Picasso painting sold at auction for a world record of $106.5 million

Expectations were high, and expectations were met.

On Tuesday night Christie’s New York sold Pablo Picasso’s bold 1932 portrait of his lover Marie-Thérèse Walter, “Nude, Green Leaves and Bust,” for $106.5 million, making it the most expensive artwork ever sold at auction.

The previous world record was held, albeit briefly, by Alberto Giacometti’s 6-foot-tall sculpture “Walking Man I.” Sotheby’s London sold the bronze earlier this year for a total of £65 million, or $104.3 million.

“I think the Picasso illustrates what has been true in good and bad economic times: The very best works of art continue to sell at a premium,” said Marc Porter, chairman of Christie’s Americas. He said that the nine bidders active after the opening bid of $58 million “came from all over: from Asia, the U.S., and Europe, including the former Soviet republic.”

The buyer—who had placed the winning bid by phone—was not immediately identified.

The painting belonged to the estate of Frances Brody, the Los Angeles arts patron who died at age 93 last year. Her husband Sidney, a real estate developer, had died in 1983. The estate consigned this Picasso  to Christie’s along with some 80 other artworks. The most valuable pieces went up for auction Tuesday night; the remainder are slated for Wednesday morning. 

To read more about the sale, and who benefits from it, click here.

--Jori Finkel

Follow the writer on twitter: @jorifinkel.

Photo: Picasso's 1932 painting "Nude, Green Leaves and Bust." Credit: AP Photo/Christie's

Comments

[Donald Frazell]

I wonder if the current land robber baron, Eli Broad , will make as much as this from his "art". Or more likely how Hugh Hefner's collection sold, as described on the LACMA of Fire blog. My monies on the Hef connection. I would bet my house on that, and it is still worth something as it isn't a monstrously ugly, far off, carbon eating McMansion like K/B Homes sold us fools.

But that is absurd considering its hardly a great painting. not bad, but just because it has Picasso on it? get real. If someone else had made it, it wouldn't have gotten 1% of that, more likely 100th of 1%. If it had been Three Musicians maybe, but still, $100 mil for smeared colored mud? People are nuts, and have no values. Its all about investment, how disgusting. And we wonder why we are in such a mess. Too few have far too much. And i ain't no commie like its creator was.

art collegia delenda est
As they are funded by such fools as these.

[Harpo in San Diego]

I'm jealous, too, Donald, probably because I can't draw a stick figure and have it come out recognizable.
 

[Donald Frazell]

I feel for you. just do what all artist have done since they stopped the old apprentice system. Go to the REAL museums and draw. Cezanne went every morning, though he had no natural talent, he still was perhaps the greatest ever. Certainly the most important since the early Renaissance and Japanese painters. Schools cannot create talent, though they certainly can and do take your money and give you a piece of paper for it.

Picasso would be just as appalled, certainly at the state of art as it is. He knew how to manipulate the market for sure, he got paid 20 times what Braque did during their cubist venture. Yet Braque never complained, even though just as great an artist, and who actually started all three forms of cubism. And certainly the better painter after the war.

Picasso was the most prolific artist in history, partially because he kept, and managed to sell eveerything. A master manipulator of image, who also treausred his privacy AWAY from the corrupt art world. Unlike artists like Michelangelo who burned all ttheir works they deemed inferior, he kept and sold his. This aint bad, but hardly among his best. Picasso may have created more great works than anyone during the 20th century, but also made the most crap. Happens. One needs to have an independant mind who can discern what is real and what isnt, to FEEL the work with the eyes, to tell. Cant and dont teach that in artiste schools.

But then again, perhaps you just have no talent. but i bet the piece of paper looks nice framed above your desk. Lotta good that did. Good luck with that.

art collegia delenda est.

[Wolfy]

The painting is ugly. I wouldn't pay more than $50 for it.
High Art = High BS

[Michelle]

That's just too much for a painting, I don't care if it is Picasso. But I guess art collectors are also investors and visionaries.

[Danielle]

So, is this an isolated incident of excess, or does this really mean something for the art market at large? http://bit.ly/dqu7Qc

[churva]

that is so nice painting can i buy that in one piso