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

[devogue]

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.

[klr]

Many masterpieces were commissioned by the very rich, who very often wouldn't have commissioned them in the first place if they had to "share" them with anyone else. So without the patronage of the wealthy, many of these works might not exist. But as to how individuals and organisations (e.g. the Catholic Church) came to be so wealthy in the first place ... that's another matter.

Being able to commission such works is IMHO among other things) an extreme form of conspicuous consumption. You just want to show that you can afford it. It's also supposed to show that you have "taste", and that you are a "patron of the arts", things which are usually beneficial to your social standing, rightly or wrongly.

[Atheist-Lite]

It is worth spending a few quid more on a decent size monitor that reproduces colors accurately. Then you can loot the entire art works of mankind and put them all on a hard disk no larger than a standard paperback. Those who say it isn't the same comparing a ten foot tall monstrosity worth a $100 million with a lush depiction on a 42" screen or 24" monitor in the comfort of your own home? those are people who need to invest in some ambient lighting and a decent sound system?

[devogue]

It is worth spending a few quid more on a decent size monitor that reproduces colors accurately. Then you can loot the entire art works of mankind and put them all on a hard disk no larger than a standard paperback. Those who say it isn't the same comparing a ten foot tall monstrosity worth a $100 million with a lush depiction on a 42" screen or 24" monitor in the comfort of your own home? those are people who need to invest in some ambient lighting and a decent sound system?

I have a very good sound system at home that reproduces music very well. But there's nothing quite like the atmosphere of a proper live performance, being "in the presence" of the music creates a unique visceral effect. The same goes for art, IMO - standing in front of one of Dali's originals in Figueres blows the fuck out of millions of pixels.

[Pappa]

How would you stop the rich buying works of art? I think it's a shame I'll only ever see a very limited number of Picassos in my life because so many are in private hands, but short of banning the sale of art or nationalising all works of art I can't see how it could be different. And what if you appreciate design more than art? Would it be ok to demand a test drive of some investment banker's Lamborghini?

[charlou]

I'm interested to hear about your visit with Mona Lisa, dev.

[Atheist-Lite]

I'm not someone who gets anything out of live music or genuine paint. I've moved beyond that sort of primitivism where you need to be 'there' to experience 'it'. I like music that's been studio produced by a musician. And I like a painting because it displays the artists intent not because of the dabs of paint but in spite of them. Each to their own.

[devogue]

How would you stop the rich buying works of art? I think it's a shame I'll only ever see a very limited number of Picassos in my life because so many are in private hands, but short of banning the sale of art or nationalising all works of art I can't see how it could be different. And what if you appreciate design more than art? Would it be ok to demand a test drive of some investment banker's Lamborghini?

What if they buy art on the understanding that it has to be displayed publicly? The get the kudos of being the owner and they get any profits from the resale of the art, but they are bound by law to share the experience of the art.

Roman Abramovich owns Chelsea, he can sell Chelsea on, but if Chelsea play brilliantly and win the league then all their fans share in joy and happiness.

[devogue]

I'm interested to hear about your visit with Mona Lisa, dev.

Ah - a real regret!

My only reason for visiting Paris was to meet a potential employer in New Zealand. But having secured a job I had no need to go.

[Gallstones]

Yes and no.
More later.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Velasquez was the court painter to Philip IV of Spain. His paintings were produced for King Pip and his entourage, not for public viewing.

If a decorator came to your house and did a truly magnificent job of replastering and papering the walls in your sitting room, would you be happy with the great unwashed traipsing through to see this pinnacle of artisanship? [/devil's advocate]

[stripes4]

It's unfair. Like pretty well everything else in life. It would be charming if they did display it to the proles, but it's not going to happen. They don't even know we exist, to be honest.

[devogue]

Velasquez was the court painter to Philip IV of Spain. His paintings were produced for King Pip and his entourage, not for public viewing.

If a decorator came to your house and did a truly magnificent job of replastering and papering the walls in your sitting room, would you be happy with the great unwashed traipsing through to see this pinnacle of artisanship? [/devil's advocate]

King Phillip, his family, friends and entire world are dead and long buried. The painting remains - a glorious relic that has survived in to a future age in which the common man can appreciate its greatness. Or he could if some well heeled cunt who owns half of London would let him.

[Rum]

These were and are now status objects. They are 'jewels' to be collected by the richest of us. Their true artistry is almost irrelevant, though I will grant you that some of them were executed by true masters of their 'craft' - which is what it was about prior to the modern era.

Their value is based on their rarity and desirability - they are effectively market currency of the highest order. In a few cases, such as the Mona Lisa, this actually makes them 'beyond value'.

Of course as a dyed in the wool socialist I think these should be owned collectively. That is a political and economic issue rather than an artistic one. As with so much other wealth today, these objects are owned by those who have the most power and control. Whether that is right is about your own subjective view on what ownership is about.

[Gallstones]

Hoarding doesn't last forever, eventually the work comes out or moves around.
If it weren't for hoarding some works would have been lost--burned in bonfires or something.
Can a person see and fully appreciate every work of art that has ever been produced, or every work by a favorite artist?
If you see some isn't that good enough?

There really is no shortage of great and valuable (and undervalued) art available for the public to view.

Crumple, I have been doing and trading art for a number of years. Nothing spectacular but some good stuff. The actual piece, in your hands is a very different experience from a digital image of it. There are textural and chromatic and proprioceptive and even aromatic aspects that digital reproductions will never replace. You say you don't care about any of that. I do, I want it all, the full experience, all that a work has to offer.

Read about Mark Rothko for a different perspective on this. He is my newest favorite artist.