
Say Good-Bye to Picasso’s Women of Algiers, Disappearing for $140M - JacobAldridge
http://www.vulture.com/2015/05/good-bye-forever-to-picassos-women-of-algiers.html
======
derefr
I'm going to assume that just taking a high-res scan of the thing and making
prints would actually miss something of the original. Maybe there's artistic
merit in how the thickened wodges of paint in each brush-stroke glisten as you
move around the room; perhaps educational value in the particular refractive
indices of the paint in demonstrating how to paint that way.

My question is, then: if not a flat 2D scan, what _would_ be enough to capture
everything relevant to the structural identity of the work? Could we, say,
take a 3D scan of the surface, combine it with a spectrographic analysis of
all the relevant oils, mix up some of the same oils in their old styles, and
then 3D-print those oils onto canvas to create an exact replica? Would that be
enough to alleviate the author's ennui?

~~~
rodgerd
For me, personally, I'd be delighted to have some really good Rembrandt and
Goldie forgeries (that is, copies executed in oils), and maybe a few
impressionists. The texture of the works is a big part of the experience. But
I'd also like the originals to be available as part of our shared cultural
history and heritage, rather than locked in a vault to gloat over.

That said, the shared culture/history is undermined by the way many galleries
and museums behave - my wife is a painter and is moved to fury by the way that
sketching and painting is now forbidden by many institutions; the artists
being exhibited may well have learned their own trade sitting in a museum
copying the revered masters of their own era; that options is denied to modern
students.

~~~
derefr
Indeed, one of the interesting things about a world with "forgery museums" is
how much less protected they would need to be.

Imagine if the public were actually allowed to _touch_ the (replica) painting.
Sounds crazy, doesn't it? If a reproduction was a $30K capital cost for
scanning and oil synthesis, followed by a $2K marginal cost for reproduction,
though, why _not_ let the public touch it? Just print another one each year.
Heck, destroy the reproductions when you would normally rotate them out of
display, and then print them again when you want to install them anew.

For that matter, imagine if one could study (excellent forgeries of) old
masters in their _local_ museum/gallery, instead of having to fly to Europe.
In fact, imagine if you could "run off" a replica for group study in art
school from the room beside the offset printer!

------
cge
>Technically speaking, not factoring time on loan to exhibitions, Women of
Algiers has only been on public view for the last ten days.

What is that supposed to mean? That's essentially saying that, except for a
very common method of having art viewable by the public in museums, it wasn't
viewable by the public. That seems like a completely pointless observation.

~~~
frandroid
The point is that works of art by great artists are world heritage artefacts,
and shouldn't be held in private hands. Who knows if the new buyer will even
loan the painting out?

~~~
aaronbrethorst
How would they have ever ended up with that designation unless there was a
private market to determine 'proper value,' thereby conferring notability on
the artists?

~~~
anigbrowl
Market value is not the only means of determining aesthetic value.

------
kenferry
> there's no doubt in my mind that the prices for all art, masterpieces
> included but especially contemporary, recent, and new art, are completely
> out of whack and ridiculously overpriced. I am sorry, but it seems sick to
> me to see new artists selling art out of their first shows for between
> $30,000 and $40,000. Something's gotta give.

I give this person the benefit of the doubt as having thought about this a lot
more than I have, but this surprises me. Why is it bad if new artists are able
to make a living?

~~~
bweitzman
Of course artists should be able to make a living, but spending that much
money on unknown and inexperienced artists suggests that the relationship
between the monetary value of art and the quality/importance of it is
completely out of whack. But it's not as if that's news to anybody.

~~~
trhway
>spending that much money on unknown and inexperienced artists

it is called VC investing in high-tech

~~~
seszett
Well, maybe this _suggests that the relationship between the monetary value
of_ startups _and the quality /importance of_ them _is completely out of
whack_ as well.

~~~
optimusclimb
Which is exactly why that's a great post.

------
optimusclimb
"My stomach turned at the sight of a woman carrying a yapping Yorkshire
terrier while heading out of this overcrowded gallery."

Does anyone else not view this entire essay as the definition of a first world
problem? (and even then, the term doesn't do it justice?)

Surely there's a witty comment to be made about THAT turning the author's
stomach, while someone in a third world nation starves...however for me it'd
just suffice to point out the struggles of the overworked single mother of two
to three in the US of A, the NYTimes' piece today about the disappearance of
the middle class [1], and then juxtapose that with this article.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/us/politics/as-middle-
clas...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/us/politics/as-middle-class-fades-
so-does-use-of-term-on-campaign-trail.html)

------
caseyf7
and it sold for $179M

[http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/05/11/Picasso-
painting-s...](http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/05/11/Picasso-painting-
smashes-record-with-179-million-bid/8841431387160/)

------
robotresearcher
The penultimate line of the article negates the headline.

> When I carped about all this art disappearing forever after auction, she
> said, in a tone that was distinctly silly boy, "A lot of it will be back
> here next season."

Where 'she' is an art expert and employee of the auction house handling the
sale.

~~~
lbotos
Right, but that comment was in jest about the state of Art buying. That's the
point of the piece, Art buying is bullshit. Who's buying these pieces? They
aren't buying them to add to the greater art narrative but as an investment.
Art Critics love to hate the fact that their world couldn't exist without the
wealthy supporting as investment. No one buys a 140mm Picasso because that's
what it's worth. They buy it because they think they can sell it for more.
Hence his tone about it being gone forever and her joking that he knows it
will be back.

~~~
robotresearcher
OK, I didn't get the joke I guess.

------
allendoerfer
I am torn back and forth whether to approve or disapprove art collecting. On
the one hand I think you should never buy trash, but save for the very best of
something that makes you really happy and buy the minimal amount of it. On the
other hand I hate buying things just for the sake of status, especially when
it has only idealistic utility.

When I am ever in the position to buy a Picasso, I hope nobody reads this
comment, because I am going to casually put it on a wall in the hallway along
with some prints. The troll fun you would have by your own would totally
outweigh the status points you could gain by telling others.

------
JoeAltmaier
Way too attached to a bit of paint on paper. It was painted after all, to be
sold.

~~~
dogecoinbase
_Way too attached to a bit of paint on paper._

Is there a name for the rhetorical device where one tries to devalue something
by referring to it in this technically-correct-debasing kind of way? I feel
like I'm seeing it more and more often on HN and elsewhere. It's some kind of
anti-intellectualism but I feel like it must be more specific.

~~~
noonespecial
I've gone s far as to call it the "yellow metal" fallacy. (ie gold)

Its all just matter in the end, but sometimes there's value in how its
arranged. Ignoring that is stupid.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
No, its called intellectual honesty, or integrity. To subscribe to someone
else's value system and order your life according to their views is stupid.

------
digikata
The discussion of the valuation of art here reminds me of this Planet Money
episode

[http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/10/09/230950901/episode-...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/10/09/230950901/episode-189-why-
a-dead-shark-costs-12-million)

------
Schiphol
[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilIsCool](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilIsCool)

