Killer Leyendecker at Hertitage

[delekkerste]

A Nagel can sell in the same range as a Leyendecker? That makes no sense to me at all. Leyendecker influenced legions of artists. His work covers a wide breadth of subject matter. Nagel just seems like an artifact of vapid '80s style. I mean, sorry! These pictures are EMPTY.

 

Rightly or wrongly that's how I feel about nagel as well

 

Patrick Nagel helped define the visual motif of an entire decade. There are few things which scream 1980s more than one of his pin-ups or his album cover for Duran Duran's "Rio". He is probably better known, by work/style, if not by name, to the general public than all but a small handful of top artists working in the '80s. I'm actually surprised at how low prices for his work were when I started looking at them (you could still get a small Nagel for less than $2K in the early-to-mid-2000s) given the impact he had on the artistic style of the period.

 

I don't think Leyendecker has a lot of name recognition outside of the relatively small circle of those who work in, study and/or collect illustration artwork, Rockwells, Saturday Evening Post memorabilia, and general "Americana" of that period. I would imagine that appreciation of his artwork by the younger generations is pretty minimal and that most of his admirers/collectors are probably on the older side. If it wasn't for Heritage, I don't know that I would have much, if any, knowledge about the artist - it seems as though they are almost single-handedly reviving the careers of "lost masters" of illustration art like Leyendecker.

[Bronty]

What can I say Gene... I didnt like Nagel's work in the 80s and 90s and I dont care for it now. Doesnt mean that other people cant enjoy it; it just isnt for me.

[pinupcartoonguy]

In this case, it was definitely more than just two crazed bidders driving the price up. (I was listing to the bidding live). And this was no off thing--the talk at Heritage before the auction was that this piece would top $100k.

 

It only takes two with a strong connection and deep pockets. Art pricing is not a science.

[delekkerste]

What can I say Gene... I didnt like Nagel's work in the 80s and 90s and I dont care for it now. Doesnt mean that other people cant enjoy it; it just isnt for me.

 

I can understand that Nagel's artwork doesn't appeal to a lot of people for the reasons that you and others have already been cited here (among others). What I'm questioning is why people would think that Leyendeckers should sell for a lot and Nagels should sell for a little given that the former's name and work is largely unknown outside of those with a strong interest in illustration and Americana of that period, while the latter's work and style, if not name, is much more widely recognized and iconic to both the '80s and the people who were alive then. I mean, I hadn't even heard of Leyendecker until Heritage started doing regular Illustration Art auctions; I knew Nagel by name and by work back in the 1980s and I was only a teenager then with little interest in art.

[drdroom]

A Nagel can sell in the same range as a Leyendecker? That makes no sense to me at all. Leyendecker influenced legions of artists. His work covers a wide breadth of subject matter. Nagel just seems like an artifact of vapid '80s style. I mean, sorry! These pictures are EMPTY.

 

Rightly or wrongly that's how I feel about nagel as well

 

Patrick Nagel helped define the visual motif of an entire decade. There are few things which scream 1980s more than one of his pin-ups or his album cover for Duran Duran's "Rio". He is probably better known, by work/style, if not by name, to the general public than all but a small handful of top artists working in the '80s. I'm actually surprised at how low prices for his work were when I started looking at them (you could still get a small Nagel for less than $2K in the early-to-mid-2000s) given the impact he had on the artistic style of the period.

 

I don't think Leyendecker has a lot of name recognition outside of the relatively small circle of those who work in, study and/or collect illustration artwork, Rockwells, Saturday Evening Post memorabilia, and general "Americana" of that period. I would imagine that appreciation of his artwork by the younger generations is pretty minimal and that most of his admirers/collectors are probably on the older side. If it wasn't for Heritage, I don't know that I would have much, if any, knowledge about the artist - it seems as though they are almost single-handedly reviving the careers of "lost masters" of illustration art like Leyendecker.

 

You make a good case for Nagel's significance, and I imagine the argument for MacFarlane would run along similar lines-- redefined the look of comics for the nineties, etc. History will sort out whether the work has any lasting quality. Leyendecker is already in the canon. As a fan of Kirby and Buscema I became interested in Caniff and Foster. As a fan of them I learned about Leyendecker and Wyeth and Pyle and Rackham. I am skeptical about whether the influence of Nagel extends even into the nineties...?

[delekkerste]

You make a good case for Nagel's significance, and I imagine the argument for MacFarlane would run along similar lines-- redefined the look of comics for the nineties, etc. History will sort out whether the work has any lasting quality. Leyendecker is already in the canon. As a fan of Kirby and Buscema I became interested in Caniff and Foster. As a fan of them I learned about Leyendecker and Wyeth and Pyle and Rackham. I am skeptical about whether the influence of Nagel extends even into the nineties...?

 

I suspect Nagel will remain a curiosity of the '80s. He did tremendously influence the aesthetic of the times, but, as people have pointed out, his work is quite dated to that period; he is also not recognized as a "serious" artist of that era.

 

That said, I'm afraid that I am less confident that you are that future generations will study and revere the likes of Leyendecker, Caniff and Foster as much as the 40, 50 and 60-somethings today do.

[pinupcartoonguy]

Speaking with the guys at Heritage, I found it interesting that more than any other illustrator, Nagel had the most cross-over appeal with comic art collectors (I personally know of several prominent comic art collectors and dealers who have a Nagel or three stashed in their collection). I suspect the that Nagel's presence in Playboy is at least partially responsible, adding that ever important nostalgia factor.

 

On a side note, I wrote a piece a Leyendecker exhibit for my local newspaper several years, and I got the sense speaking to a Leyendecker expert that the number of collectors was fairly small, skewed older, and all seemed to know where the various well-known pieces lived. Sounded somewhat like the Barks' market.

 

In contrast, I think the collector base for Nagel is spread wider, younger, and nobody knows where many of the pieces are, which is why it's such a surprise when a piece like the Cathy St. George piece comes to market. Also, if you had a chance to see this particular piece in person, it was absolutely stunning. In this case, size really did matter.

 

 

[Bronty]

What can I say Gene... I didnt like Nagel's work in the 80s and 90s and I dont care for it now. Doesnt mean that other people cant enjoy it; it just isnt for me.

 

I can understand that Nagel's artwork doesn't appeal to a lot of people for the reasons that you and others have already been cited here (among others). What I'm questioning is why people would think that Leyendeckers should sell for a lot and Nagels should sell for a little given that the former's name and work is largely unknown outside of those with a strong interest in illustration and Americana of that period, while the latter's work and style, if not name, is much more widely recognized and iconic to both the '80s and the people who were alive then. I mean, I hadn't even heard of Leyendecker until Heritage started doing regular Illustration Art auctions; I knew Nagel by name and by work back in the 1980s and I was only a teenager then with little interest in art.

 

Well let me throw that question back on you. Turnaround is fair play.

 

Why should Nagels sell for as much as Leyendeckers simply because people recognize the style/work? Recognition is great but ultimately it boils down to who is bidding. To keep it in the comics arena, I daresay more people recognize the work of Rob Liefeld than Basil Wolverton, but a Wolverton splash from say, Weird Tales of the Future at auction would destroy the price of a Liefeld Youngblood splash.

 

Besides all of that, of course Nagel is going to be better recognized *at this moment in time.* His work is more recent. As another poster said (stole my thunder! he was published in playboy so lots of eyeballs saw his work there, recently.

 

70 years ago though, I would guess Leyendecker had the greater measure of fame as there would have been an awful lot of eyeballs that would have seen his work at that time. 70 years from now, I think he will again have the greater measure of fame. I just think there's a lot more to the artwork and it captures a very interesting time in america.

 

I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

[delekkerste]

Why should Nagels sell for as much as Leyendeckers simply because people recognize the style/work? Recognition is great but ultimately it boils down to who is bidding.

 

I didn't say that they should, just that people looking at the Leyendecker and saying, "wow, this looks cool" and then looking at the Nagel and saying, "eh, I don't like it" and asking themselves why the one they don't like is selling for almost as much as the one they do like, might consider - as you said - ultimately, who is bidding on these things and why.

 

 

70 years ago though, I would guess Leyendecker had the greater measure of fame as there would have been an awful lot of eyeballs that would have seen his work at that time.

 

Yes, but that was then and this is now. True, Nagel's work is more recognizable in part because it is more recent. But, conversely, most people who saw Leyendecker's work as a contemporary is now dead, and the numbers who study and admire his work seem to be dropping off with each successive generation. The same will likely happen with Nagel. But, for now, he has the greater mindshare and you can't just dismiss that just because Leyendecker was a big deal back in his day. As Tim is wont to say, I'm sure the last buggy-whip maker made a damn good buggy whip and was highly thought of. Now, nobody cares.

 

 

70 years from now, I think he will again have the greater measure of fame. I just think there's a lot more to the artwork and it captures a very interesting time in america.

 

I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

 

I seriously doubt either of them will be very well remembered in 70 years.

[Bronty]

Well, we were talking in relatives not absolutes, but still I'm not so sure about that. I find the art deco period and aesthetic fascinating and I think others do too - I can see continued interest in that period and aesthetic in general, and ultimately, Leyendecker was one of the top illustrators of that era, and captured the era very well in some of his pieces.

 

On top of that, I think that if Rockwell remains famous (and how could he not) then Leyendecker will retain some measure of fame as well. Norman will always be known for his Post covers and its difficult to talk about Rockwell and his post covers without talking about the influence Leyendecker had on him, and the 300+ post covers that Leyendecker himself illustrated.

 

Perhaps Nagel will be well remembered as well, although not being a fan personally, its hard for me not to be biased on that to the negative.

[drdroom]

Foresight is 60/80, or something, but for my money (and I really do have money on it) Kirby is a better long term bet than any of the three painters above.

[pinupcartoonguy]

Both positively and negatively, I think that Nagel epitomize/represents the '80s, much as Lichenstein (yeah I said) and the other pop artists did the '70s. Other than say, Keith Herring, there aren't a whole lot of other artists that are connected with that era.

 

Re comic art in general, I just can't see it bringing big bucks outside comic geekdom (of which I'm card carrying member), which I think impacts it's price ceiling and longevity.

[Bronty]

For the very best kirby, perhaps. I think the 1st appearance of marvel heros type art - the xmen 1, jim 83 pages, etc, will transcend. Devil Dinosaur? Not so much.

[drdroom]

Both positively and negatively, I think that Nagel epitomize/represents the '80s, much as Lichenstein (yeah I said) and the other pop artists did the '70s. Other than say, Keith Herring, there aren't a whole lot of other artists that are connected with that era.

 

Re comic art in general, I just can't see it bringing big bucks outside comic geekdom (of which I'm card carrying member), which I think impacts it's price ceiling and longevity.

 

The collectors who pay millions of dollars for a Lichtenstein are not EVER going to buy Nagel. Fine artists emblematic of the '80s? Schnabel, Salle, Richard Prince, Basquiat, Kruger, Longo, Kiefer, Cindy Sherman, many, many more. It's a different market entirely.

[pinupcartoonguy]

Did I say they would? I was merely stating that Nagel was closer to Lichenstein and the like in terms of association with a time, and how widely recognized his name is, both of which matter in terms of long term value.

 

[drdroom]

For the very best kirby, perhaps. I think the 1st appearance of marvel heros type art - the xmen 1, jim 83 pages, etc, will transcend. Devil Dinosaur? Not so much.

 

That stuff is not the best Kirby by a long shot in my view. I'm operating on a different theory of the long term, under which famous trademarks may retain their importance in one section of the market, but Kirby will also be collected as an important artist of the 20th Century. The second group of collectors, which is already forming, will not care about the first appearance of Mighty-Pants Man, but will prioritize brilliant drawing, like certain pages of Devil Dinosaur, even.

 

I probably shouldn't even be saying this. Everyone ignore me! Buy Nagel!

[Bronty]

Yeah I don't see it. To me content and other subject factors trump draughtsmanship every time both in comic OA and I dare say in illustration OA and fine art as well.

 

For example, I am sure les demoiselles de l'avignon (sp?) would be one of the most, if not the most valuable picasso, although I have no reason to believe its the most technically impressive, in fact I doubt that very much. But being the first (well along with Braque I suppose) cubist work its the fine art equivalent of a marvel key and would go huge bucks for that reason. Because of the content/significance and not because of the fact that it was a particularly fine technical painting. It was certainly called ugly at the time.

 

On the illustration side of things, you have valuation factors like.... well such-and-such Texas artist is known for his paintings of Blue Bonnets, so his most valuable works are Blue Bonnet paintings - technical merit be damned.

 

There are so many reasons for art to be valuable or not valuable. Technical brilliance is only one factor and not the most important one either.

 

To play turnabout with you, if Kirby had done one pastel of daffodils in his life, and it was possibly his most technically brilliant work, do you really think for a second that the daffodil pastel would be worth as much as less technically brilliant works, like, oh, the cover to amazing fantasy 15? C'mon The excellence of the work wouldn't have a hope of overcoming the fact that the work would be in the "wrong" medium for kirby and of the "wrong" subject matter. How much would a really excellent kirby drawing of a butterfly be worth? Not very much.

 

How much do carl barks landscapes go for vs the duck paintings?

 

I think if in real estate value is determined by location, location, location then more often than not the relative values of a given illustrator's output is valued by reference to content, content, content.

[Bronty]

How much would a really excellent kirby micromosaic of a hippopotamus' genitals be worth? Content, content, content.

[Bronty]

Foresight is 60/80, or something, but for my money (and I really do have money on it) Kirby is a better long term bet than any of the three painters above.

 

all this being said, I'd love to see your kirby; I never get tired of looking at his work. Are they on CAF?

[drdroom]

Foresight is 60/80, or something, but for my money (and I really do have money on it) Kirby is a better long term bet than any of the three painters above.

 

all this being said, I'd love to see your kirby; I never get tired of looking at his work. Are they on CAF?

 

Yep, here's mine (and check back in a few months-- I have some more in the pipeline):

http://cafurl.com?i=19736