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.
JW-C Aug 27th 2008 10:58AM
WOW. She's a stunner. I bet that's what Valerie looks like. Kiss kiss sweetie.
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
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.
charles Aug 27th 2008 1:05PM
This article was terrible. Not enough pertinent facts were offered beyond what was included in the title. Great reporting.
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.
arie Aug 27th 2008 1:03PM
This article is hard to understand. Very confusing.
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.
Dred Farnley Aug 28th 2008 1:02AM
At least the author didn't give his opinion about the whole thing as do ALLLL other contemporary "journalists", both print and television. He does share their improper use of the language, but doesn't compound that with illiterate, pointless, ignorant editorializing. A confusing article, nonetheless.
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.