Lichtenstein's "Whaam!" 1 1

[vodou]

29 minutes ago, Dr. Love said:

10X for the Lich romance.  The higher the grade, the higher the multiple.  If you know which issues to look for.  Many are sourced, but some are not, and there is no definitive list. 

Primarily because, believe it or not, those that know definitively aint telling.

Cool. Color me dead wrong!

[delekkerste]

5 hours ago, adamstrange said:

What was Picasso's work selling for in the 60s?

 

Your time-frame (50 or so years) is actually very short, historically speaking.  Many trends have last hundred+ years only later to fall out of favor without ever returning to favor.

While I'm sure there were Picassos worth 6 figures in the 1960s, there were no public sales of any art by a living artist eclipsing $100K until the early 1970s.  I know there were no such sales in 1970, while there were at least two at the 1973 Scull sale, so, that mark was not breached until sometime in the 1971-73 timeframe.

I agree with you on the long-term trend argument, as it is one I make all the time myself, cautioning people about mistaking trends which have only been around for a generation or two with a permanent state of affairs (ever-rising comic and comic art prices, cough cough). That said, if you think that Warhol and/or Lichtenstein's places in the pantheon are in any way at risk, I think you are sadly mistaken.  It's not like the past couple of decades, where there are dozens of artists of dubious lasting relevance; when it comes to the artists who are credited with breaking ground in bringing commercial and industrial images and motifs into gallery art, it will always be Warhol and Lichtenstein. 

And, speaking of which, all this railing against the kingmakers and gatekeepers is a huge red herring.  It's been that way for ages.  If a tree falls in the woods, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?  If an artist has more talent than those who were anointed by the tastemakers of the day, but, whose art never makes it to the mainstream, does he or she actually have any influence or historical relevance? 

4 hours ago, comix4fun said:

They certainly did so at the time they were created and sold, which is what I've been referring to. When his markets were created, or invented by the gallery crowd, they absolutely told the tale of what the pieces meant and how subversive they were to consumerist impulses, etc. Those tales became history and the backstory to the movement and the pieces. So, you're right, no one has to explain that now, mostly because it's been repeated ad infinitum since their creation and packaging for sale. 

Why fight it, Chris...if it was perception at first, it is reality now.  And, really, I don't see much, if anything, to argue about here anyway.  Compared to the stretches people make to justify the importance of more recent pieces, this seems 100% rational.  A equals A, man. 

3 hours ago, porcupine48 said:

What a great thread and pleasant distraction from a gloomy Sunday afternoon.

Thanks all.

Much better than the 1950s/60s generic war and romance comic OA appreciation thread, that's for sure...  

3 hours ago, adamstrange said:

You should have bought it when it was for sale! I doubt it would have cost you much more than $4 million.

I hear the asking price has gone up considerably since then.  

[davekarlen]

I sold the Steve Roper piece on eBay, it was consigned. I knew of the Lichtenstein connection and put it in the listing. I thought it was a good price for a Roper even if it was used by Lichtenstein, and the consignor was pleased. Maybe if I did it again I would do it differently, but hindsight is 20/20.

[vodou]

17 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I hear the asking price has gone up considerably since then.  

Of course, it didn't sell at the lower price

[delekkerste]

1 hour ago, adamstrange said:

When I use the word value, I'm referring to aesthetic value.  You may think that dollar value must relate to aesthetic value but I have never held that position and I think that a little research would reveal a number of supporters for it.  At the very least, I would point out that the dollar value of artists have varied quite widely over the centuries.  Even if we consider the very short time line of the last 60 years, was Lichtenstein's art of less aesthetic value in the 60s when it was cheaper than it is now when they cost tens of millions?  There are generally three buyer communities at the high end:  uber-wealthy, governments and museums.  My understanding is that by far the biggest chunk is spent by the uber-wealthy.  Therefore, I am uncertain as to why I should give special weight to what the uber-wealthy buy as I have no reason to credit them with especially sensitive and intelligent artistic judgment. 

For these reasons, I ignore value as a factor aesthetic value. 

 

I do not think that dollar value must relate to aesthetic value at all.  That said, I think art moved beyond mere aesthetic value a long time ago.  Let's just call it fundamental value (I'm not going to say "intrinsic value" because that has a very specific definition), which encompasses a lot of different aspects of what makes art valuable (aesthetics, critical reception, name/brand, supply/demand, etc.)  And that will correlate very much with dollar value.  

Forget about the dollar price comparisons of a Roy Lichtenstein painting to an Irv Novick panel page.  Just look at the price of other comic book panel pages to an Irv Novick panel page.  The latter is in the very bottom tier of the art that makes it to the auction block at Heritage, usually fetching around $200 or $300-odd a page even for his work on Batman, let alone his no-name generic genre work.  Crediting Irv Novick's original with driving the fundamental value of a $35 million Roy Lichtenstein painting is like crediting the bauxite miner for the value of a Ferrari (let's not nit-pick with the analogy...just go with it.  Basically, both the original Novick and the bauxite/aluminum are not what make either a Lichtenstein or a Ferrari what they are is the bottom line).

 

1 hour ago, adamstrange said:

I would say that "influence" of an artwork is a factor that I consider when judging the aesthetic value of a piece.  It is, however, only one factor and I consider whether the influence was positive or negative and the period of time of that influence.  I think it's early to say how influential Lichtenstein will be and I probably have a different thought as to whether that influence was positive than you do.

We can debate whether that influence was positive; personally, I don't see how it wasn't, or would you prefer that art in 2018 be about "Still Life with Smartphone" and things like that, instead of the rich diversity and edginess that Lichtenstein helped usher in?  

To say that it's too early to judge how influential Lichtenstein will be is like saying that it's too soon to be calling the outcome of the 2000 presidential election after we've had another 4 presidential elections since then.  It's settled science at this point and not going to change.  

Edited December 3, 2018 by delekkerste

[adamstrange]

3 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

While I'm sure there were Picassos worth 6 figures in the 1960s, there were no public sales of any art by a living artist eclipsing $100K until the early 1970s.

Picasso died in 1973 so he is a counter example to your statement.

 

8 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

when it comes to the artists who are credited with breaking ground in bringing commercial and industrial images and motifs into gallery art, it will always be Warhol and Lichtenstein. 

I don't question the influence of W&L any more than I question the influence that Karl Marx had on economic theory.  The open question is to the value of that influence.

 

14 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

And, speaking of which, all this railing against the kingmakers and gatekeepers is a huge red herring.  It's been that way for ages.  If a tree falls in the woods, but no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?  If an artist has more talent than those who were anointed by the tastemakers of the day, but, whose art never makes it to the mainstream, does he or she actually have any influence or historical relevance?

So I should just adjust my view of art to match the gatekeepers because they are gatekeepers?

Vermeer painted many masterpieces but it took a couple hundred years for him to come to the front row of painters after having little historical relevance or influence. 

You are using a very limited set of criteria for determining the greatness of art that does not match mine as you seem overly focused on what other people think in order for you to decide what great art is.  Influence means that other people imitated the artist.  Historical relevance infers that people in the artists time were affected/impacted in some way.

I'm open to input from practically anyone on what great art is, but, at the end of the day, I'm happy to make the call myself for what I like.  You do you.

[delekkerste]

1 minute ago, adamstrange said:

Picasso died in 1973 so he is a counter example to your statement.

 

I don't question the influence of W&L any more than I question the influence that Karl Marx had on economic theory.  The open question is to the value of that influence.

 

So I should just adjust my view of art to match the gatekeepers because they are gatekeepers?

Vermeer painted many masterpieces but it took a couple hundred years for him to come to the front row of painters after having little historical relevance or influence. 

You are using a very limited set of criteria for determining the greatness of art that does not match mine as you seem overly focused on what other people think in order for you to decide what great art is.  Influence means that other people imitated the artist.  Historical relevance infers that people in the artists time were affected/impacted in some way.

I'm open to input from practically anyone on what great art is, but, at the end of the day, I'm happy to make the call myself for what I like.  You do you.

Not sure how the Picasso example is a counter example...up through 1970 at least, there was not a public sale of his or any other living painter's works of over $100K. 

Many W&L haters despise the Abstract Expressionists even more.  Can you imagine a world without AE and Pop Art...what would art look like today?  Again, I present to you...Still Life of Smartphone.  No, just no.  

It was possible to become relevant and influential decades/centuries later when art was just about painting pretty pictures.  We've moved way past that now.  

[adamstrange]

8 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

I do not think that dollar value must relate to aesthetic value at all.  That said, I think art moved beyond mere aesthetic value a long time ago.  Let's just call it fundamental value (I'm not going to say "intrinsic value" because that has a very specific definition), which encompasses a lot of different aspects of what makes art valuable (aesthetics, critical reception, name/brand, supply/demand, etc.)  And that will correlate very much with dollar value.  

Forget about the dollar price comparisons of a Roy Lichtenstein painting to an Irv Novick panel page.  Just look at the price of other comic book panel pages to an Irv Novick panel page.  The latter is in the very bottom tier of the art that makes it to the auction block at Heritage, usually fetching around $200 or $300-odd a page even for his work on Batman, let alone his no-name generic genre work.  Crediting Irv Novick's original with driving the fundamental value of a $35 million Roy Lichtenstein painting is like crediting the bauxite miner for the value of a Ferrari (let's not nit-pick with the analogy...just go with it.  Basically, both the original Novick and the bauxite/aluminum are not what make either a Lichtenstein or a Ferrari what they are is the bottom line).

My argument is that Lichtenstein's innovation was mild and why anyone would pay $35 million for it is beyond me.  If the Novick page was $300 maybe the Lichtenstein (I'm really getting tired of typing that name) should only have sold for $800.  If folks have $35 million they want to spend on it then good for them but it doesn't change my thoughts at all on greatness or lack thereof of the art.

Seriously, though, are you able to talk about art without talking dollars?  

[adamstrange]

5 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Not sure how the Picasso example is a counter example...up through 1970 at least, there was not a public sale of his or any other living painter's works of over $100K. 

I misread your earlier statement. I thought you were saying there were Picasso sales in 6 figures in the 1960s.  Are you certain that there weren't?

[vodou]

1 minute ago, adamstrange said:

So I should just adjust my view of art to match the gatekeepers because they are gatekeepers?

Jumping here, totally NO, but what you like (or "view") is one thing. What you spend your money on, and especially how much, a really different and potentially very important thing. Buy with your super-personal eye, worse pay top of market to all comers as you build your aesthetic corner out, for things nobody else (or maybe just not many) will want in the future is an excellent way to get buried in your art and probably with it too. Almost all of us sell from time to time and think it's pretty nice to at least break even (nominally if not inflation-adjusted), making a bit extra is really nice...that is really hard if you have an eye that's out of step with the herd. Sad thing, but the herd loves anybody that drew Spider-Man for Marvel publication more than some obscure indie that's really well-drawn. Spider-Man is bankable, not the art or artist. That's why Ditko ASM is a massive multiplier over anything else Ditko, which as Bronty wonders might not even be of interest at all if Ditko didn't work on ASM or at Marvel to begin with.

I bet everybody knows this. But there's probably somebody out there right now scooping up art for art's sake in a super self-satisfied manner because they're getting it soooo cheap, and there's so much of it too, why almost more than they can afford, time to grab that last credit card and.........

That was and wasn't me at various time over the last twenty-five years. The jury is still out on how the story ends, but only because I don't have the nerve to start dumping things no reserve into HA Sunday night auctions to see what happens

[adamstrange]

6 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Many W&L haters despise the Abstract Expressionists even more.  Can you imagine a world without AE and Pop Art...what would art look like today?  Again, I present to you...Still Life of Smartphone.  No, just no.

Do you really need me to bring up counter examples like the artist that canned his own poop? I can do it but I think this is supposed to be a PG forum. You expect me to think that still life of smartphone would be worse?  Seriously?

 

8 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

It was possible to become relevant and influential decades/centuries later when art was just about painting pretty pictures.

I don't have the exact quote but I recall Renoir being asked why he painted beauty and he replied there is so much ugliness in the world why would he paint anything else.

[vodou]

2 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

You expect me to think that still life of smartphone would be worse?  Seriously?

Voter here for "worse". Canned poop has come up before, an all-time favorite of Voord.

[tth2]

32 minutes ago, adamstrange said:

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

While I'm sure there were Picassos worth 6 figures in the 1960s, there were no public sales of any art by a living artist eclipsing $100K until the early 1970s.

Picasso died in 1973 so he is a counter example to your statement.

At the time of his death, they said Picasso was a socialist and a millionaire.  So he seems to have already started making decent money before he died.

[adamstrange]

7 minutes ago, vodou said:

What you spend your money on, and especially how much, a really different and potentially very important thing.

“The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”  John Maynard Keynes

When I spend money on any item I intend to keep for a while, I give some thought as to how the market currently and in the near future will value it dollars.  I have a limited amount of money and wish to use it as wisely as possible.  I also know that even if I pass on something I appreciate because I believe it is over-priced that there are still plenty of museums I haven't visited that will allow to view many beautiful things.

[adamstrange]

6 minutes ago, tth2 said:

At the time of his death, they said Picasso was a socialist and a millionaire.  So he seems to have already started making decent money before he died.

True Fact:

Picasso's full name:  Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Ruiz y Picasso

[adamstrange]

Per Wiki:  Picasso could have sold a work for $100k

Quote

He was commissioned to make a maquette for a huge 50-foot (15 m)-high public sculpture to be built in Chicago, known usually as the Chicago Picasso. He approached the project with a great deal of enthusiasm, designing a sculpture which was ambiguous and somewhat controversial. What the figure represents is not known; it could be a bird, a horse, a woman or a totally abstract shape. The sculpture, one of the most recognizable landmarks in downtown Chicago, was unveiled in 1967. Picasso refused to be paid $100,000 for it, donating it to the people of the city.

 

[adamstrange]

Picasso was known to be very, very wealthy in his lifetime.  There were more than a few artists who wanted to achieve his level of fame and fortune.

Quote

When Picasso died, 43 years ago at the age of 91, he left an astounding number of works—more than 45,000 in all. (“We’d have to rent the Empire State Building to house all the works,” Claude Picasso said when the inventory was completed.) There were 1,885 paintings, 1,228 sculptures, 7,089 drawings, 30,000 prints, 150 sketchbooks, and 3,222 ceramic works. There were vast numbers of illustrated books, copperplates, and tapestries. And then there were the two châteaux and three other homes. (Picasso lived in and worked in about 20 places from 1900 to 1973.) According to one person familiar with the estate, there was $4.5 million in cash and $1.3 million in gold. There were also stocks and bonds, the value of which was never made public. In 1980 the Picasso estate was appraised at $250 million, but experts have said the true value was actually in the billions.

 

[tth2]

All this talk of Pablo Picasso has got the song running through my head.

 

Well some people try to pick up girls
And get called a**holes
This never happened to Pablo Picasso
He could walk down your street
And girls could not resist his stare and
So Pablo Picasso was never called an a**hole

Well the girls would turn the color of the avacado
when he would drive
Down their street in his El Dorado
He could walk down your street
And girls could not resist his stare
Pablo Picasso never got called an a**hole
Not like you

Alright
Well he was only 5'3"
But girls could not resist his stare
Pablo Picasso never got called an a**hole
Not in New York

 

The "not like you" statement in the song always cracked me up.

Edited December 3, 2018 by tth2

[drdroom]

20 minutes ago, tth2 said:

All this talk of Pablo Picasso has got the song running through my head.

 

Well some people try to pick up girls
And get called a**holes
This never happened to Pablo Picasso
He could walk down your street
And girls could not resist his stare and
So Pablo Picasso was never called an a**hole

Well the girls would turn the color of the avacado
when he would drive
Down their street in his El Dorado
He could walk down your street
And girls could not resist his stare
Pablo Picasso never got called an a**hole
Not like you

Alright
Well he was only 5'3"
But girls could not resist his stare
Pablo Picasso never got called an a**hole
Not in New York

 

The "not like you" statement in the song always cracked me up.

& also, "Modern Lovers" is an all-time great band name, which practically relates to the thread!

[delekkerste]

2 hours ago, adamstrange said:

My argument is that Lichtenstein's innovation was mild and why anyone would pay $35 million for it is beyond me.  If the Novick page was $300 maybe the Lichtenstein (I'm really getting tired of typing that name) should only have sold for $800.  If folks have $35 million they want to spend on it then good for them but it doesn't change my thoughts at all on greatness or lack thereof of the art.

Seriously, though, are you able to talk about art without talking dollars?  

I just talked about the tremendous influence that AbEx and Pop Art have had on art of the past half century-plus and compared that to what we might have had without them.  No mention of dollars.     

2 hours ago, adamstrange said:

I misread your earlier statement. I thought you were saying there were Picasso sales in 6 figures in the 1960s.  Are you certain that there weren't?

Yes.  We see what great art goes for nowadays and think that, well, surely, prices were easily in the 6-figures already by the 1960s.  What people forget is how stable prices were for decades/centuries while much of the world was on the gold standard and then Bretton Woods.  You didn't really get that tremendous inflation until the very late '60s and 1970s, and, even then, things were starting from a low base and money was tight; even by 1980, one of Lichtenstein's most famous comic paintings only sold for $210,000.  Prices really started ramping up in the second half of the '80s, and then, following the great art market crash, again from 1996-onwards.  

2 hours ago, adamstrange said:

Do you really need me to bring up counter examples like the artist that canned his own poop? I can do it but I think this is supposed to be a PG forum. You expect me to think that still life of smartphone would be worse?  Seriously?

 

I don't have the exact quote but I recall Renoir being asked why he painted beauty and he replied there is so much ugliness in the world why would he paint anything else.

An artist canning his own poop is infinitely more worthwhile than Still Life of Smartphone.  And don't get me started on Renoir.  Count me in the Renoir Sucks at Painting camp.  Much of his work is just overly saccharine chocolate box art.

1 hour ago, vodou said:

Voter here for "worse". Canned poop has come up before, an all-time favorite of Voord.

Far worse.  Sadly, many people seem to think that art peaked in the 19th century with Impressionism and was all downhill after that.  They genuinely would rather artists still be painting Bible and mythological scenes and doing still lifes of modern day objects than anything that has come out over the past century. 

1 hour ago, tth2 said:

At the time of his death, they said Picasso was a socialist and a millionaire.  So he seems to have already started making decent money before he died.

Easy to become a millionaire when you were as prolific as Picasso was, both in originals and in prints.  You didn't need to be selling your art for 6 or 7 figures to rack up a sizable fortune. 

1 hour ago, adamstrange said:

Per Wiki:  Picasso could have sold a work for $100k

Yeah, but, this wasn't exactly your typical creating and "selling a work" with a few bucks worth of paint and canvas.  It was something he was asked (re: hired) to do as part of a project where the finished work cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to create. Even if he had taken the money, I doubt this would have been regarded as the moment when a living artist sold a $100K piece. 

Edited December 3, 2018 by delekkerste