Picasso’s signature

Pablo Picasso famously told people who interviewed him that people didn’t buy his paintings. What they were actually buying was his signature. This was true: What would the same piece of art be worth had Picasso not signed it? It’s not like he had a great signature or anything, but when he affixed it to one of his paintings, it validated the piece, authenticated it.
So prized was Picasso’s signature that it is said that when he paid for things by personal check, the odds were that the recipient of the check would save it rather than cash it. Seeing as a simple Picasso autograph can easily fetch $1,000 today, perhaps this wasn’t such an irrational decision.
What I like about this concept though was the attachment of additional value simply by Mr. Picasso’s placement of his imprimatur, and since these were negotiable instruments, it means that a recipient placed a higher value on holding on to the check than cashing it. The value came not from any intrinsic source — it’s a fraction of a cent’s worth of ink on a piece of paper worth scantly more. Anything touched by Picasso becomes in the eyes of many that much more valuable. It was something that he could have used (and perhaps did use) to his advantage. Why not keep paying with checks if people aren’t going to cash them?

-By Bill Mann (TMF Otter)
December 8, 2004