21–30 of 66 posts
Original headline: "London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m" The artist is literally unknown, not just "not yet famous", which is how I first read the HN headline. It's centuries old.
When I read that headline I really assumed it was about another case of nepotism - after the Zoe Law drama some time ago. Glad to hear it's not that.
It makes me sad that Londons fabulous (and free) galleries have warehouses full of masterpieces that they have no space to display, yet my local museum has a gallery with not a single decent painting. I wish more of those great works could be shared around.
https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/about-us/partnering-with-...
It makes me sad that Londons fabulous (and free) galleries have warehouses full of masterpieces that they have no space to display, yet my local museum has a gallery with not a single decent painting. I wish more of those great works could be shared around.
I can't help but think it's a waste of money, how many paintings of Mary and ugly baby Jesus do you need?
I'm not downvoting you, because this is a common economic misconception, and I'm sure your opinion is shared by many. Money is never wasted. While the long explanation is some what technical and boring, the short version is this; "Money is neither created nor destroyed, it simply moves from one hand to another". Put another way, the National Gallery had 20 mil to spend. So they spent it. That 20 mil us now in the eco…
But if I understand correctly it's not taxpayer money
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not downvoting you, because this is a common economic misconception, and I'm sure your opinion is shared by many. Money is never wasted. While the long explanation is some what technical and boring, the short version is this; "Money is neither created nor destroyed, it simply moves from one hand to another". Put another way, the National Gallery had 20 mil to spend. So they spent it. That 20 mil us now in the eco…
The 20 million could have been used to help many more people than a single family though. But if I understand correctly it's not taxpayer money
How does that work (I'm not in the the UK)? Donations perhaps?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this money won’t probably be spent further in any ”productive” way, they will be locked in some financial tools that will only help extracting funds from the real sector, which is what one probably really cares about when they say that “money should work”. It’s not similar to a government investment in building a bridge which, while it’s also spending state money, creates ripples of economic activity involving th…
The seller now has 20 million to spend. The money just moved from A to B.
It makes me sad that Londons fabulous (and free) galleries have warehouses full of masterpieces that they have no space to display, yet my local museum has a gallery with not a single decent painting. I wish more of those great works could be shared around.