Remove this ad

Lead

Oct 18 12 11:41 PM

Tags : :

I came across this article on a German Dynasty fan website which is a little nugget of information regarding some details of the Nagel / Collins graphic image launch which includes the date, price, galleries where the print sold, photos and a few other interesting facts about the event. 

 Enjoy :)
http://www.der-denver-clan.de/de/patrick_nagel-joan.1105.html

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad
avatar

enzo

regular

Posts: 105

#1 [url]

Oct 19 12 10:55 AM

Nice find. I think this illustration/portrait is underrated. The price of $750 seems lower than others at the time, right? At least to me it's worth more today, which is the opposite of most Mirage prints.

Quote    Reply   

#2 [url]

Oct 19 12 12:56 PM

I agree. Forget for a moment that its Joan Collins. She is a gorgeous portrait and an iconic image....

Absolute stunning. I have seen it in person and was very moved, although the one I saw was quite water damaged (Gommerman).

Quote    Reply   

#3 [url]

Oct 20 12 9:48 AM


Thanks for posting that article.  Interesting to read the sale price: $750 per serigraph.  And that was in the 1980s. Amazing.

I purchased a signed serigraph of Joan Collins from a member of this list earlier this year. It's now framed and hanging on my office wall. Although I paid almost as much to frame it as it costs, I feel its value is far, far higher, for a few reasons:

Among the lesser educated in the Nagel community, this piece is often referred to as "Just Joan," a condescending moniker meant to denigrate the piece as nothing more than Nagel's treatment of a celebrity.  Because it's a portrait, they maintain it has no real value.  It's more like a sellout piece.

They are, in my opinion, completely wrong:

First, if there were anyone who absolutely typified the 1980's, it was Joan Collins. Not terribly deep in character, big hair, over-the-top materialism, flaunted sexuality -- that was Joan Collins in the 1980's (her career as a B-actress sex siren actually began in the late 1940s/1950s in Bob Hope/Bing Crosby "Road" movies).  Ask anyone who lived through that fabulous decade (the 1980's) and you'll hear stories about hugely popular, long-running TV shows like Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous and Dynasty.  Joan Collins was frequently associated with the former and was THE female star of the latter.

Second, Patrick Nagel is rapidly securing his place as the iconic artist of that decade.  We've discussed this a lot here, so there's no point re-hashing it.

What it means for Joan Collins is that the iconic artist captured the icon of his era.  To me, this makes it one of his showcase pieces -- much the way Andy Warhol captured Marilyn Monroe (see attached).

Rob Frankel
http://www.robfrankel.com
http://www.robfrankelblog.com




Click here to view the attachment

Quote    Reply   

#4 [url]

Oct 20 12 3:25 PM



I have always loved the Joan Collins piece.  92/150 was only taken off the wall recently to make room for Lady With Venetian Blinds.  I have a photograph of the original painting, and the details in the lines are quite nice..a little sharper than in the graphic.

Still a great image.

Why the $750?  Well, remember that is the publication price.  That is the price one paid when it was released.  That is in the same price range as "Michelle" and the others.  (The gallery I used to frequent the most had the release flier for "Michelle," and it was $750, too.)  

Keep in mind they expected Joan Collins to sell really well and the edition size (150 s/n for Joan Collins compared to only 90 s/n for Michelle.) was the highest since Diptych's 250 s/n.  Also, frankly, the 30" 36" image does not scream "LARGE GRAPHIC" the way many of the graphics that came out months before it do: Gray Lady, Collectors Gallery, Cheetah, and Michelle all seem huge compared to Joan Collins.  The image also seems smaller because of all the black around the outside of the image.  Joan Collins is also a case where the print is smaller than the original.  

If you want to see the original "in action" check out "The Cartier Affair" tv movie with Joan Collins.  It is goofy, but she clearly shows off her Nagel portrait several times in that film..
http://www.amazon.com/Cartier-Affair-Joan-Collins/dp/B0001OGW0M/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350772624&sr=8-1&keywords=Cartier+Affair

Make no mistake.  It is a killer image.  But for collectors at the time, choosing between a Michelle, with her leather coat and fang-like ivory necklace, or blazer-wearing man-eating Cheetah (Did Pat use Playgirl's mascot as a wink to her sexual prowess?), both truly huge prints, Joan Collins probably seemed a bit underwhelming.

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Oct 20 12 3:32 PM

Rob,


that is a good perspective you put on the Joan Collins nagel


"Joan Collins absolutely typified the 1980's"

and

"Patrick Nagel is the iconic artist of that decade"


i had not looked at the piece with that appreciation. i have not really though about it at all because i do not care for it. but your juxtaposition is good analysis


"the iconic artist captured the icon of his era" or perhaps that era. as warhol's monroe represents american pop culture of the 60s (?) nagel's Joan Collins is to 80s american culture

Quote    Reply   

#6 [url]

Oct 25 12 12:45 PM


I was wrong about The Cartier Affair showing off the original painting.  It is one of the limited edition graphic versions in the show.  After scanning the movie for the best shots of the painting, I have to say I forgot how decor was back in the 1980s.  I think Nagel's work has aged really well when compared to the rest of the items on the set!




I will find a way to get a decent scan of my actual photograph of the original completed work.  For those that do not yet have it, the Nagel video TBFA is selling does contain video of Pat actually working on Joan Collins.  While I am sure it is at least partially staged, they do show him filling in one of the earrings, and you get an amazing look at the eyes before they were filled in with color.

For those who thought Pat used an airbrush (I hear that a lot.) wrong!!!

Best,

NA


Quote    Reply   

#7 [url]

Oct 25 12 6:33 PM

Hey NA, in support of your comment here is the photo of Pat working on Collins.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#9 [url]

Jan 28 13 10:04 PM




I thought some of you would like seeing the Joan Collins original to compare with the modifications for the limited edition graphic.

The top image is the original.  The bottom image is of the graphic.

I love looking for the differences, with the changes in the wisps of hair the most obvious.  Each version has its strengths, but I love the original for the delicacy in the eyes and the very fine line work.

Ignore the colors in the original, as these photos have faded over the years and never represented the colors of the originals.  I have not seen this one on the web.  It is a scan of my photograph that came from Mirage Editions back in 1984.

How did I get this image?
Back before Mirage had released the book, they offered to sell me (through a gallery) a binder full of 8" x 10" images of the Nagel graphics.  What it tuned out to be was a collection of photographs of the original paintings in most cases, not the graphics.  Joan Collins and Collectors Gallery are the two with the most noticeable changes, at least to me.  Some appear identical to how they were presented in the book others, like this one and Collectors Gallery, are different.


Cheers,
NA


Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Jan 30 13 7:43 PM

NA this is wonderful! I agree with you about the original vs the graphic and the fact that you have the binder is infinitely awesome, It seems as though the photos weren't fixed well in the developing process leading to color loss later. Best to scan them all now. Are you able to post an image comparison between the Collectors Gallery painting and the graphic? Was collectors Gallery painted on canvas or board?

Quote    Reply   

#11 [url]

Jan 31 13 7:40 AM

I had a few extra minutes to play with the original in Photoshop.  Not sure if this matches up, but this is a best guess on what the original might look like if it were restored.  Of course, being a a big fan of Nagel's Joan, I couldn't resist.

Rob Frankel
http://www.robfrankel.com
http://www.robfrankelblog.com


Click here to view the attachment

Quote    Reply   

#12 [url]

Jan 31 13 11:01 AM

i find it curious that patrick chose to paint the complete head of joan. the limited eyebrow too. all the other nagel aspects appear present in the image though: ear rings, limited and small nose. the hair seems a little more flared though and i wonder what he was trying to convey with that. probably something to do with the joan collins image

none the less, better than being bronzed, put on a wheaties box, or disney cryo-preserved. in fact, i think somewhere in the bible, along where it describes the streets of gold, some will get their portrait painted by patrick nagel. which is kind of odd, cuz i don't think patrick was a believer

she is striking!

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Jan 31 13 12:56 PM










mmmike,

Yes, I plan to post the others as time allows.  I am also remembering that Dyansen has some interesting differences, too.  I already have Collectors Gallery scanned to upload over the weekend.
I was never sure if the original Collectors Gallery was on board or canvas.  I want to say I recall it being canvas, but I need to readily admit that is probably just a wild guess.  I will look more closely at the picture before I scale it down for posting here.


NA this is wonderful! I agree with you about the original vs the graphic and the fact that you have the binder is infinitely awesome, It seems as though the photos weren't fixed well in the developing process leading to color loss later. Best to scan them all now. Are you able to post an image comparison between the Collectors Gallery painting and the graphic? Was collectors Gallery painted on canvas or board? 

-mmmike



Rob,

It must be extra cool for you that your large graphic of Collectors Gallery came from Joan's cache.
(I read that on the HA site when it was first listed.)

Aside from the prudence in knowing a specific print's provenance, I always like things like that just for extra "neat-o" factor, especially, in this case, since she is so tied to Nagel for us collectors.

I had a few extra minutes to play with the original in Photoshop.  Not sure if this matches up, but this is a best guess on what the original might look like if it were restored.  Of course, being a a big fan of Nagel's Joan, I couldn't resist.Rob Frankel[url][url][image]

-robfrankel



waywardtom,
Based on some photos of Joan Collins from the era, particularly when she was posing for a photo shoot, her hair could get quite big.  See below.  :)



i find it curious that patrick chose to paint the complete head of joan. the limited eyebrow too. all the other nagel aspects appear present in the image though: ear rings, limited and small nose. the hair seems a little more flared though and i wonder what he was trying to convey with that. probably something to do with the joan collins imagenone the less, better than being bronzed, put on a wheaties box, or disney cryo-preserved. in fact, i think somewhere in the bible, along where it describes the streets of gold, some will get their portrait painted by patrick nagel. which is kind of odd, cuz i don't think patrick was a believershe is striking!





-waywardtom











For the image itself, one thing I learned a long time ago was to flip art upside down to see if it is still remarkable.  Based on Betty Edwards' book Drawing with the Right Side of the Brian, this essentially encourages your brain to see things for their actual lines and abstract forms rather than seeing things as "That is an eye." or "That is a shoulder."  

The trick they used in class was to taking something your left brain recognizes, like a painting of Thomas Gainsborough Blue Boy, and turn it upside down.  In that way, the brain starts using the right hemisphere more, and amazingly, the drawings we all had to do came out more accurate to the original because we were hindered from used prejudiced notions of, "This is where lips go" or "a shadow should go here." 

It did wonders for nearly all the class in improving the drawing of the replica.

Years later, when I flip Nagel's Joan Collins upside down, I really appreciate all that line and shape in the piece.  

Yep.  I am weird.  :)







Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help