Presidents untitled piece, which depicts the Manhattan skyline, barely cleared its minimum price of $5,000 at auction on Thursday and there were only two bids
On Wednesday, a long-lost Leonardo da Vinci painting sold for $450.3 m, rocking the art world and inspiring hand-wringing over the rising price of premium works.
On Thursday, that same art world was given a reality check, when a sketch by the less celebrated Donald Trump sold for only $6,875 at an auction in Los Angeles.
Trump's untitled piece, which illustrates the Manhattan skyline, scarcely cleared its minimum cost of $5,000, to sell for $450,293, 125 less than Leonardo's Salvator Mundi.
The president took on his project in 2009 for a charity event. Trump seems to have used either pencil or ballpoint pen for the piece, which measures 8in x 5in. The sketch shows what appear to be skyscrapers, alongside something representative of Empire State Building.
Nate D Sanders, the auction house handling the sale, presented the sketch in a 15 in x 18 in frame, along with a signed photo of Trump. Despite this, Trump's describing failed to attract much attention among art aficionados. Sanders' website proved there were just two bids on the piece.
Trump is not the first legislator to have shown a flair for art- although others have had significantly more success.
George W Bush memorably took to the easel after his time in office, creating a series of nude self-portraitsand a number of paintings of puppies. A book of his oil painting reached the top spot on Amazon's bestseller list this February.
In 2012 a Jimmy Carter painting, Live Oak at Sunrise, sold for $250,000. A piece by Vladimir Putin went for $1.1 m in 2008.
Trump, a self-described billionaire, is unlikely to have been pleased with the $6,875 sale. But he is not the first artist to have been underappreciated in their time.
Vincent Van Gogh lived in abject poverty before his death, aged 37, in 1890. Just this Monday, his landscape Laboureur dans un champ selling off $81.3 m at an auction at Christie's.
Read more: www.theguardian.com
