Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Are they worth anything now given the circumstances? And what were they worth before his conviction?
Show More
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.
And none of them every played for Grand Funk Railroad. Depressing.
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.
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.
The paintings havnt changed.
once saw a programme were some woman had paid 29k for a rolf harris.....prob worthless now
what happened to his portrait of the Queen her Majesty spent hours sitting for that 
Aka, Lizzie wasn't best pleased with hers. 
Which skip do you think that one ended up in?
Which skip do you think that one ended up in?
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.
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.
Which skip do you think that one ended up in
Christmas present for Fergie Plat.
Christmas present for Fergie Plat.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
for £1500, sold it about 3 yrs after for £3200, i beleive its worth about 6-7k now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Forgers-Tale-Shaun-Greenhalgh/dp/0993464807
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
Romance for eg is just a fallacy that helps people with weak constitutions comfort themselves
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hit records are made to a "formula" dusty. Plagiarism is rife. I have zero respect for the pop music industry.
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"
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"
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.
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.
@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".
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".
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
there is a difference between someone who creates and someone who copies
A brilliant violinist will play a piece of music by Mozart, it is difficult to do not many people can do it.
But the notes are there, someone had to create those notes, that takes genius.
In the same way in a great painting someone has to write those notes.
A brilliant violinist will play a piece of music by Mozart, it is difficult to do not many people can do it.
But the notes are there, someone had to create those notes, that takes genius.
In the same way in a great painting someone has to write those notes.
Many artists do both. Copying others is a way to improve your knowledge and techniques but we all do original stuff too. It's for others to judge if it's any good.
all artists copy and learn from others, that is difficult and enjoyable.
but it is a craft, not art.
but it is a craft, not art.
That's why I have sympathy for the artist that was forged and not for the person who was conned into believing it was real.
Since the value must lie in the amount YOU would pay for something, not in how much you can sell it for.
Since the value must lie in the amount YOU would pay for something, not in how much you can sell it for.
all artists copy and learn from others, that is difficult and enjoyable.
but it is a craft, not art.
I don't think anyone would dispute that lfc
but it is a craft, not art.
I don't think anyone would dispute that lfc
There are grey areas, where someone takes something or an image which already exists and presents it in a new way. Warhol's Marilyns for example or his paintings of soup cans. What about Duchamp's "fountain"? Is it art? Apparently so.
If I paint a picture of my grandson using a photograph sent to me by my daughter, is it art, or craft? If I take the photo myself and use that, is it any different? Is the work of celebrated photographers art? What they are photographing is already there, they are just creating an image of it using a camera.
Photography would be artistic in the sense of use of composition based on an acquired skill that was learned from observation.
Its a very weak one though, made for today's generation entirely.
Its a very weak one though, made for today's generation entirely.
consider the Punk Rock group the Sex Pistols. they were not technically particularly good. There were thousands of better guitarists.
But from the opening chords of GSTQ, or Pretty Vacant and Johnny Rottens vocals you knew you were hearing something beautiful and unique and something that no other group could produce.
could any other country in the world have produced the Sex Pistols other than England?
no I don't think so, only England.
But from the opening chords of GSTQ, or Pretty Vacant and Johnny Rottens vocals you knew you were hearing something beautiful and unique and something that no other group could produce.
could any other country in the world have produced the Sex Pistols other than England?
no I don't think so, only England.
some great painters painted from photographs,Maurice Utrillo is one of my favourite artists and he did this often
so the question is how do you know it`s a Utrillo if it`s painted from a photograph?
the answer is you only have to look at it, no one else could have made that painting
it`s Utrillo, the painting is in his style, someone else may have been more technically good at painting from the photograph..so what? that doesn't matter.
what matters is that when you look at Utrillo`s painting you know it is by him.
the answer is you only have to look at it, no one else could have made that painting
it`s Utrillo, the painting is in his style, someone else may have been more technically good at painting from the photograph..so what? that doesn't matter.
what matters is that when you look at Utrillo`s painting you know it is by him.
Was it John Lennon who said, when asked about Ringo Starr, "He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles".
I think you have to make use of available techniques as appropriate. Photographs are useful when painting portraits, especially children who have difficulty keeping still for any length of time. For outdoor painting, the light and shadows can change dramatically, or the tide can come in if by the sea. Photographs help you "freeze" the moment so you can keep your picture consistent. Before photography, some artists used "Camera obscura", Canaletto being known to use it for his "busy" landscapes. I don't think anyone copies photos exactly if you don't add something then it's not worth painting it, just frame the photo.
I think you have to make use of available techniques as appropriate. Photographs are useful when painting portraits, especially children who have difficulty keeping still for any length of time. For outdoor painting, the light and shadows can change dramatically, or the tide can come in if by the sea. Photographs help you "freeze" the moment so you can keep your picture consistent. Before photography, some artists used "Camera obscura", Canaletto being known to use it for his "busy" landscapes. I don't think anyone copies photos exactly if you don't add something then it's not worth painting it, just frame the photo.
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.
Ive literally just got off the phone to my old man who had been on a break in salford and was told he went to the Lowry museum and he said it was 5hit, 'thats not art that' says he.
Ive literally just got off the phone to my old man who had been on a break in salford and was told he went to the Lowry museum and he said it was 5hit, 'thats not art that' says he.
Lowry was a great artist, not everyone will understand why, they don't have the facility for it.
You are entitled to your opinion lfc, there's no need to be patronising.
yes sorry Foinavon, I didn't really mean it that way and wasn't referring to anyone in particular
I meant that it`s a bit like saying I don`t understand e=mc2, I don`t, not really. But I`m not going to then say its not a real or true or beautiful formula just because I don't understand it
I meant that it`s a bit like saying I don`t understand e=mc2, I don`t, not really. But I`m not going to then say its not a real or true or beautiful formula just because I don't understand it
That's OK lfc, let's not get into physics, art is difficult enough 
a woman bought a load of his paintings for good money..........think they told her they were worthless
Foinavon
That's OK lfc, let's not get into physics, art is difficult enough
I don't think it is foinavon for the vast majority of people including myself.
To me I look at something and either like it or not.
I used to visit the Kelvingrove museum a lot and spent most of my time looking at the paintings.
I can see though that someone like yourself, ie an artist, looks beyond that.
That's OK lfc, let's not get into physics, art is difficult enough
I don't think it is foinavon for the vast majority of people including myself.
To me I look at something and either like it or not.
I used to visit the Kelvingrove museum a lot and spent most of my time looking at the paintings.
I can see though that someone like yourself, ie an artist, looks beyond that.
one of GLASGOWS jewels is the kelvingrove aka.
bit depressing for some but this funeral painting is one of my favs from the museum....bit too big to put under my coat.
https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/a-funeral-service-in-the-highlands-84325
https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/a-funeral-service-in-the-highlands-84325
An excellent painting. Guthrie painted some more cheerful scenes which I would prefer to hang on my wall, (if I could afford them).
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539