Title: Molotov (Gold Leaf)
Medium: 4 colour screenprint on 300gsm fine art paper
Size: 74 x 54cm
Year: 2014
Description: Signed and numbered by the artist.
Edition of 18
Price: 4000 NOK
Title: Molotov (Black)
Medium: 4 colour screenprint on 300gsm fine art paper
Size: 74 x 54cm
Year: 2014
Description: Signed and numbered by the artist.
Edition of 25
3500 NOK
Nuart Stavanger
To welcome Icy & Sot to Reed Projects Gallery we’re releasing a couple of classics, the “Gold” version is hand applied Gold Leaf and hasn’t been released to the public. We have 5 available of each print on a first come first served basis.
More news on their exhibition later in the year.
sales@reedprojects.no to reserve.
I need to give you some criticism about this sale. But first I want to make clear that I don’t own or plan to buy a Molotov and that this criticism is of a general character. Maybe I’m ill informed but you state that you plan to release a version never released before (Gold) and maybe you have nothing to do about it. It’s only 18 copies but I think it’s bad form by the artist to release another version after all of the initial releases has been sold out. This is bad news for the owners of the other releases as this devalues their copies and I think many see this as breaking an unspoken contract between buyer and artist. What’s the point of buying something limited if the artist keeps releasing the same image with minor alterations?
Dolk, Victor Ash and Dot Dot Dot have all done it and rightfully got criticized for it and it is the biggest reason why Dot is not trusted anymore by the marked. I’ve spoken to a lot of collectors and many are annoyed about Dot’s release of Scream and Thief in multiple colorways. Hopefully Icy and Sot won’t go down the same road.
The “Gold” was produced at the same time as the main edition. It just wasn’t released as they were a “test” if you like. So not necessarily “new” just new to market. I don’t think an edition of 18 will have any effect on the flippability of the main edition.
The “colourway” debate is an interesting ethical discussion and has been going on for decades. Looked at from the perspective of a “buyer” whose primary (though perhaps not sole) motive is to profit from the work, then it’s probably not going to go down too well. Looked at from the perspective of a buyer who thinks the “message” should be on more walls, then it’s possibly more positive. From the Artists perspective, certainly in this case, then it’s just a matter of trying different techniques out. The main edition is the one that allows them to survive as artists and travel the world creating street work (for free), for 10’s of thousands of people to enjoy and reflect over.
Dot Dot Dot’s releases are designed from the outset to be in different colourways. It’s part of the concept. Unlike say, Victor Ash, who releases after the fact (due to demand) and really only has one significant image to sell.
In Urban Art, Eelus started the trend with “Shat At” back in 2006, Initially sold out Red and Blue, which was then followed by numerous colourways after the fact. The backlash was instant and lasting. This is something quite different to what Dotdotdot/Dolk does, which is to keep the edition true.
Another perspective could be, buying prints, is primarily to support the artists you love, not the other way around.
Thanks for a factual answer. I see some of your points, but I still disagree about the way it’s been done this time. Fair enough that the gold-version was made at the same time, but as far as I know this edition was not announced along with the other versions. What this does is creating an uncertainty in the marked. Will the artist print more? When will he stop?
Yes, you could say that releasing extra prints would be positive in the spread-the-art perspective and supporting the artist you love, but then the artist should released an open ended edition, not limited. I think your arguments above “faller på egen urimelighet”. When releasing a limited edition there is an unspoken contract between buyer and artist saying that this is has a certain exclusiveness. You have been in this game so long that you know that the artist benefits from a lively aftermarket, so don’t think it’s just those who want to make a profit that get annoyed. Most people, especially if they have paid a premium value for it, would like to see their art get more valuable. You don’t expect that to happen with IKEA pictures, but for limited art this is very much true. And besides, if you are not the publisher, isn’t this flipping as well or do we call it something else if you have a organization number?
“But then the artist should released an open ended edition, not limited”
Should they ? I always thought one of the attractions of being an artist was the possibility to do whatever you wanted, in this case to let the gallery they’re exhibiting with have part of an edition of 18 they produced earlier.
Yep, been around long enough to know that Icy and Sot have what it takes.
" if you are not the publisher, isn’t this flipping as well or do we call it something else if you have a organization number?"
These are primary and sold through a gallery, flipping is secondary and sold by individuals, generally from home, org number or not. This unspoken “contract” would I presume come into force if they produced identical works to the main edition at a similar size. Francis Bacon made in excess of 100 screaming popes… not sure the original owners work would have been devalued by the rest. But I see where you’re coming from, I just don’t think it relevant in this case.
Of course they can do whatever they like, it’s not against the law. But you do have to admit there should be a bond of trust between artist and buyer. No buyers, no artist. I think this bond will be at risk if the artist develop a habit of releasing new version with minor differences for sold out prints. Both you and the artist know that labeling as limited gives the buyer a time pressure to buy these days. It also offers exclusivity. You can of course say “hey, he is free to do what he wants” but I think that is as childish as saying “luften er fri for alle”. And to you bulletpoint 3 I don’t think changing background color or the color of some letters qualifies as adding something new to the art. It’s the same image IMO.
I wouldn’t worry about it too much Aziz. It’s a very strong image on the streets produced by a great couple of guys, both well worth supporting IMO. I’m sure an additional 18 prints isn’t going to harm anyone or break any “unspoken” contract between them and their fanbase.
