• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Lichtenstein Comic Inspired Art Estimated at $35-45 Million
2 2

701 posts in this topic

Yes there's a nice gallery, in a great location, and champagne, canapes, nice lighting, soft music, and lots and lots and lots of nodding yes men, sycophants, and enablers. lol

 

It's a metaphor, and it applies perfectly. Some people have a gift for selling. It is a gift that can be so powerful that eskimos will indeed find themselves ordering pallets full of ice cubes.

 

"Yes, but..."

 

1. Johns is considered by some to be the most important artist of the past 60 years

 

2. He was doing other art that incorporated representations of everyday objects; works like the beer can sculpture helped provide a bridge from Duchamp to Pop Art

 

3. Just so we're clear, he cast two bronze cans and painted the beer label on them (i.e., he didn't just plop two beer cans on a bronze base). He was simply making sculptures of everyday modern objects which hadn't been done before

 

4. There's a long history of pranks and subversive behavior in art, from Duchamp to Cattelan (see the "ArtNews" feature cover story from a couple of months ago); Johns' work was in that tradition and an homage of sorts to Duchamp

 

I understand your concern about the role of marketing in the past half century of art, but I don't think you should allow that cynicism to cloud all the real merit in this art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's also the only known fine artist that I'm aware of to be the basis of a comic book alter ego ;)

 

Its been twenty years, but IIRC Faust's alter ego was called "John Jaspers"

 

Just to dumb it down a bit lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there's a nice gallery, in a great location, and champagne, canapes, nice lighting, soft music, and lots and lots and lots of nodding yes men, sycophants, and enablers. lol

 

It's a metaphor, and it applies perfectly. Some people have a gift for selling. It is a gift that can be so powerful that eskimos will indeed find themselves ordering pallets full of ice cubes.

 

"Yes, but..."

 

1. Johns is considered by some to be the most important artist of the past 60 years

 

2. He was doing other art that incorporated representations of everyday objects; works like the beer can sculpture helped provide a bridge from Duchamp to Pop Art

 

3. Just so we're clear, he cast two bronze cans and painted the beer label on them (i.e., he didn't just plop two beer cans on a bronze base). He was simply making sculptures of everyday modern objects which hadn't been done before

 

4. There's a long history of pranks and subversive behavior in art, from Duchamp to Cattelan (see the "ArtNews" feature cover story from a couple of months ago); Johns' work was in that tradition and an homage of sorts to Duchamp

 

I understand your concern about the role of marketing in the past half century of art, but I don't think you should allow that cynicism to cloud all the real merit in this art.

 

 

It doesn't cloud the real merit, it clarifies the real merit. By taking a cynical approach and questioning everything that's being packaged and sold as "Art" with a capital A, I am able to determine what, for me, is art of merit because of some spark, inspiration, skill or talent, and art being pushed for the sake of art sales or because of some personal holding by the person pushing it.

 

There's nothing more clear and powerful than finding an artist whose work speaks to you on a visceral level independent of being chastised into seeing the "merit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, a Matisse today would be raised (and priced) to the stratosphere so quickly that those many years of cheap buys wouldn't really be possible.

 

In other words, I imagine truly high prices while the artist lived rarely if ever happened back then (this is 100 years ago!). Nowadays, I imagine the prices for a real superstar (or even a perceived one) get completely out of hand in no time.

 

The problem with buying work from hot up and coming artists in the current market is access, not price. If a gallery handles an artist's market correctly, they'll generally keep prices down, while selling to established collectors and museums.

 

I've been trying for 2 years (unsuccessfully) to get a piece from a certain artist. During that timeframe, said artist has moved from semi-under the radar to one of the hottest in NY. Meanwhile, quality large paintings have only increased from $40K to $60K. If a good example showed up at auction, it would likely sell for a quarter million. Everyone knows this, but there's just no supply unless you're connected or very good at playing the art buying game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't cloud the real merit, it clarifies the real merit. By taking a cynical approach and questioning everything that's being packaged and sold as "Art" with a capital A, I am able to determine what, for me, is art of merit because of some spark, inspiration, skill or talent, and art being pushed for the sake of art sales or because of some personal holding by the person pushing it.

 

There's nothing more clear and powerful than finding an artist whose work speaks to you on a visceral level independent of being chastised into seeing the "merit."

 

So, Jasper Johns' contributions to the art world in your mind will forever be defined by the fact that he made a bronze sculpture of beer cans that was sold by Leo Castelli who could sell ice cubes to Eskimos. :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't cloud the real merit, it clarifies the real merit. By taking a cynical approach and questioning everything that's being packaged and sold as "Art" with a capital A, I am able to determine what, for me, is art of merit because of some spark, inspiration, skill or talent, and art being pushed for the sake of art sales or because of some personal holding by the person pushing it.

 

There's nothing more clear and powerful than finding an artist whose work speaks to you on a visceral level independent of being chastised into seeing the "merit."

 

So, Jasper Johns' contributions to the art world in your mind will forever be defined by the fact that he made a bronze sculpture of beer cans that was sold by Leo Castelli who could sell ice cubes to Eskimos. :facepalm:

 

 

 

I didn't impugn Jasper Johns, I applaud him for making effective parody of one of the great salesmen of the art world, and through that parody proving a very very funny point about what people will buy when properly convinced of its worth.

 

I am keenly aware of when I am being sold something. Anyone who isn't aware won't be in a position to buy anything for long. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, a Matisse today would be raised (and priced) to the stratosphere so quickly that those many years of cheap buys wouldn't really be possible.

 

In other words, I imagine truly high prices while the artist lived rarely if ever happened back then (this is 100 years ago!). Nowadays, I imagine the prices for a real superstar (or even a perceived one) get completely out of hand in no time.

 

The problem with buying work from hot up and coming artists in the current market is access, not price. If a gallery handles an artist's market correctly, they'll generally keep prices down, while selling to established collectors and museums.

 

I've been trying for 2 years (unsuccessfully) to get a piece from a certain artist. During that timeframe, said artist has moved from semi-under the radar to one of the hottest NY. Meanwhile, quality large paintings have only increased from $40K to $60K. If a good example showed up at auction, it would likely sell for a quarter million. Everyone knows this, but there's just no supply unless you're connected or very good at playing the art buying game.

 

Yeah I see and now that you mention that I've heard it before. So basically the dealers only give their best long-term buyers the sweetheart deals and to be a best long term buyer you have to know people, spend lots of money for a long period of time, and buy all kinds of stuff that *isn't* hot. They know they can sell the hot artist easy but want to self-insure, and self-ensure, that they can sell their entire stable.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my view on the sidelines, I think the fine art market has become so much about the sizzle that having a good eye for steak won't help much.

 

bronty.. this is a very one dimensional interpretation of gallery art. If you're only looking at the artists who make the news, you may be correct a small percentage of the time. However, the largest part of art sales (by qty, not by dollar value) are under $1000 or $2000 in almost all markets in every city. I can go to First Friday here in Vegas where a number of galleries, many run by the artists themselves, sell inexpensive art. The sizzle in the art market is about 1% of the art market because you're talking about the tiny number of artists who "have made it" so to speak. The artists that everyone has to have their art because everyone else is talking about them.

 

Artists don't do paintings and find galleries fighting for their art until their name is big enough that the gallery owners see value in representing them. Most artists sell their own material without representation and the vast majority ofit is very affordable.

 

to the Lichtenstein "doubters"

why can't you just say that you don't really get iconography or pop art, or most especially the pop art period of the late 50s to the early 70s. It isn't a crime to admit you may not understand it or just don't like it anymore than it wouldn't be a crime for me to admit I don't know brain surgery because it's something I never trained for.

 

also, once again... anyone who thinks Lichtenstein did "line-for-line" reproductions of comic book panels has never taken to the time to research the basis of that statement as absolutely none of Lichtenstein comic panels iconographs are line for line or even close

 

one more thing. One of the points that Lichtenstein was promoting was how naturally mundane artifacts - like throw away comic panels - could be used to turn people's heads to look at such imagery in a different light, and another was how when you stood very close to one of his paintings so that you could only see a small portion and all you could see were dots. Then as you moved away you began to see how these dots formed an image and by the time you reached a farther distance all you could see was a complete idea and the dots had faded away and the art had achieved it's apogee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

meh. I don't think not appreciating Lichtenstein makes you a member of that society. I used to like him before I realized quite how closely he copied things - just doesn't seem so artistic anymore. I know lots of artists use reference, but.... knowing what I know of him now made his stock drop in my eyes.

 

I can still appreciate a lot of those others. Picasso in particular was ridiculous if you sit back and think about the fact that he worked in no less than six styles any one of which would have made him an important painter on its own. To use comic book vernacular he's the Jack Kirby of modern art - stands far above anyone else, at least IMO.

 

thanks for the link Gene

 

I just meant that Gene keeps expressing appreciation for modern art in general, not just Lichtenstein, when it seems clear that many of the people who tend to respond to this thread apparently don't like most modern art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what could be misunderstood about lifting panels almost line for line.

 

 

You beat me to it . . .

 

See my post #5687804 on page 26 for starters.

 

Maybe this will help guide some people to the progression of gamesmanship and running dialog at hand within the found object, popular culture, and banality.

 

Wikipedia actually does a decent job here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_objects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamilton_%28artist%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Art

"Pop art is aimed to employ images of popular as opposed to elitist culture in art, emphasizing the banal or kitschy elements of any given culture, most often through the use of irony. It is also associated with the artists' use of mechanical means of reproduction or rendering techniques."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Koons

 

Already seen all that stuff, thanks.

 

But have you seen these works?

 

London's Hayward Gallery will gather together 50 ''invisible'' works by leading figures such as Andy Warhol, Yves Klein and Yoko Ono for its display of works you cannot actually see.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/9274597/Empty-plinth-and-blank-piece-of-paper-to-feature-in-exhibition-of-invisible-art.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my view on the sidelines, I think the fine art market has become so much about the sizzle that having a good eye for steak won't help much.

 

bronty.. this is a very one dimensional interpretation of gallery art.

 

Rich, the discussion was in the context of putting together a Stein-like collection. A massively valuable and important collection. In that context, there is no need for me to address the $1500 paintings of orchids by the elementary-school-teacher-by-day-artist-by-night down the street. Or even just the paintings of a competent journeyman.

 

I so absolutely agree that most art is very affordable. Most competent artists have difficulty selling their work for any kind of decent sum.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just saw the Cone Sisters show in Vancouver. I was more intrigued by their Picassos than their Matisses, in part because of something the show itself emphasized - how the sisters, with their backgrounds in fabric, seem to have made Matisse aware of design. The result is that the paintings as displayed had less emotional currency and were more about, well, design -- at least to my eye. I liked his black and white stuff better. And I do love those sisters.

 

Also: Herb and Dorothy Vogel. They managed a pretty decent collection. But I suppose that was 50 years ago now, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also: Herb and Dorothy Vogel. They managed a pretty decent collection. But I suppose that was 50 years ago now, right?

 

(thumbs u

 

I had the Vogels in the back of my mind as well - they certainly did well considering their very limited budget, though I recall from the documentary that their collection, though it had many top names in it, was notable more for its breadth and quantity than the presence of many (any?) top-tier examples. It's notable that the Vogels and the Steins both befriended a number of the artists they collected, which I imagine would be less common these days and would exacerbate the access problem, relatively speaking. I guess the short answer to my original question is that you would need a much bigger budget to achieve something comparable today (though, judging from what people are spending on comic art these days, there are number of OA collectors who probably have the budgets to make a real go of it!) For example, even if you recognized that Richard Prince's "Nurse" paintings were going to explode into the millions and become some of the most recognizable art of the decade when they came out in 2003 (and were largely shunned initially by collectors), you still would have needed to be able to afford the $50K+ asking prices - no postman (like Herb Vogel) would be able to do that these days.

 

I didn't realize that there was a Cone sisters show going on simulaneously with the Steins show - I would imagine the exhibition you saw highlighted the relationship between the Steins and the Cones (just as the exhibition at the Met did), with the former having introduced the latter to Picasso and Matisse and sold them a good number of pieces as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just meant that Gene keeps expressing appreciation for modern art in general, not just Lichtenstein, when it seems clear that many of the people who tend to respond to this thread apparently don't like most modern art.

 

oh yes this is correct. Gene as well as myself is very impressed with modern art, the pop-art movement and other aspects of the art field and comic art fans do not have this interest, which to me is rather surprising considering that comic art is a modern art form and should lead to an interest in other forms of art. Due to this anomoly, I find it surprising how dismissive many comic art fans are of modern art forms and in particular the dismissiveness of Lichtenstein's iconography.

 

as I have said earlier.. the comic art form and the history of comics show that comic art is one of the most derivitive of all art forms and the concept that comic art as a whole is akin to fine art is a ridiculous concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my view on the sidelines, I think the fine art market has become so much about the sizzle that having a good eye for steak won't help much.

 

bronty.. this is a very one dimensional interpretation of gallery art.

 

Rich, the discussion was in the context of putting together a Stein-like collection. A massively valuable and important collection. In that context, there is no need for me to address the $1500 paintings of orchids by the elementary-school-teacher-by-day-artist-by-night down the street. Or even just the paintings of a competent journeyman.

 

I so absolutely agree that most art is very affordable. Most competent artists have difficulty selling their work for any kind of decent sum.

 

well Bronty, remember that much of the art in the Stein collection was described as "deviant art" by art critics of the time and many of these paintings sold for peanuts at time of acquisition. The Steins collected what they liked and not neccessarily what would be more valued down the road and you can be sure they have loads of art in the "back of the house" that will never get displayed because they are not name artists. Few serious collectors of their caliber only wound up with the winners. They collected along the entire breadth of their hobby, which results no doubt in many losers as well as big time winners.

Edited by comicartcom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's a very good point, although the world has changed and I'm not sure the same thing can be done today that was done all that time ago - for the reasons stated... price/access, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's a very good point, although the world has changed and I'm not sure the same thing can be done today that was done all that time ago - for the reasons stated... price/access, etc.

 

it can indeed.. money & pricing is a relative thing. Who says the equivalent of yesterday's Picasso or Degas isn't currently selling his/her paintings at the Arts Factory* right now for $1500?

 

*Arts Factory is a conglomeration of artists selling their own work from rooms in a large warehouse that has been converted into a showcase. They are right next to Jack Solomon's S2 Art here in Las Vegas and once a month they host a big party. The vast majority of the art sold here is fairly inexpensive and covers a broad swath of interests. I'm sure a similar setup exists in most, if not all big cities

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a graphic designer I thought this was kind of an interesting article.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/13/blake-gopnik-how-roy-lichtenstein-pioneered-our-clip-art-world.html

 

As to original art and getting choice pieces. Who you know and how you spend your money with them means quite a bit.

 

Although it seems the stuff tends to be a little more scattered these days. The impersonal nature of dealing through E-bay, auction houses and the internet in general can have a frustrating effect on networking.

 

I don't know about you, but I don't spend hours on the phone like I used to.

(Although this year its picked up a lot)

 

Scott

Edited by Rip
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what could be misunderstood about lifting panels almost line for line.

 

 

You beat me to it . . .

 

See my post #5687804 on page 26 for starters.

 

Maybe this will help guide some people to the progression of gamesmanship and running dialog at hand within the found object, popular culture, and banality.

 

Wikipedia actually does a decent job here.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Found_objects

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hamilton_%28artist%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_Art

"Pop art is aimed to employ images of popular as opposed to elitist culture in art, emphasizing the banal or kitschy elements of any given culture, most often through the use of irony. It is also associated with the artists' use of mechanical means of reproduction or rendering techniques."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Lichtenstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Koons

 

Already seen all that stuff, thanks.

 

But have you seen these works?

 

London's Hayward Gallery will gather together 50 ''invisible'' works by leading figures such as Andy Warhol, Yves Klein and Yoko Ono for its display of works you cannot actually see.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/9274597/Empty-plinth-and-blank-piece-of-paper-to-feature-in-exhibition-of-invisible-art.html

 

Oh, yes, I see invisible artworks all the time. Might even have some for sale, if you're interested?

 

PM off-list for availability and prices . . . currently offering 'buy one, get ten free' deals and will throw-in free shipping.

 

And if it's Yoko Ono you like (one of the contibutors to the exhibition you highlight), here's a link to her singing:

 

 

Some people, here, might even enjoy this? Whatever floats your boat, I suppose (shrug)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went to Washington, D.C. yesterday to catch the last weekend of the Roy Lichtenstein retrospective before it moves to London. It was astoundingly good, and I'm not just saying that to antagonize Chris, Terry, et. al. My non-comic fan friends who also saw the show were hugely impressed as well - "I never knew that he had such a broad range of work" was probably what most people thought - the "Chinese landscapes" he did late in his career were amazing. If he had never done a single comic book painting, he would have been known for his other work (especially his pre-comic Pop Art, his mid-60s landscapes and his '70s artist homages) and would still retain his place in the pantheon of great Modern artists. The comic paintings were spectacular; the audio guide played clips of Lichtenstein praising the source material in lectures/interviews, but, frankly, trying to frame the source material as being "the real artists" like Barsalou does while in the presence of Lichtenstein's genius just struck me as more than faintly ludicrous. Just on artistic merit alone, with bragging rights and monetary value removed from the equation, I'd still rather own one of Lichtenstein's romance comic paintings over ANY piece of actual comic book art (just as I'd rather own a Warhol over the actual production art for the Campbell's Tomato Soup can label :P ). Oh yeah, I said it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2