Kreindler Art in the Hobby

[wondo]

So, I read the thread on the $110 million painting and noted the reference to Kreindler paintings. I know nothing about art save that the picture looks nice (to me). Does an artist like Graig appeal to the mainstream art world? His work appeals to me - I often peruse his web site looking at his rendition of baseball cards and photos. Will one of his works fetch $1M someday? If so, please let me know which one! 🤑

Seriously, how does that work? Do you gotta be dead and therefore puting a finite number on your output? We have some art collectors on this board - please enlighten me. Thanks! Sorry if this post does not belong here or if it's in poor taste singling out one of our own.

[drcy]

I don't know the magical equation, but for Van Goghs, Picasos and Rembrandts there is an international audience. Also, as they are commonly in museums, the have a 'priceless' auras to them. Lastly, folks like those really are considered amongst the greatest ever artists worldwide.

I like Graig's paintings.

[JoeyFarino]

That $110 million painting is horrible. If thats actually considered art then Graigs work should be in the billions.

[Klrdds]

As a part-time art collector with a Picasso and a Chagall and Dalis and a Leroy Neiman among others in my collection I have found that art and its high prices need several things to occur to bring high prices .
It needs international appeal , great promotion by art galleries and dealers, and have subjects or themes that people can relate to and primarily 2or 3 people who are willing to go to extreme lengths in bidding to own a particular piece .
Also the number of works available on the market as well as the total number of works produced by the artist dramatically affect prices.
Kreindler's art is beautiful and has fabulous presentation value but its singular theme has a very limited audience ...American sports and sports personalities, primarily baseball, in general . The majority of the world , especially those international buyers with deep pockets , can't relate to his work .
Leroy Neiman is the greatest exception to this rule in terms of his sports themed works but he was also able to crossover into other subject matter.
For example his Polo Lounge , Baden-Baden , and his famous Elephants . Also he later incorporated international sports such as golf and auto racing. But even his prices pale in relation to some of the prices achieved by other artists. Also there is a wide price difference between his sports and non-sports themed works , and between his American sports themed and international sports themed works.
Kreindler is exceptionally talented and I hope to add an original of his to my sports collection someday but I will not expect to become wealthy from it .

[Klrdds]

Originally Posted by JoeyFarino

That $110 million painting is horrible. If thats actually considered art then Graigs work should be in the billions.

I agree 100% with you but beauty is in the of the beholder or the one with the most money .

[vthobby]

Originally Posted by Klrdds

Kreindler's art is beautiful and has fabulous presentation value but its singular theme has a very limited audience ...American sports and sports personalities, primarily baseball, in general . The majority of the world , especially those international buyers with deep pockets , can't relate to his work .

I can tell you that in the 1980s, the entire world was saying the same thing about: Jean-Michel Basquiat. The proof's there in the fact that his paintings were selling for $100 to $200 and probably less when he first started. He was a graffiti artist to start with! He now holds the American Record for a painting! Go figure!

My point is this, if we all knew what was going to be hot then we'd all be rich.

I do not entirely agree on the "limited audience" point you made as the Asian market is rich in baseball knowledge and history and guess where the $110 million Basquiat went? Bingo!

Craig Kreindler's work is breathtaking and awe-inspiring and will certainly have a place in the finest of collections someday. I myself, can't afford one right now but still have his work on my list of things to acquire someday. Talent like his does not stay hidden forever!

Peace, Mike

[JustinD]

I must say I love Graig's work and have bid on some in the past that have arose and will continue or possibly commission a work. This question seems like a bit of trap as people's opinion of art are often like religious beliefs and unwavering.

Okay this is a book and I know that. I started typing a reply and this is as brief of an answer I have to such an open question.

That said, as an art collector, collectibility is hard to gauge and completely misunderstood by the general public. There is a general confusion caused even by the flow of a traditional museum. I will try to outline in a very general way, keep in mind a true even general outline would be a several hour lecture.

As a visitor you will enter generally in a medieval/renaissance area with biblical or historical subjects these are beautiful studies of light and color. Next will be baroque/rococo, this continues the flow of traditional realism and romantic beauty. We move on to neoclassical which are generally historical scenes and beautiful. These will be the roman historical paintings done in the early 1700s to early 1800s.

What neoclassical signifies is important, as you would have noticed in the museum at this point is the majority of the art has been very focused in realism and technique. Up to the neoclassical, the flow has been the photography of its time. Telling a story of history or in many cases, showing current events, people or daily life. With the advent of photography to the masses, current events were documented in a different way and historical events of romantic past (Rome) was a way to express.

The 1800s again brought the advent of the Romanticism period. Beautiful massive scenes of crashing waves and vast skies over the subject. These are amongst my favorites and can be massive works. The 1800s also brought a huge array of other styles as artists attempted to come to terms with photography and it's availablity to the general public. This includes Academic art, Impressionism, realism, and several others.

The 1900s brought the big changes to art as the general public may see it. Early in the century was post-Impressionism and symbolism, both slightly traditional but the catalyst for what was to come as realism generally was discarded for imagination.

The early 1900s ushered in expressionism (Van Gogh), Cubism (Picasso) and futurism. A change in how art was seen generally and the turn to seeing art as a true glimpse into the artists mind and vision.

This quickly moved to Abstract, Dada, Surrealist and Deco. Pop Art was the normal progression at that point which includes Warhol and his friend Basquiat. Pop art is currently near the top on collectibility as those billionaires collecting fall into the age group of appreciation for those artists. I think it is a surprise to many that what they consider "art" has not been the common period subject for well over a hundred years.

at this point we must realize that amount of trained subject artists is high and thus not as collectable in the art world. The success of a painter like Thomas Kinkade shows that the public does still like art that they find comfort in its ease of interpretation and beauty but will never find a place in a true art museum. Does that mean it is bad? Absolutely not, just not a historical piece nor a piece that inspires thought or discussion.

Graigs works are beautiful and I hope to have one for my baseball room soon, but I am sure he would not take offense in me stating it will not likely have a place in traditional art museum as subject art. I do hope it does find space in somewhere amazing like the hall of fame where it would be greatly appreciated.

As for appreciation, I think there would not be a loss of value, especially at the amount of pieces he produces. If he were to license the images as prints or overproduce it may, so I hope he does not. As it sits, he could easily double or more in value as sports collectors will always love good work. So it is absolutely a good investment, but don't spend your millions yet.

...And if you made it this far in this post, thank you.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by Klrdds

As a part-time art collector with a Picasso and a Chagall and Dalis and a Leroy Neiman among others in my collection I have found that art and its high prices need several things to occur to bring high prices .
It needs international appeal , great promotion by art galleries and dealers, and have subjects or themes that people can relate to and primarily 2or 3 people who are willing to go to extreme lengths in bidding to own a particular piece .
Also the number of works available on the market as well as the total number of works produced by the artist dramatically affect prices.
Kreindler's art is beautiful and has fabulous presentation value but its singular theme has a very limited audience ...American sports and sports personalities, primarily baseball, in general . The majority of the world , especially those international buyers with deep pockets , can't relate to his work .
Leroy Neiman is the greatest exception to this rule in terms of his sports themed works but he was also able to crossover into other subject matter.
For example his Polo Lounge , Baden-Baden , and his famous Elephants . Also he later incorporated international sports such as golf and auto racing. But even his prices pale in relation to some of the prices achieved by other artists. Also there is a wide price difference between his sports and non-sports themed works , and between his American sports themed and international sports themed works.
Kreindler is exceptionally talented and I hope to add an original of his to my sports collection someday but I will not expect to become wealthy from it .

Id love to see your chagall painting

[Klrdds]

Joey
I started buying art when I finished dental school in the 1980s for the hell of it . Then in the late 1980s i began collecting a French artist named Michel Delacroix. Then in the early 2000s I also began collecting his daughter's work Fabienne Delacroix. I now have 10 original works of theirs with very limited publishing rights for them . I haven't bought anything since 2008.
I will try to post a picture later of the Chagall crayon lithograph from his biblical series titled King David since i am not at home now.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Here is my Chagall. (1952 Felix Potin)

[irv]

https://www.google.ca/search?q=Graig...w=1280&bih=591

[MVSNYC]

Graig's work is amazing, certainly bound to appreciate; I own a Ruth study he did.

Regarding the secret "formula" that extremely valuable paintings possess...add to that, the artist's style needs to be rather revolutionary, ground-breaking, like Picasso, Pollack, Mondrian, and, believe it or not, Basquiat. His art was actually quite complex and layered with poetry, and many multi-media techniques...primitive, naive, etc. They're actually really compelling in person.

[frankbmd]

A close friend's father purchased a bunch of early works by Fangor in the late 50s and early 60s, who only recently has hit the big time in the art world. His sister has four Fangors in her dining room. The dining room is now worth over a million dollars.

He likes to paint fuzzy circles such as this.

fangor wojciech przestrzen jako gra 8_6572139.jpg

And other fuzzy stuff

fangor wojciech przestrzen jako gra 7_6572135.jpg

Could have been done with spray paint I suppose.

Why didn't i think of that?

[drcy]

As an an art historian and a baseball card collector, the financial focus on in the areas (record prices, PSA registry, commoditization, appearance on CNN Money, etc) has always been a bore to me.

A good story is about Amedeo Modigliani, who lived and died in poverty and who's paintings now sell for $100+ million. He would sell his paintings on the Paris streets, and sold one to a tourist. The tourist returned a few minutes later and asked Modigliani to sign the painting, because someone just told her that a painting is worth more when it is signed by the artist. Modigliani took the painting, wrote his name in giant letters across the center of the painting, ruining it and handed it back to her.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Graig's work is amazing, certainly bound to appreciate; I own a Ruth study he did.

Regarding the secret "formula" that extremely valuable paintings possess...add to that, the artist's style needs to be rather revolutionary, ground-breaking, like Picasso, Pollack, Mondrian, and, believe it or not, Basquiat. His art was actually quite complex and layered with poetry, and many multi-media techniques...primitive, naive, etc. They're actually really compelling in person.

True. Artists such as Constable and Renoir may seem quaint and maudlin today, but they were revolutionary visionaries for their time and influenced art since then, including abstract art.

John Constable's The Hay Wain (1921)
Renoir's Le Moulin de la Galette

[byrone]

A fine new movie, "Maudie", tells the story of Maud Lewis, an artist from Nova Scotia. Check it out if you can.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3721954/...&ref_=m_ft_dsk

[Leon]

And those spray painted circles might be worth millions!! Beauty is in the eye of the (be)holder. (not)

Originally Posted by frankbmd

A close friend's father purchased a bunch of early works by Fangor in the late 50s and early 60s, who only recently has hit the big time in the art world. His sister has four Fangors in her dining room. The dining room is now worth over a million dollars.

He likes to paint fuzzy circles such as this.

Attachment 273960

And other fuzzy stuff

Attachment 273961

Could have been done with spray paint I suppose.

Why didn't i think of that?