Millionaire Destroyed Priceless Lucian Freud Painting

by Jared Paul Stern (RSS feed)
Aug 26th 2008 at 6:02PM

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.

Tags: Bernard Breslauer, BernardBreslauer, Gutenberg Bible, GutenbergBible, London, Lucian Freud, LucianFreud, roman abramovich, RomanAbramovich

Filed under: Auctions, Art

Subscribe to these comments

Reader Comments (Page 3 of 3)

AFranco Aug 27th 2008 2:26PM

"Please try to have an informed opinion. Is that to much to ask?"********************

No..."Mr. Fish"...that is not too much to ask, at all. If you are going to be so "cultured", please try to apply correct gramatical construction and format in the process....okey dokey? As for Freud being such a great artist....wonderful news, because the example provided for this particular article, although it might, hopefully, be correct in detail...the detail in and of itself...IS REALLY GROTESQUE.

ardis Aug 27th 2008 2:24PM

ALL Lucian Freud's paintings are unflattering so why did this cretin commision it? This bimbo millionaire could have kept it in an attic and stipulated that 100 years from now that it be willed to charity. Did this old geezer really imagine that anyone in future would care about his lame brained looks? What an idiot, vandal and girlie man egomaniac. Clearly, too dumb to realize that his ONLY claim to fame in posterity would have been that he had been painted by Lucian Freud.

Col Aug 27th 2008 2:25PM

The man destroyed a painting of himself...haven't you ever torn up an unflattering photograph of yourself?? It was his image, so his right to destroy.

mistermac Aug 27th 2008 2:23PM

Two words ; PROOF READ!

AFranco Aug 27th 2008 2:28PM

"Clearly, too dumb to realize that his ONLY claim to fame in posterity would have been that he had been painted by Lucian Freud." *********************

All of the unflattering things you just stated about this guy, and what you truly managed to do, was point out the comical irony of the fact that the title holder of all of the names you just called him...obviously wasn't someone deserving of, or that any of us wanted to remember, for the sake of posterity or otherwise. I wouldn't cross the street to see one of this artist's exhibits. How messed up our concepts of beauty are. I've got a 400 to 500 year old oak tree in the middle of my property. It's all fat and gnarly...mishapen. Now...THAT's beautiful.

eye of the needle Aug 27th 2008 2:45PM

Ah... it is written... easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven...
that is because... the rich man... before he died... should have given his riches to the less fortunate...
there should be a limit that men can receive... as they are such selfish fools...

kenny17995 Aug 27th 2008 2:46PM

what an ugly peace of art. and i agree, that man shouldn't have ruined that piece of art. if he didn't like it, he should have sold it.

visit my website at: http://www.homesoftherich.net

beachy Aug 27th 2008 4:17PM

what a idiot! 33 million? What a Control Freak! He could have donated it to some art school or gave it to "some"research Charity? Just because he has $money, doesnt mean he is rich!
It just shows you how "broke",he is Really!

Ardis Aug 27th 2008 5:22PM

re--Afranco The subject may not have been deserving of posterity, but Freuds's concept of him was. "I wouldn't walk across the street to see one of his exhibits." Fortunately, you are not the entire world. "How messed up our concepts of beauty are." Each to his own concepts. You find beautiful a "fat and gnarly..mishapen" old Oak tree. There are those who find the same esthetic in people. Bottom line: Only an idiot would go to Lucian Freud for a flattering portrait of themselves. Some of the most reknowned beauties of their time have been painted by Freud and their delicate egoes withstood his scrutiny. It is sacrilege to destroy a recognized work of art. If idiots want to waste the time and efforts of artists they should hire exclusively hacks who paint cute brushed portraits. They're a dime a dozen.

Graffitimonkie Aug 28th 2008 3:02AM

The painting is a very weird form of art, I would guess the subject did not like how he was portrayed in the painting, which is what I think is said in the article.

But why would the subject volunteer if that person didn't like the turnout, that person must obviously not like what he/she sees in the mirror in the morning, I would love any piece of art done on me in good taste, or not volunteer to it to begin with.

Maybe the person is destroying the art after finding out the artist made so much money on another piece that he doesn't want to get ripped off seeing as he got paid pennies to pose.

http://www.tranharry.com/

Previous 20 Comments