Hugh Grant's drunken Warhol story has Britain in a tizzy

These days, most major stars are afraid to stray too far from publicist-approved talking points while promoting their latest movies. Thankfully, Hugh Grant isn't one of them.

The actor, whose movie "Did You Hear about the Morgans?" opens this month in the U.S., has the British media in a tizzy today over his revelation that he impulsively purchased an Andy Warhol painting during a drinking binge.

As reported in the British tabloid the Daily Mail, Grant said that he was on a two-day alcohol bender in 2001 when he purchased a portrait of Elizabeth Taylor by Warhol for £2 million ($3.3 million). 

Grant told the Mail that he ordered an assistant to bid for the painting at an auction in New York. "And to my horror, she did, and even worse, got it," he said.

But the story has a happy ending.

Grant said he sold the painting in 2007 for £13 million.

A blogger for the Guardian called the actor's anecdote "a lovely story" about the modern art market:

"Forget the apocalyptic diatribes, dark prophesies, moral seethings," wrote Jonathan Jones. "Here is the reality of art and money in the 21st century. You're drunk (and affluent), you buy a Warhol. A few years later the value of recent art has so escalated that you can make an astronomical – previously unimaginable – profit on it."

"Did You Hear About the Morgans?," which costars Sarah Jessica Parker, opens nationwide on Friday, Dec. 18.

-- David Ng

Photo: Hugh Grant at an event for his latest film in New York. Credit: Bryan Bedder / Getty Images

Comments

[Sal B]

Does it matter that Hugh Grant was drunk when he asked his assistant to buy the painting? Or that he got it? $2 Million was a lot in 2002, surely a lot more than I had then, have now, or will ever have.

What's wrong with his being able to sell it for $13 Million five years later? What is this, sour grapes by people who didn't have $2 Million in 2002, so they never could have bought such a painting anyway?

It just shows there was a bigger fool in 2007 than in 2002.

I don't begrudge Grant a penny of what he made. He was just lucky as Hell. Not just for a smart buy, but for becoming a movie star in the first place. How many of us can do that?

Would people be happier if his painting was only worth a couple of hundred thousand bucks today?

[Mohammad]

No Fools... Assuming the buyer has 100s of millions or billions, 13 million is not a foolish buy. Besides, perhaps it will sell for more...

[Defender90CA]

How drunk was the person who decided "Did You Hear About the Morgans?" was a good title for a movie?

[cody mccall]

Well, dang it! Had I but known I could make that kind of killing in the art market, I would NOT have forsworn alcohol all those years ago. I'm not even going to add up how stinking rich I'd be if on every bender I'd bought a Warhol then sold it for a 700% profit. No, I got smart, quit drinking, and put my money with Madoff.

[PC Holiday]

I'll have what Hugh's having, but make it a double...

[Cate]

Creative photo cropping, Culture Monster.

[William Wray]

it's that what everyone does at art openings, get people drunk enough to buy?

[Cate]

William Wray...I recognized your Axe body spray when I came on board. It's about time you took a bloody shower.

[William Wray]

Cate thank God your here. Give my life some meaning? We all live for a good antagonist. Go defend that pink brick striper Cordy Ryman so I can use my sweet smelling verbal ax to tear the flesh off your emaciated treatises.

[Cate]

Oh, yes. That's right. I knew that would get a rise out of you. Go for the jugular. Tear away all pretense. I'm sure I’ll give "you're" life meaning when there’s nothing left but my skeletal remains. Maybe then you’ll bone up on your spelling and grammar.

I don’t know Cordy Ryman, and I can’t imagine why he would need me or anyone else to defend him. He must have broken the almighty Art Law, whatever that might be. Is it possible to define what is “good” and what is “bad” art, or is it just a matter of personal taste and aesthetics?

I’ll make you a deal, William Wray. I promise to leave here just as soon as someone gives me a solid answer to that question.

[William Wray]

I'm so excited you started this. Cate I don’t want you to leave, I love an angry defender of nothing whose best attack is my poor grammar and presumed body odor. That you take for granted that I’m a troglodyte ripe for name-calling shows me your own weakness as a debater. Underestimation of the adversary is the sign of a flabby id. I hope we can get your ego back into super shape by holding a mirror to your brain and seeing if it can still steam the glass.
Yes I can define what good art is, I rave on the subject on this blog and my art rant blog all the time. Rather than get long-winded definitions at this point, did you see or read the about the Rembrandt drawing show at the Getty? The criteria for identifying if his art is genuine are the same principles of what good art is. There are two stories about it on Culture Monster.
What’s the deeper question is your fear of people who demand standards of excellence in art. Ironic as you want me to know good grammar to dare to have an opinion in the first place.
If art can’t be judged, how can there be categories of art or art criticism? If there is no good or bad why strive to get better or go to school? Are the principles of the color wheel fake? If things are good just because people like them why is Thomas Kincaid considered a horrible artist? Any standards you might use to say why he is bad apply to all artists or your theory holds no water.

[Cate]

First of all, William, I did not see this comment until today or I would have answered you sooner. I will do my best to address all of your points, but it will be a long comment.

1. I’m glad you don’t want me to leave.

2. I’m not angry, and I don’t recall where I have ever show anger in any of my comments.

3. I have not “attacked” anyone, but I have tried to use some light-hearted humor in my comments from the very start. I’ve *never* claimed to be an art expert, so why are you expecting me to be able to match great art criticism? What I have done is try to call attention to the fact that the way people express themselves here can either add to or detract from their argument.

4. I don’t see you as a troglodyte, and I don’t recall ever having called you a name or insulted your intelligence. I did look up to you like a “father figure” in a joking way at one time (because I admired some of the things you said, believe it or not), but I suppose you didn’t take that well either. You intimidate me because you have a far greater knowledge of art than I should ever hope to have. Yet, you take your advantage in an unkind way, and often (though not always) use your knowledge to hack and slash your way to making a point against anyone who dares question your authority. Someone who questions you is not necessarily your adversary. Intimidation can easily stifle any form of questioning, which in turn only hampers learning and growth. Have you ever smelled Axe body spray? It doesn’t smell bad, it just tends to overpower and choke everything around it.

5. Yes, I read about the Rembrandt drawing show at the Getty. Christopher Knight wrote about how art connoisseurs can learn to tell the difference between the works of the master and those of his students. I read the criteria, but I have trouble understanding how to apply it to the art. I think he described it as the difference between basic words that state a fact and words that combine to make poetry. I’m not sure I understood it correctly, but that’s the impression I took away from having read the review. I remember reading only the one article. Maybe you could direct me to the second story about it.

6. I fear many things, William, but fear of people who “demand standards of excellence in art” is not one of them. In fact, I’ve been accused of being overzealous about my own demands for perfection and beauty of expression in the written word, which requires a similar kind of connoisseurship as the one needed to discern a true Rembrandt from that of a student. I’m a fairly good proofreader and editor--good enough at least to have made somewhat of a career of it--but I’m not very good at expressing myself through writing. I guess that makes me something of a hypocrite when I must “edit” a good author’s writing.

7. Why must anyone “dare” to have an opinion? There’s always the fear of being attacked for it, I guess. This forum offers the opportunity for anyone to express an opinion, and experts have to be prepared that there will be plenty of uninformed opinions like mine out there. Consider it a teaching opportunity. (You remind me of one of my former professor and advisors in college. He was passionate about art too, and he got angry when I left the art major after my freshman year to focus on literature instead. Maybe he saw some talent in me that I failed to see. I hope your heart is not so jaded, William, that you can’t see that I have come here to learn something I left behind a long time ago.)

8. I know that art, music, theater, dance, literature—all forms of art can be judged according to certain criteria. I just don’t think I’m qualified to do it based on a predefined set of academic rules. I would like to learn them, but going back to school is just not an option for me right now. The only thing I have to go on is how a particular work makes me feel and think. I would like to believe that feelings and thoughts do count for something. If they don’t, why would artists create their works in the first place? They can’t expect that *everyone* is going to be an art school graduate. “Great” art work has to stand alone and convey those feelings to anyone, not just a limited few who’ve been trained in the academic principles of art.

9. I do not know the principles of the color wheel, other than that there are primary colors and complimentary colors. Have I said that they “fake”?

10. I don’t like Thomas Kincaid’s paintings. I don’t know why, other than to say that his art seems fake to me. Honestly, I am at a loss to explain why. I don’t feel anything when I look at it. They’re like a fantasy, completely out of touch with nature. They call him the “painter of light,” don’t they? Well, I fail to see his light, and nothing in his paintings can connect me to his fantasy. I find it strange how so many others are blinded by it. Tear me apart for that opinion, if you’d like; but if you agree with me, I’d much rather hear you apply my gut feelings to the principles.

11. Since when does a cracked pot hold water? You’d have better luck testing your theory on the Euphronios krater.

I will respect you for your flesh-tearing rants, William, so long as you agree to take a little ribbing from me when you’re done. Have I steamed up your mirror?