CatalyticDragon t1_isljnuh wrote
I'd like to point out "fine art" such as this really only has value due to money laundering, speculation, and tax evasion.
Without those factors pumping up prices so the ultra rich can profit, nobody would think twice about a 19th century painting of some flowers. Van Gogh certainly couldn't have sold it for tens of millions. He was a commercial failure and only sold two paintings when he was alive.
Other important things to note is this stunt did not damage the painting at all and has likely increased its value.
gandhikahn t1_ispfuel wrote
No.
Sorry but no, you are close though. About 90% of Modern, Pop and Abstract have been created for tax evasion and money laundering since the 1973 Scull sale brought attention to such practices.
This painting doesn't fall into that category AT ALL.
I have an art history degree.
CatalyticDragon t1_iss7kra wrote
I'd quite like to know why you think so.
Given it was last sold for 25 million pounds to a Japanese insurance company at the peak of the 80s bubble when Japanese mega-corporations were all trying to outdo each other in displays of corporate excess I wonder how you might argue your case.
gandhikahn t1_isv93aw wrote
Go get an art history degree. It would take to long to explain and it's clear you already made up your mind.
CatalyticDragon t1_isvbovj wrote
You like telling people you have an art history degree but "art history" gives you little insight into tax law or modern financial vehicles, does it.
I'll come to you if I want to know which lacquers were popular in 15th century East Asian art or to get your thoughts on Civil War marine paintings.
If you can't explain something then you probably don't understand it. If you did you'd be able to explain and defend your stance.
gandhikahn t1_isw58p0 wrote
You're a douche, i don't owe you my time, blocked.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments