Back Of The Neck
Back Of The Neck
Signed Print
Jean-Michel Basquiat
£380,000-£580,000
$800,000-$1,210,000 Value Indicator
$710,000-$1,080,000 Value Indicator
¥3,690,000-¥5,640,000 Value Indicator
€450,000-€690,000 Value Indicator
$4,030,000-$6,150,000 Value Indicator
¥73,940,000-¥112,860,000 Value Indicator
$510,000-$780,000 Value Indicator
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: Screenprint
Edition size: 24
Year: 1983
Size: H 127cm x W 257cm
Signed: Yes
Format: Signed Print
TradingFloor
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 | Location | Hammer Price | Return to Seller | Buyer Paid |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| February 2024 | Phillips London | United Kingdom | |||
| November 2023 | Doyle Auctioneers & Appraisers | United States | |||
| March 2021 | Sotheby's London | United Kingdom | |||
| October 2020 | Phillips London | United Kingdom | |||
| October 2017 | Christie's London | United Kingdom | |||
| December 2016 | Artcurial | France | |||
| November 2016 | Sotheby's New York | United States |
Meaning & Analysis
The vibrant Back Of The Neck features large, warped impressions of a muscular body in stark colours against the piece’s black background. In opposition to the isolated, labelled images of body parts in the Anatomy series, Back Of The Neck compresses different parts of the body together, such as the fusing of a neck and an arm in an uncomfortable union, each disproportionately drawn.
Back Of The Neck features a particularly ironic use of the copyright sign, heightening Basquiat’s always subversive use of the symbol. On this subject, Leonard Emmerling notes: “Far more ambiguous than the crown is the copyright sign, which in its direct function touches upon ownership and the valuation thereof. Painted on the walls of other people’s buildings, it not only demonstrated SAMO’s authorship but generally questioned the idea of legality itself, like all sprayed tags turning anonymity into an open profession and claiming a formal legal protection for an activity that in reality remained illegal”.
There is perhaps nothing more ludicrous than a copyright sign attached to the human form itself. Less humorous, however, is the suggestion of a dehumanised, commodified body implied by the imposition of the copyright sign in this context.
