http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=011&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=320109117988&rd=1&rd=1
2007-04-30 08:42:26 · 5 answers · asked by Mara 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Other - Visual Arts
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I wouldn't buy it, because I think it lacks originality and I do not like the colors.
Also, the last painting the seller sold was of another dead actress, Rita Hayworth, for $28.
That said, if you are a Princess Grace fan and have the $95 to spend; go for it.
2007-04-30 08:51:07 · answer #1 · answered by Beach Saint 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First let me say that I have an extensive collection of original visual art. I purchase all my artwork for aesthetic reasons, NOT for investment. Therefore, my response will be from an aesthetic perspective. Finally, I love Grace Kelly and have seen most of her films (after all, I am a Philly boy).
No, I would not buy this painting. Here are my reasons:
1. It has poor perspective - the subject's eyes are not related properly to each other and the coloring of the eyebrows varies in a way that does not reflect the lighting of the painting. The left shoulder is too flat and the right shoulder is angled down too steeply while the head is angled away from the sloping shoulder. Try doing this pose yourself. Hardly a natural pose for humans and definitely not a pose that the thoroughly graceful Grace Kelly would have struck.
2. It looks like a caricature of Grace Kelly, not a portrait - The mouth and teeth do not match and the paintings face is much thinner than Grace Kelly's. Grace Kelly did not have a gap between her two front teeth (see link below).
3. The painting has poor detail - look at how poorly the detail of the hair is represented (and it appears that the artists meant to be detailed). Why is her neck dark while her face appears to be in the light? Wouldn't part of her neck be lit as well?
Overall, I have seen worse but this is an amateur piece which is fine as such and certainly better than I could paint myself. Overall, from an objective aesthetic standpoint, it is not a piece worth collecting.
If you love it though, buy it. The last oil painting I bought was $5,000 so $95 is a steal. Another way of saying this is, the price of the painting reflects its quality.
2007-04-30 16:28:05 · answer #2 · answered by Greg C 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think the general rule of thumb is that if you "have to have it" then you should get it! I would not expect this painting to ever increase in value. The painter/seller is not a well-known artist and this is not a unique painting. It is more "pop art" than "fine art" IMO. But knowing all that, if Grace Kelly is of interest to you and you feel that this painting will look good on your wall, then $95 really isn't all that much money.
Hope this helps!
-Karl
2007-04-30 15:51:07 · answer #3 · answered by Karl W 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i like the picture for several reasons, all having to do with the whole of the piece, i think i just looks very good.
but i don't buy art, i have no room to display purchased art and my art bins are stuffed and i'm needing to build more or find a way to sell the art i have already. (i am a compulsive artist, and not much of a businessman).
2007-04-30 21:06:10 · answer #4 · answered by captsnuf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Its not my thing. Way to advertise...
2007-04-30 17:04:25 · answer #5 · answered by kermit 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋