We NEED three more naked chicks?

November 17, 2010

Somebody please help me out here.

FRANCE-LOUVRE/We have a story about how the Louvre, which is this really big museum in Paris, is asking the public to help raise the cash to buy it a 16th century painting deemed a “national treasure” by art experts.

The Louvre has scraped together $4.19 million for “The Three Graces,” an oil painting by German artist Lucas Cranach the Elder, but they still need another $1.35 million.

Here’s the thing. The Louvre already displays about 35,000 works of art. Now it turns out THIS is the one they needed all along?

Really? Then shouldn’t the person who bought the wrong 35,000 paintings get a verbal warning or something?

Also, does anybody else wonder how a painting by a German artist got to be a French national treasure?

You can see the painting on the right, with a few of those rectangular bars I am required to add for the protection of my readers. I mean, the Louvre needs three more naked chicks about as much as Charlie Sheen does.

painting crop 240But I do have a suggestion. If they need money, maybe they should auction off the “Mona Lisa,” which must be worth a few thousand bucks, and which isn’t nearly as big as you expect genuine art to be when you see it in person.

And if they do get this other painting, could they please hang it much closer to their main entrance than they did the “Mona Lisa,” so I can get in and out a lot faster than on my first visit?

Join the Oddly Enough blog network

Follow this blog on Twitter at rbasler

Handout photo of the 16th century oil on wood painting “The Three Graces,” of three nudes by German artist Lucas Cranach. REUTERS/Angele Dequier/Musee du Louvre/Handout

More stuff from Oddly Enough

14 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

Strange bodies. With strange rectangles on them. Curses BG! Foiled again, but not too badly, judging by how thin those bars are. This is not what I had in mind when I mentioned you owe us.

Posted by Dave_not_dave | Report as abusive

“The Three Graces” huh? Lucky their parents didn’t name them Hulga. The Three Hulgas…yikes!

http://blogs.reuters.com/oddly-enough/20 10/10/21/remember-the-name-hulga-fekrat/

Posted by iflydaplanes | Report as abusive

BG, you’re presenting some really great ideas for raising funds; however, in the interest of your male readers, you should participate in the fundraising event by auctioning off the bar removal. Maybe this would have been more effective before revealing who the three naked chicks were…

And I give you the High-Five of Agreement regarding the Mona Lisa. She’s tiny, ugly and an unpleasant distance from the other major attractions at the Louvre. Totally lame. Sell that wench!!

Posted by sarabelle | Report as abusive

Spin and Ifly, yeah, wouldn’t it be fun if they got this painting but had the faces touched up to be Gracie Allen, Grace Slick and the actress from Will and Grace?

Posted by rcbasler | Report as abusive

Perhaps if they auctioned off rights to smash the pyramid they used to deface the museum’s architecture in the 80s, they would certainly gather more than enough funds to buy this and several other obscure works of art.

Posted by I_dont_know_1 | Report as abusive

I don’t know if it’s art, but I know what I like!

Posted by AllThatJazz | Report as abusive

Formal nudist event: hat required? Nice how the hatted lady appears to be holding up the bar for you BG. Formally, too – with her pinky out!

Posted by Onedoor | Report as abusive

If the Louvre is short on cash, why don’t they just paint over some of canvases–the older ones, say?

Posted by ladylala | Report as abusive

Naked lady number one appears to have a serious pink rash on her left buttock. Not to mention being attached by the hands by what looks like cobwebs (and really, I dread to think) to naked lady number two…

Posted by CrowGirl | Report as abusive

Now that they have some high-quality photos, why not frame them up and put them behind the same dirty glass cases as the other ‘masterpieces’?
No-one will ever know the difference.

Also, why do all three ladies have such tiny heads? Is this a depiction of some kind of long-lost French Pygmy tribe?

Ahh, I see the problem now – they’re not wearing skivvies.

Posted by Nosmo_King | Report as abusive

Mr. B, you have again raised the bar! (Well, actually you lowered 3 bars, but all in good taste, and I commend your refined sensibility.) The point is, thanks to you, we, the great unwashed of the OEB, are examining a masterpiece in more detail than many experts have done. I know of no art critic who ever mentioned the bum-rash Crow drew to our attention.
Whoa, Shra,I did not say we LEARNED anything. Relax. I’m only saying we looked.

Posted by ladylala | Report as abusive

4.19 millions out of 5.54… that should surely be enough to buy the right two chicks. who cares about the third one seen from the back, with cobwebs and all? just ask them to cut out the painting, and pay per weight.

Posted by grok | Report as abusive

That’s some pretty weak satire. And wow, I hope it’s an attempt at satire… or at least comedy.

Posted by jamied66 | Report as abusive

Sarabelle, High five on the Agreement for Mona Lisa… BIGGG disappointment there!
lady, of course you didnt learn anything… I would know if you did…
The French come across as mui loco at times…

Posted by Shra | Report as abusive

[...] I know that wise purchases can make or break a museum, as we saw recently with The Louvre. What was the single most expensive piece your museum acquired in [...]