Turning your LVs into art - Yes or No?

[jellyv]

Accusing someone of using fake bags or of promoting someone who uses fake bags is clearly an insult - especially on this forum.

I didn't accuse but I surely did question. It's not insulting, it's paying attention to the dominance of fakes in the public eye and on social media. Compounding this, as an art maker, if the same effect could be achieved on a $199 knockoff, I think that might conceivably figure into the process, just as it does for all those "LV" but not really fringe-added upcycled things for sale.

I'm done. This isn't really a thread to voice different responses.

 

[jess236]

You were the only one insulting people here and calling them nemes. We expressed our feelings about her art only. You are expressing yours about people here not sharing your enthusiasm. That's not OK.
And I wasn't even thinking that you posted it as an ad, but after this tantrum calling people attackers and insulters for no valid reason, this was the least I can say. So please, let us enjoy her work.

Are you sure you are reading the comments correctly? I think maybe review the threads and rethink your comments. Also a respectful and polite approach is always more effective. Enjoy and have a nice day. I hope you feel better.

 

[daisy913]

In case anyone wants a break from the drama and to refocus on the topic of this thread, I'll just post a little bit about the artist and some of her works for more context. And yes, it's ok, you don't have to like it. I'm just sharing.

Biography — Jane Waterous

Biography of internationally-acclaimed artist Jane Waterous.

www.janewaterous.com

"Jane's art is internationally renowned and collected. Apart from winning the coveted Art Expo NYC Solo Artist Award, her work is shown in numerous international solo art exhibitions, prominently displayed in luxury hotels around the world, can be found in the collections of Fortune 500 Corporations, Royal families and celebrity alike. Jane's capacity to create new and exciting works that emotionally and soulfully touch the audience is unmatched. Throughout her 35-year career, she has not forgotten the themes that brought it all together: Love, Life, Laughter and Family."

Jane is best known for her series: The Gatherings Series. A reflection of human connection, The Gatherings paintings represent an embodiment of three decades of work. The sculpture-like, three dimensional figures appear to dance in a synergistic halo of light, depth, color and action, literally, and figuratively jumping off the canvas. While each work conveys a unique emotional experience, they all share a feeling of joy and wonderment. For Jane, "Everything that matters happens when people come together. Life is a series of Gatherings, that all add up to a life well lived."

Yeah… this bio reads like my former boss’. Like I said before, a lot of “fluff.”

I’ve just picked up that people who are more reserved about their creative careers tend to make better work with more respectable CVs.

Also, Art Expo isn’t really considered a prestigious art fair… just throwing that out there. It’s one of those fairs where people expect a lot of “low brow” work.

 

[BULL]

Are you sure you are reading the comments correctly? I think maybe review the threads and rethink your comments. Also a respectful and polite approach is always more effective. Enjoy and have a nice day. I hope you feel better.

You were the only disrespectful member in this thread. @jellyv is right, this thread wasn't created to welcome different opinions. Glad people stood up for the gaslighting.

 

[BULL]

Like I said before, a lot of “fluff.”

I googled her and only 2 pages, nothing serious, just a self-promo article and the regular general artist pages. And yet the stuff should be in Royal households... aha.

 

[zipporah]

That is the point. I can. This is kitchen art. I can dislike it as much as I please.
But that doesn't mean that I consider Jane to be a bad person or I would ban her from selling these bags or from making them. But I won't like them, and I will still feel that choosing Vuitton as a canvas was just a misfired way of getting a little more attention. I might be wrong, maybe she truly was just naively pairing these 2 loves of hers, without any marketing intentions, I really don't know.

Also, just because people get into art shows and galleries, that doesn't mean a thing. That is not a metric of art. Just as much as the price of the paintings. And also neither is the point. Art is supposed to evoke feelings. Even strong ones. Hers did the job. Many of us were moved in a way. It moved me so much that I would never call this art, but I am not the Pope noone has to agree with me. I don't want to convince anyone who loves her work to hate it. Why would I? But at the end of the day, we are still talking about her work. It did its job. And that should be celebrated.

We also discussed the original intent for the discussion. Painting and personalization has a long history, but selling them after putting art on them is a different thing, also rendering them unusable (or at least recommending not using them at all) ruins the bags kinda. That is what I felt from the answers.

Actually, you seem to be missing the point. No one is upset at you or anyone else for not liking Waterous' art, let alone telling you that you *can't* dislike her art. I said myself that I'm not a huge fan of hers; I like the designs she did with her figures, I like them less when formed into words like 'LOL' and I think the Neverfull she did with lips on is ugly af.

What's strange is you calling this a "weird and misfired marketing stunt" by a "self-proclaimed artist" as if she's a random nobody trying to drum up attention and income through poor quality bag customisations. It's OK that you didn't recognise her! But it's weird that even after people told you she was famous and her paintings sell well, you remained convinced that because *you* didn't know of her, she mustn't be successful, and her bag "campaign" must be a desperate cry for attention. You could have said something like, "Huh, I didn't realise she was well known. Still don't like her art." Instead you left a really rather patronising comment that the OP is doing this artist a big favour by letting more people know about her.

(It's wrong to say that having gallery representation and being sold at international art fairs "doesn't mean a thing." Sure, it doesn't make your art officially "good." Buuut it does mean you're a commercially successful professional artist. And that is the point I'm trying to make. Not that she is amazing or high brow or prestigious or exceptionally sought after and well paid. Just that she isn't a nobody, and she does well enough selling her art not to need a bag line to garner more attention.)

Anyway, a lot of posts have popped up since I wrote this, and this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive. None of us are quite sure what the legalities are when it comes to non-LV sanctioned art/bag crossovers, and we don't know whether the customisations have affected sale of her regular art or not. Only a few people have weighed in on the intended topic of whether they'd like original art on their bag. I will stick up for the OP and say for sure there are others on this thread who have left rude and snide comments.

 

[BULL]

No one is upset at you or anyone else for not liking Waterous' art

OP was not that nice towards the people who didn't like the bags.

But it's weird that even after people told you she was famous and her paintings sell well, you remained convinced that because *you* didn't know of her, she mustn't be successful, and her bag "campaign" must be a desperate cry for attention. You could have said something like, "Huh, I didn't realise she was well known. Still don't like her art." Instead you left a really rather patronising comment that the OP is doing this artist a big favour by letting more people know about her.

Is she famous? Does she sell well? Really? I am glad people are trying to inform me, but I also fact check. I really tried to find stuff about her, but there is extremely little. One PR article and a few general art site profile pages. Practically nothing.

It's wrong to say that having gallery representation and being sold at international art fairs "doesn't mean a thing." Sure, it doesn't make your art officially "good." Buuut it does mean you're a commercially successful professional artist.

Is she? Getting into these places is just a matter of money, she clearly is quite privileged to be able do that, but it doesn't prove that she makes that money on these beautiful paintings.

 

[daisy913]

I googled her and only 2 pages, nothing serious, just a self-promo article and the regular general artist pages. And yet the stuff should be in Royal households... aha.

There aren’t many articles, gallery shows, or art fairs my former boss is part of, but they are part of respectable private collections and they have had respectable commissions. The articles and bios that do exist on them tend to be fluff, because most people don’t know of their work. It’s hard to prove your worth, if the majority of your work is in private collections unseen to the public. My former boss, otherwise, has a very good career that is only achievable by .00001% of artists. I respect them in every sense, in that regard.

The “fluff” exists, if you ask me, because their work wouldn’t be considered as strong when compared to other contemporary US artists. I personally think their pieces are beautiful, but I wouldn’t consider them
pinnacle to art and culture.

I don’t want to discredit Waterous completely, because I’ve seen how hard it can be to try and sell and promote work, even if your actual list of clients is impressive.

 

[daisy913]

It's wrong to say that having gallery representation and being sold at international art fairs "doesn't mean a thing." Sure, it doesn't make your art officially "good." Buuut it does mean you're a commercially successful professional artist. And that is the point I'm trying to make. Not that she is amazing or high brow or prestigious or exceptionally sought after and well paid. Just that she isn't a nobody, and she does well enough selling her art not to need a bag line to garner more attention.

I’m only going to say this once: the art world is extremely good at selling images and illusions. Just because someone is selling x amount of pieces at a specific price, it doesn’t mean they are being sold frequently and at asking price.

Vanity galleries exist, meaning you pay a gallery x amount of money, and you have a show and “representation.” Vanity art fairs also exist. Pay x amount of money, and you are part of an art fair. Most artists get into credible/respectable events and galleries through a friend or family. People rarely get in through raw talent alone.

No, I’m not going to research what galleries she has shown at and if those galleries and art fairs she’s participated in are vanity-types or not.

Only stating so that EVERYONE here is more aware and can do research, if they want, to better discern someone’s career and credibility.

And I stand by my decision to question why she is featuring LV bag modifications on her professional website. Trust me when I say that is not the image collectors and gallerists want people to see for their artist, unless it is an official collaboration. She is free to do those modifications, but I don’t understand why she is risking how people who can affect her professional art career will perceive her.

If she were true upper echelon, it’s still risky. Sell the piece for profit, and you could have a hefty lawsuit. If you just do it and give it as a gift, well the brand might just appreciate it and make it into a line of pieces (Kusama and the painted dot LV trunk lol)

 

[jess236]

Actually, you seem to be missing the point. No one is upset at you or anyone else for not liking Waterous' art, let alone telling you that you *can't* dislike her art. I said myself that I'm not a huge fan of hers; I like the designs she did with her figures, I like them less when formed into words like 'LOL' and I think the Neverfull she did with lips on is ugly af.

What's strange is you calling this a "weird and misfired marketing stunt" by a "self-proclaimed artist" as if she's a random nobody trying to drum up attention and income through poor quality bag customisations. It's OK that you didn't recognise her! But it's weird that even after people told you she was famous and her paintings sell well, you remained convinced that because *you* didn't know of her, she mustn't be successful, and her bag "campaign" must be a desperate cry for attention. You could have said something like, "Huh, I didn't realise she was well known. Still don't like her art." Instead you left a really rather patronising comment that the OP is doing this artist a big favour by letting more people know about her.

(It's wrong to say that having gallery representation and being sold at international art fairs "doesn't mean a thing." Sure, it doesn't make your art officially "good." Buuut it does mean you're a commercially successful professional artist. And that is the point I'm trying to make. Not that she is amazing or high brow or prestigious or exceptionally sought after and well paid. Just that she isn't a nobody, and she does well enough selling her art not to need a bag line to garner more attention.)

Anyway, a lot of posts have popped up since I wrote this, and this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive. None of us are quite sure what the legalities are when it comes to non-LV sanctioned art/bag crossovers, and we don't know whether the customisations have affected sale of her regular art or not. Only a few people have weighed in on the intended topic of whether they'd like original art on their bag. I will stick up for the OP and say for sure there are others on this thread who have left rude and snide comments.

Again, well expressed. It's exactly the point I was trying to make. The topic of the thread is not difficult to understand. Some posters are just making up their own arguments to justify the continued drama.

True, the question is simple, would you have your bag painted? I've seen people paint their own bags but what about a famous artist? Outside of collabs, how many artists are doing this? Is it something that might become more popular.

These are really harmless questions and it was meant to be a fun thread.

 

[jess236]

I googled her and only 2 pages, nothing serious, just a self-promo article and the regular general artist pages. And yet the stuff should be in Royal households... aha.

..

 

[jess236]

I’m only going to say this once: the art world is extremely good at selling images and illusions. Just because someone is selling x amount of pieces at a specific price, it doesn’t mean they are being sold frequently and at asking price.

Vanity galleries exist, meaning you pay a gallery x amount of money, and you have a show and “representation.” Vanity art fairs also exist. Pay x amount of money, and you are part of an art fair. Most artists get into credible/respectable events and galleries through a friend or family. People rarely get in through raw talent alone.

No, I’m not going to research what galleries she has shown at and if those galleries and art fairs she’s participated in are vanity-types or not.

Only stating so that EVERYONE here is more aware and can do research, if they want, to better discern someone’s career and credibility.

And I stand by my decision to question why she is featuring LV bag modifications on her professional website. Trust me when I say that is not the image collectors and gallerists want people to see for their artist, unless it is an official collaboration. She is free to do those modifications, but I don’t understand why she is risking how people who can affect her professional art career will perceive her.

If she were true upper echelon, it’s still risky. Sell the piece for profit, and you could have a hefty lawsuit. If you just do it and give it as a gift, well the brand might just appreciate it and make it into a line of pieces (Kusama and the painted dot LV trunk lol)

You make interesting points. I appreciate getting more of an insight into the art/gallery world.

I saw her canvases in person and liked her art. When I saw she was customizing LV bags, it caught my attention. I thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss as it is clearly not a collab.

She is a Canadian artist who won the Art Expo NYC Solo Artist Award and her work is shown by Gallerie de Bellefueille in Canada. Another poster has also seen her canvases in Hong Kong. I guess whether this is prestigious enough or valuable enough depends on someone who wants to invest in her art.

Interesting point that gallerists and collectors would not want enjoy seeing LV bag modifications on her professional website. In your opinion, it seems that it would negatively affect her work and people's confidence in her art. Part of the reason I posted in this thread is to discuss it - since I had never seen a professionally recognized artist decide to customize bags outside of an official collab. If this is the case, then this type of activity - more known artists independently using LV as a canvas for their art might be very short-lived. As for legal issues - how would it be a problem if people are giving their own bags to be painted? This is what I am assuming is happening.

To counter your point about the LV modifications decreasing the value her work - It appears that her art is more "lifestyle" and more decor type of art that blends in with the idea of luxury and prestige. Perhaps this plays into her image and the image her art conveys - luxury and prestige. That's another way of look at it.

 

[jess236]

That does sound repair, that is very different story.

This is an interesting question. It would be interesting to hear from a lawyer, or from someone who tried doing it and was contacted by LV and what was their legal reason.
Most of the people I saw doing this were doing in on Instagram. Even the very famous ones. Sheron Barber did crazier and crazier custom pieces and sold them, but now that he grew big, all his old (mostly LV based) stuff is gone from the website and from his Instagram. It felt that it was in such a gray area legally. I guess this collection is very limited for Vuitton to deal with it, but would be fun to know what they think.
If people just have their bags painted, they can do it, but selling modified Vuitton as Vuitton is a different story. It reminds me of the watch industry. You can have your Patek encrusted with diamonds by an indie artisan, but it ceases to be a Patek anymore, the company will refuse to take it back for service. This could be a similar case if the artwork wouldn't just personalise, but also modify the bag. Vuitton might refuse servicing it. But since these are not bags anymore, but sculptures... I don't know. interesting.

Interesting points.
"If people just have their bags painted, they can do it, but selling modified Vuitton as Vuitton is a different story."

Clearly, if it is sold as Vuitton intentionally and directly that is a problem. I am understanding from her website that the painted bags are not meant to be carried and meant to be used as display items. After they are painted, they become her sculptures and not Vuitton handbags. At least that is how she is stated it. This avoid the problem you are raising.

I see what you are saying is that you are familiar with people having done this previously - customizing LVs and selling them. But afterwards they remove them from their website. I see what you mean about perhaps using LV to publicize their art. I wasn't aware that this was done before in a non-collab way.

 

[jess236]

"Traditionally, non-utilitarian items are considered art, so with the artist saying you can’t use the bags, she is forcing it to enter that realm. I think good art shouldn’t be forced -because at the end of the day, it’s up to the buyer to choose what to do with the item. If you have to dictate to someone how to treat/use their purchase, then either stick to your ideas of “art,” or expand your idea of what can be considered art."

I understand that you don't want anyone to dictate what you should do with the art but, in this case, the limitation comes from a practical perspective. The figures are acrylic paint with resin. They would probably crack if the handbag was used.

 

[daisy913]

You make interesting points. I appreciate getting more of an insight into the art/gallery world.

I saw her canvases in person and liked her art. When I saw she was customizing LV bags, it caught my attention. I thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss as it is clearly not a collab.

She is a Canadian artist who won the Art Expo NYC Solo Artist Award and her work is shown by Gallerie de Bellefueille in Canada. Another poster has also seen her canvases in Hong Kong. I guess whether this is prestigious enough or valuable enough depends on someone who wants to invest in her art.

Interesting point that gallerists and collectors would not want enjoy seeing LV bag modifications on her professional website. In your opinion, it seems that it would negatively affect her work and people's confidence in her art. Part of the reason I posted in this thread is to discuss it - since I had never seen a professionally recognized artist decide to customize bags outside of an official collab. If this is the case, then this type of activity - more known artists independently using LV as a canvas for their art might be very short-lived. As for legal issues - how would it be a problem if people are giving their own bags to be painted? This is what I am assuming is happening.

To counter your point about the LV modifications decreasing the value her work - It appears that her art is more "lifestyle" and more decor type of art that blends in with the idea of luxury and prestige. Perhaps this plays into her image and the image her art conveys - luxury and prestige. That's another way of look at it.

For my own artistic opinion and tastes, I don’t consider what she is doing to the LV bags as art. She’s not really pushing them to the artistic and creative edge. I see a lot of untapped potential in what can actually be done to the bags.

Even the official LV Capucines art bags are “meh.” Look at the Lady Dior Art pieces, to see some good interpretations of “art” bags.

It is perfectly ok to paint your own bags, or ask someone else to paint them for you. It is not illegal. I don’t know how many times I have to keep repeating that same statement in this thread.

From a business standpoint, posting photos is risky, because should you create enough public demand, you have created a market that cuts LV out of potential profit… and LV, like so many other companies, would eventually want their cut.

I’m recognizing that she isn’t a “nobody” when I make these statements. That’s why in the US, at least, it’s better to create a separate entity/company for that activity. Should you get sued by LV, LV can only sue that company. Her professional art career and funds would mainly stay untouched, and her personal finances safe.

If she were actually pushing the bags into true realms of “visual art,” then I wouldn’t consider it “bad” to feature those pieces on her professional and public portfolio. But as it stands, she hasn’t done enough to really distinguish them as artistic pieces that are distinct from a possible and believable LV collaboration. You have to remember that most people do not keep up with luxury brand releases, so most people will be confused, and some may even believe it is a real piece by LV. She is at least wise in never mentioning the brand by name or saying they are authentic.

What you consider “lifestyle,” is coined “commercial” in art-language. Not all commercial artists/pieces are luxury oriented, but the primary goal is to be sold (sometimes considered an “easy” sale). They are created for “easy” consumption, hence “commercial.” Commercial isn’t inherently bad, if you ask me, but there are stronger and weaker pieces and artists. I would consider Waterous as a weaker commercial artist. Her technique is good, but the content is too easy-buy design oriented.

Because of where I live and practice art, and the art I see on a daily basis, I don’t consider Waterous “luxury.” “Luxury” is a relative term in the arts, I’ve come to notice.

I understand that you don't want anyone to dictate what you should do with the art but, in this case, the limitation comes from a practical perspective. The figures are acrylic paint with resin. They would probably crack if the handbag was used.

LV artisans paint with acrylic and finish the pieces with a sealant… not any different from what Waterous is doing. Besides, if you look on her website, you can find photos where she uses the painted bags herself.