Thrift find - Purvis Young painting? Also, a Sylvia Miller painting

I found these 2 paintings at a local thrift store today. The manager said it looked like a Purvis Young, I told him I couldn't find a signature + I didn't think he could paint that well (when I got it home my girlfriend said it looked like John Belushi to her!
But, after looking it over I found what kinds looked like Young on the edge of the canvas that was folded over the frame (3rd photo) - could this be by Purvis Young??
I also found what looks like it could be another name (or just letters) - can anyone make anything out of them (4th photo)?

The 2nd one is signed Sylvia Miller & googling her I found an artist with that name but no portraits by her - any ideas who the artist it?

Any help, or thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

 

Does not look like Purvis Young, unfortunately. Completely different style, color choice, material, and signature.

 

It does however bear a strong resemblance to Belushi.

 

When the manager said it could be Purvis I said he wasn't that good - but them I saw whatever that is on edge & thought "maybe?" (But also decided to check here!)
Could that be a name or letters on canvas in 4th photo?

 

I think the other is a 1970s portrait by a local artist. Local to where is one of the questions.

Debora

 

Do Gallery's,Dealers,Critics,The NY Times pick who's art becomes the 10K to 20K (& up) paintings of the future ? I wonder how certain artists get 'canonized' financially-maybe Opra or Streisand,etc get the ball rolling.
I like Purvis,but I see a fair amount of naive folk art out there with real power going for chump change.
I guess it's the same with many writers,poets and other unrecognized artists.

 

I can't say I was able to pull anything out of that 'specific' area by trying to "isolate" it a bit and reducing distractions.......The only bit I think I see is a "J" in the middle with a "5" close to it..........

​

 

First painting is very student like. Second one looks like a painting of a family relative

 

In short: Yes. There are a few documentaries out there about the Art Market bubble but essentially the Ultra Rich try to control the market like they do Wall Street, Real Estate, etc. Dealers pick up-and-comer favorites. They're friendly with the critics. They market to their Ultra Rich clients that a certain artist is a good "investment" in every sense of that word. Art at that level is like stocks.

And if none of that works how they want, they rig the game and buy their own artwork as a shill. My favorite is Damien Hurst's "For the Love of God" diamond encrusted skull. Allegedly went for 100 million, and it was all a lie.

Yes. Agents pick what they think will sell to the market, pay for good reviews, pay for Oprah's Book Club or whatever friendly face their genre loves.

And if that doesn't work, they buy thousands of their own books through book stores to make it on the NYT Bestseller lists. Literally call individual stores to order ridiculous amounts. This happens frequently enough (especially with certain political figures and self-help types) that the NYT will put a dagger icon next to books they think have suspect numbers. What happens to the books? They get given away in promos, convention/speaking engagement swag, and donated. The books were never the end goal...the looking successful and getting that TV gig or speaking engagement and fanbase, etc. pays better.

It also happens with movie deals. "Cowboys vs Aliens" was made because the production company thought it was a bestselling comic book and thus would have a built in audience. Turns out the comic creator never made it into a widely available book until the deal was in motion and then did the NYT trick and bought their own books to make it look legit.

Any industry that makes money has the Ultra Rich trying to control the system so they can pick the winners and ride the wave.