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.

(The Local)   Factory worker who bought paintings by Gauguin and Bonnard for $20 says auctioneer almost threw them in the trash because nobody wanted them   (thelocal.it) divider line 41
    More: Followup, paintings, Frank Grillo  
•       •       •

4897 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Apr 2014 at 1:35 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-03 01:39:19 PM
the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.
 
2014-04-03 01:40:43 PM
Gauguin? More like Gougin', amirite?
 
2014-04-03 01:40:58 PM

Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.


Yeah it's kind of depressing. Nobody gave a shiat about this art and now that it has a pedigree its worth millions. Still the same goddamn painting.
 
2014-04-03 01:41:38 PM
This should surprise no one who's actually looked at fancy artwork.
 
2014-04-03 01:42:32 PM
Simpsons did it
 
2014-04-03 01:45:14 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Still the same goddamn painting.


I agree, but with a caveat.

Gaugin did great works of art.  This doesn't have to be one of them to be valuable, because it was done by a great master.  Clearly, on its face it doesn't set the world on fire, but as part of a greater body of work (perhaps representative of his development or a certain transitional phase of the artist) it is compelling to the art collecting community.

But yeah, to me it's worth about what he paid at auction.
 
2014-04-03 01:47:03 PM

Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.


Is there anything you cant blame the rich for?
 
2014-04-03 01:48:43 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Yeah it's kind of depressing. Nobody gave a shiat about this art and now that it has a pedigree its worth millions. Still the same goddamn painting.



this is why The People (Democracy) is so important.  untimately, The People decide what Art is.  just because some guy with a few million to spend on it does not make it Art.  it takes a Society to decide what Art is and is not.

and when you mix Art and business, the results are not good. just ask the failing music 'industry'.
 
2014-04-03 01:52:04 PM

Linux_Yes: HotWingConspiracy: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Yeah it's kind of depressing. Nobody gave a shiat about this art and now that it has a pedigree its worth millions. Still the same goddamn painting.


this is why The People (Democracy) is so important.  untimately, The People decide what Art is.  just because some guy with a few million to spend on it does not make it Art.  it takes a Society to decide what Art is and is not.

and when you mix Art and business, the results are not good. just ask the failing music 'industry'.


What happens when you mix punctuation with mild schizophrenia?
 
2014-04-03 01:53:02 PM
Actually many of the great artists did not profit off of their own work.  Many were the equivilent of those spray paint artists you see hawking their wares on street corners in NYC or at county fairs.
 
2014-04-03 01:53:29 PM

MyRandomName: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Is there anything you cant blame the rich for?



i can't blame them for raping this Nation broke and laughing all the way to their overseas tax shelters.  it would be very hard to resist not doing that if i had the opportunity.  most wealth is inherited anyway, so they're just doing what Human Nature demands. most of them are decent people. they don't know any better. like 10 year olds, they think that,somehow, all that wealth is going to save them.  its in our Nature to delude ourselves.

Money/Wealth is not evil. its the Love of money and wealth and the willingness to do anything you can get away with to get more and more that is the disease in this fading Democratic Republic.
 
2014-04-03 01:55:15 PM

evilmrsock: Linux_Yes: HotWingConspiracy: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Yeah it's kind of depressing. Nobody gave a shiat about this art and now that it has a pedigree its worth millions. Still the same goddamn painting.


this is why The People (Democracy) is so important.  untimately, The People decide what Art is.  just because some guy with a few million to spend on it does not make it Art.  it takes a Society to decide what Art is and is not.

and when you mix Art and business, the results are not good. just ask the failing music 'industry'.

What happens when you mix punctuation with mild schizophrenia?



you get Grammer Police who have nothing better to do and who don't realize that this is not a Published work. this is an informal blog.

nice try, though.
 
2014-04-03 01:55:56 PM
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-03 01:56:43 PM
Why would they not go back to the estate of the original owner that reported them stolen?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-04-03 01:56:48 PM
MyRandomName:

Is there anything you cant blame the rich for?

I was going to say the weather, but then I remembered that they've farked that up too.
 
2014-04-03 01:58:31 PM
"The young man said the family might sell off "one of the two" paintings, following the conclusion of an investigation by Rome prosecutors who are looking into whether they were bought in good faith." Um, no - they go back to the owners.  If they are lucky they'll get a finder's fee.
 
2014-04-03 01:59:57 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Yeah it's kind of depressing. Nobody gave a shiat about this art and now that it has a pedigree its worth millions. Still the same goddamn painting.


Well a print of the Mona Lisa is worth about what the canvas its on it worth, the original would be worth like eleventy brazilan if it was ever for sale, but they are both the same goddamn painting.
 
2014-04-03 02:00:39 PM

Linux_Yes: evilmrsock: Linux_Yes: HotWingConspiracy: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Yeah it's kind of depressing. Nobody gave a shiat about this art and now that it has a pedigree its worth millions. Still the same goddamn painting.


this is why The People (Democracy) is so important.  untimately, The People decide what Art is.  just because some guy with a few million to spend on it does not make it Art.  it takes a Society to decide what Art is and is not.

and when you mix Art and business, the results are not good. just ask the failing music 'industry'.

What happens when you mix punctuation with mild schizophrenia?


you get Grammer Police who have nothing better to do and who don't realize that this is not a Published work. this is an informal blog.

nice try, though.



damn, he didn't jump.  Grammar, not Grammer.  oh, well.
 
2014-04-03 02:08:43 PM

Inyego: Why would they not go back to the estate of the original owner that reported them stolen?


I was wondering that, especially this bit:

"The young man said the family might sell off "one of the two" paintings, following the conclusion of an investigation by Rome prosecutors who are looking into whether they were bought in good faith."

Surely, whether they were bought in "good faith" or not is purely down to whether the current possessor is charged with a crime or not.

Ownership wise it doesn't matter one bit if it was a good-faith purchase or not, they still belong to the person (or their estate) from whom they were stolen, or the insurance company who paid out on them if they were insured.
 
2014-04-03 02:09:34 PM
My sister bought a Joseph Herman http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artists/josef-herman-1276 at a tag sale for $2. Gave it to me, I hung it in my boss' office for a couple years, he didn't like it, so I took it home.
Researched it at the local museum, Yale Museum for British Art. Turns out it's worth a pretty penny.

/Nice
//$1500 Nice
///slashies are nice, too.
 
2014-04-03 02:25:46 PM

Pinko_Commie: Inyego: Why would they not go back to the estate of the original owner that reported them stolen?

I was wondering that, especially this bit:

"The young man said the family might sell off "one of the two" paintings, following the conclusion of an investigation by Rome prosecutors who are looking into whether they were bought in good faith."

Surely, whether they were bought in "good faith" or not is purely down to whether the current possessor is charged with a crime or not.

Ownership wise it doesn't matter one bit if it was a good-faith purchase or not, they still belong to the person (or their estate) from whom they were stolen, or the insurance company who paid out on them if they were insured.


OK, it would seem that this logic doesn't hold true.

Italy operates under "Market Ouvert" and after 10 years, any good faith purchase legally becomes property of the purchaser(citations in here).
 
2014-04-03 02:28:54 PM
I envy that worker. But as for money and Art, how much is a poem by Keats worth? How much is the "Moses Supposes" dance number in Singin' in the Rain worth? Etc.  We were at the Tate and there in the hall was a beautiful deer by Henri Gaudier-Brzeska. So beautiful it would take your breath away. I'm sure it was a reproduction. The reproduction would probably be valued at a couple of thousand dollars. But it was, for all practical purposes, identical to the original stored in the Tate basement somewhere. Which is probably valued at multiple tens of millions. I would love to have that reproduction in my house.
 
2014-04-03 02:30:57 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Yeah it's kind of depressing. Nobody gave a shiat about this art and now that it has a pedigree its worth millions. Still the same goddamn painting.


And the CIA.  They sponsored Abstract Expressionism to show those Commies what Freedom can yield.

BBC did a big article on it a few months ago, based on recently declassified documents.
 
2014-04-03 02:49:27 PM

SirHolo: HotWingConspiracy: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Yeah it's kind of depressing. Nobody gave a shiat about this art and now that it has a pedigree its worth millions. Still the same goddamn painting.

And the CIA.  They sponsored Abstract Expressionism to show those Commies what Freedom can yield.

BBC did a big article on it a few months ago, based on recently declassified documents.


What's next?  Will it be revealed that punk rock, heavy metal, rap and that weird mid-80s to mid-90s performance art craze were sponsored by the government for the same reasons?
 
2014-04-03 02:53:11 PM

evilmrsock: Linux_Yes: HotWingConspiracy: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Yeah it's kind of depressing. Nobody gave a shiat about this art and now that it has a pedigree its worth millions. Still the same goddamn painting.


this is why The People (Democracy) is so important.  untimately, The People decide what Art is.  just because some guy with a few million to spend on it does not make it Art.  it takes a Society to decide what Art is and is not.

and when you mix Art and business, the results are not good. just ask the failing music 'industry'.

What happens when you mix punctuation with mild schizophrenia?


Ke$ha?
 
2014-04-03 02:56:08 PM
 
2014-04-03 03:01:39 PM

Linux_Yes: HotWingConspiracy: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Yeah it's kind of depressing. Nobody gave a shiat about this art and now that it has a pedigree its worth millions. Still the same goddamn painting.


this is why The People (Democracy) is so important.  untimately, The People decide what Art is.  just because some guy with a few million to spend on it does not make it Art.  it takes a Society to decide what Art is and is not.

and when you mix Art and business, the results are not good. just ask the failing music 'industry'.


I don't think it's exactly correct to say that's how art is valued.  It's more like, pretty much anything collectable.  It's only worth as much as a collector is willing to pay.  This is true for everything from coins to baseball cards to paintings.
The fact that the rich pay for shiat for bragging rights is a side effect.
 
2014-04-03 03:03:11 PM

Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.


Which is only a more recent development. Value of art used to be based in portion on quality. Arts value, and skill of the artists, was based on how well the artist was able to capture light/shadow, form, the human figure and expressions, etc.

Even a laymen was able to look at a Van Eyck and know talent, and value was tied to that.

Enter Modern Art, which removed  the element of skill from the process of creation. That is when assigning value and determining skill became more arbitrary, and let people (the wealthy) play the system as they saw fit.
 
2014-04-03 03:07:35 PM

joeflood: SirHolo: HotWingConspiracy: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Yeah it's kind of depressing. Nobody gave a shiat about this art and now that it has a pedigree its worth millions. Still the same goddamn painting.

And the CIA.  They sponsored Abstract Expressionism to show those Commies what Freedom can yield.

BBC did a big article on it a few months ago, based on recently declassified documents.

What's next?  Will it be revealed that punk rock, heavy metal, rap and that weird mid-80s to mid-90s performance art craze were sponsored by the government for the same reasons?


Since the government acts as though it owns this country and everything in it, this would not surprise me.
 
2014-04-03 03:07:54 PM

LemSkroob: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Which is only a more recent development. Value of art used to be based in portion on quality. Arts value, and skill of the artists, was based on how well the artist was able to capture light/shadow, form, the human figure and expressions, etc.

Even a laymen was able to look at a Van Eyck and know talent, and value was tied to that.

Enter Modern Art, which removed  the element of skill from the process of creation. That is when assigning value and determining skill became more arbitrary, and let people (the wealthy) play the system as they saw fit.


See above.
 
2014-04-03 03:14:50 PM

LemSkroob: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Which is only a more recent development. Value of art used to be based in portion on quality. Arts value, and skill of the artists, was based on how well the artist was able to capture light/shadow, form, the human figure and expressions, etc.

Even a laymen was able to look at a Van Eyck and know talent, and value was tied to that.

Enter Modern Art, which removed  the element of skill from the process of creation. That is when assigning value and determining skill became more arbitrary, and let people (the wealthy) play the system as they saw fit.


There was a Murphy Brown episode that pointed out this whole thing in a most amusing manner.  She had her 1-year old slap some paint on paper, and he immediately became a famouse artist, simply because the rich were trying to one-up each other.

I seriously think that that is SO true.  I'll cite Jackson Pollock as an example.  I mean, wow...  What the hell was that?!
 
2014-04-03 03:28:27 PM

OdradekRex: "The young man said the family might sell off "one of the two" paintings, following the conclusion of an investigation by Rome prosecutors who are looking into whether they were bought in good faith." Um, no - they go back to the owners.  If they are lucky they'll get a finder's fee.


A couple of things will come into play.

1) Was the loss insured? If so, was the claim setted?

2) Since the theft was in the UK and the sale was in Italy, which country has juristiction? (I'm going to guess UK).

If the claim was settled, then the former owner probably would not be able obtain possession without some compensation.

It is going to be messy.
 
2014-04-03 03:33:55 PM
I never did understand why some paintings are worth so much, especially if they are so unremarkable as to not be recognized as the work of a famous artist.

Also, if I could paint something comparable, it's not art IMO. I remember seeing a documentary about a painting thought to be by Jackson Polluck. It was just a bunch of paint splattered on a piece of canvass, literally.

I'm sure a lot of artists just throw some paint on a canvas and let others read meaning into it.
 
2014-04-03 03:37:20 PM

OdradekRex: "The young man said the family might sell off "one of the two" paintings, following the conclusion of an investigation by Rome prosecutors who are looking into whether they were bought in good faith." Um, no - they go back to the owners.  If they are lucky they'll get a finder's fee.


In the US, yes. I'm not familiar with the laws in other countries regarding situations like this.

It's possible the owners were already reimbursed by an insurance company.
 
2014-04-03 04:06:49 PM
Wait, so art doesn't have intrinsic value?
 
2014-04-03 04:25:04 PM

MyRandomName: Linux_Yes: the key is purchasing power.  if you pay enough money for something, it automatically becomes Art.


i.o.w, the Wealthy decide what Art is.

Is there anything you cant blame the rich for?


Poverty!  If the poor wanted money they would work for it.  Isn't that right Jeeves?
 
2014-04-03 05:27:07 PM

OdradekRex: "The young man said the family might sell off "one of the two" paintings, following the conclusion of an investigation by Rome prosecutors who are looking into whether they were bought in good faith." Um, no - they go back to the owners.  If they are lucky they'll get a finder's fee.


In a concept that may shock you, different legal systems have different rules for these sorts of things. In this case, the guy may very well get to keep them.
 
2014-04-04 03:05:35 AM
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-04 04:28:54 AM
Yeah, so, late to the party and no one will see this but what the hell:

I submitted this link first and with a better headline. For starters, it was actually funny. Which, according to the Fark tips, is what is supposed to trump headlines like, well, this one.

Don't tell me the Fark green-light system isn't biased.
 
2014-04-04 12:54:19 PM

brimed03: Yeah, so, late to the party and no one will see this but what the hell:

I submitted this link first and with a better headline. For starters, it was actually funny. Which, according to the Fark tips, is what is supposed to trump headlines like, well, this one.

Don't tell me the Fark green-light system isn't biased.


It is extremely biased.

/welcometofark.jpg
 
2014-04-04 02:29:55 PM
Oh dear God, I hope they never green anything you submit ever, you whiny b*tch.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report