Andy Warhol Self-Portrait To Be Sold In NYC

NEW YORK -- A 1986 self-portrait by Andy Warhol that was among the last of his paintings to be exhibited while he was alive is heading for the auction block, where it is estimated to sell for up to $40 million.

The stark red-on-black "Self-Portrait" is scheduled to be sold at Christie's post-war and contemporary art sale on May 11, the auction house announced Wednesday. The owner is a private American collector who purchased it in 1996 and wished to remain anonymous.

The piece, measuring 9 feet per side, is considered a landmark work by the American Pop artist. Created toward the end of his life, it shows the artist looking directly at the viewer, his trademark hair standing straight up.

"With his unique ability to fuse painting and photograph into an unforgettably iconic image, Warhol condensed all the recent themes of his art in this magnificent self-portrait into a single splash of color set on an inky black background," said Amy Cappellazzo, Christie's expert on contemporary and post-war art.

The acrylic and silkscreen on canvas was one of two 9-foot red-on-black self-portraits that were first exhibited in London in 1986, at the Anthony d'Offay Gallery, just six months before Warhol's death. The other one is at the Guggenheim Museum in New York, donated by Ann and Anthony d'Offay in 1992.

The painting is among seven monumental self-portraits that Warhol painted in 1986. The rest are in museums or in foundations. A purple "Self-Portrait" was purchased by a European collector last year for $32.5 million.

The auction record for a Warhol is $71.7 million, for "Green Car Crash."

Warhol died on Feb. 22, 1987, at the age 58 from complications following surgery.

Comments

[RoBrGo]

09:39 AM on 04/25/2011

The article shouldn't crop the image.

[Arts4u]

08:23 PM on 04/23/2011

If it were not for a handful of speculators propping the Warhol market up - the whole thing would tank in about six seconds.

[tyrant510]

08:17 PM on 04/27/2011

the question of 'if' is futile. 'is' is the important word here. a warhol painting is valuable.

[Arts4u]

05:55 PM on 04/28/2011

Only because about three guys created the market. It speaks nothing of the quality of the work. Warhol, Koons and Hirst are all perfect artists to create a market for because they were (are) prolific producers.

[Bucket-Of-Love]

06:26 PM on 04/23/2011

Relentless confusion remains the order of the day in regards to art being subjegated to elite power. This results in a preoccupation with the primary view that art exists for the purpose of being a commodity. Art serves no practical purpose. That's what gives art much of its freedom and value. However, many will stubbornly argue art's primary value has much to do with money.

Huffingtonpost to a large degree sets a trap with its teaser headline "Would You Pay $40M For This?", but many take the bait and get snared, convulsing in flawed, illogical argumentation.

[renman2010]

11:04 AM on 04/23/2011

Yeah, people remember Salieri, too. Warhol was a pop artist. That was his aesthetic. Ephemeral and throw-away. He would laugh at people paying 40 mill for his works after his death. Much better tribute to him to put it on a t-shirt. At least that's what I'd like to think.

[tyrant510]

08:22 PM on 04/27/2011

i don't think your statement is entirely true. i've read several books on warhol, including his "autobiography", seen countless interviews, etc. one thing is for sure, he loved money and status. he strived to be successful. he was jealous of picasso. he wanted to be more famous and his paintings more valuable than picasso, rauschenberg, johns, etc. he would be thrilled that people were paying $40 MM for his work. celebrity, fame, status, the american dream are central to his work. that being said, i think he would also love to see his work on t-shirts too.

[renman2010]

12:01 PM on 04/28/2011

Thanks for the informative reply. F&F

[Nelson Montana]

06:54 AM on 04/23/2011

It's completely understandable, that in a culture where sampling existing music is considered creative and and monotone bad poetry is considered music and remaking some crappy television show into a Broadway musical is considered clever and self indulgent directors are considered geniuses and children's books about Wizards are considered literature and grandstanding buffoons are considered leaders...that Warhol is thought of as an artist. In fact, he, in part, may be responsible for much of our current standards.

[lovelybunchofcoconuts]

05:53 AM on 04/23/2011

It's a little sad, because if you only go by the stuff he's famous for, and his snotty little pseud art comments, you'd think he really was a complete fake. But if you google him in images, you see some really beautiful pieces. He had a marvelous sense of colour, too. I think he put more heart and work into it than he let on. And after all, there can only be one Rembrandt, Da Vinci, Picasso. You can't really blame artists for refusing to even compete with the masters.

[Nelson Montana]

04:52 AM on 04/23/2011

I'll give Warhol this -- he began the movement that you didn't actually need skill or talent to be considered an artist. You just needed to be "arty."

[tyrant510]

08:26 PM on 04/27/2011

not really. duchamp did that, and he was much earlier than warhol. besides, warhol is actually a very skilled illustrator and graphic designer, as well as painter. art is more than just technical or formal skill, it's about ideas.

[Bucket-Of-Love]

04:32 AM on 04/23/2011

(Part 1)

Here's bit of the historical context through which I understand Warhol.

Courbet's conviction, in the 19th Century, that art can only be created through the artist's direct experience and not through the rules of the French Academy, changes the course of art. He proposes that art can no longer be subservient to the established heirarchies of power, and calls for art that is no longer predicated upon the dictates of a ruling power. Courbet envisioned art where the heroes, idols, and objects to be worshipped no longer are the concern of the artist, and that artists need not be bound to the prevailing adherence to classical order.

This leads to the acheivement of art in the 20th Century that brackets Europe and the Renaissance, and ushers in a new set of rules for artists.

20th Century art, with its explosion of innovations and abstractions, questions -- and changes -- the nature of the art object. To accomplish this, artists sought to knock off the pedastal any outdated notions of art that resembled art that served elite power.

A dialog is established in the 20th Century and expressed in a variety of ways. A few examples:

-- Picasso collages printed oilcloth with chair caning pattern in lieu of painting in the chair caning, questioning the role of artist as a slave to representation

-- Brancusi takes sculpture off the pedastal

(continued)

[Bucket-Of-Love]

04:35 AM on 04/23/2011

(Part 2)


-- Duchamp quits painting to play chess, but spends some time creating alternative types of art work under his own name and under pseudonyms

-- Magritte's Treachery of Images, juxtaposing "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" with an image of a pipe

-- Pollack's taking painting off the easel

-- Rauschenberg's erased de Kooning

-- Warhol's non-heirachical classification of subjects and means of manufacture, and the mutability of meaning in regard to the subject

-- Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty, which removes art from the confines of the museum, gallery, ownership, and posterity

-- The abandonment of the object in conceptual art

-- James Turrell's light pieces that demonstrate the ephemeral nature of perception and objects

-- Richard Serra's ability to shift the role of sculpture to being about space instead of materials

- Anonymous street art that subverts ownership.



Warhol is well-included in this dialog and in history. Warhol dealt a serious blow to the old order. The soup can doesn't represent anything; there is no hidden meaning. It is a picture of a soup can. And Marilyn and electric chairs no longer have iconic power; they are just images.

Warhol demonstrated that the artist can handle the subject as he handles materials: iconic weight can be willingly created or negated. He beatified the ordinary and rendered the sensational banal through serial repetition. Essentially, he finally achieves Courbet's ideal, which was to free the subject in art from its constraints.

[Nelson Montana]

04:55 AM on 04/23/2011

I see it more as running it up a flagpole and hoping there are enough pseudo intellectuals to salute.

There were. And are.

So, for that, he had something going on.

[Nelson Montana]

04:17 AM on 04/23/2011

Isn't it funny that most of the people arguing in defense of Warhol have nothing to say other than "he was famous." That speaks volumes, right there.

[Stillorganboy]

03:11 AM on 04/23/2011

Fools and their money are easily parted !

[Tom Sutpen]

02:49 AM on 04/23/2011

There's a lot of Warhol paintings I'd pay 40 million bucks for (if I had it); this is not one of them.

[xsm941f]

02:03 AM on 04/23/2011

$400 tops and I and visit the Warhol Museum often. One of the coolest places in the 'Burgh

[gene poole]

01:45 AM on 04/23/2011

Hell I'd go 50 million easy.

[gclafontaine]

01:39 AM on 04/23/2011

Definitely.

[John Rathe]

01:32 AM on 04/23/2011

Since I'll never have 40 million, sure, why not. Toss in a sixer of Coors and a couple scratchers while you're at it.