Post #69116 by cybertiki on Mon, Jan 12, 2004 8:27 PM

"Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art"
-- Andy Warhol

I think it's tough to judge the inherent value of a work of art since there are too many variables involved. Many of these relate to current cultural values and trends, which are unpredictable at the best of times. It is clear that prolific print artists such as Warhol, Neiman, and Erté have been influential forces, and have earned their own unique place in art history; certainly there were times when their detractors would have disdainfully stated "Dutch Tulips". Whether or not Shag will earn his own place in history remains to be seen.

From my own perspective, I own Shag prints not because of any real monetary or "inherent" value, but because I like them. He's got a good sense of humor, and in many instances a sharp wit. The colors are great, and the quality of the prints I own is very good. They make me happy. I wish I could get some original Gary Larson "Far Side" artwork for the very same reason - would his work be considered to have any real inherent value? I rather doubt it, but who can tell? I have a Charles Addams drawing that was recently appraised at a rather shocking figure, and I doubt anyone could have predicted that his work would ever be of any value.

Just my two cents ... time for my fourth Mai-Tai.

Cheers!