Who on Earth Was Pietro Psaier?
Sunday August 10, 2008
Ever experience one of those incidents where you've never, ever seen or heard of someone before in your life, then suddenly run across him or her three times in a row? Here's where I must introduce you all to Pietro Psaier. Or, rather, I would introduce Pietro, except he's supposedly dead and I'm not exactly sure what he did while he was alive. Maybe you can help me.
See, "Pietro Psaier" keeps hitting my radar, and every time it's in conjunction with Andy Warhol. In fact, I keep reading the same press release, almost verbatim, from multiple sources.
What, in part, the press release says about Pietro Psaier:
- He was born in 1936. Although, in a different iteration of the press release and many auction lot results online, he was born in 1939.
- "Whilst working as a waiter in the Greenwich Village Gaslight Café in 1964 he met Andy Warhol and an extraordinary bisexual relationship blossomed between the two." (Me: All right, I confess old hetero lady ignorance. How do two men share a 'bisexual relationship?')
- "Warhol nicknamed him 'Peter the Italian' and their relationship continued on and off until the late 1960's.
- "In 1974 Psaier became the second youngest artist to be awarded the ‘Italian-American Institute of Art' 56th Annual Award, in New York, a prize given for inspiration to artistic Peers."
- "In 1978 Psaier and Warhol eventually reunited for a joint exhibition at Gallerie D. Brussels."
- "In September 2004, Pietro Psaier was asked by Our Lady of Malibu Church, high above the Malibu coastline to exhibit his highly acclaimed series The Passion of the Christ."
- "As a result of the Indian Ocean earthquake which struck on December 26th 2004 and the Tsunami which followed, Pietro Psaier's remote beach house on the coast of Sri Lanka was swept away and his body was never found."
- Me: And lots of other statements and names.
- (*crickets*)
I can't find record of a prize named the "Italian-American Institute of Art Annual Award," let alone its 56th recipient. The John D. Calandra Italian American Institute at Queens College in New York has not responded to my email inquiry. Neither has Our Lady of Malibu responded--probably because, in both cases, it sounds like a raving nut job (meaning: me) wrote the emails. There doesn't seem to be or have been a "Gallerie D. Brussels" anywhere on the face of the earth, nor did any of Andy Warhol's 1978 exhibitions take place in a venue containing the word "Brussels." And, honestly, swept away by the catastrophic 2004 tsunami? Surely there is a legal notice--somewhere--declaring Pietro Psaier officially dead?
In sum, the only things I can tell you definitively about Pietro Psaier are that this mystery man's work is up at auction on September 17, 2008, a documentary about his life is in pre-production and his Wikipedia entry has been taken down.
What I want to know is this: are the works at auction from, and the documentary about a real person who did everything the press release claims he did? Again, can anyone help me suss out the documented truth behind Pietro Psaier? Please answer in the comments, and leave any applicable sources, if possible, so interested parties can check them. Thanks.
Related Reading:
- The Works of Pietro Psaier - auction at John Nicholson Fine Art Auctioneers and Valuers
- PSI Films - news of pre-production work on a Pietro Psaier "biopic/documentary"
- Wikipedia: "Articles for deletion/Pietro Psaier" - fascinating (and occasionally threatening) commentary here
- Gary Comenas' excellent Warholstars website had a page about Pietro Psaier that now redirects the reader to the home page (see parenthetic thought directly above)
Update: There is now a lengthy chronology of all things Pietro Psaier on the Warholstars site. Kudos to Mr. Comenas for an enormous amount of research. - "Mystery of the unknown artist who ‘painted with Andy Warhol’" - Times Online, August 7, 2008
"Pietro Psaier & Andy Warhol in the studio"
Undated image courtesy of John Nicholson Auctioneers
Comments
Good luck, I have some one had a pic on ebay http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170247304624&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:GB:1123
with a award on it from the LA Art show 2008!, but if you look at the show catalogue there is no listing
Thanks very much; I think luck is certainly indicated here.
Following that link, I see this message: “The seller ended this listing early because of an error in the listing.” Hmmmm… you know, I have no investment in this whole business, other than an emotional one–I really dislike the thought of buyers paying a premium for a connection that cannot, as of yet, be verified.
Thank you for your nice comment about my site. I’ve put together a ‘Psaier’ chronology on my site - a list of alleged events, actual events, exhibitions and sales relating to the whole Psaier saga. (It’s even more bizarre than I thought it was!) It can be accessed from the main page of my site or directly at: http://www.warholstars.org/pietropsaier.html.
best, gary
Your detailed chronology represents a phenomenal amount of research, Gary; I can only guess how many hours it must have taken to compile (and would probably still come up short). I’ve edited in the new link, above.
Please keep in touch, and I will do the same if anyone or -thing presenting proof pops up. (P.S. I now feel a little awkward about emails sent to the staff at Our Lady of Malibu. I hadn’t known we were both asking…!)
Lol re; the church in malibu. I thought that as well when I read your comment. I had sent them an email in late July when the whole thing started - before the Wiki page was taken off - so probably your email was a bit later than that. I wouldn’t worry about it. Who knows - maybe they will even respond eventually. I might even try to contact Michael Caine’s agent to see if he did commission any work by “Psaier” as has been alleged. I really want to get to the bottom of it all. best, gary.
I am so looking forward to the mystery novel based on this.
you will love this!
3 Pietro Psaiers??? Don’t believe me check out this link…
http://web.archive.org/web/20041018233904/studiopsaier.com/about.htm
I did a web archive on the old studiopsaier.com website (the official Pietro Psaier website). Seems like Pietro Psaier was Grand father, son and grand son! it appears the middle Psaier had a link to Warhol and he retired in in 1989. ‘Peter’ continued with his fathers work which could explain all the recent additions.
Interestingly this site was updated in Feb 2005, no mention of a Psaier death in 2004.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.StudioPsaier.com
I have a few Psaiers and I love them, I was originally a believer in Pietro Psaier and his work but even now I am getting very suspicious.
Paul
i have some works of psaier,and i love them too i think they look great but i dont think he existed.what i dont understand is how the works were being sold at christies 10 years ago?has this scam been going on for that long.i also have probate certificates from the state of callifornia for psaier are these fakes?can anyone find out if their was a probate for pietro psaier in callifornia.they look real to me.
What happened to all the other comments?
MM, I removed them at the request of the poster.
I’m a bit concerned about the “poster” who requested his comments be taken off. Could he leave a message to say he is okay?
I have just received my copy of Antiques Trade Gazette-interesting article regarding the artist. Here is the link: http://www.antiquestradegazette.com/
I believe that sharing a bisexual relationship would have to mean they were both having sex with the same female partner. That’s the only thing I can make of it.
i hope no-one discovers my Constable collaborations are a bit iffy!!!
personaly i think you are all playing for the same team (the warhol foundation)and have a hidden agenda !!!
Gee jibigjim63@my, that’s an intriguing conspiracy theory. What would the “hidden” part be, in your completely anonymous opinion?
Let’s back up the truck, Sport. No one here is disputing that the paintings are real, or were painted by a human being. I personally like some of the Psaier paintings. The entire crux of the matter here, for me, is this: do the paintings have a verifiable connection to Andy Warhol?
If they don’t, no one should be paying even a modest premium based on that connection. Period.
I have been told by a woman (who, to her immense credit, was unafraid to use her real name) that proof is forthcoming. I look forward eagerly to seeing it for myself and sharing it here.
Meanwhile, I could not care less what the Warhol Foundation, sellers of Psaiers or anonymous posters such as yourself believe my motives are for asking a legitimate question. Bottom line, I’m here because I think everyone benefits from having visual art in his or her life. If I think buyers might be taken advantage of, I’m going to ask questions and urge caution. That’s the full extent of my “agenda.”
Loved the article that appeared in the Antiques Trade Gazette - especially the bit where the writer points out that the photo of Psaier attributed to 1993 appeared in a newspaper in 1990 (lol). Was that the photo that is reproduced? He looks younger in that photo than he does on the photo with Warhol that the auctioneer has on his website. If the photo in the Antiques magazine is from 1990 or 1993 Psaier must have been a toddler during his 60s Warhol days. (http://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/6822.aspx)
Also interesting to note that the person working on the catalogue raisonne is the same person who is listed as “Producer” of the Psaier film (psifilms.com).
Catalogue Raisonnes are usually published by a reputable art publisher. The Andy Warhol Catalogue Raisonne was published by Phaidon. I wonder who is publishing the Psaier catalogue raisonne? Must be a lot of work. So many of the paintings are undated.
Has anyone ever offered an explanation as to why there is no birth certificate for Psaier?
i have 12 works by psaier and every single one is dated on the back with certificates.most of them also have lables of where they were displayed and who commissioned them.the acrylic on canvases i have are stunning and worth everypenny i paid for them,warhol link or not.i am not a dealer i just love art and i have no intention of selling them.i myself am not 100%certain psaier existed but alot of people i have spoken to are certain that he did.today an auctionear not related to nicholsons told me “that nicholsons are loveing it”they couldnt buy all this publicity and that they have got proofe beyond any doubt and will proove the conection between warhol and psaier.we will all have to wait and see.i like shelley and gary from warholstars just want to know the truth.
I have just seen a different blurb about Pietro Psaier on another antiques site. On that site it says, “As the value of Psaier’s works increases, the world of art is expecting to see another steep increase in the price of his work when he is sadly declared officially dead in 2011.” (http://andantiques.bttradespace.com/ViewPost.aspx?ID=1)
Can somebody please clarify this? Is “Pietro Psaier” supposed to be “missing” or “dead?” I can understand the 2011 date in a way because if he was reported missing in 2004, then at least in the states you have to wait 7 years before someone can be declared “dead” - although I’m not sure if this policy applies to victims of the tsunami. Also, I’m not sure if the rule is the same in Italy and presumably Pietro, having been born in Italy, was an Italian citizen. Also, can assets from a person’s “estate” be sold if they have not been declared dead? Any ideas on this would be helpful.
More importantly: In the Antiques magazine article they refer to my website as “warholstars.” I have to stress that my site is warholstars.org. The .org bit is important because another site, not owned by me, is registered as warholstars.com. When I first started warholstars in about 2002 I registered both warholstars.org and warholstars.com. However, as I was only hosting the site on warholstars.org I let the .com address expire. Somebody has now registered the .com address and is using it for an ad site of some sort. To make matters worse I’ve just noticed that they have added a heading for “Pietro Psaier.”
So, I have to stress that my site is warholstars.org and I have nothing to do with that other site. My site is a personal non-commercial site. I do not accept ads. That other site is registered to somebody in Dubai.
thanks.
gary
http://www.warholstars.org
i have a painting p.psaier title lola flores]lola’s wedding with certificate studio psaier los angeles california.exhibited at toropo galieria serrano madrid 1990and la noche de lola flores joy sherry.is about the lola’s wedding with antonio flores hijo and ibuyed inbrasil in 1999 because i thought seemed with warhol how do you explain this
I read on the warholstars site that uri geller had refuted the claim made by john nicholson that he uri geller had met pietro psaier in new york. I have been informed by a reliable source that mr geller has now apologised to mr nicholson for the misunderstanding and now confirms that he knew pietro psaier!!!
having read the above mentioned statement concerning the passions of christ series exhibition wich certain persons have claimed was a fictitious event,I took trouble to find the orginiser of this non event,a certain mr jack corrodi.I was informed by him that the reason the exhibition did not go ahead was that due to a error with the publicity monsignor sheraden of our lady of malibu decided to cancel the event! the panels of the passions of christ were later sold to susan burton the widow of richard burton. now if I could go to the trouble of ringing a few people out of curiosity surely the people who are are making these unfounded charges can….
Hamish, your IP address looks strangely familiar to me. If you have something worthwhile to share, please email me with verifiable names, emails and phone numbers that I can check for myself. If this proves impossible, I’d ask you to go hold your monologue in someone else’s “living room.”
Thank you, either way.
i emailed uri gellar yesterday to ask about psaier[gellar has his own website with a contact address]to his credit he emailed me back today.he said that “he didnt want to talk about warhol”it was gellar that replyed because i mentioned someone that knows him personaly who i also know and he said that he had fallen out with this person.maybe someone else coulde give it a try,they might have beter luck.i did email again today asking specificaly about psaier,so i will keep you all posted.
On it’s face, it appears to be a very elaborate fraud that gained traction simply because nobody ever challenged it. Remember the famous case of “Sidney Poiter’s son” in Manhattan? He even managed to appear in Warhol’s life, briefly, according to the Diaries. But this Psaier person appears to have done the same, only posthumously so nobody could rat him out. Just my impression.
Shelley:
One other thought. You might get in touch with Pat Hackett and/or Bob Colacello. They entered into the Factory world around the same time - at the end of the 60s/early 70s. Hackett and Colacello knew every detail of Warhol’s personal movements from day to day - who he saw, what he did, who he worked with, in some cases down to how many dollars and cents he spent on a given day. They personally knew all his art world contacts far and wide during the time they worked for him. They have no stake in art sales today, so whatever conspiracy theories regarding the Warhol Foundation can’t be attached to them. If they corroborate what Vincent Fremont has already said about Psiaer, I think you can safely conclude that this has been a huge hoax.
I see the telegraph newspaper has taken interest now, 3 stories written about Psaier
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/search/sitesearch.do?queryText=pietro+psaier&action=doBasicSearch&advSearch=false&Go=Go&reset=false
just had a look at the Nicolson’s catalogue for next weeks sale, this stuff is no way near as good as the old stuff, really amateaurish cartoons and charactures, shame i really liked the old stuff whether he existed or not.
have just received nicholson,catalogue,I think the pieces shown are fantastic.from what i have read in the telegraph and also the antique traders gazette I personaly think that the evidence is begining to show that pietro psaier is a bone fide artist. i think that it is a disgrace the way mr nicholson has been treated by certain persons,he has been made out to be charlatan one day and boob the next!
personally i still believe its a hoax but i do believe your auction house is a innocent party in all of this, (i’m guessing by your comments you work for nicholsons). but sorry disagree over the quality of the auction lots. the earlier stuff was really good pop-art which is why i bought it, this stuff looks likes GCSE art class, no offence just my opinion.
uri gellar is playing a cat and mouse game with me and wont give me a streight answer if he knew psaier or not.i wasnt sure at first but i do believe psaier did exist,but if you read the comments of the doctor that knew psaier in the expres newspaper he says that the link to warhol has been blown out of all proportion,but even he states that psaier knew warhol.as for the nicholsons sale i agree with godders that they are not as good as the previous sales although the marylin/picaso arcrylics are nice.maybe nicholsons is telling the truth and the works are running out and the worst are hitting the market now.as i said before i have probate certificates from the state of callifornia for the psaier estate so the american goverment seem to think he existed.he must have paid taxes ect.the probate no. is 2914373,surely someone in the states can find out for us if they are real or fakes.
I am a bit surprised that the Wikipedi aentry on pietro psaier has simply been deleted. It should have been moved to the section on hoaxes or fictional people (?).
I think I got the PIETRO PSAIER anagram “POP ART SERIE 1″ serie being the italian for series, what do you think?
nicholsons sale was a big success.it seems all the bad/good publicity didnt do the sale any harm at all.the collectors are still buying these works[one went for £10,000]their is alot of people out their who beleive psaier existed,if nicholsons prooves beyond doubt a warhol link the prices will only go up.i attended a sale in north london on monday 29 sep and a small psaier estimate
£100-150 went for £550+20%com with 3 people fighting for it.last year i was buying simmilar pieces for £50.as i said befor i like these psaiers as works of art in their own right weather he worked with warhol or not.
Whatever happened to the Pietro Psaier catalogue raisonne that the auctioneer promised he was producing prior to his auction? Any news of a birth or death certificate for this “artist”? The work that was sold for £10,000 went to Peter Barham who previously put on a sale of Psaier’s works with the auctioneer in March 2008.
What has happened to the new website: pietropsaierartist.com ? This showed the ‘proof’ of existence with statements from Psaier’s Son and his Doctor. I have emailed Nicholson and J Chapman-neither have replied! It has all gone very quiet at the moment. I have 5 Psaier pictures and would like to see more information as was promised.
Angry Hat,
I, too, asked about any sort of legal document during my last communication with the researcher. I thought, at the time, that I (along with every other interested party) would be notified when proof was produced.
MM,
A website was created, then? Ah, obviously I misunderstood about being kept in the proof loop. I’m getting “403: Forbidden” errors at pietropsaierartist.com. Wish I had known about it while the site was functional.
i dont think that anyone paid £10,000for a psaier,i think it was just a ploy by nicholsons and some dealers to get alot of publicity with people saying wow if he is paying £10,000 for a psaier they must be something in the story.i think that they are creating an inflated market for them.i own a few myself but i certainly wont buy anymore[no room to hang them anyway to be ohnest]their so big,but it has gone very quiet and the website has gone but to anyone who has bought a psaier,i hope you bought it for the right reason ie;because you liked it i myself have many paintings and i wouldnt buy if it was not going on my wall.i woulde not be telling the truth to say that i woulde prefer them to at least hold their price but as an investment…no..i dont agree with people like sachi buying great works and locking them up in a warehouse.i think the people who bouhgt psaiers as an investment coulde end up whishing they hadnt.lets just wait and see what develops from chapman and the rest.at the end of the day some of the pieces are great pop art whoever produced them.
The website: www.pietropsaierartist.com is up and running again. The problem was simply a technical one. I find the site very interesting and informative.
Thank you for the link to the new Psaier site, M.M. I was astonished to see that so much of the site is devoted to attacking me rather than sticking to the facts. I feel inclined to comment on some of the points raised on the site in regard to myself and my website (http://warholstars.org).
1. In the “interview” section of the Psaier website (which, by the way does not contain any actual interviews) it notes that “Mark Wribrican of the Warhol Authentication Board” didn’t request the removal of the Wiki article on Psaier.
First, the person the website is referring to is Matt Wrbican, not Mark Wribrican and he doesn’t work for the Authentication Board. He is the chief archivist for the Warhol Museum. Here is what he said about Psaier on Wiki – his comment appears at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Andy_Warhol:
“Another troubling matter is the reference to Pietro Psaier. As custodian of Warhol’s archives, I can state unequivocally that I have never seen any reference to this person in them. It’s my belief that his alleged friendship/collaboration is a complete sham and hoax, and I would really love to have that belief shattered with indisputable hard evidence.”
2. In the same “interview” section of the Psaier site, it claims in regard to myself and my site that “We have even received an email from KC Maurer of the Warhol Foundation stating that Foundation had never heard of the author of the original allegations posted on Wikipedia and his own website dedicated to Warhol, and that he did not speak on their behalf. “
I have never claimed to speak on behalf of the Warhol Foundation. That is exactly my point. I have stressed that I am a disinterested third party. I do not have any ulterior motive for trying to find out the truth about Psaier. I do not own any Psaiers and do not have any connection to the Foundation, the Museum, the Authentication Board or any other entity. However, both my site and myself are footnoted as a reference in the Andy Warhol catalogue raisonnee which is published by the Foundation, so they are aware of me. My Screen Tests article was also printed in a Dia Foundation exhibition publication which accompanied the exhibition “Dia’s Andy: May 2005 - April 2006.” I have never had any dealings with a “KC Mauer” but, believe me, the Foundation is aware of my website - I have had dealings with them in the past.
In regard to KC Mauer’s email, what else did he say about Psaier? Did he claim that Warhol and Psaier worked together or did he say that there is no record of such?
3. The Psaier website has a statement from Pietro’s son, Peter, in the notarized statements section. The same section has a notarized statement from an unidentified art dealer and agent. As the art dealer does not identify himself there is no way to check his statement. Who is he?
In regard to the son’s statement, he acknowledges that “In regards to the ongoing factory connections I suggest Dr. Langelaan Alvarez may be in a position to help as I was not party to any of this era. Family members have been quizzed in the past, but they also know very little to the aspect of his life in New York.”
In other words even the son admits that the family knew “very little” about Psaier’s claimed link to Warhol.
4. The website seems to offer only one principal piece of “evidence” – alleged comments made by Psaier’s psychiatrist. I say “alleged” because the “interview” with him published on the site is paraphrased. His direct quotes are not quoted. I am surprised that the psychiatrist seems to have thrown patient confidentiality out of the window but in any case, what we have on that site is somebody saying what the psychiatrist told them that Psaier told him. This is usually called “hearsay.”
The fact remains that the auctioneer has never produced anyone who knew or worked for Warhol who has any recollection of Psaier. I have asked just about everyone who is still alive who worked with Warhol whether they remember Psaier and nobody does. I also recently moderated a panel discussion with three of Warhol’s superstars at the South Bank Centre in conjunction with the Hayward Gallery’s current Warhol exhibition and none of them recalled Psaier. All that the auctioneer would need to do is to produce one person who knew/worked closely with Warhol who remembered Psaier, but they have yet to do this.
The auctioneer and/or his representative still has not produced a birth or death certificate for the artist. However, I stress that in regard to my own involvement, I am interested only in proving or disproving the claims that Psaier worked with Warhol. Psaier may have been one of the thousands of people who at some stage met Warhol, but so far nobody has produced anyone who knew/worked with Warhol who was aware of Psaier and no collaborative works have been authenticated by the Authentication Board.
I eagerly await the promised catalogue raisonnee on Psaier. Perhaps it will shed some light on the matter. Does anyone know how much longer it will be before it is produced? Or who the publisher is?
Gary Comenas
www.warholstars.org
i must agree with gary on all this.i have spoken to him in emails and he has no axe to grind,he is just a huge warhol fan who runs his non profit making site for the love of the man alone.although i woulde personaly love the link between warhol and psaier to be prooved we have to stick to the facts and their still is no 100% proof that psaier even existed never mind worked with warhol.it woulde be nice to know the truth[espeacialy since i own 8 of these works] but in the meantime i will still love them for what they are,for me beutifull works of art warhol link or not.but the supposed link to warhol is behind most of the sales and all the ephemera i have promoting psaier streses the warhol link as if psaier was the main artist behind the whole factory and that is just not true.
Kyri,
I am in complete agreement. Gary’s research on Andy Warhol is both sterling and always independently verifiable. He has been cited as a Warhol authority numerous times. What is also independently verifiable is that he has no connection to the Warhol Foundation, the Warhol Museum or the Warhol Authentication Board.
I find it absolutely incredible that the pietropsaierartist.com site has devoted so much bandwidth to its attempt to tarnish Gary’s name and reputation. That bandwidth would have been much better spent providing actual proof of the Warhol connection to Psaier buyers, past, present or future.
Gary has been totally transparent about his motives in questioning the Warhol-Psaier link–as, I hope, have I. The important part for me (and for Gary, if I may presume to speak for him just once) was always this: buyers have sometimes paid a premium on the basis of that link. If the claims that Warhol and Psaier worked closely together–within the Factory, without or, for all I care at this point, on Mars–cannot be backed with proof, then no one should have paid extra for a Psaier.
I am happy for those who bought Psaiers on the basis of loving them. In my modest opinion, that is the only reason anyone should ever buy a work of art.
However, this sentiment is of no help to the people who continue to email me, saying they bought Psaiers either partly or in full because he was supposedly a close associate of Andy Warhol’s. Were they duped, they ask? Regrettably, I have no answers for them.
shelley,i know of two people,close friends of mine who have bought psaiers purely on the warhol link and the hype that surounded them at the time[one of them collects bronzes and dosent even like the piece he bought]they were bought purely as investments and they are begining to think they made a misstake..as i said before the ephemera that comes with these works is very convincing,big banner headlines ” warhol and psaier”.i even have a probate certificate with one of mine and i dont even know if it is genuine or not.if you look at the spring edition of art in london,”the artist behind andy warhol”you almost feel sorry for psaier as the article leads you to believe that psaier was somehow connend and used by warhol and had his ideas stolen by him.not one person who was in the factory has come foward to say they knew psaier.to me it is a great mystery,dont forget psaiers works have been selling for decades and at world famous auction houses[christies ect]he may have existed and he might have known warhol but their has to be more proof than has been offered so far.i am sure that alot of people are buying these works because of the link to warhol and nothing else.it is only faire for the people who promote these “links”between warhol and psaier to proove their case and lay off people like gary who just want to get to the bottom of all this.
Everything seems to have gone very quiet at the moment, there were not even any Psaier works in the last Nicholson sale. There is also no more mention of the catalogue he was supposed to be publishing. A while ago on ebay there was an auction catalogue from Bonhams Chelsea, I think the catalogue was dated 1995, with quite a few Psaier works for sale. I did not manage to buy the catalogue unfortunately. Has anyone any fresh news about Psaier?
southgate auctions in north london are selling 3-4 psaier works every week,and criterian auctions in islington had a few for sale on monday 9th march,they both have a website.their still selling although nicholsons have gone a bit quite.
have been told by a friend that lived in madrid that psaier had a studio next to the sofia museum in madrid, he said that he became quite friendly with him and he had told him about his time in new york. my friend was told by psaier that he was introduced to warhol and the factory scene by his friend one (one of the factory set) he mainly delt with fred hughes (who he said owed him money for work that he had completed!) my friend told me that Pietro was not known as peter the italian but sammy the italian.pietro also told him that there had been trouble due to hughes ripping him off and he had ran into the factory and threatened to shoot warhol amongst others if he was not paid. not long after this incident pietro aka sammy the italian was committed to bellview hospital.confirmation of these facts are in the life & death of andy warhol by victor bocris (page 282 )
Many thanks for that Hamish. If Pietro Psaier was “Sammy the Italian” you have just proven that Psaier was not an integral part of Warhol’s Factory as has been previously claimed.
In the Bockris book “Sammy the Italian” is described as “a friend of Ondine’s whom nobody else at the factory knew.” (p. 282) Bockris’ account is largely based on the description of the event that appears in Popism: The Warhol Sixties by Andy Warhol & Pat Hackett (p. 242). In Popism, Warhol (via Pat Hackett) says “the grate to the elevator opened and a guy came in with a gun.” Throughout the description Warhol refers to the intruder as a stranger rather than as someone he knew. It’s clear from both descriptions that the person who attempted to rob them was not someone who was particularly close to Warhol or had collaborated with him - as has been claimed previously.
Gary
i am not trying to prove that psaier was or was not an integral part of warhol,s factory. I think that most people are now accepting that he did exist and was an extreamly talented artist.to return to the subject of the factory I think that the evidence shows that he definately had dealings at some level with some of the main players at the factory eg. ondine and fred hughes although he was very insistant that he had a personal connection with warhol on a artistic level and also a personal level.
Hamish, I’m not arguing with you, or saying your friend got it wrong, but I am not one of the people who are now accepting that Pietro Psaier existed. Whether this person went by Peter the Italian or Sammy the Italian, there is no legal documentation supporting this man’s very existence, let alone documentation supporting a claim that he was an integral part of Andy Warhol’s studio.
That’s the whole crux of the matter for me, at least: many people bought Psaiers solely because of the supposed Warhol connection.
All we’ve gotten in the past nine months are excerpts from alleged affidavits, and a steaming load of “burden of proof” on (1) buyers and (2) anyone who dares asks why Pietro Psaier left no legal records of any kind. I’ll tell you this, if I could simply write to the Los Angeles County Clerk and get some sort of notarized document that Pietro Psaier, at some point, actually lived in Malibu, I would happily share it with the world.
Hi,
I saw a Psaier painting in Buxton Derbyshire wknd just gone, large picture with glitter and a sexy 60’s girl bursting from a coke bottle, price tag £1850 is this premium because of the casual link to Warhol? Is it a good investment for the future, im guessing ART is ART and i love it but i don’t want to pay premium if a link is casual and the painting is worth considerably less. Sorry for my rambling please reply ASAP!!!! I have some details on the artisit that the dealer gave me if you send me your email I can scan them over to you. Many thanks Ruth.
ruth,you can buy a simmilar psaier at southgate auctions in london for less than £400,dont spend£1800 on one,you woulde be wasting your money.every week for the past year their has been psaier works for sale at this auction house.their seems to be a neverending supply.they sell for £3-400 than after a few days i see them on ebay for thousands,southgate auctions are in north london and they have a website.£1800 is extortianate.the link to warhol is still not prooved and i have been following this for two years
I see that John Nicholson had another auction of lots of Pietro Psaiers on wednesday- does anyone know how it went?
their is an intresting article about psaier in the antique trade gazette,on their website the plot thickens,as i said before he may have existed,and it seems like he did but the link to warhol is all hearsay
The article states that “The new evidence flies in the face of denials that any artist by the name of Psaier ever existed or was ever part of the Factory or known to be involved with Warhol. There has never been any direct dispute between Mr Nicholson and either the Warhol Foundation or the Warhol Museum on the issue, although third parties have quoted the latter as saying they scoured Warhol’s extensive records for a connection with anyone called Psaier and found nothing.”
Yet it does not quote a single person from the Foundation or the Museum who asserts that there was any relationship between Psaier and Warhol. Did the journalist ask the Warhol entities for a comment? Why did they fail to produce one?
What people seem to be forgetting in all of this is that even if Psaier knew Warhol, however fleetingly, it would not have a bearing on the value of his work. There are plenty of “artists” out there who knew Warhol but whether someone knew Andy Warhol or not is irrelevant in regard to the prices they get for their own work. If it could be proven that Warhol and Psaier collaborated on a work then that might have some relevance but as no collaborations have ever been submitted to the Authentication Board, there is no evidence that any true collaborations exist. What we do have, however, is a statement about Psaier from Matt Wrbican, the Chief Archivist of the Warhol Museum. Wrbican states, “Another troubling matter is the reference to Pietro Psaier. As custodian of Warhol’s archives, I can state unequivocally that I have never seen any reference to this person in them. It’s my belief that his alleged friendship/collaboration is a complete sham and hoax, and I would really love to have that belief shattered with indisputable hard evidence.” (The statement can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki?title=Talk:Andy_Warhol) (Scroll down to the section titled “general impressions of this entry.”)
Also, I can’t understand why anyone would buy a Psaier when they could buy works by artists who definitely did know Warhol and did work with him. Mary Woronov, Viva, Louis Waldon were all part of Warhol’s Factory, appeared in his films, and are mentioned extensively in books on the artist – and all are working artists themselves. If you want to buy something based on whether or not the person knew Andy Warhol, you would be much better off in buying something by one of those artists or other people from the Factory who are producing art. But be forewarned – buy something because you like it – because whether an artist knew Warhol or not has never had any effect on the value of a piece.