If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Newsweek)   The super-rich are going nuts buying up art, creating an art bubble by spending millions for pieces that aren't even a decade old. Please - won't somebody think of the super-rich?   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 71
    More: Silly, Blake Gopnik, Damien Hirst, gay icons, total sales, fundamental structure, Jeff Koons  
•       •       •

3244 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Dec 2012 at 12:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-10 02:05:26 PM  

Bullseyed: Pitabred: Bullseyed: "The super-rich are going nuts buying up art, creating an art bubble by spending millions for pieces that aren't even a decade old. Please - won't somebody think of the super-rich?"

Not sure why subby picked contradictory statements. When the bubble pops, hundreds of people who "made a living" as artists will be unemployed. Somebody should probably think of them because I'm sure they're loud mouth ultra liberals and they'll go occupy something and cry.

Hundreds? So tens of millions of dollars can only support a couple hundred people? Doesn't seem like it'll "trickle down" from there. It's basically still being amassed at the top and staying there.

Yeah, hundreds. You can't expect leftists like artists and movie stars to share their money. The just hoard it and tell you you're a bad person for not donating to AIDs or Haiti or something.


You can't expect someone to take you seriously when you use phrases like "leftists".

Trickle down is a failed theory, promulgated by the people who make their money off of it, and those gullible enough to think that it still works. This is not job creation, it doesn't help the economy in any meaningful way, not relative to the amount of money that's flowing through it. But I'm guessing that facts won't change your opinion. Horse and sparrow economics is just that, a load of horse shiat.
 
2012-12-10 02:06:54 PM  
I've CORNERED THE MARKET!!
shatterhand007.com
 
2012-12-10 02:07:20 PM  
This something i can absolutely support. Art is not a natural resource or something necessary to sustain life, so by driving the prices up they are not depriving nayone else of the essentials of life by pricing them out of reach, but they ARE putting thier money back into the commerce stream, and , as a bonus, some of it is going back to artists. And while Art they may not be essential for life,it is a vital engine of culture and creativity, so artists being able to make our culture better AND eat is a good thing in my book.

And if the bibble bursts? no one else get hurt except for the people who inflated it int he first place (unlike say, real estate)
 
2012-12-10 02:08:41 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: In certain markets all it takes to make a contempory artists work worthless is for Charles Saatchi to wake up on the wrong side of bed and dump his stock of that artist for a dollar a piece, as he has done before. This probably holds most true for Damien Hirst, one of Saatchi's most prominent creations. That should tell you all you need to know about the staying power of these art values.


Hirst's "works" started jumping the shark earlier this fall.

If both Hirst and Madonna were to be exiled to a desert isle somewhere, the world would be a better place.
 
2012-12-10 02:13:47 PM  
www.piersidegallery.com

icommunity.files.wordpress.com

(I actually like Thomas Kinkade's stuff though.)
 
2012-12-10 02:15:41 PM  
What else are the hideously rich supposed to do with their money? Stuff their mattresses with it?

But still, the obvious solution is to raise tax rates on the rich. That way, the government can fund more works of art.
 
2012-12-10 02:27:01 PM  

farkeruk: Cythraul: Maybe they'll be nice and donate all that art to museums in about 40 or so years from now.

You think anyone will want to see this art in 40 years?

Galleries are a product of the age before mass-duplication of art. If you lived in the 16th century, the only way to see amazing, beautiful things was to go to a cathedral or an art gallery. Today, we have television and cinema transmitting art to us. You want to see the greatest art of the 21st century? Go and see Skyfall or The Dark Knight Rises. I'll bet Roger Deakins earns far more being a DP than most gallery artists do for putting a farking dot on a canvas.


Interestingly enough, there are museums and archives dedicated to preserving cinema and other aspects of today's popular culture. However, there is still plenty of public interest in the past.

Nevertheless, art regardless of the era of creation belongs in museums for all to see, not for the extremely wealthy to hoard.
 
2012-12-10 02:27:57 PM  
I'm on my way back from Art Basel/Art Miami 2012, so I'm getting a kick out of this thread.

/worked at Flood the Art Market, though, not a buyer
//#FtAM
 
2012-12-10 02:43:12 PM  
The artists are. By golly their christmas will be bright.
 
2012-12-10 03:48:29 PM  

rebelyell2006: Interestingly enough, there are museums and archives dedicated to preserving cinema and other aspects of today's popular culture. However, there is still plenty of public interest in the past.


That's because paint was pinnacle of artistic creation when Monet, Rembrant and Michaelangelo were doing it. If Stanley Kubrick had been alive 500 years ago he'd have been a painter, and Gauguin would be directing movies today.

Look at the rise of cinema and the decline of art. After Picasso, Hopper and Rockwell, you don't have much painting that's worth bothering with. It's either a farking dot on a canvas or some conceptual shiat.
 
2012-12-10 04:10:54 PM  

farkeruk: rebelyell2006: Interestingly enough, there are museums and archives dedicated to preserving cinema and other aspects of today's popular culture. However, there is still plenty of public interest in the past.

That's because paint was pinnacle of artistic creation when Monet, Rembrant and Michaelangelo were doing it. If Stanley Kubrick had been alive 500 years ago he'd have been a painter, and Gauguin would be directing movies today.

Look at the rise of cinema and the decline of art. After Picasso, Hopper and Rockwell, you don't have much painting that's worth bothering with. It's either a farking dot on a canvas or some conceptual shiat.


"Stop liking what I don't like" isn't a basis for establishing the contents of an art museum. Just because you don't consider it to be art doesn't automatically make it non-art.
 
2012-12-10 05:17:40 PM  

ManateeGag: I thought they were supposed to be creating jobs with all their millions.


The dirty truth is the super rich are really just very inefficient consumers. The buy a lot over priced and inefficiently created goods and services. The poor are also inefficient consumers because they are forced by necessity to buy crap.
 
2012-12-10 05:55:19 PM  

rebelyell2006: farkeruk: rebelyell2006: Interestingly enough, there are museums and archives dedicated to preserving cinema and other aspects of today's popular culture. However, there is still plenty of public interest in the past.

That's because paint was pinnacle of artistic creation when Monet, Rembrant and Michaelangelo were doing it. If Stanley Kubrick had been alive 500 years ago he'd have been a painter, and Gauguin would be directing movies today.

Look at the rise of cinema and the decline of art. After Picasso, Hopper and Rockwell, you don't have much painting that's worth bothering with. It's either a farking dot on a canvas or some conceptual shiat.

"Stop liking what I don't like" isn't a basis for establishing the contents of an art museum. Just because you don't consider it to be art doesn't automatically make it non-art.


hooper and sesame??
 
2012-12-10 06:26:25 PM  
then we should take all their money!
 
2012-12-10 08:36:06 PM  
So?

Someone want to tell me whose fathersticking business it is where people spend their money?

I know many Farkers who gladly spend $100 or more for a little bag of schwag which cost ten cents---or less---to produce, and then as soon as they have done so, burn it in a pipe and destroy it.

I know many more who will spend $50+ on a bottle of whiskey which cost $1.00 to manufacture, only to drink it, and then turn it into piss, all so they can vomit or feel miserable the next day.

Logical? Not very, but we do it anyway.
 
2012-12-10 10:34:00 PM  

olddinosaur: So?

Someone want to tell me whose fathersticking business it is where people spend their money?

I know many Farkers who gladly spend $100 or more for a little bag of schwag which cost ten cents---or less---to produce, and then as soon as they have done so, burn it in a pipe and destroy it.

I know many more who will spend $50+ on a bottle of whiskey which cost $1.00 to manufacture, only to drink it, and then turn it into piss, all so they can vomit or feel miserable the next day.

Logical? Not very, but we do it anyway.


Yeah? Well, I know some people who spend a significant fraction of what they make on food, even though it'll just end up as shiat and they'll be hungry again next week! What a bunch of tards, amirite????
 
2012-12-10 10:38:23 PM  

rebelyell2006: "Stop liking what I don't like" isn't a basis for establishing the contents of an art museum. Just because you don't consider it to be art doesn't automatically make it non-art.


Yes it does!

scottberkun.com
 
2012-12-11 12:01:55 AM  
I bet that there is a direct correlation between lowering taxes on the rich and a rise in the price of art.
 
2012-12-11 12:33:45 AM  
The rich always use art as an appreciable asset. It's a safe place to store your wealth. Some of them even care about the art, if you can believe that. Since an art bubble doesn't affect me in any way, I really don't care how much of it they buy.
 
2012-12-11 01:39:21 AM  
The rich don't buy gold "art" coins. They buy art. They leave gold coins to suckers.

Right now they are probably locking in the massive profits they and their bailed-out corporations have been making during the "recovery", which so far is mostly restricted to Wall Street and the Hamptons. (Although the unemployment rate is now down to mere Canadian levels.)

Buy some crap art, get an inflated receipt, kick back some of the giant tax deduction to the dealer and stick the crap into a museum so as to avoid paying taxes on it until you sell it at an inflated profit to a greater fool than you in a decade or two.

?

Profit.

It beats flipping houses.
 
2012-12-11 01:43:51 AM  

mrlewish: Um Tax shelter.

1. Buy "art" for exorbitant price.
2. buy domicile in place with lax tax rules
3. Move some household goods including "art" to new place
4. sell art to someone else that needs to move a large amount of money around.
5. Keep all the money and now money is moved (laundered)
6. Profit


Apart from $100 bills, art is the number one currency of the "legitimate business man". You've just described how drug and other organized crime money moves around the world (when it isn't simply laundered by a "legitimate" bank, which is surprisingly common).
 
Displayed 21 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report