We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Michael Jackson drawings (Miscell inc. 'Historic portraits' and 'Disney characters')
I'm noticing a sudden influx of MJ signed Michael Jackson drawings coming on to the auction market, which seem to share the common themes of either 'portraits of historical figures' or 'Disney characters'.
Both of these themes are of course recognised from Michaels' drawings both at a young age and later in life, but it is interesting that so many new drawings are being released on to the market at the same time.
Here are some current examples:
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/32578267_collection-of-art-by-m...
Tags: Michael, disney, forgery, jackson, parr, portraits
- Attachments: No photo uploads here
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Max Rickardsson on
-
-
Permalink Reply by Lizzie on
-
That may well be a tracing, but if so it is beautifully done, with a great deal of delicate shading and no repeated 'going over' of edges. I understand that Brett Livingstone Strong has commented to the moderator in the 'Erick' drawings thread, and has said that he has seen many pieces of art on the market which he does not recognise as Michaels..but no specific examples have been picked out. I don't think any specific examples in this thread have been picked out as definitely not Michael's either, but I do think that a lot of questions have been raised eg about dates of these pieces, and whether consignors have ever come forward to give them extra authentication / background. I understand that Michael said / wrote somewhere that he stopped drawing because his drawings always 'disappeared' (I paraphrase and cannot remember the exact quotation or the source. I must find it). The 'Brett' MJ drawings of course have been well secured, and their dates and provenance seem well documented.
-
-
And I am not a 'friend of the moderator', unless you count posting on two threads (this one and the 'Erick' drawings thread?
-
-
Alright, then tell us your name??- After so much big talk under an Alias we deserve to know it.
Know that you might have damaged reputations of sellers and caused confusion among collectors on maximum level
-
Permalink Reply by wascher on
-
Max, we're discussing autographs, that's what this forum is for. Its not "big talk". I'm sure Roger can tell you too, that I'm not a dummy when it comes to MJ autographs. We may disagree on this one... but it doesn't mean I don't respect him or his opinions. He's the best tpa we've got for MJ's and I've said that tons of times on this forum.
-w
-
-
What about the damage your talk have caused?!They way you´ve presented you opinions and over analyze indeed has ruined for some honest people like Memorbilia VaultYou should´ve had done proper research and confirmed some facts before posting. I don´t consider that smart !-Max Rickardsson
-
-
Max this is a discussion forum about autographs. And that's whats happening. I didn't know Lizzie at all, never heard of her until she showed up with the concerns about these pieces, as well as the radar online pieces -Erick's pcs--which by the way, were being passed by TPO'S EVERYWHERE. Ema brought the concerns in that situation (much like Lizzie did), and I pulled the info together shortly after by finding his information and posted his drawings forgeries and examples of his own art which was the same. Ema and I then continued afterward to pull more info together and we continue to keep people up to date on him. But the main concern here is that TPO's (very respectable third party authenticators) were passing Erick. They STILL are. JSA passed a bunch of his pieces a few weeks back. Young Spence himself according to the buyer. Now, does he have more expertise in autographs than I do? You bet he does! Did he get it wrong? Absolutely! Is Erick a good forger, yes. He's also an artist.
You say I need to do homework before something is ever said. I didn't say anything for the last 4-5 months because there were only a few out there, and in fact last week yet when Steve and I talked about this, I said I still didn't know if I'd make a discussion. But Lizzie wrote back in asking for the new thread because she spotted new ones, so I asked her to go ahead and make the discussion on them, and here we are. She has the right to ask, and I simply chimed in that I too have concerns about the items. Could we be wrong being concerned? You betcha, but its a great place here to be able to discuss things openly and express concerns if anyone has them.
You also say we never asked any of the auction-houses questions to get information regarding the pieces. Several of us in the other discussion outright asked not only Mem Vault, but you yourself where the pieces were coming from when you too posted an item, and did you say anything? No. In fact you completely avoided Ema's question and then deleted your piece a few days later (that seemed really an odd thing to me to be honest, especially if someone is trying to clear the air to show them good). As for not asking the other auction places about the pieces, how do you know we didn't? I've already reached out to GHR&R on Erick in the past, I heard "crickets" (meaning nothing), so I didn't ask them, someone else did. The response to the new person was the same? "crickets". Here is my portion however asking Cooper & Owen about theirs. I'm still waiting for a response, but I sent it on Dec 2nd as can be seen. I simply asked if they could give me more information about the pieces being offered, and their background, and I used my email account that would not have anything to do with this forum.
Something else that came up last week, is that a member of the forum wrote to me after seeing the thread on the drawings, showed me a piece he was offered for sale a year ago. He was offered the piece for $1,000 from another member on this forum (not Mem Vault). Right when he was about to close the deal on it, the item was said to have been either stolen or was stolen property, then that member just stopped communicating. He saw the discussion on Erick and offered the pic/info to me to hopefully get answers as well. That piece was called "Young Elizabeth" by MV this past Summer (he was told it was Judy Garland when it was offered to him), and here is the view I have of the item from the forum member. As you can see its a completely different view of the pc than what MV had on their site. Does this also cause me to wonder whats going on? Yes. Maybe there's a really easy explanation for it too. Which I truly hope there is.
And lastly Max, I have stayed on this forum because I care about people getting ripped off, its the only reason I'm here Max. I've thought about just hanging it up here several times-because it takes up a great deal of my time to be here (without pay--for those who said I also get paid from this forum), but then items show up that are bad, being passed off as good, and it eats me up if I don't speak up. I liken it to watching someone being robbed right in front of my face and me just ignoring it. So please bear with us while we discuss the items. As I mentioned numerous times earlier I hope the items are good. I have no reason to want anyone to get a bad item.
-w
-
-
I am surprised that anyone is surprised that MJ fans sit up and take notice when quantities of new artworks suddenly emerge on to the market...we are fans after all, and that is what fans do.
Michael was unusual in that his talents encompassed so many fields within the arts, from musical composition to choreography, but above all he was a profoundly visual communicator. He outspent other artists in perfecting short films, because he had a vision for each one and was prepared to spend time and money to present his vision as perfectly as possible, in a way that communicated and connected with his audience. He collaborated with artists and designers in the creation of Neverland 'park', he selected and collaborated with artists for his book and album covers, and in 'This is it' we clearly see him being consulted on the visual effects for 'Drill', 'Thriller' and 'Earthsong.'
In looking for another quotation from Michael, I re-found this one in Moonwalk:
'What really makes me happy, what I love, is performing and creating. I really don't care about all the material trappings. I love to put my soul into something and have people accept it and like it. That's a wonderful feeling. I appreciate art for that reason. I am a great admirer of Michelangelo and of how he poured his soul into his work. He knew in his heart that one day he would die, but that the work he did would live on. You can tell he painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel with all his soul. At one point he even destroyed it, and did it over, because he wanted it to be perfect. He said 'If the wine is sour, pour it out'.'
Why does this new artwork matter to fans? Because Michael matters to them. Not the value of his autographs, not the amount that someone will pay for a drawing. We know that Michael 'poured his soul' into what he did, and that he deserves his own work to be credited as such.
Great artists usually have a 'catalogue raisonne' of their work, which is a comprehensive listing of all known and authenticated artworks by them. In order to be included, each work usually needs to pass scrutiny, sometimes by an academic committee, sometimes by family members, or sometimes both. I hope that one day Michael will have a 'catalogue raisonne' of his artwork (yes, including the doodles!), and that all of his drawings and paintings will be scrutinised and their provenance and dates recorded. As a fan, I don't think he deserves anything less. He worked tirelessly for his place in the pantheon of greats, and his work (of any kind) does not deserve to be devalued.
Do I think that fans will agree with me? I hope so, because we are all fans, and share our admiration and affection for Michael, whether we are friends or whether we have never met (or written to) each other before. I am very glad that Autograph Magazine hosts threads such as this, and very pleased that the moderation is so balanced and thoughtful. (Thank you Wascher and Steve). I hope that together, 'Where the wine is sour, we can pour it out'.
-
-
Here is one that has already been discussed on another thread (Bush / Juliens, 4th Jan13) although it was not for sale in that auction. The thread says it had been offered for private sale. It had an LOA which was also shared on the other thread.
In the earlier posting, comments were made about the hesitant lines, awkward mouth and odd wording of the LOA (The drawing had been 'compared to ' others in the LOA authors collection...)
Interestingly, this drawing also has the 'Christmas tree' star noted in some of Erick's drawings over the 'M' of Michael and not the 'N' of Jackson, as here.
http://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topics/michael-jackson-sign...
-
-
Here is another Chaplin Authenticated by Lee Tompkins, as given to him by MJ at the Helmsley Palace Hotel in 1981.
I'd say that Michael's skills as an artist seemed to have deteriorated significantly between 81 and 85, as the eyes in the later portrait (red drawing above) are not even in the right place, the chin is unnaturally long and the hat is flat, not a bowler (to mention only a few reasons).
The letter is easier to read at the link below. It seems to be signed in December 09.
http://travelerfolio.com/tf2/photos/2010/07/michael-jackson-pencil-...
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
