Millionaire Destroyed Priceless Lucian Freud Painting
British painter Lucian Freud's portrait Benefits Supervisor Sleeping (above) sold to Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich for $33 million in May, setting a new world record for a living artist, and no doubt making him very happy. Freud just got some bad news, however; the artist was recently informed that one of his subjects, Bernard Breslauer, destroyed a similar portrait because he found the work "unflattering". Breslauer, a famed millionaire New York rare books dealer who once bought a Gutenberg Bible, destroyed the painting because of Freud's "unsightly depiction of his double chin," the London Daily Mail reports.
The destruction of the multimillion dollar painting by Breslauer, who died at the age of 86 in 2004, was discovered by a curator researching works painted by Freud between 1939 - 1954 for a retrospective exhibition taking place in London next month. Freud is reportedly extremely distraught at the discovery - as are Breslauer's heirs, no doubt.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
sygyzy Aug 26th 2008 7:01PM
The most confusing post on Luxistm, ever.
Mr Carlos V Aug 27th 2008 6:53AM
So far ,you mean, right?
Mr Carlos V Aug 27th 2008 7:04AM
BTW the painting looks like my Mother in law would look like naked,.................
BLEEECH!!!!!! HHHHUUUUUFHHHHG!!!!!!!
Gameslayer Aug 28th 2008 9:42AM
They say, if you want to see what your wife will look like when she gets older look at her Mother. LOL
JW-C Aug 27th 2008 10:58AM
WOW. She's a stunner. I bet that's what Valerie looks like. Kiss kiss sweetie.
just me Aug 27th 2008 11:38AM
This article is confusing because you have to folllow the punctuation exactly, it doesn't quite read like you want it to read. By starting with the story of Benefits Supervisor Sleeping, the reader focuses on that painting and at first I didn't make the jump to the destroyed painting and its owner. It is just clumsily written--sorry JPS, otherwise, you're great.
JPS Aug 27th 2008 12:29PM
Thanks, I see your point. I tried to make it a clearer.
Ron Aug 27th 2008 1:57PM
Agreed, I had to read & reread to follow the jist of the article..I just figured it was olde age on my part...but I guess not..
Bill Aug 27th 2008 12:03PM
Who considered it priceless? Oh...just bad journalism.
JOEL Aug 27th 2008 12:22PM
the painter is very distraught my rear end,a bit of paint applied on a canvas which he made good money aka got paid for it is nothing different than a good meal ,difference is you cannot feed yourself with a pintaing it's toxic ,to one extend or another it is nothing else than any week end hobby dumped the following year in this case however it represent morbid obesity and should be used for all these soft drink and fast food commercial
LMM Aug 27th 2008 12:29PM
Even following the punctuation "exactly" (and I did), it still is not a good read. I had to read the piece twice before total comprehension kicked in. Confusing at best.
PS - How many l's in follow just me?
Linneda729 Aug 27th 2008 12:30PM
I have to agree with "just me," the article is poorly written. It took reading a couple of times to figure out which painting was destroyed, as well as (first sentence in 2nd paragraph) that Breslauer wasn't the painter.
JPS Aug 27th 2008 12:37PM
OK, I tried one more clarification. Just to be clear, Breslauer destroyed a portrait of himself, painted by Freud.
AFranco Aug 27th 2008 12:35PM
Well...gross. I wouldn't pay $33 for it, much less $33,000,000.00! I guess when you are a B-b-b-b-billionaire, that's LIKE paying $33 for it? Sooooo....value is subjective, correct? It's still gross, and I don't blame the other guy for destroying his.
writerbill Aug 27th 2008 12:40PM
Now I can't eat lunch. What a gross waste of a perfectly good piece of canvas. EWWWWWWWWWW!
carol Aug 27th 2008 12:43PM
WOW. Thats probably the most horribly written article I've ever read. Sh*tty job, man.
Pami Aug 27th 2008 12:44PM
What an ass! What idiot reasoning did this man have to think he had the right to do such an act. Not only did he destroy something that was considered to be a great work of art, but he destroyed the monetary value which could have been used to help numerous people. If he didn't like it he should have sold it on or given it back to the artist or something of the sort. People like that make me sick. They think they are not held up to the same standards as the rest of the world.
Adrienne W Aug 28th 2008 8:40AM
How was the monetary value of the destroyed painting going to be used to help numerous people? Do you mean the heirs could have sold the painting and gotten rich? If so, big deal. It's not like the money would have gone to charity. Just to people who are probably financially well off already. No sympathy there. Also for your information, Breslauer had every right to destroy the painting HE paid for and which was of HIM. If someone paints a picture of you and you don't like it, why would you give it back to the artist to sell? Why would you want someone to own a picture of you? Especially, one you don't like? It was his picture so he had the right to do whatever he wanted with it. Period. I would have destroyed it too. And, asked for a refund of my money.
An Artist Aug 27th 2008 12:46PM
If he was a Billionaire, maybe he should have gotten a pilate instructor and lost like 150 pounds before he had his portrait painted, rather than expecting an artist to paint over his extensive flaws. I mean if Picasso had painted it, he would have had a Square Head and rectangular eyes with a Bull sticking out of his ass.
william Aug 27th 2008 1:17PM
Your views are funny, and quite true. Nice to see someone around this pile of dirt-- has a point of view that is not so foolish! rich men light cigars with $100.00 bills --- poor men dream to be rich men and throw away hundreds of dollars on the lot-- mega bucks.. both silly..
Mankind throws away---- everything and then stands up and yells at his neighbor for doing the same thing... it's all so silly of course but at least one should learn from this and perhaps laugh.. heres to "bulls coming out of your bumm.."