17 ms·
That's not what this case is about. This is about who painted a work of art that could potentially be worth many millions of dollars. Peter Doig was living a pr
by Sanddancer 10y ago
That's not what this case is about. This is about who painted a work of art that could potentially be worth many millions of dollars. Peter Doig was living a pretty nomadic life at the time, and a lot of public records haven't been digitized due to time and cost. So at the moment, this is a he said/she said game, and a lawsuit like this is one of the only ways to be able to file the proper requests to search through the boxes and boxes of old records to get documentation one way or another as to who painted it.
- Retra 10y agoI don't see any reason why the court system should be used to resolve this kind of question. The value of a painting is entirely subjective, and if the person who painted it is used as a factor in the price, that is just a failing of the evaluator. If I priced a painting based on the weather in Guam in 1920, there shouldn't need to be a court ruling concerning attempts to figure out what the weather was like that year.