|
|
Post by richardburton on Apr 20, 2007 14:25:30 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by rustisstrikesagain on Apr 20, 2007 15:01:11 GMT 1
If thats 30,000 quid then all us arty types on this forum are millionaires.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Apr 20, 2007 16:00:30 GMT 1
lol I think you'll find it's £300,000! There's no accounting for taste!
|
|
|
|
Post by Scifishocks on Apr 20, 2007 18:11:42 GMT 1
Well, it certainly beat the usual stupid tag names you see sprayed endlessly around which show no attempt to make art, just to 'mark the turf'. There is more artisitic merit in my plonker than most of those. In my opinion anyway.  At least the guy had something to say with his work, although I think these things are horrendously overvalued by people with more money that sense. |
|
|
|
Post by rustisstrikesagain on Apr 20, 2007 22:33:40 GMT 1
tate gallery, should be renames TAT gallery.  |
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Apr 21, 2007 13:13:43 GMT 1
Totally agree, Nerf-meister. There are one or two really talented graffiti artists out there, but the vast majority just make the place untidy.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedonal on Apr 26, 2007 22:06:09 GMT 1
Well- 's fashion, innit?! That's how most modern art gets valued.
Still- I wonder if the valuation on it includes the value of the land it's on (London? Hmmm- it'll cost yer!)- and the bricks it was put on.
|
|
