Um right...Actually If you knew anything at all about the art world (a world i've spent 30 years in) you would know just how immature you sound, and you would also know just how serious a blow the Knoedler scandal was to Mirvish as a collector.
But since you just heard of this scandal today, you of course don't know that.
Wrong again....I read about this story last year, as contrary to what you say, it was
widely reported locally. And I love the irony of your accusation of "immaturity" being prefaced with "Um".
What is nonsense is that idea that the entire art world was duped. In fact, Mirvish was a major player--because he was ALL ALONE in insisting that he be paid full market value for paintings every other collector had regretfully acknowledged were fakes.
Mirvish was one of the last people to maintain the Pollocks were not fakes...true. But that is not surprising, since he's the one who had invested in them. And spotty provenance is a very common issue in the art world, and does not prove anything is a "fake".
But the facts remain that there was no definitive proof that the 3 Pollocks were fakes until Glafira Rosales admitted to the whole scam, and that this "collection" has been circulating in the art market for 20 years and included 63 paintings (not just the 3 Pollocks Mirvish had an investment in). It also involved hundreds of high profile art dealers, experts, galleries and collectors. So to claim Mirvish is the central figure and the big idiot in this whole affair is baffling and plainly incorrect.
I find it odd that you claim his reputation as a collector
has been ruined by this matter, as "collecting" doesn't require reputation...it requires money. If he were a gallery/dealer, then it may be a different story. And while this affair has certainly had some negative effect on his general standing in the art world, his 50 years as collector, gallery owner, art dealer, patron and having close relationships with many of the artists themselves has not been ruined by this matter at all, as you claim.
And why you think this would affect his interest in building a home for his art collection is a mystery.
Actually, what is more baffling is the motive behind this extreme need to discredit Mirvish???????
As for Jack Bush, yes he's a good solidly middle-brow Canadian painter. Hardly a revolutionary talent, but I like a lot of his work. There is no market for his paintings outside of Canada, but that's not unusual.
You are nothing but an anonymous skyscraper-geek-chat-forum poster, so you will have to excuse me for questioning your credentials as an art critic/appraiser. And contrary to what you say, and the only thing that is not unusual, is that his paintings didn't start selling in Canada until they started selling in New York and London.
For what it's worth, Bush's work doesn't interest me much either....he's not even one of my favourite former members of the Painters Eleven
But if you think that Mirvish was planning on opening a 60000 sq ft gallery to show off his collection of Bush paintings, you are incredibly naive.
Jackson Pollock auction record: $59 million
Jack Bush auction record: $440,000
I don't recall saying he was building a 60,000 sqft Jack Bush gallery. I believe Mirvish's original concept for the gallery was to have rooms specifically designed to showcase specific artists. His interest was to champion the Color Field movement. I would imagine this would have included Bush, especially since he believes him to be under-rated at the moment, and promoting the movement is his intention.
And I don't understand you logic behind pointing out the vast difference in market value between Pollock and Bush paintings as proof of my naivete in believing Mirvish would display Bush paintings in his future gallery.
First of all, $50 million paintings represent an infinitesimally small percentage of the art collecting world, and Mirvish isn't building the gallery to sell anything anyway, so the the "market" is irrelevant. And unless you count the fakes, he doesn't own any Pollocks, but he does own Bush's. And from a purely business point of view, he only stands to increase the value of his Bush paintings by increasing their prominence.
But enough of you.
I'm curious to know what Mirvish plans on doing with a mere 9200 sqft gallery.