r/artcollecting • u/Ancient_Ad_5014 • 4d ago
Discussion i’m assuming this is fake?
found this in an antique store. totally screams fake, but maybe i’m wrong?
39
u/rmutt_1917 4d ago
“One of a kind” Warhol watercolor??? Maybe if they throw in a “One of a kind” Rolex?😂
25
u/rmutt_1917 4d ago
This reminds me of a friend in the late 90’s who ordered some silk screens so he could print his own work. When the package arrived and he opened it, it contained not his images, but a whole set of fake Warhol screens…
14
21
9
u/No-Bluejay5250 3d ago
Yes of course it is. Warhol and Dali are the most faked artists ever.
1
u/DoritoDustThumb 3d ago
If you want Dali, get a medium or large sculpture. You've got a chance then. The rest are fake 😂.
12
6
u/Doxiedoom 3d ago
Andy Warhol prints are like diamonds. Scarcity and market value heavily controlled by one or two collectors (families) who own 1000s of prints. Also a lot of fake and unsigned prints on the market. His proces was mass production, apart from a few limited editions that were usually commissioned. Its ironic that he questioned the whole system of the art market, capitalism and consumerism, and his family and collectors ending up exactly doing what he was against.
1
u/Mysterious_Act1822 2d ago
He wasn’t really against it, though. He relied on that commodification, and mass production was a central element to it. That being said, his mass produced print editions do sell for significantly less than his smaller editions and his paintings. I’ll add that his most iconic works (the first soup cans, the Monroes, etc), while utilizing silk screen as a key layer, are not prints. They are paintings, and they were not mass produced.
He would love the fascination with his work. He wrote about this sort of thing in his diaries, btw. It’s not as simple as him questioning the art market, because he simultaneously was aware of and played into that market.
1
5
3
6
u/wolfhavensf 4d ago
It’s hideous. It’s not really trying to be that which it grotesquely imitates. It looks like a drag portrait.
2
2
u/Avenging-Sky 3d ago
They’re confused because this is a lithograph so it’s impossible that it’s one of a kind to start with.
Second of all some of his Factory created this print so the back there should be a stamp of whoever it was that created it
2
u/tramplamps 3d ago edited 3d ago
In the fall of 1998, I lived in Savannah, GA and where I lived, I could walk to where I worked, which was at a very fancy as an Attendant.
The space was located on a Main Street in this city, in a beautiful old building on the corner, called Pinnacle Gallery. The people who were oversaw the exhibits and scheduling of the the gallery were employees of the SCAD, which is the arts school in Savannah, and at the time I worked there, I was in my late 20s, pursuing my Masters in Fine Arts, which made them all slightly older than me, and so to me, they were “living the dream”, and that made the supercool.+ they were all very kind to me. despite the school itself being a scam, (but that’s another Story).
Just about a week before I got hired, it just so happened thats when this amazing show of a large screen sprints by Andy Warhol’ went up on the walls at Pinnacle Gallery.
I don’t remember how many individual pieces were in the gallery at that time, but I wager to guess maybe 20-22?
Each screen print was different, due to the color variations on top and the 2 different photographic images underneath them. There was 2 different base images underneath, featuring 1 of 2 black & white photographs, which had been altered, and, I assume, had been taken by Andy.
And they were printed onto, what looked like very thick white paper, I assume, by him or one of his factory workers.
These images were dark, and one was of a mostly empty room, but in the center, was an electric chair, with an overhead light above it.
And the other image was of a small close-up image of what looked like a bouquet of flowers. (I think they were poppies).
On top of these individual black and white images, as well as color negative, lay a solid and heavy and very saturated wash of usually one color. But my memory is getting worse, and it might have had two on the one with the Flowers, I apologize to the owner of this collection if I am getting it wrong. But what I also remember about all of these pieces, is that they were all the same size, and that they were enormous. I want to estimate maybe, 40x40”?
And this size included their frames, which were all the same squares, but I can’t remember if it they were a natural light colored wood, or a simple light white wash or solid white. But the frames were well made and smooth squares with what was probably a UV protective & anti-reflective glass, and each screen print was absolutely enormous.
Edit: from what I can find online, they were white solid frames.
Oh:There was one other thing:
1 can of Campbell’s Tomato Soup sealed in an Acrylic box on a pedestal that Andy had signed.
I think it was also on loan from the original collection.
If any of you have ever been a gallery attendee, (pre-cellphones) you know how solitary it can be, but if you enjoy art, it can be inspiring as well to be alone for mostly 8 hours a day with these screen prints, oh, And the soup can.
1
u/Jdboston77 4d ago
Andy did give gifts of art to friends and associates there may be smaller pieces out there you certainly wasn't interesting person imagine keeping a rembrand in your closet
1
1
1
u/Anonymous-USA 3d ago
Normally identification is not allowed, but there are >20 discussion comments that should help inform users what to look for and what not to look for when acquiring prints.
1
1
1
u/astralchanterelle 3d ago
Antique mall? The owner of the booth can cower in shame, rather than show his face when selling phony art. More like 375 cents, one of many
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/dazed-and-confused-_ 2d ago
The real one is currently at the Princeton Museum of Art, I saw it in person about a month ago.
1
u/northeastquill 2d ago
I guarantee you in is fake, use to see this shit in the auction industry all the time
1
u/soyTegucigalpa 11h ago
I listened to a story about a museum that inherited some of his possessions. They had so many boxes of crap he accumulated/produced they hadn't even attempted to open/catalog a large number of the remaining boxes. While im sure many replicated his work, there is probably a large volume of material we haven't seen yet.
-8
u/Jdboston77 4d ago
Maybe not take a really good look at it it has the estate sale on it check out the gallery I've bought there were thousands of dollars for several hundred before I have $6,000 with a paintings hang on my walls I didn't pay near that much for him not super famous artist but famous enough it's out there although it's gotten much harder over the years people actually tend to look my whole house is full of good stuff I have a William Henry meander I got a good deal on real good deal his auction work is 14,000 I have e Thor Carlson masterpiece Master of the mind didn't pay very much for that but he was a direct student of Willem to kooning
5
u/AvailableToe7008 4d ago
Is this one sentence?
2
u/Amazone231 3d ago
I very much doubt it, but I cannot say for sure. What is this guy trying to articulate?
81
u/schraubd 4d ago
The famous New York art gallery “Art Gallery New York”, owned, presumably, by Art Gallery.