Name: An Image Of Ken
Brand: David Hockney
Rating: 4.9 (226 reviews)

Track auction value trend

The value of David Hockney’s An Image Of Ken (signed) is estimated to be worth between £6,500 and £9,500. Over the past five years, the hammer price ranges from £3,805 in July 2020 to £5,646 in April 2023. This lithograph print, created in 1985, has shown consistent value growth, with an average annual growth rate of 14%. This work is rare to the market, having been sold 2 times since its first sale in July 2020. The edition size of this artwork is limited to 20.

Auction Date

Auction House

Artwork

Hammer Price

Return to Seller

Buyer Paid

April 2023

Doyle New York - United States

An Image Of Ken - Signed Print

July 2020

Christie's New York - United States

An Image Of Ken - Signed Print

Meaning & Analysis

An Image Of Ken is a signed lithographic print by David Hockney that was released in 1985 in an edition size of 20. The print features Ken Tyler, a prominent American printmaker, who worked with David Hockney on some of his most important lithographs in the early 1970s. A hugely influential figure for Hockney’s creative practice, Tyler introduced the artist to new techniques including one that combines painting with print-making.

In this experimental portrait, the human face appears disfigured as Hockney deliberately violates the sense of symmetry and proportion in his rendition of the facial features. The man’s chin is turned towards the telephone receiver on the left-hand side of the picture. The eyes, nose, and forehead, turned in the opposite direction, outgrow the unfinished facial contour that appears below. The perspective, overall, creates a sense of disorientation. As the two incompatible facial shapes overlap, their various features vie for the viewer’s attention, making it difficult to single out one central characteristic. Hockney commented on his experiments with perspective in the late 1980s: ”In a way, what I have been trying to move away from is a fixed viewpoint. That kind of line drawing on the whole works because you feel it’s accurate, you feel the line has got the volume, or the line has got the person. The line is doing all the work. The viewer knows that. And somehow the way the line is used there I feel I’ve explored. I’d rather explore it another way now.“