Shakespeare by Picasso lithographs

Lithographs and prints are the dogs of the art world.

The 1965 print called "Shakespeare" (edition of 150) has fetched auction results of between $2.500 and 11.000 in the last five years or so. Commissions of between 10 and 20 % will be added to the hammer, depending on where you buy it. http://www.ibrewster.com/gallery/pab...akespeare_1965

Indeed, although compared to drawings (which are by nature unique works) they often do rather well. When buying art, prints can be a lot of bang for your buck. A few of Picasso's other doggies:

Hey...isn't this the one we have hanging over in the Current Events forum?

The important thing to look at is the size run and printer of the work you like. If something is signed; but, not of a limited numbered set it is pretty much just an autographed poster.
Yes, they are not orginal works by the artist...but, it will have the artists signature on them and something more attainable at $1,000-$5,000 (you can find Picasso, Chagall and Dali in this price range) than an original for millions. I don't think you should discredit them for that fact.

But, you can also raise the argument that for $3,000 you CAN get orginal art work from contemporary (not meaning the style of the art, but as in current living/breathing/producing artists) artists that has a higher chance of going up in value and could be more of an investment. A S/N (signed/numbered) litho is not suddenly going to skyrocket in value; but, it's not really going to go down either and if you hang onto it for a number of years and decide to sell it you could possibly squeeze a bit more out of it than you paid.

Photography is a different ballgame and you can check out this link.

http://www.hkphotographs.com/collecting_guide.pdf

From a strictly economical point, there is a bubble in art too. Absurd prices reached by photography is an example.

!luc

While it's just my personal thought I'd only buy a litho in a run less than 300 and for photography in the 5-20 range.

I endorse this message. Lithographs are just one type of graphic work, like etchings, woodcuts, lino-cuts, offsets, serigraphs, potato-prints or whatever. A lithograph is made by using stones of a particular type as printing blocks. They can be signed and numbered, and will then generally be regarded as proper "independent" works, or not, in which case you have to regard them as well-printed posters. A signature on such a "poster" may help the value significantly, but it still won't get much more respect than any old museum poster. There's sort of a consensus about what size numbered editions in different techniques should have; as SoCal2NYC said, an edition around 3-500 is generally considered the limit for lithographs, while photographs these days are normally made in editions of up to 15-20. A sidenote: Dali's graphic works are very problematic to deal with; supposedly, he signed hundred, if not thousands, of sheets of blank print paper, which were later printed. There are also different "merchandising" deals around, which means that you can find the oddest things with Dali motifs and "facsimile signatures" printed on them. Most often, these things (dinner plates, t-shirts etc) are clearly just merchandise of the Franklin Mint type, but sometimes, "signed" small bronzes and the like pop up as well. The market is also rife with all-out Dali fakes. I'd have a Dali print thoroughly authenticated and valued before I paid for it, as lovely as they may be.

Also might I add that if you are looking to get an orginal work and you live in SF, Chicago, NYC or LA I would seriously consider spending an extra couple of $100 and take a flight to Minneapolis.

It's interesting the amount and level of art in this city (can't miss the Walker Art Center and dinner at Wolfgang Puck's 20*21 restaurant there). I was shocked the first time I went. Also, you get soooo much more bang for your buck. You can go to SoHo/Chelsea and pay $5,000-$10,000 for an original work by "unknown" artist or you can go to Minneapolis and pay $2,000-$3,000 from someone just as "unknown."

I'm much more into photography than old Master lithos. Who are you looking at?

I'm buying something this weekend from an "unknown" to satisfy myself while I decide before "investing" in something from Anthony Goicolea, Nan Goldin, Jill Greenberg, Edgar Martin or Hedi Slimane.

I wanted something from Loretta Lux; but, the prices are ridiculous right now and should hopefully come down in a few years.

Printmaking is an art in and of itself. In today's art world, there are some artists who are really fantastic printmakers, and some who are not. It is a skill separate from making a painting or a sculpture, but obviously related in vision. The two that come to my mind as extremely gifted printmakers are Ed Ruscha and John Bladessari. Both are also wonderful painters. I am also much more interested in photography than printmaking because it is developing more quickly and is more interesting nowadays.