Happy Hours: Imagine this. No matter what the buyer does with this can you really get $119 million worth of pleasure out of it? Will the owner stare at it for hours on end? I can appreciate art, but if I saw it in a museum I would probably only devote a couple of minutes to it (unless I were under the influence of drugs). Is it really worth $55 million a minute to view?

To me? Yes, it is. Hell, I can think of several paintings that I'd happily pay that much for, if I had that sort of money (I don't, but hey, it's nice to pretend). Meanwhile, I personally don't see the point in paying millions of dollars for a car or a diamond, but many other people do. How about this: You can have your cars or diamonds or whatever, and I can have my symbolist and surrealist artwork.

Mentat: Mark Ratner: So, what exactly do you do with a painting worth 119 million? Hang it in your living room in your house that's worth 20 million?

Think of what the insurance would cost for this.

/obscenely rich people problems
//loan it to an art museum?

Link

Some see it as an investment since art prices will never ever go down. Some do it for bragging rights. Some use art to store their wealth in tangible, easily liquified assets. Some actually like art. They often loan the works out to museums and in some cases donate them for the tax write-offs.

Think Tony Stark buying the Monet in Iron-Man.

What do you mean "art will never go down?". The very link you post quotes someone who worries about investors buying art because it's a volatile market.

And it's not as nearly as liquid as most financial assets they could put their money into.

And donating the art still leaves them out the money they paid in the first place.

Yeah, some collectors are treating it as an asset class but its very far from a "trick to help the wealthy protect their wealth"

Why do so few people have so much money while economies around the world are in danger?

Sliding Carp: [gorightly.files.wordpress.com image 441x294]

WTF, man? $119 mill?
Jesus, you said it.

Years ago me and an old roommate had a velvet Elvis hanging in the living room. Elvis looked like he was painted by a third grader and had greenish teeth. It was in a cheap white frame that lite up with Made in Mexico stamped on one side. It was awesome. Almost Sotheby's awesome.

Mark Ratner: ecmoRandomNumbers: Mentat: Buying art is no different than buying gold. It's one of those little tricks the rich use to protect their wealth.

If I had disgusting amounts of money, that's a painting I would buy. But that's because I've always liked the painting.

So, what exactly do you do with a painting worth 119 million? Hang it in your living room in your house that's worth 20 million?

Think of what the insurance would cost for this.

/obscenely rich people problems
//loan it to an art museum?

The insurance would run around $250,000 a year or so if you're able to insure the full $119 million. With art insurance, the rate is around $1-2 per $1,000 of insured value. I wouldn't be surprised if the handful of companies that do art insurance would refuse to insure to that full amount.

What do you do with it? Hang it in your house, hang it in a museum, or store it securely.

Mark Ratner: Seriously though, how does the insurance work for something of this magnitude? Like when I bought an engagement ring, I just added it to my homeowners's policy. It would be weird to add something that cost more than my house.

There are only a few companies -- AXA is the big one, Chubb also does it -- but the process is the same. You talk to your art broker and he calls up the various companies and gets you a quote. You like the quote, they send you a policy, you sign it, you wire them money or send them a check, and you're insured.

My guess is that they're going to be very pro-active in risk management so if you're insuring something like this, they probably will send a risk manager out to make sure that you have appropriate security, fire suppression, etc., systems in place.

FirstNationalBastard:
/It's a conspiracy.

You said it.


/what?

hitlersbrain: Why do so few people have so much money while therefore economies around the world are in danger?

there you go

Fluorescent Testicle: Happy Hours: Imagine this. No matter what the buyer does with this can you really get $119 million worth of pleasure out of it? Will the owner stare at it for hours on end? I can appreciate art, but if I saw it in a museum I would probably only devote a couple of minutes to it (unless I were under the influence of drugs). Is it really worth $55 million a minute to view?

To me? Yes, it is. Hell, I can think of several paintings that I'd happily pay that much for, if I had that sort of money (I don't, but hey, it's nice to pretend). Meanwhile, I personally don't see the point in paying millions of dollars for a car or a diamond, but many other people do. How about this: You can have your cars or diamonds or whatever, and I can have my symbolist and surrealist artwork.

And I can scoff at the idiocy of paying a million dollars for any single object anywhere.

I might spent a million dollars in my lifetime. Maybe.

/naw gotta be materialistic.

Rufus Lee King: quizkerala.com



Jesus Burnt My Hotdog: hitlersbrain: Why do so few people have so much money while therefore economies around the world are in danger?

there you go

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." -Mayer Rothschild

Hey, if you want to spend a billion of any money
then someone will take it...even if it's for sticking a thumb up your ass.

The going rate on that is cheaper at the moment, I'm sure,
but if you wanted to pay that much for it...I'm sure they'll be willing to.

It's not how much money you have,
it's what you do with it.

This is true for anything.
Hey, I'm sure there are blinding geniuses out there that are just spending their lives plucking a guitar to no one.

Worth and worthwhile...these are truly two different things.

Debeo Summa Credo: Mentat: Mark Ratner: So, what exactly do you do with a painting worth 119 million? Hang it in your living room in your house that's worth 20 million?

Think of what the insurance would cost for this.

/obscenely rich people problems
//loan it to an art museum?

Link

Some see it as an investment since art prices will never ever go down. Some do it for bragging rights. Some use art to store their wealth in tangible, easily liquified assets. Some actually like art. They often loan the works out to museums and in some cases donate them for the tax write-offs.

Think Tony Stark buying the Monet in Iron-Man.

What do you mean "art will never go down?". The very link you post quotes someone who worries about investors buying art because it's a volatile market.

And it's not as nearly as liquid as most financial assets they could put their money into.

And donating the art still leaves them out the money they paid in the first place.

Yeah, some collectors are treating it as an asset class but its very far from a "trick to help the wealthy protect their wealth"

You are both right. For a long time buying and holding on to art was an excellent way to see reliable returns on investment, and it still is for the most part, but there has been an introduction of volatility because some of the people buying the art now have no idea what they are buying, so they overpay.

I wonder how much "Starry Night" would sell for?

meanmutton: The insurance would run around $250,000 a year or so if you're able to insure the full $119 million. With art insurance, the rate is around $1-2 per $1,000 of insured value. I wouldn't be surprised if the handful of companies that do art insurance would refuse to insure to that full amount.

Lloyds syndicates it so they can get to the full value.

They may, however, say it's not actually worth the price he paid.

LavenderWolf: /naw gotta be materialistic.

If you think materialism has anything to do with this, you've missed the point so much we might as well be on different planets. Well, for me, anyway; I obviously can't say what the buyer in TFA was thinking.

Oh well. I might as well join in with the picture-posting. :)

That's equivalent to 0.119 Instagrams, right?

LavenderWolf: Fluorescent Testicle: Happy Hours: Imagine this. No matter what the buyer does with this can you really get $119 million worth of pleasure out of it? Will the owner stare at it for hours on end? I can appreciate art, but if I saw it in a museum I would probably only devote a couple of minutes to it (unless I were under the influence of drugs). Is it really worth $55 million a minute to view?

To me? Yes, it is. Hell, I can think of several paintings that I'd happily pay that much for, if I had that sort of money (I don't, but hey, it's nice to pretend). Meanwhile, I personally don't see the point in paying millions of dollars for a car or a diamond, but many other people do. How about this: You can have your cars or diamonds or whatever, and I can have my symbolist and surrealist artwork.

And I can scoff at the idiocy of paying a million dollars for any single object anywhere.

I might spent a million dollars in my lifetime. Maybe.

/naw gotta be materialistic.

If you're an American, you'll probably spend around $2-3 million in your lifetime. Median American income is around $45,000 a year. If you work for only 40 years (say from 22 to 62) making the median, that's $1.8 million without ever getting a raise.

SharkTrager: meanmutton: The insurance would run around $250,000 a year or so if you're able to insure the full $119 million. With art insurance, the rate is around $1-2 per $1,000 of insured value. I wouldn't be surprised if the handful of companies that do art insurance would refuse to insure to that full amount.

Lloyds syndicates it so they can get to the full value.

They may, however, say it's not actually worth the price he paid.

I didn't realize that Lloyd's did art insurance in the US. AXA is kind of the big player and I know Chubb does it but didn't realize Lloyd's does, too. Doesn't surprise me. They are the kinds of insuring the weird stuff.

The ones I'd buy:

meanmutton: I didn't realize that Lloyd's did art insurance in the US

Strictly speaking Lloyd's doesn't actually do the insurance themselves, it's the members of Lloyd's who do it and they can split the risk if they wish. Lloyd's is basically a market, you say what you need covered, and the insurers and underwriters who are members of Lloyds can put something together. As for what they insure, that's up to each member.

If only there were an apt visual metaphor which expressed the extreme consternation and surprise appropriate for such a sum being offered for a bit of pigment squiggled onto paper

To be fair subby, money is just pieces of paper with squiggles of ink on it.

Mentat: Mark Ratner: So, what exactly do you do with a painting worth 119 million? Hang it in your living room in your house that's worth 20 million?

Think of what the insurance would cost for this.

/obscenely rich people problems
//loan it to an art museum?

Link

Some see it as an investment since art prices will never ever go down. Some do it for bragging rights. Some use art to store their wealth in tangible, easily liquified assets. Some actually like art. They often loan the works out to museums and in some cases donate them for the tax write-offs.

Think Tony Stark buying the Monet in Iron-Man.

The problem is that the value of art is completely subjective. This is worth $120 million becuase, well....ummm...some "art" people said so.

.001% problems.

dugitman: ecmoRandomNumbers: If I had disgusting amounts of money, that's a painting I would buy. But that's because I've always liked the painting.

Me too and I don't know why. I guess that's the shtick of art, eh?

/huge Hopper Fan
// Hijack now in progress

Because dat azz.

They say the red and orange hues in the sky in the Scream are a result of Munch painting it during the aftermath of the Krakatoa explosion, when the sky was tinted red.

JohnnyC: I wish I could sell any of my artwork for even a modest percentage of that price.

A rare case to be sure but Picasso in his lifetime was recognized as a great artist. He literally could have lived luxuriously without money. Take some friends to a restaurant...ask the manager would you rather have money or this signed sketch I am doing of your restaurant?

Loucifer: Worth every penny. This is a Munch, not some Montel Williams.

I am not Montel Williams. I am NOT Montel Williams!

Fissile: In a sane economic system, that money would have gone into some type of capital investment.

Actually the money from the sale is going towards building a museum, art center and a hotel. The man who owned it, basically figured it was an easy way to raise some money. As for how he got it, his dad was friends with Munch.

2CountyFairs: [30.media.tumblr.com image 500x643]

Thank you. Came for the Silence, leaving satisfied.

Oh, an art troll thread. We haven't had one yet this week.