Why do people buy works of art for £50m when people are dying in the world...?

Solly · May 18, 2003, 14:51

Watching the Mr Bean film got me thinking.

How can a simple picture be worth so much when you can get something similar from the local art shop for £100? A picture of a woman sitting sidewards from the artist is little short of bollocks. Mona Lisa should be worth a couple hundred quid.

I think art lovers are selfish. The money they spend on paintings could easily be given to developing countries. There are many and far more beautiful things in the world than a portrait.

HisMajestyBOB · May 18, 2003, 14:52

Starving Ethiopians don't look good on the wall.

Imran Siddiqui · May 18, 2003, 14:54

Because they can.

Solly · May 18, 2003, 14:54

"Because they can."

I'm wondering what the arty-farty left-wingers are going to say.

Az · May 18, 2003, 14:55

That's a good question, Bods. But honestly, expecting people to part with their money volountarily is often expecting too much.

That's why we must steal it from them by collecting taxes.

DAVOUT · May 18, 2003, 15:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
Watching the Mr Bean film got me thinking.

How can a simple picture be worth so much when you can get something similar from the local art shop for £100? A picture of a woman sitting sidewards from the artist is little short of bollocks. Mona Lisa should be worth a couple hundred quid.

I think art lovers are selfish. The money they spend on paintings could easily be given to developing countries. There are many and far more beautiful things in the world than a portrait.

The only thing I demand wealthy people to do with their money is to spend it. Whatever legal spending is good for the economy. With this in mind, buying art works at cosmic prices is just better : they give back the money to the community without a counterpart you would bother to possess.

Cruddy · May 18, 2003, 15:02

Everybody dies. It's how you live that's important.

If they were going to spend that £50 million on birth control, I'd be all for it. Education, excellent. Infrastruture development, a worthy cause.

Giving it to them to make more babies isn't really helping the situation, is it?

And it's no good handing it to the actual govt of the developing country. You'd have to move house and do the job yourself.

As for why old masters are priced as they are - you are obviously not in the art business. If you were, you'd be all for it.

Frogman · May 18, 2003, 15:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
Watching the Mr Bean film got me thinking.

How can a simple picture be worth so much when you can get something similar from the local art shop for £100? A picture of a woman sitting sidewards from the artist is little short of bollocks. Mona Lisa should be worth a couple hundred quid.

I think art lovers are selfish. The money they spend on paintings could easily be given to developing countries. There are many and far more beautiful things in the world than a portrait.

What hypocritical crap. You sit there on the computer and pretend to be more moral and care more than anyone else. Jesus said the poor will always be with us, you can't use them as an excuse not to enjoy the beauty in the world.

I hope you feel guilty enough for the rest of us. Sell your computer, give the money to the poor, and then you won't have to bother us with this drivel again.

Lincoln · May 18, 2003, 16:02

This reminds me of the man who died and went before "St. Peter":

Peter: Well sir, what did you do to deserve heaven?

Man: Well, let me think. Oh yeah, I gave a dime once to a guy on the street for a cup of coffee.

Peter to an angel standing nearby: Give him his dime back and send him to hell!

Ming · May 18, 2003, 16:13

Bodd's... After you sell all your stuff, and give every bit of money you have to the poor... then you can give other people grief on what they do with money.

Until then... you are just as bad as the people you are trying to abuse...

BeBro · May 18, 2003, 16:18

Why do people waste lots of money for fancy cars when other people in the world still have to walk?

Lorizael · May 18, 2003, 18:06

Expensive things are a symbol of wealth. People enjoy displaying their high social status.

And money to pay for expensive pieces of art does not help the economy. It goes from one rich person to another rich person and never touches the actual consumers who need it.

arty-farty left-wingers?

I like art. And I'm a lefty. But I won't defend the actions of selfish rich people. Stop labeling people, stop making stereotypes, stop assuming.

Nubclear · May 18, 2003, 18:36

Quote:

What hypocritical crap. You sit there on the computer and pretend to be more moral and care more than anyone else. Jesus said the poor will always be with us, you can't use them as an excuse not to enjoy the beauty in the world.

I hope you feel guilty enough for the rest of us. Sell your computer, give the money to the poor, and then you won't have to bother us with this drivel again.

Fez?! Is that you?!

Inverse Icarus · May 18, 2003, 18:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
Watching the Mr Bean film got me thinking.

How can a simple picture be worth so much when you can get something similar from the local art shop for £100? A picture of a woman sitting sidewards from the artist is little short of bollocks. Mona Lisa should be worth a couple hundred quid.

I think art lovers are selfish. The money they spend on paintings could easily be given to developing countries. There are many and far more beautiful things in the world than a portrait.

art is nothing but a show of affluence, or, in my opinion, decadence. i just have SO MUCH FREAKING MONEY i need to BUY SOMETHING TO PUT ON MY WALL.

i never understood it. i'm just not like that i suppose. i can admire art, but i dont see why anyone should privately own it. art is often a thing of beauty, and all should be able to see it. state-run museuems should showcase the art. thats all. poof.

now, let's get into why we pay a guy millions of dollars to hit a ball with a bat, while scientists scramble for funding / people starve on our streets.

Lorizael · May 18, 2003, 18:54

Because people won't pay hundreds of dollars to watch a scientist do experiments.

Although... I might...

Inverse Icarus · May 18, 2003, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael
Because people won't pay hundreds of dollars to watch a scientist do experiments.

Although... I might...

people shouldn't have that much capital to begin with.

GePap · May 18, 2003, 18:59

Wouldn't this question apply to every single luxury item? Why do you need jewlery? Why do you need mansions, sports cars, blah, blah , blah? Of course, it would also apply to fast food, SUV's, and any other source of conspicuous consumption, now wouldn't it?

People pay 50 million becuase it is worth that much to them and they have that money to spend. Pure, and simple.

DAVOUT · May 19, 2003, 05:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Lorizael
Expensive things are a symbol of wealth. People enjoy displaying their high social status.

And money to pay for expensive pieces of art does not help the economy. It goes from one rich person to another rich person and never touches the actual consumers who need it.

arty-farty left-wingers?

I like art. And I'm a lefty. But I won't defend the actions of selfish rich people. Stop labeling people, stop making stereotypes, stop assuming.

All big art collectionS end in public museum.

Unless art collectors invest only in art works, and between themselves, it is not correct to state that the proceeds of art worls sales go only to rich men; ultimately it participates in the total economy.

Lancer · May 19, 2003, 05:19

Why do people buy $2 beers when people are starving in the world? Well, people need a beer now and again. Certainly the need of a person staring at starvation is fantasticly greater, but they are not the ones w/ the $2.

A person giving up that $2 for the need of the starving person is...

Cruddy · May 19, 2003, 05:40

Quote:

Originally posted by HisMajestyBOB
Starving Ethiopians don't look good on the wall.

Shhhhhh! You'll start a new trend if you're not careful!

cia · May 19, 2003, 06:35

The issues are unrelated so get over it.

Solly · May 19, 2003, 12:21

I don't really believe in the implications of the thread title BTW..just thought I'd throw it out there at is usually the left-wing art-lovers who are complaining about western governments spending money on defence instead of on Africans who won't use a condom.

reds4ever · May 19, 2003, 12:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
I don't really believe in the implications of the thread title BTW..just thought I'd throw it out there at is usually the left-wing art-lovers who are complaining about western governments spending money on defence instead of on Africans who won't use a condom.

Are you going to change your user name to Houdini?

MikeH · May 19, 2003, 12:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
I don't really believe in the implications of the thread title BTW..just thought I'd throw it out there at is usually the left-wing art-lovers who are complaining about western governments spending money on defence instead of on Africans who won't use a condom.

Yeah, why waste $50 million when you could spend £7 billion on an aircraft carrier. That's like 140 paintings!

http://www.futureaircraftcarrier.co.uk/default.asp

Az · May 19, 2003, 12:51

money better spent.

Solly · May 19, 2003, 13:44

Yeah, I'd prefer us to have better national security than a picture by some idiot from the elite on the wall.

Drogue · May 19, 2003, 14:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Boddington's
I'm wondering what the arty-farty left-wingers are going to say.

I thought it was right-wingers that believe you should be able to do whatever you want with your money?

Why does anyone invest money, buy property, by designer clothes, etc.? Why do people build football stadiums, or watch sports, or have big cars, etc.? Because they want to, and are prepared to pay for it.

It costs that much, because that is what people are prepared to pay for an item of beauty. If there is only one of something, it will go to whoever is prepared to pay the most, and for something that a lot of people want, that will be a lot of money.

Quote:

I'd throw it out there at is usually the left-wing art-lovers who are complaining about western governments spending money on defence instead of on Africans who won't use a condom.

Yes, but it's not Government money going on art, it's personal money. If someone wants to go buy an aircraft carrier, and has the money, good luck to them. I just don't want someone using my money to buy that aircraft carrier. The same with art. Besides, with the way modern art is going, it won't be long before someone uses an aircraft carrier

orange · May 19, 2003, 15:07

i don't have a problem with the person buying the art. I have a problem with the pesron having 50 million dollars to spend. If he had less money, the price of the art would fall anyway, and the poor would have something to eat. Simply put, of course.

Drogue · May 19, 2003, 15:16

True. I agree with that, although without forcing wealth distribution, I don't see that happening. I'm all for a supertax, maybe 70%, for high income earners, but I really don't like the idea of wealth tax. Money should only be taxed once, however highly it is, IMHO.

Provost Harrison · May 19, 2003, 15:21

These pieces of art should be the property of the people because they are part of world heritage, and thus, shouldn't have a value...but should be accessible to all. And theft? Where are you going to sell the Mona Lisa, for example...the only exception to this is a private buyer who wants the picture...