Wow...This is downright wasteful #2

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Wed May 05, 2004 11:40 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 682127.stm

You can hark on about it being an important part of our culture! You can whisper that "some" of the money will go to charitable causes!! You can flatualate that art is life ect ect. BOLLOX

Its a peice of canvas with a fairly decent picture on it, if you like it fine, move on to the next one.

Can anyone think of anything better to do with 104 million dollars.. i wonder if the 2 million sudanese kids that are currently eating their own faeces would like it hanging on the wall.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu May 06, 2004 12:48 am

i guess that was part of the charm of the buyer being anonymous: no pointing fingers.

some artworks are very personal to people, after just buying some personal artwork myself, i can see how someone would pay huge chunks outof their disposable income for an artwork that really "means something" to them personally.

still... like you i'm not sure why people with so much disposable income don't use it to enpower the greater good, instead of just hoarding it and then once in a while splurging on something for themselves like this.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Thu May 06, 2004 12:54 am

As my friend would say, commie bullsht. If you have $100mil to spend on artwork, surely you would have much, much more than that at your disposal. Chances are said person has already spent more than that on charity for the purposes of reducing taxes.

Granted the sum total of my personal artwork collection is less than 2 grand, so there may be an issue of scale there.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Thu May 06, 2004 12:58 am

a dollar says some eccentric billionaire got that for his 17 room mansion.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Thu May 06, 2004 5:15 am

Don't get yer commie comment but never mind!

If a person had loads of money apart from the 100 mill he spent on a pretty picture, and with that extra bit of money he gave to charity. It still wouldn't mean that he didn't pay that 100 mill for for a pretty picture. You see what i mean? It's not commie it's obscene.

And the argument that "if it's his money he can do what he wants with it", dosn't cut it with me either.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Thu May 06, 2004 5:51 am

One of the reasons I complained in the other thread was because marketers are wasting more and more natural resources in order to market us. The only thing I see wasted here is money, which isnt a real resource in terms of raw materials. If some rich bastard wants to waste their money, thats their perrogative. Whatever.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu May 06, 2004 6:50 am

ya i spose so.
money really has no worth. it's only worth is put on it by a society that recognises it as valueable. gold is kinda pretty and shiny, so it has SOME use.

but it's not like he was throwing away 100tons of FOOD, it's just money.
although with that money he could have bought and shipped a great amount of food to wherever he wanted.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Thu May 06, 2004 7:19 am

Money has no worth? Ok! Forget food.

(not the best way to fight starvation in the long term anyway, funnily enough, but thats another thread)

Money has the power and worth to do good. Think of somthing good to do with it instead of a buying a picture. never mind. I really have to stop getting pissed off about these things.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 06, 2004 7:25 am

I think the circle of people that pay those ultra high prices do it to show off. They drive the price up at auctions and rationalize their excessive spending because the 'market' supports the price.

Just envision a rich bastard chasing his own tail to show off to other rich bastards who are cheering him on...
The problem is, when the chasing is done all he really has is a mouthfull of his own a$$.

bash · Post by **bash** » Thu May 06, 2004 7:36 am

FC, look at it a different way. Not only did someone pay for this, someone got paid. That will be taxed. Art collecting is an investment for alot of folks, like any sort of collecting, just on a much grander scale. In all likelihood it will be placed in a museum with a shiney sign indicating who is the owner who generously loaned it to the museum. Hence, the public gets to see it, it generates income and taxes for the museum and state and the real owner gets to enhance his reputation and shelter his money for a few years. Everyone wins, but Picasso, but he's dead so no harm, no foul.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Thu May 06, 2004 8:52 am

104 million for a painting. That seems retarded. I'd laugh if the cat used it for a scratching post.

Did you notice that there was an 11 million dollar commission on that? Wow.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Thu May 06, 2004 9:21 am

bash wrote:Art collecting is an investment for alot of folks, like any sort of collecting, just on a much grander scale.

Perhaps not necessarily the most shrewd of investments, but an investment no less. If some rich fellow wants to blow what would be the accumulated life savings of eight dozen people for a silly Picasso, that's his prerogative.

Never liked Picasso's art. Never have.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu May 06, 2004 9:23 am

To add to what bash said...

Somebody spent $104,000,000 on this painting -- and somebody else got the $104,000,000. Money, unlike food, doesn't disintegrate after its first use. If six people decide to pass $104,000,000 amongst themselves several times over, and then the very last one gives it to charity, that's not much different from if the very first person gave the $104,000,000 to charity at the very start (aside from taxes and such.)

According to the news story, the painting was sold by the Greentree Foundation. A google search shows this to be a foundation that owns a LOT of art, and also a foundation that helps a LOT of people in a lot of different ways. For example, they're listed as one of the major funders of Interfaith Neighbors which "is dedicated to helping at-risk children in East Harlem to succeed in school, discover their strengths and build healthy and happy lives through programs and services that support the whole child." They're also listed by the Partnership for After School Education, The River Project, Family Place Libraries, rural development leadership network, and so forth.

Be careful not to declare someone "wasteful" just because they spend a lot of money on something you don't think is worth it. I know people who've spent a thousand dollars on cookies before -- but when you realize it was at a charity auction, that number becomes far less absurd. I don't know all of the details about the painting listed above, but I doubt anyone else here does either, so we should be careful not to pass judgement too quickly...

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Thu May 06, 2004 10:24 am

If six people pass on 104 million between them and the last one gives to charity, you've got quite a few pennies interest that's pocketed inbetween, and a nice little tax right off, but thats just being picky.

If your going to a fund raiser, you don't give a monkies how the cookies taste because you know you're giving your money to a charity. You don't start declaring the cookies are a social comment upon 19th century teen angst so they must be worth 1000 dollars. Or that the anguish of the cook that baked the cookies, as she burnt her fingers when removing them from her oven must mean that the they're worth so much. No. You're giving your hard earn't 1000 dollars to a charity, and your gonna have somthing to dunk in your coffee for you trouble.

This picasso on the other hand, like i said before: and your beutiful logic can't convince me, is wasteful. Forgive me i'm a farmer.

EDIT: And don't come back at me with a bloody farming or descent analogy. (i'm getting to know you)

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu May 06, 2004 10:52 am

Do you suppose the person who bought it knew who was selling it?

I'd imagine they did -- and I'd imagine, therefore, they knew that a large portion of their $104 million is going to end up funding worthwhile charities. So it may, or may not, be all that different from a charity auction where you buy a plate of cookies for a thousand dollars. Here, they talk about "19th century teen angst", and at the charity auction, you talk about "the sugar cookies are excellent!" The person who bought it may have done so because they thought the painting itself was worth $104,000,000 or they may have bought it because they thought Greentree would use the $93,000,000 well and they wanted a nice painting for the trouble. They might have even given $104,000,000 to starving Sudanese children last week without our knowledge. The point is, neither of us were there, and neither of us knows the buyer, so we don't know.

I'm not going to stand up and say it's not at all wasteful -- there is, as you mentioned, the issue of taxes, interest, and in this case $11 million comes off the top for the auction house. But unless you know the guy who bought the painting, you can't really say how wasteful it was. Besides, it's not like the taxes and interest and commission disintegrate after use -- that money, too, will circulate through the economy. Yeah, maybe giving $104,000,000 directly to a certain charity would've been less wasteful -- but I'm not too worried about it. If I had that kind of money, I'd do things differently, but I'm not going to fault someone for spending $104,000,000 on a painting they knew was being sold by a charity. Without knowing who bought it or what they were thinking, I can't bring myself to criticize them. I've had far too many times where someone has commented on my spending habits without understanding them (for example: once, a friend saw my bank account and commented that I should be able to afford to help him pay his rent... he didn't realize that I'd given an "anonymous donation" for that very purpose a few days before.) I've seen criticism like this enough times from the other side to know better.

(lol @ your edit... "it's like when you fire a napalm rocket in multi... and then you go down to the farm and plant a bunch of roses to signify the angst of the pyros you just killed... it's just like that.")

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Thu May 06, 2004 12:14 pm

Flabby Chick wrote:Don't get yer commie comment but never mind!

Essentially your comment rests on the fact that there's a huge difference in scale between somebody who can spend that kind of cash on a picture, and people who can't pay for food. I'm simply saying that there is always somebody worse off than you, and they may see what you do as wasteful, and can use the exact same argument you are against yourself. Therefore the only time your comment would not be true is if there was a perfect redistribution of wealth, and I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Thu May 06, 2004 12:43 pm

My comment rested, as you say, first off, that 104 mill for a bit of paper with oil based paint on it is a tad over the top. Secondly that the money would be better off in the hands of some cause that is in need of it. I said nothing about scales and such. I think maybe you misunderstood me, like i completely misunderstand your icon.

Tetrad wrote: Therefore the only time your comment would not be true is if there was a perfect redistribution of wealth, and I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

Heh! Well i live the life Tet.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Thu May 06, 2004 1:30 pm

Oh I don't misunderstand you, I understand exactly where you're coming from. I'm just selfish enough to realize that I wouldn't want people using the exact same argument against my lavish purchases, so I don't use it myself.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu May 06, 2004 2:20 pm

Totally off topic here:
Isn't it ok to use the Nazi 'word' when using it on ones self?
I mean, it's not like he can trivialize Hitlers deeds by refering to his moderating tactics as Nazi-like because those deeds were so horrific nothing could desensitize us to them.

I understand the feelings of the jews, or anyone for that matter, who are offended by people who invoke the Nazi tag to use on their enemies who usually don't hold a candle to the real Nazi's in the arena of evil. But to use it in jest, in a self depricating manner seems outside the realm of bad taste or desensitizing us to an evil.

:just my anti-politically correct nature kicking in, return to your regularily scheduled debate at this time

:

[edit] Heh, I was responding to Bash's post about Tetrads icon, a post which was right above this post and under Tetrads last one but it seems to have disappeared

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Thu May 06, 2004 6:09 pm

you're right, it *is* totally off topic -- and you also violated the fundamental rule of responding to bash ("quote him just in case") ;)

Back on topic please.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu May 06, 2004 7:28 pm

Take a different perspective. The painting is a one of the kind item. In 2 or 3 years it could go for 150 mil. on the auction block. Wasteful? I'd say a good investment.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am

the Greentree foundation will use that money to buy more art

.
it is so expensive, to guarentee that the purchaser will realise the cultural worth of the painting.

in otherwords, the painting will be kept in immaculate condition. joe average didn't (couldn't!) buy it and shove it in his dirty garage.

i guess the painting is kindof like a monarchy eh.
put it on a throne, keep it in emaculate condition, and everyone feels better because they see it as a symbol of their cultural identity, now SAFE.

hmm, it's kindof like the space program eh. ppl with money doing what they think (but not everyone) is cool. there's ppl that think the money should be used for something else, but also theres a lot of ppl that can't imagine a world without that kindof space exploration.

i guess to carry the analogy along. if nasa didn't exist then space travel would probabaly have started off the same way as aeroplanes: a hobby of eccentric noblemen.
so if we lived in a world where paintings like this wern't held in such high regard, with such high pricetags. then there'd probabaly be great art on every street corner. or maybe not, maybe the great artworks not being held in such high regard would have stifled the popular public's interest in the arts, and our art today would not be anywhere near where we are now.

and to swing back to nasa, maybe we'd all by driving spacecars by now!

haha come marvel at my amazing inability to keep a point going in one direction.

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri May 07, 2004 8:00 am

Sorry, Will. I'm trying to be more discriminating at picking my fights. Flabby's softer approach (flabbier?

) will likely produce results better than my often more abrasive method. Hence, I decided the cause would be better served by leaving it up to Flabby if he wants to press the issue. He can justifiably claim direct injury that I cannot.