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: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

I don't have the answers...but I have wondered at times why some rich people spend so much money on what I think of status symbol purchases...I know it is there money and they have the right to spend as they so chose...but to me many of the purchases the rich make that I hear about in the news... I think are ridiculous and wasteful when they could be helping the less fortunate than they...and perhaps some of them do that too...but I also know some of them are greedy and shallow.




posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords


This is an old article but it's just one example of Pension Funds investing in expensive works of art.

www.nytimes.com...



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

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


That.

And....

it is a way to get out of the dollar
when it is time to move to China.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Anyone spending that much on a painting should be ashamed of themselves. Can you imagine how many poor people he could have fed with that, or how much good he could have done with that helping the less fortunate?



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Night Star
Anyone spending that much on a painting should be ashamed of themselves. Can you imagine how many poor people he could have fed with that, or how much good he could have done with that helping the less fortunate?


Without knowing the details that could be a little harsh in all fairness.

Maybe the individual or consortium that bought it already does a lot for others?

I'm not saying they do but maybe they already gave billions away and just wanted to treat themselves



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Night Star
Anyone spending that much on a painting should be ashamed of themselves. Can you imagine how many poor people he could have fed with that, or how much good he could have done with that helping the less fortunate?


How dare they spend their money on anything but the poor!

Do you live a monkish lifestyle and give all of your extra money to feed the hungry?

No? You own a computer and pay for an internet connection and probably have a television? Why didn't you use that money to help the less fortunate?

The simple fact is: you have no idea how much money this anonymous bidder(s) gives to charity.
edit on 5/21/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   
because... not everyone has to work as hard and long for money as we do.... they just see the bill with six zeros less in their mind..... when talking in these absurd amounts you forget how many lifetimes another would have to work for it...



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: wasaka

that would be my guess also,
they are running out of save places to stash their money!
better question might be who would trade such a piece for what is slowly turning into worthless pieces of paper.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

The high price tag certainly assures that the art stays safe, and hopefully one day it can be seen in a museum. In a world of mediocrity and disposability if I had that kind of money I sure would spend it on such things.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Night Star
Anyone spending that much on a painting should be ashamed of themselves. Can you imagine how many poor people he could have fed with that, or how much good he could have done with that helping the less fortunate?


How dare they spend their money on anything but the poor!

Do you live a monkish lifestyle and give all of your extra money to feed the hungry?

No? You own a computer and pay for an internet connection and probably have a television? Why didn't you use that money to help the less fortunate?

The simple fact is: you have no idea how much money this anonymous bidder(s) gives to charity.


I live pay check to paycheck and still donate when I can. My point was that it is an insane amount of money to blow on a painting. I myself in good conscience would feel guilty as hell. I don't care if anyone disagrees with me.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
Maybe the individual or consortium that bought it already does a lot for others?


There are plenty of instances were the paintings are donated to a museum either after auction or on the purchasers death. It enables everyone who admires the artist to view the piece.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

It's art. You either get it or you don't.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
Maybe the individual or consortium that bought it already does a lot for others?


There are plenty of instances were the paintings are donated to a museum either after auction or on the purchasers death. It enables everyone who admires the artist to view the piece.



agreed. To the average person it seems insane but unless the bigger picture is looked at and all the facts are known then it is simply speculation.

I'm not sure how much one of those big bombs that blow up half a city cost but I would rather this than that if that makes any sense?

I do not understand how people can spend half a million pounds on a house far bigger than they need but that does not make them wrong for diong so, it's just perspective in my opinion.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
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?



It's not an investment its peer comparison. They own a picture of a value that their peers do not. This is why people earn more money in a year than they can ever spend in a lifetime because it is MORE than their peers. Hence why there is this obsession with ever increasing obscene wealth.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Night Star

Oh those evil rich people. Not giving their riches away to the poor people.
I guess he should also sell the mansion and move into a four story walk up with bad heat in the winter. He should also only eat cheap food so he can donate the difference to the poor.
Sell the limo, fire the chef and housekeeper sell all the designer clothes. What ever he has because he's wealthy he should in good conscience donate so that his existence is indistinguishable from the poor he has to give this to.
How do we know this lucky stiff isn't going to donate this to a museum? I'd be nervous with a Picasso hanging on the wall. But in my neighborhood everyone would assume it's a copy anyway. One I got at art dot com or something.
Lucky for me one of my son's is a talented artist and knows my love of the impressionist art. I have a Monet and a Van Gogh on my living room wall.
edit on 5212015 by AutumnWitch657 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
In my opinion, the painting isnt even aesthetically pleasing.

First, most of the images shown in the coverage of the sale are very poor. Look at this one.

Second, Picasso was a very rare artistic genius, and despite what many think of his style, he was a stunning draftsman:

The above details shows his mastery of expressive pencil strokes to convey emotion, volume, and subtle tension.

As he evolved his early works, you can begin to see his exploration of the shape of his brush strokes to evoke a sense of the same emotion, volume, and tension.


That evolved into exploring the line and where he could push the boundaries by exploiting shapes, simple lines, and even primitive lines to evoke the same feelings…


We end up with the pure genius of a brand new style, using primitive shapes and simple colors, showing front, back, and sides at the same time, that draws us in, seeing the whole of a woman from one angle, in extraordinary interpretations that challenge us to see differently.



Preserving such genius for the future has no price tag. Without private investors, many important pieces of art would have been lost forever, long ago.
edit on 21-5-2015 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

It's money laundering, clearly you got have a reason for sending 180M and receiving 180M and the reason is some BS painting because it is art and abstract and the perfect reason to name any sum.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

It is a sad World when so very few of us can see the excellence in it. The human race certainly needs more Piccasos.

Not every wealthy person has criminal motive.



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: AutumnWitch657
a reply to: queenofswords
It's art. You either get it or you don't.
An artist buddy of mine (Google 'Father Goose') once said "Art is whatever you can get away with"
I have spent money on art that I like, but I would not display art that didn't resonate. Best part of this story? Fox censored the painting - Fox hates boobies. What a huge statement!!!



posted on May, 21 2015 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Well, unfortunately I am an artist. I say "unfortunately" because it seems to be one of the least respected talents. Creating things of beauty isn't hugely respected in this age. Probably because the bar's been really lowered on what is art. Vials full of bodily fluids, piles of trash, random splatters. Conceivably anyone can be an artist as long as you have the brass to call yourself one and get into the right circles.

Sorry for the rant. What I was going to say initially, is that we artists depend upon rich folks for the most part to appreciate and buy our art. Artists have sadly always been pets of the wealthy and if it weren't for them we probably wouldn't have art as a historic record. You don't have any need of art when you're working ceaselessly to feed your family and keep a roof over your head. Even now, art is viewed as a "hobby" by a lot of common folks - like you shouldn't even be compensated for your time. They wouldn't think of not paying for their night out and dinner - why not on something you can keep forever?

The other unfortunate thing is that most artists need to die before their work fetches the big bucks and is appreciated. The money goes to the gallery or the folks that owned it, while the artist probably struggled during his life. I would rather see patrons buying art from living artists...oh well...




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join