Discussion
In relation to Improper Practices within the Art Market
- Picasso Administration, S.A. is pursuing a flagrant form of vengeance against the author of the book Picasso 1891-1897 Fraude. Sotheby's and Christie's are therefore being subservient to this profit-making business entity with cultural camouflage.
The Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rigths:
"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property"
"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property"
- In terms of works which have been fraudulently attributed to Pablo Picasso during the 1891-1897 period:
Are there adequate safeguards for investors in the Art Market?
Refusal to sell the canvas entitled "Dama en Eden Concert" embodies violation of Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Refusal to sell the canvas entitled "Dama en Eden Concert" embodies violation of Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
"No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property".
- This is flagrant discrimination, which is punishable by law.
- This is flagrant discrimination, which is punishable by law.
"Dama en Eden Concert" was painted by Picasso during the same year as "Mujer con brazos cruzados "[Woman with Folded Arms]", which was sold by Christie's in 2002 for 62 million dollars, including the commission for the auction house.
Should Picasso Administration, S.A. file a complaint in relation to Rómulo-Antonio Tenés, the author of the book Picasso 1891-1897 Fraud, in order to prohibit this book?
If they did not do so... could the proven fraud be assumed to have occurred?
What do the world's universities think after having been deceived for 70 years?
What should we do with the "Untruthful Biographers" who have not condemned the greatest deception in the history of art and who presumably knew about this deception?
Should rigorous scientific analyses be applied to Picasso's works in order to prevent fraud and gains for Picasso Administration, S.A., which is a profit-making company with a cultural disguise?
Should the work of José Ruiz Blasco and Isidoro Brocos be separated from the work of Pablo Picasso, as has been sought within the Central Criminal Court Number 4 in Spain?
Should Picasso Administration, S.A. file a complaint in relation to Rómulo-Antonio Tenés, the author of the book Picasso 1891-1897 Fraud, in order to prohibit this book?
If they did not do so... could the proven fraud be assumed to have occurred?
What do the world's universities think after having been deceived for 70 years?
What should we do with the "Untruthful Biographers" who have not condemned the greatest deception in the history of art and who presumably knew about this deception?
Should rigorous scientific analyses be applied to Picasso's works in order to prevent fraud and gains for Picasso Administration, S.A., which is a profit-making company with a cultural disguise?
Should the work of José Ruiz Blasco and Isidoro Brocos be separated from the work of Pablo Picasso, as has been sought within the Central Criminal Court Number 4 in Spain?
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
