Sculpture sets record at auction

[RuBert]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Constantin Brancusi's "Bird in Space" shattered the record for a sculpture at auction when it soared to an astonishing $27,450,000 at Christie's sale of Impressionist and modern art.

The previous record was held by another Brancusi, "Danaide," which sold for $18,159,500 three years ago.

Wednesday's sale went a long way toward reassuring the art market after the spring auctions got off to a somewhat shaky start at Sotheby's on Tuesday.

Christie's had estimated that the recently rediscovered "Bird in Space" from 1921-22 would sell for $8 million to $12 million. But a bidding war between two clients over the telephone saw the price race upward, with nearly $3 million added in commission for the marble sculpture that depicts a bird soaring into the sky.

The piece had been stored for 80 years in a vault and had remained in the same family. It was authenticated only days before the sales were finalized.

Christie's officials were ebullient after the auction, which took in a total of $142,892,800, just shy of the high pre-sale estimate of $148 million with only seven of the 59 lots going unsold.

"It was just a wonderful sale all the way through," said Christopher Burge, Christie's honorary chairman and the evening's auctioneer. He said the bidding was "incredibly lively ... thick and fast at all levels." and that it was the auction house's second-highest total in 15 years.

Two other works broke the $10 million mark. Pablo Picasso's neoclassical portrait "Head and hand of a woman" fetched $13,456,000 and Paul Cezanne's "Tall trees at the Jas de Bouffan" sold for $11,776,000.

Alberto Giacometti's sculpture "Femme Leoni" sold for $8,416,000.

Other especially strong prices were achieved by Pierre Bonnard's "Interior with flowers," which sold for $5,392,000 and Edgar Degas' "Young dancer putting her hair in place" which soared past its high estimate of $2.5 million, selling for $3,768,000.

[JAZ]

That's an amazing and reassuring number, especially considering that it is one of many versions of "Bird in Space" he did between this one and 1945in various materials. A book on him that I just bought has two versions in polished bronze and one in marble or plaster (it doesn't specify).
In anecdote in the book states that the sculpture's absolute absence of realistic detail, one of the very first sculptures to do so, inspired U.S. Customs agents in 1928 to challenge the sculpture's validity as a work of art. (I wonder what they thought it was?)
The reassuring aspect of the sale is that good art is still held in high esteem in terms of sales.
Thanks for posting this, Russ.
JAZ

[oddist]

Originally Posted by JAZ

(I wonder what they thought it was?)

JAZ

Here's some of the story>> http://www.clubmoral.com/forcemental...ge.php?sid=139

As well as info on Serra's "Tilted Arc" and Duchamp, and .....

[Jamo]

I'm going to throw something out that may seem ignorant but here it goes anyways. Why is Brancussi held in such high regard? Is it just because a group of art authorities has accepted it as "good art"? Can an everyday lay
person discern good art from bad art? Is there a universality? Will good art always be good art or is just a fad in certain period of time. Once the Apollo Belvedere was considered the pinacle of artistic perfection. This is not so anymore. This isn't an assault on modern art I'm just wondering why do these values shift? To me sculpture is something that is beautiful and interesting. I guess I would sort of prescribe myself to a Frederick Hartt sort of camp. But when I see Marcel Duchamp using a urinal and presenting it as sculpture and being hailed as genious it is disquieting. I believe in figurative sculpture and its power to relate to the everyday person. I think it is very valuable. What I don't agree with is the second class ranking it can receive in art academia. Anyways maybe i'm just ranting. Anyways someone set me straight

[fritchie]

Jamo - I have to admit to a bit of cynicism myself regarding the monetary evaluation of art. It certainly helps in reaching a high value if the artist is deceased and production can’t continue. Beyond that, I’m more or less convinced that pricing is purely a phenomenon of the art market, and that the market is subject to manipulation.

We had a short discussion along this line about a year ago when a relatively new gallery in New York was giving promotion to a young painter, most of whose work had either sold through the gallery or been bought by the gallery.

Edward Steichen, who is credited in Oddist’s article as chief defender of Brancusi in the original Customs suit, was one of America’s greatest early photographers, at a time when photography itself was fighting to be recognized as art. Times change, and opinions change, but by and large I think the upper-end market follows purely market forces, including those of manipulation.

I believe the New Orleans Museum of Art owns a marble of this piece, as it has been on display at least 3 or 4 times over the last 20 years. I’m not sure whether they can afford to display it again, if they have it, after this auction, or what its value would be.

Certainly, this work in particular has esthetic value, and it has value as a trend-setter, but beyond that, it’s my opinion that the value is pretty much arbitrary. Just one opinion, of course.

[Added in late edit] I have to correct myself on the Brancusi at NOMA. I do think Bird in Space has been exhibited here, in bronze form, but the marble I was remembering is a different, and also vertical, ovoid shape. The NOMA piece might be described as an elongated egg with the upper half apparently sliced off at an angle and slipped a bit with respect to the lower half. I don’t know the title.

[fused]

Constantine Brancusi has been one of my favorite artists for many years and is probably one reason I developed an interest in sculpture. It has nothing to do with auction pricetags and everything to do with his love of materials and ability to get the most out of them with his own hands.

Marcel Duchamp was never labelled a genius for writing R.MUTT on a urinal and submitting it for exhibition. His body of work and influence on other artists goes way beyond the "Fountain."

With a little research it is not hard to discover what makes both of these artists special or understand their significance in the history of modern art.

The Apollo Belvedere may be the peak of Greek art as withnessed by the Romans copying it, but Bernini, Michelangelo and Rodin would come along much later. All art is of it's time, some age much more gracefully than others, while Art History attempts to measure the significance of each.

[JAZ]

I'd like to suggest that, in addition to the obvious aesthetic reasons, this particular sculpture is noteworthy in part for its role in art history. It was one of the earliest sculptures that were totally non-representational. Also, this particular Bird in Space is one of the earliest ones Brancusi did. Therefore, it represents, among other things, a new open door at the time that changed how we perceive what sculpture can be.
That sense of its value is the true one, but it may also have influenced the price paid.
JAZ

[sculptorsam]

I actually enjoy conversations like this, I just don't seem to have much to add at the moment besides an observation that may seem trivial on the surface. I believe when Duchamp first entered the urinal in the open competition, he considered it a joke. He did not consider it a work of art. It was a prank played on the viewers and organizers, daring them to throw him and his non-art out on his behind. But low and behold, some took him seriously.

This is not the sole province of art, but of human nature in general when confronted with something we don't understand but others claim to. We don't want to look uncool, or like we don't "get it." Nobody wants to be the dumb schmuck.

That said, I happen to believe Brancusi's work is of incredible value, this work in particular probably worth the amount paid. And I like to see sculpture bringing in the big bucks as well. It's worth noting that the auction record for a painting is nearly 4 times this amount. For a painting!

[oddist]

I would say that one of the reasons for the value of this piece is its historical relationship to other works of the time where artists were attempting to depict motion.

There was Duchamps 1912 painting "Nude Descending a Staircase", Boccioni's sculpture of 1914 "Unique form of Continuity in Space", and of course Brancusi's 1921-22 "Bird in Space."

I read somewhere that Brancusi had previously used the bird theme in his work and over the years it was pared down to the essence we so admire today.

[Jamo]

What is the general census among art critics and art historians about figurative sculpture? Is it a dying breed that is no longer at the avante garde? Do they easily dismiss it for modern art?

[iron ant]

Jamo,

One drivedown Canyon Rd,SantaFe New Mexico,or a cruze threw Sedona Arizona,one will notice the increased figuritve works being shown in America.Glenda Goddacre,s little big headed kids fetch 70 grand,and it seems there are a lot of "copy" cats with deep pockets for bronze casting.Ever notice the artist in those foundry pictures seem fairly mature,heck a young artist usually can't afford a foundry.Also I noticed figuritive work all over Shidoni sculpture garden a few months ago.As far as the sculpture selling for all those millions fine,but reality says the art dealers and auction houses are in the business to make big money,thery inflate the value of any "masters" work.They would sell there socks for a million,and call it art, if some sap would pay it.Just my take....

[philpraxis]

I agree with the "Market" environment that takes art into a speculation value.
I agree that Brancusi took sculpture to a new level with his art, and thus that it is right to be celebrated by such recognition.
I agree that recognized artists tend to be old and I believe part of it is related to the fact that they have a curriculum and that galleries see this as a guarantee of their investment into the artist.
I agree that young artist usually don't have the financial and thus the technical ressources that older artists have.
I think there's a bad and good side to it.
Bad side is that some realization can't be done by young artist.
Good side is that this pressure will push young artists to being even more creative in order to go out to the world.
oh, and last thing: Figurative sculpture is not the front of the avant-guarde, none the less you can still do beautiful things with that form of art and it's not a problem.
My feelings for today, this magnificent shiny sunny day

[JasonGillespie]

A thought....Since the advent of the so-called avante garde, the shift in the perception of art has been towards the artist/gallery/critic as the ultimate arbitrator of what is or isn't fashionable in art.

Tastes have always been in flux through the centuries, but they were subject to the temporal and spiritual powers of the age as well as the pressure of what was needed for the decoration of myriad building projects (cathedrals, palaces, monuments,etc..) This is true of antiquity to the 19th century. Since Courbet, Manet and the followers of the revolt against the establishment being the determiner of artistic values, we have seen a steady rise in the price tags on works that, quite honestly, aren't in proportion to their value relative to the entirety of the history of art.

Art critic Suzi Gablik, in her book Has Modernism Failed, calls attention to this deficit between the true and percieved value of many modern works and the abitrary manipulation of the system that has evolved in the last century. She also ponders the fate of modernism as a whole. Her ending paragrah is an interesting premise:
"Like all ideas, the idea of modernism has had a lifespan. Its legacy requires that we look at art once again in terms of purpose rather than style---if ever we are to succeed in transforming personal vision into social responsibility again. Perhaps the real answer to the question of whether or not modernism has failed can only be given, in the end, by changing the basic dimensions in which we measure not only happiness and unhappiness in our society, but also success and failure."

Brancusi's sculpture, or any other modern work that has been priced and valued under the present system, runs the risk of becoming devalued when the ones inflating the prices no longer call the shots. As Gablik points out, there is a life span for modernism or any movement, and the true value of an object comes when that movement has ended and history, not the monetarily advantaged collectors/dealers/artists, decides its relative importance and value.

[JAZ]

Well said Jason. And meanwhile, the seller gets what the buyer is willing to pay. The buyer gets what he thinks he gets, whether that is actual or not.
JAZ