Well, her work’s not to my taste anyway, dreary muddy stuff. But let’s assume Nigel and Elizabeth correctly predicted what Lily’s taste would be. (And had the money to indulge themselves, about which I have heard That Fish fulminating.)
What can you do with a painting?
Sell it, which is a hassle, and may get you a pot of money, but so would a pot of money.
Put it up in the family home to be looked at by the family, in which case it’s not really a gift for you is it?
Take it with you when you move out, and put it up somewhere unsuitable, because very few places have somewhere suitable.
Unless you have a view that it will considerably increase in value* then flog it. Of course, when Freddie offers someone his ring … what ? what ??? … he’ll get dog’s abuse.
Artwork may decrease, as well as increase, in value and has no intrinsic value.
[quote=“Marjorie, post:4, topic:826”]
I have no wall available for a painting like that.
[/quote]I’m thinking … covering up the damp patch in the outside netty.
Well I would give it wallroom. On that rainy Monday morning of which you speak, I could glance at my valuable asset and say to myself ‘Chr*st! she looks worse than I do’. Which I would consider a result, on the whole.
I find it hard to visualise the mind which would cause its owner to say, in awe-stricken tones, “It’s beautiful!” about a Gwen John. Skilful, perhaps; evocative, maybe; but beautiful? They are universally drab.
My problem with that picture (which I admit has more colour than she usually allows herself) is the same as I have with several preraphaelite ones: the drawing is subtly out of whack.
… he’ll get dog’s abuse.