Is it wrong for great art works to be hoarded by the rich?

[kiki5711]

I think so.

Should a person's personal wealth define their aesthetic experience?

Ordinary people can listen to great music like Mozart with relative ease - concerts are reasonably inexpensive, so the live experience is accessible to all and sundry. But art is obviously different - prints, photocopies, jpegs and the like don't convey the sheer drama and magic of great paintings - nothing beats an afternoon in a gallery soaking up the intimate experience with great art.



The painting above is "Prince Baltasar Carlos on horseback", painted in 1636 by Velasquez and valued at around $100 million. It is currently owned by the Duke of Westminster and he has full control over who sees the original - if he wants he can put it in a room and lock the door, he can choose to be the only person in the world to get up close to this masterpiece.

I think it's wrong that such great narratives of the human condition, the towering works of some of the greatest of our species, can be hidden away from humanity as a whole by people who happen to have more money than the rest of us.

100 million? holy fucken cow! it's just a sin for one person to have that much money hanging on a wall....

[kiki5711]

[

quote="kiki5711"]

I think so.

Should a person's personal wealth define their aesthetic experience?

Ordinary people can listen to great music like Mozart with relative ease - concerts are reasonably inexpensive, so the live experience is accessible to all and sundry. But art is obviously different - prints, photocopies, jpegs and the like don't convey the sheer drama and magic of great paintings - nothing beats an afternoon in a gallery soaking up the intimate experience with great art.



The painting above is "Prince Baltasar Carlos on horseback", painted in 1636 by Velasquez and valued at around $100 million. It is currently owned by the Duke of Westminster and he has full control over who sees the original - if he wants he can put it in a room and lock the door, he can choose to be the only person in the world to get up close to this masterpiece.

I think it's wrong that such great narratives of the human condition, the towering works of some of the greatest of our species, can be hidden away from humanity as a whole by people who happen to have more money than the rest of us.

100 million? holy fucken cow! it's just a sin for one person to have that much money hanging on a wall....

I hope he looks at it realllllyyy good every day for that amount of money

[devogue]

Just noticed that's lp on the horsie.

[kiki5711]

Just noticed that's lp on the horsie.

In my opinion Picasso's paintings are good to look at if you're constipated. It looks like something done in a mental asylum.

[Gallstones]

John James Audubon?
Van Gogh?
Arnhem Aboriginal dot and x-ray?
William Turner?
Norman Rockwell?
Navajo sandpainting?

Audubon is OSSUM! I saw an exhibition of his work once - I love the way that he managed to put so much obvious love into what were, officially, technical illustrations.

I own the Baby Elephant Folio. It is a huge, heavy book packed with full color prints of his paintings. I aspired, in my early days, to be like Audubon. Didn't happen but botanical and animals persist as my most favorite subjects.

Van Gogh too - a direct link from his tortured psyche to canvass.

Read his biography too. I have been to the museum in Amsterdam and did a graphic derivative of his Starry Night; artwork was for flyers and posters for a major fundraiser our local Gallery holds every spring.

I am not over familiar with aboriginal art, although i did see an exhibition of a modern, Australian artist (name escapes me) that paints in a traditional style but with modern techniques, materials and subject matter.

The style fascinates me. I've read about it and used it as 'inspired by' for a few things I've done.

Turner is a firm favourite. They have an extensive collection at the Tate Britain and I usually visit when in London.

Turner is one I don't particularly like. However, I have decided that trying a painting that is loose and painterly (like his work) would be good for me because I am otherwise very hung up on accurate rendering and detail and perfection resulting in me "nagging" my paintings to completion. It works for me to be that way, so I don't consider doing that as a bad thing. It is probable that seeing Turner's paintings themselves (as opposed to digital or printed copies) might turn me into appreciating him more.

Rockwell I like, although, when it comes to depictions of contemporary American life, I prefer Edward Hopper.

Rockwell's portraits creep me out some.

Navajo sandpainting I am completely unfamiliar with. Native American culture just doesn't cross the Atlantic.

You don't have the google over there? I hear a lot of things travel quite handily via the google.

[Gallstones]

And you're a self-defined art snob? How does one earn the acknowledgement of acceptable appreciation in your book, then, and why do you think your particular criteria ought to be the scale by which to judge?

Yes, I am self defined. Why pretend? I paid my dues in blood, sweat, tears and dollars earned by labor and paid as due.
Whether another human being understands or agrees to that is irrelevant to me. My scale is mine to apply.

Exactly.

Mine is different. Some might consider me "common, uneducated, intellectually lazy, content with being mediocre" due to my background and approach to life and art, yet if they didn't know those things about my background and approach to life and art, and we shared our views on art without the arbitrarily imposed appreciation criteria getting in the way, we might have an interesting discussion ... perhaps kinda like the one you had with Ani.

IOW, the moment pomposity ingratiates itself into discussion about art (as it so often does), you've lost the point of what art appreciation is, I think.

People talk about what they like and dislike; doing that we find common ground with others, and have rousing arguments other times. I only hope in those situations to remain in good humor about it all. I do think that people who have specialized knowledge--doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs, and artists--should be afforded more respect for their opinions in their expertise than laypersons. Unfortunately, because art is about taste all opinions on it are expected to have equal credence. And yet investors rarely consult laypersons when deciding what artworks to spend their money on.

A person likes what s/he likes and purchases what s/he wants to own.
It is why Kincaide is making a living selling absolute shit and I will never buy anything he has painted--except as a gift for someone.

[Gallstones]

Devogue, art is a commodity that is traded like any other. Artists produce it like vintners produce wine - and like them they sell their product to anyone who has the money. On what grounds should private ownership of art be circumscribed that other products are not? If it is the right of delectation, where do you draw the line as to which products fall into that category, and which ones don't?

Sorry for largely repeating what has already been said, but it seems Devogue has yet to reply to those issues.

I have to be honest and say I don't have the answer, but I think we can all agree that art is something that improves our lives intangibly and immeasurably. Some people get more from it than others, but we have all had positive experiences.

I think the crux of this lies in your first sentence - why should all art be a commodity traded like any other? I can understand if a living artist is commissioned by a patron to create some work - he is paying for the artist's time and labour to create the work, but what about after the patron has died and his personal enjoyment ends? Couldn't we find a way to include artworks in death duties or something, so ownership passes to the state?

I know all of this is fumbling in the dark and trying to find an answer to a very difficult question, but I just can't help but feel that it's unfair that one human can privately enjoy an item that hundreds of thousands of other humans are prevented from enjoying (and whose enjoyment wouldn't cost the one individual anything).

It might very well cost the owner condition of the work--exposing it to viewing by multitudes of people, risks it being damaged as consequence just because it is constantly exposed to environmental stress. Lascaux had to be closed to viewing because the respiration of the viewers was damaging the images.

And what happens when the public decides a painting or a style or a subject is offensive and such works have to be destroyed to protect the common good?

[HomerJay]

I don't think dev is talking about naive folk art or the type of stuff people have hanging at home.

These great art works won't last forever and need to be protected whilst they do survive, they represent a part of human history, no less than stonehenge or the pyramids.

Their importance to human history and their fragility means that treating them as just another possession or describing their provenance in terms of property laws like a pair of favourite shoes just completely misses the point.

We shouldn't be arguing over whether or not they should be in private ownership but rather whether or not it is reasonable to recompense the owners when they are taken away from them.

I'm meh on that because I think it is their civic duty to hand them over.

[Gallstones]

I don't find the Velasquez painting aesthetically pleasing.
I'd much rather Jacques Louis David's equestrian of Napoleon or Stanislaw Kostka Potocki.

[Animavore]

Just out of interest - is it ok for a multi-millionaire to buy a painting which has historical significance but which he personally hates, for millions, and then smash it over his knee and burn it so no ever sees it again?
I'm just wondering how far property rights go with regard to masterpieces?
If someone has a right to keep a painting to themselves and hang it where they please then they also have the right to destroy it I presume?

[Gallstones]

Just out of interest - is it ok for a multi-millionaire to buy a painting which has historical significance but which he personally hates, for millions, and then smash it over his knee and burn it so no ever sees it again?
I'm just wondering how far property rights go with regard to masterpieces?
If someone has a right to keep a painting to themselves and hang it where they please then they also have the right to destroy it I presume?

Yes, s/he does.

[JimC]

Just out of interest - is it ok for a multi-millionaire to buy a painting which has historical significance but which he personally hates, for millions, and then smash it over his knee and burn it so no ever sees it again?
I'm just wondering how far property rights go with regard to masterpieces?
If someone has a right to keep a painting to themselves and hang it where they please then they also have the right to destroy it I presume?

A legal right perhaps, but he would justifiably be regarded as a barbarous arsehole for the rest of his miserable existence.

[Gallstones]

Just out of interest - is it ok for a multi-millionaire to buy a painting which has historical significance but which he personally hates, for millions, and then smash it over his knee and burn it so no ever sees it again?
I'm just wondering how far property rights go with regard to masterpieces?
If someone has a right to keep a painting to themselves and hang it where they please then they also have the right to destroy it I presume?

A legal right perhaps, but he would justifiably be regarded as a barbarous arsehole for the rest of his miserable existence.

Only provided someone else knew about it and was willing to say so.

[JimC]

Just out of interest - is it ok for a multi-millionaire to buy a painting which has historical significance but which he personally hates, for millions, and then smash it over his knee and burn it so no ever sees it again?
I'm just wondering how far property rights go with regard to masterpieces?
If someone has a right to keep a painting to themselves and hang it where they please then they also have the right to destroy it I presume?

A legal right perhaps, but he would justifiably be regarded as a barbarous arsehole for the rest of his miserable existence.

Only provided someone else knew about it and was willing to say so.

That's almost zen...

[Seth]

Just out of interest - is it ok for a multi-millionaire to buy a painting which has historical significance but which he personally hates, for millions, and then smash it over his knee and burn it so no ever sees it again?
I'm just wondering how far property rights go with regard to masterpieces?
If someone has a right to keep a painting to themselves and hang it where they please then they also have the right to destroy it I presume?

One man's history is another man's eyesore, and the attitude that something privately owned is a "cultural historical artifact" that the government ought to protect is the same attitude that leads governments to infringe on private property rights when it comes to "historic preservation" ordinances in re structures.

Both are heinous examples of government and public arrogance and disdain for private property and the right of the individual to do what he or she wants with his or her property, including destroying it.

If the public values some artifact, be it a painting or a house, so much that it's willing to regulate the owner's ability to use, enjoy or destroy it, then the public should be required to put up or shut up and pay the fair market value to acquire the object for preservation.

And that authority exists in all countries under the concept of "eminent domain," which allows the people, through the government, to take private property for public use. In the US, such takings are only restricted by two things: the property must be taken for "public use," (which has been wrongfully expanded by the Supreme Court to include "public benefit" rather than actual public use), and "just compensation" must be paid to the owner.

So, the government can forcibly intervene to preserve such an object of art, but only by purchasing it at the fair market value from the owner. But it may not prohibit the owner from destroying or otherwise using it either ex post facto or by prior restraint. Well, it OUGHT NOT be allowed to act by prior restraint, but that happens with great regularity when it comes to restricting the development rights (including demolition rights) when it comes to "historic" structures in zoning law.