Friday, April 11, 2008

Beat Richner missed out $75,000 from the auction proceeds of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy's nude photo

Nude Photo of Carla Bruni Fetches $75,000 at Auction

By Katya Kazakina

April 10 (Bloomberg) -- A nude photograph of France's first lady Carla Bruni fetched $75,000, almost 20 times its high estimate, at Christie's International in New York today.

The image of Bruni, an Italian singer and former model, had an estimated range of $3,000 to $4,000. French president Nicolas Sarkozy married Bruni in February after divorcing his second wife, Cecilia, in October.

Alex Cao, a dealer at China Square Gallery in Chelsea, bought the photo, which cost $91,000 including fees. Cao was bidding on behalf of a Chinese collector, Christie's said.

The black-and-white photo, taken in 1993 by Michel Comte, was part of a 135-lot sale from the collection of Gert Elfering.

The auction tallied $4.27 million with fees, surpassing its high estimate of $3 million, as buyers competed for nude photos of models Kate Moss, Gisele Bundchen and Naomi Campbell.

``It's not a terribly challenging group of pictures,'' said Rick Wester, a private art dealer who specializes in photography. ``It's more titillating than anything else.''

Proceeds from the Bruni sale will benefit Sodis, a Swiss organization that provides drinking water in poor countries. Elfering's first charitable selection, Fondation Kantha Bopha, a children's hospital in Cambodia, rejected his offer because it would ``trivialize'' the organization, its founder said.

Elfering will keep the rest of the proceeds, Christie's said.

Women in Heels

In the sale, 84 percent of the lots sold, many above their high estimates.

The top lot was Helmut Newton's ``Sie Kommen (Naked and Dressed),'' a 1981 diptych comprising two almost identical images of four women marching in high heels. In one, they are naked; in the other, they are dressed. The two gelatin silver prints fetched $241,000 from a high estimate of $180,000.

Irving Penn's 1999 photograph of the nude Bundchen was sold for $193,000. It had a high estimate of $40,000.

David LaChapelle's color image, ``Naomi Campbell: Have You Seen Me?'' (1994) shows the model on a tile floor with her legs in the air while she pours milk from a carton over her naked body. The dye-bleach print fetched $29,800, more than three times its high estimate of $9,000.

Today's auction represents the third group of photos from Elfering's collection offered by Christie's since 2005. It is part of a week of photography sales in New York. On Tuesday, Sotheby's sold Edward Weston's photograph of his naked wife, Charis, for $325,000.

(Katya Kazakina is a reporter for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are her own.)
To contact the reporter of this story: Katya Kazakina in New York at kkazakina@bloomberg.net
.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

"The image of Bruni, an Italian singer and former model, had an estimated range of $3,000 to $4,000. French president Nicolas Sarkozy married Bruni in February after divorcing his second wife, Cecilia, in October."
Okay, according to report the French President is now on a third wife.

My question is which is better, monogamy or polygamy?

The only difference I see is monogamy you have to divorce twice to get to the third wife, and polygamy is you don't need divorce to have 3 wifes thus saving money on lawyers.

Can someone give me some opinion on this? Everyone is invited here.

Anonymous said...

Folks, why is it so quiet here? Do we need to get Phd to know the answer to this question?

Anonymous said...

All that I see here is corruption among lawyers and legislatures. There is no improvement in morality whatsoever.

Anonymous said...

The photo went for $91,000 (that is 45,000 GBPounds).
And her name is now Bruni-Sarkozy.

If you're to write something vaguely related to the news and hope to be taken seriously, be sure to check your facts next time.

Anonymous said...

Well, there are many facts that seem that suggest westerner judicial clan is nothing more than corruption among Judges, Legislatures, and Lawyers. I mean the common denominator here is the lawyers: that is judges had been a lawyers, and legislators had been lawyers; and to keep the clan healthy, they will outlaw anything that is not profitable to them, such as this case (monogamy vs polygamy). I mean what is the real reason for outlawing polygamy if it is not opportunity for profit?

Anonymous said...

sometimes attitude costs tremendously.