17 ms·
More art is being produced and sold than ever before, at ever higher prices
- wyclif 9y agoThis is a fascinating article. But what I'd like to know about is the effect of this activity on the other side of the table: the modern artists who produce the works the rich purchase and auction. How does one become a top modern artist? (I'm thinking primarily of painters and sculptors).
- usrusr 9y agoBe interesting to the key galerists who define the first hand market. Outdo your peers in skill, aesthetics, novelty, materials, scandal. Ideally in all five of them, but exceptions happen. Then get very, very lucky. Edit: oh, and keep in mind that few pieces that later became coveted collector items already commanded a high price on the initial sale.
- sedachv 9y ago> Outdo your peers in skill, aesthetics, novelty, materials, scandal. Fortunately this part is completely optional. There are many very successful conceptual artists with terrible ideas and a complete lack of technical skills (you can tell by looking at their early work). All the hard work of material, skill, and aesthetics gets done by studio assistants.
- jazzkingrt 9y agoThis was posted on HN recently and does a good job with your question: https://qz.com/103091/high-end-art-is-one-of-the-most-manipulated-markets-in-the-world/ https://qz.com/103091/high-end-art-is-one-of-the-most-manipu...
- watwut 9y agoI dont really buy premise that art is supposed to look pleasant on the wall and have uplifting message (opening in the essence). To the extend it is, it is pretty easy to find very good looking unique paintings for reasonable price.
- holdenc 9y agoHow to be top modern artist: 1) Move to NYC, get a job working for a near blue-chip artist. Look for one with the fewest assistants. Accept $20 an hour. 2) Go to art openings, sign your name in every gallery guest book and attend every after-party. 3) Have a studio, and get your friends, employer and his gallery contacts to visit 4) Start showing your work, or repeat steps 2 and 3 until someone shows your work. 5) The ball is now, rolling. To add some momentum do the following: - Curate a summer show at a gallery somewhere - Upgrade your studio to someplace people like to visit. (Dark wood floors, on the waterfront in Red Hook, Brooklyn perhaps) Throw good parties. - Grow a lumberjack beard. Or, only shop at comme des garcons. Or thrift-store jeans and a white T, for all occasions. 6) Make friends with writers and critics. (Their needs are human, just like yours) 7) Get shown, written about, and finally get collected. 8) Now...this is the part where most artists discover how life as a successful artist is actually appalling. You'll need to socialize with and be popular among some very wealthy, but ultimately superficial people who treat you and your art as a certificate of their cultural sophistication. 9) If you have made it this far, and still want to continue, you probably have what is takes to be a successful modern artist whose work will appear at auction in a few years. Just keep in mind -- you'll receive none of those auction proceeds, and there's no promise you'll every go to auction again.
- unknown_apostle 9y agoDuring all of the above, to become a top modern artist: say and do stuff that is very disturbing or controversial to the plebes, but avoid real controversy at all cost when it comes to your art friends. However, to be a top future artist: say and do stuff which is super controversial to your art friends. Have an actual vision, be fanatic about it and avoid everyone except those who are truly interested in what you do. You'll probably die penniless even when you're supremely gifted.
- codingdave 9y agoOr, to translate all that to HN-speak -- learn an industry, network, do marketing, and cultivate a brand, until some day down the road, your product becomes big, and all your backers take the lion's share of the exit. How is all that any different than what the rest of us do to grow our business? Seems to me like the process of building a business doesn't differ by industry as much as people might think. Now, if we think that art SHOULD be different, that is a completely valid (and possibly more interesting) question.
- mozumder 9y agoThe key is to get a gallery to represent you. And not just any gallery, but one of the few hundred around the world with any influence - the kind that would have a booth at Art Basel or some of the other major art fairs around the world. But for that to happen, you actually need to be talented and create amazing work, since it's a lot easier for a curator to push for you if you create something that's compelling. If you look at the works in the elite galleries, the artists that are represented by them are much, much better than your everyday artists that you'd see at your local art fair. So, the process is: 1. Create some awesome art. 2. Show it someplace - could be in a local fair or student exhibit or on the internet someplace. 3. Have some people talk about it by sending out press emails. 4. Get a major gallery to notice your work. The good galleries are always on the lookout for new, marketable talent, and if you have some buzz, that helps influence them. 5. Profit.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y agoBeing amazing or awesome is optional. I spent a while doing the rounds of art fairs in London, and while some of the work is very good, some of it is banal. One conceptual piece: a laser dot on a white wall. Another: a video of a house being floated down a river. Another: a collection of chrome door knobs. I also saw the output of KPT FraxFlame (HN readers of a certain age will remember it) framed and being sold for four figures. I asked the gallery owner if he knew what it was, and he said "Of course." Galleries are essentially marketing machines for items and experiences that don't necessarily have intrinsic non-trivial aesthetic value of any kind.
- mozumder 9y agoThe later works can be dull, and if they don't sell, their gallery drops them. But its the initial works that draw them to the gallery in the first place is what needs to be amazing. Artists need to sell to these galleries first before selling to the elite buyers.
- unknown_apostle 9y agoHere's an idea for a (European) art work: collect the subsidy, cash it out in 50 euro notes and put the notes on a pedestal.
- knowThySelfx 9y agohttp://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2011/02/modern-abstract-art-and-picasso-capt.html http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.in/2011/02/modern-abstract-art... Disclaimer: It is written in a very colloquial style. And probably has things which you won't agree with. Nevertheless, a diff perspective.
- erispoe 9y agoFrom what you posted: > ART ON THIS PLANET HAS BEEN HIJACKED BY ROTHSCHILD COMMIES AND ZIONISTS . . That's not "a diff perspective", that's anti-semitism. Please don't post anti-semite stuff here...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- hjrnunes 9y agoAre all Jewish persons zionists and/or communists? Is that being implied in the post?
- ntzm 9y agoI don't know of any zionist communists at all
- liotier 9y ago> I don't know of any zionist communists at all I met them yesterday with the vegan nazis and the irredentist panafricanists - but you don't hang out at the cool parties !
- ntzm 9y agoSounds like some cool band names ;)
- bigleagueposter 9y ago
- mpweiher 9y agoTo me it sounds like a good way for the ultra-rich to play their status games and burn off wealth without impacting the rest of the economy. Maybe end the tax-deferral?
- pluma 9y agoA few years back I talked to someone involved in the business of international sales and procurement of luxury watches. Although there are a few genuine collectors, most of the business seems to be in aiding money laundry and dubious financial transactions (a $50k watch is easier to smuggle than a bag of $50k in cash, especially when the price is sufficiently stable). EDIT: To be clear, what he was doing was perfectly legal but he had no illusions about who his customers actually were.
- saiya-jin 9y agoOne of the primary markets for all luxury watches is plain simple bribery of government officials. One/set of Rolex which don't lose much value over time is perceived better than wad of cash slipped in envelope. Liquidity is quite good too. If bribery somehow magically stopped worldwide overnight, quite a few watchmakers (definitely not only Swiss) would go bankrupt.
- digi_owl 9y agoGets me thinking of how a detergent ended up being a medium of exchange in drug transactions.
- dageshi 9y agoThe other user who replied on this thread saiya-jin is [dead] and has been so for over a month. Their comments appear to be entirely reasonable to me, can we un-dead them? EDIT: User is visible again, thanks.
- mindfulplay 9y agoIn a funny way, I cannot but draw a parallel between the bitcoin folks and 'modern' art folks: Very little intrinsic value; mass produced but still the producers and consumers feel like they are part of some niche (and somehow the rest of the world doesn't 'get them'). And dare I say, an easy way to launder dirty money out. I just don't get why either of those two things deserve any attention other than it's just another way that money exchanges hands.
- hndamien 9y agoThe main difference is that this is literally all Bitcoin is intended for - “just another way that money exchanges hands.”
- unknown_apostle 9y agoTrue. Things like gold, bitcoin, stamp collections, art, expensive cars etc serve a similar function: the function of "saving", as opposed to "investing". With "saving" I mean storing some excess purchasing power in something that doesn't have a counterparty and doesn't generate income, but also can't be duplicated easily so is likely to at least not loose a lot of value. Of course, all these saving devices have different properties. Gold and bitcoin are liquid, whereas art is extremely illiquid. Gold and bitcoins are egalitarian, in the sense that a poor man buying gold gets the same thing as a rich man buying gold. Art is elitist and susceptible to huge winner-takes-all effects. All are susceptible to stealing, but cryptocurrencies are susceptible to total failure because of their complexity (bugs, mathematical weakness, ...)
- baldfat 9y agoArt = Tax Haven. Long time ago in my teens I worked in art outside of NYC and my friend's whole business was a Art Moving Company. Art isn't about art but to a very small number of people. I can't tell you how many times people would say that they don't even like the art they own. Art is stored away where no one is able to see it, and all for tax havens. You can put your art into storage where the art sits and the owner doesn't have to pay taxes on their purchases. 2013 - https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21590353-ever-more-wealth-being-parked-fancy-storage-facilities-some-customers-they-are https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21590353-ever-more-w... Same reason why the number one US Currency note in circulation is the $100 bill. In 2012 77% of all US currency was $100 bills! Can't tax cash hidden away. https://qz.com/29561/why-the-share-of-100-bills-in-circulation-has-been-going-up-for-over-40-years/ https://qz.com/29561/why-the-share-of-100-bills-in-circulati...
- svantana 9y agoCan someone explain what the downside is? I'd much rather the rich spend their money on art than activities with huge negative externalities like flying around in private jets, buying land or employing servants.
- igorkraw 9y agoThe negative externalities here are (nonexhaustive) * tax evasion (kindly fuck of with "it's legal so it's avoidance", it's evasion even if it's legal. Spirit of the law) * money laundering for $CRIME_YOU_DESPISE/$DICTATOR_YOU_DESPISE * shutting down/perverting the market for those that actually care about art (not me, but they
- mozumder 9y agoIt doesn't really shut down the market for those that actually care about art. The billionaire buyers will exist in a separate world from the everyday artists that are selling their works for $500. Completely independent markets.
- theoh 9y agoIt's wrong to assume that "everyday artists" and people who actually care about art are insulated from this. Some worthwhile artists get promoted into this high-prices world of prestige, and their production/careers get distorted. For better or worse, the humble $500 "everyday artists" you seem to be affirming are, for the most part, not intellectually or culturally relevant. But this isn't about affordability, it's about the valid art culture (the mainstream) being corrupt and overheated. Good artists get swept up in it.
- roenxi 9y ago> * tax evasion (kindly fuck of with "it's legal so it's avoidance", it's evasion even if it's legal. Spirit of the law) At its heart, modern tax law separates people into classes and then allocating the burden of maintaining society unequally between those classes. The spirit of the law that you are defending here is that people should shoulder unequal responsibilities to their society. Although that isn't controversial, it also doesn't automatically have a moral high ground; it could be a better outcome if everyone contributed equally. It just happens that everyone contributing equally flat-out won't work, because most people can't contribute enough. The spirit of the law is unfair. That is an unfortunate reality of taxes - in a sense they can't reduce the total unfairness in the world, only shift it to people who can better deal with the burden. That people should ignore the detail of the law and voluntarily subject themselves to an unfair burden is not clear-cut. The clear cut part of this is that the law should be clear, pass through the usual channels and be enforced with due process - ie, as written or as commonly interpreted by the courts. If you want to call it tax evasion, someone is going to have to change the law so it is actual tax evasion. Until then, it is legal so it is avoidance.
- cbzbc 9y agoThis has always been the case to an extent - see the Esterhazy's patronage of Haydn and the Prince of Salzburg's sponsorship of Mozart. The exception is the 20th century when the Soviet system pushed art as something for the people [though the incentives on who was sponsored was again skewed at the top], and the various publicly funded arts programs in Western Europe - driven by social democratic ideals.
- fergie 9y agoFor those who missed it there was a pretty good article/discussion here a few weeks ago about how the art market is systematically manipulated for profit, and nobody wants to fix it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16200100 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16200100
- ivanhoe 9y agoThe most expensive postage stamp was sold for more than 2 millions, and initially was worth a few cents. Antique items are also usually ridiculously expensive compared to the initial value. Even old legos are being sold for thousands of dollars. That's what collectors due, overpay for rare or otherwise "special" items, and of course, when there's money in the market there will be people turning it into a business. Art is just one (very lucrative) piece of that cake.
- emodendroket 9y agoYes, perhaps, but the difference with art is that artists are encouraged to pump out works to cater to the whims of these rich collectors in a way antiques dealers cannot.
- purple-again 9y agoHave you ever felt encouraged to pump out code to cater to the whims of rich overlords? I can't tell you how many $50,000 (our fee) tax returns I filed with...questionable sections because I was being encouraged to pump out work to cater to the whim of partners that didn't even come into the office anymore. Nothing unique to art here.
- emodendroket 9y agoPeople still read The Odyssey but I'll be lucky if anyone cares about any code I ever worked on in fifty years.
- ivanhoe 9y agoCertain types of artists, yes, but it's still their own choice whether to sell out or not. It's the same thing as with the majority of modern music, literature, etc. Just look at how the music industry works...
- emodendroket 9y agoOK, sure, but an art critic is presumably more interested in the effects on the "ecosystem" of art. Besides, I don't think it's that unusual to find someone decrying, say, the importance of the blockbuster leading to a glut of superhero films at the expense of films that might be of more interest to some viewers.
- djexns 9y agoThis is completely logical... The whole point of art business is a safe investment area where the rich won't lose money.
- SagelyGuru 9y agoI am struck by a thought: isn't this just yet another kind of a pyramid scheme?
- M_Bakhtiari 9y agoI don't see the similarity. I can't see any notion of recruitment rewards in modern art. It's more like Pez dispensers and Beanie Babies and all that nonsense. Over-priced and over-hyped collectibles with no real-world (not even aesthetic) value.
- SagelyGuru 9y agoYes, I should have said bubble, like the original tulip bulbs. At least the tulips did have some aesthetic value. There is recruitment reward: buying early, hyping up modern "art" and making a profit.
- CPLX 9y agoIt may be a bubble, but it's not a pyramid scheme. While similar, those two concepts are distinct.
- mateus1 9y agoI was astonished when I met this 20-something art dealer here in Sao Paulo at an event. He was talking about how, after graduating he developed a passion in dealing art, some 2 years later the guy has opened 4 or 5 galleries around the world. Quite a star, right? Then I found out he's the son of one of the most notorious corrupt politicians in Brazil...
- badosu 9y agoArt is huge in money laundering, e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/arts/design/bernardo-paz-inhotim-prison-brazil.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/arts/design/bernardo-paz-... Casinos and jewelries as well, anything that might have a lot of non-tangible value and can be inflated without questions. I am not too aware of markets outside of Brazil, but I'd assume sports teams and auctions are big too. I remember that in the last 15 years there were a lot of football team acquisitions by russians in europe.
- spectaclepiece 9y agoThe interesting metric in this relationship is the amount of money that actually goes to the artist. A recognized artist at a mid-high level gallery is usually promised a show approx. every 18 months. Average earnings for such a show is commonly expected to be around $100.000, (10-15 works each selling for between $5.000 and $10.000). That would be a decent amount of money for that time but here comes the crux; the gallery takes 50%. This leaves the artist with an income of $50.000 before taxes. Say you live in Sweden, where you have to tax nearly 50% for sales in a private company that leaves you with $25.000 every 18 months in disposable income, hardly something you can get a flat in Stockholm for. What's even worse is that if you are tied to a gallery you are most commonly prohibited to sell privately or show with other galleries.
- mathattack 9y agoMinor point, but Sweden has a 50% Sales Tax? What's the source? I see a VAT of 25%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Sweden This doesn't change your overall conclusion that not a lot goes back to the artist.
- spectaclepiece 9y agoThere is a 25% vat tax and then on top of that you have income tax which is around 25% at that income bracket.
- rahimnathwani 9y ago25% VAT would mean that 50k paid by the gallery is 30k to the artist, not 25k. (50k inc VAT is 40k revenue, less 25% of that revenue as tax.)
- spectaclepiece 9y agoCorrect, sloppy calculation.
- narrator 9y agoOne angle on the modern art world I heard is that it is used as a bribe that is tax deductible. They briber buys the art from the person they are bribing and then they donate it to a museum at the paid value and deduct it on their taxes. The IRS can't set a fair price for a painting after all.
- nradov 9y agoThe IRS has been known to occasionally require independent art valuation estimates during income tax audits.
- fiatjaf 9y agoIf making the rich trade their money for something that will hurt them mentally is "serving" I don't know in which world I'm leaving anymore.
- mcantelon 9y agoPretty good way to launder money and, via the Art in Embassies program, smuggle anything anywhere. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-w...
- ethagknight 9y agoSorry to embark on a conspiracy theory rabbit hole, but when i read something like that, I am left wondering who really conned whom? Who was the real mastermind? The CIA, in some far fetched scheme to control the world? Or did bohemian artists con the US Government and American people into bankrolling their lifestyle? There is a surface narrative, to cover up the ‘real story,’ but why should i be so naive to believe this telling of the story either? Without a doubt , for any interpretation, the American taxpayer certainly was on the losing team.
- kev009 9y agoOne thing I've never understood - and if I ever become absurdly wealthy I will try these kinds of random absurdities - is how few of the rich use the power they have to create new definitions of art. For instance, sure you can commission paintings and trade them. But how trite and boring.. imagine commissioning your own RISC-V implementation, or a file system, or something similar that millions of people come to rely on. You could do these kinds of things for a few million dollars each. Without any commercial expectation you could do pretty audacious reaches that would occasionally deliver humanitarian value. Maybe I'm a weirdo..
- Dwolb 9y agoThis is a fantastic idea that I’d guess is one of the selling points of universities and other software foundations. Maybe they could attract more dollars to their projects by naming them after the main benefactor...
- kev009 9y agoAs soon as there's a committee it's almost certainly going to be philanthropy rather than art. The presumption is that you have excellent taste and exercise Steve Jobs-esque tyrannical control over the aesthetics.
- L_Rahman 9y agoYou're not a weirdo. This is something I feel similarly about, but here's the thing about rich people: 1. The path to becoming rich puts them in a social class that warps their view of what matters and leaves measuring themselves against arbitrary hierarchies of their own making. 2. The path to becoming rich in modern society is such that the kind of people who would commission RISC-V implementations or security audits of popular open source software or cheap medical interventions simply cannot succeed. It may require too much of a compromise of those beliefs to actually win.
- kev009 9y agoDon't get me wrong it would totally be about ego and about how excellent your own design tastes are. You'd name all the stuff after yourself. That's why it'd be considered art :D Some of the robber barons did some interesting eccentricities like Carnegie libraries. The Long Now clock is the most recent thing I can think of.
- motohagiography 9y agoHardly need to read the rest of an article with a headline that includes, "the Rich," as fairly clear what it's about. An acquaintance recently (2011) wrote a book about the world of art theft. (https://www.amazon.ca/Hot-Art-Chasing-Thieves-Detectives/dp/1771000694 https://www.amazon.ca/Hot-Art-Chasing-Thieves-Detectives/dp/...) The point I remember him making was that the stolen art was often used as collateral for black market transactions, owing to the opacity of the market in general. It's an asset class like any other. Depending on what it is, it will have different liquidity, volatility, and portability properties. The notional value can be used as collateral in other transactions, with no real transparency on rehypothecation. New appraisals can mark it in support of other calculations, and you can insure it. It can be a bit of a financial black box. Also, art is and always has been a path to social mobility. Hence the parties where young people go to meet older wealthy ones. The real business of art is brokering relationships and transactions, with the art as a pretext. If you have money and fewer relationships, you can go buy art in any major city as a short cut to local society. If you want access to partners and the kind of social networks that provide opportunities for your future family, it's surprisingly accessible. Gallery owners perform a kind of social gate keeping role without a lot of the insular baggage that comes from establishment networks. These relationships and transactions are culture. The idea that someone can just make money, participate in culture by buying art, then move easily between social classes seems offensive to some people, but that's really how it works. It also provides a perfect straw man for people who go on about "the rich."
- jiojfekjl 9y ago1. "the rich" seems pretty clear an concise. What else would you call them. How is "rich people" any more or less crass? 2. You say it provides a strawman. But then you go on to basically confirm what the article says. And your defense is "that's just how it is"
- motohagiography 9y agoIt's difficult to see how a lurid view of how some people with money live (e.g. the article) improves peoples lives any more than say, porn. The idea class mobility needs some sort of moral "defense," is certainly challenging. Sure, it hollows out the ranks of the aggrieved, but that's the point.
- pasta 9y agoSome time ago real Banksy prints were sold for $60 at a street stall in NY. They didn't sell much but people who bought one later discovered they are worth around $20,000. A week later some guys (Dave Cicirelli and Lance Pilgrim) sold fake Banksy's with a certificate saying they were real fakes. They sold out in an hour. This was a great way to show the real value of art. Edit: found an article about it: https://www.theverge.com/2013/10/22/4864592/fake-banksy-stall-new-york-sells-40-artworks-one-hour https://www.theverge.com/2013/10/22/4864592/fake-banksy-stal...
- dang 9y agoComments in this thread illustrate how even a tiny bit of linkbait like "the Rich" tends to dominate discussion, riling it up and dumbing it down. We've edited the title to the subtitle. There's a lot more to this article than that.
- jackcarter 9y agoThis, on the market for high-end artworks, is one of the most interesting papers I have read: http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/canice.prendergast/research/MarketContemporaryArt.pdf http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/canice.prendergast/research/... tl;dr: Art markets are unusual or unique in several ways, including thin demand (few buyers are interested in a given artwork, and their reserve prices will be very different), contempt for "flippers" (including shunning by galleries), and refusal to reduce prices, which would cause an artist's personal bubble to pop.
- strictnein 9y agoTangentially related: if this article isn't written about you or your friends, a great place to find really nice art for relatively cheap is at a student art sale for your local art school. Money typically goes to the students directly to help them pay their tuition. Some of them even have "VIP" opening nights, which end up being just kind of a nice date night. $125 gets you food, booze, and first crack at the art, most of which will be in the $100-$1000 range. An example, in Minneapolis: https://mcad.edu/about-mcad/events/art-sale https://mcad.edu/about-mcad/events/art-sale There will be a lot of stuff you'll probably not like, but there's some absolute gems. Bought a lacquered painting of Ai Weiwei for $300 that I wouldn't sell for $3000.
- taurath 9y agoIf you want to see the richest art markets in terms of consumer participation and artists succeeding (and don't care about adult nature), look no further than the anime and furry communities. It is a THRIVING market for commissions and patrons - tens of thousands of artists running the gamut from $5 sketches to $10k oil paintings. Its the best example I've ever seen of a lower/middle class art market working well. What you're "buying" is a representation of your individual expression. The high end "art world" and NYT/New Republic articles could not be further away from these artist communities, both in terms of accessibility and relevance outside the ultra-rich circles that traditional art galleries serve.
- thathappened 9y agoI always hated middlemen but as I got older and saw the difference between creators and capitalists. You don't see the 50% being spent to maintain the relationships that bring buyers in and interested in supporting the artist. Arts subjective, you can play the free game and use the internet but if you want a network of people that support galleries it's because they gained something from that gallery at some point. Also that gallery isn't free, some are cheap and some don't earn their keep but you get free choice and no known test to differentiate the honest from the dishonest but experience.
- mlinksva 9y ago> Yet the most troubling examples of the exploitation of art for financial gain are perfectly legal. As Adam outlines, collectors and their agents have continually found creative ways to use their art holdings to defer paying taxes, including the establishment of private museums and foundations, storing artworks in offshore freeports where they can be exchanged without incurring customs duties or VAT, and loopholes in the tax code such as “like-kind” exchanges. Originally set up in the 1920s to aid farmers by enabling them to defer taxes on livestock trades, “like-kind exchanges” are now regularly invoked by art collectors in order to avoid paying taxes on the sale of artworks: So long as a collector uses the proceeds of the sale of one work to purchase another within 180 days, the tax obligation can be perpetually kicked down the road. This may have been eliminated for art by the most recent US tax bill, or https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/your-money/taxes-real-estate.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/12/your-money/taxes-real-est... seems to say so ("property" was changed to "real property"). The previous administration also wanted to end like-kind treatment for art https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/arts/design/tax-break-used-by-investors-in-flipping-art-faces-scrutiny.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/27/arts/design/tax-break-use... but without digging more, I assume changes proposed then didn't get enacted.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]