3 ms·

Bingo. And they are stored in airport storage facilities to claim international tax-free status... Storing visual art in warehouses never to be seen is a move

Bingo. And they are stored in airport storage facilities to claim international tax-free status... Storing visual art in warehouses never to be seen is a move so brazen that it should have been cracked down on long ago

saalweachter 6y ago
I wonder what percent of money coming in to fund art in general comes from the 0.X%. Obviously there is a tax angle here, at which point the tax authorities should care about your chicanery, but I wonder because, even if it isn't realistic to make "mistreatment of art" a civil or criminal liability, you could make it into a social liability. If you destroy art, or squirrel away an undue amount never to be seen again, or what-have-you, and in return, a number of prestigious artists and art institutes could decline to have anything to do with you. You could no longer serve on the board of the Met, and your donations would be refused. Artists would refuse to sell to you or accept commissions. I suppose it would be counterproductive to stop accepting loans of art to exhibit in the museums, but perhaps they would only be accepted to exhibit anonymously -- no "on loan from Big Wig collection" next to the painting. This probably wouldn't work if too much of the money that flows to artists and art institutes comes directly from the pockets of billionaires; I'd be surprised if, on aggregate, even principled people would be willing to cut out more than 5 or 10% of their income as a matter of said principles.
- agustif 6y ago
  Well this kinda happened a few months back to some very wealthy US family (I think they got very rich thanks to selling legal opioids, during the opioid crisis) but somehow and by donating loads of cash, they ended up with their names on Museums, Universities, etc... Can't remember their name though
  - infinite8s 6y ago
    The Sacklers. Although they had their names on lots of things before their connection to the opioids crisis came out.

saalweachter 6y ago

I wonder what percent of money coming in to fund art in general comes from the 0.X%. Obviously there is a tax angle here, at which point the tax authorities should care about your chicanery, but I wonder because, even if it isn't realistic to make "mistreatment of art" a civil or criminal liability, you could make it into a social liability. If you destroy art, or squirrel away an undue amount never to be seen again, or what-have-you, and in return, a number of prestigious artists and art institutes could decline to have anything to do with you. You could no longer serve on the board of the Met, and your donations would be refused. Artists would refuse to sell to you or accept commissions. I suppose it would be counterproductive to stop accepting loans of art to exhibit in the museums, but perhaps they would only be accepted to exhibit anonymously -- no "on loan from Big Wig collection" next to the painting. This probably wouldn't work if too much of the money that flows to artists and art institutes comes directly from the pockets of billionaires; I'd be surprised if, on aggregate, even principled people would be willing to cut out more than 5 or 10% of their income as a matter of said principles.

agustif 6y ago
Well this kinda happened a few months back to some very wealthy US family (I think they got very rich thanks to selling legal opioids, during the opioid crisis) but somehow and by donating loads of cash, they ended up with their names on Museums, Universities, etc... Can't remember their name though
- infinite8s 6y ago
  The Sacklers. Although they had their names on lots of things before their connection to the opioids crisis came out.