The Gallery of Shame

*tikifish wrote:*And Hanford, thanks for the advice, but I could never do it.

Yeah, it would be a tough one to do, esp. considering how hard we rag on people who do it here.

But simple marketing theory tells me this is why they get 50 bucks for a painting: They get more eyeballs. The more people you get to look at your ad, the better a chance you have that more people who are willing to bid something will see it.

I don't think it's the fact that they've done a piss-poor job of copying Shag's style. I think it's simply the fact that painting have a variety of Hot keywords in them. Shag being one of them. The more people you get to look at your add, the better it will sell.

Tikifish, if you don't want to put "Shag" in your ebay descriptions try putting "Nude woman". It's all about getting MORE people to look at your ad. In fact I think if you put "Shag" (I didn't mean "Shag-esqe", I just something like "if you like Shag you'll like this") Your paintings would get even more money than the ripoffs, since the term "Shag" just attracts the eyballs, but they bid on the painting.

Perhaps I'm wrong.

~Hanford

Tikifish, if you don't want to put "Shag" in your ebay descriptions try putting "Nude woman".

Also try: "Fez wearing Monkey","Shag wearing Monkey","Monkey wearing Shag" and SPAM!

Wasn't sure where to post this.
(a.)An example of using "nude" AND "Shag" in your title description or
(b.)the lengthy thread about hooters.

You be the judge!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=905265004

[ Edited by: TikiMikey on 2002-09-07 21:05 ]

You know what? That does it!
I was going to ask you guys, "What if we try an experiment using the word 'Shag' to our ebay listing".
I didn't want to do it. Did not even want to ask it. But now I think we have to at least SEE what happens if we list something and put the word 'Shag' in it to detemine what kind of success we have in doing so.

I have a tiki mug I am going to put on ebay. I already have another exactly like it already there with a few hits.

Should I, or should I NOT put that name in my description? That is the question.

Two items, same description, with one alteration: One name.

If we decide yes, then it'll be a one time thing. If you say no, then we wont do it.

I absolutely cannot believe that the mere mentioning of that name can bring more success or more hits to that item than if we did not use it.

Awaiting your replies, suggestions, orders, comments and so on... I'm serious.

-C.
:sheckymug:

Stingray-

I think that's a great experiment! I'd guess the Shag version would get at least 1.5x, no, make that 2x the hits of the "generic" version...and as a one-time gimmick it would make great psuedo-science.

Well, that's my vote. Geez, I love Democracy!

[ Edited by: TikiMikey on 2002-09-07 23:57 ]

[ Edited by: TikiMikey on 2002-09-08 00:01 ]

I think it's a valid experiment too. I was going to tell Hanford I would try it once to see if his theory works, but you beat me to it.

Besides, 9 exact same mugs are a great 'control' group. Should be interesting!

If you are still feeling bad about using the name of Shag for profit, just include a tiny square of SHAG RUG with every auction.

Okay, I'll do it.

Tikifish said "If you are still feeling bad about using the name of Shag for profit, just include a tiny square of SHAG RUG with every auction".
You know, that is really a cute idea! I mean, as long as it does not offend or degrade the accomplishments of Shag. I'll have to think about that one.:wink:

Tikifish, feel free to try it if you want. I mean, two test groups are better than one, right? I mean, if we're gonna be scientific about this, then lets do it correctly.

But let it be known that this is a one time thing. And I personally don't like the idea of any seller intentionally trying to misuse a particular name to capitalize their product.

We'll tally the hits and price and anything else we can think of and see what happens.

Results will follow...
Stay Tuned.

:sheckymug:

...I think she's making an attempt to get the hooters bigger though...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=906006201

I don't think including Shag on anything will make your results higher. It's got to be Tiki-esque. It's not going to work for say, tupperware. It may need to be a painting -- the people who are searching for Shag may be looking for artwork, as opposed to a mug.

~Hanford

[ Edited by: hanford_lemoore on 2002-09-10 20:15 ]

Hey, Stingray if you feel guilty, just put the items with a high reserve, with the intention of not really selling them, no foul no harm! Right? Post them later wording it however you feel best. Just a thought :tiki:

[ Edited by: DawnTiki on 2002-09-10 20:15 ]

OK, so what if you happen to like a piece of ART that has been influenced by Shag, is it immoral to buy it? Or is it a total no no? I have no artistic talent at all, so when I see something that speaks to me, no matter if it's a SHAG or a RAG, I am going to buy it. I don't see how a Shag like painting hurts anyone, "PLEASE" most of these paintings look like my 5 year old did them. You would have to be pretty uninformed to think that these copies are original Shags. Or am I way off base? This is just my unartistic opinion. :D

[ Edited by: DawnTiki on 2002-09-10 22:44 ]

About the rips. It's the difference between a Corvette and a Chevette

Seems the discussion here is the degree to which one artists work resembles anothers, in this case Shag.

Of concern should be to what extent is the influence evident.

For example, the musical sytle of the Blues is not the white man's creation. Yet nobody is concerned that it is the white man that has made the vast majority of money off the black man's art form.

Should we take The Rolling Stones, The Beatles or Stevie Ray Vaughan to task for copying the style of say Robert Johnson?

Nothing is created in a vacuum. Everything is influenced by something or someone else.

Of the 40 plus songs I've written, I can listen to the tracks and pick out artists I've been influenced by such as Zappa, The English Beat, or Hank Williams Sr (I listen to a wide range). But this isn't to say that when I write a song I say 'OK I'm going to write a Zappa-style song or a Return to Forever-sytle song. It's just that these influences creep out onto the tracks.

In summary, it is a fine line to be crossed or avoided when any type of artist is creating something. If when they begin their creative process they say 'I'm going to do a Shag piece' that's wrong.

Conversely, if they do not make that mental statement and Shag creeps out onto the canvas subconsciously, then in my mind, that's alright.

Mudshark

Trustar

BAH.

comparing the rolling stones to the blues in general is in no way a valid analogy to the way these people BLATANTLY COPY Shag's work. even the groups you mentioned are readily discernable by style from each other, whereas the only distinguishing characteristic between Shag and his many ripoffs is that the ripoffs are usually CRAP.

Rain,

I'm sorry if I confused you with my post.

Please note that I did say "In Summary, it is a fine line to be crossed or avoided when any type of artist is creating something. If when they begin their creative process they say "I'm going to do a Shag piece that's wrong"'

I will try to write in a more elementary fashion for the folks in Florida. By the way, how's the voting going down there?

"Ethics in Tiki and Lounge" sounds like a great first year course at University of Swank.

Voltaire said, "If thing has been said and said well, then plagiarize it." I'm not sure if he had Shag in mind or visual arts in general. However I have used Voltaire's quote in my defence on writing issues a few times, always succesfully too.

I digress...

The point to me is really caveat emptor, buyer beware. If it is a knock-off pretending to be the original, then its your problem to see it for what it is and choose your course of action.

Is it right for others to do knock-offs? No. Worki influenced by others? Fine, all work is influenced from somehwere, as previously stated.

Some of the pieces mentioned I would buy. Not because they are an ode to Shag or anything, but because I see artisitic merit in them for myself. I don't know what's art, but I know what I like. I like to think of them as being from a school of art/design of which Shag is a major proponent.

Would I not buy a piece of abstract work from anyone but Picasso? Of course not. Like I could afford to!

So, that's my stance on this issue. Reproductions and re-issues are a whole other story, but nonetheless come under buyer-beware.

I think you may be wanting Colorforms!

On 2002-07-24 18:11, martiki6 wrote:
I was just thinking about a computer application that could allow you to make your own Shags. It could be a simple drag and drop style interface. First, select a background (choice of lounge, airport, hell), then add figures by dragging them from the character selection window on the left (a few dangerous women over here, maybe the devil and a bull over there, maybe Sammy Davis in a globe chair). Then there could be a ramdom snappy title generator that would automatically call it "A Dangerous Trip to the Lounge for a Zombie Made With Banana Liqueur Near a Tiki Surrounded By Shriners in Hell where Wives With Knives Postpone the Apocalypse".

Or maybe Shag could just make Shrinkydinks and you could do the whole thing in the oven.

(signed limited edition Shrinkydinks, of course.)

-martin

Shag is not the only one being "name dropped." I had no idea Mark Ryden was doing weird meat & food pamphlets in the 1950's! EBay is SO educational!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2139020081