Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#111

Post by anjc »

_nedR wrote: post #73

Art is supposed to inspire our inner eye for beauty. Seeing the 450 million dollar price tag, i feel an unusual amount of anger, disgust, revulsion at the ostentatiousness, excesses and brazen corruption of the rich and of the fine art world. I feel more disgust at this than i would at the usual gaudy, blingy excesses (like gold-plated cars and mansions) of the tasteless wealthy. I suppose good art can also seek to i…

> Art is supposed to inspire our inner eye for beauty

These paintings were only painted because exceedingly wealthy families commissioned and collected them. If it were up to people like me and you, there'd be no art to inspire people in the first place.

> I wonder how the millions of the poor, nameless, talented artists around the world feel about this.

This community wouldn't exist if it weren't for the hierarchy of the art world.

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#112

Post by anjc »

sytelus wrote: post #59

What is interesting is that if this painting was attributed to someone unknown, its price would have fallen off the cliff even though there would have been zero material change in goods that buyer would be receiving. This says a lot about our hero worship tendencies. People are going to look very hard to see what is so special about this painting.

> People are going to look very hard to see what is so special about this painting.

Leonardo da Vinci painted it, for a start

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#113

Post by puranjay »

_nedR wrote: post #73

Art is supposed to inspire our inner eye for beauty. Seeing the 450 million dollar price tag, i feel an unusual amount of anger, disgust, revulsion at the ostentatiousness, excesses and brazen corruption of the rich and of the fine art world. I feel more disgust at this than i would at the usual gaudy, blingy excesses (like gold-plated cars and mansions) of the tasteless wealthy. I suppose good art can also seek to i…

Keep in mind that much of the art you and I value exists because of these wealthy people. The middle-class doesn't want art. Even if it does, it can't afford to pay an artist the rates he commands.

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#114

Post by puranjay »

sytelus wrote: post #59

What is interesting is that if this painting was attributed to someone unknown, its price would have fallen off the cliff even though there would have been zero material change in goods that buyer would be receiving. This says a lot about our hero worship tendencies. People are going to look very hard to see what is so special about this painting.

You're implying that a painting has any inherent value (it does not). Just like everything else in the material world, it only has contextual value.

Before the 1900s, aluminum was valued more than gold. Today, it is one of the cheapest metals around. Nothing changed but the context in which we were able to extract it.

In the case of this painting, the context is what makes it valuable - the last known privately owned painting by a name nearly the entire western world recognizes immediately.

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#115

Post by joosters »

crazygringo wrote: post #51
ktta wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“When information is cheap, attention becomes expensive.” ― James Gleick We've come to a point where we're inundated with everyone trying to push their own agenda that it is difficult to both sort the BS out, while also becoming impossible to really appeal/reach out to the people who would appreciate and benefit from what one has to offer. >I think in the next years we will see rise of companies that help customers m…

> Case in point - is the 'undisclosed buyer' really benefiting $450.3 mil worth? Of course not! They are benefiting from whatever the difference is between $450.3M and what they expect to sell it for in the future, discounted to present value. Which means they might either expect to make money on it, or at least not lose too much on it. For some people, buying art aren't isn't too different from buying stocks... exce…

except you can't do anything to enjoy equities hanging on your wall

The buyers might not even get that benefit... there are billions of dollars worth of artworks sitting in storage in tax-efficient 'freeports':

https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21590353-ever-more-w...

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#116

Post by SCdF »

comboy wrote: post #17

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…

> 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.

I hope for this.

I am concerned that what will actually happen though, is that companies will purport to do this, but the call of making money through ads will be too strong. Either by morphing into a review site where reviews occur not through independent research but because companies sent them their product, or by being one of those companies that supposedly sort of fashion or whatever for you, but presumably get their stock based on deals that are not based on quality or research, but on whatever they can get for cheap.

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#117

Post by Jaruzel »

onewaystreet wrote: post #48
dchuk wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Christie's has more details here: http://www.christies.com/features/Salvator-Mundi-timeline-86... 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.

Bearing in mind here, that Christie's had a vested interest in the painting selling for as high as an amount as possible. So interesting this may be, it's hardly unbiased.

Personally, I'm a believer. :)

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#118

Post by Jaruzel »

olympus wrote: post #65

You could buy three F-22 Raptors with that kind of money. Well, Congress would never approve the sale, but this painting went for triple the per-copy price of the F-22, according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor I might be biased, but I know what I would pick if given the option, and it cruises 1,200 mph.

You could also seriously improve the well-being and living conditions of the populous of a small to medium third-world country.

But, hey, who am I to judge...?

Re: Leonardo Da Vinci Painting Sells for $450.3M, Shattering Auction Records

#119

Post by DomreiRoam »

anjc wrote: post #111
_nedR wrote: post #73

Art is supposed to inspire our inner eye for beauty. Seeing the 450 million dollar price tag, i feel an unusual amount of anger, disgust, revulsion at the ostentatiousness, excesses and brazen corruption of the rich and of the fine art world. I feel more disgust at this than i would at the usual gaudy, blingy excesses (like gold-plated cars and mansions) of the tasteless wealthy. I suppose good art can also seek to i…

> Art is supposed to inspire our inner eye for beauty These paintings were only painted because exceedingly wealthy families commissioned and collected them. If it were up to people like me and you, there'd be no art to inspire people in the first place. > I wonder how the millions of the poor, nameless, talented artists around the world feel about this. This community wouldn't exist if it weren't for the hierarchy o…

> If it were up to people like me and you, there'd be no art to inspire people in the first place. Art would still exist but some master pieces wouldn't exist. I agree that patronage has allowed artist to produce magnificent art piece but is not the case for all masterpieces.
Post reply on HN