LordAdam16 -

Okay - no worries on that score.

I think we have made as much points to one another about our respective views so no point flogging it any further. I was going to make a detailed response to your last, but I have thought better of it. Because in particular - it would waste time quibbling on details and not go to the root of my point. Therefore I wish to close by saying as follows in bullet points:

Summary of Position:

1. If it is purchased as an investment, no one can quarrel with that as anyone may invest as they please.

2. It is not certain that it is purchased as an Investment

3. Even if it is purchased as an investment it is not certain that that investment would appreciate in the manner you suggest, and certainly not interminably and infinitely as you suggest. Nothing appreciates infinitely.

4. There is a possibility that it is purchased for other reasons: some of these reasons could be: egocentricity, idiosyncrasy, eccentricity and as has been suggested by some: the reasons may be esoteric.

5. Regardless of the charitable work the purchaser may be involved in, where it is not purchased strictly as an investment, monies of that degree could be more commendably put to charitable causes: and there is no end to the charitable work available to be done in this regard.

6. If it is purchased for egocentricity, idiosyncrasy, eccentricity or esoteric reasons that would represent a disposition towards placing a premium on material factors above much higher and more commendable causes.

7. There is much inherited and chance fortune in the world and there is no reason to presume the buyer especially clever for that reason. Doing so will be an assumption.

8. While it is agreed that no one necessarily owes anyone else anything, there is much to be said for devoting ones resources to higher causes including the alleviation of suffering. Where vast amounts like that involved in this transaction could be diverted towards same, such is always commendable.

9. There are many people (even fabulously wealthy people) who would for their own world view consider this a lavish and vain glorious excess and they are entitled to such an opinion for themselves. I belong with such persons.

10. Remember the very valid point made by a contributor that such purchases are often high-end money laundering schemes. I do not see why you waved this aside. If it is a money laundering scheme (and the possibility for that remains just as high or even higher than the possibility that it is an investment) I am entitled to snarl at it in the same terms as I have been speaking.

I think I will leave it at that.

Other than this I would like to thank you for a rich discussion: my initial irritation at you arose only because of your own initial caustic responses. Many apologies and thank you. Good afternoon.

Artists and musicians interested in funding and travel opportunities: https://www.nairaland.com/4988355/opencall-artnoiseng-2019-programs-artists

@ LordAdam16 -

I hope this write up concerning donations made by the rich for the restoration of Notre Dame may raise a few pointers for you about some of what I tried to convey in this thread. - Mind you, neither I nor the writer condemn the donations - I do hope you are able to distill the useful points.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/notre-dame-feature-665670

DeepSight:

@ LordAdam16 -

I hope this write up concerning donations made by the rich for the restoration of Notre Dame may raise a few pointers for you about some of what I tried to convey in this thread. - Mind you, neither I nor the writer condemn the donations - I do hope you are able to distill the useful points.

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/notre-dame-feature-665670

That article is an embarrassment. Don't quote crap for me to read. My time is far more valuable than yours.

-Lord

Won't be surprised if it's a Qatari or some extremely wealthy gulf state that bought.

Also, could be anyone worth at least $30billiion for which we have probably up to 10 or higher now

adwem2003:
Am I the only one who thinks this is madness?

In 10 years time, it probably go for at least a billion. By then we'll probably have up to 10 guys worth up to a $100billion and the number of Chinese and Indian billionaires tripled.

If the buyer used debt to buy it, it will be a very profitable investment. Assuming the buyer puts 10% down and borrows the rest at 5% interest rate, he'll have expended $200m on interest payments. Total out of pocket cost for the painting is actually $245m over 10 years.

If he then decides to sell at a $1b, his profit will be $1b minus money borrowed, his down payment and interest rates.

Profit will be $1,000,000,000 - $405,000,000-$45,000,000 - $200m =$350m.

Net profit is $350m and he only paid out $245m out of his pocket. Not bad.

The painting will be flung for $1.3billion in 10 years time easily

LordAdam16:


That article is an embarrassment. Don't quote crap for me to read. My time is far more valuable than yours.

-Lord

Other than being rude (reference to the blue in the quote above) or presumptuous (reference to the red in the quote above) I would be most obliged if you are able to point out that which is embarrassing in the article.

I should also like to seriously ask if the reasons I found it worthwhile to draw to your attention (after so long) are entirely lost on you sir?

Many thanks.

DeepSight:


Other than being rude (reference to the blue in the quote above) or presumptuous (reference to the red in the quote above) I would be most obliged if you are able to point out that which is embarrassing in the article.

I should also like to seriously ask if the reasons I found it worthwhile to draw to your attention (after so long) are entirely lost on you sir?

Many thanks.

I'll indulge you. The premise on which the article was written is deeply flawed. I see it a lot amongst millennial far-left leaning writers even in more prestigious publications and it's infuriating.

The premise of that article is akin to saying that since the developed world can afford to send billions of dollars in aids to developing nations, then it means everyone on the entire planet can be fed. It is not just asinine, it is downright stupid.

Both men are economic overachievers. The rough nine million French people below the poverty line, and I say this compassionately, are economic underachievers. No one ever says because some people have an IQ of 130+, then everyone should be able to solve algebra.

Eliminating poverty as well as providing universal healthcare, affordable housing, and proper education to everyone is a noble goal. But the only reason we've even gotten to a point where only 13% of the French population is below the poverty line, which by the way are among the top 25% of the world's 8 billion, is because of the economy. It used to be much much worse in the past.

And as with anything in all of nature, there'd be those who overachieve and those who underachieve. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. France has a national budget of 1.2 trillion euros per annum. That excludes the budget of lower levels of government. France's welfare program cost 500b euros annually. Yet it's Bernard's $90b or Pinault's $30b (note total wealth, not annual) that somehow rubs the writer and like minded ilks the wrong way.

The world's 2000-odd billionaires have about $9t, if you took all of it and shared it leaving them penniless. It'd cover the annual budget of only the top 2 countries by budget size. What money would you guys share then for the next year and for people in the other 180+ countries? Would you confiscate the wealth of the millionaires next?

The financial illiteracy is appalling. The smartest way you guys can seem to think of to solve any problem is to take money that's never enough from someone else. China has 250+ billionaires, more than 4 million millionaires. They and the government have raised over 500 million people out of poverty within 30 years (poverty rate fell from 88% to 7%) and GDP per capita in the same time has gone from $350 to $8800, a 25x increase.

Yet, in spite of this amazing transformation, the heading of an op-ed that ranks high on Google for poverty in China from a so-called progressive writers has the following title: "Despite China's Fast-Growing Wealth, Millions Still Remain Poor."

Whoever reads that headline would not imagine this is a country that took 500 million people out of poverty. You always have to focus on the those who are currently poor by pitting them against the minority who create all the jobs. When people ask why the rich act like they don't give a sh*t about the poor, this is why. And for all the issues I have with unabated income inequality currently running in tandem with rising cost of commodities while wages largely remain static, I simply wouldn't subscribe to emotionally-charged viewpoints that sound like they were conjured by toddlers in kindergarten.

He has more than myself. Therefore, I must take. And maybe you guys weren't told this when you were young, taking what's not yours is stealing.

-Lord

LordAdam16:


I'll indulge you. The premise on which the article was written is deeply flawed. I see it a lot amongst millennial far-left leaning writers even in more prestigious publications and it's infuriating.

The premise of that article is akin to saying that since the developed world can afford to send billions of dollars in aids to developing nations, then it means everyone on the entire planet can be fed. It is not just asinine, it is downright stupid.

Both men are economic overachievers. The rough nine million French people below the poverty line, and I say this compassionately, are economic underachievers. No one ever says because some people have an IQ of 130+, then everyone should be able to solve algebra.

Eliminating poverty as well as providing universal healthcare, affordable housing, and proper education to everyone is a noble goal. But the only reason we've even gotten to a point where only 13% of the French population is below the poverty line, which by the way are among the top 25% of the world's 8 billion, is because of the economy. It used to be much much worse in the past.

And as with anything in all of nature, there'd be those who overachieve and those who underachieve. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. France has a national budget of 1.2 trillion euros per annum. That excludes the budget of lower levels of government. France's welfare program cost 500b euros annually. Yet it's Bernard's $90b or Pinault's $30b (note total wealth, not annual) that somehow rubs the writer and like minded ilks the wrong way.

The world's 2000-odd billionaires have about $9t, if you took all of it and shared it leaving them penniless. It'd cover the annual budget of only the top 2 countries by budget size. What money would you guys share then for the next year and for people in the other 180+ countries? Would you confiscate the wealth of the millionaires next?

The financial illiteracy is appalling. The smartest way you guys can seem to think of to solve any problem is to take money that's never enough from someone else. China has 250+ billionaires, more than 4 million millionaires. They and the government have raised over 500 million people out of poverty within 30 years (poverty rate fell from 88% to 7%) and GDP per capita in the same time has gone from $350 to $8800, a 25x increase.

Yet, in spite of this amazing transformation, the heading of an op-ed that ranks high on Google for poverty in China from a so-called progressive writers has the following title: "Despite China's Fast-Growing Wealth, Millions Still Remain Poor."

Whoever reads that headline would not imagine this is a country that took 500 million people out of poverty. You always have to focus on the those who are currently poor by pitting them against the minority who create all the jobs. When people ask why the rich act like they don't give a sh*t about the poor, this is why. And for all the issues I have with unabated income inequality currently running in tandem with rising cost of commodities while wages largely remain static, I simply wouldn't subscribe to emotionally-charged viewpoints that sound like they were conjured by toddlers in kindergarten.

He has more than myself. Therefore, I must take. And maybe you guys weren't told this when you were young, taking what's not yours is stealing.

-Lord

Thank you. I think your riposte is brilliant and I am tempted to ask what your professional calling is. You write, think and analyze well.

Having said that, I'm afraid you left me hanging on the question of the co relation of the article with our old debate on this thread. You didnt see a worthwhile co-relation in any respect whatsoever?

And one more thing: it seems to me the writer specifically disclaimed the sort of sentiments you are attributing to him.

LordAdam16 -

This painting by Jackson Pollock went for $145 million.

Your thoughts?

(Not just on the points of our old debate, but in this specific case, the "abstract" or "expressionist" art. . . !

I can not resist adding these two.
They sold for $186 million and $105 million respectively.

DeepSight:

LordAdam16 -

This painting by Jackson Pollock went for $145 million.

Your thoughts?

(Not just on the points of our old debate, but in this specific case, the "abstract" or "expressionist" art. . . !

Actually, Abstract Expressionism is my favorite painting type, so you wouldn't hear me breathe a word of disapproval about a masterpiece by Jackson f*kn' Pollock.

That's a better investment than U.S. Treasury Bill IMO. And stopping to stare at it in a 4th home in the right zip code is the very definition of orgasmic.

Here's the thing: Set aside the inevitable appreciation and crafty tax avoidance benefits; and few things can bring a sense of satisfaction or accomplishment as a nine-figure painting. Beats another mansion with property taxes, staff, and security or a yacht/repurposed Boeing narrow-body with 10% annual maintenance costs.

And it's art man! Art! One-of-a-f*kn-kind that will [read: can] never be replaced.

-Lord

Paulpaulpaul:


See you, most of his work are rumoured to have secret codes and maps. Do you think people are that stupid? Ordinarily art is life

conspiracy theorist sighted.

Ichiebillion:
conspiracy theorist sighted.

Latecomer, since when kwanu?

LordAdam16:


Actually, Abstract Expressionism is my favorite painting type, so you wouldn't hear me breathe a word of disapproval about a masterpiece by Jackson f*kn' Pollock.

That's a better investment than U.S. Treasury Bill IMO. And stopping to stare at it in a 4th home in the right zip code is the very definition of orgasmic.

Here's the thing: Set aside the inevitable appreciation and crafty tax avoidance benefits; and few things can bring a sense of satisfaction or accomplishment as a nine-figure painting. Beats another mansion with property taxes, staff, and security or a yacht/repurposed Boeing narrow-body with 10% annual maintenance costs.

And it's art man! Art! One-of-a-f*kn-kind that will [read: can] never be replaced.

-Lord

Thank you for your response. Lets put aside the work by Pollock for now. I have a reason for that. I'd like you to take a long hard look at the paintings titled No. 6 and Anna's Light. I have no hesitation in saying that these both represent intense and very deep fraud - played at a very high psychological level, to be sure.

I would concede however, that the hoaxing up of such works under whatever guises is in itself genius enough in terms of the psychological fraud at play, to deserve even trillions of dollars. In other words - anyone clever enough to convince others to pay hundreds of millions for such infantile and self-evidently fraudulent works - deserves those hundreds of millions.

Just remember the Emperor's new clothes as a cautionary tale.

I am however glad that you mentioned "a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment" - because this shows that you indeed recognize my earlier statement that some of these things represent an ego trip. No doubt though - whoever shelled out over a hundred million dollars for either of these has been had. And should reflect more closely on what life means to him (or her).

And oh - before you shout "investment!" - dont be too sure that these great frauds will appreciate ad infinitum. They are not works of Leonardo Da Vinci - who is a person with a serious claim to the title of greatest artist ever - and certainly also a claim to being one of the greatest minds ever. These are works of cynical con artists - the type who made the Emperor's new clothes - and one day in future, genuine art critics may just clear their vision and say - "Look! The Emperor is naked!"

DeepSight:


Thank you for your response. Lets put aside the work by Pollock for now. I have a reason for that. I'd like you to take a long hard look at the paintings titled No. 6 and Anna's Light. I have no hesitation in saying that these both represent intense and very deep fraud - played at a very high psychological level, to be sure.

I would concede however, that the hoaxing up of such works under whatever guises is in itself genius enough in terms of the psychological fraud at play, to deserve even trillions of dollars. In other words - anyone clever enough to convince others to pay hundreds of millions for such infantile and self-evidently fraudulent works - deserves those hundreds of millions.

Just remember the Emperor's new clothes as a cautionary tale.

I am however glad that you mentioned "a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment" - because this shows that you indeed recognize my earlier statement that some of these things represent an ego trip. No doubt though - whoever shelled out over a hundred million dollars for either of these has been had. And should reflect more closely on what life means to him (or her).

And oh - before you shout "investment!" - dont be too sure that these great frauds will appreciate ad infinitum. They are not works of Leonardo Da Vinci - who is a person with a serious claim to the title of greatest artist ever - and certainly also a claim to being one of the greatest minds ever. These are works of cynical con artists - the type who made the Emperor's new clothes - and one day in future, genuine art critics may just clear their vision and say - "Look! The Emperor is naked!"

I'll admit I would not purchase the two other paintings you shared, much more for the amounts quoted. However, I'd hesitate to label them 'frauds,' simply because they do not match my taste.

On a related note, I wouldn't be a collector of baseball cards, coins, figurines, and dozens of other contemporary collectibles. Doesn't mean the collectible items are fraud. I'd gladly pay tens of millions on a Faberge egg, but wouldn't buy a similarly priced Qin Dynasty Chinese pottery.

Art is based in large part on collective approval. If you like a painting and it's recognizable, the only takeaway is that your taste aligns with a majority for that painting. It doesn't make you the sole arbiter of art quality. Yours could just as easily diverge from popular opinion on another painting.

The humility to recognize that is a prerequisite for taking in art in all its splendor.

Art is not close-minded. It explains the evolution of personal artistic taste. To illustrate, Lord Rothschild has a more refined taste than I do; as such he can easily bring me around on a painting that I would hitherto brush off in a showing.

Your attempt to reduce this nuance to a hoax tells me that you need to spend more time in gallerias, befriend more artists, add art lovers to your social circle, and brush up on your art history.

That said, I'm taken aback by your comment on "a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment." You do not have to spend hundreds of millions on a painting to be in a state of mind characterized by that clause. Eating an Italian cuisine at a Michelin 3-star restaurant or floating in the turquoise waters of Mauritius will evoke the exact same "sense of satisfaction and accomplishment."

Obviously to a lesser degree, but that's a far cry from stating that expensive art purchases 'represent' an ego trip. That's only true in the minds of a myopic cynic of which there are many.

And there has been no one in the mold of Da Vinci in over 400 years. This in a planet with a current standing population of 8 billion. So excuse art connoisseurs if they choose to revel in the authentic creations of less-gifted artists until another once-a-millennia genius pops around.

In confidence I'll tell you this; enjoy life. Whether you want to be an ascetic or indulge in all of the finer pleasures; soak in the experience of living than be bothered to a point of incense about how others deploy their resources.

-Lord

LordAdam16:


I'll admit I would not purchase the two other paintings you shared, much more for the amounts quoted. However, I'd hesitate to label them 'frauds,' simply because they do not match my taste.

On a related note, I wouldn't be a collector of baseball cards, coins, figurines, and dozens of other contemporary collectibles. Doesn't mean the collectible items are fraud. I'd gladly pay tens of millions on a Faberge egg, but wouldn't buy a similarly priced Qin Dynasty Chinese pottery.

Art is based in large part on collective approval. If you like a painting and it's recognizable, the only takeaway is that your taste aligns with a majority for that painting. It doesn't make you the sole arbiter of art quality. Yours could just as easily diverge from popular opinion on another painting.

The humility to recognize that is a prerequisite for taking in art in all its splendor.

Art is not close-minded. It explains the evolution of personal artistic taste. To illustrate, Lord Rothschild has a more refined taste than I do; as such he can easily bring me around on a painting that I would hitherto brush off in a showing.

Your attempt to reduce this nuance to a hoax tells me that you need to spend more time in gallerias, befriend more artists, add art lovers to your social circle, and brush up on your art history.

That said, I'm taken aback by your comment on "a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment." You do not have to spend hundreds of millions on a painting to be in a state of mind characterized by that clause. Eating an Italian cuisine at a Michelin 3-star restaurant or floating in the turquoise waters of Mauritius will evoke the exact same "sense of satisfaction and accomplishment."

Obviously to a lesser degree, but that's a far cry from stating that expensive art purchases 'represent' an ego trip. That's only true in the minds of a myopic cynic of which there are many.

And there has been no one in the mold of Da Vinci in over 400 years. This in a planet with a current standing population of 8 billion. So excuse art connoisseurs if they choose to revel in the authentic creations of less-gifted artists until another once-a-millennia genius pops around.

In confidence I'll tell you this; enjoy life. Whether you want to be an ascetic or indulge in all of the finer pleasures; soak in the experience of living than be bothered to a point of incense about how others deploy their resources.

-Lord

Brilliant writing. I have not wasted my time on you. You are worthy in terms of your ripostes. Good stuff.
You have showed class.

However I think in your first line you grudgingly conceded the point.

PS: Stop calling yourself Lord, Its both blasphemous and narcissistic.

DeepSight:


However I think in your first line you grudgingly conceded the point.

I've long given up trying to win arguments.

I make my point and leave it up to whoever to interpret as they see fit.

PS: Stop calling yourself Lord, Its both blasphemous and narcissistic.

Shebi it's my own blasphemy and narcissism?

Leave it for moi.

-Lord

LordAdam16:


I'll admit I would not purchase the two other paintings you shared, much more for the amounts quoted. However, I'd hesitate to label them 'frauds,' simply because they do not match my taste.

On a related note, I wouldn't be a collector of baseball cards, coins, figurines, and dozens of other contemporary collectibles. Doesn't mean the collectible items are fraud. I'd gladly pay tens of millions on a Faberge egg, but wouldn't buy a similarly priced Qin Dynasty Chinese pottery.

Art is based in large part on collective approval. If you like a painting and it's recognizable, the only takeaway is that your taste aligns with a majority for that painting. It doesn't make you the sole arbiter of art quality. Yours could just as easily diverge from popular opinion on another painting.

The humility to recognize that is a prerequisite for taking in art in all its splendor.

Art is not close-minded. It explains the evolution of personal artistic taste. To illustrate, Lord Rothschild has a more refined taste than I do; as such he can easily bring me around on a painting that I would hitherto brush off in a showing.

Your attempt to reduce this nuance to a hoax tells me that you need to spend more time in gallerias, befriend more artists, add art lovers to your social circle, and brush up on your art history.

That said, I'm taken aback by your comment on "a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment." You do not have to spend hundreds of millions on a painting to be in a state of mind characterized by that clause. Eating an Italian cuisine at a Michelin 3-star restaurant or floating in the turquoise waters of Mauritius will evoke the exact same "sense of satisfaction and accomplishment."

Obviously to a lesser degree, but that's a far cry from stating that expensive art purchases 'represent' an ego trip. That's only true in the minds of a myopic cynic of which there are many.

And there has been no one in the mold of Da Vinci in over 400 years. This in a planet with a current standing population of 8 billion. So excuse art connoisseurs if they choose to revel in the authentic creations of less-gifted artists until another once-a-millennia genius pops around.

In confidence I'll tell you this; enjoy life. Whether you want to be an ascetic or indulge in all of the finer pleasures; soak in the experience of living than be bothered to a point of incense about how others deploy their resources.

-Lord

Hey everyone he's a scammer who regularly emails people asking for a loan. Watch out for this guy. See attached the email he sent me, and he's sent such emails to other people

LordAdam16 -
This is for you.

https://www.elitereaders.com/ridiculous-paintings-insanely-sold-for-millions-dollars/

LordAdam16 -

This work, like many other paintings of this artist, is a layering of colored canvases on each other. One of the critics noted that he had been looking at this painting for an hour, but he could not find anything in it. Another, however, explained:

“Palermo’s paintings offer the viewer’s eye to see many-sided changes intones, while there are no traces of pictorial nuances and kinks on the surface of the canvases; instead, a person can see beautiful, undiluted colors.”

It sold for $1.7 million.

Remember what I said about the Emperor's new clothes?

This is obviously money laundering.