|
Post by justdave on Mar 21, 2016 10:26:20 GMT
We are proud to announce an exciting and exclusive Lenticular launch from the incredible Eelus - available from 31st March. The work marks the first in a new series of exclusive lenticular releases, and for this launch, the artist has decided to re-visit his most iconic and sought after work 'Not Everything Is So Black & White' 4 EDITIONS AVAILABLE Name: Not Everything Is So Black & White Size: 57.1cm x 80cm Version 1 - Lenticular 3D Version 2 - 3D Variant (rain changes colour) Edition Size: Each from an edition of 50 Price: £950 Name: Not Everything Is So Black & White 'Big Daddy' 3D Size: 100cm x 140cm Version 3 - Lenticular 3D Version 4 - 3D Variant (rain changes colour) Edition Size: Each from an Edition of 2 Price: £3500 http://instagram.com/p/BDNf5McgVul
|
|
|
Post by sturban on Mar 21, 2016 12:05:54 GMT
I like the original print and I'm sure this will look good, but I would be pretty pissed if I had recently paid big money for the original run. I don't get why so many now use lenticular. I had a dinosaur ruler 30+ years ago which looked great, but not so sure lenticulars work so well in 'urban' art. 'the first in a new series' so I presume ATR and WTWNFU will also follow.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Plip on Mar 21, 2016 14:50:35 GMT
I like the original print and I'm sure this will look good, but I would be pretty pissed if I had recently paid big money for the original run. I don't get why so many now use lenticular. I had a dinosaur ruler 30+ years ago which looked great, but not so sure lenticulars work so well in 'urban' art. 'the first in a new series' so I presume ATR and WTWNFU will also follow. I don't know how much lenticulars cost to get made, but you see them in the pound and discount stores, so it can't be that expensive. If there are mass produced lenticular images of jumping dolphins, shaman and howling wolves, etc, I'm really surprised that some of the more better known urban art images haven't already been turned into pretty 3D souvenirs. Tacky, yes. But that's showbiz. I don't have a problem with artists revisiting old works or images and utilising new technology as it becomes available to them. Who's to say that Eelus didn't have a lenticular in mind when he released his original NEISBW? Or scratch and sniff? Or hologram? Of course, I'm saying this from the position of never having paid hundreds (or thousands) of pounds for one of his original prints. Anyway, more holograms. Like the ones we used to get in packets of cereal. But larger. Same price though.
|
|
|
Post by dazarino on Mar 21, 2016 15:08:05 GMT
Can't agree that this medium won't work, Adam neate lenticular prints are bloody epic and look very effective. The flower hologram piece blows my tiny little mind as well.
Maybe the quality might not be up to elms standard though
|
|
|
Post by sturban on Mar 21, 2016 15:12:55 GMT
I like the original print and I'm sure this will look good, but I would be pretty pissed if I had recently paid big money for the original run. I don't get why so many now use lenticular. I had a dinosaur ruler 30+ years ago which looked great, but not so sure lenticulars work so well in 'urban' art. 'the first in a new series' so I presume ATR and WTWNFU will also follow. I don't know how much lenticulars cost to get made, but you see them in the pound and discount stores, so it can't be that expensive. If there are mass produced lenticular images of jumping dolphins, shaman and howling wolves, etc, I'm really surprised that some of the more better known urban art images haven't already been turned into pretty 3D souvenirs. Tacky, yes. But that's showbiz. I don't have a problem with artists revisiting old works or images and utilising new technology as it becomes available to them. Who's to say that Eelus didn't have a lenticular in mind when he released his original NEISBW? Or scratch and sniff? Or hologram? Of course, I'm saying this from the position of never having paid hundreds (or thousands) of pounds for one of his original prints. Anyway, more holograms. Like the ones we used to get in packets of cereal. But larger. Same price though. I've just spoken to POW and Banksy's back catalogue will be available soon as a limited edition Lenticular
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Mar 21, 2016 18:25:56 GMT
remember those old lenticular baseball cards from the 80's? those were sweet! mustaches that big really need to move to be loved
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Mar 21, 2016 18:27:40 GMT
got this one from the Museum of Sex in NYC. seems very appropriate
|
|
|
Post by sturban on Mar 21, 2016 18:45:04 GMT
Can't agree that this medium won't work, Adam neate lenticular prints are bloody epic and look very effective. The flower hologram piece blows my tiny little mind as well. Maybe the quality might not be up to elms standard though Never seen the neate ones, although I've seen Hirst and Opie's in the flesh and they do look good. I just don't think these will stand the test of time. Maybe I'm just turning in to an old fucker, but I prefer old fashioned screens over this type of medium all day long.
|
|
|
Post by IggyWiggy on Mar 21, 2016 19:09:34 GMT
I like the original print and I'm sure this will look good, but I would be pretty pissed if I had recently paid big money for the original run. I don't get why so many now use lenticular. I had a dinosaur ruler 30+ years ago which looked great, but not so sure lenticulars work so well in 'urban' art. 'the first in a new series' so I presume ATR and WTWNFU will also follow. Pics of the ruler?
|
|
|
Post by treweman on Mar 21, 2016 20:14:41 GMT
Can't agree that this medium won't work, Adam neate lenticular prints are bloody epic and look very effective. The flower hologram piece blows my tiny little mind as well. Maybe the quality might not be up to elms standard though Never seen the neate ones, although I've seen Hirst and Opie's in the flesh and they do look good. I just don't think these will stand the test of time. Maybe I'm just turning in to an old fucker, but I prefer old fashioned screens over this type of medium all day long. I own The Wine Drinker by Neate, and can't imagine it as a traditional print. It is quite spectacular. (https://vimeo.com/80248612) To be honest, Elms calls it a "dimensional" print rather than a lenticular one, and I don't notice image changes as one moves from one side to the other. But the colors are crazy rich and deep, and I very much like the modern feel of it. Like you, sturban, I think that art shouldn't be about gimmicks or fads, and that 3D lenticular prints run a strong risk of being just that. Nonetheless, IMO The Wine Drinker will stand the test of tine, and still look terrific years from now. God knows, it was expensive, so it damn well better age well.
|
|
|
Post by sturban on Mar 21, 2016 20:22:00 GMT
I like the original print and I'm sure this will look good, but I would be pretty pissed if I had recently paid big money for the original run. I don't get why so many now use lenticular. I had a dinosaur ruler 30+ years ago which looked great, but not so sure lenticulars work so well in 'urban' art. 'the first in a new series' so I presume ATR and WTWNFU will also follow. Pics of the ruler? This is not my ruler, but if my memory is correct, it looks very similar. My ruler was destroyed many moons ago by spitting on the paper on the back and rubbing it until it came away from the plastic(please do not do this at home with your NEISBAW, it's not recommended).
|
|
|
Post by natstan on Mar 21, 2016 23:31:16 GMT
This is not my ruler, but if my memory is correct, it looks very similar. My ruler was destroyed many moons ago by spitting on the paper on the back and rubbing it until it came away from the plastic(please do not do this at home with your NEISBAW, it's not recommended). Wow this sure brings back childhood memories...
|
|
|
Post by sturban on Mar 21, 2016 23:52:32 GMT
This is not my ruler, but if my memory is correct, it looks very similar. My ruler was destroyed many moons ago by spitting on the paper on the back and rubbing it until it came away from the plastic(please do not do this at home with your NEISBAW, it's not recommended). Wow this sure brings back childhood memories... This guy knows more about the amazing ruler
|
|
|
Post by sturban on Mar 21, 2016 23:59:42 GMT
I didn't know Ron English had made Abraham Obama into one
|
|
|
Post by justdave on Mar 22, 2016 16:28:24 GMT
From Eelus Facebook page-
I've been away on a top secret mission in an undisclosed part of the world for the past week, and have returned to all kinds of emails and feedback about the decision to release a second version of Not Everything Is So Black & White.
To try and answer some of your questions and give you some insight into this decision, I'll paste a reply I've just sent to one such email:
I'd wondered for a long time what NEISBW would look like as a lenticular 3D but the high production costs prevented me from exploring the idea. I was then approached by Art Republic who asked if I'd be interested in producing a series of lenticular works with them picking up the bill for production.
So to start things off and for me to get my head around the process of the medium, which is something completely new to me, it seemed the perfect opportunity to experiment with NEISBW and finally satisfy my curiosity. We were originally only going to produce around 10 and sell them privately without making too much of a fuss. The whole reason for this first step was to literally test the medium and discover how things work, but once I got the proofs back I was so blown away by the quality I thought it would be a huge shame to keep the edition so exclusive.
I know there are many many collectors out there desperate to get their hands on one of the original prints but can't due to the high secondary market costs. This gives them the opportunity to pick up an official version at a more affordable price.
At the end of the day, after doing this for the last 10+ years I've learned that you can never please everyone, and whatever you do there'll always be a handful of angry and upset people for one reason or another, no matter how honest and sincere your actions are. So I just like to please myself and do what I feel is right for me to satisfy my own creative curiosity.
We could have released 10, sold them privately and quietly to then be criticised by the many upset people who would have loved to pick one up, or we release a higher edition to allow more people to finally get their hands on a copy and still be criticised by people who only see the original edition as a financial investment and are worried about losing money.
I personally feel that re-releasing the image in a brand new medium with slightly tweaked artwork shouldn't effect the current secondary market of the original edition. And I also feel that any artist should be allowed to re-visit older works when new mediums and technologies become available to them without falling under such dramatic criticism. It's their right, as the owners and creators of the artwork to be able to explore whatever they feel necessary.
We won't be releasing ATR or WTNFU in the same medium as I'm not interested in seeing them produced in 3D. There's one more classic image that I've always thought would work well as a moving lenticular, and I might explore that down the line, other than that, all future lenticular and 3D releases will be completely new designs.
I hope that clears things up but please get back to me if you have any more questions. I don't personally feel I need to justify any of my decisions but for the most part I'm happy to have an open dialogue with the people genuinely interested in collecting my work.
Thanks again.
E.
|
|
|
Post by treweman on Mar 22, 2016 17:18:38 GMT
Maybe this makes everyone else feel better, but IMO all I see is a selfish wanker. A blatant statement that his fans and supporters don't matter, and don't enter into his decision making.
|
|
|
Post by Still Hate Thatcher on Mar 22, 2016 18:00:04 GMT
Maybe this makes everyone else feel better, but IMO all I see is a selfish wanker. A blatant statement that his fans and supporters don't matter, and don't enter into his decision making. Why should his 'fans and supporters' enter into his decision making?
|
|
|
Post by dazarino on Mar 22, 2016 18:29:07 GMT
I think it's a great release and gives fans another opportunity to get hold of a classic piece
|
|
|
Post by sɐǝpı ɟo uoıʇɐɹǝpǝɟ on Mar 22, 2016 19:11:46 GMT
truth is, reselling an old image in a "new way" isn't new... though it does seem it may have gravitated to this scene of late (purple GWB anyone?). if people buy them, then it will continue to happen. if they don't, it won't
my personal feeling is that an artist should move on... if they're reselling old images it means they aren't focusing on new ideas and that's a disservice to both themselves and their fans. but at the same time, if it makes the artist a living and their fans happy, more power to 'em
|
|
|
Post by alittle on Mar 22, 2016 20:01:42 GMT
I think it's lame to re-hash old imagery, but that's what effectively what he's done with the entire series of this crap anyways.
The quote that gets me is "So I just like to please myself and do what I feel is right for me to satisfy my own creative curiosity".
I'm not sure how selling 104 more copies of an existing image across 4 variations is required to "satisfy one's own creative curiousity".
Shouldn't the act of you know, simply creating the piece, be enough to satisfy that curiousity? For most artists, well what I feel to be "true artists", monetization is separated from the creative process.
|
|
|
Post by j0hnny on Mar 22, 2016 22:59:57 GMT
Maybe this makes everyone else feel better, but IMO all I see is a selfish wanker. A blatant statement that his fans and supporters don't matter, and don't enter into his decision making. It's his art and he should do what he wants without anyone affecting the path he chooses, especially from people who are only profiting off of his back anyway. Why should he decide to protect people who sell his art for over 1k when he took a cut of a couple hundred?
|
|
|
Post by jeezuzjonessnr on Mar 23, 2016 1:36:14 GMT
How come the second one is way more than double the price but not double the size?
|
|
|
Post by alittle on Mar 23, 2016 2:32:11 GMT
BECAUSE IT'S SO RARE!!
|
|
|
Post by Still Hate Thatcher on Mar 23, 2016 8:10:46 GMT
Do you own one of the original run? I'm not judging, I'm curious. You talk about 'real art' not monetising the product but that's, well, absurd. The minute your Mam stops sticking your drawings on the fridge and you sell a piece, it's done. It seems to me the argument being made is that the artist should protect others who have chosen to 'invest' (another absurd term for the art most of us collect) in a piece. I have a Heartbreak in Brooklyn on my wall, one form the original FairQ run. Faile made 250 small version available. Should this detract from my enjoyment of it? Eelus has often done multiple colour ways of images, it's pretty much his modus operandi. I won't buy one of these because I think the image is lazy, juvenile, and I hate 3D work. However, I imagine the lenticular could be striking and provide a talking point for those who need such a thing. It's like criticising a bus driver for going the same route every day. To expect more of them is misguided. If you want to call the shots, you get a taxi...
|
|
|
Post by alittle on Mar 23, 2016 15:03:48 GMT
No, I don't own a print from the original run, nor do I own anything from Eelus. Seems like a nice enough guy, but always saw him as more of a graphic designer and his art never did anything for me.
Perhaps I wasn't clear on my comments regarding monetization. Yes, any serious artist needs to find a way to monetize their work, as this allows them to keep working, put food on the table and a roof over their head. The comment that Eelus made that irked me was his explanation for why he did it, in that he is releasing this under the guise of the "need to satisfy his own creative curiousity". To me, the simple act of creating the piece would have provided the fulfillment of his creative curiousity. Many artists create just to create, exploring new techniques, mediums, concepts/themes. The creative process and their ability to satisfy their own creative curiousity is seemingly detatched from the monetization of their work.
To be clear, I think he is well within his rights to release this image, or any other image in whatever format he likes. I just found the puffed up rationalization more offensive than anything.
Whether there is a duty by artists to protect those with vested interests is a complicated topic. Personally, I would say no, but if I played with the big boys, maybe I'd be singing a different tune.
|
|