independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Prince by Warhol at the auctions.
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 3 <123>

This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.

  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 05/12/06 2:55am

SpecialEd

avatar

Anyone got the original photo the print is based on? Obviously early 80s Controversy era.
Glug, glug like a mug
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 05/12/06 4:20am

Heiress

Cliffy74 said:

I read somewhere that this was called "Mr P Lovesexy" by Warhol himself.

Anyone know if this is true?


Warhol died in early 1987, and Lovesexy came out in 1988...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 05/12/06 4:58am

BananaCologne

Snap said:

BananaCologne said:



According to The Andy Warhol Foundation it was created in 1984 - same as the other prints.


first time i saw it was a year before '84
unless this one is a bit different?


Who knows? Well, according to The Andy Warhol Foundation - they do shrug
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 05/12/06 5:30am

lateagain

I am interested in the mans music not someones basically poor picture of him. I have better charactures of P at home then that rubbish.

$50k. Rather spend my money on something worthwhile. All these pictures look the same regardless of whom they are. Take an idea and then sell it to death.

rubbish.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 05/12/06 6:43am

sosgemini

avatar

lateagain said:

I am interested in the mans music not someones basically poor picture of him. I have better charactures of P at home then that rubbish.

$50k. Rather spend my money on something worthwhile. All these pictures look the same regardless of whom they are. Take an idea and then sell it to death.

rubbish.


grumpy much?


wink
Space for sale...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 05/12/06 6:48am

XxAxX

avatar

here's another picture of prince. who wants to start the bidding at $100,000???

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 05/12/06 7:07am

jone70

avatar

What a bunch of philistines. rolleyes


lol
The check. The string he dropped. The Mona Lisa. The musical notes taken out of a hat. The glass. The toy shotgun painting. The things he found. Therefore, everything seen–every object, that is, plus the process of looking at it–is a Duchamp.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 05/12/06 7:08am

Handclapsfinga
snapz

jone70 said:

feelUup said:

pretty much uses a photo and traces it then creates the screen from that.


It's not quite that simple. You have to use certain chemicals and light exposure to get the image (usually taken from newpaper or magazine in Warhol's case) to 'burn' onto a silk screen. Wherever parts of the image are not burned onto the screen is where the ink will ooze through the screen onto the fabric, paper, etc. The more colors one uses, the more complicated it is because you have to have a separate screen for each color and then line them up exactly the same or the image will not have clean edges. I took printmaking in undergrad and we learned all different types (silkscreen, litho, etching...), I can't remember all the details so any current printmakers feel free to add/correct.

yep, you've pretty much got it right--i made my own screenprints in graphic tech class back in high school. the process is very involved and time-consuming, especially if you wanna make a multi-colored print.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 05/12/06 7:10am

Handclapsfinga
snapz

sosgemini said:

MrPurple said:

I don't know why anyone would pay for this, since it looks like a 10 year old made it. No talent or creativity went into making this.



eek

con-fuckit...some of ya'll seriously need to learn more about art and its different techniques/styles, i swear. it ain't as simple as it looks.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 05/12/06 7:19am

jone70

avatar

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

sosgemini said:




eek

con-fuckit...some of ya'll seriously need to learn more about art and its different techniques/styles, i swear. it ain't as simple as it looks.


highfive Okay! Like I said above, there are tons of artists who do things that most people think a 10 year old could do. But try it, I guarentee it's not that easy. That's why they are *artists* (Just like Prince makes guitar playing and creating songs look easy.) It's not just making an image, it's coming up with the concept, executing it, and knowing when to stop. Pollock's canvases might look they had no planning, but he chose the right colors and knew how much of each to use in the composition, and he knew when to say, "It's finished."


*not quite finished* edit
[Edited 5/12/06 7:20am]
The check. The string he dropped. The Mona Lisa. The musical notes taken out of a hat. The glass. The toy shotgun painting. The things he found. Therefore, everything seen–every object, that is, plus the process of looking at it–is a Duchamp.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 05/12/06 7:28am

Handclapsfinga
snapz

jone70 said:

Handclapsfingasnapz said:


con-fuckit...some of ya'll seriously need to learn more about art and its different techniques/styles, i swear. it ain't as simple as it looks.


highfive Okay! Like I said above, there are tons of artists who do things that most people think their 5 year old could do. But try it, I guarentee it's not that easy. That's why they are *artists* (Just like Prince makes guitar playing and creating songs look easy.) It's not just making an image, it's coming up with the concept, executing it, and knowing when to stop. Pollock's canvases might look they had no planning, but he chose the right colors and knew how much of each to use in the composition, and he knew when to say, "It's finished."

highfive exactly! as much as people are fascinated with prince and how he does things, i'm surprised that some folks are still kinda clueless when it comes to art. it's just maddening!

i haven't gone to art school (yet, anyway...still thinking about it) so i haven't a degree or anything like that, but art is very much my first love. and yes, creating a composition is a helluva lot more than just drawing a few lines, playing a few notes or poking some clay a little. it's kinda hard to explain, but when there's enough done to a piece of work, something will tell you "hey, this is good--stop here!" i can totally relate to what you said, jone: i was the lone girl in class, doodling away and had the crowd of kids around me and going "wow, you make it look so easy!" i'd always be like, "it ISN'T, alright?!" lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 05/12/06 7:50am

skilletnomicro
wave

avatar

NewPowerSista said:

I agree with you guys: Silkscreen is not an easy process, but it's not THAT difficult either. I've taught it to middle school kids with success. Even when you're using more than one color--this looks like 3 plus the white, getting the registration correct takes some time and precision, but it's not the most difficult thing either. I've never been THAT impressed with Warhol's work, but I still like the idea that he did a silkscreen of Prince! wink


And as we all know Andy probably got someone else to do it for him (much like Julian Schnabel) while he was being seen at some cool party. Silk screening isnt very difficult at all, it's only time consuming, all you have to do is line up your screens on a carousel once and they will hit the target 9 times out of 10. Andy Warhol was made famous as he cleverly pioneered throw away art when everyone one was still fawning over Van Gogh etc, now we fawn over Andy, Hamilton, Pollack, Basquiat and the like. The beauty of their work lies in the fact that it is so simple, they are very good ideas and they did it first, ie if we were to put a silk screen print of a yellow banana on an lp cover it will not have the same effect or impact, but if try another colour it just might work.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 05/12/06 7:59am

Handclapsfinga
snapz

SpecialEd said:

Anyone got the original photo the print is based on? Obviously early 80s Controversy era.

i'm thinking it's this, reversed:

MUSICIAN MAGAZINE SEPTEMBER 1983

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 05/12/06 8:01am

Heiress

jone70 said:

What a bunch of philistines. rolleyes


lol


the ignorance of the masses!

cool
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 05/12/06 8:01am

Heiress

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

jone70 said:



highfive Okay! Like I said above, there are tons of artists who do things that most people think their 5 year old could do. But try it, I guarentee it's not that easy. That's why they are *artists* (Just like Prince makes guitar playing and creating songs look easy.) It's not just making an image, it's coming up with the concept, executing it, and knowing when to stop. Pollock's canvases might look they had no planning, but he chose the right colors and knew how much of each to use in the composition, and he knew when to say, "It's finished."

highfive exactly! as much as people are fascinated with prince and how he does things, i'm surprised that some folks are still kinda clueless when it comes to art. it's just maddening!

i haven't gone to art school (yet, anyway...still thinking about it) so i haven't a degree or anything like that, but art is very much my first love. and yes, creating a composition is a helluva lot more than just drawing a few lines, playing a few notes or poking some clay a little. it's kinda hard to explain, but when there's enough done to a piece of work, something will tell you "hey, this is good--stop here!" i can totally relate to what you said, jone: i was the lone girl in class, doodling away and had the crowd of kids around me and going "wow, you make it look so easy!" i'd always be like, "it ISN'T, alright?!" lol


comin up with good tunes isn't easy either...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 05/12/06 8:07am

Handclapsfinga
snapz

Heiress said:

comin up with good tunes isn't easy either...

sho' isn't.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 05/12/06 8:15am

Graycap23

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

jone70 said:



highfive Okay! Like I said above, there are tons of artists who do things that most people think their 5 year old could do. But try it, I guarentee it's not that easy. That's why they are *artists* (Just like Prince makes guitar playing and creating songs look easy.) It's not just making an image, it's coming up with the concept, executing it, and knowing when to stop. Pollock's canvases might look they had no planning, but he chose the right colors and knew how much of each to use in the composition, and he knew when to say, "It's finished."

highfive exactly! as much as people are fascinated with prince and how he does things, i'm surprised that some folks are still kinda clueless when it comes to art. it's just maddening!

i haven't gone to art school (yet, anyway...still thinking about it) so i haven't a degree or anything like that, but art is very much my first love. and yes, creating a composition is a helluva lot more than just drawing a few lines, playing a few notes or poking some clay a little. it's kinda hard to explain, but when there's enough done to a piece of work, something will tell you "hey, this is good--stop here!" i can totally relate to what you said, jone: i was the lone girl in class, doodling away and had the crowd of kids around me and going "wow, you make it look so easy!" i'd always be like, "it ISN'T, alright?!" lol



I happen to be an artist so I'm qualified to give my opinion on Andy's work. most of his work is WEAK.....did I say WEAK? I meant weak.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 05/12/06 8:16am

jone70

avatar

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

SpecialEd said:

Anyone got the original photo the print is based on? Obviously early 80s Controversy era.

i'm thinking it's this, reversed:

MUSICIAN MAGAZINE SEPTEMBER 1983




That would make sense, since the image would be reversed by the silkscreen process.
The check. The string he dropped. The Mona Lisa. The musical notes taken out of a hat. The glass. The toy shotgun painting. The things he found. Therefore, everything seen–every object, that is, plus the process of looking at it–is a Duchamp.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 05/12/06 8:44am

Handclapsfinga
snapz

Graycap23 said:

I happen to be an artist so I'm qualified to give my opinion on Andy's work. most of his work is WEAK.....did I say WEAK? I meant weak.

i'm one too--but being an artist doesn't really give you qualification or carte blanche to critique another person's work. everyone's a critic, really. lol i'm not too sure as to how exactly i wanna put this, so i'm gonna be brief: the only thing we as artists truly have is a knack for seeing/interpreting things differently than other people. that'd be the closest thing to being "qualified" that we've got, i guess.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 05/12/06 8:56am

Graycap23

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

Graycap23 said:

I happen to be an artist so I'm qualified to give my opinion on Andy's work. most of his work is WEAK.....did I say WEAK? I meant weak.

i'm one too--but being an artist doesn't really give you qualification or carte blanche to critique another person's work. everyone's a critic, really. lol i'm not too sure as to how exactly i wanna put this, so i'm gonna be brief: the only thing we as artists truly have is a knack for seeing/interpreting things differently than other people. that'd be the closest thing to being "qualified" that we've got, i guess.


I dig.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 05/12/06 9:06am

air

avatar

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

SpecialEd said:

Anyone got the original photo the print is based on? Obviously early 80s Controversy era.

i'm thinking it's this, reversed:

MUSICIAN MAGAZINE SEPTEMBER 1983


Thats the Prince I dig !
The guy who made funk his own way.
Not the new guy with the James Brown band.
I knew a girl named Nikki.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 05/12/06 10:05am

padawan

jone70 said:

What a bunch of philistines. rolleyes


lol


I don't like acting all elitist and hoity toity, but yeah. When people rip on Warhol or DuChamp, I get a little annoyed. The artist, like Prince, is the guy who defies conventional tastes and reexamines what is beautiful, what is fun, what is worth looking at, listening to, and appreciating. They help us look at the world in new ways.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 05/12/06 3:16pm

FruitToAttract
Bears

avatar

Yeah well, I like 'em alot. thumbs up!

No, it's not the most sophisticated piece of art I've ever seen, but since when is art judged on a scale of how difficult it was to make?! Ya'll are being ridiculous. You can't judge art like that - the interpretation of the viewer and the message that the artist was trying to convey determine its real value, and that's gonna be somewhat different for everyone that views it, because people percieve things differently.
"18 years old, and she knows her funk!!! headbang"
~ funkpill
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 05/12/06 4:00pm

NuPwr319

avatar

XxAxX said:

here's another picture of prince. who wants to start the bidding at $100,000???



Oh, cut it out.






falloff falloff
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 05/13/06 9:59am

Sexybeast

avatar

you can buy re-prints of the andy wharhol silkscreen, I was able to get one.
Henry H. 0+> Fan From Virginia
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 05/14/06 6:27am

BananaCologne

Sexybeast said:

you can buy re-prints of the andy wharhol silkscreen, I was able to get one.


It would help if you could tell the masses where though.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #56 posted 05/14/06 6:35am

BananaCologne

SpecialEd said:

Anyone got the original photo the print is based on? Obviously early 80s Controversy era.


MUSICIAN MAGAZINE SEPTEMBER 1983



Controversy promotional photo (1982)

© Allen Beaulieu

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #57 posted 05/14/06 6:40am

alwayslate

Heiress said:

Here's the diary entry:

p. 749, Saturday, August 2, 1986 - Wilfredo had gotten tickets for Prince, and so cabbed over to Madison Square Garden ($3). We passed Debbie Harry and Stephen Sprouse who were there, and we sat down just as Prince jumped out naked, or almost, and it's the greatest concert I've ever seen there, just so much energy and excitement. I saw Ron Delsener and he invited us to the party for Prince at the Palladium. Prince left in a limo the second the show was over.

We went into the Mike Todd Room and it was just almost empty, tables set up, reserved, and there, in a white coat and pink bellbottoms, like a Puerto Rican at a prom, all by himself, was Prince. He was just great, that image of him being weird and always with the bodyguards and everything was just dispelled, and he came over to each and every person and shook their hand and said he was so happy they came, and he danced with each and every girl – all these weird girls in sixties dresses. Literally with every girl, and he wasn't even a good dancer. And he remembered names, like he said, « So glad you came, Wilfredo. » What manners! And Wilfredo was in heaven. We asked Prince if he would be our December cover and he said we'd have to talk to his manager and we said that we'd asked the manager and the manager said to ask him, and so they said they'd work it out. We were just shaking, it was so exciting. And Billy Idol was there and you know, seeing these two glamour boys, it's like the boys are the new Hollywood glamour girls, like Harlow and Marilyn. So wierd.




Oh man that was sooooo cool!
pink bell bottoms. damn i wanna see that outfit. i can't get over how friendly he was being to everybody. it's nice to read that he wasn't always a jerk. Andy said Prince wasn't a good dancer!!! lol- damn.
evillol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #58 posted 05/14/06 7:02am

funkii

avatar

i think i have the photo that this could be from.
i can email it to someone if they want to post it?
You saw the apple
hanging on the tree,
But missed the orchid
in your gaze
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #59 posted 05/14/06 7:07am

XxAxX

avatar

NuPwr319 said:

XxAxX said:

here's another picture of prince. who wants to start the bidding at $100,000???



Oh, cut it out.

falloff falloff



but that's the POINT. warhol was absolutely, totally and one hundred percent MOCKING the artistic community. he deliberately chose non-creative themes (campbells soup can ferchrissake) and non-creative media to get his mass-produced, flat-out derivative artistic non-statements across.

he would laugh his head off if he knew people had canonized him, had later raised his work to the level of the artistic 'genius' he made an art form of mocking... please. biggrin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 3 <123>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)

This is a "featured" topic! — From here you can jump to the « previous or next » featured topic.

« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Prince: Music and More > Prince by Warhol at the auctions.