Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Robert Roaldi on July 13, 2017, 08:37:57 am
-
A tax mess here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cultural-gem-or-tax-grab-20m-in-annie-leibovitz-photos-caught-in-canadian-quandary-1.4181765 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cultural-gem-or-tax-grab-20m-in-annie-leibovitz-photos-caught-in-canadian-quandary-1.4181765)
-
From the sidelines, it strikes me as a great opportunity of catching a collection of portraits of the most "important" people of our times by one of certainly the most "important" photographers... it's an assumption when I speak of that part of her oeuvre - the collection may include other stuff. I have some of her landscapes in a book, and I think she'd be hard put to compete here in that genre. Hey, everybody does some things better than they can others.
Oh well, past power structures did much the same negative thing, but with fire.
Rob
-
Financial complications seems to be chasing Leibovitz for some years now. Not that she's gonna end up living under a bridge or any of that, but still, more troubles than she should have at this time and age.
Don't bet on that bridge: you never know where things can end once they begin. Art and finance are seldom powers within the same brain and advisors are not always advising for your best interests. That's why they grow rich from your problems... I hired a lawyer once to do more than buy/sell property and make wills; lesson learned.
Rob C
-
Isn't it odd that, in a leading photography forum, there is this obsessive-compulsive urge to write interminably about a guy with a bad haircut, yet almost nonbody has the interest to think about Annie L. Perhaps its the professional bit that annoys some or puts her beyond the pale...
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Rob C
-
The stench around the tax write-offs, causes one to ask why rich people are getting around paying their taxes at the cost of the average taxpayer in the first place? This is all a game. Art is bought. Then a few years later, they get some guy for a fee to appraise it higher. Then the rich guy gives it to a museum and makes a profit on his taxes. It's nuts.
-
That's what is happening here with the photos. The appraised value is higher than the donater could possibly get at an auction or resale. That's why they don't want it appraised officially. Now think of all the tax write offs that do get through at artificially high appraisals? Then when we go to the museum and applaud the people who "donated" them. How wonderful they are. It makes you feel kinda foolish.
-
A tax mess
simply a conspiracy to commit a tax fraud...
-
Crap. Business and art as usual. And why not? Would you feel better thinking instead of the pensions, protection and "expenses" you pay your politicos for the rest of their miserable lives? Give the artists a break - it's difficult enough to make a living in that business; should they get a break, make a name, then let them and their sponsors make the best of it. You don't have to buy, and you don't have to visit if it offends your delicate, egalitarian souls. Better they, the artsts, the buyers and galleries get something out of it than some bleeding-hearts goup.
I love the concept of "getting around paying their taxes at the cost of the average taxpayer"... how so? Do you imagine your own taxes would shrink if some gallery paid more? There's this bridge in Brooklyn that I can sell you: it connecs to new steel plants at one end and the rainbow at the other. (The crock of gold is empty, though: somebody got there before you, but you could always sell the empty crock on.)
I'll tell you what I read: I read envy, pure and simple. Nada mas.
Rob C
-
So you're suggesting that we should allow the purchaser of art to commit tax fraud so that the artist can make a living.
-
So you're suggesting that we should allow the purchaser of art to commit tax fraud so that the artist can make a living.
she was a co-conspirator in that case
-
I love the concept of "getting around paying their taxes at the cost of the average taxpayer"... how so?
less taxes = more deficit = more to borrow = more to pay in interest
-
she was a co-conspirator in that case
wow. Sorry to hear that.
-
wow. Sorry to hear that.
you think that she is "senile" like Ronald of Contras affair ?
-
So you're suggesting that we should allow the purchaser of art to commit tax fraud so that the artist can make a living.
I'm suggesting nothing. I'm actually saying that governments of all colours grab a percentage of you all your life, then when you die they still want to suck the congealed blood out of you and your family, just so they can channel it into their own salaries and causes that they think will keep their jobs alive.
The problem is in definitions. The problem is in professors who advised those money men and their regulatory bodies leading to the 2008 financial disaster still holding onto their chairs and spelling out the same courses to those student brains that fall into their hands. The problem lies in the fact that those too big to fail are also, very obviously, too big to jail.
Lay off those poor sods working with their hearts and God-given artistic talents; pursue instead those selling financial snake-oil and death, guns to idiot kids and brain-dead adults; cigarettes, booze and drugs to the entire goddam world with the money to score a hit. Try for the big boys, at least once. Maybe not: who else would pay for your electoral campaigns?
-
I'm suggesting nothing. I'm actually saying that governments of all colours grab a percentage of you all your life, then when you die they still want to suck the congealed blood out of you and your family, just so they can channel it into their own salaries and causes that they think will keep their jobs alive.
The problem is in definitions. The problem is in professors who advised those money men and their regulatory bodies leading to the 2008 financial disaster still holding onto their chairs and spelling out the same courses to those student brains that fall into their hands. The problem lies in the fact that those too big to fail are also, very obviously, too big to jail.
Lay off those poor sods working with their hearts and God-given artistic talents; pursue instead those selling financial snake-oil and death, guns to idiot kids and brain-dead adults; cigarettes, booze and drugs to the entire goddam world with the money to score a hit. Try for the big boys, at least once. Maybe not: who else would pay for your electoral campaigns?
Rob, you might "enjoy" this podcast (about 50 min): http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536642560/is-the-justice-department-shying-away-from-to-prosecuting-corporations (http://www.npr.org/2017/07/11/536642560/is-the-justice-department-shying-away-from-to-prosecuting-corporations)
-
I'm suggesting nothing. I'm actually saying that governments of all colours grab a percentage of you all your life, then when you die they still want to suck the congealed blood out of you and your family, just so they can channel it into their own salaries and causes that they think will keep their jobs alive.
The problem is in definitions. The problem is in professors who advised those money men and their regulatory bodies leading to the 2008 financial disaster still holding onto their chairs and spelling out the same courses to those student brains that fall into their hands. The problem lies in the fact that those too big to fail are also, very obviously, too big to jail.
Lay off those poor sods working with their hearts and God-given artistic talents; pursue instead those selling financial snake-oil and death, guns to idiot kids and brain-dead adults; cigarettes, booze and drugs to the entire goddam world with the money to score a hit. Try for the big boys, at least once. Maybe not: who else would pay for your electoral campaigns?
I'm all for lower taxes and getting government out of our lives. But Annie Leibowitz is not some "poor sod working with their hearts...". She is or was a multi-millionaire photographer. And I pay taxes that the law requires and expect others to do the same. Isn't that what's fair? We can adjust our tax laws as we see fit. But we shouldn't justify tax fraud because we think the law should be different. Where would that end?
-
Interesting...
The purchase price was US$4.75 million, but the article claims it is valued at $20 million four years later.
So, if the Mintz family is using the donation to gain more in tax "relief" than the actual purchase price, then I, too, would be putting up a red flag.
What is also being lost in the mix is the question of cultural significance. You see, this is Canada, not the USA, and while some of Ms Leibovitz's work may have some value to Canadian culture (Dan Akroyd was born in Canada and remains dual Can-USA citizen), much of it is not Canadian at all, nor is the artist, thus it's cultural value to Canadians is diminished.
As a Canadian, I'm glad our Revenue Agency is not "slam-dunk" accepting this donation as a tax write-off!
-
I have an engineer friend who worked for the US Internal Revenue Service as an Engineer in their Audit Division. They employed engineers to closely examine big dollar itemized or business deductions that were either very weird or beyond the ability of the "normal" agents to analyze. He explained that in is experience there, he learned that the richer, more "sophisticated" taxpayers had a more or less unified, highly aggressive view of deductibility in doing their taxes. As he explained it, first, everything is either deductible, not deductible or it is in the huge "gray area". The people he audited always deducted all deductible items AND almost always ALL of the gray items. Secondly, he said that it was fair to say that these same people also usually overstated the value of their donations.
-
Business and art as usual. And why not? Would you feel better thinking instead of the pensions, protection and "expenses"...........snip
I'll tell you what I read: I read envy, pure and simple. Nada mas.
Rob C
We just did an all night delayed flight, so I probably shouldn’t respond to anything with a clouded brain.
Given that . . . I somewhat agree with Rob. I think people that fixate on Annie’s issues are jealous, or maybe it’s just the culture of the internet to tear people down.
A few years ago when her money issues started, the comments we’re brutal and I've always taken what crew says negative about someone with a grain of salt, because it's second hand information.
I’m not a mind reader so I don’t know, actually don’t want to know and I’ve only met Annie once, briefly though I’ve hired 2 dozen crew members that have worked for her and heard all the stories, usually negative.
Though I know people that worked for her on a longer basis that swear by her work ethic and talent.
Annie has lasted a long time from reportage on film to high production digital and man that’s hard at her level because there are about 20 million people that want to replace her.
The most difficult part isn’t shooting it, but having the juice to get in the room and produce an iconic image of highly visible subjects that come with handlers, managers, art directors, lawyers all at the video village looking at every frame.
Do that gig and get back to me on what a photograph is worth?
As far as the tax write off, I don’t see her as a coconspirator, I see her as a victim of the deal she signed and how silly that family was to give 2,000 amazing photographs to a small gallery without knowing how they would evaluate them.
Now I don’t like doing politics, but Rob’s right. A $20million tax write off is nothing in comparison to what governments do with friends, the famous, the connected and powerful.
Also given the fact the gallery won’t comment if they will sell the prints seems sketchy. Annie got paid about $2,000 per print and I can think of 20 of her images that should bring 50 to 100 times that number.
IMO
BC
-
Now I don’t like doing politics, but Rob’s right. A $20million tax write off is nothing in comparison to what governments do with friends, the famous, the connected and powerful.
so if some dude steal your (c) work don't complain ... it is nothing, isn't it ?
-
As far as the tax write off, I don’t see her as a coconspirator, I see her as a victim of the deal she signed and how silly that family was to give 2,000 amazing photographs to a small gallery without knowing how they would evaluate them.
oh really ? poor Sara didn't have a lawyer to review the paperwork who can explain her why the 2nd payment was conditioned on that donation some time later ;D whom you are kidding here ? Martha Stewart v2 ...
-
It seems the 2000 photos in question are copies of the same pictures that are distributed elsewhere. I read that Annie might have been concerned with flooding the US market hence selling it in Canada. That would make them less valuable.
-
so if some dude steal your (c) work don't complain ... it is nothing, isn't it ?
I don't quite get what you mean - could you expand on it a bit more please?
Rob C
-
BC!
Nice to read you again.
Rob C
-
I don't quite get what you mean
try harder ...
-
try harder ...
In this case, you need to try harder with your English. Sorry.
-
In this case, you need to try harder with your English. Sorry.
;D ... you are excused on account of ...
-
I shed no tears for Leibovitz. She's famous for photographing the famous. And that makes her a "nationally important" and "outstandingly significant" artist? I think not. I live in LA near a dry cleaning shop displaying a sign that reads: "Dry Cleaners to the Stars." Leibovitz is no iconographic genius any more than my dry cleaners is a national landmark. She's a good portrait photographer with exceptional marketing skills. I'll give her that.
-
I shed no tears for Leibovitz. She's famous for photographing the famous. And that makes her a "nationally important" and "outstandingly significant" artist? I think not. I live in LA near a dry cleaning shop displaying a sign that reads: "Dry Cleaners to the Stars." Leibovitz is no iconographic genius any more than my dry cleaners is a national landmark. She's a good portrait photographer with exceptional marketing skills. I'll give her that.
Well, her pictures will be worth more after she's dead. :)
-
I shed no tears for Leibovitz. She's famous for photographing the famous. And that makes her a "nationally important" and "outstandingly significant" artist? I think not. I live in LA near a dry cleaning shop displaying a sign that reads: "Dry Cleaners to the Stars." Leibovitz is no iconographic genius any more than my dry cleaners is a national landmark. She's a good portrait photographer with exceptional marketing skills. I'll give her that.
You think?
She's an iconic photographer because of her ubiquity, which only came about after many years of hard work, and because enough people in the media want to use her for her pictures and even the reflected glory of being able to afford a name like that and have such a person accept their gig.
If you ask somebody - any civilian devoid of camera mania - to name a great snapper, she's probably one of the only ones that they could name. Icons are icons because they represent something - an era, a style or even a dream. I think she manages all three - at least.
A close second name - for the civilian - might be Testino.
But your cleaner probably has a better sense of humour than either.
Rob C
-
I shed no tears for Leibovitz. She's famous for photographing the famous. And that makes her a "nationally important" and "outstandingly significant" artist? I think not. I live in LA near a dry cleaning shop displaying a sign that reads: "Dry Cleaners to the Stars." Leibovitz is no iconographic genius any more than my dry cleaners is a national landmark. She's a good portrait photographer with exceptional marketing skills. I'll give her that.
OK, I'll chuck in my hand grenade and run. Would she and her photographs be anywhere near as admired - or as well-known - if they were of Joe Bloggs, of whom nobody had heard?
Jeremy
-
OK, I'll chuck in my hand grenade and run. Would she and her photographs be anywhere near as admired - or as well-known - if they were of Joe Bloggs, of whom nobody had heard?
Jeremy
That's a herring so red it probably lives in China!
Any photographer of note in the mad, bad world of publicity and excitement depends on famous and/or beautiful subjects just in order to find the raw material from which to fashion his/her snaps!
The entire magazine business depends on people that are extraordinary and/or extraordinarily attractive - by definition, then, stars!
Nobody other than an avid reader of Readers' Wives (should such an organ exist) would pay his bucks in order to gaze at pictures of the people working in some fast food dump, would they?
Equally, as Cooter mentioned earlier, how many amongst us here would walk into a gig to shoot the latest god or goddess without fear and with the confidence that they've done it well a zillion times before?
Your grenade was papier mâché, I'm afraid. Also fashioned in China.
Incidentally, you also maligned Joe Bloggs, of whom a great many people have heard. He'd be a perfect subject for Annie L.
;-)
Rob C