Ceci est vraiment une pipe!

by

What would you pay for this colorful portrait of a boy holding a pipe?

Wait! Don’t answer. What if I told you this painting is now nearly 100 years old and was painted by a young man who would dominate the art world in the 20th Century, whose name is virtually synonymous with the revolutionary movement Cubism, whose name is virtually synonymous with “art”?

Pablo Picasso’s “Boy With a Pipe (The Young Apprentice),” 1905, sold at Sotheby’s auction house last night for a record-shattering $104 million dollars.

Not that I’d want to mislead anyone out there wondering what to do with their tax refund this year, but just because it can’t be said enough: good art is a good investment, and not only for your soul.

42 thoughts on “Ceci est vraiment une pipe!”

  1. Edward,
    You’re the expert here. But isn’t the point that extraordinary art is a good investment? Picasso isn’t fairly described by “good” is he? Sort of like beachfront property in Malibu. It’s not just “good” real estate.” And further that given the volatility in the art market, we can only evewn make this statement over the VERY long term? Like decades?

  2. good post edward. it’s so nice to see civilization in contrast to the barbarism that confronts us in the news today. Art is indeed a healing force. Just looking at this reproduction makes me feel (temporarily) better.

  3. Speculation, spc67…that’s the key…only it’s not so risky if you do your homework (i.e., visit your local galleries, get an art consultant, read the art press…very much the same approach people take for their stock portfolios).
    There are definitely pieces in my collection that will not appreciate. Then there are some I’ve already quadrupled my investment on. You can end up way ahead if you’re smart about it. But being really smart about it means buying work BEFORE the rest of the world realizes it’s “extraordinary.”
    In the end, I have a collection that gives me pleasure, regardless of how well they appreciate, but to see a painting sell for more money than I’d earn in 10 life times at my current salary, it makes me a bit more willing to risk the odds.
    It’s a strange double thrill buying art. It satisfies your soul and occassionally really satisfies your heirs’ bank accounts.

  4. He’s an angel, right? I’m terrible at figuring art out.
    You make a good point, Edward, but the trick is knowing what art is going to appreciate. Kind of like the stock market.

  7. You make a good point, Edward, but the trick is knowing what art is going to appreciate. Kind of like the stock market.
    It’s an investment process, yes. Investing your time and when the moment feels right investing your money.
    Collectors are treated like royalty in the art world, though. It’s also good for one’s ego.
    I will warn folks though. Collecting art is highly addictive and beyond competitive at a certain level.
    He’s an angel, right?
    There’s not always an allegory or metaphor, but you may be right. To me, he’s a boy holding a pipe. It’s the lyricism of the portrait, the folly of it, the peaceful balance of color and composition and all that mumbo jumbo stuff that really begins to jump out at you after you look at enough art. The same way Coltrane is clearly a genius to you after you listen to enough jazz.
    It’s a joy to behold. It’s also not even Picasso’s best work, which is generally very good news for those who own better pieces by him.

  8. It’s an interesting piece. More interesting, I think, than his later stuff,
    Current tastes in contemporary art would align with that…you’re perhaps a better judge than you think Slarti.

  9. I wasn’t seriously proposing that all art means all that can be perceived about it, just that…first glance, he’s got wings and a halo. How many male apprentices holding a pipe wear a wreath of flowers on their head? This is not an argument, just an observation. For me to argue art with you would be folly of a very high order. Not that fear of embarrassment post by impending folly always stops me from indulging.
    It’s an interesting piece. More interesting, I think, than his later stuff, but I’m not big on abstract art.

  10. Blue period, not Cubist. Question is what is available, or might become available. Picasso painted many more Cubist than Blue Period works, and I think they are more popular, if that means anything. A “pretty” Picasso, not as aggressive or challenging as the later stuff.
    If “Girl Before a Mirror” went on the market, might draw a little more.
    Private buyer? To sell to a museum someday? How many museums are without Blue Period Picassos? Dallas has one little early obscure Van Gogh, and likely will never have a chance at another.

  12. I like Picasso, especially his early stuff, but also his cubist stuff. I was surprized that one of his broke a record because he was so prolific that I thought supply would depress value. I seemed to be wrong about that.
    Yet, I must be right about it, also. How many Da Vinci are in existence? Did Michelangelo put anything to canvass? What if one of his Slaves went up for sale? I’m talking about something truly great (no disrespect to Pablo intended), and truly rare? Would somebody come up with a billion dollars?
    I’ve always entertained a fantasy of finding a missing tome of historical worth. Something along the line of the Rosetta stone, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. The game is not so much to find it, for that I would have to look for it and I’m not about to do that, but to determine what it is I would want to be found. It would be a kick, I think, if somebody came across the alchemy notebooks of Isaac Newton (reputed to have been burned by his wife), Shakespere originals, copies of the remaining play cycle Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound, a recipe for Greek Fire, plans for a Tribuchet, etc. Course, this doesn’t have much to do with Art but it has everything to do with treasure. At $104 million, that’s what Boy With a Flute has become.

  13. Oop. Rose Period. But he has the blue face. 🙂
    Makes me think of something called Symbolism.
    I would be curious to know how many good Picassos
    came on the market lately.
    Collecting is weird. Often has nothing to do with quality or scarcity, but simply demand.

  15. not Cubist.
    Didn’t say it was, Bob, but…see you’ve already clarified the period.
    To see what’s available outside the auction houses (and somewhat affordable), I’d recommend Jan Krugier in Manhattan. Not only do they represent the Marina Picasso Collection, they’re actually quite pleasant when you ask questions. Not a given in the realm of galleries dealing with works by dead masters.
    Private buyer? To sell to a museum someday?
    I would assume, but also perhaps to start a museum someday.
    What’s still readily available (and affordable) by Picasso are his prints and ceramics. Not all are dogs either.

  17. Slarti – of course he’s an angel. And a Boy with a Pipe. Picasso is nothing if not witty but any deeper meanings in his art need come from our imaginings. Which is the fun of art. I wouldn’t hurt to have a plastic cup of wine and some cheese and creackers right now.
    Musee Jeu du Paume in Paris is chauk full of Picasso’s of different periods. Closer to us would be MOMA, in New York. I use to go to MOMA a couple times, each trip to New York, and was greeted each time with a charming bronze sculture of a goat. It became one of my favorite statues. And it was done by our homey, Pacasso.
    Another favorite was Moore’s bronze globe in the plaza between the twin towers in New York. I suppose it’s gone now.

  18. Another favorite was Moore’s bronze globe in the plaza between the twin towers in New York. I suppose it’s gone now.
    Is this what you’re thinking of Fabius (scroll all the way down). It was damaged, but it’s now in a nearby park.

  19. That’s it! Thanks a million (secretly, I was hoping you would know what happened to it and that it survived). And it’s a Koenig (I’ve been discribing it for years as a Moore. My face is red). My next trip to NY will include a trip to Battery Park (as it usually does).

  20. “…it’s so nice to see civilization in contrast to the barbarism that confronts us in the news today.”
    Picasso is many things, but I’m not at all clear that I’d like to put him forth as my exemplar of “civilization” to the Galactic Council.
    Definitely not in his personal life, which I carefully put in a separate paragraph.

  21. That raises an age-old question Gary. Do wonderful works of art carry the sins of their offensive creators?
    Or do the works have a taint-free existence unto themselves?
    Personally, I’d hate to hang out with many of the “great” artists of the past century. Bunch of self-absorbed assholes, many of them. But I’ll pay through the nose to see their art.
    I think Wilfred’s saying the work represents civilization, not necessarily Pablo himself.

  23. But on second thought, I’ll bite anyway. Now that your words have been taken out of my mouth, I’ll express some thoughts. Picasso’s personal life is none of my businees, just like Ronnie Reagans and Bill Bennett. But then again, Picasso wasn’t telling me how to live my own. And as far as pleading anything to the Council, I’d stand pretty square behind “Guernica” and feel a chance for acquittal.

  24. I learned to separate the art from the man soon after I first heard For Only the Lonely, Frank Sinatra’s master work (assist, Nelson Riddle).
    I don’t know what Gary’s objection to Pablo’s personal behavior is but I always found P’s famous quote (I think it’s his quote), “I make art for money, fame and access to beautiful women” to be refreshing in a way. Glad it worked for him. I’ve known some that do art to keep from killing themselves.

  25. “That raises an age-old question Gary.”
    Doesn’t it? I do that at times.
    I try to separate works and creators, but it’s not always possible.
    I wasn’t picking on Picasso in this regard, who is a pretty mild sinner.
    “Or do the works have a taint-free existence unto themselves?”
    I’d say that “taint-free” is precisely wrong, but “separate” is correct.
    Nice painting, by the way.

  26. I find Picasso’s art to be an exquisit interplay between taint and light.
    Hey, and how about that Wagner (at least Beethoven had the good graces to hate everybody)?

  29. I don’t separate art from artist. Ezra Pound’s fascism shows in the cantos, if you know where to look(priapic structures). As Joyce’s socialism shows up in his (fluid and circular)….course Joyce’s socialism only went as far as wanting somebody to support him while he wrote.
    Trying to think of somebody that really offends me in life or art, yet whom I appreciate. Proust, a little. Gide & Burroughs, but they wanted to offend. Francis Bacon. Gauguin? Pollock was a jerk.
    Ok. David Hamilton is a monster. But he probably is also not an artist.

  30. Geeze,
    I have to completely seperate the art from the artist, otherwise Picasso, Wagner, Mozart, Mailer, Neruda and many others, whom I would have no use for personally, would be off my list. I couldn’t enjoy their works and my life would be less rich. I like knowing the backgrounds of the artist, but I’ve got to delink my feelings for the art and my feelings for the artist.

  31. I tend to agree with the separation, because the fact is that every human is flawed, and an awfully lot of people are [deferring to posting rules] sh–ty, and an exceptionally high proportion of artists (used in the loose term to refer to all writers and creators of works of art in all forms) are so.
    If we reject all beauty and wisdom from flawed people, we’re not left with much. I reject that, and accept the beauty and wisdom.
    So this is another example of spc67 and me agreeing.
    😉

  32. Bob, what about the artists you know nothing about. Do you seek out their biography before deciding how you feel about their work?
    If you discovered someone objectionable was slandered and actually wasn’t X, would you then reassess their work?
    What if there’s no way to learn anything about the artist, does their work then not exist?
    Just curious.

  33. What did Mozart ever do to you, spc67? I can see where Neruda’s politics and yours might not mesh but I just read him for the sex parts, anyway. And how much Mailer should anyone be reading? I do listen to Wagner (always liked Twain on Wagner, “there are moments in Wagner that are sublime but whole half hours that are very boring”) but I’m usually cursing him under my breath when I do.

  34. “Bob, what about the artists you know nothing about. Do you seek out their biography before deciding how you feel about their work?”
    It is kinda an interweave, Edward, a moving picture in my gut and mind. I see my relationship to art as communication, between me and the artist. A relationship that can be shallow or deep, always changing. What else could it be? This isn’t a sunset or daffodil, it is an artifact, an expression.
    If I don’t like the art, yes, that leads me a conclusion about the artist. Even before I know much about him. Don’t like Bacon or Otto Dix, or at least see a lot of anger there that is offputting. Munch also sometimes. Pearlstein is disturbing. I know nothing about these guys. I still look at their work, even enjoy it in a weird way. I watch zombie movies,too.
    I try to apply what I know about an artist when I look at a work. How can I not remember Van Gogh going crazy, and always look for a date on the painting?

  35. Oh and I forgot Wagner, who is the worst. The worst. Leaving behind subject matter, he abandoned the sonata form etc in large part because he thought those old structures were some kind of Jewish mind-meld. Decadent, etc.
    Parsifal is beautiful stuff, but to me every note is anti-semitic.

  36. My photographer’s eye has always been drawn to his B&W copy of a painting Diego Velazquez made of the family of Philip the IV at the Picasso Museum in Barcelona. The original is in the Museo del Prado in Madrid.
    My joy in collecting art has been to find a wonderful dealer whose taste seems similar to mine. I love having it around me in a way that visiting your favorites at the museum just can’t match.
    Plus, Edward’s right about the competition, even at lower levels. I take perverse pleasure at openings in pulling off my motorcycle helmet, meeting the gaze of those who are sure I’m there for a free glass of wine and then being ushered past them to the the artist by the gallery owner as someone that he/she “just must” meet. While I’m sure I’m not worth the time, I do buy, which, in the end, may be the greatest appreciation of all, eh?

  38. Great explanation Bob, thanks!
    I tend to totally disassociate when looking at art, but then I think of the work as having a life of its own, separate from its creator, neither moral nor immoral, either well done or poorly done. Knowing that Picasso was a pig toward women doesn’t make Guernica any less devastating. It may have kept me from inviting him over for dinner if my niece was around, but other than that…what business of mine is his life?
    Politics are fleeting. Immoral regimes come and go like the seasons. Does anyone really care whether da Vinci supported the most oppressive political family in his day? I mean really…

  39. I take perverse pleasure at openings in pulling off my motorcycle helmet, meeting the gaze of those who are sure I’m there for a free glass of wine and then being ushered past them to the the artist by the gallery owner as someone that he/she “just must” meet.
    Just had that same conversation with a collector today Crionna.
    The greatest thing about the art world in New York is collectors don’t dress up. So the person in the jeans and t-shirt is just as likely to be member of the board of the Guggenheim as they are a starving artist. You can’t tell. It’s a great equalizer.
    While I’m sure I’m not worth the time, I do buy, which, in the end, may be the greatest appreciation of all, eh?
    As Warhol said, the sincerest form of art appreciation is writing a check.

  40. I agree with the disassociation of art from the artist. Its how I can continue to root for Barry Bonds.*
    *Sorry, not trying for a flyball thread-jacking. Honest.

  41. I tend to totally disassociate when looking at art, but then I think of the work as having a life of its own, separate from its creator, neither moral nor immoral, either well done or poorly done.
    I usually find watching others process and react to art more interesting than the art itself. But, then, I’m not an art afficionado: I know a few things I like, and like them very well, but I can’t spend more than a minute staring at any painting. Art doesn’t leap off the wall for me — not like other things.*
    So I find it fascinating to watch the true art lover, the one for whom a painting can take up an entire world, walk forward and back, move so the light falls this way and then that way, and get close enough almost to touch. The dance intrigues me, even if the art is just paint on a wall to me.
    As for the Picasso — it’s not my style (too precious), but it’s nice to look at. For a minute.
    von
    *Other things do, of course. (Books, for instance. I’ll buy books that I know I’ll never read because I like their titles, the feel of their spines, the smell of the papers. I once bought yet another copy of the Illiad because I was struck by the cover — a shot of the Normandy invasion from the landing craft. I wondered were Hector would have been standing at the invasion of Normandy, and when he would realize that he was going to die.)

Comments are closed.