4 ms·
Most people tend to dismiss the wide-range manipulation of high-end art as an irrelevant problem that only affects millionaires and a tiny subsection of "commer
by campbellmorgan 9y ago
Most people tend to dismiss the wide-range manipulation of high-end art as an irrelevant problem that only affects millionaires and a tiny subsection of "commercial artists". A point worth making is that more often than not, it is taxpayers who end up footing the bill when public museums purchase wildly expensive work whose price has been driven up by the processes described in the article.
While museums may get a discount for being important "taste-makers", I can't believe that that makes up for the crazy overvaluation.
This alone should make the case for better regulation as difficult as it must be across international borders.
- hutzlibu 9y agoSo lets stop making museums buy overpriced art then. So while it is nice for the public to be able to see a certain original, I can think of millions of better ways to spend that money and then just see a replica.
- campbellmorgan 9y agoI'm with you and ready to sign any petition that stops museums buying Jeff Koons!
- gt_ 9y agoI spent 4 days in a row at the Met last week and I still want to agree with you. Museums are mostly a delicacy. The Louvre was built for artists to study other artist's work. That's tremendously not how we use museums. Medium is valuable for study, yes, but I didn't learn anything last week. I just saw evidence of it in bare vision. But I am torn, because the more privately funded museums seem to be more prone to skewing history. I could be wrong.