6 ms·

Isn't all of the global art marketplace, a swindle to begin with? It's a money laundering industry in its entirely with almost barely any money actually reachin

Isn't all of the global art marketplace, a swindle to begin with? It's a money laundering industry in its entirely with almost barely any money actually reaching the original artist. It could have easily been him selling something he drew up in 2 days, make up a bullshit backstory, sell it for 50 million and he'd actually not have to disappear

saagarjha 7y ago
> It's a money laundering industry in its entirely with almost barely any money actually reaching the original artist. Considering the original artist is often deceased, I think it would be rather difficult for them to get the money.
- jml7c5 7y ago
  I think the theory is that Bob secretly gives an accomplice a bunch of dirty cash. That accomplice then buys art from Bob, but they get to keep some portion of the money for their trouble. There needn't be an artist involved. Though it seems the accomplice would come under scrutiny unless they have some plausible explanation as to how they got the money to pay for the thing. I don't know if "the art market is fueled by money laundering" theory is actually supported by evidence, but it's a fun idea.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - yairchu 7y ago
    Is there any other plausible explanation?
    - wolco 7y ago
      It's based on fear, copying the last person, vanity, greed, fraud and elitism. Money laundering is possible but a transaction like that with art will trigger an audit in best of times and the government will demand proof of worth. Easy to give with a Warhol harder to do with an unknown painter.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
milofeynman 7y ago
Right now another common use of high end art is to avoid taxes by purchasing expensive art and storing it in a Freeport[0]. [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/09/584555705/episode-823-planet-monet https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/09/584555705/epis...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
redis_mlc 7y ago
> Isn't all of the global art marketplace, a swindle to begin with? According to press reports, most artworks for sale are forged. (The corollary is that old collections are even more valuable.)
t_akosuke 7y ago
As an artist who wants to deliver some value for the hard work I put into it... I'm appalled shit still works like this
- vkou 7y ago
  The artist delivers some value for the hard work he put into the painting, but not tens of millions of dollars of value. The accountant, who implements the tax fraud delivers a lot more value to his 'customer'.
gjs278 7y ago
no it’s not. this is a myth everyone blindly repeats.
friendlybus 7y ago
I repeatedly see a cynicism around art on HN and other tech blogs, does no-one here see the inherent value in art or culture? Jackson Pollock's art pieces get a lot of flack for basically having no publicly presented interpretive structure, the artist came up with a technique for doing 'plastic depth' that was a novel innovation. Irvine Kershner who directed Empire Strikes Back and met Pollock made fun of him at the time for his work appearing to be off the rails, and later came to appreciate it. Taking out the market manipulation of fine art still leaves it with an intrinsic value whether it is technique or the meaning imbued in having a piece of work produced by an artist. Is that worth millions? Who knows, if I give you any old guitar, and a guitar that Elvis played on I know the second will be valued higher.
- avs733 7y ago
  My read on this has always been that most of the negative commentary around 'art' falls into one of two categories. Neither of which is utterly dismissive of the value of art and/or culture. However, I'm not sure they are made all that explicitly. 1) Criticism of the art industry and it's role in the commoditization and market making you mention around art. That isn't criticism of art or it's value...it's criticism that such value is often interfered with for, among other things, money laundering. 2) Criticism of specific pieces of art that an individual doesn't 'get' (and by golly I fall into this trap). By get, it really is about they don't see the artistic or cultural value of that piece but typically is done in reference, which implies that they do see some art as having value.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    I empathize with the 2nd category in particular, there are many attempts at creating an interpretive structure for art that doesn't hit the mark so someone not getting it is half or more caused by the presenting artist. Criticism of the industry is self evidently fair.
  - rjzzleep 7y ago
    Here's a 20 minute art discussion about the intricacies of the Banana taped on the wall. So yeah count me in on the second group. https://news.artnet.com/the-art-angle/art-angle-podcast-banana-1742772 https://news.artnet.com/the-art-angle/art-angle-podcast-bana...

saagarjha 7y ago

> It's a money laundering industry in its entirely with almost barely any money actually reaching the original artist. Considering the original artist is often deceased, I think it would be rather difficult for them to get the money.

jml7c5 7y ago
I think the theory is that Bob secretly gives an accomplice a bunch of dirty cash. That accomplice then buys art from Bob, but they get to keep some portion of the money for their trouble. There needn't be an artist involved. Though it seems the accomplice would come under scrutiny unless they have some plausible explanation as to how they got the money to pay for the thing. I don't know if "the art market is fueled by money laundering" theory is actually supported by evidence, but it's a fun idea.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- yairchu 7y ago
  Is there any other plausible explanation?
  - wolco 7y ago
    It's based on fear, copying the last person, vanity, greed, fraud and elitism. Money laundering is possible but a transaction like that with art will trigger an audit in best of times and the government will demand proof of worth. Easy to give with a Warhol harder to do with an unknown painter.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

milofeynman 7y ago

Right now another common use of high end art is to avoid taxes by purchasing expensive art and storing it in a Freeport[0]. [0] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/09/584555705/episode-823-planet-monet https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/02/09/584555705/epis...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

redis_mlc 7y ago

> Isn't all of the global art marketplace, a swindle to begin with? According to press reports, most artworks for sale are forged. (The corollary is that old collections are even more valuable.)

t_akosuke 7y ago

As an artist who wants to deliver some value for the hard work I put into it... I'm appalled shit still works like this

vkou 7y ago
The artist delivers some value for the hard work he put into the painting, but not tens of millions of dollars of value. The accountant, who implements the tax fraud delivers a lot more value to his 'customer'.

gjs278 7y ago

no it’s not. this is a myth everyone blindly repeats.

friendlybus 7y ago

I repeatedly see a cynicism around art on HN and other tech blogs, does no-one here see the inherent value in art or culture? Jackson Pollock's art pieces get a lot of flack for basically having no publicly presented interpretive structure, the artist came up with a technique for doing 'plastic depth' that was a novel innovation. Irvine Kershner who directed Empire Strikes Back and met Pollock made fun of him at the time for his work appearing to be off the rails, and later came to appreciate it. Taking out the market manipulation of fine art still leaves it with an intrinsic value whether it is technique or the meaning imbued in having a piece of work produced by an artist. Is that worth millions? Who knows, if I give you any old guitar, and a guitar that Elvis played on I know the second will be valued higher.

avs733 7y ago
My read on this has always been that most of the negative commentary around 'art' falls into one of two categories. Neither of which is utterly dismissive of the value of art and/or culture. However, I'm not sure they are made all that explicitly. 1) Criticism of the art industry and it's role in the commoditization and market making you mention around art. That isn't criticism of art or it's value...it's criticism that such value is often interfered with for, among other things, money laundering. 2) Criticism of specific pieces of art that an individual doesn't 'get' (and by golly I fall into this trap). By get, it really is about they don't see the artistic or cultural value of that piece but typically is done in reference, which implies that they do see some art as having value.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  I empathize with the 2nd category in particular, there are many attempts at creating an interpretive structure for art that doesn't hit the mark so someone not getting it is half or more caused by the presenting artist. Criticism of the industry is self evidently fair.
- rjzzleep 7y ago
  Here's a 20 minute art discussion about the intricacies of the Banana taped on the wall. So yeah count me in on the second group. https://news.artnet.com/the-art-angle/art-angle-podcast-banana-1742772 https://news.artnet.com/the-art-angle/art-angle-podcast-bana...