HA February Auction 6 6

[vodou]

After you read that, just about anything that Amazon also recommends down below regarding fine art demand, pricing, etc will likewise be good. Too many of 'em out there to start rattling titles off. Oh, and for the flip side I found all of Richard Polsky's books to be excellent, but the original I Sold Andy Warhol. (too soon) is the best.

[delekkerste]

9 hours ago, vodou said:

After you read that, just about anything that Amazon also recommends down below regarding fine art demand, pricing, etc will likewise be good. Too many of 'em out there to start rattling titles off. Oh, and for the flip side I found all of Richard Polsky's books to be excellent, but the original I Sold Andy Warhol. (too soon) is the best.

I Sold Andy Warhol (Too Soon) is the sequel, actually - I Bought Andy Warhol was the original.  Both fun-to-read books (along with The Art Prophets).

BTW, for those who haven't read the book - spoiler alert! - the $12 million dollar stuffed shark didn't actually sell for $12 million.  

[BCarter27]

11 hours ago, GreatEscape said:

Based on auction results, the most valuable non-comics illustrator is arguably Andy Warhol.

I always overlook Warhol's illustration work. But yeah, he's likely top banana for both most influential and highly-valued, I believe.

13 hours ago, delekkerste said:

My vote would probably go to Robert McGinnis. To me, he is the quintessential illustrator of the post-1950 period.  

Another good pick. A Bond fan perhaps?   Would you consider him influential in movie poster design though or just on trend? (But with great execution, no doubt!)

Have any of his biggest pieces sold? Tiffany's, Thunderball, etc.?

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/04/robert-mcginnis-movie-posters-illustrations

 

[romitaman]

On 12/6/2018 at 11:17 PM, Unca Ben said:

Mike channeling Yoda  

i know what i offered privately before it was put in the auction, and my offer was passed on...so i'm pretty confident it will sell for way higher....(so sayeth Yoda...LOL)

[vodou]

10 hours ago, delekkerste said:

I Sold Andy Warhol (Too Soon) is the sequel, actually - I Bought Andy Warhol was the original.

I am now -officially- old, the senility proves it.

[Bronty]

How do we even define that?   Top sale?  Average?   Total value of body of work?  

I hate to be that guy but it is so content driven.   Consider that if the news report can be believed the most expensive piece of post 1950 illustration sold is by Gerald Scarfe.   Simply because it happened to be the pink Floyd album

[BCarter27]

2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Total value of body of work?  

I would say this or a general sense of the floor. The Pink Floyd album cover sale probably isn't representative of the rest of Scarfe's values.

[vodou]

5 minutes ago, Bronty said:

How do we even define that?   Top sale?  Average?   Total value of body of work?  

I hate to be that guy but it is so content driven.   Consider that if the news report can be believed the most expensive piece of post 1950 illustration sold is by Gerald Scarfe.   Simply because it happened to be the pink Floyd album

I think most of us would agree not singular work but overall body. That's why Warhol is difficult, though he fits the definition singular and body of work. Difficult because what made him a household name and the headline sale at almost every major Post-War and Contemporary art auction this cenury is...not his illustration work.

What was the number on that PF album sale again? It may be the top single piece number for an illustration that's actually sold publicly but I can't imagine it would be competition for the Velvet Underground or Stones's Sticky Fingers, if a new public sale of either happened. And otherwise, nothing illustration-related touches the top single Warhol sale or overall body of work worth, as both are dominated by fine art pricing for Pop.

[Bronty]

2.1 or 2.2m.     Agree re your general comments.  A few comments:

1) this whole conversation proves how difficult it is to get noticed in illustration and undermines the position of the Stan Lee haters because he was one of the few editors/publishers to give artists credit 

2) fine art is driven chiefly by artist 

3) illustration is driven chiefly by subject matter.    Thr fact we are having trouble coming up with names just proves this in spades

Edited December 9, 2018 by Bronty

[BCarter27]

1 hour ago, vodou said:

Difficult because what made him a household name and the headline sale at almost every major Post-War and Contemporary art auction this cenury is...not his illustration work.

Good point. His illustrations are getting a price lift from his pop art. So maybe it is best to consider him an outlier.

So we've got...

Warhol

.

.

McGinnis (if any of the big pieces have sold / will sell. Otherwise, much further down the list.)

Frazetta

.

Nagel

.

Struzan

Peak

Whelan

Alan Lee

Wrightson (illustration only)

BWS (illustration only)

Boris

and Kaja Foglio! (Kidding as that was just a one-piece example, right? But any other MTG artists regularly pulling in heavy numbers?)

 

Bottom of the list probably needs a little ordering by someone who's more up on pricing. Any other consistent top shooters?

 

 

Edited December 9, 2018 by BCarter27

[vodou]

If we're going to include Warhol (I suggest with an asterisk) then we would also need to include James Rosenquist, a billboard sign painter before his gallery (pop!) career took off. If we say that illustration, broadly is advertising, like book cover, movie poster, or game box, then we cannot discount billboard signage.

Rosenquist, Times Square, 1958.

[vodou]

This conversation pulling in Warhol and Rosenquist should inform all, especially the Lichtenstein Haters (yes, it's a club!) that Pop! began not in the galleries (possibly) but in illustration where we collectors would hope it would. Well, for Warhol and Rosenquist, among others no doubt...it did.

[delekkerste]

13 hours ago, BCarter27 said:

Another good pick. A Bond fan perhaps?   Would you consider him influential in movie poster design though or just on trend? (But with great execution, no doubt!)

Have any of his biggest pieces sold? Tiffany's, Thunderball, etc.?

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2017/04/robert-mcginnis-movie-posters-illustrations

In addition to creating some of the most iconic film poster images ever, he also did more than 1,400 paperback covers (and still going...), other illustrations and gallery/fine art work as well.

Vanity Fair magazine published a good story about McGinnis and his impact on pop culture last year.

Edited December 9, 2018 by delekkerste

[vodou]

57 minutes ago, BCarter27 said:

Good point. His illustrations are getting a price lift from his pop art. So maybe it is best to consider him an outlier.

So we've got...

Warhol

.

.

McGinnis (if any of the big pieces have sold / will sell. Otherwise, much further down the list.)

Frazetta

.

Nagel

.

Struzan

Peak

Whelan

Alan Lee

Wrightson (illustration only)

BWS (illustration only)

Boris

and Kaja Foglio! (Kidding as that was just a one-piece example, right? But any other MTG artists regularly pulling in heavy numbers?)

 

Bottom of the list probably needs a little ordering by someone who's more up on pricing. Any other consistent top shooters?

 

 

Somewhere in there we need to see James Bama, but I don't follow the prices enough to know between who and who. His western paintings and prints for the galleries, stupid money, don't forget that.

[Bronty]

Can’t count that though or you have to do the same for McCarthy and Terpning

[Bronty]

No idea what the current record for terpning is but this article that’s almost seven years old talks about 2m 

http://greenwichworkshop.blogspot.com/2012/04/record-breaking-prices-paid-for-howard.html?m=1

[vodou]

2 minutes ago, Bronty said:

Can’t count that though or you have to do the same for McCarthy and Terpning

I would count them too. Illustrators that sell and/or are worth the most, right? Otherwise the whole Warhol is out the window, his illustration work sells for sht compared to the list of other illustrators.

[delekkerste]

6 minutes ago, vodou said:

This conversation pulling in Warhol and Rosenquist should inform all, especially the Lichtenstein Haters (yes, it's a club!) that Pop! began not in the galleries (possibly) but in illustration where we collectors would hope it would. Well, for Warhol and Rosenquist, among others no doubt...it did.

I would exclude all of these guys from the discussion.  They are about as relevant to illustration as Michael Jordan was to baseball. 

Speaking of Rosenquist, I got to meet him back in 2009 through my association with the Guggenheim Museum.  I called him "Jim", and he called me "man".  Though, it sounded more like "mang".  I still sometimes say "Hey mang" to my wife and she knows exactly what I'm talking about.  

[Bronty]

Lol

jordan comparison is a good one

[vodou]

1 minute ago, delekkerste said:

I would exclude all of these guys from the discussion.

We can do that too, though with Rosenquist his illustration period obviously and (imo) completely influenced his fine art. the two are inseparable except for "who" they were for and how much they sold for!

2 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

...through my association with the Guggenheim Museum.

Cool story. What's your association? The Guggenheim is cool but as somebody that had to push a wheelchair around and around and around that joint...whew, not the most 21st century friendly public attraction. I lost weight that day.