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

[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?

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.

That doesn't sound too bad, but would it be determined entirely by price or would each piece be chosen separately like listed buildings, and who would decide what constitutes art?

[Gallstones]

That doesn't sound too bad, but would it be determined entirely by price, and who would decide what constitutes art?

The Official Department for Determining What Constitutes Art of course.

[Animavore]

Digital can never do paintings justice. Paint is 3-D. It sits on or hangs off the canvas. I love going close up and looking at a detail become just a blob of paint like any other on the overalls of an interior decorator then moving back again and watching it disappear back into the picture.

[Gallstones]

Digital can never do paintings justice. Paint is 3-D. It sits on or hangs off the canvas. I love going close up and looking at a detail become just a blob of paint like any other on the overalls of an interior decorator then moving back again and watching it disappear back into the picture.

Ever seen any by Jackson Pollock?
You'd be back and forth all day.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think so.

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

It should define what they can buy. You might as well ask whether a person's personal wealth should define whether they can buy a ticket to a 90 day world cruise, or buy a tourist trip on a rocket ship into space, or buy a Ferrari automobile. Of course it should, because the person who owns the cruise, rocket ship, or Ferrari, or work of art, ought to be able to dispose of it for free or for $100,000,000,000 at his or her pleasure. Without that, there is no such thing as private property.

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.

Not all, but a lot.

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.

It's often cheaper to go to an art gallery than to a concert. In fact, most of the time it's cheaper.

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.

Yes, indeed. Like a portrait you commission of yourself and pay for with your own money, you can put it in your house without any obligation that your neighbors be given access to it. That sounds like an absolutely wonderful state of affairs.

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.

Huh..."wrong?" Or, you'd rather be able to see someone else's property when you want to and for only a nominal charge?

[laklak]

When I win the lottery and buy lots of paintings I'll let y'all come look at them. No admission charge, you just have to spit on a Bible or Koran. Not that the fundies will want to come see my collection of Old Masters Porn anyway.

[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.

That doesn't sound too bad, but would it be determined entirely by price or would each piece be chosen separately like listed buildings, and who would decide what constitutes art?

This is just an idea, based on the monetary value of art that winds me up so much...

How about if independently valued art work, or art that sells at auction for more than, say, US$50,000 had to be registered on an international database. Such works would have to be displayed publicly, or in a building open to public viewing like town halls, council offices, leisure centres, and of course, art galleries. The authorities would be duty bound to credit each piece of art with details of its owner. The owner always has the right to sell and profit from his picture, but if the new owner pays more than $50,000 he also has to display it, but he can choose any public building in his locality in which to do it, so he can enjoy it alongside his neighbours. If these buildings happen to be oversubscribed with art works they are assigned to the neighbouring locality and so on.

Works valued at, say, US$500,000 or more would be eligible for international movement - assigned to world class galleries and museums in highly populated areas, often fitting in with themed shows and artist exhibitions.

[Animavore]

Digital can never do paintings justice. Paint is 3-D. It sits on or hangs off the canvas. I love going close up and looking at a detail become just a blob of paint like any other on the overalls of an interior decorator then moving back again and watching it disappear back into the picture.

Ever seen any by Jackson Pollock?
You'd be back and forth all day.

No. Haven't been to a gallery in a while actually. The last time I was in the National Art Gallery and there was an exhibit of Polish art. There was a painting of a frozen waterfall at night - one of the most haunting paintings I've ever seen, I swear if I'd been at the actual waterfall at that time it wouldn't have been as beautiful - it was strange watching the various downward streaks of paint on close up turn into transparent icicles when one stepped back.
I still raging I never bothered taking down the artist's name.
There's a great Carravagio in Dublin.

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

If art has to be displayed publicly, why would they buy it? It already would be displayed publicly wouldn't it?

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.

There would be no resale market, or only a very limited one, because you will have stripped the piece of property of one of the features of owning property - the right to control who accesses it.

And, which pieces of art would you include in this? What? There would be a Ministry of Art which reviews pieces of art and some are allowed to be kept in living rooms, but others are not? How popular must a work of art be? What if you just buy a bunch of art from an up-and-coming artist, and suddenly, he dies and all his works become postumously considered among the world's greats? Now you have to move them from your living room and put them in a museum because your neighbors want to see them?

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.

Yeah, but if he wants to, he can refuse to sell tickets to the game and have them play to an empty house - if he wanted to. He's not obligated to display his team.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

That doesn't sound too bad, but would it be determined entirely by price or would each piece be chosen separately like listed buildings, and who would decide what constitutes art?

This is just an idea, based on the monetary value of art that winds me up so much...

How about if independently valued art work, or art that sells at auction for more than, say, US$50,000 had to be registered on an international database. Such works would have to be displayed publicly, or in a building open to public viewing like town halls, council offices, leisure centres, and of course, art galleries. The authorities would be duty bound to credit each piece of art with details of its owner. The owner always has the right to sell and profit from his picture, but if the new owner pays more than $50,000 he also has to display it, but he can choose any public building in his locality in which to do it, so he can enjoy it alongside his neighbours. If these buildings happen to be oversubscribed with art works they are assigned to the neighbouring locality and so on.

Works valued at, say, US$500,000 or more would be eligible for international movement - assigned to world class galleries and museums in highly populated areas, often fitting in with themed shows and artist exhibitions.

Sounds great - since your system would make the bottom drop out of the market for artwork, your list would be pretty short.

[laklak]

I say we just take all their fucking money and give them a cardboard car and a grey boiler suit like the rest of us.

[devogue]

your system would make the bottom drop out of the market for artwork

Excellent!

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

Massive amounts of great art is displayed at very low cost in museums in ever city. As museums are located farther and farther from one's home, it's harder and more expensive to travel to them. It's unfair that people on 5th Avenue can walk to the Met, but I have to fly there. Bastards. We ought to all receive free air fare, cab fare, and hotel at reasonable intervals to go to the museums of our choice. That would be fair.

[Coito ergo sum]

your system would make the bottom drop out of the market for artwork

Excellent!

I think wine is too expensive. It should be free to the proles, because one's income shouldn't determine what fine wines one can drink by the bottle. I'm on my way over - have a Chateau Mouton Rothschild, or equivalent,ready for me in a brown paper bag. I'd never be able to afford that on my own.

You don't mind me taking that from your store for free now, do you?

[Coito ergo sum]

I say we just take all their fucking money and give them a cardboard car and a grey boiler suit like the rest of us.

Let's start with devogue, he's a capitalist running dog anyway. I bet he makes a tidy profit selling that poison he peddles.