41–50 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't he need someone to pay that same amount or more for the painting to effectively have moved money with this apparatus? And if the next buyer is similarly motivated, isn't the valuation akin to a Ponzi?
You can see some of the debate in the articles linked from here: https://www.google.com/search?q=art+market+money+laundering
Marketing wins everywhere. Paintings, IT, open source projects, startups, everything. It seems to be responsible for 90%+ value in worryingly many cases. It may be getting worse. I think in the next few years we will see rise of companies that help customers make decent choices that are not solely based on advertising. We have many user review based solutions but it just doesn't work with most things (not even touchi…
Consumer Reports does this.
Donate link is in upper right corner:
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm
Here is the direct link, but it looks weird, so I included the other link.
https://donateconsumers.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=19...
I think the buyer probably had a net worth at least ≥ $4.5 billion (I wouldn't spend more than 10% of my wealth on a single painting.) According to https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/ there are only ~380 persons that would qualify. Any one knows who is the buyer?
Marketing wins everywhere. Paintings, IT, open source projects, startups, everything. It seems to be responsible for 90%+ value in worryingly many cases. It may be getting worse. I think in the next few years we will see rise of companies that help customers make decent choices that are not solely based on advertising. We have many user review based solutions but it just doesn't work with most things (not even touchi…
"Some educated 3rd party could research that for you" Consumer Reports does this. Donate link is in upper right corner: https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/index.htm Here is the direct link, but it looks weird, so I included the other link. https://donateconsumers.org/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=19...
According to another source from BBC, the final bid for the work was $400m, with fees bringing the full price up to $450.3m. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42000696 What's interesting from the BBC article is the image "The painting has been cleaned and restored from the image on the left to the one on the right" doesn't even look like the same person? Another anecdote - In 1958 it was sold at auction in L…
That's...kinda weird, right? The before and after are clearly two different paintings. Hair is different, mouth is different...I would assume, as a layman, that restoring a piece of art the goal should keep it looking nearly the same just cleaning it up and removing damage. This looks like they just straight up painted over it.
Marketing wins everywhere. Paintings, IT, open source projects, startups, everything. It seems to be responsible for 90%+ value in worryingly many cases. It may be getting worse. I think in the next few years we will see rise of companies that help customers make decent choices that are not solely based on advertising. We have many user review based solutions but it just doesn't work with most things (not even touchi…
According to another source from BBC, the final bid for the work was $400m, with fees bringing the full price up to $450.3m. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42000696 What's interesting from the BBC article is the image "The painting has been cleaned and restored from the image on the left to the one on the right" doesn't even look like the same person? Another anecdote - In 1958 it was sold at auction in L…
That's...kinda weird, right? The before and after are clearly two different paintings. Hair is different, mouth is different...I would assume, as a layman, that restoring a piece of art the goal should keep it looking nearly the same just cleaning it up and removing damage. This looks like they just straight up painted over it.
That BBC quote is a bit misleading. The photo on the left is what the painting looked like before restoration, not what it looked like when it was originally painted. Parts of it had been damaged and repainted over multiple times in the past which is why the restored version looks so different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7omwQLuGJQ was the marketing campaign
If anyone want's to know the soundtrack, it is 'On the Nature of Daylight' by Max Richter. If you think you've heard it somewhere, it was in Arrival - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2543164/
Fascinating to watch Rybolovlev move money in the open like this with the help of the art market apparatus. What a time to be alive. If you're not keeping track this was almost double the price expected for a da Vinci of questioned provenance sold by the fertilizer magnate who bought Donald Trump's Palm Beach mansion for double the estimated price and then never lived in it.
Wouldn't he need someone to pay that same amount or more for the painting to effectively have moved money with this apparatus? And if the next buyer is similarly motivated, isn't the valuation akin to a Ponzi?
In the art auction world, either or both sides can remain as anonymous as they wish, which makes this whole scheme possible.