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

51–60 of 66 posts

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

#51

Post by maratc »

bruce511 wrote: post #8
curiousgal wrote: post #4

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…

> "Money is neither created nor destroyed, it simply moves from one hand to another".

With regards to how money is created, you may want to read on credit and how banks create money virtually out of nothing, or how the state has a monopoly on printing money (turning "not money" -- paper and ink -- into "money").

The destroying part is much simpler: you can perform an experiment of burning a banknote yourself.

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

#52

Post by jjani »

speerer wrote: post #11

The faces are exceedingly like the uncanny early AI-generated smears.

Apart from the crazy dog, the style has similarities to "Virgin and Child Surrounded by Angels" by Jean Fouquet[1], from a somewhat similar era (1452). If you search for "Early Netherlandish paintings" you'll find more, so it's not outrageous for the time. I'm sure people who know their art history (not me) can point towards even much closer ones.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melun_Diptych#/media/File:Fouq...

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

#53

Post by OJFord »

turbotim wrote: post #38
hilbert42 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But if I understand correctly it's not taxpayer money" How does that work (I'm not in the the UK)? Donations perhaps?

From the article: “ The Virgin and Child with Saints Louis and Margaret and Two Angels was bought for just over $20m (around £16m at the time), funded by the American Friends of the National Gallery London.”

Regardless of where it came from this time, it's a charity, not some sort state gallery department funded by the treasury.

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

#54

Post by fanatic2pope »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #5

An important detail missing from the headline is that the painting has been dated to be from 1500-1510.

> Dendrochronology has dated the felling of the oak tree of the panel to 1483, which, accounting for the seasoning of the wood, suggests a date for the painting of soon after 1500.

Sounds like they have only dated the wood in the frame to 1500. Hopefully they will do some more research and get more proof.

For reference, Han van Meegeren used old frames and old canvases to forge his works. The article on his career is fascinating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_van_Meegeren

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

#55

Post by PopAlongKid »

curiousgal wrote: post #4

I can't help but think it's a waste of money, how many paintings of Mary and ugly baby Jesus do you need?

>how many paintings of Mary and ugly baby Jesus do you need?

I had a laugh at that comment. I visited London six months ago and spent an evening at the National Gallery, including the self-guided audio tour. As I wrote in an email at the time,

"I'd guess at least a third of the paintings I saw, often from Italian artists, were about Jesus being born, being circumcised, or being crucified and resurrected, along with lots of stuff about Mary, Joseph, John the Baptist (Jesus' cousin, I guess), etc"

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

#56

Post by kjellsbells »

criddell wrote: post #44
charcircuit wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

/r/unexpected_walterbenjamin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_...

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

#57

Post by edm0nd »

JawsofDeath wrote: post #15
LeoPanthera wrote: post #5

An important detail missing from the headline is that the painting has been dated to be from 1500-1510.

Yes, I thought it was a modern piece and already started thinking it was some kind of scam.

same. I thought it was going to be some PR twist on an org caught being involved in the money laundering that blatantly goes on in the art world.

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

#58

Post by csomar »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #5

An important detail missing from the headline is that the painting has been dated to be from 1500-1510.

How rare paintings from 1500+ really are? I am genuinely asking. Some old artifacts (ie: 3000 BC) are valuable, but most artifacts are not. And there is literally tons of very old artifacts.

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

#59

Post by criddell »

kjellsbells wrote: post #56
criddell wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

/r/unexpected_walterbenjamin? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_of_Art_in_the_Age_of_...

Well that's intriguing. Can you say more?

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

#60

Post by surfingdino »

lostlogin wrote: post #16
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).

This thing? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_of_Death_(album)

Yes.
Post reply on HN