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

London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m

theartnewspaper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 66 posts

Re: London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m

#41

Post by olddustytrail »

sethammons wrote: post #32
bruce511 wrote: post #8

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…

Mind sending me all your retirement savings? I'll even give you a pretty sweet drawing for it. It wont be money wasted[1]; I'll be sure to use it well. [1] not sure how much you will be able to sell said sweet drawing for nor when, but by definition, it will be worth it.

I already spent my retirement savings. I used them to buy index funds and some shares. I think the companies will use my money better than you would, at least in the sense they will give me a return on my investment.

So, sorry they're all gone already!

Re: London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m

#42

Post by liendolucas »

surfingdino wrote: post #13

Ugh. It looks like an early AI hallucination produced while trying to generate religious art in the style of the Iron Maiden's Dance of Death album cover (possibly the ugliest album cover ever).

Haha, check Scorpion's Fly To The Rainbow: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_to_the_Rainbow

Thought that one was the ugliest, until now.

Re: London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m

#44

Post by criddell »

charcircuit wrote: post #23
jimnotgym wrote: post #19

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'd argue there already is ample distribution of masterpieces via the internet on various social media / image sharing platforms.

A painting seen in person can leave a wildly different impact than scrolling by it on your phone. Both are important IMHO.

Re: London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m

#45

Post by criddell »

olddustytrail wrote: post #41
sethammons wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mind sending me all your retirement savings? I'll even give you a pretty sweet drawing for it. It wont be money wasted[1]; I'll be sure to use it well. [1] not sure how much you will be able to sell said sweet drawing for nor when, but by definition, it will be worth it.

I already spent my retirement savings. I used them to buy index funds and some shares. I think the companies will use my money better than you would, at least in the sense they will give me a return on my investment. So, sorry they're all gone already!

$10 billion of Apple shares are bought and sold each day. How much of that do you think goes to Apple?

Re: London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m

#46

Post by tasuki »

steinwinde wrote: post #18
bruce511 wrote: post #8

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…

Reminds me of a visit of a garden restaurant in Munich, back in the days. My friend ordered a soup, but got a beer. Pointing out the mistake to the waiter, he was told that it doesn't matter, because the price is the same.

This destroyed all my preconceptions about Germany!

Re: London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m

#47

Post by giuliomagnifico »

riffraff wrote: post #7
giuliomagnifico wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes maybe my fault, I meant unknown as really unknown, not “less famous”.

I also read it like GP and thought this might be a piece about some shady art dealing :) I think a common way to describe such authors is "anonymous" although that has its own shade of confusion (did they intend to be unnamed?)

I wrote "unknown" because anonymous could be thought of as a donation or someone still alive but anonymous. In this case, it is truly "unknown”

Anyway, mods can edit the title if this causes misunderstandings!

Re: London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m

#48

Post by TiredOfLife »

surfingdino wrote: post #13

Ugh. It looks like an early AI hallucination produced while trying to generate religious art in the style of the Iron Maiden's Dance of Death album cover (possibly the ugliest album cover ever).

You were not exaggerating.

Re: London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m

#49

Post by bruce511 »

rvba wrote: post #24
bruce511 wrote: post #8

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

It will be dispersed to more thsn a single family. That's the point.

In this case specifically it's unlikely the family sold an asset simply to buy another asset. They've had it a few hundred years, and the gallery has had their eye on it for decades. It's likely they sold it cause they needed the cash, for a new roof or whatever.

If they spend it, then those people providing the goods and services will prosper. If they invest it in a business, then that business has capital to grow, and all those employees will benefit.

Re: London's National Gallery buys mysterious altarpiece for $20m

#50

Post by bruce511 »

sethammons wrote: post #32
bruce511 wrote: post #8

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…

Mind sending me all your retirement savings? I'll even give you a pretty sweet drawing for it. It wont be money wasted[1]; I'll be sure to use it well. [1] not sure how much you will be able to sell said sweet drawing for nor when, but by definition, it will be worth it.

Alas, I am not a gallery, and thus I don't make an income displaying drawings. I encourage you to target your sales at those best placed to profit from your product.

So from my perspective, I can getter better value moving my cash to dome other suppliers.

But even if I did buy your sweet drawing, the money itself us not wasted (I personally just control less of it.) The same money would now be controlled by you, and I'm sure you'll spend it, thus benefiting others.

The money itself cannot be wasted, it merely moves from one set of hands to another.

My personal control of money can indeed be wasted, since I can transfer it to another for insignificant value. But that's simply my control, not the money itself.

Post reply on HN