h a l f b a k e r yReplace "light" with "sausages" and this may work...
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
An international convention that prevents art of any sort being traded at a price above that which it was valued at (inflation adjusted) at the date of the artist's death.
This will prevent art being used as a mere investment vehicle, but rather appreciated for what it is, while still allowing the
artist to receive a reasonable income from their work during their lifetime.
Some art, which changes hands for millions of dollars in auction rooms is, quite frankly, rubbish - only valuable because the artist is dead and therefore the supply is fixed and finite.
[link]
|
| |
OK, so you're saying that if I happen to have a surplus Hockney, and my neighbour* wants to buy it for a large sum, somebody is going to prevent that from happening? |
|
| |
Frankly, if somebody wants to sell something and somebody else wants to buy it, then (a) as long as it's not a nuclear warhead it's nobody else's business and (b) how would anybody intervene? |
|
| |
More to the point, is there any particular reason why it should be illegal to invest in art? How about postage stamps? Should it be illegal to sell them above their face value? |
|
| |
Thankyou for so brilliantly illustrating the crass commercialism, venality and greed which has been the hallmark of the Buchanan family for milennia. |
|
| |
It's art. It's not about money. It shouldn't ever be about money. It's about beauty, originality, perception and aesthetics. We realise you struggle with these concepts, but keep trying. |
|
| |
// as long as it's not a nuclear warhead it's nobody else's business // |
|
| |
What's so special about nuclear warheads all of a sudden ? The technology is nearly 75 years old, and the novelty has worn off. The only governments not to have them are the Irish Republic, Tonga, and the Vatican*. |
|
| |
You can stand in front of the great steam roller of capitalism, but all you'll get is flattened. |
|
| |
//It's art. It's not about money.// |
|
| |
Ah, but you miss my point. My point was that if someone wants to sell at a price, and someone else wants to buy at a price, what business is it of anyone else? |
|
| |
Also, why fix the price when the artist dies? By that time, they have probably established a Reputation, which already inflates the price of their art. Why not simply say that all their works must be sold at the same price as their very first one? |
|
| |
Also besides, if //[s]ome art, which changes hands for millions of dollars in auction rooms is, quite frankly, rubbish//, then why do you care if it ends up locked in a vault somewhere? Surely that frees up more gallery space for pictures of fluffy kittens being mischeivous with a ball of wool? |
|
| |
Also finally, don't knock crass commercialism 'til you've tried it. |
|
| |
All that will happen is that Max's original Hockney
will be sold to his neighbour for £150, plus a £5m
"admin fee". It'll be like the Greek property market
in which property is always sold at hilariously low
historic valuations (on which tax is paid) with a
separate, much bigger, secret payment (on which tax
is not paid) to make the payment up to the market
rate. |
|
| |