Tyler Green Modern Art Notes

A couple of quick notes from the mailbag:

• Quite a few readers have written to argue that the $50M+ Picasso that everyone is talking about isn’t that great a Picasso. Well, I haven’t seen it in person so I’m pretty wary of passing along a judgment with my name on it, but I’d say this: Auctions aren’t about big numbers for the best paintings. Auctions are about big numbers for paintings that come available. Picasso Rose Period paintings don’t come up that often. Here is a list of the top ten paintings to sell at auction. It’s not loaded with masterpieces, just very good paintings that were available.
• A reader informs me that my idea of building an underground parking lot for the Barnes on the Episcopal Academy property is DOA. The Barnes is apparently built on bedrock.

Sotheby’s has posted the results of the Carleton Watkins auction we talked about a couple days ago. I’m not a pro but the prices look pretty strong to me. (This was the belle of the ball, $310K on a $100-150K estimate.) I wonder if institutions were buyers…

For more on Watkins, check out the website the NGA put together on the occasion of SF MOMA’s 1999/2000 traveling show.

NOTE: My Jim Dine drawings @ the National Gallery of Art review is up at Artnet.

NYT’er Carol Vogel’s auction preview story is out. (If you’re new to the story, it involves this Picasso, up next Wednesday, May 5 at Sotheby’s.) We discussed this at length in the post below this one, so I’ll just point out that today Vogel includes this line:

“Experts at Sotheby’s, which has put a $70 million estimate on “Boy With a Pipe,” shiver at the mention of $100 million for the work, saying all the spin is scaring away potential bidders.”

Does anyone believe that? It’s that buzz that got them a major auction preview story in the New York Times and in other outlets. This, in turn, creates the buzz that drives future sales. 

The Boston Globe’s preview story, by Tatsha Robertson, is much better sourced. Sure, two of the quoted have pretty strong interests in seeing a record (and Robertson mostly shows she’s really good at calling Feigen-related phone numbers), but I’d still take Robertson’s sources over Vogel’s flacking.

Bloomberg also previews the auctions, but you’ll never stay awake through the whole story.

Sidenote: The Greentree Foundation, described by Vogel as “established to further international relations,” actually mostly does other things. Greentree is a Chinati Foundation supporter, hosts meetings of Long Island-based foundations, focuses on educational enhancement projects started by community groups, and supports ecological preservation. Their Form 990 is here. Because this is journalism about art (and commerce), the NYT apparently did not check it beforehand and likely will not run a correction nor a clarification.

The folks at the Barnes are none-too-thrilled with the Philly Inky. (Background is here.)

How hot is photography? Sotheby’s held a photography auction last night, you know, the “from a private collection,” kind of thing. Forty of the 43 lots sold for over the high estimate. Now I don’t know anything about the auction histories of the artists whose work was up last night (it would be easy enough to look up, but I have a real job!), but 40 of 43 seems damned impressive. A couple interesting notes:

An Arbus photo estimated at $250-350K went for $479K. Robert Frank was super-hot. This image had a $20-30K estimate and gaveled at $131K. You can flip through the results, with images, starting here.

Yesterday we featured some favorite lots from the upcoming Christie’s auctions. Today we look at Sotheby’s (note: the links are slooow to load):

• Sotheby’s is devoting an entire auction to a collection of Carleton Watkins fascinating, art historically-crucial photos of Yosemite. They’re well-worth the browse.
• This divisionist Matisse (it would be fair to call it a near-ish-pointillist painting) is from a crucial period in his life, just as he was about to break through into fauvism. The estimate is $1.5-2M. Art history buffs will notice that this work was painted in late 1904 or early 1905, just as Matisse was emerging from a public scandal involving his wife’s family and just before Matisse said goodbye to Flemish earth-tones and hello to color. (Hilary Spurling’s fine first volume of an expected two-volume biography of Matisse chronicles this wonderfully. Aside: After Matisse, Spurling should do Bonnard. Or someone should.)
• If you like horses, you’d have loved the John Hay Whitneys.
• Chunky girls + flowers = Dull. Chunky girls + flowers + Renoir = $4-6M.
• If I’m going to drop $4-6M on a Balthus, I think I’d want it to be a little, well, naughtier.
• A good but not great Picasso for $10-15M? Sure, the painting is all about Picasso v. Matisse, and there was a big Picasso v. Matisse show that just traveled ’round, but $15M? Sotheby’s is being mighty aggressive with those estimates this year. See the two previous paintings for confirmation.
• $1-1.5M for a guy with a cowlick? Oh, wait…

Admin note: Just about every post I’ve made today was updated during the afternoon. If you’ve already read ‘em, take a second look for the updates.

I haven’t seen it yet, but don’t miss tomorrow’s Carol Vogel piece in the NYT. In it, she will do Sotheby’s bidding, flacking the possibility that Picasso’s Garcon a la Pipe will set an auction record for highest price paid for a painting. (The record was set by Van Gogh’s Portrait of Dr. Gachet, an average Van Gogh that was bought for $82.5 million in 1990. Its purchase and subsequent semi-disappearnce is wonderfully chronicled by Cynthia Saltzman in her book The Portrait of Dr. Gachet.)

Sotheby’s says that the painting has been valued in excess of $70M (they quote that figure in a nice little promotional Flash presentation that you can access here), but, of course, it’s in their interest to say so. (Except, of course, in their catalogue, where they say that the painting’s estimate is available “upon request.” What transparent poppycock — and what a silly way to drive up the price.) I predict that Vogel will jump in tomorrow and that she will shamelessly pump the painting. If there was ever any doubt that Vogel is in the back pocket of the auction industry, here’s betting that Friday’s write-up will dispel it.

(How do I know all this? The NYT teased it in print today. And I’ve read Vogel’s previous reporting on this painting. We’ll see if I’m right…)

From my Artnet Magazine review of the National Gallery of Art’s Jim Dine drawings show:

“Why is the National Gallery launching a Jim Dine drawing show and why now?

Here’s what I came up with: It is spring break and cherry blossom season in Washington and the National Gallery decided to put on a nice show for the tourists to come see. (Not that the National Gallery would cop to that.)”

Admin note: If you link to the main page of MAN, I see it on my hit stats. If you link to any other page, I don’t. So if you link to me and I don’t drop you a note of thanks or some such thing, ’tis why…. (This reminder prompted by Gawker being kind enough to link to MAN yesterday… and not showing up in our hit stats!)

Greg Allen is having fun with auctions too. He makes a fine find here and — coincidence — has a daughter for sale. (There is nothing easier than posting about the auctions — five minutes of work = long post.)

Saskia Olde Wolbers won the Beck’s Futures prize in London yesterday. Los Angeles art-goers have already seen the winning entry, Placebo. It was in Displaced, a strong group video show at the Hammer last year.

The Boston Globe runs a nice slide show of the new Gehry at MIT. The review is here.

And AJmate Andrew Taylor has a must-read on the Milwaukee Art Museum’s budget mess. You could substitute “Corcoran” or “Guggenheim” or lots of others and it would be just as relevant. (Did I mention that Taylor’s post is a must-read?)

Some favorite lots from Christie’s upcoming moden and contemporary art auctions (Sotheby’s favorites coming tomorrow):

• If Albert Barnes were with us today, he’d jump on this. Then again, this Renoir might be too good for him.
• Christie’s has a good bit of Bonnard up, including this colorful little landscape, estimated for $350-450K. This is a rather unusual Bonnard mythological/rape scene at $120-160K.
• A delightful Vuillard panel is estimated at $800K-$1.2M. Here’s betting it beats the high-end. (NYC’ers may remember seeing a lot of Vuillard’s panels in this 2001 show at the Met.)
• Speaking of delightful, this is quite a blissy Matisse. Lots of trademark Matisse stuff here: a patterned blouse that blends into a floral arrangement, a flattening of space, and a big price tag. Estimate: $4-6M.
• Jeff Koons cheesecake estimated (not safe for work) at $200-300K. I’m rooting for it to top out at $100K or so.
• In Baltimore over the weekend, I saw a couple of Morris Louises that looked like de facto inclusions in a permanent collection installation. You know the type — the Washington color school existed and here’s proof. Well, here’s a Morris Louis, estimated at $400-600K, that is the most interesting I’ve seen in a while. (OK, I’ve only seen it online, but you know what I mean.)
• Vija Celmins’ auction results have been super-strong in recent years. I’d be surprised if this ocean drawing didn’t blow away its $180-250K estimate. A similar work from the same year is in the National Gallery’s collection. (This lot is a buy-for-MAN special. Buy it for me and I guarantee you a mention on MAN.)