Can't see it.... just can't see it...

[Doug Garson]

I won't call you anything. That's your opinion. It's worth as much as the opinion of the person who buys that painting. It's subjective.

I appreciate your comment, but I think it is more than my opinion, it's my value system. Whether I like that piece of art is subjective, whether I think anyone should pay millions of dollars for it is a value statement. I don't like that style of art, I'd prefer a Robert Bateman painting or Bill Reid sculpture any day but If I had that kind of money (I don't), I wouldn't spend it on a piece of art, I'd spend it to make a few lives better. If you can afford $50 million on anything, your focus should be on helping others not buying expensive paintings or gold toilets.

[Mark Hennebury]

Once you accept that humans are incredibly intelligent, fundamentally stupid and gullible at the same time, the world makes perfect sense.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I appreciate your comment, but I think it is more than my opinion, it's my value system. Whether I like that piece of art is subjective, whether I think anyone should pay millions of dollars for it is a value statement. I don't like that style of art, I'd prefer a Robert Bateman painting or Bill Reid sculpture any day but If I had that kind of money (I don't), I wouldn't spend it on a piece of art, I'd spend it to make a few lives better. If you can afford $50 million on anything, your focus should be on helping others not buying expensive paintings or gold toilets.

Again, that's your opinion, your values. And it is subjective. It's merely a matter of personal opinion. I might disagree with you and that's my opinion, my values. It is subjective, not objective.

[Mel Fulks]

That’s okay if wanna do that. It’s great when anyone helps. “Should “ is a shaming “ gimme some “cardboard sign “ . Some wealthy
people tell their children they will inherit No money, as they will be leaving it all to charity ….or for their statue , and there ain’t no
statyute agin it.

[Patty Hann]

I appreciate your comment, but I think it is more than my opinion, it's my value system. Whether I like that piece of art is subjective, whether I think anyone should pay millions of dollars for it is a value statement. I don't like that style of art, I'd prefer a Robert Bateman painting or Bill Reid sculpture any day but If I had that kind of money (I don't), I wouldn't spend it on a piece of art, I'd spend it to make a few lives better. If you can afford $50 million on anything, your focus should be on helping others not buying expensive paintings or gold toilets.

Why is $50 million spent on something useless (to you) objectionable, even obscene?
Why isn't $5 million spent on something useless (to a poverty level person in the US) objectionable?

Some folks here have homes worth several million. Do they need a home like that?
I'll bet they would be just as dry and safe and have a bed to sleep in and a table to eat on if they only had a house worth, say $500,000, or even less.
and instead of 4000 sq feet, maybe only 1200 square feet.
And maybe a poverty level person thinks people who have a whole separate building dedicated to A HOBBY (not a business), a building that could easily house a family, maybe they think that is pretty obscene too.
Maybe that hobby-est should give up his hobby and make that building available to a family that is currently living in a dump of a rat infested house.

In fact why stop at the house. What about people who have say $10 million saved for their retirement.
DO you NEED $10 million to live, to have enough to eat to pay your utilities? Probably not.
Maybe people who have $10 million saved should give up half of that to the poor.

So you see, it's rather arbitrary isn't it? Who is to say the having and spending $50 million is wrong?
HAving $5 million to spend?
Having even $500,000 to spend on say, a 4x8 CNC and the best slider or shaper or a lot of heirloom hand tools, or every anodized red aluminum tool Woodpecker ever made?

To spell out the arbitrariness: What I spend on my hobby (or hobbies) is reasonable.
That makes it OK for me to say the money that other people spend on their hobbies (using my own spending as a standard) is either right (if it's no more than I spend) or "sick" if it is more than I spend.

[Jerry Bruette]

Once you accept that humans are incredibly intelligent, fundamentally stupid and gullible at the same time, the world makes perfect sense.

But I still get frustrated with it.

[Mel Fulks]

It’s not extracting money it’s earning money . An artist who painted a portrait of G. Washington from life replicated it many times and
referred to them as something along the line of his “money makers”. They are all treasured in museums and private collections and ….
pricey . A win for humanity and a deserved reward for the artist.

[Doug Garson]

Why is $50 million spent on something useless (to you) objectionable, even obscene?
Why isn't $5 million spent on something useless (to a poverty level person in the US) objectionable?

Some folks here have homes worth several million. Do they need a home like that?
I'll bet they would be just as dry and safe and have a bed to sleep in and a table to eat on if they only had a house worth, say $500,000, or even less.
and instead of 4000 sq feet, maybe only 1200 square feet.
And maybe a poverty level person thinks people who have a whole separate building dedicated to A HOBBY (not a business), a building that could easily house a family, maybe they think that is pretty obscene too.
Maybe that hobby-est should give up his hobby and make that building available to a family that is currently living in a dump of a rat infested house.

In fact why stop at the house. What about people who have say $10 million saved for their retirement.
DO you NEED $10 million to live, to have enough to eat to pay your utilities? Probably not.
Maybe people who have $10 million saved should give up half of that to the poor.

So you see, it's rather arbitrary isn't it? Who is to say the having and spending $50 million is wrong?
HAving $5 million to spend?
Having even $500,000 to spend on say, a 4x8 CNC and the best slider or shaper or a lot of heirloom hand tools, or every anodized red aluminum tool Woodpecker ever made?

I don't recall using the word objectionable or obscene, I said spending $50 million on a piece of art is an indication of a sick sense of values. The sick word is my opinion (so maybe close to objectionable or obscene) but I think an indication of sense of values is a factual statement. What do think spending $50 million on a piece of art says about someone's value system?
I have no objection to someone having a nice house or a nest egg for retirement or a nice hobby shop (I do) with or without a CNC (although $500k is a little over the top). I think people should enjoy the benefits of their hard work, but I also think how they spend their money is an indication of their value system and when they get to the point where they have $50 million in disposable income, well?

[Jim Koepke]

Thee say an Ansel Adams print sells for quite a bit of money but his negatives are not that valuable.

I do not recall the sizes of negatives used by Ansel Adams. If my recollection is correct he did have a camera utilizing an 11X4" format and an 8X10" format. He likely had others.

Making a print from a straight exposure from one of his negatives would not produce something that looked like a print Mr. Adams would make. He used a technique often referred to as "dodging" when making a print. This exposes some areas longer to darken them and blocking the light to other areas to make them lighter.

So the value is in the work of the person who made the photographic print.

I have a set of prints made from glass negatives from the Mathew Brady Studio. They were made in the 1970s. They are not worth as much as original prints that could be attributed to being made by Mr. Brady himself.

jtk

[Dave Zellers]

I think it should be noted that those that spend this kind of money on a silly painting are often the most philanthropic people in our society.

Denigrating them without knowing their philanthropy is taking uninformed cheap shots. Attacking highly successfully people just because they are successful is just plain dumb. More often than not, they are successful because they invented, provided, delivered, something that improved lives and moved society forward. They deserve their success and as I said, they more often than not, overwhelmingly give back.

[Rick Potter]

I think this is another "popcorn thread", just like SawStop, Festool, and electric car threads. Any opinion is correct for the author. Win-win.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I think it should be noted that those that spend this kind of money on a silly painting are often the most philanthropic people in our society.

Denigrating them without knowing their philanthropy is taking uninformed cheap shots. Attacking highly successfully people just because they are successful is just plain dumb. More often than not, they are successful because they invented, provided, delivered, something that improved lives and moved society forward. They deserve their success and as I said, they more often than not, overwhelmingly give back.

Bingo! That's a great point I was thinking too!

[Bill Howatt]

If spending $50 million to own and look at a painting is sick, is spending $50 million to own the painting as an investment sick too?

[Doug Garson]

It's not a black and white world, you can criticize someone for spending $50 million on a painting and praise them if they spend money philanthropically to help those less fortunate. Why does someone with $50 million laying around need to invest it in something that creates no jobs and helps almost no one? If they spent it on a yacht or a house at least they would provide employment for those building it.

[Mel Fulks]

Why do some people buy really expensive houses and … Why do some people keep buying dogs that insist on tasting people ?
Just telling people “ Sorry ‘bout that” ain’t much. They could at least give each employee a spray bottle full of boiled down Tabasco
Sauce. Unless they just don’t have any money .