Featured Modernist Tribal? Wood Figurine

Any suggestions on the origin?
Thanks

 

It's Oceanic, that much I can remember, and I think Micronesian, maybe one of the Caroline Islands?

It's ironic, since I have one myself, and I just can't recall right now.

We're still in evacuation mode from the fires on the west coast, still no power at home. But the house survived. We were able to return yesterday to clean up some of the mess. All my reference books and notes are still there, as is the carving.

If I go back tomorrow, I'll check. (I'll try to remember to do that. Write myself a note.)

I know it is a copy of a famous statue, and illustrated in at least one reliable reference book I have. Maybe in the meantime someone will be able to give you a definitive answer.

 

You are right about the origin. Thanks a bunch. Glad to hear your property survived the fires.
I guess there are lot of reproductions of these figures but appears that native people continued to make those for some time:
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/21802/lot/215/

Do you think mine example is a tourist and mass produced piece?

 

Thank you for getting back on this!

I'm not sure that either "copy" or "reproduction" is exactly the right term. It's a traditional, iconic representation of an image that's been around for a long time, made by carvers from the same culture.

It's similar to the case of African masks. If a mask is carved absolutely authentically, by a member of the tribe that uses the mask, does it make that much difference if it is carved and actually used, or carved for sale? It may not have been carved at the same time as one in a museum's collection, but if there is a continuous carving tradition involved, does that mean it's automatically less desirable? Less valuable in the market place, probably, but still an "authentic" example?

I wouldn't call it "mass produced" but it was made for sale.

 

I see what you mean. But I would think that something made by a tribe/culture for their personal use but not for sale would have more “authenticity”.
I know it is a complex answer but any features when it comes to wooden tribal pieces that can help identify them as made for sale or made for personal use?
I found another similar statue sold again on Bonhams. Much more expensive than the previous example.
I guess provenance means a lot and can significantly reflect on the value?
https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24304/lot/34/

 

I found something interesting. The same figure that sold on Bonhams in 2017 for more than $100k, was sold in 2001 at Lawson’s, Sydney, for $16k.
According to this article from 2014
https://www.aasd.com.au/index.cfm/n...Ybb_rLcKYj1LXw-X8bANbydXnZh_kS3ySWNaR_RQlgrbc

the figure turned to be not as old as it was claimed to be. So, I wonder why it sold so expensive the second time?

 

Its value was probably enhanced by being published in the book/catalogue raisonne, as well as being associated with a prominent collection. Its provenance is being constructed, even though it does not (yet) lead to its origin.

 

Age and provenance certainly account for differences in the monetary value on the retail market.

However, for collectors who could never afford the price to acquire something in that category, more recent "copies," if they are "authentic" in every other way, (that is as part of a continuing carving tradition in that culture), offer a reasonable alternative. There are legitimate arguments on both sides, in a debate that has gone on for centuries.

Here's a good website about the Nukuoro carvings:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanit...fic-apah/micronesia-apah/a/nukuoro-micronesia

They are also discussed, and one illustrated, on pages 592-593 in Oceanic Art by Anthony JP Meyers.