Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Extremely expensive art sells well, top 5 of 2017  (Read 4722 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17601
Re: Extremely expensive art sells well, top 5 of 2017
« Reply #40 on: September 01, 2017, 05:19:51 PM »

I'm not getting a 'buzz' from Rothko. His paintings are meditations on death. Similar spiritual feelings with Cezanne. His paintings are studies of becoming.

Sure, some of the work I enjoy is 'buzzy' (Bridget Riley, Pollock), but there's more to modern painting than visual effects.


Let me be honest. If that's how he strikes you, do yourself a favour and don't go back.

I've seen enough death and, chronologically at least, am not realistically that distant from it myself; there is nothing worth meditating about death. It comes to us all, we can't avoid it, and in the meantime, it fucks up everything you love most. Keep away from it as best you can; stop thinking about it and live whilst life is still with you. None of us knows what - if anything - comes later. That's where personal faith, as distinct from any prescribed faiths, has its own value. I no longer fear death, though I certainly fear pain.

The best one can do is never to forget the wonderful times that have lightened our souls now and again; know that without life we would never have had those moments, and that we know nothing - none of us - and that what will be will be. Maybe it's a doorway to the best we ever hoped for in life and probably never achieved. If it's a step to nothing, we'll never know. It might even be the entrance to something never imagined. But don't dwell on something that can't be changed. That is a waste of time/life. (No pun etc.)

Rob

elliot_n

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 449
Re: Extremely expensive art sells well, top 5 of 2017
« Reply #41 on: September 01, 2017, 06:26:41 PM »

Seems we've reached a dead end.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17601
Re: Extremely expensive art sells well, top 5 of 2017
« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2017, 03:34:36 AM »

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1456
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Extremely expensive art sells well, top 5 of 2017
« Reply #43 on: November 14, 2017, 12:10:54 AM »

The Art Gallery of NSW has three large Twombly paintings that they make a prominent display of. It is nice to think that they could flog them off and buy quite a decent bit of Australian art.

Cheers,

Logged
Tom Brown

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17601
Re: Extremely expensive art sells well, top 5 of 2017
« Reply #44 on: November 14, 2017, 09:30:53 AM »

The Art Gallery of NSW has three large Twombly paintings that they make a prominent display of. It is nice to think that they could flog them off and buy quite a decent bit of Australian art.

Cheers,

Why would they do that?

Rob

tom b

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1456
    • http://tombrown.id.au
Re: Extremely expensive art sells well, top 5 of 2017
« Reply #45 on: November 16, 2017, 10:47:50 PM »

The Twombleys. They are studies, surely we could flog off two and actually buy finished paintings.

Replaced by William Robinson, Fred Williams or Sidney Nolan paintings perhaps?

Just saying,
Logged
Tom Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1765
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extremely expensive art sells well, top 5 of 2017
« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2017, 09:15:55 AM »

Money gets circulated.  Wealth gets spent. The seller or his children that he leaves the money to eventually builds a house that provides work for Architects and engineers and bricklayers and electricians etcetera.  Taxes are paid on the profits made by the seller and the seller's agent lowering the taxes you have to pay.    It's really nobody's business what people spend their money on.   

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10443
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Extremely expensive art sells well, top 5 of 2017
« Reply #47 on: November 22, 2017, 10:34:51 AM »

An interesting article on the monetary value of art across centuries:

"Is Da Vinci’s ‘Salvator Mundi’ Worth $450 Million or $454,680?"

https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/11/16/is-da-vincis-salvator-mundi-worth-450-million-or-454680/
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17601
Re: Extremely expensive art sells well, top 5 of 2017
« Reply #48 on: November 22, 2017, 12:38:38 PM »

Money gets circulated.  Wealth gets spent. The seller or his children that he leaves the money to eventually builds a house that provides work for Architects and engineers and bricklayers and electricians etcetera.  Taxes are paid on the profits made by the seller and the seller's agent lowering the taxes you have to pay.    It's really nobody's business what people spend their money on.


Since when has somebody being stung for selling something ultra expensive ever reduced taxation on Joe Bloggs or even, come to think of it, John Doe?

That's wishful thinking based on fantasy mushrooms.

Taxation swings on political expediency and electioneering promises. Nada mad.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1765
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extremely expensive art sells well, top 5 of 2017
« Reply #49 on: November 22, 2017, 03:20:55 PM »


Since when has somebody being stung for selling something ultra expensive ever reduced taxation on Joe Bloggs or even, come to think of it, John Doe?

That's wishful thinking based on fantasy mushrooms.

Taxation swings on political expediency and electioneering promises. Nada mad.

Of course, one person's taxes isn't going to effect the entire country.  It's cumulative.  In the US, the top 5% of income producers pay around 60% of the taxes.  The $400 million is taxed as a capital gain.  I don't know what the seller paid originally for the art.  Let's say $100 million.  So his $300 million profit means he'll pay 15% capital gain or $45 million, leaving aside expenses.  The agent who made $50 million will pay 38% business taxes after deductions and expenses.  There also may be state and other local taxes depending on where he and the agent live. 

Of course, tax rates are a political decision.  But it's based to a large extent on how much the treasury figures it can get in taxes from the different income groups, capital gains, etc.  The more the higher income groups pay, the less the lower income groups have to pay. 

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17601
Re: Extremely expensive art sells well, top 5 of 2017
« Reply #50 on: November 23, 2017, 05:28:27 PM »

Of course, one person's taxes isn't going to effect the entire country.  It's cumulative.  In the US, the top 5% of income producers pay around 60% of the taxes.  The $400 million is taxed as a capital gain.  I don't know what the seller paid originally for the art.  Let's say $100 million.  So his $300 million profit means he'll pay 15% capital gain or $45 million, leaving aside expenses.  The agent who made $50 million will pay 38% business taxes after deductions and expenses.  There also may be state and other local taxes depending on where he and the agent live. 

Of course, tax rates are a political decision.  But it's based to a large extent on how much the treasury figures it can get in taxes from the different income groups, capital gains, etc.  The more the higher income groups pay, the less the lower income groups have to pay.


(I don't know how to highlight a sentence on this iPad, so I just have to refer to your last sentence.)

No, the more the highest pay, the more the exchequer wins; the lower incomes pay whatever the politicians think they can screw from them and still collect vote payback. The tax man likes nobody; his needs are insatiable because so are voter expectations which, in turn, are pushed his way to fulfil.

The dream of low taxes for Joe Public because Mr Zillionaire is paying more is hogwash. There are not that many of them. The real problem is unreal expectation based on a conditioned belief that somebody else should be obliged to carry your own tab. It's as unreal or unworkable as setting taxation at, say, 15% for everyone. Anyway, it isn't really the high-earning individual who can be the villain, the problem can be the way that companies are able to operate; one really shouldn't confuse the company with its founder and/or main shareholder. There are rules governing company behaviour, and plenty of tiny states willing to house their nominal headquarters and give stupidly low tax rates in exchange. Think recent events in Ireland. Laws exist, but bending them is an art that reaps big rewards, and ignoring demands to collect unpaid dues is also less than an honest way of cooperating with the world.

I'm no leftie, but abuses on such a level are more than just some little guy trying to save a few bucks for his retirement by doing the odd number without paperwork. Back to that 15 % not always being the same thing when talking matters of scale and result.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 05:31:31 PM by Rob C »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up