Steve Wynn, casino billionaire and recently-outed #metoo abuser who has been moved out of his company, just did it again: he suffers from a degenerative eye disease. Years ago, he put his elbow through a $155 million dollar Picasso.
A month ago, he did it again, putting his arm through a different Picasso estimated to sell for $70 million before being taken off the docket so it can be restored.
Can you imagine?
Okay, once seemed like a dumb accident. But now I thinking there’s an insurance scam or something.
Considering how he got the state to re-write it’s art tax laws, you’re prolly not far off the mark, Little Nemo.
The NYT article linked to in the OP says the painting was damaged and that it was owned by Steve Wynn but I didn’t see where it said that he was the one who damaged it.
Rereading, yes, it is not clarified who actually damaged it. But it seems to lean towards an inference that’s Wynn who was doing the Hokey-Pokey 
Perhaps. But this damage occurred during the presale exhibition at the auction house. Would he have any reason to be there?
I thought it was a fun, interesting story. Past that, I am not Mr. Painting Detective so have no clue.
TBH, I’ve had to fight off a similar urge when looking at a Picasso.
Apparently it’s more fun when you jump to conclusions.
Hey, as long as I don’t jump through a Picasso, right?
Same for me with Mark Rothko. But as I keep being told: if you haven’t educated yourself about the piece, then you’re the one at fault, not the artist.
Could also be a really weird and specific fetish. I mean, he says those holes were made by his arms…
There used to be a radio series Yours Truly, Johnny Dollar, about an insurance detective. This case would be perfect for him, although I’m not sure what the Foley sound effect for an arm through a painting would be.
Dropping a five-pound bag of flour two feet onto hard floor.
I was gonna go with “Me, doing a full squat in my old, worn-thin and now-waaayyyy-too-small jeans.”
Nah, it just doesn’t speak to you. I had no idea what Rothko was about, but I was immediately floored when I saw his work in an art museum for the first time. Different strokes (pun slightly intended). Education doesn’t hurt, but it’s not required. I’m still not sure what Rothko’s philosophy was; I just know I love his paintings when I see them in person. But it’s not the artist’s fault if it doesn’t touch you. I’m not sure if I’d phrase it as it’s your “fault,” but it just doesn’t speak to you. Artists are not trying to please everyone, of course. (And the same could be said of anything from literature to food to music, etc.)
Oh, I don’t dislike all his work. Just some of it.
I’m the same way about Jackson Pollock. It’s completely absurd stuff but I generally love it in person.
Pollock is perhaps my favorite, and I just get lost in his paintings when I see them in person.
Where’s Banacek when you need him?
Yeah, I like Pollock. His stuff is wild and uninhibited, but makes a sort of weird sense. And I don’t mind Mondrian or Miro. My wife is a docent at the art museum here and very well educated in many genres. She loves Rothko, and I’ve heard her talk about his pieces and seen the films about him and his work. While I agree that he put a huge amount of effort and himself into the work (mixing his own pigments and all that layering), it just doesn’t trip my switch. My brain just says “Oh look, a black square and a red square. . .where’s the coffee shop?”