dreadnatty
Junior Member
Posts • 5,431
Likes • 6,992
February 2013
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by dreadnatty on Nov 10, 2015 16:09:40 GMT 1, $170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork Ever Sold at Auction
It was a blockbuster evening for Christie’s, which broke numerous records in its “The Artist’s Muse” curated sale last night, including for one of the best known Modiglianis—Nu Couché—which sold to the largest mainland Chinese private collection, the Long Museum in Shanghai, via telephone for $170.4 million including buyer’s premium. That was about $100 million more than the previous record for the artist at auction and the second highest price ever paid for any artwork at auction.
The highest price paid for a piece at auction was Pablo Picasso’s Les femmes d’Alger, which sold for a sliver under $180 million with premium, also at Christie’s, during the spring sales.
The Long Museum is backed by Mr. Liu Yiqian and his wife, Ms. Wang Wei. Mr. Liu got his start as a stockbroker, in the earliest moments of Chinese quasi-capitalism in the 1980s. Perhaps fitting, then, that like most wildly successful capitalists, he quickly became an art collector.
He and his wife, who reportedly acts as curator, have concentrated on Chinese art, making many record smashing purchases in recent years. Last year, Mr. Liu reportedly bought a Ming dynasty tea cup for HK$281 million—and put the transaction on AmEx.
Tonight’s Modigliani, which had not hit the market for 60 years prior to last night, will no doubt be an important jewel in their multifaceted crown.
Also shattering sales records at last night’s sale were Roy Lichtenstein’s Nurse, which sold for a whopping $95.4 million including buyer’s premium, and Thérèse, the most expensive Gaugin sculpture ever sold at auction, at $31 million (it happens it also once belonged to Henri Matisse).
Ernst Ludwig Kirschner’s Tänzerin mit gehobenem Bein, a carved and painted oak sculpture commanded a record $8 million, also a record for the artist, and Gustave Courbet’s Femme nu couchée was snapped up for $15.3 million, barely over the low estimate but still a record.
Those sales made the great number of passes on later lots all the more perplexing. Despite fireworks early on, six of the last nine lots were all passes, and two big lots—Picasso’s Femme a la couronne de fleurs (Marie-Thérèse) and Lucian Freud’s upsetting portrait of his nude daughter, Naked Portrait on a Red Sofa—were both held. There were murmurs to the effect that the curated format was to blame.
But auctioneer postwar Chairman for Christie’s Brett Gorvy, speaking after the sale, said there are more curated shows on the horizon, and the house is looking towards abstraction as the thruline for the next one.
“You’re trying to address the buyers in a new way,” he said. This sale “excited the consigners,” as well, he said. For the next special sale, the theme is likely to be “the pursuit of abstraction in the 20th and 21st centuries.”
Would that mean a thinning of staff at the auction house? After all, special sales seem to mean many departments working on relatively few lots. He said that’s not the case. “No, I think you’d need more people,” if Christie’s continues to hold special sales, he said.
He added that the Lucian Freud, which was a pass despite the fact that it was bid up to $500,000 below the low estimate, was held because it could do better in an aftersale. There were two bidders, Mr. Gorvy said, who wouldn’t budge, so in cases like this they’re held because “they’ll sell for more than they would in the room,” especially if Freuds go for high prices at the upcoming contemporary sales.
Christie’s president Jussi Pylkkänen said the house was “incredibly pleased,” with the sale, which “exemplifies what curation is about.” He added that the lots that did not sell reflected buyers’ probable focus on trophy works. Still, he said, “it will be a billion dollar week here at Christie’s for sure.”
Lisa Schiff, with SFA Art Advisory, pointed to the marathon of auctions starting on Sunday evening, which was causing fatigue for everyone, as a likely contributor to the sluggish bidding. “I don’t think we need sales every night…I worry that the 24/7 gallery is next!” she told the Observer via email. Another adviser, Todd Levin, director of Levin Art Group, said “the market is a touch softer than this time last year.”
Indeed, the sell-through rate for “The Artist’s Muse” was a mere 71 percent, despite the showdown for the Modigliani. The total sold last night was $491.4 million including premiums.
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork Ever Sold at Auction
It was a blockbuster evening for Christie’s, which broke numerous records in its “The Artist’s Muse” curated sale last night, including for one of the best known Modiglianis—Nu Couché—which sold to the largest mainland Chinese private collection, the Long Museum in Shanghai, via telephone for $170.4 million including buyer’s premium. That was about $100 million more than the previous record for the artist at auction and the second highest price ever paid for any artwork at auction.
The highest price paid for a piece at auction was Pablo Picasso’s Les femmes d’Alger, which sold for a sliver under $180 million with premium, also at Christie’s, during the spring sales.
The Long Museum is backed by Mr. Liu Yiqian and his wife, Ms. Wang Wei. Mr. Liu got his start as a stockbroker, in the earliest moments of Chinese quasi-capitalism in the 1980s. Perhaps fitting, then, that like most wildly successful capitalists, he quickly became an art collector.
He and his wife, who reportedly acts as curator, have concentrated on Chinese art, making many record smashing purchases in recent years. Last year, Mr. Liu reportedly bought a Ming dynasty tea cup for HK$281 million—and put the transaction on AmEx.
Tonight’s Modigliani, which had not hit the market for 60 years prior to last night, will no doubt be an important jewel in their multifaceted crown.
Also shattering sales records at last night’s sale were Roy Lichtenstein’s Nurse, which sold for a whopping $95.4 million including buyer’s premium, and Thérèse, the most expensive Gaugin sculpture ever sold at auction, at $31 million (it happens it also once belonged to Henri Matisse).
Ernst Ludwig Kirschner’s Tänzerin mit gehobenem Bein, a carved and painted oak sculpture commanded a record $8 million, also a record for the artist, and Gustave Courbet’s Femme nu couchée was snapped up for $15.3 million, barely over the low estimate but still a record.
Those sales made the great number of passes on later lots all the more perplexing. Despite fireworks early on, six of the last nine lots were all passes, and two big lots—Picasso’s Femme a la couronne de fleurs (Marie-Thérèse) and Lucian Freud’s upsetting portrait of his nude daughter, Naked Portrait on a Red Sofa—were both held. There were murmurs to the effect that the curated format was to blame.
But auctioneer postwar Chairman for Christie’s Brett Gorvy, speaking after the sale, said there are more curated shows on the horizon, and the house is looking towards abstraction as the thruline for the next one.
“You’re trying to address the buyers in a new way,” he said. This sale “excited the consigners,” as well, he said. For the next special sale, the theme is likely to be “the pursuit of abstraction in the 20th and 21st centuries.”
Would that mean a thinning of staff at the auction house? After all, special sales seem to mean many departments working on relatively few lots. He said that’s not the case. “No, I think you’d need more people,” if Christie’s continues to hold special sales, he said.
He added that the Lucian Freud, which was a pass despite the fact that it was bid up to $500,000 below the low estimate, was held because it could do better in an aftersale. There were two bidders, Mr. Gorvy said, who wouldn’t budge, so in cases like this they’re held because “they’ll sell for more than they would in the room,” especially if Freuds go for high prices at the upcoming contemporary sales.
Christie’s president Jussi Pylkkänen said the house was “incredibly pleased,” with the sale, which “exemplifies what curation is about.” He added that the lots that did not sell reflected buyers’ probable focus on trophy works. Still, he said, “it will be a billion dollar week here at Christie’s for sure.”
Lisa Schiff, with SFA Art Advisory, pointed to the marathon of auctions starting on Sunday evening, which was causing fatigue for everyone, as a likely contributor to the sluggish bidding. “I don’t think we need sales every night…I worry that the 24/7 gallery is next!” she told the Observer via email. Another adviser, Todd Levin, director of Levin Art Group, said “the market is a touch softer than this time last year.”
Indeed, the sell-through rate for “The Artist’s Muse” was a mere 71 percent, despite the showdown for the Modigliani. The total sold last night was $491.4 million including premiums.
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
Posts • 7,043
Likes • 8,981
August 2011
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by Dr Plip on Nov 10, 2015 16:11:41 GMT 1, To be fair, it is a nice one.
To be fair, it is a nice one.
|
|
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by Coach on Nov 10, 2015 16:25:00 GMT 1, There are a couple of gorgeous Modigliani nudes in the Courtauld Institute which are certainly worth a look.
One of my favorite artists. I used to have a small print of this painting on my wall when I was a student.
Quite frightening what a wealthy few are prepared to pay for art these days.
As a collector I obviously believe that people should be able to own art. But I do sometimes feel that some art is so important that everyone should be able to see it, such that it shouldn't be in a private collection.
But before I'm shouted at for a half cocked I'll thought out plan, I'll stop, as I'm just thinking out loud really.
There are a couple of gorgeous Modigliani nudes in the Courtauld Institute which are certainly worth a look.
One of my favorite artists. I used to have a small print of this painting on my wall when I was a student.
Quite frightening what a wealthy few are prepared to pay for art these days.
As a collector I obviously believe that people should be able to own art. But I do sometimes feel that some art is so important that everyone should be able to see it, such that it shouldn't be in a private collection.
But before I'm shouted at for a half cocked I'll thought out plan, I'll stop, as I'm just thinking out loud really.
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
Posts • 7,043
Likes • 8,981
August 2011
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by Dr Plip on Nov 10, 2015 16:39:57 GMT 1, There are a couple of gorgeous Modigliani nudes in the Courtauld Institute which are certainly worth a look. One of my favorite artists. I used to have a small print of this painting on my wall when I was a student. Quite frightening what a wealthy few are prepared to pay for art these days. As a collector I obviously believe that people should be able to own art. But I do sometimes feel that some art is so important that everyone should be able to see it, such that it shouldn't be in a private collection. But before I'm shouted at for a half cocked I'll thought out plan, I'll stop, as I'm just thinking out loud really. Yeah, there are some lovely paintings out there that never see the light of day. Some famous works, we don't even know who owns them or where they are nowadays. I know you can't put all art on public display, but it does seem a shame when (widely considered) great works of art can only be viewed in books or online.
The recession really bit the art collectors didn't it?
There are a couple of gorgeous Modigliani nudes in the Courtauld Institute which are certainly worth a look. One of my favorite artists. I used to have a small print of this painting on my wall when I was a student. Quite frightening what a wealthy few are prepared to pay for art these days. As a collector I obviously believe that people should be able to own art. But I do sometimes feel that some art is so important that everyone should be able to see it, such that it shouldn't be in a private collection. But before I'm shouted at for a half cocked I'll thought out plan, I'll stop, as I'm just thinking out loud really. Yeah, there are some lovely paintings out there that never see the light of day. Some famous works, we don't even know who owns them or where they are nowadays. I know you can't put all art on public display, but it does seem a shame when (widely considered) great works of art can only be viewed in books or online. The recession really bit the art collectors didn't it?
|
|
tab1
Full Member
Posts • 8,519
Likes • 3,679
September 2011
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by tab1 on Nov 10, 2015 16:47:21 GMT 1, There are a couple of gorgeous Modigliani nudes in the Courtauld Institute which are certainly worth a look. One of my favorite artists. I used to have a small print of this painting on my wall when I was a student. Quite frightening what a wealthy few are prepared to pay for art these days. As a collector I obviously believe that people should be able to own art. But I do sometimes feel that some art is so important that everyone should be able to see it, such that it shouldn't be in a private collection. But before I'm shouted at for a half cocked I'll thought out plan, I'll stop, as I'm just thinking out loud really. Yeah, there are some lovely paintings out there that never see the light of day. Some famous works, we don't even know who owns them or where they are nowadays. I know you can't put all art on public display, but it does seem a shame when (widely considered) great works of art can only be viewed in books or online. The recession really bit the art collectors didn't it?
Anyone follow the classic art market and classic car market after the 2008 recession
There are a couple of gorgeous Modigliani nudes in the Courtauld Institute which are certainly worth a look. One of my favorite artists. I used to have a small print of this painting on my wall when I was a student. Quite frightening what a wealthy few are prepared to pay for art these days. As a collector I obviously believe that people should be able to own art. But I do sometimes feel that some art is so important that everyone should be able to see it, such that it shouldn't be in a private collection. But before I'm shouted at for a half cocked I'll thought out plan, I'll stop, as I'm just thinking out loud really. Yeah, there are some lovely paintings out there that never see the light of day. Some famous works, we don't even know who owns them or where they are nowadays. I know you can't put all art on public display, but it does seem a shame when (widely considered) great works of art can only be viewed in books or online. The recession really bit the art collectors didn't it? Anyone follow the classic art market and classic car market after the 2008 recession
|
|
tab1
Full Member
Posts • 8,519
Likes • 3,679
September 2011
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by tab1 on Nov 10, 2015 16:47:52 GMT 1, There are a couple of gorgeous Modigliani nudes in the Courtauld Institute which are certainly worth a look. One of my favorite artists. I used to have a small print of this painting on my wall when I was a student. Quite frightening what a wealthy few are prepared to pay for art these days. As a collector I obviously believe that people should be able to own art. But I do sometimes feel that some art is so important that everyone should be able to see it, such that it shouldn't be in a private collection. But before I'm shouted at for a half cocked I'll thought out plan, I'll stop, as I'm just thinking out loud really. Yeah, there are some lovely paintings out there that never see the light of day. Some famous works, we don't even know who owns them or where they are nowadays. I know you can't put all art on public display, but it does seem a shame when (widely considered) great works of art can only be viewed in books or online. The recession really bit the art collectors didn't it?
Anyone follow the classic art market and classic car market after the 2008 recession
There are a couple of gorgeous Modigliani nudes in the Courtauld Institute which are certainly worth a look. One of my favorite artists. I used to have a small print of this painting on my wall when I was a student. Quite frightening what a wealthy few are prepared to pay for art these days. As a collector I obviously believe that people should be able to own art. But I do sometimes feel that some art is so important that everyone should be able to see it, such that it shouldn't be in a private collection. But before I'm shouted at for a half cocked I'll thought out plan, I'll stop, as I'm just thinking out loud really. Yeah, there are some lovely paintings out there that never see the light of day. Some famous works, we don't even know who owns them or where they are nowadays. I know you can't put all art on public display, but it does seem a shame when (widely considered) great works of art can only be viewed in books or online. The recession really bit the art collectors didn't it? Anyone follow the classic art market and classic car market after the 2008 recession
|
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
Posts • 7,043
Likes • 8,981
August 2011
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by Dr Plip on Nov 10, 2015 16:52:51 GMT 1,
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,782
Likes • 6,706
June 2009
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by met on Nov 10, 2015 17:27:11 GMT 1, There are a couple of gorgeous Modigliani nudes in the Courtauld Institute which are certainly worth a look. One of my favorite artists. I used to have a small print of this painting on my wall when I was a student. Quite frightening what a wealthy few are prepared to pay for art these days. As a collector I obviously believe that people should be able to own art. But I do sometimes feel that some art is so important that everyone should be able to see it, such that it shouldn't be in a private collection. But before I'm shouted at for a half cocked I'll thought out plan, I'll stop, as I'm just thinking out loud really. Yeah, there are some lovely paintings out there that never see the light of day. Some famous works, we don't even know who owns them or where they are nowadays. I know you can't put all art on public display, but it does seem a shame when (widely considered) great works of art can only be viewed in books or online. The recession really bit the art collectors didn't it? For me, there's a flip side to this argument:
There are so many publicly-accessible great works of art in my own city which I still haven't made time to see (let alone in other cities I've lived in, travelled to, or have yet to visit), that I am in no position to gripe about works currently being held in private collections.
Separately, I often find myself quite content revisiting a small number of paintings over and over again, like the Cy Twombly Bacchus series at Tate Modern.
There are a couple of gorgeous Modigliani nudes in the Courtauld Institute which are certainly worth a look. One of my favorite artists. I used to have a small print of this painting on my wall when I was a student. Quite frightening what a wealthy few are prepared to pay for art these days. As a collector I obviously believe that people should be able to own art. But I do sometimes feel that some art is so important that everyone should be able to see it, such that it shouldn't be in a private collection. But before I'm shouted at for a half cocked I'll thought out plan, I'll stop, as I'm just thinking out loud really. Yeah, there are some lovely paintings out there that never see the light of day. Some famous works, we don't even know who owns them or where they are nowadays. I know you can't put all art on public display, but it does seem a shame when (widely considered) great works of art can only be viewed in books or online. The recession really bit the art collectors didn't it? For me, there's a flip side to this argument: There are so many publicly-accessible great works of art in my own city which I still haven't made time to see (let alone in other cities I've lived in, travelled to, or have yet to visit), that I am in no position to gripe about works currently being held in private collections. Separately, I often find myself quite content revisiting a small number of paintings over and over again, like the Cy Twombly Bacchus series at Tate Modern.
|
|
lee3
New Member
Posts • 832
Likes • 1,290
November 2009
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by lee3 on Nov 10, 2015 17:29:50 GMT 1, Perfect painting from a cherished artist so it comes as no surprise. The surprise to me was the fact that Freud's portrait of his gorgeous then 30 year old daughter went unsold. I also loved the fact that a 4 foot square Lichtenstein nearly hit $100mm especially in light of Life magazine wondering aloud if he was America's worst artist just 51 years ago when "he little dreamed that within two years of his first pop exhibition, his canvases would be selling out at prices up to $4,000."
www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lifemagroy.htm
Perfect painting from a cherished artist so it comes as no surprise. The surprise to me was the fact that Freud's portrait of his gorgeous then 30 year old daughter went unsold. I also loved the fact that a 4 foot square Lichtenstein nearly hit $100mm especially in light of Life magazine wondering aloud if he was America's worst artist just 51 years ago when "he little dreamed that within two years of his first pop exhibition, his canvases would be selling out at prices up to $4,000." www.lichtensteinfoundation.org/lifemagroy.htm
|
|
Hairbland
Junior Member
Posts • 2,943
Likes • 2,733
November 2010
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by Hairbland on Nov 10, 2015 22:48:14 GMT 1, To be fair, it is a nice one. And it is going to be displayed in an art museum in a pretty hip town.
To be fair, it is a nice one. And it is going to be displayed in an art museum in a pretty hip town.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by Deleted on Nov 10, 2015 22:59:36 GMT 1, I was going to say I am gutted that no one let me know this was up for auction, and I have missed out again, but i wont
I was going to say I am gutted that no one let me know this was up for auction, and I have missed out again, but i wont
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
Posts • 7,043
Likes • 8,981
August 2011
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by Dr Plip on Nov 11, 2015 0:06:52 GMT 1, I was going to say I am gutted that no one let me know this was up for auction, and I have missed out again, but i wont Don't worry, maybe the art police won't let it go on the wall and it'll be offered on the forum next week
I was going to say I am gutted that no one let me know this was up for auction, and I have missed out again, but i wont Don't worry, maybe the art police won't let it go on the wall and it'll be offered on the forum next week
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by Deleted on Nov 11, 2015 1:46:18 GMT 1, I was going to say I am gutted that no one let me know this was up for auction, and I have missed out again, but i wont Don't worry, maybe the art police won't let it go on the wall and it'll be offered on the forum next week Nah, it's already on eBay for 1B...they say they found it at Dismaland.
I was going to say I am gutted that no one let me know this was up for auction, and I have missed out again, but i wont Don't worry, maybe the art police won't let it go on the wall and it'll be offered on the forum next week Nah, it's already on eBay for 1B...they say they found it at Dismaland.
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
Posts • 7,043
Likes • 8,981
August 2011
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by Dr Plip on Nov 11, 2015 1:50:00 GMT 1, Don't worry, maybe the art police won't let it go on the wall and it'll be offered on the forum next week Nah, it's already on eBay for 1B...they say they found it at Dismaland. Could be a Banksy.
Don't worry, maybe the art police won't let it go on the wall and it'll be offered on the forum next week Nah, it's already on eBay for 1B...they say they found it at Dismaland. Could be a Banksy.
|
|
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
Posts • 7,043
Likes • 8,981
August 2011
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by Dr Plip on Nov 11, 2015 2:34:47 GMT 1, Yeah, there are some lovely paintings out there that never see the light of day. Some famous works, we don't even know who owns them or where they are nowadays. I know you can't put all art on public display, but it does seem a shame when (widely considered) great works of art can only be viewed in books or online. The recession really bit the art collectors didn't it? For me, there's a flip side to this argument: There are so many publicly-accessible great works of art in my own city which I still haven't made time to see (let alone in other cities I've lived in, travelled to, or have yet to visit), that I am in no position to gripe about works currently being held in private collections. Separately, I often find myself quite content revisiting a small number of paintings over and over again, like the Cy Twombly Bacchus series at Tate Modern. S'true. Tate's Twomblys are quite lovely. You can't beat seeing them in person.
Yeah, there are some lovely paintings out there that never see the light of day. Some famous works, we don't even know who owns them or where they are nowadays. I know you can't put all art on public display, but it does seem a shame when (widely considered) great works of art can only be viewed in books or online. The recession really bit the art collectors didn't it? For me, there's a flip side to this argument: There are so many publicly-accessible great works of art in my own city which I still haven't made time to see (let alone in other cities I've lived in, travelled to, or have yet to visit), that I am in no position to gripe about works currently being held in private collections. Separately, I often find myself quite content revisiting a small number of paintings over and over again, like the Cy Twombly Bacchus series at Tate Modern. S'true. Tate's Twomblys are quite lovely. You can't beat seeing them in person.
|
|
Viking Surfer
Junior Member
Posts • 2,390
Likes • 3,508
February 2015
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by Viking Surfer on Nov 11, 2015 3:00:57 GMT 1,
It is a beautiful work.
I'd take this over the Gauguin, any day of the week.
It is a beautiful work. I'd take this over the Gauguin, any day of the week.
|
|
gravity1
New Member
Posts • 777
Likes • 492
January 2013
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by gravity1 on Nov 11, 2015 4:14:38 GMT 1, It is a beautiful work. I'd take this over the Gauguin, any day of the week. Who are we kidding... Both look like student works from middle school.
It is a beautiful work. I'd take this over the Gauguin, any day of the week. Who are we kidding... Both look like student works from middle school.
|
|
met
Junior Member
Posts • 2,782
Likes • 6,706
June 2009
|
$170.4 M Modigliani Is the Second Most Expensive Artwork, by met on Nov 11, 2015 6:07:56 GMT 1, It is a beautiful work. [...] Beautifully eerie, isn't it. How peaceful the body seems despite both eyes having been pecked out by crows.
And the remainder of the corpse is remarkably unscathed. It almost looks like a woman who's resting or sleeping.
It is a beautiful work. [...] Beautifully eerie, isn't it. How peaceful the body seems despite both eyes having been pecked out by crows. And the remainder of the corpse is remarkably unscathed. It almost looks like a woman who's resting or sleeping.
|
|