sold for $135 million dollars. That is just wrong. $135 million dollars for a painting? There isn't a better use for that kind of money than to hang it on your wall?
There is a line. I don't think everyone should deprive themselves of all luxuries and donate all their money to the poor instead. I, myself, covet a GPS... one that will tell me what turns to take and one that will allow me to move it from car to car... but I digress. My point is that surrounding yourself with nice things isn't bad-- but $135 million? People in the world are starving to death, dying because they don't have medicine, living under bridges... but the best use of $135 million is decorating the living room?
Edited addition: The Ronald S. Lauder Foundation has this in its mission statement:
"At The Ronald S. Lauder Foundation, we call them (Central and Eastern European Jews) the future, and for more than a decade, we have been committed to rebuilding Jewish life in that part of Europe where the destruction of the Holocaust was followed by the oppression of Communist rule." So I don't want to make it sound like Ronald is doing nothing worthwhile with his $2+ billion, but I still stand by my original claim.
9 comments:
It's pretty, but it's not $135 million worth of pretty.
I've never even seen/heard of it before... Has anyone else?
i've seen it before
(in books, obviously, not for real).
I dont think "the best use of $135 million is decorating the living room". But then this isnt decorating a living room. It's an investment. It's an advertisement. It's business.
Yep. What Myo said. It's an investment, and proabably a far more lucrative one than putting $135 million in the bank. I guess a painting like that can only increase in value.
But I do agree that it seems a crazy amount for one painting. And I'm sure that if I had a spare $135 million lying around, I could put it to better use. But I guess only a billionaire could afford something like that. And chances are that anyone with that amount of money already gives a fair amount to charity and good causes.
Gustav! How very retro!
says Rian, lisping.
Rian saw the same news blurb, but was less surprised. When Rian worked on the East Coast, we sold Kimt print after Kimt print. Some people adore him.
I hear he is putting it in a museum, so at least it is not Art Locked Away.
And ye notice Rian is waffling on the 135. What if ye are already spending fistfuls of money on charities...is not art itSelf a manner of charity? It seems better so spend it on preserving a piece of art than...say, preserving a brand new Yacht.
I've thought about it, and I can't (won't?) be convinced. Whether it's an investment or whether he already gives millions to charities, that was a sad waste of $135 million.
The money hasn't actually gone anywhere... the millions (minus taxes) are just in someone else's account now. Perhaps eventually it will be used in a manner that pleases emano. Until then, I will smile at the lovely painting. Mmmmm. Maybe I should get a print of it...
bob, I'll make you a print myself for only $130 million.
I agree with emano here. Let bob say what she will about money circulation, but I know where my sympathies are whether I'm being logical about them.
The point is that someone has to make that choice to use the money for better things, whether in this transaction or the next, before it does any good. And this time, the chance was missed.
Also, pfah to investments. *pats tiny little savings account*
Perhaps i should add that i do find the value placed on some so-called "artworks" rather ridiculous. But i'm more inclined to get worked up by modern works like, say, an empty room with a light being turned on and off at intervals. Or "Blue Poles" purchased by our national art gallery to many cries of protest from general public.
And i'll get even more worked up by the obscene amounts of money paid to company directors and politicians and leading movie actors.
Post a Comment