Christie's contemporary

I took some time today to stop by the Christie's in Rockefeller Plaza for the First Open Post-War and Contemporary Art preview. The auction happens April 1.

There were a lot of shocking sticker prices that made me wonder how long the art market can maintain this. The place was packed, however, and there was a lot of good work there. This is one of those cases where I didn't photograph all my favorite work -- just what struck my fancy for one reason or another.

See photos below, with Christie's estimated prices attached -- and my totally unqualified commentary on those prices.

Ida Applebroog, Untitled (Knife), 1995.

Estimate: $5,000-7,000.

DG estimate: Completely worth it. Applebroog seems underappreciated.

Andy Warhol, Untitled (Furniture), circa 1960.

Estimate: $20,000-30,000.

DG estimate: Worth it... if you must buy a Warhol. Seeing this charming tempera work reminds me of how much I like Warhol's illustrations. They're much better than the horrific star-fucking icon paintings. As a painter friend of mine is fond of saying, Warhol was a genius because he painted icons. Who doesn't want Marilyn in their living room? If I were a museum (and I understand that I'm a relic, at least) I would buy one of these pieces instead of pissing money away on another soup can. Who needs another Mao?

Dana Schutz, Untitled, 2001.

Estimate: $120,000-180,000.

DG estimate: Yowsers. I have to admite my heart leaped when I saw this price tag. She's very young -- she got her MFA in 2002, I think? -- and very talented. Clearly this price tag is for collectors banking on Schutz's continued ascendancy so they can have an "early" work. It's a good painting, though: check out the second photo, which is detail of the little bird in the tree on the far right. To paint like that takes Schutz-pah!

Elizabeth Peyton, "Stephen Malkmus," 1998.

Estimate: $25,000-35,000.

DG estimate: Let me go into a brief backstory. I'm feeling bad about a sort-of bad review I gave Peyton for the 2006 Whitney Biennial. A friend of mine read that recently and I tried to explain myself and when it comes down to it, it's not the work I have problems with; it's the money. I'm sorry for reacting against the hype and not just the work. I actually do like some of her work a lot. Some of it I don't care for, but I could say that about Gainsborough.

I like that her life is intertwined with her art and her friends are indistinguishable subjects from her musical interests (yeah, Malkmus, yeah!). The price for this work is actually low compared to some of her other stuff. Is it worth it? I don't actually have the money to evaluate. But if I were forced to spend that cash, I would rather buy 3,500 copies of Pavement's Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain and distribute them to the needy.

Robert Motherwell, Untitled, 1975.

Estimate: $20,000-30,000.

DG estimate: Yes. Buy it now. Not only was a Robert Motherwell book responsible for getting me into the idea of abstract art as a teenager, but here you have a funny work where it's clear he's written the numeral "4." It's funny to think of a leading abstract expressionist getting his feet wet in Jasper Johns figures-as-abstraction territory, and for that this seems like an even more important document. The guy knew balance and gesture.

Ray Parker, Untitled, 1967.

Estimate: $3,000-5,000.

DG estimate: Worth much more -- maybe. It seems like a low price tag, but I have to admit that I didn't know his work before seeing the couple pieces at Christie's. Apparently he was a member of that first generation of post-war American abstractionists working in New York. This photo doesn't do it justice, but his work seems very balanced yet dynamic, managing to keep my eyes in a controlled movement (like Cirque du Soleil?). The NY Times has a review for those interested in Ray Parker's "Piece of the Abstract Puzzle."

Posted by harry at March 28, 2008 07:35 PM | TrackBack