1
   

Picasso painting sells for record $104m

 
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2004 10:47 pm
"Boy With a Pipe (The Young Apprentice)," done in 1905 when the artist was 24, brought the highest price ever reached for a painting in an auction.


Quote:
Picasso Work From Rose Period Sets All-Time Record for a Painting Sold at Auction
By CAROL VOGEL

Published: May 6, 2004


Arare Picasso, painted when the artist was just 24, became the most expensive painting ever sold at auction when an anonymous buyer purchased it for $104.1 million last night at Sotheby's.

The price paid for "Boy With a Pipe (The Young Apprentice)," a 1905 work from Picasso's Rose Period, eclipsed the previous record for a painting, set in 1990 when van Gogh's "Portrait of Dr. Gachet" was sold at Christie's in New York for $82.5 million. The Picasso was one of 34 works auctioned last night from the famed Whitney collection in a sale that totaled $189.8 million, far above the high estimate of $157 million. Of the 34 lots, all but two found buyers. Proceeds from the sale go to the Greentree Foundation, established by the Whitney family to promote international cooperation.

The winning bidder was Warren P. Weitman Jr., chairman of Sotheby's in North America, who was standing in the salesroom either taking cues from someone in the audience or simply following a client's instructions. The auction house would say only that the buyer wished to remain anonymous.

Four serious bidders competed for the painting up to the $75 million point. Then bidding slowed until Larry Gagosian, the Manhattan dealer, who was talking on a cellphone, jumped in at $80 million.

Ever since Sotheby's announced the sale in January, many dealers had been saying that the Picasso could well become the most expensive painting in history (though, adjusted for inflation, the 1990 price of "Dr. Gachet" would be more than $116 million in 2003 dollars). Sotheby's had estimated the Picasso would bring at least $70 million.

(Final prices include Sotheby's commission: 20 percent of the first $100,000 and 12 percent of the rest. Estimates do not reflect commissions.)

Speculation about the buyer began the minute the gavel went down. Possible buyers, dealers said, included Lily Safra, the widow of the billionaire banker Edmond J. Safra; Stephen Cohen, the Manhattan hedge fund manager, who has been one of the most important buyers recently; Stephen A. Wynn, the casino owner; the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles; the financier Henry R. Kravis; and Paul Allen, a co-founder of Microsoft.

More than 1,000 people packed Sotheby's York Avenue headquarters to watch what many in the art world had been predicting would be the sale of the decade: 34 paintings and drawings from one of the last great American collections still in private hands. It was formed by two generations: Payne and Helen Hay Whitney, heirs to a fortune made from oil, tobacco, street railways and real estate, and their son John Hay Whitney, the sportsman, financier, publisher and ambassador to Britain, and his wife, Betsey Cushing Roosevelt Whitney.

During their 46-year marriage, John Hay Whitney, who died in 1982, and his wife, a New York socialite and philanthropist who died in 1998, amassed one of the world's most important art collections, rivaled only by those of the Greek shipping magnate Stavros Niarchos and, in the United States, the Havemeyers, who were among the first collectors of French Impressionist art, and Walter H. Annenberg, another former ambassador to Britain. Like the Havemeyers and the Annenbergs, the Whitneys gave generously to museums. When Mrs. Whitney died, she left art worth more than $300 million to four museums: the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Yale University Art Gallery in New Haven, and the National Gallery of Art and the National Portrait Gallery in Washington.

The Picasso depicts an adolescent boy known as "P'tit Louis," who hung around the artist's studio in Paris, holding a pipe in his left hand and wearing a garland of roses on his head. In the background are two large bouquets. Some art historians believe Picasso added the garland toward the end of the painting, transforming the boy from a moody teenager in blue overalls to a haunting, deitylike figure. The Picasso wasn't the only important painting up for sale last night, but it was the only one to bring a staggering price.
SOURCE
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,465 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2004 05:17 am
Isn't it great, see what tax cutbacks for the wealthy do. Now they have the money to buy art. This type of investment will surely provide jobs for the unemployed and thus help out the US economy.
0 Replies
 
satt fs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2004 05:27 am
Insurance fee must be high when lent to be shown in a museum. (How many museums afford it?)
0 Replies
 
kayla
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2004 06:05 am
I'm going to look up Greentree Foundation.
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2004 07:17 am
Satt they can't and they don't insure. Musuems do the best they can secrity wise but other than that they do not insure because of costs.

Basically they rely on the fact that a multi-million dollar painting will be hard to sell and in most cases where art is stolen it is found when the theif trys to sell it to a dealer. Even private patrons when offered stolen objects tend to report it to the authorites.

Stealing famous and valuable paintings is not a good business for theives. They are better off stealing something that has worth after alteration such as gold statues or gems and jewelry.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2004 10:10 am
Joanne, how suspicious that you know so much about the business of stealing. Surprised
Hi, Kayla. Good to see you back. It's been a while.
0 Replies
 
shepaints
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 03:52 pm
Picasso said something to the effect that if he
had been a soldier he would have become a
General, instead he chose painting and became
Picasso!

Well, it IS, undoubtedly, a beautiful painting.
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 May, 2004 05:24 pm
Anyone who would like to view my private collection is welcome.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 May, 2004 09:03 pm
I guess we just have to keep in mind the difference between value and price.

Your collection of what, Joanne?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 May, 2004 10:24 pm
I have an excellent copy of "Weeping Woman". Perhaps it's time to sell Question
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 May, 2004 10:36 pm
i suppose this is equivalent to the art world's price for a top notch baseball or basketball star's worth.

however the disgusting part to me is that almost anyone can at least get to see a game on TV if not in person, but this work by Picasso now continues to be available only at the whim of the 'owner'.

ART should not be owned - including mine!
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 May, 2004 11:21 pm
I agree, BoGoWo, but only regarding art that has earned the status of "national treasure". For a time it should be sold and bought--commodified, as it were, so that artists can make a living. But once some kind of created body of authorized experts (art historians, museum directors, artists and art critics) has decreed a work to be a national treasure, it should be purchased (eminent domain?) from its owner and curated and displayed for the public good. There was once a really good thread at Abuzz, started by Firenze Pensaforte, on this very point.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 May, 2004 11:58 pm
Shocked Rolling Eyes Drunk
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 02:50 am
JLN and BWG the Smithsonian through the NGA, the Museum for American Art, the Freer, the Hirschorn, the museums of African and Asian art all purchase art using combinations of taxpayer money, endowments, and accession donations on behalf of the American people.

For instance at the Museum of American art all the painting of all the presidents are hanging in addition to many Gilberts and other American painters and sculptures who are represent American treasure.

For instance at the NGA there are many paintings from the Hudson River School in the permanent collection.

In addition the Rockefellers have restored and funded Williamsburg, Va, for the public and the Cloisters and Asia Society in NYC.

The Carnegie have established for the public many art treasure as have the Mellons.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 May, 2004 11:49 am
There you go, Joanne. Thanks.
OccomBill, your point was a bit too subtle for me; could you expand?
0 Replies
 
heliopo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 May, 2004 02:02 am
hi at everybody!

The price has nothing more to do with art .It is a capital business as well as with real estate or countries.
Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Picasso painting sells for record $104m
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 04:45:59