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

61–66 of 66 posts

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

#61

Post by ahazred8ta »

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…

There was a line from a movie: "You had all that money in the stock market. What happened?" "Oh, the money's still there; it just belongs to someone else now."

When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can't eat money. -- Alanis Obomsawin

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

#62

Post by pea »

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 worked at the British Museum and there were rooms upon rooms of priceless objects. I remember a golden Buddha with the tags and wrapping still on it from Sotheby’s in the 1920s.

At that time, you could also just check out a piece and leave a little card there saying you’d taken it.

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

#63

Post by jimnotgym »

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.

Oh no, seeing a masterpiece on screen makes you say, 'oh that's nice'. Seeing the real thing, 6 feet wide, the texture, the light, can be truly stunning.

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

#64

Post by MichaelZuo »

jimnotgym wrote: post #63
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.

Oh no, seeing a masterpiece on screen makes you say, 'oh that's nice'. Seeing the real thing, 6 feet wide, the texture, the light, can be truly stunning.

But if it’s so nice… why aren’t there enough people (donors/ticket buyers) willing to pay the cost for freight, security, and full coverage insurance?

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

#65

Post by kjellsbells »

criddell wrote: post #59
kjellsbells wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well that's intriguing. Can you say more?

If I look at this painting on my phone, what I'm experiencing is radically different to the patron of 1500-whatever looking at the altarpiece. My experience is physically different, for a start, and perhaps more insidiously, other people, in control of my experience, can change my emotional response to it (see "Kuleshov effect"). Imagine seeing the image preceded by some doom scrolling on your phone concerning religious sectarian atrocities, say, vs it being preceded by a story about nuns helping children. You are not engaging with the work, you are engaging with an image of the work. And that image has been edited, curated, and positioned by someone for you.

One might also note that even seeing an artwork like this in the modern public galleries that we have is quite odd. Altarpieces invite repeated contemplation by the worshippers in a church, over a long time. Maybe you grow up liking the look of baby jesus but as an adult start to notice and think that Mary is smiling down on you in your troubles. In a gallery, you shuffle along in a sea of people, and get a few seconds to look at the piece before your attention is captured by another piece in the same room.

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

#66

Post by ahazred8ta »

ahazred8ta wrote: post #61
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…

There was a line from a movie: "You had all that money in the stock market. What happened?" "Oh, the money's still there; it just belongs to someone else now." When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can't eat money. -- Alanis Obomsawin

It was Tom Donnelly's Quicksilver. Kevin Bacon says “Nothing happened to it. The money’s still there, it just belongs to somebody else now.”
Post reply on HN