Originally posted by: deftron
I don't know what you mean.
You say you don't want unknow local artist.
I just meant that I won't spend $400 on something from an unknown local artist, but I'm perfectly willing to spend $50 on an unknown local artist.
That's what I'm saying. Not someone famous, but maybe
could be recognized, has a portfolio, someone you
can find info on.
I've found that even unknown artists, you can often find info on if you dig.
The artist I had in mind of getting something from (actually a screenprint)
was Steve Kaufman
I'm not a huge fan of that arm of pop art, but those are pretty nice. I try to keep things under $100, but I would consider shelling out more for something I really really really loved.
Originally posted by: FrozenCanadian
I find art is like wine you only like it to show your a sophisticated rich person/moron.
I've never spent more than $100 on a single piece.
I'll tell you what art and wine have in common - there are pretentious snobs who will spend thousands on a painting just to be able to say they spent thousands on it, just as there are those pretentious snobs who will spend spend thousands on a bottle of wine for the same reason....lots of them don't even like the art/wine they're buying.
But you've also got people who actually like the product and know how to find good art or wine cheaply.
Do you have anything hanging on the walls of your home? If you knew you had a choice between spending $20-$50 on a poster print from a department or home store and spending $20-$50 on an original or signed print from a local gallery or auction, why would you buy the crappy poster?
And, not that I really expect any of the art I buy to actually ever be worth anything more than I paid for it, but you can bet than original from a relatively unknown artist has more potential than a crappy Van Gogh reprint.