It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why would someone pay almost $180,000,000 for a single painting?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Because they can????

Picasso's Women of Algiers


Last year, Christie's said its global sales of impressionist and modern art were $1.2bn, an increase of 19 per cent over the previous year.


I get that wealthy people want to purchase something no one else has. But, most of these super wealthy purchasers are anonymous.

In February 2015, a Paul Gauguin went for $300,000,000. The buyer is unknown.

Is it really "an investment"? Or, is it something else entirely?




posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
When you have unlimited money, you simply don't care anymore.

"I want that" becomes "Get me that"- the cost doesn't matter when you can simply manufacture more wealth.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Masquerade payment of something else? Funding terrorism, etc.? Grey economy and black market.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
its a whos willys bigger contest.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords
Its an investment like any other investment.
The values always rise on established artists.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
It may not have been a single person; it could have been a corporation or investment group taking a risk that they could sell it for even more money later on down the road.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: FinalCountdown
a reply to: queenofswords
Its an investment like any other investment.
The values always rise on established artists.


yup^.

In my opinion, the painting isnt even aesthetically pleasing.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords
"There's a sucker born every minute" used by David Hannum in regards to PT Barnum's show ?
Or , a fool and his money are soon parted ?


edit on 21-5-2015 by Gothmog because: added statement



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Because they can????



Pretty much.

Also, such things are typically a sure-fire investment.

The next buyer will pay $230,000,000 just because this buyer paid $180,000,000.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Because they have money falling out of their butt?
I wouldn't pay ten bucks for a painting.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Stefan Edlis was looking at a tax bill of more than $20 million when he sold his Andy Warhol “Turquoise Marilyn” painting to hedge fund manger Steve Cohen, but ended up paying nothing. How did he do it? Half of Edlis' earnings were deemed part of his private foundation, meaning they were tax-exempt, and the other $40 million was parlayed into more artwork through a 1031 exchange, or like-kind exchange. According to Bloomberg, such an exchange "allows investors to defer capital gains by buying similar property of equal or greater value," but "sellers must show that the art was purchased as an investment instead of for pleasure."


www.businessinsider.com...


Well, that might explain a portion of it.....maybe.

edit on 21-5-2015 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Loop holes for the rich strike again.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Loop holes for the rich strike again.
'
It appears that the best solution to that problem is to become enormously wealthy.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: queenofswords

Loop holes for the rich strike again.


Private foundations. Ring a bell?



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Pension funds often buy expensive art work, amongst other things.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: queenofswords

Pension funds often buy expensive art work, amongst other things.



Hmmmm...that's interesting to know.

Found this, too:

Art Funds Struggling



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Because rich people have to spend their money on something.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Status and investment are the reasons...



I get that wealthy people want to purchase something no one else has. But, most of these super wealthy purchasers are anonymous.


'Anonymous' to us and well-known in their own little peer-group. They don't compete with us for status and why would they? As soon as this person (or group) bought this piece, their competitors would know about it.

The painting will become part of an awesome portfolio and the owners will have access to credit that far surpasses the cost. I imagine a portfolio worth millions will translate into billions in credit.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

It sounds like a little closed circle where the $$$$ go round and round.


edit on 21-5-2015 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Because rich people have to spend their money on something.



It is also plausable that said rich people also own other works by the artist and by raising the price it increases the value of other works.

It's actually a very clever way of doing things if your that way inclined.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join