"Untitled (John, Paul, George, Ringo and the Beatles) by Jim Dine
in 1968 is being auctioned by Bonhams. Middle: A John Lennon
image. (Courtesy: Bonhams & Butterfields). Bottom: The Beatles' "Very
Together" album from 1969. (Wikipedia Commons)
The press release from Bonhams & Butterfields auction house popped into our email box last week with this attention-getting headline: "Artwork for Unreleased Beatles Album to Highlight Fall Auction of Modern, Contemporary and Latin American Art."
Anytime the word "unreleased" is linked to the Beatles, it's something we want to hear more about. So we wrote back and asked for an image of what was being auctioned on Nov. 17 in Los Angeles, the date mentioned in the release. The images at the right and in the middle are what we received.
Beatles and toothbrushes?
The press release from Bonhams & Butterfields included this description:
Untitled (John, Paul, George, Ringo and the Beatles), 1968 by Jim Dine is among the highlights of the fall auction. Originally commissioned by Capitol Records for a Beatles album which was never made, the graphite and watercolor on vellum lot of five works depict individual toothbrushes labeled for each member of the iconic band: John, Paul, George and Ringo. The pieces, which are expected to bring $25,000-35,000, have been in the private collection of former president of Capital Records, Sal Iannucci, and his wife Aileen, following the Beatles departure from the company to form Apple Records.
Worth $24,000-$35,000? Well, if there was information on it anywhere, it would be in Bruce Spizer's "The Beatles Story on Capitol Records". But we looked and there wasn't. So we called Bruce to see if he'd ever heard of it.
"It doesn’t ring a bell," he told us over the phone. "And I mean, obviously, this would be some sort of compilation album. It obviously wasn’t the White Album, which would have been the only thing in ’68."
And he pointed out something else. "The Beatles didn’t leave Capitol. The Beatles were distributed by Capitol, but their records were appearing on Apple labels, but they never left Capitol because Capitol had them under contract," he said.
"Obviously, one would think this would be the kind of thing you could brush aside or stick your teeth into, pardon the obvious pun," Spizer told us. "But I’m not aware of any compilation or greatest hits album that was under consideration at that time. Certainly, Capitol would not have been able to do so without consultation of the Beatles, I would think, by that time in their relationship. And most of the people who would have been involved with that are probably no longer with us."
He also wondered about the $25,000-$35,000 value attributed to it. "Alternate covers of the Butcher ... trunk variations wouldn’t go for that kind of money," he said.
A spokesman for Capitol Records couldn't provide any clue to its origin, so we contacted Sharon Goodman Squires, a specialist in Modern Contemporary and Latin American Art with Bonhams & Butterfields. She confirmed the artwork was commissioned by Capitol Records for an album that was never made and that Sal Iannucci, a former president of Capitol Records, purchased the artwork when he left the company.
She also said the reason for the high price is that it's being sold as artwork. "Keep in mind this is a fine art sale, not a music memorabilia sale," she said. "We have priced this to Jim Dine's market, not the Beatles' market. ... We're looking at this from a fine arts perspective."
A search on the internet shows Dine has a long career in the pop art world. How did the Beatles become toothbrushes in Dine's pop art interpretation of them, if that's what it is? Without the story of the artwork, we don't know for sure.
If you believe Wikipedia, it shows Dine does have a minor Beatles connection. It says Jim Dine moved to England in 1967 and was represented by art dealer Robert Fraser in London in the late '60s. Fraser was art director for "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."
Collectors will remember a somewhat similar album cover without the Beatles pictures actually did get released in 1969 by Polydor Records. It was "The Beatles - Very Together." The cover alluded to the Paul Is Dead hoax and had four candles with three lit and one blown out. The record contained tracks from the Tony Sheridan period, plus "Ain't She Sweet" sung by John Lennon and the instrumental "Cry For a Shadow."
For now, the complete story behind this toothbrush artwork remains a mystery. There are several missing links. The biggest is no one seems to know what brought about this artwork in the first place. It all might be a fascinating unknown piece of Beatles history. Or not. At the least, it could be the work of an artist with a lengthy history interpreting the Beatles. If indeed it is, the question is why?
The auction takes place at 10 a.m. Nov. 17 at Bonhams & Butterfields, 7601 W Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles.
For further reading: Jim Dine biography.
Update: Unused Beatles artwork sells for over $50,000 at auction
Comments
I'm just thankful that "art" was never used on anything connected with the Beatles!
Art like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But since the Beatles didn't use it... it's worth less.
Sheesh -- I am an artist -- maybe I should draw some socks and name them Beatles and try to make some money off of that!
(Totally stupid, IMO) He didn't even try to give the toothbrushes individual characters!
Robert Fraser didn't shoot the Sgt Pepper cover - Michael Cooper did, on 30 March 1967. Fraser was the art director, who suggested The Beatles use Cooper, Peter Blake and Jann Haworth to realise McCartney's original concept.
How does an unused Beatles album cover (muchless the album itself) stay hidden for 41 years? How is it that Bruce Spizer was unaware of it (what about Mark Lewisohn)? Are we to believe that the artwork grew from Rubber Soul to Revolver to Pepper (and MMT) to...toothbrushes? Can you imagine the conversation: "All right lads, what about toothbrushes?"
Scruphy: I think the key is the fact that Dine was a name artist, though I admit not having heard of him until I researched this article. And not only did I check with Bruce, but I also checked with Capitol. They were also unaware of it. The artwork was done, it appears, strictly for art's sake. (Which somewhat explains why the artwork is being sold as art and not music memorabilia.)
Name artist or not, I'm glad it never saw the light of day, "sub-par Beatles" to quote George if it had!
This has nothing to do with the Beatles.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!