Banksy  

banksy v damien !
I'm just wondering if your wife is aware of all of his work ?
Love him or hate him he's a cheeky monkey and theres no doubt he's cut a mean groove for himself in the shallows of the art market.
I'm constantly amused by the ability of artists to pimp themselves about and feed contemporary galleries and collectors. It's not a new thing and it's never been easy either but there certainly is a special awareness required to succeed to a level like Banksy and Hirst.
I have to say, I wasn't that keen on Hirst's work for ages because I relied on press clip's, TV bites and predominantly his 'big' shows. However, I took a colleagues advice and read a few of his books and thats when I began to see him in a different light. Theres a lot more to him than you might think.
I liked M_andersen's point as it's always great to get the perspective of someone who obviously know's about the intimacies of the techniques he uses. HP has an enlightened swish of the pen too !

Killian...
We are all influenced by something arent we?, also i assume that Banksys edition is more of a homage or a skit at Warhol.

Vivienne: I concur and that...
Vivienne: I concur and that was my point all along.

I would agree
Art by it's very nature is derivative of something else, always has been always will. The only problem I might have with someone like Damien Hirst is that he hires others to do the actual painting of his recent canvases. So what would someone be actually buying? That created by the artists' hand or that made at the direction of the artist. If someone is to pay six or seven figures for a piece of work, I don't think it is too much to ask that it actually be executed by the guy who signs it at the bottom.

But
But that was precisely what Warhol did, and enjoyed doing so much
The whole 'Factory' thing..
No-one seems to mind now that the work might not be from his own hands..

Precisely my point.
Let me preface this by stating there is no malice here and that art is what any one who likes it says it is. If you like it, that's all that should matter. If you are buying never to resell and it is only for your enjoyment, then a velvet Elvis high fiving Santa Claus is priceless. However, just because all of ones friends are paying 1.2 million dollars for a Warhol that might have been produce by an hourly worker employed by Andy doesn't necessarily make it a wise move. (Some of my friends do have Warhols and they look great) But one of the ongoing problems in the Warhol secondary market are issues of authenticity. Because there is no definable hand of the creator in the finished piece, forgeries and copies become an issue. Truly great art and auction sales bear this out, when a piece is one of a kind and created by the hand of the actual artist the hammered down price can reach nine figures. But then again that's the art market, lots of perception and Andy is of course dead which limits availability, however...
Personally I would be uncomfortable buying something that I would wish to be unique and one of a kind when in reality it might have been made by an anoynomous worker as part of an assembly line process and might be one of dozens or perhaps even thousands. Cars, vacum cleaners, refridgerators, and even great designer furniture when assembly line produced = Good! The assembly line can keep the consumer price in an area of market sustainability. Fine art, especially paintings, assembly line produced, for my money = Not So Good! Again for reasons of verifiable authenticity. A Van Gogh is a Van Gogh and there are only a finite number of them available. The hand, the materials, the provenance are all verifiable with the Van Gogh. Put another way, who would spend 30 or 40 thousand dollars for a diamond only to find out afterwards that it was a piece of cut glass and still be happy and satisfied with their purchase?

It's okay
Some of it is really nice, some of it is especially bad.