Picasso painting

Whoever bought this has more money than brains. This Picasso "art" is the biggest scam around. I wouldn't hang this shit in my garage.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/picasso-goes-for-record-1065-million-at-auction/19465242

He painted and signed thousands of paintings and drawings to devalue his work after he died. His offspring very cleverly stored all his unsold work to keep the price up. Seems to have worked!

The classic story is that a young student timidly approached ol Pablo in a cafe in Paris, holding a print. She asked him if it was a genuine Picasso.

Without looking, he dashed his signature on it and said, "Now it is."

The price is kept up because the art establishment (read, the people who make the market and then profit from it) speak a good game about the "genius symbolism" in his work.

All I see in this picture is a chopped-up person with boobs in the wrong place and random stuff in the background. Oh, what a Philistine I must be!

Shelagh wrote:

He painted and signed thousands of paintings and drawings to devalue his work after he died. His offspring very cleverly stored all his unsold work to keep the price up. Seems to have worked!

He must have been very clever to do that from the grave, hehehe

Not as funny as you think.

I was in a gallery in La Jolla in the early ninties and saw a Chagall print, signed by artist. But it was a reproduction of a painting I was familiar with. I examined it and realized it was a "giclee" print (essentially a very high quality lazer print, really)

They said it was "estate signed". Needless to say I asked what the hell THAT meant and was told that before Chagall died he left orders that a certain number of his works could be signed in his name.

Seriously. That's what they said.

I asked, "So it's a genunie forged signature on a legitimate fake copy?"
And was asked to leave.

5/5/2010

" Not my style !" I prefer Monet or Manet..

Cheers..Joe

lin wrote:

I asked, "So it's a genunie forged signature on a legitimate fake copy?"
And was asked to leave.

By the way, the people who bought that painting didn't do so because it would look good with their sofa.

They made an investment in something the expect to appreciate. It's no different from buying stocks.

A lot of these art buyers (usually companies) buy at the top and are stuck with it. The WSJ had an article about this, and they started with the chumps who paid millions for "Sunflowers."

Investment isn't always the reason these huge sums are paid, though, sometimes it's just for the ego of the CEO, publicity seeking, or cred and entree to art collecting circles.

Yep.

But they don't end up hanging in garages.

No, but my point there was just that I don't get, and will never get, why this art is considered so fabulous. All it shows me is how easily we can be scammed by people with titles speaking in ten-cent words.

It's a mistake to equate art "importance", much less price with esthetic quality of any kind.

Warhols and Pollocks sell for millions.

It just shows the fickleness of humans. We value polished diamonds for their beauty. Or do we? If diamonds flooded the market, they would have the same value as semi-precious stones.

The art world is a strange place full of wonder and beauty, and investors looking at the same works of art with a different eye.