Picasso Painting Worth $70 million "Accidentally" Damaged Before Auction

Submitted by: daegog 1 week ago in Entertainment News & Politics


A Pablo Picasso painting valued at a whopping $70 million was accidentally damaged days before it was supposed to be sold at an auction. Christie's auction house was forced to remove Picasso's 1943 work of art "Le Marin (The Sailor)" from this week's event after the painting sustained unspecified damage during its final preparations Friday.

The painting is owned by casino mogul Steve Wynn, who inadvertently damaged another one of his Picasso pieces over a decade ago. "Two outside conservators have now been consulted and have made recommendations for the successful restoration of the painting," Christie's said in a statement. "After consultation with the consignor today, the painting has been withdrawn from Christie's May 15 sale to allow the restoration process to begin."

The high-priced painting features a dark-haired man in a blue-and-white-striped shirt that Christie's describes as "instantly reminiscent of the artist" and can therefore be interpreted as an "intriguing, multi-layered and rare proxy self-portrait of Picasso himself." Source: USAToday
There are 14 comments:
Male 1,754
Actually, a LOT of high end art gets damaged, and even lost, at auction!  This is nothing new.
0
Reply
Male 321
spanz That isn't high end art. That was Pablo playing with some outre ideas and learning from public reaction to his mistakes. He never really got any better at the tricks he used here, but his first love was always bullshit.
0
Reply
Male 94
#nationinfreefall

Am I doing this right?

0
Reply
Male 321
popsicle01 Okay. I have to lay this out. What is going on with monkwarrior randomly presenting himself as a brick wall, and all the usual suspects using up vast amounts of comment space banging their heads against it? Is this some sort of in-joke running gag, or are there really that many people here who lose their ability to think when this particular person baits them?
If it's an in-joke, I don't need to get in on it. I can scroll through that bullshit, but anyone would have to wonder what his hold on you is.
2
Reply
Male 94
semichisam01 Randomly? He inserts his preachy, immature 'I know you are but what am I?" nonsense into 90% of the threads, usually telling us how the topic at hand is our sinfulness taking the country down. I was just beating him to it here. Mocking his childishness is weirdly therapeutic for me. Maybe ignoring it entirely will make it end. Do we, the baited, want it to? I really don't know.
1
Reply
Male 5,657
popsicle01 No, imma need you to add some more condescension and some vague yet persistent remarks about a better way to be.
0
Reply
Male 16,809
daegog doesn't he usually also add a credible threat to assassinate the president?
0
Reply
Male 5,657
Draculya No, i dunno.. He never actually says that.. I seem to recall something more vague like Deathtothepresidency.. 

Which I always felt implied a wish to destroy the entire government moreso than any one president.  If you kill a president, there will be a new one the next day, so no real change.

Pretty sure the list of succession to become president in case of death is like 30+ people long at this point.
0
Reply
Male 321
daegog 18, and it isn't necessary to wait for death.
0
Reply
Male 5,657
I think I would rather have a copy of a Bob Ross painting over Picasso, but im an art layman.
0
Reply
Male 42,583
 Here's another picture that can be interpreted as an "intriguing, multi-layered and rare proxy self-portrait of the artist.  About the same talent level I'd say.



I do think some modern art styles are very much "art" but some of it is just a good con job.


0
Reply
Male 542
Gerry1of1 If that painting up top was signed "Bob Joe" rather than "Picasso", you'd be lucky to get $70
1
Reply
Female 5,394
I wonder how the insurance claims around this sort of thing pan out...
0
Reply
Male 5,657
melcervini Yeah, i was wondering that too, how do you insure something that costs 70 mil against accidental damage lol.

Maybe the insurance company would be on the hook to pay the difference between the cost the painting was meant to get vs what it ends up as?
0
Reply