Shag original painting wanted

Looking for an original painting. If you have one for sale or know anyone let me know. Thanks.

[ Edited by: paulie on 2003-07-08 12:35 ]

Shag.com

I have one but it would take an insane amount of money to part with it. are you insane?

Paulie?

Do you live close to the shore?

Aaaoooooo! Hey buddy.

Paulie,
I have a large Shag painting that is bar themed available. You can contact me at [email protected]

Howzabout you send me $500 and I paint you one just like his?

Tiki-bot, can you put me in it?

Tiki Rodder- Did you play basketball and nowraise hell by having to many parties in your Newport Beach home?

CT: You're Amy Holmes, Miss Tennessee, right? Here ya go:

If you are still looking to buy a Shag painting, I'm helping a friend sell HIS Shag painting. You can check it out on ebay....
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7374884754

Mahalo!
glamourkitten

The CaproNason Gallery has numerous prints available (beginning at $250):

http://www.copronason.com/printMenu.html

On 2005-12-13 22:10, christiki295 wrote:
The CaproNason Gallery has numerous prints available (beginning at $250):

http://www.copronason.com/printMenu.html

,,prints are "poor man's" art...settle for nothing less then the original painting....

I would tend to agree, but Shag may be changing the rule.

On 2005-12-14 16:41, christiki295 wrote:
I would tend to agree, but Shag may be changing the rule.

It's true his prints are going for quite a bit of cabbage, but they will always be just that - prints, of which a signifigant number of others will also have the same said print adorning their domiciles....nothin' wrong with that either, it's just not for me....I believe shag is the exception to the rule, not necessarily changing the rule....i guess it depends on how popular an artists work is...what's really annoying in this day and age is that artists can now print their work on canvas....by all outward appearances they actually look like the real deal but are only framed replicas of the original....this is good news for artists as they can reach a broader market with low-cost replicas of their originals which look like the original work and then justify an insane price on the original, but the more the replicas look like the real painting, it would seem the less point there is to shelling out for an original work..afterall, that there was a time when a limited edition print was easily distinguishable from an original made it all the more worth owning, but those days are sadly over...or are they?? perhaps in this day of cheap imitations and copies, owning an original work is that much more important as a connection to our shared humanity as we continue to surround ourselves with the appearances of things rather than real things themselves.....

On 2005-12-14 19:32, Tipsy McStagger wrote:

On 2005-12-14 16:41, christiki295 wrote:
I would tend to agree, but Shag may be changing the rule.

perhaps in this day of cheap imitations and copies, owning an original work is that much more important as a connection to our shared humanity as we continue to surround ourselves with the appearances of things rather than real things themselves.....

I'm confused. I don't get it. It's probably "just me." Again.

[i]On 2005-12-14 19:32, Tipsy McStagger wrote"

good news for artists as they can reach a broader market with low-cost replicas of their originals which look like the original work and then justify an insane price ...

...or are they?? perhaps in this day of cheap imitations and copies, owning an original work is that much more important as a connection to our shared humanity as we continue to surround ourselves with the appearances of things rather than real things themselves.....

Very deep, excellent insight.

I hate to be so base, but if a print (ie poster) is selling for a $1,000, the price is "insane," and the original even moreso (unless one is a buyer for a museum).

I completely agree with the issue for "appearances of things rather than real things themselves," (although maybe for different reasons).

The one downside of Shag's work is that the characters in his art seem to having far more in my living room then I would be having - I might get jealous.

That being said, I bought a tIkiToNy original at Hukilau in October for under $500, frame included. Perhaps this is the new wave? (No Knack jokes!) Think about it!

A print (silkscreen/serigraph) is not a "poster." Sorry you feel that way. It's art in it's own right.

"but if a print (ie poster) is selling for a $1,000, the price is "insane,"— is it really? I consider lawyers fees "insane." I consider pro athlete's salaries "insane". What do you folks have against artists earning a living?

[ Edited by: foamy 2005-12-16 05:09 ]

Whoops, double post.

[ Edited by: foamy 2005-12-16 05:07 ]

Surely it comes down to this:

Do I like the print/poster/painting enough to pay what's being asked for it? Do I want it enough to enjoy on my wall?

So if you're looking for an investment then there are lots more things that will give the same if not more return, try redline hot wheels for example...

Though Shag's prints (serigraphs) are high quality, I do not think there has ever been a print or picture in one of his many books which captures and represents the bright saturated colors of his originals. So in the case of Shag, I feel an original painting though expensive offers something one can not acheive with a print.

With other printing processes though, such as giclee, which is utilized by many artists on canvas and paper, it is very difficult to tell an original from print. So in the case of a Mark Ryden giclee print, which will already run you a couple of grand, a print is more attractive to me and my budget than $250 grand for an original.

Just like some are happy with the reproduction suffering bastard, Mai Kai bowls, etc.. from tiki farm, others are willing to pay larger sums of money for the true vintage mugs. I would wager the majority of houseguests could not determine what was reproduction and what was vintage.

Bottom line, it is what is important to you, and what you are willing to spend.

Well said Sirginn

I have to disagree with Tipsy. A print/copy-"Nothin' wrong with that either, it's just not for me" You would rather go without then have something you like. A tiki mug is the same thing as a painted print. I can't believe that you wouldn't buy a tiki mug from Munktiki just because its a print. A copy of the original sculpture. Tipsy do you have tikimugs and does your idea of copies apply, and do you have many original painted works on your wall?

More art in everyone's life is a good thing. PLus think of it this way, most everything in anyones house is a copy and if it does have hands-on, its still probably been done before and not "original".

On 2005-12-16 05:03, foamy wrote:

A print (silkscreen/serigraph) is not a "poster." Sorry you feel that way. It's art in it's own right.

the only "art" was when the artist put time, technique, and talent into a particular piece...when this was completed, so was the art. Art, after all is a process, not a stationary thing. Any prints or copies thereafter are only representations of said art, but technically not actual art themselves..if you want to delude yourself into believing that just cause an artist puts his signature on a print that it somehow magically qualifies it as art, that's your right to do so...It may give the print a level of collectable value being signed by the actual artists hand, but that's pretty much where it ends. Regardless of what type of paper or printing process one uses, a poster is still just a poster, but in cases such as these, a more expensive poster...now suppose the artist prints them up himself directly...does this qualifiy it as art???....nah...the same principle above still applies. The art has already "happened" with the completion of the original work.

Tipsy, aren't you going to respond to mine?? Above

What about photography its still are art right.

I have to disagree with Tipsy. A print/copy-"Nothin' wrong with that either, it's just not for me" You would rather go without then have something you like.

(quote)

I try to buy original works whenever possible...being an artist myself I have a certain reverence and appreciation for original works. I have seen many prints that I liked over the years but 1) I don't have the wall space to accomodate an army of prints and 2) it is aesthetically more importantto me to save my $ for one original piece than to have 20 various prints....

(quote)
A tiki mug is the same thing as a painted print. I can't believe that you wouldn't buy a tiki mug from Munktiki just because its a print. A copy of the original sculpture.
(quote)

not only is this statement loaded like a babies diaper, but full of the same contents...you are confusing apples and oranges for one thing..for another, there's no such thing as a painted print(unless an artist actually paints on the print afterward, which I doubt is what you meant)..either it's a painting, or it's a print...

(quote)
and do you have many original painted works on your wall?
(quote)

...95% of my art collection is all original art..

(quote)
More art in everyone's life is a good thing. PLus think of it this way, most everything in anyones house is a copy and if it does have hands-on, its still probably been done before and not "original".

...maybe in your house...we are not talking about mass produced items here...how the discussion went from original art to home furnishings I don't understand....

I was saying that a tiki mug is basically a print if you consider the original design and sculpture of the mug, art. I have handmade tiki mugs. One of a kind sculpture done like any other pottery in an art gallery. I have ten original mugs and the rest of my mug collection are copies of the first mug designed by the company I bought from. I'm sure that you have a few store bought tiki mugs, the mostly the best ones today are the signed and numbered ones. And if you do have one of these, you have a tiki mug "print" or what ever you want to called the thing that you will not buy and put in your house. If you do, I was going to show you that you broke your rule of copies of an original, but if not, your correct and missing out on cool tiki stuff.

I know that your original beef is with prints of paintings but "prints" are done with everything these days. Prints can actually validate an original more. Make an original more famous. To know that you have an original of something that 200 other people or more want and can only have throught a print. 200 of a print still can mean that the next 100 people that want one (print), can't have one.

I have seen prints in my art history book. Chinese wood blocks? And various first printing presses.

thats all, I'm done. I usually just like to question the other sides of things.

went to your website, do you sell original art? Did you make those things. Lamps and stuff. Or is your art work all kept.

After 300 posts, you'd think I'd know how to do it right.

[ Edited by: foamy 2005-12-16 20:37 ]

Nevermind.

[ Edited by: foamy 2005-12-16 21:58 ]

On 2005-12-16 20:36, foamy wrote:
Nevermind.

[ Edited by: foamy 2005-12-16 21:58 ]

Damn. Missed by that much!

for the record, I do own a few prints as well as vintage mugs, tiki farm mugs, munktiki mugs and such. you claim i broke some sort of rule, but all you really did is underscore the fact that you weren't paying attention....my "beef" was strictly with original art versus prints....I don't feel that mugs and such fall under the same catagory..these are items meant for mass production, At no point were they ever pawned off as original art by any means, regardless of who the original artist was....you are only confusing the issue by introducing product, whose specific intention is simply that - being product. As for my website, all those designs are my own invention....yes, they are products designed for mass production...Do I call these art? -not for all the tea in china, which, incidentally is where they are manufactured....i also do limited runs of certain items..do i call these art? Not by any stretch of the imagination.....I do, however produce one-offs or "one of a kind" pieces on occasion for shows and such. Are these considered art? -you better believe it..........

let the good times roll!!

Thanks ben!!! LOL

I'm done with my rant...thanks to all for putting up with it, especially you, teakey...you're a good sport. every now and then i get caught up in a topic and get carried away.....I'm actually suprised that other artists didn't chime into this thread......anyway, that's that.......

On 2005-12-15 20:16, tikigreg wrote:
That being said, I bought a tIkiToNy original at Hukilau in October for under $500, frame included. Perhaps this is the new wave? (No Knack jokes!) Think about it!

I also have a TiKiTOny original, which was under $500. TiKiTOny is the solution.

On 2005-12-16 05:03, foamy wrote:
A print (silkscreen/serigraph) is not a "poster." Sorry you feel that way. It's art in it's own right.

"but if a print (ie poster) is selling for a $1,000, the price is "insane,"— is it really? I consider lawyers fees "insane." I consider pro athlete's salaries "insane". What do you folks have against artists earning a living?

[ Edited by: foamy 2005-12-16 05:09 ]

A poster is art in its own right - but both posters and serigraphs are copies of an original.

Both the price of Shag's posters as well as pro-athletes are outrageous.

Not to mention Nike paying LeBron James $50 Million before he played 1 minute of NBA time, while, at the same tim, Nike pays its employees in China approximatley $10 per day.

Prices are driven by supply and demand. If there weren't people out there who had no problem paying the high prices, the prices wouldn't be high. I fail to see the tragedy in beauty and art being in high demand.

Okay, prints are not as appealing to me as paintings, usually... But to say a print is not a piece of art is an untrue blanket statement. Photographers such as Ansel Adams did excruciating #'s of prints, dodging, burning, changing times, focus , filters etc.. to get a perfect piece of art that was nothing like you'd get at the photomat. Albrecht Durer of Germany brought woodcuts to a fine art level in his prints, granted I'd rather have the wood block but still... Then there are monoprints, which I've done, which are each quite unique, one of a kinds, and artists such as Jim flora and Deitch worked in print mediums, looks like linocut, to produce beautiful works. Silk screens/serigraphs... Think Andy Warhol... yup printer.... All prints are somewhat unique.... Some more so than others. I think what people are against spending money on a lithograph (fancy speak for mass produced print) or digital print, aiming to recreate a painting, but understand, many works of art were created originally as a print, and that said the sharp lines/ contours you associate with the "SHAG/mid-century style" were created and first used by and because of printers and the print medium.

I don't think it is true high demand or market rate which makes the price of a Shag print jump $200.00 in price from the website to opening night 48 hours later.

SoapFactory/Wacko on Hollywood Blvd., just north of TikiTi, has Shag origingal silkscreen/serigraph prints for the original price of $250 - $350.