Remove this ad

Lead

Jan 7 13 9:36 PM

Tags : :

Thought this would be fun to post. I've finally found myself with a bit of free time after the holidays and have been hanging on to this for years. I finally scanned an advertisement from Architectural Digest January 1983 which offers the Cystisus (AKA Architectural Digest) print for sale. It is interesting to see the published price of the signed and unsigned states of this print at the time of it's release date around June of 1982.

In my opinion this is not Nagel's strongest work. This may have been directed at the request of Architectural Digest to conform to their aesthetic and non-figurative choice of a graphic offering. I'm not positive but I believe this may have been a substitute for an earlier submission featuring a classically rendered and somewhat androgynous profile of a woman with a Grecian column in the background providing an architectural element in true Nagel fashion. Either way I'm sure Cytisus would not have left Nagel's drafting table without his approval so in the end the image seen is undeniably a Nagel in every respect. All the elements are there in the clean lines and shadows. On the popularity scale of graphics this seems to fall behind the Stanley Fimberg Enterprises print . Another interesting point to note is the higher edition count of 350 s/n at $180 and 1200 sis at $45 (up from the typical 250 / 1000 at the time) and the price which seemed to be a fair price at the time. Taking the higher count in to consideration I personally have rarely come across a signed/numbered copy of this print. I might be looking in the wrong places or collectors are holding on to their purchases. 

One thing I absolutely agree with as Architectural Digest states "Combining sophisticated design and technical brilliance, Patrick Nagel has become one of America's most respected and well-known artists." And its safe to say he has made a mark with his exceptional style around the world.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Jan 7 13 10:46 PM




mmmike,

Fantastic!!

Thanks for posting this advertisement.

What I know matches what you know: I have a image somewhere of the woman in front of the column, and it was for Arch Digest.  The original is owned by Chuck Costas, a Nagel and comic book fan:
 

(He also owns the original canvas of the image on page 71 and loaned it to Just Looking Gallery for the retrospective.)


As for the versions of the image in development.
Who knows how many attempts Pat took trying to please Architectural Digest?
The book shows an image on page 69, a repeating figure in the manner of "Swimmers" and it reads "Architectural Digest" above it.  The same figure as in Chuck's final piece.

Like you, I was surprised by the increase in the signed and numbered edition size, but I believe they thought these would sell better because of the advertisement in its namesake magazine.

Funny thing is, it may have worked.  

In all my years, I never came across a hand signed and numbered one.   
I asked the estate?  Nope, just signed in screen..tons of those.
When I finally found one 3.5 hours in the car away on craigslist, I snagged it.

Unsurprisingly, actively searching for it for so long made it more coveted because of all the effort it took to find it.  I like it more now.  It makes me smile, and I appreciate the quality of the silk-screening.

As for not finding them more available in the hand signed state, 
I suspect we do not readily see them now because no one looking at this piece
would think,"Oh, that is a Nagel."
Also, if those Arch Digest magazine readers bought it signed, and now have them stashed in garages or at the thrift store, no one will know it is a Nagel unless they are die-hard Nagel fans. I don't even think a casual owner of the book would think about it twice.  

"Stanley Fimberg" by comparison is a piece the estate appears to still have hand signed and has listed them for sale on eBay for years a bargain price.  (I know several of us that bought one because they were so cheap.) 

Why?  Well, one difference would be that "Stanley Fimberg" was not advertised in a magazine called "Stanely Fimberg."  ;)  That may have something to do with it.

My last bit of speculation could also be that Arch Digest has a stash buried somewhere. Another anomoly with this piece is that the joint Copyright of Arch Digest dba Knapp Communications and Mirage Editions together.  That is the only piece that is joint copyright as far as I know.  It says it right on the print.

Of minor note, the ad lists the dimensions wrong.  It is ~15" x 25", and not 17" x 25"

Now I'm off to hunt down the magazine!

mmmike, you are amazing!!!







Quote    Reply   
avatar

enzo

regular

Posts: 105

#2 [url]

Jan 7 13 11:27 PM

I wonder if he deliberately made a boring image to mock the magazine after having that beautiful work denied. Sort of like what has happened occasionally in the music business.

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Jan 8 13 7:57 AM


Images of vases in this manner were ubiquitous in the early 1980s.

Some are more boring than others. :)

I think for non-Nagel fans, the print might have been sold better than Stanley Fimberg because it was like other art on the market that was doing well for folks wanting a still life like the one above.

For the average Nagel fan, the print does not offer many of the things we usually love, but I can see how it would have sold better than Fimberg at the time. 

Cheers,

NA 

I wonder if he deliberately made a boring image to mock the magazine after having that beautiful work denied. Sort of like what has happened occasionally in the music business.

-enzo

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Jan 9 13 10:21 PM

Nagel-Angel, Thank you! BTW I completely agree and you took the words out of my mouth in regards to Enzo's comment. Still life images such as these were everywhere and I feel he may have given them what they wanted.

It's great to hear you have a signed copy, you are the first person I am aware of that has one. I'm going to dig around and see if I can dig up another fun image for this topic :)

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Jan 9 13 10:51 PM


Here is a published ad, if I recall correctly, in an insert or magazine within the New York Times announcing Patrick Nagel's exhibition at Dyansen Gallery NY April 11th - May 1st 1983. This particular ad was in the May 2nd publication, 1 day after closing. This was probably due to print runs being purchased for a block of publication time, either way this gives us a specific date frame of one of his major exhibitions which would have featured works on canvas for sale and this would have marked the premiere of the Dyansen large graphic edition released 4/83! 

The ad features an image of the large Michelle graphic print which preceded the Dyansen print with Joan Collins being published in between and Launched at Morton's (as in my earlier post) in Los Angeles. Considering Nagel's peak of popularity at the time, I would be curious to know how long it took before Dyansen sold out of graphic prints and original paintings. Even more so I would like to know which canvases were featured. Only one I could speculate might have been at this show was the untitled "ponytail" (which one member of this forum has affectionately referred it as Legwarmer Head) on canvas with pink background but only due to the fact it was for sale in New York around 3-4 years ago and it's inclusion is pure speculation. 

Its seems Italian and Chinese restaurants were rather popular back in the day. :)

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Jan 10 13 12:01 AM




Fantastic!!!

One thing: Take a very close look at Michelle's ivory necklace.  The ends do not cross.
Also, check out her bangs.  They more closely match the Gallerie Michael version than they do Michelle, which has the far bang being filled in on the graphic.  There is also a little less space between her crooked eyebrow and eye than in the print version.

That means that is most likely the original on canvas or another version on illustration board, with Pat having revised the ivory to cross when he prepared it for release as a graphic.  While the text below the image calls it the Michelle print,most folks would not notice the change.


Here is a published ad, if I recall correctly, in an insert or magazine within the New York Times announcing Patrick Nagel's exhibition at Dyansen Gallery NY April 11th - May 1st 1983. This particular ad was in the May 2nd publication, 1 day after closing. This was probably due to print runs being purchased for a block of publication time, either way this gives us a specific date frame of one of his major exhibitions which would have featured works on canvas for sale and this would have marked the premiere of the Dyansen large graphic edition released 4/83! [image]The ad features an image of the large Michelle graphic print which preceded the Dyansen print with Joan Collins being published in between and Launched at Morton's (as in my earlier post) in Los Angeles. Considering Nagel's peak of popularity at the time, I would be curious to know how long it took before Dyansen sold out of graphic prints and original paintings. Even more so I would like to know which canvases were featured. Only one I could speculate might have been at this show was the untitled "ponytail" (which one member of this forum has affectionately referred it as Legwarmer Head) on canvas with pink background but only due to the fact it was for sale in New York around 3-4 years ago and it's inclusion is pure speculation. [image]Its seems Italian and Chinese restaurants were rather popular back in the day. :)

-mmmike



Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#7 [url]

Jan 10 13 1:09 AM

Brilliant observation NA! I overlooked that detail and it's interesting someone chose the original as the image for whatever reason. What i find equally interesting is that in each of these versions the necklace is depicted differently. In Michelle the necklace makes a light cross over whereas in Galerie Michael the necklace takes a more severe pass while exhibiting a more jagged appearance, not to mention all the other subtle changes between hair placement in all 3 images, etc
.

Thanks again for the insight, you're a wealth of knowledge NA! 

Quote    Reply   

#8 [url]

Jan 10 13 1:16 AM

I remember seeing the Ponytail piece for sale a while back from somebody on the East Coast.  I could never quite figure out what was going on with the ponytail as nothing seems to be holding it up.  Interesting to note that there's a version of the piece on the official Nagel site that omits the ponytail.




Here is a published ad, if I recall correctly, in an insert or magazine within the New York Times announcing Patrick Nagel's exhibition at Dyansen Gallery NY April 11th - May 1st 1983. This particular ad was in the May 2nd publication, 1 day after closing. This was probably due to print runs being purchased for a block of publication time, either way this gives us a specific date frame of one of his major exhibitions which would have featured works on canvas for sale and this would have marked the premiere of the Dyansen large graphic edition released 4/83! 
[image]
The ad features an image of the large Michelle graphic print which preceded the Dyansen print with Joan Collins being published in between and Launched at Morton's (as in my earlier post) in Los Angeles. Considering Nagel's peak of popularity at the time, I would be curious to know how long it took before Dyansen sold out of graphic prints and original paintings. Even more so I would like to know which canvases were featured. Only one I could speculate might have been at this show was the untitled "ponytail" (which one member of this forum has affectionately referred it as Legwarmer Head) on canvas with pink background but only due to the fact it was for sale in New York around 3-4 years ago and it's inclusion is pure speculation. 
[image]
Its seems Italian and Chinese restaurants were rather popular back in the day. :)

-mmmike

Quote    Reply   

#9 [url]

Jan 10 13 1:35 AM

nagelcollector,

Yes, I spoke with the person selling it at that time. It was located in Long Island and was selling for between 10-12k. As for the version on the Nagel site, I believe that is a posthumous doctoring by the Estate which was printed in a Nagel calendar, these calendars were great at featuring previously unpublished canvas images but most were modified in some shape or form to update the look. I personally prefer to see works in their original state,

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Jan 11 13 8:37 AM



I think this photo may be from the Dyansen Gallery show, 
as it shows Nagel signing that piece in its limited edition serigraph poster form.

For originals on canvas, it looks like "Black Bustier" "Priscilla" and Chuck Costas' gloved topless are all there. 

Interestingly, "Priscilla" (the one with the high collar, looking a bit downward in the distant background), is marked with a copyright from 1982.  "Black Bustier" is copyright marked 1983.

Quote    Reply   

#11 [url]

Jan 12 13 5:10 AM

Michelle has a softer face than GM. and her left ear ring hangs 3.8102 microns lower too

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help