450 million dollars. For a painting.

https://www.ft.com/content/d70f4e8c-ca67-11e7-aa33-c63fdc9b8c6c

I don't want to live in a world where I'm told what I can and can't buy.  And I get that when the RICH buy expensive things it's good for the economy (yacht builders, and high end car manufacturers, etc).  But 450 million dollars for a painting(!)  I can't even get my head around that level of wealth, you certainly aren't working a few extra hours of overtime in order to pay that.

So here is my point, the upward concentration of capital has reached unprecedented levels.  The top 1% have half of all the money in the world.  Can we have the revolution already?  #fightclub

I hear a cement mixer starting up... 

Have to subscribe to be able to read the article. Yeah, $450 Million is incredible for a painting though.

Free Link Here

Time for an economics lesson

http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/HighSchool/Scarcity.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity_value

"There is extraordinary consensus it is by Leonardo"

Pretty berkeleying expensive "maybe" if you ask me.

In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) :

Hang in there buddy. Thats gonna come trickling down any minute now.

But seriously though, im a libertarian, and if a person wants to spend that kind of money on a painting, or jewelry or whatever thats their business. But im also a human, and knowing that there are people starving, or losing their homes, or are sick and cant afford treatment, this makes me sad. IBTL.

I'd like to paint something worth that much. Preferably in my lifetime.

And an ugly painting at that. Sorry, I know it's Jesus Christ, but I still wouldn't want to spend $450 million to look at that. If I'm going to spend $450 million on a painting it better be of Yvonne Strahovski or something.

NickD said:

And an ugly painting at that. Sorry, I know it's Jesus Christ, but I still wouldn't want to spend $450 million to look at that. If I'm going to spend $450 million on a painting it better be of Yvonne Strahovski or something.

It's technically well done, no doubt about it, but I'm just not digging Femenine White Jesus.

Appleseed said:

I'd like to paint something worth that much. Preferably in my lifetime.

Grab your paintbrushes and have at it! You too could produce a famous international money laundering token!

http://cavemancircus.com/2015/07/30/15-ridiculous-pieces-of-art-that-sold-for-millions-of-dollars/

Appleseed said:

I'd like to paint something worth that much. Preferably in my lifetime.

Look at Jackson Pollock, the dude just threw E36 M3 on a canvas and it was declared art. Which begs the question, what determines "good" abstract art from "bad" abstract art? Like, if I see a painting of a bowl of fruit and I go "Damn, I can reach into that painting and grab that apple and eat it" then that's a great painting, but what makes one dude's random splashing worth millions and the other guy's a lack of talent?

NickD said:

Appleseed said:

I'd like to paint something worth that much. Preferably in my lifetime.

Look at Jackson Pollock, the dude just threw E36 M3 on a canvas and it was declared art. Which begs the question, what determines "good" abstract art from "bad" abstract art? Like, if I see a painting of a bowl of fruit and I go "Damn, I can reach into that painting and grab that apple and eat it" then that's a great painting, but what makes one dude's random splashing worth millions and the other guy's a lack of talent?

The pretentiousness of the critic.

There is a lot of irony in a painting of Jesus selling for big money. "Something something sell all your crap and give the money to the poor......"

Fun facts: The price of this painting is about 6cUS for every man, woman and child alive today, and about 10% less than the annual GDP of Dominica, which was recently flattened by a hurricane (again) and could use some help.

Duke said:

NickD said:

Appleseed said:

I'd like to paint something worth that much. Preferably in my lifetime.

Look at Jackson Pollock, the dude just threw E36 M3 on a canvas and it was declared art. Which begs the question, what determines "good" abstract art from "bad" abstract art? Like, if I see a painting of a bowl of fruit and I go "Damn, I can reach into that painting and grab that apple and eat it" then that's a great painting, but what makes one dude's random splashing worth millions and the other guy's a lack of talent?

The pretentiousness of the critic.

Boy, I'm just going to start coming to you for all my nagging questions about the way of the world. First the "men in sitcoms" question and now this. 

NickD said:

Duke said:

NickD said:

Appleseed said:

I'd like to paint something worth that much. Preferably in my lifetime.

Look at Jackson Pollock, the dude just threw E36 M3 on a canvas and it was declared art. Which begs the question, what determines "good" abstract art from "bad" abstract art? Like, if I see a painting of a bowl of fruit and I go "Damn, I can reach into that painting and grab that apple and eat it" then that's a great painting, but what makes one dude's random splashing worth millions and the other guy's a lack of talent?

The pretentiousness of the critic.

Boy, I'm just going to start coming to you for all my nagging questions about the way of the world. First the "men in sitcoms" question and now this. 

Technically, he is right- some critic decided that art is worthy or not, which gives it value or not.

One other thing that I have discovered over time- people see art differently than each other- and also see different art types totally differenlty.  

For instance, I have no real concept of written word art- poetry or the writing masters- I don't get it at all.  Or visual art- some I like, some I don't.  For sure, I can't really tell what makes a Pollock worth anything.  

But I do get music.  I do really get a gut feeling going for some music- there is a real physical reaction to some music.

So it may be a stretch, but one has to assume that other people get that same reaction when looking at a painting or reading great literature.   Just because YOU don't get it does not mean other people don't get it.  So I've stopped judging what good or bad art is, and just go with what I like.

As for this piece?  Well, it's interesting that someone has so much disposable income to spend like that.  And rest assured, that money really means nothing, especially to the overall economy, since very little, if any, will ever reach into the real spending economy.  It will likely get passed on to their heirs.  And it's just as unlikely that it would have gotten into the spending economy from the buyers standpoint, as well.  This is just a piece of something that wealthy people use to measure each other.  And since they seem forced to do that over and over again, it's a good example that money does not buy you happiness.

GameboyRMH said:

Fun facts: The price of this painting is about 6cUS for every man, woman and child alive today, and about 10% less than the annual GDP of Dominica, which was recently flattened by a hurricane (again) and could use some help.

It's also roughly 9,000 times what the average US household earns in a year.

I wonder if there are any irreverent easter eggs hidden in this painting? Da Vinci liked to prank the Church, most famously with the Shroud of Turin.

In reply to KyAllroad (Jeremy) :

What it’s really all about is, “I can have something you can’t have.”  “That  makes me better than you.” 

It seems logical to assume that really wealthy people don't amass giant fortunes by being stupid with money, but then I see a story like this...

RevRico said:

"There is extraordinary consensus it is by Leonardo"

Pretty berkeleying expensive "maybe" if you ask me.

Also, didn't they recently start to believe that a lot of the stuff credited to Da Vinci, including the Mona Lisa, may not have actually have been done by him?

Yea it's expensive.

Politics aside it's possibly one of the only Leonardo DiVinci works in private hands. Then the hype beast came into play driving up the price even further. Art authentication is subjective and the alterations to the piece don't help. I'd be interested to see if it is actually restored or not.

Hopefully it stays somewhere on loan so it's publicly viewable instead of disappearing for another couple of decades.

There is a lot of good you could do with $450 million, buying a painting because its in short supply isn't one of them.  DoDo poop is in short supply, but It's not worth $450 mil. 

In reply to STM317 :Once you amass a giant fortune you have to do something with it.  

Some show off their wealth buy buying things others in their class can’t or won’t afford.  

Don't confuse wealth with riches. Rich people stay rich by not buying frivolous things. Wealthy people have amassed so much, they can blow 450 million on a painting and not even notice.