Luc And Ludivine Get Married. (pair 11)
Luc And Ludivine Get Married. (pair 11)
Signed Print
Julian Opie
Price data unavailable
AAGR (5 years) This estimate blends recent public auction records with our own private sale data and network demand.
There aren't enough data points on this work for a comprehensive result. Please speak to a specialist by making an enquiry.
Medium: Digital Print
Edition size: 10
Year: 2007
Size: H 40cm x W 45cm
Signed: Yes
Format: Signed Print
Track this artwork in realtime
Watch artwork, manage valuations, track your portfolio and return against your collection.
Track auction value trend
Auction Results
| Auction Date | Auction House | Artwork | Hammer Price | Return to Seller | Buyer Paid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| February 2016 | Dorotheum, Vienna - Austria | Luc And Ludivine Get Married. (pair 11) - Signed Print | |||
| May 2015 | Dorotheum, Vienna - Austria | Luc And Ludivine Get Married. (pair 11) - Signed Print | |||
| May 2014 | Dorotheum, Vienna - Austria | Luc And Ludivine Get Married. (pair 11) - Signed Print |
Meaning & Analysis
Luc And Ludivine Get Married (pair 11) is a print from Julian Opie’s Luc And Ludivine Get Married series from 2007 that shows two individual portraits of a man and a woman. Presented in elliptical frames and blown domed glazing, the man faces outwards towards the viewer and the woman is shown in profile, facing the right.
As with many works in Opie’s oeuvre, this series combines the visual language of graphic design with the traditions of art history. Luc And Ludivine Get Married (pair 11) explicitly engages with the 19th century art historical tradition of silhouette portraiture, led by artist Auguste Edouart, whereby the new middle classes would commission family or individual portraits to record a moment in time. Opie has a strong interest in noticing silhouettes everywhere and his The Gallery Staff series from 2010 also engages with this tradition.
Speaking of his desire to go beyond the traditional boundaries of art and art history Opie has said, “Our attitude towards art history, towards schools, styles and ‘isms’, was quite aggressive. We wanted to manipulate them, to use whatever style we wished.”
