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

121–130 of 152 posts

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

#121

Post by speedplane »

joosters wrote: post #115
crazygringo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

I doubt the buyer would do that with this piece. It's too expensive and one-of-a-kind to stash away. If you're buying artwork just as an investment to stash away, you'd probably buy many much smaller pieces rather than a headline grabbing one.

I'd bet that this will be hanging in someone's billionaire's living room somewhere (hopefully behind some protective glass). These guys have egos. Saying you own the most expensive piece of artwork ever gets you something that money can't buy (even though you did buy it).

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

#122

Post by speedplane »

dingaling wrote: post #104
hw wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to compare a piece of art, history and culture, with a weapon of destruction. Great job.

An F-22 is, regardless of its function, one of the most complicated devices ever created by man. In that sense it is an example of the combined 'art' of the skills of many thousands of highly-skilled individuals. In past centuries cathedrals were hailed as the masterpieces of the skills of craftsmen.

F-22s are cool, but sadly, probably won't hold their value as well as a DaVinci.

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

#123

Post by anjc »

DomreiRoam wrote: post #119
anjc wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You only have to casually witness the art world - even just at a local level - to see that speculation by wealthy buyers sustains it, and also, that it costs a lot to produce art as a professional. So maybe without patronage some level of art would exist, but it wouldn't exist as a community without people ultimately paying a lot of money for work.

Furry porn producers would continue to make a mint though.

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

#124

Post by elorant »

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…

You don't seem to understand how the art world works. Buying art at this level has nothing to do with the work itself. It has everything to do with demonstrating power. Whoever bought that will have the best Leonardo work outside of museums. Art is a positional good, it shows that you have class and at this level nothing is as prestigious. Say you put that thing in a house or a museum, you can invite the Pope himself to view it. In terms of networking this is the holy grail.

Just because Christie’s went to unprecedented lengths to market the painting it doesn't mean that without that effort the painting wouldn't have sell at this price level. The art market is highly unpredictable.

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

#125

Post by speedplane »

elorant wrote: post #124
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…

You don't seem to understand how the art world works. Buying art at this level has nothing to do with the work itself. It has everything to do with demonstrating power. Whoever bought that will have the best Leonardo work outside of museums. Art is a positional good, it shows that you have class and at this level nothing is as prestigious. Say you put that thing in a house or a museum, you can invite the Pope himself…

I agree. Paradoxically, buying this work buys you something that money can't buy, even though it actually did.

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

#128

Post by Stratoscope »

Now this is freaky.

I thought I was done with HN for the evening after reading about this painting and a few other things.

So I opened my Kindle to read something else, and the advertising screen showed a book called Typhoon Fury (The Oregon Files).

I grew up in Oregon, so I figured I would take a look.

The blurb began:

> Hired to search for a collection of paintings worth half a billion dollars, Juan Cabrillo and the crew of the Oregon soon find themselves in much deeper waters.

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

#129

Post by hvidgaard »

Stratoscope wrote: post #128

Now this is freaky. I thought I was done with HN for the evening after reading about this painting and a few other things. So I opened my Kindle to read something else, and the advertising screen showed a book called Typhoon Fury (The Oregon Files) . I grew up in Oregon, so I figured I would take a look. The blurb began: > Hired to search for a collection of paintings worth half a billion dollars, Juan Cabrillo and t…

That is data mining and advertising networks for you.

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

#130

Post by zxcmx »

vixen99 wrote: post #107
blunte wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly Bill Gates doesn't need to flaunt his wealth. I'm sure he was just really excited by Da Vinci, and the opportunity to own a real piece of history was totally worth it. Despite Gates's (very) questionable method of rising to greatness, what he has attempted to do with his wealth is well above what most "rich" people do.

And he's done a brilliant PR job. https://www.liberationnews.org/real-agenda-gates-foundation/

Oddly enough I find it easier to believe that Bill Gates wants to change the world for the better than to believe that he is secretly pushing some neocapitalist agenda.

Mainly because he personally has everything to gain from the former and practically nothing from the latter at the wealth level he operates at.

Dude could get a better return on index funds than from his philanthropy. Cynically, plain investing is low status where he is at, less cynically he has a lot of time to think about things and a lot of resources and I believe many (most? hmm) humans would act the same way under those conditions. Maybe I'm just an optimist.

Post reply on HN