OT, 'ART' values cucko prices

bison · Feb 25, 2009

I wonder why people pay these idiot prices for 'art".
yesterday there was an art auction in paris, 1 painting[could not even tell wich side should be up] fetched 61 million dollar.
I cant see how a couple licks of paint on a chunk of canvas could be worth THAT kind of dough.It's beyond me.

glennster · Feb 25, 2009

maybe it was this picture
poke here

Anonymous-0 · Feb 25, 2009

or this one.

http://www.zazzle.com/american_pathetic_poster-228560222083605510

James Howell · Feb 25, 2009

Some folks have more dollars than they have cents - I mean sense!

rrlund · Feb 25, 2009

Well,thats kind of why I'm opposed to commercializing,or trying to make too popular,the hobby of Tractor Collecting. I'd a whole lot rather it was some good old boys showing off their plunder than a bunch of "Collectors" with more money than sense.

Dave from MN · Feb 25, 2009

How many families could be taken off the streets for 61 million? Irritates me. I also wonder how California can be in such financial ruin when it is home to so many multimillionaire rock stars, movie stars, and other celebrities and other "rich n famous"

plow hand · Feb 25, 2009

The last person that gave anything worth while was Paul Newman $250,000,000 over his career..

buickanddeere · Feb 25, 2009

Steal from the rich and give to the poor.
Wait a minute, the government is already doing that and deducting a percent for themselves.

garytomaszewski · Feb 25, 2009

dave,
If you were a miilionaire or appointed to the "changed" cabinet you wouldn"t pay taxes either.

Anonymous-0 · Feb 25, 2009

(quoted from post at 12:34:53 02/25/09) How many families could be taken off the streets for 61 million? Irritates me. I also wonder how California can be in such financial ruin when it is home to so many multimillionaire rock stars, movie stars, and other celebrities and other "rich n famous"

The're mostly libs.... they don't know how to give away their own money.

Dave

Gun guru · Feb 25, 2009

I should pay some dorks a few bucks to push my name all over the place. Then I could slop some paint on a canvas and call it "ART" and see if I can get some fools to buy it.

big fred · Feb 25, 2009

You'd be amazed how many of those rich folks have moved to Montana, Colorado, etc. Mostly due to the taxes in California.

tlak · Feb 25, 2009

So if it was your 61 mil you would go and get X-number of families off the streets?

Ultradog MN · Feb 25, 2009

One of the best classes I ever took in college was an art appreciation class.
It didn't make me want to go out and spend a lot of money on a painting. But it did help me to understand why some one else might do so.
It's their money let them spend it as they will.
The money I've spent on tractors over the years could also have helped someone in need. I sure would hate to see someone else dictate how I spend my income.
A lot of art like that is bought by museums from money given to them by patrons. And that will mean that most anyone can go there to see it.
Don't envy it. Go see it and enjoy it.

Mike (WA) · Feb 25, 2009

Reminds me of an old joke:

Reporter: So, Robin Hood, what do you do for a living?

Robin Hood: Rob from the rich and give to the poor, minus 10 percent for handling.

Reporter: But if you continue to do that, soon all the rich will be poor, and the poor will be rich. What will you do then?

R. Hood: Rob from the rich and give to the poor, minus 10 percent for handling.

Anonymous-0 · Feb 25, 2009

I thought the conservative creed was, the lower the tax rate on the millionaires, the better. So why SHOULDN'T California be in financial trouble with all the millionaires there? After all, according to conservatives, they're the ones who should be taxed the least...or should I say, the MILLIONAIRE conservatives like Limbaugh believe this.

It's the damn poor folks who aren't paying their way, and THEY're why the states are broke...according to conservative theory, as I understand it. If they'd just legalize the euthanization of the poor, all the problems of our nation would disappear instantly....right?

Ultradog MN · Feb 25, 2009

If you're going to spin this into some political conversation I'll think you missed the point.
There are as many abundant patrons of the arts as there are conservative. Maybe more.
There have been rich and poor, left and right in all civilizations.
And all civilizations have benefitted from art.

Eric SEI · Feb 25, 2009

As long as the "art" isn't being bought with tax dollars I don't care how retarded the artist, the artwork, or the buyer is.

Anonymous-0 · Feb 25, 2009

I'd wager there are more abundant arts patrons than conservatives. After all, we all know that the majority of the abundant scum who don't deserve to live--the ones who aren't in politics, anyway--all live in California and make their living in the TV, motion picture, and music industries. So the conservatives have no incentive to support these scoundrels who hate America and all it stands for.

Therefore, logic shows that liberals would be more likely to support the arts than conservatives, since liberals hate American and have reason to support like-minded individuals.

bison · Feb 25, 2009

Most of you people are missing the point here.

How can a couple of square feet of canvas clobbered with some paint that can often be duplicated by a toddler be WORTH that amount of money. even if that painting was made by Adam himself.

Actually there's other things like diamond prices that defy logic.

I dont realy care what people do with their money.

tlak · Feb 26, 2009

Think he nailed it on the nnalert point of view. All those damn poor people.

OT, 'ART' values cucko prices

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Similar threads