notwithstanding the foregoing

in any given set, i will like the most ridiculous or surreal example. i like bright colors and shiny things. i do off-broadway theater, and think about it often. also slightly obsessed with television, music, feminism, knitting, politics. and hello kitty. #alpacaexpert
Recent Tweets @ejbayer


Read this Q&A with the Jonathan Sobel on PDN. Weigh in: do you agree with him?

interesting questions in the age of easily reproducible works. 

  1. thebkcircus answered: I agree with the buyer Sobel
  2. blakeink answered: In my opinion, Eggleston has the right to do this. This does not devalue the original prints. /eg taking a photo of a van gogh.
  3. michaeljoeserra answered: This is, I believe, hilarious.
  4. gardenlilie answered: 1. buyer beware, always. 2. artist has ownership, period. 3. buyer has original & more sold, increase his value $$. 4. art value comes n goes
  5. screengrabsgirlsandtaylorswift reblogged this from timelightbox
  6. neilforshaw answered: No. But maybe there should be something more concrete for the definition of “limited editions” and contracts that pertains to them.
  7. lucy-muller answered: I disagree. having a vintage darkroom print is not the same as a digi print. I would almost argue it makes to vintage ones more valuable.
  8. turnabout reblogged this from timelightbox and added:
    interesting questions in the age of easily reproducible works.
  9. ronulicny answered: Yes I agree….Supply & Demand!
  10. timelightbox posted this