Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 2, 2016 at 11:58am

Hi,

My thoughts, having just sat down.

Probably wrong paper, appears not Bowie's hand, hard lines, mess of angles by eyes and scribble for beard, mouth appears handled wrong, looks drawn from photograph, unusual "straight" composition and angle of incidence. Poorly rendered left side and background - meaningless strokes without volume or substance, over-mixed/overcooked. Usually a crooked smile or expression - none here. Bowie's signature? Only elemental palette used - blue? Correct size though. Looking over 20 or 30 of Bowie's 5,000 works this stick out as odd.

The 1$ O'Keefe is not helping...

Perhaps after this? I would collect others.

http://www.nesteggantiques.co.uk/antique-miscellaneous/david-bowie-...

Eric

PS - Been wondering when we would see this type of item.

PSS - Jacob, this is a whole different playing field with different "rules" and so on, as I am sure you know. Verifiable provenance is important here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 2, 2016 at 2:15pm

PS - Too formal. Lacking a certain (seemingly) naive or primitive execution/rendering. And a bit too much Schiele and Klimt structurally in the charcoal lines - not as organic as it should be IMO. Also, generally, it is not well composed and shows a lack of movement. Most of his self portraits are 1995/96, and "all" are well composed with no dead or inactive areas. In this the "focal point" is not quite...focused.

Reminds me of the image from Glass Spider Tour.

Eric

Below are some of his period self portraits C. 1995/96.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 2, 2016 at 3:01pm

Hello again,

Wondering what others think? The gaze seems wrong to me, handling as well (haphazard background for one), but also appears from a photograph. There are one or two structural lines in the face that seem to have no meaning, such as by the jaw on our right heading to the eyes. That's understandable, but the gaze seems incorrect. Very self aware of who Bowie is in the drawing and his self portraits don't ever seem to be quite this serious...this is almost confrontational in attack.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 2, 2016 at 8:06pm

In a sentence, it is drawn too well and not painted well enough.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 3, 2016 at 1:32pm

Anyone else?

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Male on May 3, 2016 at 2:26pm

I'm more familiar with his autograph than his art and on that basis wouldn't feel confident with this piece. In 96 you didn't tend to get this style of his sig. Would also expect the B to look more like an R and have a dash above the date. I'm no expert though ...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TradeGeek on May 3, 2016 at 2:39pm

"I am sure you know. Verifiable provenance is important here."

That is the key. The seller isn't even attempting to provide any provenance outside of a bill of sale which I could replicate in a few minutes. 

I'm not familiar with Bowie's work so I'll leave that analysis to others. I wouldn't touch it. 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 5, 2016 at 2:40pm

Hello,

Questions of seller go unanswered - bidding now $2000 or so. I would place this at at least $10,000 and perhaps up to $15,000, perhaps a good bit more...were it genuine.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on May 8, 2016 at 1:34pm

Sold at $11,000. 55 bids, 11 bidders. Not genuine IMO. I tried to do what I could. If genuine, $25,000 plus easily  ("my "perhaps more" was a LOT more) and, many more bidders. The Geordie O'keefe for $12 closed as well as the Stuart Davis for $40....

Eric

• ▶ Reply