Show us your SHAG

This threat inspired by 2 awesome posts: "Show us your Witco" and Sushiman's "Are Shag's paintings all a bit different than prints". Please see the links to both posts below.

In Sushiman's post he was contemplating wether to purchase a Shag serigraph. Some people like the simple framing and some like a more extravagant framing. This is what sparked my interest. I would love to see how people frame their Shag serigraphs, original paintings, and even show postcards! Since I started the post I'll go first.

Guest room

Mask of Mohu

Humming Bird Surprize

Tiki Mugs

Matchbook and Swizzle stick collection

http://www.tikicentral.com/viewtopic.php?topic=29742&forum=5&hilite=shag

http://www.tikicentral.com/viewtopic.php?topic=20416&forum=5&hilite=witco

Sorry, bad joke. Yours is actually a very lovingly and tastefully framed collection. I am sure Duke Carter and Holden will be thrilled to see their swizzle sticks are frame-worthy now, I don't see why not, they are two fine examples of the art form.

Here is my Shag, framed by Josh Agle himself. Though by today's standards the thin-bamboo-with-no-matting look might seem somewhat simplistic and passe, in 1996 it was the height of style and rarity!:

I myself decorated my house in the multi-layered clutter look, though I agree that Shag art might work best in sparse and clean modernism environs.

Well I just love shag!

And some day, I'll get the real thing. :D

---

"I would rather have a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy"
All though I probably could use one. :D

---

[ Edited by: tikipaka 2008-09-14 02:23 ]

Awesome and very tasteful display . Super thread . Mahalo .

Still haven't snagged my first Shag , but I'm working on it .

I hate to say it , but whoever answers emails at Shag Corp. must be asleep on the job or inept or both . I have inquired by email several times in the past week and never got a reply .

S

On 2008-09-13 19:41, The Monitors wrote:
This threat inspired by 2 awesome posts: "Show us your Witco" and Sushiman's "Are Shag's paintings all a bit different than prints". Please see the links to both posts below.

In Sushiman's post he was contemplating wether to purchase a Shag serigraph. Some people like the simple framing and some like a more extravagant framing. This is what sparked my interest. I would love to see how people frame their Shag serigraphs, original paintings, and even show postcards! Since I started the post I'll go first.

Sven,

Wow...thanks for sharing. That painting is awesome! I love the astronauts and other toys outside the painting. They compliment it and feel like it's part of it.

I do like the simple bamboo framing too. I think it's fun to frame the early shag stuff in a simple framing and go balls out on the latter ones. BTW, what is the title of the painting.

Sushiman,

You have to post your "Thinking has been done" serigraph once it's framed.

I ended up not buying THE THINKING HAS BEEN DONE print . Once I discovered how different the print looked from the original painting I lost interest . In my eyes dullsville colorwise in comparison .

The first Shag prints I had framed I used colored borders, but then I switched to all white matting. My thought is the colors in Shag's prints are so vibrant and rich, they don't need the colored borders. Below are some of my print from my "Shag room". Soon I'll take some photos of my originals to show how those are framed. Sorry these pics aren't great.

OMG...that truly is a SHAG room. I couldn't tell where the prints ended and the room began because you furniture, wall paint and curtains matched the prints. I can't wait to see your originals. I totally see your point about the simple framing. I just purchased a Shag serigraph and I'm still deciding on what type of framing to do. I guess that's why I was inspired to write this post. I hope more people follow and post more pics.

Whoa, those are some pretty awesome rooms Monitors and Tiki Riviera! I'm pretty jealous, but I just can't fit anything shoebox sized apartment. If I put up a Shag, I won't have anywhere to hang my shirt!

Hey Paranoid,

You can walk around NEKKID around the house, whilst you admire you SHAG. Try it. It's very liberating. LOL.

tiki-riviera,

That is truly impressive and completely fantastic!

Here is my humble contribution:

Like you commented about some of your pieces,
I also used to frame with corresponding colors in the mats,
but that feels too "Granimals" to me now. Hanging sets of prints in
black frames with white mats make them all seem to be part of a series,
at least to me. Also, I collect other artists aside from Shag, and it
ties all the work together cohesively.

It also puts the focus on the work and not the framing.

Originals are one of a kind, and one of a kind framing makes sense
for those, but especially prints that have white borders for the signature
and numbering...it just seems so clean, elegant, and absent of noise to
go black and white.

Also, I will defer to Shag how to frame his prints...see here:

:wink:

Gromit Fan

[ Edited by: Gromit_Fan 2008-09-19 21:54 ]

Hi Gromit,

Wow...I've always been a fan of "Welcome to your Glorious Lifestyle" print and that is amazing. I seriously hope Shag makes his future prints large like that. I don't mind paying more for the effect. I was fortunate enough to see the original at BSFA and just had a blast getting lost in the painting.

I'm also beginning to see that the plain white matting with the simple black frame seems to be the more popular choice.

The Monitors,

I hope they release more large prints, too!
One huge Shag serigraph is NOT enough! :)
Beside, why should the Aussies get the only giant print?
Clearly, the sales of "Welcome to Our Glorious Lifestyle" have
to show Shagmart there is a demand for some truly huge Shag prints.
("The Extraordinary Evening" came close, but still sold out quickly.)

As for framing, I think what Link at Frame Fetish creates is amazing.
I can also see why, in a Tiki-filled room, that has to be the more "fun" choice,
and works better for keeping the lounge look going. As clean and elegant as
white matting and a black frame is, it might also read as "sterile" in a
full-tilt Tiki lounge.

best,

Gromit Fan

On 2008-09-19 10:51, The Monitors wrote:
Hi Gromit,

Wow...I've always been a fan of "Welcome to your Glorious Lifestyle" print and that is amazing. I seriously hope Shag makes his future prints large like that. I don't mind paying more for the effect. I was fortunate enough to see the original at BSFA and just had a blast getting lost in the painting.

I'm also beginning to see that the plain white matting with the simple black frame seems to be the more popular choice.

[ Edited by: Gromit_Fan 2008-09-20 09:43 ]

Below are my two originals. The first was a commission piece my sister had framed. The second came framed from the Show at Copro Nason gallery. The way Shag has his originals framed I believe really enhances the painting and makes the colors pop. In contrast I like the prints with plain white borders, go figure. Sorry again about the poor quality of the pics..

HI Tiki-Riviera,

OMG...you have the Frank Sinatra, "Broken Bottle" painting!!! It has Frank "the chairman of the board" Sinatra, it has tikis, it has a broken bottle. Everything in life we need to live. I really like the thick black bamboo frame with the minimal blue "matting" or what ever that thing is called.

Secondly, I really like the commissioned piece your sister has. Man, she can pass that on to her kids and that will be an awesome heirloom.

Seriously, thank you for sharing

HI Grog,

I love that painting of Derek Yaniger. I was fortunate enough to pick one up too and I did the same as you and left it be. I have to be honest tough, after seeing how "Humming Bird Surprise" and "Mask of Mohu" turned out, I've been entertaining the idea of framing Derek's painting. What do you think?

DEREK!!! GROG thought that was SHAG. GROG always get those two mixed up.

LOL...GROG need post SHAG

Need to share with world.

Monitors wait

My view in bathroom 2

My view from the master bathroom

Shag in a bag!!!!!!!! been to busy to frame,but I need to step up my game seeing the others on this thread.

And since DEREK is on this thread now........keep them natural baby...........GOT WOOD?

HI Wildsville Man,

What an impressive collection. I love your "Brown Mug" Shag serigraph. The brown frame looks simply elegant. Most people choose a black frame, but your brown frame and matting on the "Three Suns" is very catchy.

I'm glad to hear that you're planing on eventually framing your Shag original, "Drum Signals". It felt like blasphemy when I took "Humming Bird Surprise" and "Mask of Mohu" to the framers, because I know Shag was trying to make a statement with his choice of framing --or lack of framing. But I just love how they turned out. You have to show us the painting once it is framed.

It seems no one likes to frame their Derek paintings. I love all 3 of them, especially, "Wildsville Man." Just curious, you mentioned that your Shag is in the bedroom, where do you keep your Derek?

---

The Monitors

[ Edited by: The Monitors 2008-09-21 23:17 ]

Right Now Shag Prints Get the Bathrooms,

The Original is in the TIKI HUT ROOM with a SAM GAMBINO

DEREK HAS THE LIVINGROOM WITH WILDSVILLE OVER THE FIREPLACE.

MASTERBEDROOM HAS DEREK (VODOOSVILLE) TIM BISKUP,AND DOUG HORNE

SAM GAMBINO AND MILES THOMSPSON GET THE HALL WAY

SAM GAMBINO BEDROOM 2

AND MAYBE SOON A ROBB HAMEL!!!!!!!! HOPE THAT WASN"T TOO OF SUBJECT!!!!!!!

Wildville Man,

That is an impressive collection. I love both your Sam Gambinos, but 2 things that stand out to me is the Miles Thompson and the Tim Biskup.

Thanks for sharing.

After listening to the discussion on this post, I do see the beauty of a simple white matting and black frame, so that's what I chose for my recent Shag print, "Blue Seascape".

Did anyone else frame anything lately? I would love to see it.

ok, i just don't get it. i like shag's style too, but why would anybody buy a print for $200-400? it's a print! it's just a poster! they should cost about $20 each! i think tcers should be buying original art from our many talented tc artists. you can get an amazing original piece by ken ruzik for less than a poster by shag.

On 2008-10-17 11:01, The Monitors wrote:
After listening to the discussion on this post, I do see the beauty of a simple white matting and black frame, so that's what I chose for my recent Shag print, "Blue Seascape".

Did anyone else frame anything lately? I would love to see it.

While not a painting , a serigraph is most decidedly not a poster either .

A serigraph is a silk screened image. With a serigraph the original oil painting is scanned and separated digitally into each color found in the original. A separate silk screen is created for each and every color that was scanned. Each silk screen is precisely placed over the serigraph paper, and then by hand squeegee, paint for a specific color is applied. This single application of one paint color must then dry for at least 24 to 48 hours before the next color paint can be applied. It can take a serigrapher up to 3 months to produce 1 run of as many as 250 serigraphs of the same image.
Serigraphs are produced in small numbers and they are costly to produce . No comparison to a poster .

On 2008-10-17 12:57, kingstiedye wrote:
ok, i just don't get it. i like shag's style too, but why would anybody buy a print for $200-400? it's a print! it's just a poster! they should cost about $20 each! i think tcers should be buying original art from our many talented tc artists. you can get an amazing original piece by ken ruzik for less than a poster by shag.

While not a painting , a serigraph is most decidedly not a poster either .

A serigraph is a silk screened image. With a serigraph the original oil painting is scanned and separated digitally into each color found in the original. A separate silk screen is created for each and every color that was scanned. Each silk screen is precisely placed over the serigraph paper, and then by hand squeegee, paint for a specific color is applied. This single application of one paint color must then dry for at least 24 to 48 hours before the next color paint can be applied. It can take a serigrapher up to 3 months to produce 1 run of as many as 250 serigraphs of the same image.
Serigraphs are produced in small numbers and they are costly to produce . No comparison to a poster .

did shag make the seriograph, or some minimum wage teenager at a poster shop?
p.s. still looks like a poster to me.

[ Edited by: kingstiedye 2008-10-17 17:27 ]

Hi Kingstiedye,

I guess to answer your question the cost of anything is what the market is willing to bear. There's a lot of people out there that consider shag as a "must have".

I recently saw the Shag documentary, "Sophisticated Misfits" and in the bonus portion of the DVD, it shows the anatomy of a Shag serigraph. Jeff Wasserman painstakingly silk screening each of the prints, and there's a lot of possible errors that occur in the way --especially if there's 10 colors involved. You can see Jeff wearing a back brace while doing the whole process, because it is very labor intensive.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate up and coming TC artists out there too, but if they become popular their art / serigraphs will also be in the $300 - $400 range.

sushiman and the monitors, thank you for your replies to my question. i understand the effort these take now. however, i still think original art is the way to go. if tcers would stop buying shag prints and buy original art from our tc artists, they might become as popular as shag. and you'd have a hand painted unique piece, not a copy done by jeff wasserman.

kingstiedye,

That you think an original painting by an unknown artist that paints in a tiki
theme is a reason to buy it over limited edition fine art print by an established,
respected, and in-demand, artist shows a complete lack of even a rudimentary understanding of
the art market and collectible fine art prints and what they are to the art world.

Your argument would support that buying an original painting of Marilyn Monroe
by an artist no one has ever heard of is better than buying
one of Warhol's limited edition serigraphs of Marilyn
that sells for upwards of tens of thousands of dollars.

You ignore the fact that:
People may actually like Warhol's style, more than they actually like Marilyn.
There is an established market and demand for Warhol's work.

I like Shag's style. I love Shag's sense of humor (most of the time),
the implied narrative, the mix of tiki and consumerism,
and his use of basic retro figural styles.
I get his work. It makes me smile.

Just because he paints tiki-themed works and some TC artists
paint tiki-themed works does not mean I like their style, too.

Some bottles of wine cost a hundred dollars or more.
Some wine comes in a box and costs a lot less.
Appreciating one does not mean appreciating the other
just because they're both wine.

That you think an original by an unknown artist
is better than buying a serigraph of an established artist
just because both have Tiki elements in there work is completely
absent of understanding how art impacts people and how someone like
Shag can take elements and put them together in a way that is almost
indefinably sublime, and another artist can take similar elements and
make a work lacking completely that appeal,
though we may not even understand why we prefer
one artist's work over another.

Also, many artists consider their prints the final originals,
because they work in woodblock, lithography, and silkscreen.
That you don't find value in prints betrays your ignorance of the subject.

Regarding pricing:
If I ever need to sell as Shag print (heaven forbid),
odds are, if I list it on eBay, I will get more for it than I paid for it.

As noted recently, a Shag print I recently bought for $450 had another one
within the same edition sell for approximately $1450 on eBay.

I may pay $300 for a Shag print,
but I can also resell it for that or more, if I have to.
The same could not be said of an artist unknown outside of TC.

One could say, buying a TC artists work, and then needing to resell it
at some point, would ultimately mean the TC artists works cost more than
the Shag because the resale value is not there for the TC artist.

The ability to recoup the purchase price is not there.

Lastly, assuming a TC artist will become well known and
have their work jump in value, is an assumption that the
post modern art world market data does not support.
The number of emerging artists who get
collected and have the value increase
is very few and far in between.

On 2008-10-17 18:39, kingstiedye wrote:
sushiman and the monitors, thank you for your replies to my question. i understand the effort these take now. however, i still think original art is the way to go. if tcers would stop buying shag prints and buy original art from our tc artists, they might become as popular as shag. and you'd have a hand painted unique piece, not a copy done by jeff wasserman.

[ Edited by: Gromit_Fan 2008-10-17 23:04 ]

The Monitors,

Wow! GREAT PAD! Love your style!

Best,

Gromit

On 2008-10-17 11:01, The Monitors wrote:
After listening to the discussion on this post, I do see the beauty of a simple white matting and black frame, so that's what I chose for my recent Shag print, "Blue Seascape".

Did anyone else frame anything lately? I would love to see it.

geez gromit, that's quite a personal attack. if you think ken ruzik, miles thompson, tiki tony, crazy al, thorsten hasenkamm, thor and brad parker are unknown hacks, then you're showing your ignorance. you probably think britney spears is better than radiohead cuz she sold more cds. yes, shag is trendy now. i suggest you sell all of your prints now, cuz they'll be worthless in 10-15 years. i'll still have my fine art and you'll have worthless posters.

oh yeah, as to the value of my art, i don't give a shit. i buy what i like from people i like. i'm not buying prints hoping i can make a buck someday. the pieces i own are mine only. 200 other people don't have the same thing hanging on their walls.

---

[ Edited by: kingstiedye 2008-10-17 23:30 ]

Wow, taking me out of context.

I buy what I like, too. It just doesn't happen to be what you like.

I clearly am not buying with hopes of making a buck and if you read
my other posts you'd understand that. I would have already sold that
GL print for three times what I paid for it, if that were true.

If you care about owning an original one of a kind,
("the pieces i own are mine only.")
then I can see why you buy what you buy.
Rarity of a piece is not a factor
for me in my purchasing decisions, and
I actually LIKE that 200 other Shag collectors have the same piece.

I love that sushiman got his "Raft of the Medusa,"
a print I also own, and I want to see how he framed it,
and it is fun to talk about the those things
about the piece in the same manner folks enjoy talking about
a movie they both saw over the weekend.

I could not care less how many other people own it,
which clearly you do.

And my Shag prints will never be "worthless posters" (your words)
to me so long as I enjoy them as they are displayed on my walls,
which has nothing to do with their monetary worth or their edition sizes.

You came in here and degraded Shag's prints,
as overpriced "posters."
("it's a print! it's just a poster! they should cost about $20 each!")

Well, the market value of prints is part of the dialog of collecting
fine art prints, and it can be fun to see a print one owns go up in value.
I think of it as being akin to enjoying the fact that a movie you really
like has a good run at the box office making lots of money.

I know art dealers that sell Warhol serigraphs for $50,000 or more.
But, again, according to you, that should sell for $20 because it
is "just a print!".

Technically, most of Shag's prints are NOT posters. They are graphics.
Yes, there is a difference.

Nearly all are printed on thick archival 100% cotton rag,
using fad-resistant, archival grade pigments,
and the process is very expensive, and then
when one is printing 200 in the edition instead of 2000,
the cost per print to the publisher and artist goes up significantly.

Finally, I don't quite know why someone would come into a
thread of Shag art collectors and then crap on
the price his work, and the fine art of printmaking,
and then expect a warm response.

On 2008-10-17 23:10, kingstiedye wrote:
oh yeah, as to the value of my art, i don't give a shit. i buy what i like from people i like. i'm not buying prints hoping i can make a buck someday. the pieces i own are mine only. 200 other people don't have the same thing hanging on their walls.

---

[ Edited by: Gromit_Fan 2008-10-18 08:05 ]

On 2008-10-18 07:19, Gromit_Fan wrote:

Finally, I don't quite know why someone would come into a
thread of Shag art collectors and then crap on
the price his work, and the fine art of printmaking,
and then expect a warm response.

i didn't expect a warm response. i was looking for an answer which sushiman and the monitors gave without attacking me as ignorant. my apologies to the monitors.

So let me get this straight...
The Monitors start a thread about TCers showing how they frame and mat their Shags and you turn it into an ugly mess dissing Shag and the quality of his work. If that's your intention, start your own thread and leave this one alone.

Cause a reproduction of any quality is just as good as the Mona Lisa. :roll:

They are posters in the sense that they are a million times beneath an original. I love how people will always bring up all the mindless steps in the process of a silkscreen. Maybe there is a little work involved but there is work involved in the shoveling of dirt I did yesterday. But that's nothing to frame in a gallery, the dirt that is. The time part of silk screening is free and effortless.

Back to Shag than. I have a $100 print and it's cool for what it is. (Actually the frame is more artistic than the print itself. Cost three times more too.) But I will probably never get another one. Too many TC artist making good stuff to what is cheap as far as art prices go. And the artist here on Tiki Central are the top artist in their field.

[ Edited by: teaKEY 2008-10-19 08:05 ]

On 2008-10-18 23:53, TikiPug wrote:
So let me get this straight...
The Monitors start a thread about TCers showing how they frame and mat their Shags and you turn it into an ugly mess dissing Shag and the quality of his work. If that's your intention, start your own thread and leave this one alone.

well, i agree with you this time, pug. except i did not dis shag's work, only jeff wasserman's. i regret messing up the monitors thread. i hope they will accept my apology and i do feel like i learned a lesson.

---

[ Edited by: kingstiedye 2008-10-19 10:13 ]

On 2008-10-19 07:58, teaKEY wrote:
Cause a reproduction of any quality is just as good as the Mona Lisa. :roll:

The above argument takes the original discussion so
far out of context as to be laughable.

Had DaVinci collaborated on prints of his work,
then those would be VERY valuable works of art now,
both in terms of monetary value and in terms of art itself.

Just look to Rembrandt's etchings,
of which there are multiple copies, as a example of this.
Those etchings ARE THE ORIGINALS.

They are posters in the sense that they are a million times beneath an original.

Check out the print collections of any museum.
Try telling those art historians and museum curators
that the prints in their collections are
"million times beneath an original."
Try telling that to Andy Warhol's estate and brokers.
Tell that to Elena Millie at the Library on Congress.

Statements like that would get you laughed out of the gallery or auction house. :lol:

And for clarification, a poster is a specific kind of print:
it is a print with advertising on it.
All posters are prints, but not all prints are posters.
Prints absent of any advertising, like most of Shag's, are not posters.
"J is for Jetsetter" and "Music After Midnight" are examples of Shag posters.
"Glorious Lifestyle" and "The Raft of the Medusa"
are examples of Shag prints that are not posters.

You are using the term "poster" for its connotative properties but
not its denotative definition; Most serious art folks do
make a distinction between the two and use the term "poster"
in a denotational fashion.

I do understand what you are saying in terms of cases where there is an original,
like in the case of most of Shag's work, and then there is the serigraph
reproduction. Those are "just" prints, but they are, art wise,
an authentic piece of fine art, and worthy of their place within his oeuvre.

Limited edition fine art prints, made in collaboration with the artist,
signed by the artist, are also the mode of art acquisition
that the average income person can afford, enjoy, and collect.

It also opens up Shag's art to a wider audience, increases awareness
of his work to the larger art world, and further establishes his place
in post modern art history, and the lowbrow movement specifically.

None of the above excludes Shag's prints from being considered real, fine art.

Look at Dali, Picasso, and Liechtenstein: all have prints
that are collected and coveted by museums and galleries.

I love how people will always bring up all the mindless steps in the process of a silkscreen. Maybe there is a little work involved but there is work involved in the shoveling of dirt I did yesterday. But that's nothing to frame in a gallery, the dirt that is. The time part of silk screening is free and effortless.

Silk-screening is an art creation process.
The effort it takes is not what makes it art.
The quality of the reproduction and the skills involved
of the specific silk-screener are.

kingstiedye's statment: except i did not dis shag's work, only jeff wasserman's.

Again, this is a profoundly ignorant comment.
Wasserman is one of the most respected print makers in the United States.
It is tantamount to saying, "Babe Ruth was a crappy baseball player."
You can post it, but expect anyone who knows anything about baseball
to call the comment "ignorant."

Jeff Wasserman has screened for some pretty significant artists,
and those artists often consider their prints the final, multiples, original,
with the iterations before that just part of the process in getting there.

That is why Jeff Wasserman is considered the premier silk-screener,
and why not all silk-screened images are created equal
and often have varying levels of merit in terms of craftsmanship.

Shag and Douglas Nason specifically sought out Wasserman
when they wanted to increase the quality of the prints they were releasing.
Frankly, some of Wasserman's prints are holding up better over time
than than the originals they are reproducing.

(I get a little worried, personally,
about Shag's use of vinyl paint as a media, but maybe it is
archival grade vinyl. I don't know. I'd also like to see him using
canvas and not board as a more durable, enduring substrate.
There are a lot of artists from the 1970s that we no longer have
good originals for, as they often used media like house paint.)

Something to consider:
Shag also creates his images on his Mac and then reproduces them
on board or whatever substrate he is using at that time.
One could argue THE ORIGINAL is on his Mac's hard drive
and everything else is a second or third generation copy of that.

I know more than few modern art historians that would argue that point.
Some artists have hired others to do the physical labor of creating their
work. It is the concept that is theirs. The actual physical creation
of the art can be done by others and does not mean that it
is not the artist's original art. Look at Rodin as an example of this.

Back to Shag than. I have a $100 print and it's cool for what it is. (Actually the frame is more artistic than the print itself. Cost three times more too.) But I will probably never get another one. Too many TC artist making good stuff to what is cheap as far as art prices go. And the artist here on Tiki Central are the top artist in their field.

If the TC artists are what you love, that is great.
You're at the right site, BUT...

...this is the wrong thread to be posting that comment in isn't it?

Let me clear about this:
The instigator of this argument about the merits
of prints vs originals, came in this topic and posted,
"i think tcers should be buying original art from our many talented tc artists."

I think everyone should buy whatever art they want.

I think tc folks should be able to have a thread where
they share their affection for collecting a specific artist's work,
and not have someone come in, crap in the thread,
call the art they are collecting and framing "worthless,"
and post an edict that he thinks we all need to abide by, which is
contrary to the posted topic and intent of the thread itself.

I thought Tiki Central folks were much more
"live and let live" and waaaay cooler than that.

Why not create a "Show us your TC Artist Originals Collection" thread?
Why not start that topic for those who want to express their admiration for
that work in there rather than pollute this thread?

I am sure there would be lots of folks posting positive comments
and fantastic art images in there. And, frankly, I, too,
would love to see a thread of all the great tiki art by TC artists.

However, I wouldn't go in that thread and start posting,
"everyone needs to be buying Shag serigraphs"
and start dissing the artistic merits of the the TC artists.

I would be more courteous than that.

(Heck, I would also love to see a "Derek" thread now, having seen his art,
which is also seems decidedly pretty cool and fun!)

:drink: peace out,

Gromit Fan

[ Edited by: Gromit_Fan 2008-10-20 07:42 ]

Gromit ,

I decided - at least for now- to leave the print as is in the seller's 1" black metal frame with approx. 2" black mat. This pic shows the serigraph in the frame , but the whole thing was wrapped in plastic by the framer . At least you will have the general idea of what it looks like . I haven't taken any pics yet .

Here's my SHAG (house) ....

( actually I don't own a Shag, he owns part of me! :)

---

Bamboo Ben
Custom Tropical Decor
I build stuff for you!
Google search me and see!

[ Edited by: revbambooben 2008-10-20 09:38 ]

Hey Sushiman,

Dude...sweet. I didn't think black on black would look good, but it does. It just nice to see different executions of framing. Please post again once you hang it and occupies your living space.

Hey Ben,

LOL...I think Shag owns a little piece of all of us.

Here's mine: Conga Girls at Rest

Artist signed prints are great! I've purchased several from fantastic artists in the scene - Von Franco, Doug Horne, Derek, Bosko.... and I'm proud to own them.

[ Edited by: TikiDiego 2008-10-20 10:21 ]

The Monitors and sushiman,

I was just thinking the same thing (re: black matting).
I had doubts about black matting looking "too heavy,"
but "Raft of the Medusa" is such a deeply colored print,
that all the black matting is brightening it up.

I think I will use black matting in a similar fashion
when I get mine "Raft of Medusa" framed.

Thanks for the image!

RevBambooBen,
Gotta tell ya, that photo of you with Shag is great,
and you look quite handsome in it.

On 2008-10-20 09:15, The Monitors wrote:
Hey Sushiman,

Dude...sweet. I didn't think black on black would look good, but it does. It just nice to see different executions of framing. Please post again once you hang it and occupies your living space.

Hey Ben,

LOL...I think Shag owns a little piece of all of us.

[ Edited by: Gromit_Fan 2008-10-20 14:16 ]

I really like that thin strip of black around the outside of the print
followed by the much lighter mat on top.

hmmmm. Gonna have to rethink some of my framing choices, clearly.

Also, gotta say "Conga Girls at Rest" didn't jump out at me as an image
until seeing it "in real life" and in your setting and framing.

Adding another to my "must buy" list. sigh

:)

On 2008-10-20 10:18, TikiDiego wrote:
Here's mine: Conga Girls at Rest

Artist signed prints are great! I've purchased several from fantastic artists in the scene - Von Franco, Doug Horne, Derek, Bosko.... and I'm proud to own them.

[ Edited by: TikiDiego 2008-10-20 10:21 ]

[ Edited by: Gromit_Fan 2008-10-20 10:32 ]