The last week i've been restless trying to answer a simple, yet, rhetorical question: Is Stanley Spencer (1891-1959) a great artist? or rather: Does Stanley Spencer matter? The questions of this sort appear very challenging whenever you are trying to find an answer yourself, rather than to google the rating 'of the most important British Artists of the 20th century'.
The need of the definite answer is augmented by the fact that on June 15-17 the Evill/Frost Collection is on sale at Sotheby's London - simply 'the Greatest Collection of 20th-Century British Art Ever to Come to the Market'. Along with Spencer's paintings, this private collection comprises works by Lucian Freud, Henry Moore, Graham Sutherland, and al.
The need of the definite answer is augmented by the fact that on June 15-17 the Evill/Frost Collection is on sale at Sotheby's London - simply 'the Greatest Collection of 20th-Century British Art Ever to Come to the Market'. Along with Spencer's paintings, this private collection comprises works by Lucian Freud, Henry Moore, Graham Sutherland, and al.
Workmen in the House, 1935 |
In the vacuum art market the importance of the artist is positively correlated with the prices of his artworks. What implications can be derived from the £1.5-2.5 million estimate set by Sotheby's for 1935 "Workmen in the House"? Is Spencer undervalued? With Francis Bacon, traditionally referred to as a great British artist, reaching occasionally 44 million. So far, the highest price ever payed for Spencer was £1.3 million by a London dealer Ivor Braka, back in 1998. As Braka states himself, no one has outbidded him since then. So is Spencer unfairly cheap? Or do the prices fetched reflect correctly the number of pages devoted to him in the 'history of art' volume? Vicious circle, indeed. The connections between value and price have never been straightforward.