Wynn sues Lloyd's over $54 million damaged Picasso

www.thesmokinggun.com ^ | 01-12-07 | kik5150

[kik5150]

Steve Wynn's Bad Dream Vegas mogul sues Lloyd's over $54 million damaged Picasso claim

JANUARY 11--Months after he accidentally poked a hole in a Picasso painting, casino magnate Steve Wynn today sued Lloyd's of London for failing to pay off a $54 million insurance claim. Wynn, who purchased the painting "Le Reve" for $48.4 million in 1997, contends that the painting was worth $139 million when, on September 30, he "accidentally placed a tear" in it while showing the work (pictured at right) to friends visiting his Las Vegas office. According to Wynn's U.S. District Court complaint, a copy of which you'll find below, the businessman contends that, as a result of the tear, the painting's value has plummeted to $85 million. He has demanded that Llloyd's pay him the difference in the appreciated value of the painting and its post-damage worth. The day before he punctured the painting, Wynn had entered into an agreement with hedge fund titan Steven Cohen to sell "Le Reve" for $139 million. That deal died after the damage was disclosed to Cohen. Included as an exhibit to Wynn's lawsuit is a "sworn statement in proof of loss" that likely made knees buckle at Lloyd's.

[neb52]

He accidently hit it with his elbow when he was turning back around.

[neb52]

A wealthy friend of mine has about 25 of them. Nothing real big. The dozen or so that are stack on each up against a wall are worth about $20,000 each and the ones hanging on the walls through out the house and his office are $60,000 a piece. Burgular's dream house. LOL! But thats assuming a burgular would even know what it was he was looking at and the value of it.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "It's a crummy painting anyway..."

No, it isn't, at least not by any qualitative measure one uses to evaluate artistic merit: delicacy and mastery of line, interplay and emotive impact of color, placement of form within the picture plane. It is a great painting, just as nearly all of Picasso's works are great paintings.

While many flatter themselves that beauty is wholly subjective--some like roses, some like daisies, some like daffodils--informed aesthetic judgment of man-made works of art is another matter entirely. It doesn't take a degree in art history or theory or a thick tome of critical writing to learn enough to discern the good from the bad from the simply mediocre. Spend a few weeks of your life studying color and form and composition--or even better, take a beginning drawing or painting class, and then tell me that Picasso does crummy work.

Conservatives need to shake this notion that art, particularly modern, nonrepresentational art, is a some kind of con game. Sure, there are and were lots of poseurs and fakers and flimflam artists out there, but Picasso most certainly wasn't one of them. Comments like yours make my head hurt.

[Lurker]

just as nearly all of Picasso's works are great paintings.

No, it isn't. Picasso was an over rated hack.

--informed aesthetic judgment of man-made works of art is another matter entirely

Be sure to properly look down your nose and sniff at the hoi polloi when you say that at a dinner party.

It doesn't take a degree in art history or theory or a thick tome of critical writing to learn enough to discern the good from the bad from the simply mediocre

You're correct here so I'll repeat. Picasso was an over rated hack.

Conservatives need to shake this notion that art, particularly modern, nonrepresentational art, is a some kind of con game

Why on Earth should we do that? It is a con game.

Comments like yours make my head hurt.

Put some ice on it, sweetie.

L

[abigailsmybaby]

So even with Wynn's elbow through it it's still worth $85 mil?
That's practically twice what he paid for it! I can't even hear the violins Steve. Poor you.

[abigailsmybaby]

LOL!!

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "Be sure to properly look down your nose and sniff at the hoi polloi when you say that at a dinner party."

You mixed up your terms. One doesn't sniff at the hoi polloi; it is the hoi polloi who do all of the sniffing, looking down, harrumphing, tittering, swooning, clinking glasses, and the like. Besides, I'm a working artist who doesn't teach. The circles I run in have cook-outs, not dinner parties.

In any event, it isn't snobbery to call people on willful ignorance. My point still stands: spend a brief amount of time reading up on things like color, line, and composition, and then approach a painting by a master like Picasso--or any master, for that matter: Matisse, Degas, Ingres, etc. I guarantee you'll have a fresh appreciation of old favorites and a new appreciation of those you perhaps didn't like.

One last thing: when making a statement like, 'Picasso was an overrated hack', back it up. An unsupported declarative statement may be heartfelt, but it is also likely wrong.

[Lurker]

You mixed up your terms

You're right. I did. So do be sure you look properly down your nose and sniff at the great unwashed when you say something like that.

The circles I run in have cook-outs, not dinner parties.

Lucky them.

spend a brief amount of time reading up on things like color, line, and composition, and then approach a painting by a master like Picasso

I have on both counts. I daily walked past one of Picassos 'offerings' to the public every day on my way to work. I felt the pigeons should have been paid handsomely for the improvements they made to it.

Normally I can't stand the little feathered rats but in that case I made sure to toss them some crumbs knowing the end product would be my personal contribution to improving upon modern art.

I'd rather spend a day looking at real masters than the swill foisted off by hacks like Picasso. I suppose next you'll be extolling upon the vital contribution made to the world by Andy Warhol.

I shall. Let's compare and contrast, shall we?

Picasso:

Pure unadulterated crap.

Monet:

Art.

Picasso:

More crap.

Rembrandt:

Art.

Picasso:

A woman with a penis growing from her chin. Need I say it? More crap.

Degas:

More art.

I feel I've made my point.

Best of luck on the career.

L

[Rembrandt_fan]

No, you didn't make your point, although I'm a huge Degas fan, so the trip was fun even if we never got to the destination.

And yes, I like some of Warhol's work--or rather, the ideas driving some of his work, if one goes to the trouble of digging beneath the hype to get to the crux of things. Whatever his shortcomings as a purely visual artist (Warhol was more commercial graphics designer than fine artist, in my view), I believe he had important things to say. The 'Marilyn Monroe' silkscreen painting, for example, if viewed of itself, without the clutter and overexposure, is a solid piece of work.

[Lurker]

No, you didn't make your point

Oh, I made it. You just missed it. But there's no shortage of people in the world who think Picasso was some kind of genius. Oh well...what's that saying about fools and their money?

Warhol was more commercial graphics designer than fine artist, in my view), I believe he had important things to say.

Most of what Warhol considered 'important things to say' were all about him, him, him.

What a bore.

L

[aristotleman]

The eye is only an extension of the imagination and the brain's ability/willingness to find meaning in shapes and colors.
What looks good to you, looks awful to another.
That's the interesting thing with art.
I find Picasso deceitful. Monet bland and appalling.
Goya, now that's a painter.

[Covenantor]

You pompous twit.

hoi polloi |?hoi p??loi| plural noun (usu. the hoi polloi) derogatory the masses; the common people : avoid mixing with the hoi polloi.

ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: Greek, literally ‘the many.’ USAGE 1 Hoi is the Greek word for the, and the phrase hoi polloi means ‘the many.’ This has led some traditionalists to insist that hoi polloi should not be used in English with the, since that would be to state the word the twice. But, once established in English, expressions such as hoi polloi are typically treated as fixed units and are subject to the rules and conventions of English. Evidence shows that use with the has now become an accepted part of standard English usage:: they kept to themselves, away from the hoi polloi (rather than | . . . away from hoi polloi).

2 Hoi polloi is sometimes used incorrectly to mean ‘upper class’—that is, the exact opposite of its normal meaning. It seems likely that the confusion arose by association with the similar-sounding but otherwise unrelated word hoity-toity.

[Covenantor]

You were originally correct. See my 32.

[walden]

I have spent years of my life studying art, and I paint and sell my work. I would say that Picasso was a gifted self-promoter, but only a marginal painter. Plus, I don't like Picasso because he didn't like women-- he was obsessed with them, but he didn't LIKE them, or see them as beautiful. He was a jerk.

[TradicalRC]

Moral: Do NOT be careless with your Picasso.

[theFIRMbss]

>He was a jerk

It must have been hard having his immense talent but realizing that the ONLY ways he could make money with it were fine art clowning or getting a job cranking out illustrations . . . I don't blame the guy for being a clown. He got to set his own hours and made some money. But talent like his warps an artist's entire life. No one said life's fair . . .

[Rembrandt_fan]

Name-calling from yet another keyboard commando who wouldn't dream of addressing me (or anyone else) so rudely in person. I often think of people in terms of colors. Your color is yellow.

Until now, the tenor of my responses has been civil and friendly, not snobbish or anything less than polite and informed, and I guess I'll have to go to semantic hell for garbling the meaning of a commonly confused term. My intent was not petty oneupmanship; yours is.

[Rembrandt_fan]

Picasso is widely perceived to be misogynistic, a perception largely based on his proto-cubist painting, "Les Demoiselles d’ Avignon.". Along with that, his politics were a confused, contradictory socialist muddle and his ego was monumental. Of course he was a jerk, loaded with character defects and flaws. Most people are. But he was, however, a jerk with immense talent, co-creating cubism and painting monumental works like 'Guernica'. You may not like the man personally or feel attracted to his work, but calling him a marginal painter is simply ridiculous.

[walden]

I quite agree that he had talent, and could have painted women beautifully, but he mostly didn't use it. As it was, he chose to be part of the avante-garde, to be popular with the "in crowd", rather than painting good stuff. He could have made a perfectly respectable living just painting well, and would probably have been recognized for it either late in life, or after his death. Instead, he prostituted his talent for money and fame. Bad choice, bad art.

And, he was a jerk.

[Argus]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I just logged back on and reviewed my pings.

Your points are all well argued. You're entitled to your opinion of Picasso as a great artist. I think he's overrated. One element of great art is that it should give aesthetic pleasure. I get no pleasure out of Picasso and I don't think anybody else does, regardless of what they think of his craftsmanship. That's what's wrong with most so-called modern art (not all). It gives no pleasure. It's cold attitudinizing. I just feel the hell with it, then.

FRegards.