along the lines of what Lamour is saying...from the minds of the auction houses...it's a toy if you spend $65 for one, and it's art if you spend $8,000 on a set...
They have always been Art...they have now been elevated to the status of auctionworthy items...because they can turn a profit with them. This is in no way the true arbiter of what's good or bad "art," but an indicator of a market and the load it can bear. I own pieces of art that would never turn up at auction...yet they are better than 99% of what I see offered in evening sales containing pieces by the biggest names in fine art...that doesn't negate that they are still amazing artworks... these things we collect were Art the second their creator dreamt them up. everything else is icing.
Oh, I don't know, I've always found buying art to be quite fun. I know what you mean, though. I prefer them to be 'just' toys, as well.
It is funny how "top secret" everyone is acting here - the people running the auction bought stuff for several auctions prior to these two from a single east coast dealer that is a prominent ebay seller. It shouldn't take you long to figure that one out. If you want to get in touch with the auction house, just email them. After the success of several of these auctions, the auction house is getting in touch with anyone that they think might have some more backstock of any sort. In a way it is cool to see these toys in the same light as "art", but the route they are taking is less cool -look at the KAWS pieces, they are priced very close to market value, as people know them. The Japanese stuff, no one knows about it, so people are getting rooked. I think that is kind of lame, just because someone doesn't know any better does not make it okay to take advantage of them, regardless of their wealth or stupidity. Don't think for a second that these guys are setting the prices, their "informants" are. I wonder why their informants are just as greedy once it benefits them?
this kindof sucks. i mean if there were enough of these things to go around even in our somewhat small community here i wouldnt say a word, but even we have trouble getting our hands on these things. from day one iv always considered each and every one of my pieces, or an of the ones out there for that matter, as art. someone made the sculpt which weather or not it was an original idea, they created it in the physical world. then it got produced, and then painted which is another artistic application. i dont know im arguing with myself now in my head that if any hoity toit is gonna pay 6k for a toy then thats good for them because theyr only gonna get one, and anyone who pays (or doesnt but looks furthur into them ) and actually loves them and finds themselvs collecting is ok. idk why im posting this anymore : )
As an alternate (and maybe off-topic) observation, some of the estimated values for works by established artists are considerably lower than what you'd see in the gallery system. What this tells me pretty much confirms Brian's point about informants influencing the high toy estimates. In other words, the greed factor isn't necessarily the auction house's. I know one collector who buys contemporary art from auction houses exclusively because the deals are so great. This means that he's not getting the vanguard stuff by the "up and coming" or very "current" artists, but on the other hand, would be paying tens of thousands more for his Sol Lewitts and Robert Motherwells and so on if buying through the conventional galleries.
I could live with that! (Though I am still a tiny bit tormented by not buying that one Hernan Bas during Basel/Miami '05.)
The big art fairs in Miami blow the annual one here in SF away. There are several pieces in this auction that I really like. The Chuck Close portrait of Philip Glass is really cool. He painted that with a brush held between his teeth, being quadriplegic as he's been since the late 80s. The huge original from the mid-70s looks like a photo from a distance, but is entirely composed of fingerprints. You can see it in the background of a scene in Woody Allen's "Manhattan." I did a lot of the Nordic Moderne furniture too.
Here are the results from Saturday night's NYC Phillips kaiju auction. Most of the SB didn't sell, and overall the hammer prices seem a bit lower than in London a few weeks back, but there were still a few surprising numbers - Mark's HP Eyezon went for $2000, last year's Medicom Daft Punk pair went for $3125. See http://www.phillipsdepury.com/docs/sp_docs/auction_results/NY000108.pdf And here's the catalog pics again, for ease of cross-reference. All toys are items 88-113 and 289-300, on pp. 2, 3 and 7. http://www.phillipsdepury.com/auctions/online-catalog.aspx?sn=NY000108&rpp=48&search=&order=&p=1 What makes me nuts is that the Eames screen I was ogling (item 413) went for $1250 - Seems awfully cheap, I'd've paid that with a big ol' smile on my face. Could be it had condition issues, or maybe all this recession talk is getting serious. Xono's Chuck Close tapestry (item 45)went for $2750.
I think correct me if I'm wrong, they hocked all the other toys on ebay. Some of the ones not listed on the pdf has bidders on fleabay
Mark's a well-established artist. Not surprising his work would attract more attention. Plus I think it's cool that the custom is on a figure he also designed.
\ Ididn't stick around for the Eames screen, but it was pretty beat up in person, so that may have explained the lower price. You wouldn't have liked it in person. I love Eames and I wouldn't have. Recession seemed not a much of a factor as there was lusty bidding on many items. (the murakami prints e.g. went for a ton - 2000-4000$ each, except for 727-727, which ended at 10000.) I was stunned to see that the Nara sleepless night figure went for 8000. That seemed like a lot, but shows what I know.
anyone surprised by the number of lots that didn't sell? I was after all the hype of the London sale...looks like NY buyers know their stuff a little better...though some pieces that are really amazing didn't sell...like that NerdOne Cronic Nougaki... and the Kaws stuff went for lower prices than ebay...about the same if you include the buyers premium.
I have never used an auction such as this before so please forgive the stupid question... having said that I was just wondering if an item doesn't sell does it mean that no one bid high enough on the item...? I'm just noticing that some of the numbers have been skipped over or omitted from the final bid spreadsheet so what does that mean exactly...?
Yes your right... there is usually a preset minimum bid that is hidden from bidders and if no one bids over that the item is withdrawn.
usually when they're not listed in the results they were passed on during the auction... there should still be results if they sold regardless of where the bid came from...so they probably didn't reach reserve... but correct me if I'm wrong...you're saying that all the lots sold?
I'm not sure if there was a minimum on the live auctions I saw on fleabay, but all the missing ones I saw on ebay. the nagata damn etc, and they ALL had bids. Check out the completed auctions. I didn't look too carefully I was just curious about the holes in the pdf so checked on the bay.
Yes, they had bids...but they weren't high enough. Bidding on these items through eBay is just proxy bidding, there's no difference.
Re: While I see the good side for the creators. I sincerely do. I would like to play devils advocate and ask what sort of duty or loyalty does the creator owe to its early supporters, if any? This "movement" could be seen from two sides. The creators and buyers/fans/supporters. Ofcourse the creators enjoy recognition for their art. I think they do pretty darn well, recieving it daily from there loyal and vocal supporters who willingly shell out ther hard earned money to own a piece of beautiful art or toy, whatever way you want to look at it. So to me the only real benefit I can see for creators is monetary. As to seeking recognition form the "fine art" world, I am sure that if that is what you wanted then you would be making art for that world. (Iam sure there are other views I would like to here from some artists thoughts on this) And there is the supporters side. Personally speaking. I dont need to pay inflated prices just so I can feel "validated". I think Pauls statement/questions here are necessary and though they seem almost rhetorical or obviously right, need answering.
Re: Re: Regardless of the moral aspects of this question, those early supporters may have a duty back to the artist if they cash in on their prescience in CA ... A cash duty! CA's Resale Royalty Act requires 5% of 'fine art' resales over $1000 be repaid to the artist, and the burden is on the seller to find and pay him. So, if Phillips holds one of these auctions in LA or SF and has some >$1000 kaiju sales, I wonder whether they will consider this tax to be payable? It doesn't define 'fine art' in this section beyond saying it includes sculpture, but in another related chapter (982), it specifically lists 'crafts' made from 'plastic' as among the items included in the definition of the term 'fine art.' Here's the section itself (It's 986, about 1/3 of the way down) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=00001-01000&file=980-989 and here's a short article on it, including a link to CA Lawyers For The Arts, a source for artists to obtain legal help : http://www.cac.ca.gov/resaleroyaltyact/resaleroyaltyact.php Some people ask artists for waivers of these rights when they buy a piece. This has been the law in CA for 30 years or so, but I don't know how often the checks are actually written. There is an online list of artists that CA for whom CA is holding unclaimed royalty payments here - http://www.cac.ca.gov/resaleroyaltyact/resaleroyaltyactlist.php
