£900-£1,350 VALUE (EST.)
$1,750-$2,600 VALUE (EST.)
$1,500-$2,250 VALUE (EST.)
¥8,000-¥12,000 VALUE (EST.)
€1,050-€1,550 VALUE (EST.)
$8,500-$13,000 VALUE (EST.)
¥160,000-¥250,000 VALUE (EST.)
$1,100-$1,650 VALUE (EST.)
This estimate blends recent public auction records with our own private sale data and network demand.
Lithograph, 1965
Signed Print Edition of 85
H 76cm x W 56cm
TradingFloor
Build your portfolio, manage valuations, view return against your collection and watch works you’re looking for.
Auction Date | Auction House | Artwork | Hammer Price | Return to Seller | Buyer Paid |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
July 2018 | Bonhams Knightsbridge - United Kingdom | Picture Of A Pointless Abstraction Framed Under Glass - Signed Print | |||
April 2017 | Sotheby's Online - United Kingdom | Picture Of A Pointless Abstraction Framed Under Glass - Signed Print | |||
December 2015 | Aspire Auctions - United States | Picture Of A Pointless Abstraction Framed Under Glass - Signed Print | |||
November 1995 | Christie's London - United Kingdom | Picture Of A Pointless Abstraction Framed Under Glass - Signed Print |
Picture Of A Pointless Abstraction Framed Under Glass is a signed lithograph dating from 1965. Hockney made the work as part of the portfolio A Hollywood Collection, a series of prints representing the fictional collection of a Hollywood movie star. Each print features a trompe l’oeil device, in the form of a frame, and in this case a piece of glass which the artist has carefully rendered with fine grey lines to give the impression of a reflective surface. The abstraction itself is made of bright planes of colour but while it lies at the centre of the composition, it feels like Hockney is more concerned with the effect of removal caused by the introduction of the trompe l’oeil frame. While this series comes at the beginning of Hockney's long career, and his relationship with LA printers Gemini Workshop, it shows his ongoing fascination with optics and perspective, and the enduring influence of the old masters who came before him. Here we see him overtly referencing an art historical device to create the ‘play within a play’ effect we see him achieve elsewhere with curtains and stage sets.