Barbara Castelli holding back a broad smile
A multimillion-dollar Roy Lichtenstein painting of an electrical cord that was sent out for a cleaning 42 years ago and disappeared was returned to its owner on Tuesday.
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, calling the recovery of missing or stolen art an “important mission” for the federal government, stood near the 1961 black-and-white painting, “Electric Cord,” as he described how American art dealer Leo Castelli bought it in the 1960s for $750.
“It is now worth about $4 million,” Bharara said. “Returning stolen art and artifacts is an important mission of this office, and it is always gratifying when we are successful…”
Castelli sent the painting to an art restorer for cleaning in January 1970 and never got it back. He died in 1999. The painting resurfaced six years after the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation published an image of it on its holiday greeting card in 2006 and asked the art community to help find it.
Castelli’s widow, Barbara Bertozzi Castelli, said she plans to display it in her Manhattan home “if I find a place to hang it.” She said she had never seen it before Tuesday.
Bharara declined to say whether criminal charges will be filed against anyone in connection with the painting’s disappearance.
RTFA for the whole telenovela, the journey of the painting, return to the US and return to Mrs. Castelli.
Hi
4 millions for that painting, it must be a Monster Cable extension cord…
Very funny!
And as an attorney for Monster Cable, I will be suing you for $75,000 for mentioning Monster Cable in your post without license and breaking copyright.
Have a nice day.
They should be happy the restorer kept it and didn’t return it. Chances are if it wasn’t sent out, they would have tossed it in the trash in the 80’s and replaced with with some God-awful pastel geometric print. Now they get to reclaim it.
If I had this thing, I’d trade it for a new home, a beach condo, a GT-R and the balance in gold bullion coins in about half a second.
Will that bubble ever burst?
The crime wasn’t stealing the painting, it is selling it for $4 million. Paying $750 means you were conned, and now you are trying to find some other sucker to relieve you of your burden.
Besides, this is excess profits.
hhmmm stolen huh? lets see…. painting gets “stolen”, is away for years, now you dont have to pay taxes on it, have it insured, and many years later it “turns up” back in the hands of the rightful owners…. for nice tidy profit… hhhmmmm
To derail conversation to something else related to Roy Lichtenstein, essential in modern times.
He is the most famous for several years long phase during which he literally, dot-for-dot copied and enlarged frames of popular comic strips. Strips not done by him. The only thing he did is to faithfully enlarge them to the canvas size, not altering any aspect. Those works sold for millions even at the time, never mind now. Now comes the interesting bit: never, ever did he ask for permission from comic strip authors or publishing companies. Never, ever did he gave them any money/proceeds/royalties. Never, ever did anyone at the time even thought of suing him for it. The only controversy about those works at the time was “is that art?”. Even that question went by a landslide to his favor. Artist community itself decided that not only it is art, but excellent art.
How much 60 years change things. In my opinion to the worse (I base that on the great Da Vinci – he never charged or obstructed anyone from copying his great works in his own time, plenty of contemporary Mona Lisa copies, for example are known).
Umm…dang, for that painting? I draw, I paint…I really do suck at getting the big bucks. Wonder if I purposely have a few of my stuff go “missing” make a big deal out of it and…
pipe dream…but oh well. Still dang…4mil.
The biggest irony is that there is no need for this painting. We have photography now.
Pity that we live in a society where it is perfectly legal to get $750 from someone for this heap (never mind $4,000,000) while you can’t sell a few plant trimming for any price.
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. wrote:
“Art is a conspiracy between rich people and artists to make poor people think they are dumb.”
Stephen D. Marshall said:
“That’s not art. Fat women laying on couches, that’s art!”
I remember using your logic to make the same statement when I was about 9 years old. Some time after that I realized the there was more going on on a painted surface than mere representation. Artists use their skill, talent and inspired intuition to create something that provides a viewer the opportunity to experience a heightened awareness of the beauty contained in the object that has been created. An artist doesn’t try to “re”-create nature. We use artificial materials to provide a glimpse of nature itself as it flies past our perceptions. Picasso said it much more succinctly, “Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth”.
Simon and Garfunkel wrote a song for $750 and it is now worth millions.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iMUezhpuEoE
Well, yes, but, Simon and Gafunkel were good. Despite the irony of singing about the sound of silence.
–Do you think that Barak ever sneaks over to his mother in law’s room late at night and says: “Ku-Ku Kachew, Mrs. Robinson”?
Years ago, C Itoh had a printer. It sold for a certain amount.
Apple liked that printer and sent C Itoh a bunch of things to stick on a ROM so that it worked nicely with a Mac.
The price was a certain amount PLUS Apple’s name, which then made the C Itoh printer lots more expensive.
Fascinating how a bit of clip-art can go for 4 million simply because someone famous drew it.
Just as long as the taxpayers aren’t in some way footing the $4 Million bill for this piece of crap. I suspect it mainly serves as a hedge against inflation. Like gold and silver. Just find a dead artist’s crap, and invest your corporate bonus in it. Cause it’s bound to give a better return than most bonds. And certainly better than bank interest. The only risk is in not finding the next sucker to take it off your hands, for still more than what you paid for it. And apparently, there is no shortage of wealthy morons, to do that.
4 Million on the wall? She’ll probably ends up with interesting insurance payments and investments into an expensive alarm system also. It’s so much fun when they return your stuff.
Ya know. Looking at it in more detail. It’s not even a very accurate “painting” of a power cord. There’s no third prong on the plug. And no receptacle at the other end (that can be seen). Is maybe a 30′ cord, wound almost it’s full length. Rather than the usual way of doing more loops, and fewer wraps. Almost like a loose. But there’s no obvious imagery that it’s meant to serve as a loose. No big loop at one end to hang anything. So it’s pretty flawed, meaning wise. All it stands for is what you see. And excuse to paint something, that hasn’t been copyrighted yet. Let’s face it, the modern art world is pretty pathetic for placing such a high value on such weak faux-Warhol art. At least Andy used colors well!
I would have put it out with the trash.
I don’t see how that painting is worth $4 million.
Go figure …
It’s nothing but insider trading done legally.
You can take ANYTHING (pebbles, scraps of paper, scratched up wood) and declare it to be valuable. For you and me, this would be a pointless joke. However, if you had rich influential friends, and you all agreed to agree as to which bits of flotsam and jetsam should be promoted to “valued” status, simply by consensus you create that value out of thin air. Doesn’t work for poor people, works great for rich people, just like most cons.
By the way those pebbles might be gold, the scraps of paper currency, and the concept remains identical.