Francis Picabia

Private Collection, Switzerland (acquired circa the 1970s)
Private Collection, Switzerland (by descent from the above and sold: Christie's, London, February 4, 2008, lot 155)
Acquired at the above sale by the present owner

This work is in very good condition. The canvas is not lined. The surface is heavily varnished with a web of cracqulure throughout, both of which are inherent to the artist's process. There are 4 pindot losses in the background toward the upper left corner. Under UV light: areas in some of the deepest cracks fluoresce, however, this appears to be a separate pigment used by the artist.
In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective qualified opinion.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING CONDITION OF A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD "AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SALE PRINTED IN THE CATALOGUE.

The present work belongs to the series of “Transparencies” Picabia executed in the late 1920s and early 1930s, aptly named for their simultaneous depiction of layered transparent images. Picabia began experimenting with illusory superimposition in 1924 for his film Entr’acte and in his Espagnole series. Drawing inspiration from natural phenomena, Romanesque Frescos, Renaissance painting and Catalan art, Picabia used the Transparencies series as a means to complicate the notion of art as a window unto or a reflection of the world; instead, Picabia sought to create a Surreal interplay of imagery that would confound traditional and straightforward readings of art. As theorist David Carrier argues by applying Jacques Lacan’s theories of interpretation, “perception is not a dualistic relation between perceiver and perceived, but a triangular structure in which the three positions are occupied by the subject, the gaze looking at the subject, and the screen, or image, which comes from superimposing the dualistic relationships: subject looking at gaze; gaze looking at subject” (David Carrier, “Art History in the Mirror Stage: Interpreting A Bar at the Folies-Bergère” in 12 Views of Manet’s Bar, Princeton, 1996, p. 82)