Not bad, but the colours look "washed out"; probably by design .

The sad fact of the matter is that this is probably going to be locked away in an air tight vault until the investor feels he/she can make a sound profit from it. Which is one of the reasons I despise the massive value placed on art works.

i have to agree, its one of the reasons why i am kinda agreeing with my grandpa to donate his bug collection to an university reather then leaveing it sit collecting dust. o well, eather way iam proud of him since his got the 5th biggest collection in the state of kansas. but ya i havent ever figerd out why keep an item locked up rotting and collecting dust instead of haveing it up for show.

The only problem is that you have to pay for restoration and protective measures for the painting in question. Still, if you can afford 30 mil. for a picture, then that shouldn't be a consideration. It often is however.

It ain't his best work by far, but for a hard-core collector, 30 million ain't a big deal ...

Vermeer was Dutch

-- The Lancersreactor: where the screenshots are never blurry, and the spammers get publically kicked around.

The Lancersreactor FAQ
The use of signatures

The interesting thing is that it is such a small painting; I think that that is part of its appeal. Indeed, it's the level of detail that is confined to such a small area that makes it unique. At least, that's my view.

eye of the beholder and all that.

£30m seems excessive to most, but if you had the throwaway income then what else are you going to spend it on? If I had 30m to spare, and I liked a piece of art, then I too would pay for it. However, I don't believe in ...

a) buying art because its by a particular artist, even if you don't like it.

and

b) buying art to store in a vault as an "investment".

Both go completely against the ideals of the artist.

If it IS Steve Wynn, he displays his prized possessions but only to guests at his home ... wherever and whatever that may be. He's already bought some other trophy works which I quite agree means that they've been taken out of the public's view.

There is an outside shot that the winning bid was from the Getty Museum in Los Angeles which also is desperate for a Vermeer in order to raise its standing in the heirarchy of Museum Hoity Toity-dom.

I agree with all of you: All masterpieces ought to be made available for public viewing so I hope it is the Getty. They certainly have the monetary cojones to outbid Wynn if they are desperate enough.

ya, size and quality does make an diffrence.

why pay so much for a cruddy old painting when you can go to a shop and get a new one for $50?