T
Joined: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: -16
|
T
On 2003-10-21 10:18, Geeky Tiki wrote:
- I see, amongst the other collecting I do, a frequent bashing of new stuff, as though there is some invisible line that divides "vintage" from kitsch.
With tiki, it's all kitsch! I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the, "If the mug was cast after 1965, then it is beneath me" kinda logic.
So, on that, I vote - old, new, doesn't matter as long as it is pleasing to my sensibilities.
- Over-exposure. That frigging Master of Light guy is over-exposed! Bev Doolittle, that Western Art lady who does the hidden Native American faces in the landscapes? Her last "limited edition litho" was 250,000 numbered prints! That, my bretheren, is over-exposed. 500 Shag prints, mugs, whatever, is a drop in the bucket.
On that, I vote with the poster who said we feel over-exposed by virtue of where we tend to shop and hang out.
Geek,
Aren't your observations 1) and 2) in conflict?
With 1) you state something to the effect of 'as long as it's pleasing to my sensibilities it fine', and with 2) you're bagging on something as being 'over-exposed'; what if someone's sensibilities were 'pleased' by the over-exposed item?
|
