• If you start a thread here you have permission to edit the thread and your posts indefinitely. So if the status of your sale or auction changes, please come back and update the thread.

Want to buy Bukowski Painting (1 Viewer)

There's no single direction to point to or look in, you have to look everywhere. And you'll probably have to be extremely patient if you're at all choosy about the quality of the art. Your best bet will be to wait for another big auction. They seem to come around every 6 or 7 years.
depends on the wants/needs of the collection, but your fastest route is probably just be to cut a painting out of one of the deluxe edition books. they sell for less than standalone paintings, and art collectors often don't have much use for books anyway.
depends on the wants/needs of the collection, but your fastest route is probably just be to cut a painting out of one of the deluxe edition books. they sell for less than standalone paintings, and art collectors often don't have much use for books anyway.
I wouldn't do anything like that. I wouldn't cut anything. Its destructive to the history of it. It would likely devalue both the painting and the book. Besides I am looking for a full canvas.
No such thing, since he didn't paint on canvas. If you meant that literally.

If you're looking for something outside of a book, I'm afraid you're in for a much more difficult search. There are standalone paintings out there, but not many.

I know what Jordan said sounds like savagery, but I'm not so sure it is. Art is art, books are books. I happen to think that binding those paintings into the books was a mistake. The first time I bought a book with a painting (through the mail, pre-Internet) I couldn't believe it was bound in. I was shocked. I didn't know what tipped in meant in the description. Ha. Give me a break, it was a long time ago.

But I know most people wouldn't take a blade to one of those valuable books. I haven't either. But I'd be lying if I said it hadn't occurred to me.
From On Writing:
Say like in the 75 (really 150) drawings I do for each book. That takes me a month during which time I can do nothing else creative. You sell 75 of these books (signed) for $2625, which, if you subtract it from my $6500 salary leaves you only $3875 to pay me. You’ve got wet back labor working for you. And once you told me over the phone, “Just think, for every drawing you do, you get $35.” That’s when I first thought, this man really thinks me an idiot.
Were most of the paintings used/tipped in for limited editions?
While he was doing them for the books, yes. That was 1969 - 1984. He got burned out on painting as the demand for paintings increased. In cirerita's post above he's complaining about doing 75 paintings, but for the later books he did as many as 150 for each title.

He did more standalone paintings before the assembly line work started for the books. There are pictures of his apartment in the 60s where his art is all over the walls. I don't know how much painting he did for the sheer creativity of it after the book paintings. Which is probably why generally the standalone paintings sell for so much more than the paintings in the books.

Some of the book paintings in the earlier books can sell for almost as much as the standalone paintings, but much of that value is tied to the rarity of the book. I think a lot of people who buy the earlier books with paintings care more about the rarity of the title than the art itself. Not everyone, but some people.
I own these two, which were not bound into books, but given to the Dutch agent of Black Sparrow press for use in exhibitions.

Charles Bukowski - undated - drawing unsigned.jpg
Charles Bukowski - undated - drawing.jpg

As for cutting a painting out of one of the limited editions, there are several examples of paintings showing up in editions that weren't supposed to have any (allegedly Red Stodolsky 'fabricated' plenty of these), but were glued in later. This one for example is found in 163/350 of 'Ham on Rye', which is not supposed to have a painting:

Ham on Rye.jpg

23/300 of 'Women' - again this one is not supposed to have a painting. There's plenty more of these out there. Or with me. :)

yeah, it sounds horrible to me (and most on the forum) to deface a limited edition to get the painting, but in general, the art community fucking hates books. (i said "in general" so no one can get offended.) i have books by marcel dzama with original drawings where i could probably cut the drawings out and sell them for $500, but i'd be lucky to get $100 for the book. if you're just dying for a bukowski painting to frame, it's a fact that the fastest way to get one is to buy the limited edition book and cut the painting out. john emslie sounds like a scrupulous enough fellow not to do that, though, and that just warms my cynical heart.
John, I guess everything in the world is for sale, it's all a matter of price. :) I've never sold a single piece from my collection, and wasn't planning to, but feel free to make me an offer.
Friends. Here is a picture of a painting and letter I purchased last year through this forum. It was part of a group of letters and envelopes and a leaflet sent to Linda Danz in 1975. The painting is on the back of the envelope he sent the letter (pictured) in. I don't know anything about painting and the medium but this is really beautiful and intricate. The letter is also interesting to me because it is an introduction of sorts - it feels like the beginning of his correspondence with her. I don't think I could bring myself to cutting something out of a book - I feel very lucky to have found this.

Upon closer inspection it looks as if Bukowski trimmed a painting down to fit within a large envelope without folding. I had always thought he painted on the back of an envelope but this looks as if it is on a thicker card stock.

Users who are viewing this thread