Features Podcasts Family Video Comics Music Tech Science Books Film & TV Games ✚

Jill

Man bought sketch by young Warhol for $5

David Pescovitz at 4:00 pm Tue, Apr 3, 2012

— FEATURED —

THE LATEST

Guatemala: Archive of documents from Rios Montt genocide trial, overturned 10 days after guilty verdict

Feature

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

Book Review

The Twelve-Fingered Boy - mesmerizing YA horror novel

Book Review

Black Code: how spies, cops and crims are making cyberspace unfit for human habitation

— FOLLOW US —

Boing Boing is on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to our RSS feed or daily email.

 

— POLICIES —

Except where indicated, Boing Boing is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution

 

— FONTS —

Tweet
Kindle

 Media Images 59448000 Jpg  59448383 Warhol

In 2010, Andy Fields bought a $5 stash of paintings at a garage sale. When he later took one of the frames apart, he found the above sketch. Turns out, it's likely an Andy Warhol original that the Pop star drew when he was just nine or 10 years old. Fields told reporters that he bought the paintings "from a man who had abused drugs and whose aunt had cared for Warhol in his youth." The portrait is thought to be of singer Rudy Vallee. If it's a Warhol, it's estimated to be worth $2 million. Not a bad score. "Man Buys Warhol Sketch for $5"

David Pescovitz is Boing Boing's co-editor/managing partner. He's also a research director at Institute for the Future. On Instagram, he's @pesco.

More at Boing Boing

Eurovision 2013: An American in London

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

  • spacemunky

    Cue lawsuit from the man who sold it to him in 3…2…1….

  • awjt

    Regardless, it looks like it had been kissed many times.  Which is very sweet of that young upstart, Mr. Warhol.

  • Kibbee

    Only worth 2 million because some art collectors have too much money.   I’m sure some of his old teachers are going to be going through their closets just trying to find something that was painted by the young Warhol, and all the other famous artists too.  While it is interesting historically, I can’t say that it really has any artistic value, as it isn’t much different than any other painting done by a child, although perhaps a bit better than many his age (but not the best I’ve seen).

  • emilydickinsonridesabmx

    My guess is it’s fake. Even though it makes for great media, the whole “I took apart the frame and I found a long lost:_________” Picasso/Rembrandt/Blake/Warhol is the most common trick to answer for fraudulent works that have no provenance.  Since the whereabouts of a work can’t be accounted for (ie because it was just whipped up in someones basement), the easiest way to create legitimacy is to invent a story that it was hidden for that period of time.

    Plus he bought the frame from “someone who abused drugs”, which is code for “Unfortunately this man is too unreliable to ask any real questions regarding where the drawing has been all these years”.  The the Aunt who “cared for Warhol”, likely she is also deceased, as is Warhol, so no one can disprove that either. It’s also odd that a non family member would ever be caring for him as a child. He was often sick, had a stay at home Mom, and a bunch of older sibling who watched him. 

    If Warhol drew this when he was 9/10, his “babysitter” would have had to have hung onto it for quite some time until he was famous. Plus, very, very little of his juvenilia survived (which is why this would be worth so much if it’s real), so how did this survive and pop up all of a sudden?

    I’m not saying it’s impossible that this is authentic, but all the classic signs of art forgery are present. 

    • awjt

      Just check for Warhol DNA on the lips of the drawing.

  • http://www.facebook.com/creesto Christopher W Lynch

    As catalogued as Warhol’s work is, I doubt there will be much difficulty in authenticating the signature

  • Marching Mice of Mu

    Shouldn’t the signature be “Andy Warhola?”

    • wrybread

       …. as in “holes”.

    • freshacconci

      That’s a good point. I know some in his family go by Warhol and others Warhola — I wonder if he would have been image-savvy enough at 9 to be thinking of these sorts of things. But then this is Andy Warhol, so probably he was.

    • markbellis

       Exactly, he only started to use “Warhol” after someone else misspelled his name that way on a magazine credit when he was working as a commercial artist.

      • markbellis

        And in the BBC interview, he says the vendor’s aunt took care of Warhol when he was sick with “Cholera” -  he had Chorea!

  • http://noctilucent-studios.blogspot.com/ Noctilucent Studios

    He used to write the 2nd A in invisible ink.

    True story.

    (not really.)

  • Mitchell Glaser

    I call fake. Even if it’s real I call fake, because I’m tired of the whole “I found the Hope Diamond at a garage sale” thing.

  • Dan Jesse

    The problem is, the Warhol estate is under a directive to not authenticate all of his paintingsdrawings. they are notorious for claiming real works to be fakes. Thus, you never know. 

    • Marktech

      The problem is, the Warhol estate is under a directive to not authenticate all of his paintingsdrawings. they are notorious for claiming real works to be fakes.

      Also Picasso, allegedly.  [But then, how good is the provenance of this story?]

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/kenahoo Ken Williams

    I am here to complain about the “when he was just nine or 10 years old” bit.  Let’s say “9 or 10″, or let’s say “nine or ten”, but I always feel like this boundary case is horribly yucky, even if enshrined in the AP & Chicago style manuals.

    • freshacconci

      I’d admonish you for such nitpicky pedantry but I totally agree with you.

  • Rindan

    Um, you realize that that picture sucks, right?  I’ll never understand art collectors.

    • freshacconci

      Um, you realize that it was drawn by a 9 year old, right?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_KLDXI7FI3NUHYC23SUHMGLNBCQ Tom

         Does not change the fact that it indeed sucks. I’m with Rindan here.