Even if you'd paid 4.5 million quid for it.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12931464


[That should, of course, read "hang". I'm sorry, but I have a cold.]

I would hand it in to the local charity shop

Not in my villa coz if the rising damp doesn't get it then the termites certainly would.

It's Mata Hari, isn't it?

I would hand it on the ceiling, so i could look up at it when I needed to last longer than my traditional 30 seconds. sorry about that love

I'd hand the artist in to the nearest police station. That's criminal.

That would be a very generous donation.

Lucian Freud is nearly 90, so I'd hang on to it, and make a tidy profit when he dies. He is considered one of the best living painters.

Maybe after I'd sent to Beirut to have it "fixed up".

Well, personally, no; but my taste is much more modern than this, I do think its quite charming though but it reminds me of the actor Pete Postlethwaite

I know there will never be agreement on what art is, but if we take a rough stab at it being something which stimulates, provokes, pleases or inspires, 'er smiling only provokes, and all it provokes is: Why not paint something more pleasant? and Is the ability to paint somewhere in between reality and abstract really a skill or actually an inability?

A 6-year old's painting of a boring and overgrown garden--with no attempt at allegory--would get the same response from me. 4.5million quid? You gotta be joking.

He's done a similar one of someone naked iirc

That's testament to the adage: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Why?

That would make for good target practice

Why not?



But I think Odd Nerdrum did a more appealing piece on himself. Modest perhaps

..... which reminds me - the latest episode in Channel 4's 'Embarrassing Bodies' series is on tonight............