The accident at New York’s Met involving an early Picasso has generated a lot of interest. Sadly, press reports insist on dwelling on the fictitious market value of the work that has been pegged at $100, $120 and $130 million by reporters. If we take the anti-deaccessionist line–which would be the correct line for an institution like the Met–the painting has no market value and never will. In fact, there is a greater value to the work: it’s unique historical value which is illustrated in this passage from Carol Vogel’s follow up story on repairing the early Picasso painting:
The early canvases are more delicate and the oil paint is thinner than the enamel-based kind the artist was known to have used later in his career. And then there is the question of whether there’s only one image involved. “The Actor” was painted when Picasso was only 23. “He was very poor, and these canvases were expensive,” said John Richardson, the Picasso biographer. He explained that if Picasso made a mistake, he couldn’t afford to throw out the canvas, but rather painted over it. “Nearly all these early canvases have something painted underneath,” Mr. Richardson said. He added: “There are few major paintings from this period and” — at 4 feet by 6 feet — “this is one of the biggest. It’s very important.”
Questions Over Fixing Torn Picasso (New York Times)
