Unless he’s prepared to fake his own death and then wait half a century for his name to get some notoriety, about $250 per painting sounds about right.

As for Valleywags scary insights, scary indeed, it makes me weep for journalism. Two broad “statements”, which are actually opinions.

“Without that arrangement, struck last year ….. Digg’s losses would likely be far worse.”

“Instead, Digg took $28.7 million in venture capital at a valuation of almost half what the company hoped to sell for.” What is the point of this statement? And where did Valley wag get the figure of 300 million?

Now this article is based on Valley Wags. Can someone start doing some real journalism.

Think about it this way: Say Picasso bought some paint for $500 and stretched his own canvas for say another $500. Took him a week to paint the piece, at an operational living cost of say $500 a week for rent and food. Add a 50% profit margin. Should his paintings be sold at around $3000? Probably not. More like in the tens of millions.

So it really depends. In Picasso’s case it could be his name and body of work and the historical and cultural significance of his art. In Digg’s case it could be something else entirely different, maybe brand recognition, existing user loyalty, etc. or whatever it happens to be.

Simply reading the financial statements is only half the picture of a company’s true wealth. You can’t go by those metrics alone. Anyone who tells you otherwise is not a good investor.