goes to show that the pretentious art world base value not of merit but on demand, like any other commodity.
The paintings havnt changed. Excellent quality prints of major works of art can be purchased usually for less than £100. The difference between the prints and the original is the antique value. It is unique and the artist is not making any more. Since an original work of art is unique, the wealthy use it as a store of value in the same way that they do with a gemstone or a lump of gold. It only has value if others play the same game and recognise it as such. |
|
By:
insurance job (nap)
|
|
By:
Which skip do you think that one ended up in
Christmas present for Fergie Plat. |
|
By:
Thats right Foin, a 'print' is a reproduction and has no intrinsic 'skill' value....much like a photo.
The investment in the ability of the craftsmen is generally shown in how 'good' the art is. Rolf's work hasnt become less good. I remember a lecturer once explaining to me a work of Manet being desirable because of the porch painting emphasising light coming from a bulb during bright daylight. It actually wasnt 'good' it was simply 'wrong', and it doesnt take an artistic eye or a lifetime in development to paint something wrong |
|
By:
The surrealists deliberately painted things "wrong" in order to make an impact. There are parallels in sculpture, poetry and fiction writing, some dating back thousands of years.
What do you make of currency then? A fifty-pound note has value only because people attribute value to a piece of printed paper way above its intrinsic value. The state recognises that it has value only if genuine however fakes can be accorded the same value by individuals who are fooled into thinking them to be genuine by the craftsmanship of the forger. In the sense of being a piece of printed paper, the genuine note and the fake have the same value. |
|
By:
money can still be made buying prints providing the artist is " on trend ".. i bought a BANKSY print about 8 yrs ago
for £1500, sold it about 3 yrs after for £3200, i beleive its worth about 6-7k now. |
|
By:
Some living artists become fashionable, Banksy, Anish Kapoor, Damian Hurst and Hockney to name a few. A limited print of a Banksy is likely to increase in value over time, especially after he dies.
Most independent artists are lucky if they can earn a living selling originals or prints and many are working in paid employment as cartoonists and illustrators. |
|
By:
foinavon, on the subject of forgeries i read the other day that a prolific forger of lowrys has been allowed to sell
some of his works at auction. the guys name was " greenhalgh " and i keep meaning to get a copy of his book, there was a tv documentary about him not long ago, he was in his garden shed " knocking up " some fake antiquitys which went on to sell for millions. |
|
By:
Money isn't an art though it's an artificial mechanism.
The constrains of authenticity are simply those imposed to limit it as best they can, it has no 'worth' in an artistic sense. Just like laws are made by the minority that effect the majority, it's a fabrication....we didn't all agree on the laws but they are imposed, just as the factors that limit replication are those that were decided to do a job. The practical nature being a promise of something of value, originally gold in reserve. |
|
By:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgers-Tale-Shaun-Greenhalgh/dp/0993464807
|
|
By:
Art has to have some degree of aesthetic meaning to leverage against its true, but it's lost against the notion that people have no idea what price beauty costs and that people are chancers.
Romance for eg is just a fallacy that helps people with weak constitutions comfort themselves  |
|
By:
Whistler was just a man losing his sight while attempting to be faithful IMO
You could calculate aesthetics, I saw an advert for a programme that was to air, it may have been on by now, it was about how some guy felt he could explain what made a hit record.... I don't know how good the programme is/was, but ultimately I believe it's true. The golden ratio applies across the board. |
|
By:
Anyway
Time to inject Tura |
|
By:
Yes, I saw the programme, Glasgow. His parents are the old codgers from Bolton who worked the scam. Velasquez made a reference to them recently.
Another famous one is John Myers who painted copies with household paint for a conman who provided false documentation to deceive the experts. John Myers now makes a living selling his "Genuine Fakes" as a legitimate business. He has also made television programmes. |
|
By:
Hit records are made to a "formula" dusty. Plagiarism is rife. I have zero respect for the pop music industry.
|
|
By:
The practical nature being a promise of something of value, originally gold in reserve.
The gold being kept in a vault for safety. Of course, the actual amount of gold to match the currency has long since disappeared but as long as no one goes and looks for it then it doesn't really matter. Terry Pratchett said something similar in "Making Money" |
|
By:
You could say everything has a pattern or formula Foin.
Think the music assessment was about records that sold massively like Rolling Stones and Thriller. You can deconstruct anything and see why it appeals, painting is little more than composition and a series of rules that in some part mimic nature. Look at a standard set of French curves, they exist because there was a need to reproduce certain shapes. |
|
By:
@Foinavon -- re forgers -- slip of the keyboard for John Myatt?
At one level it must be very frustrating for forgers: knowing they have all the technique and craftsmanship to be a top painter but lacking the true artist's vision and creativity, their "eye". |
|
By:
Sorry Ramruma, that's correct. There was an exhibition of the work he did for the TV programmes a few years back in Birmingham which I went to see. He was there so I was able to meet him.
|
|
By:
At one level it must be very frustrating for forgers: knowing they have all the technique and craftsmanship to be a top painter but lacking the true artist's vision and creativity, their "eye".
Most people I know paint for fun, a couple of them used to teach for a living. Some of them are very skilful but are in no way frustrated at not making a living from it. Apparently, Myatt was short of money following a divorce which left him custody of his children so tried to sell paintings legitimately through ads in Private Eye. He was contacted by the other guy according to him, who made him some juicy offers to paint certain copies. He knew it was wrong but was tempted. He went to prison and served his time. |
|
By:
an artist can become a great artist because of a lack of technical skill in some areas an d the difficulty of the medium, oil paints in particular.
its a bit like great footballers, some are very competent, talented even but are not great at anything in particular others, like Gerd Muller are specialists, and even the most competent players like Franz Beckenbauer new the value..he said that they owed everything to Muller |
|
By:
a great painter cannot copy, he will have his own recognisable style or will be among a small group of people, such as the impressionists, who paint in a style that no one else has thought of before
|
|
By:
Edgar Degas said an artist does his best work when he doesnt know what hes doing and Raphael said it works out better when one doesnt think.
Art is instinctive, like design everything can inspire but a creator works best when they start to get guided by the vision of their own work, its like being possessed I expect. I have sympathy for people who have been forged, but truth is if they were masters they are likely dead anyway. I have zero sympathy for those conned however, because the act of the con is based in the deception that the purchaser can tell the difference....or that there IS a difference. |
|
By:
I would disagree with both statements lfc.
All great artists had great technical skill. They may have painted in different ways but they could draw and get the best out of their chosen medium. Until recently artists had to make their own paints and didn't have the array of pigments available to artists today. Virtually all the great artists worked as apprentices to a recognised master and painted in the style dictated by him, doing the donkey work of painting for him. There are some more modern artists who weren't/ aren't brilliant draughtsmen, Lowry for one, but I don't consider them to be great artists. |