More bad ethics from publisher

Create a Post
RoboFramer

RoboFramer

PFG, Picture Framing God
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Posts
9,026
Loc
United Kingdom, West Sussex Coast. (Bottom centre)
Business
Retired
Below are two original watercolours by Sue Howells that arrived today - matted. Image size approx 16 x 12"

We have collectors of this artists' work, the retail on these two is £376 ($654) each, not including framing. They are as good as sold, there is a waiting list.


suehowells001.jpg



I took the mats off to replace them with my own, look what I discovered....


suehowells002.jpg


I am so angry - I have bought one painting cut in half, in fact I have probably got a sixth of a mural.

Each image was not made as an image in its own right. Much much more to say but I am off out soon.

I will send this info elsehwere over here too. Then, when I have had some feedback I will have it out with the publisher. I've suspected this has been going on for a long time - I call this practice "hash painting" which MAY be acceptable if

a. The publisher/dealer is up front about it and

b. It is reflected in the price.

What do you think?


Very sorry about wide post - that has never happened before - must be because I cropped the photos. Hope it can be moderated narrower?
 
Not only do I have a serious problem with splitting an image, I also have a problem with a publisher triming tha border of the paper as well. Look at the borders......... definitely not done by the artist IMHO.
 
I noticed that the artist signed both halves of the watercolor. Since I don't think it is customary for an artist to sign the same piece of art twice, I have to wonder if they are in on the deception.
 
There are Oriental Triptychs done with this technique. With the artist signing both, you might be jumping to conclusions to call this a deception. ??

Pat :D
 
Both good points. However, John thought he was buying two different pieces of original artwork. The deception may lie strictly with the publisher, whether intentional or not, to present these items as separate works. In any case, John clearly feels he has been deceived and I tend to agree.
If the publisher trimmed the pieces and added a signature to the other piece, then fraud has been committed.
 
I'm back (choir practice on Mondays)

On the back of each piece there was taped a piece of paper the same size as the mount, a line was drawn around it, a title was written and initialed by the artist. As if to recommend the area and title of each part to the publisher, as well, maybe, as to inform the retailer of the title. Publisher AND artist know what they are doing.

When matted as they were, about 3/8" of each side of the centre was covered.

If the artist had used one long sheet of paper, with wide tape (very wide tape) every 14" or so and then painted over ................... Nah! stuff it. The artist should paint individual works, nothing wrong with the same style, but not this cut up 'mural'.

Look at the two joined together, had that been left as one painting and matted, would they be able to charge over $1300 for it - NO WAY!

So they cut up a - God knows how long - original into many small ones and charge what seems a reasonable price.

Imagine my collectors, how would they feel knowing that someone probably owns adjoining pieces of their works.

What do I do, call a collecter to give first refusal and keep quiet - call him/her and show what I have found, leaving them wondering the above, or send them back?

Or maybe I'll put this down to experience, put them in the window and call them ..... whatever one and two!

This publisher is sacked whatever I choose.
 
Originally posted by Pat Murphey:
There are Oriental Triptychs done with this technique. With the artist signing both, you might be jumping to conclusions to call this a deception. ??

Pat :D
Click to expand...
I think I might have to agree with Pat here. If the artists signiture is genuine, and it was his intent to paint a continuous strip and then have it cut into sections and sold that way I don't really see a problem other than the fact that the tecnique could have been disclosed. It might just be a quirky little thing that he does that others(collectors) might actually like. They might like the hunt of owning all the scenes. And after all, I think everyone pretty much agrees that the artist (and only the artist) has a right to do anything with his art he wants. This could be part of his creative technique. [What would really be the difference if he painted a scene over a wide pc of tape seperating them and then cut on the tape line, other than you would have an upainted border which to mat over instead of part of the scene. Either way that part of the scene is either hidden under mat or gone with the tape.]I know you feel decieved but I would try to contact the artist / publisher and find out the whole stroy.

Just another viewpoint for what its worth.
 
I have done a number of triptychs before. When I and most artists I know do them there is a border then the immage is continued on the next piece. They are not done by cutting one large painting.
 
Absolutely, and they are bought and sold as triptychs.

Well, I have sent this to our Fine Art Trade Guild and also to 'The Picture Business' magazine who recently gave Sue Howells and her publisher a big article.

I've put it on The British framers Forum too.

Maybe I should treat this publisher how I would like to be treated - 'Happy? - Tell the world - NOT HAPPY? - tell us'

But then maybe they should be treating me as I treat my customers. That is I wouldn't knowingly do anything that would upset them if they found out.

More I think about it the madder I am - trying this on with a long standing customer and then hoping I will not see an issue and take my own customers for the same type of fool.
 
John
what you have done is purchase two watercolors from a production painter(s).

Although I don't think that this artist is at this level, sofa paintings in the United States are often (hand painted) on an easel by lining up ten to twenty canvases in a row and the painter(s)work their way down the easel.

You have two fine paintings for that amount of money. If you like them frame them and then keep them.

"They are as good as sold, there is a waiting list."

If you bought them for an investment then The above tells me that the artist is trying to keep up with demand. My advice is to frame both of them up and then sell them now When the value is high. The value of these water colors may drop as other artists jump on the bandwagon and start producing knockoffs. Or this artist may flood the market on his or her own. (I am thinking Dali. and even T.K..)

Wow! I put T. k. in the same sentence as Dali. Sorry.

Mitch
 
Wonder if this is a case of the artist's prices rose very quickly and he could not keep up with demand. So instead of painting more he said heck i got two here, scissor scissor and now two?

If his prices went from $200 to $700 in a month or couple months maybe this is a solution by the artist, be it right or wrong

PL
 
Originally posted by j Paul:
I think I might have to agree with Pat here. If the artists signiture is genuine, and it was his intent to paint a continuous strip and then have it cut into sections and sold that way I don't really see a problem other than the fact that the tecnique could have been disclosed.
Click to expand...
No! SHOULD have been disclosed. It is very simple really, I asked for two originals I got two sections of a larger one.
Click to expand...
 
Create a Post
Back
Top